Attachment 1 - Draft Initial Study — Coronado City Council, August 20, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

Attachment 1
Draft Initial Study for the
Chabad of Coronado Project
O Coronado, California
RONA
Prepared for
City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.

RECON
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333
August 9, 2024
Attachment 1
Initial Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ... ...1

2.0 Project Descriptio................ ...2

3.0 Environmental Determination. ... 12

4.0 Initial Study Checklist. ... 13

4.1 Aesthetics. ...14

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .. 16

4.3 Air Quality.... ... 17

4.4 Biological Resources ...26

4.5 Cultural Resources. .. 28

4.6 Energy.. .33

4.7 Geology and Soils.. ...35

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions... 39

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..... .....49

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality... ...54

4.11 Land Use and Planning 57

4.12 Mineral Resources.. ....59

4.13 Noise .. 60

4.14 Population and Housing. ...77

4.15 Public Services.. ....78

4.16 Recreation. ..80

4.17 Transportation/Traffic 81

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources... ..84

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems... ..86

4.20 Wildfire... ..89

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.. ... 91

5.0 Preparers. .93

6.0 Sources Consulted .93
Chabad of Coronado Project
Attachment 1
Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

FIGURES
1: Regional Location. 3
2: Project Location on USGS Map 4
3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph
4: Site Plan. 7
5a: Building Elevations. 9
5b: Building Elevations. ... 10
Construction Noise Contours 63
Dewatering Noise Contours... 65
8: Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours ..... ...67
9a: Operational Noise Contours - Event with Amplified Music.. ...71 9b: Operational Noise Contours - Event without Amplified Music.... ...72 9c: Operational Noise Contours - Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Only ...73 TABLES
1: Operational Schedule.. .....8
3: Air Quality Impact Screening Level Thresholds. 20
4: Construction Parameters.. 21
5: Summary of Maximum Construction Emissions 22
6: Summary of Maximum Operational Emissions... 23
7: Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions 40
8: Total Project GHG Emissions 42
9: Project Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan 43
10: San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan Consistency Analysis. ... 46 11: City of Coronado Climate Action Plan Project Consistency.. 48 12: Construction Noise Levels at Adjacent Receivers. 62 13: Dewatering Noise Levels at Adjacent Receivers 66
14: On-site Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels. 68
15: Off-site Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels.. 69
16: Property Line Noise Level Limits....... 69
17: Operational Noise Levels at Adjacent Receivers. .... 18: Construction Equipment Vibration Levels. 74
19: Project Trip Generation Summary..... 82
20: Assembly Bill 52 Consultation. 85
Chabad of Coronado Project
ii
Attachment 1
Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
APPENDICES (Under Separate Cover)
A: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering
B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations, prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc.

C: Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment Chabad of Coronado, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
D: Noise Analysis for the Chabad of Coronado at 970 C Avenue, prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc.

Chabad of Coronado Project
iii
Attachment 1
Initial Study

1.0 Introduction
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines, as revised. This IS evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Chabad of Coronado Project (project).

The IS includes the following components:
• A Draft IS and the formal findings made by the City of Coronado (City) that the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment, as identified in the CEQA IS Checklist. • A detailed project description.
• The CEQA IS Checklist, which provides standards to evaluate the potential for significant environmental impacts from the project and is adapted from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is evaluated in 21 environmental issue categories to determine whether the project's environmental impacts may be significant in any category. Brief discussions are provided that further substantiate the project's anticipated environmental impacts in each category.

Because the project fits the definition of a "project" under Public Resources Code Section 21065 requiring discretionary approvals by the City and because it could result in a significant effect on the environment, the project is subject to CEQA review. The IS Checklist was prepared to determine the appropriate environmental document to satisfy CEQA requirements: an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration (ND). The analysis in this IS Checklist supports the conclusion that the project may result in significant environmental impacts, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the appropriate environmental document and IS are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

This IS will be circulated for 30 days for public and agency review, during which time individuals and agencies may submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental review. Following the public review period, the City will consider any comments received on the IS when deciding which environmental document to adopt.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 1 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

2.0 Project Description

1. Project Name:

Chabad of Coronado Project

2. Lead Agency:

City of Coronado
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Mr. Jesse Brown
Principal Planner
City of Coronado
(619) 522-7326

4. Project Location:

The City is situated in the northern portion of San Diego Bay, southwest across the bay from downtown San Diego, and southeast of Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI; Figure 1). The City is connected to the mainland by a natural land bridge, called the Silver Strand, which extends southerly a distance of approximately 9 miles to the City of Imperial Beach. This land bridge separates the Pacific Ocean on the west from San Diego Bay, located to the east. The City's limits extend from NASNI south along Silver Strand to the City of Imperial Beach. The City is also connected to downtown San Diego by the two-mile-long San Diego-Coronado Bridge, which is part of State Route 75.

The project is within the City at 970 C Avenue on Assessor's Parcel Number 537-341-13-00. The project site on a U.S. Geological Survey map is shown on Figure 2 and an aerial photograph of the project site is shown on Figure 3. The project would replace the existing Chabad of Coronado located at 1330 Orange Avenue, Suite 120-130.

5. Project Applicant/Sponsor:

Chabad of Coronado
Rabbi Eli Fradkin
1330 Orange Avenue #120-130

6. General Plan Designation:

R3/P (Multiple Family Residential, 28 Dwelling Units/Acre [1/1,556 square feet] 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with Parking Overlay)
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 2 ends

Attachment 1
San Marcos Escondido Creek Sutherland
Batiquitos Lagoon Santa Mesa
Grande
Carlsbad
15 Reservation
Lake Hodges
ando greek
Encinitas
Ramona
Rancho
Santa Fe
San Diego
Country
Solana Estates
Fairbanks
Beach Barona
Ranch
Poway Reservation
Del Mar
Cleveland
National
Forest
Los Penasquitos San Vicente
Reservoir Capitan
Canyon Presv
Grande Reservation
USMC AIR (67

STATION

MIRAMAR
Eucalyptus River el Capitan
Hills Diego
Reservoir
S a n
Santee lakeside
San Diego Mission Trails
Regional Park Winter
52 Gardens
Harbison
Canyon
Bostonia
El Cajon Crest
(125 Granite
Hills Loveland
Sycuan Reservoir
Casa Reservation
163 Rancho San
La Mesa 5 de Oro-Mount
Helix Diego River SAN
DIEGO
Lemon Spring ato! COUNTY
Grove Valley
Sản Diego
«National Jamul
La Presa Wildlife Refuge_ Jamul Indian
Sweetwater Village
Reservoir
National Bonita
City.
805
Lower Otay
ANGELES/SAN BERNARDINO Chula Vista Reservoir
*ORANGE RIVERSIDE Otay
Wilderness
Coronado Olay River
Imperial (905
SAN DIEGO Beach
MEXICO
MEXICO
0 Miles 5
* Project Location
FIGURE 1
RECON Regional Location
M:VOBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\fig1.mxd 5/10/2024 fmm
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Point Loma quadrangle, 1994, La Nacion Land Grant Attachment 1 Tuna
Harbor
BM 23 statica

CORPORATE
CONFOR Embarcadero
Marina
Park
a BOUNDARY BOUNDARY

ORT ONADO
Golf
Cour
Tidelands
Park
(Tollgate
10010% Course
UNDART

BOUNDARE OCEAN
Coronade Maniape PO
S Municipal
Club
Glorietta
Cly Hall
Glor
Par
No a
36 Feet 2,000
• Project Boundary
FIGURE 2
RECON Project Location on USGS Map
M:VOBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\fig2_USGS.mxd 5/10/2024 fmm Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 ALLEY
CAVE
10TH ST
Feet 50
Project Boundary
FIGURE 3
RECON Project Location on Aerial Photograph
M:OBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\fig3_aerial.mxd 5/10/2024 fmm Attachment 1
Initial Study

7. Zoning:

R3/P (Multiple Family Residential, 28 Dwelling Units/Acre [1/1,556 square feet] 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with Parking Overlay)

8. Surrounding Land Use(s) and Project Setting:

The project site is currently developed with two one-story, 4,874-square-foot office buildings. The project site is bounded by multi-family residential units to the northeast, C Avenue, a church and preschool to the east and the southeast, and 10t* Street and commercial uses to the southwest. An alley followed by commercial uses is to the northwest.

9. Project Description:

The project proposes to demolish two existing 4,874-square-foot office buildings and construct a two-story, 13,064-square-foot synagogue (Figure 4). The 13,064-square-foot synagogue would consist of an assembly space, a library, office spaces, a kitchen, two classrooms, and a 1,294 square foot basement. The project would include three outdoor areas totaling 4,089 square feet. Access to the project site would be along the alley located northwest of the project site. Parking is proposed in a one-level-deep basement, which would include 50 subterranean parking spaces (46 tandem parklift spaces [e.g., vertically stacked vehicles], 2 compact spaces, 1 accessible van space, and 1 accessible space). Valet service will be provided to ensure the parklifts are properly operated and to control the queuing of vehicles. Hours of operation will vary daily. Weekday activities will start no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and finish no later than 9:00 p.m. Weekend activities will start no earlier than 9:30 a.m. and finish no later than 1:00 p.m.

Construction
Project construction would consist of 15-feet-below-grade cuts to accommodate the proposed basement and export of approximately 3,414 cubic yards. As discussed in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering (Appendix A), the seasonally high capillary groundwater level is at 16 feet below the existing grade and would be below the proposed maximum excavated depth required for the shoring lagging installation. Any groundwater encountered during the installation of the drilled shafts for the temporary shoring cantilevered soldier piles would stay onsite and would not be discharged into the City storm water or sewer systems. Any excess water produced during wet-hole drilling would be placed into storage tanks and would be recycled or removed and disposed of at a wastewater treatment facility.

In the event that dewatering is required, dewatering would be conducted in accordance with Section

86.56.575 in the City of Coronado Municipal Code (CMC), which states that basements requiring dewatering during construction shall observe a minimum three-foot side yard setback. This would require halting all construction activities until a redesigned project is submitted, reviewed, and approved. In addition, dewatering would be required to adhere to the City's dewatering policies, which include standard regulations of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

A construction National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issued by the RWQCB to discharge water from dewatering activities, would be required prior to start of construction.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 6 ends

Map Source: Christian Rice Architects Inc. Attachment 1 8H wood lence
For Yard Better
10-0°
Rear Yard Seback"
- Hans we ard nie -BH wood tence
сому Ramp 202
Lighting Legend Legend

PROPOSED TWO
STORY # Long Son Concrete

STRUCTURE
Landscaping
FF Elev: 26.5
Natural Stone Tie
C Avenue
- Erating ADA ramp İriting street ight
sating street light
FIGURE 4
RECON Site Plan
M:OBS519641.2tenvigraphicsIMND Fig4.afdesign 06/18/24fmm Attachment 1
Initial Study
To manage surface water runoff, the project would construct a partial retention bioswale located on the northern edge of the project site and a best management practices (BMP) planter located at the southwestern corner of the project site. Construction would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. Construction and final occupancy are estimated to occur within a 9-month window and would start shortly after project approval.

Architectural Design
The proposed synagogue would have a maximum height of 28 feet and 11 inches, which would be consistent with the 30-foot height limit outlined in Sections 86.14.030 and 86.56.050 of the CMC. The architectural design would be modern with metal detailing and a flat roof. Outdoor lighting, consistent with CMC Chapter 80.00, would be included throughout the project site. The proposed building elevations are shown in Figures 5a and 5b.

Operation
The project would have 11 employees and would serve members of the Orthodox Judaism community, most of whom generally do not operate motor vehicles on Jewish holidays, including Friday nights, Saturdays, and other major holidays. Project operations are proposed to be limited to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on weekends.

Amplified sound would be limited to indoors and would be required to end at 10:00 p.m. A detailed day-to-day operational schedule including information regarding religious services and class schedules can be found in Table 1 below. Annual events would include three to five bar and bat mitzvahs per a year, Chanukah on one day in December, Passover on two nights in April, Shavuot on two days in May, summer camp for the first three weeks of July (Monday to Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.), high holidays, and approximately four weddings/receptions per a year. No amplified music would be played for any events on Friday evenings, all day Saturday, or any holiday, as it is not allowed per religious beliefs.

Table 1
Operational Schedule
Day Time Occurrence/Event
Sunday 9:15 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. Hebrew Class
Sunday 10:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Hebrew Class
Monday 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Prayer Service
Monday 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Administration Office
Tuesday 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Administration Office
Tuesday 6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Adult Education Class
Tuesday 8:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Young Parents Class
Wednesday 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Administration Office
Wednesday 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Teens Class
Thursday 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Prayer Service
Thursday 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m Administration Office
Friday 9:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m Administration Office
Friday 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Sabbath Service
Friday 7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Sabbath Dinner
Saturday 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m Sabbath Service
Saturday 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Luncheon
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 8 ends

Map Source: Christian Rice Architects Inc. Attachment 1 Sales see-
Chabad of Coronado
1 East Elevation (Front)
Chabad of Coronado
2 South Elevation (10th Street Side)
FIGURE 5a
RECON Building Elevations
M:JOBS519641.2lenvigraphicsIMND\Fig5a.afdesign 06/18/24 fmml Map Source: Christian Rice Architects Inc. Attachment 1 pety Lin
(1 West Elevation (Alley Side).
2 North Elevation (Side)
FIGURE 5b
RECON Building Elevations
M:JOBS519641.2lenvigraphicsIMND\Fig5b.afdesign 06/18/24 fmml Attachment 1
Initial Study

10. Required Permits and Approvals:

Table 2
Required Permits and Approvals
Permit Type/Action Permitting/Approving Agency
Grading Permit City of Coronado
Design Review City of Coronado/Design Review Commission Major Special Use Permit City of Coronado/City Council
Parking Plan City of Coronado/City Council
Coastal Development Permit City of Coronado/City Council Building Permits City of Coronado

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.

Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

On May 21, 2024, the City sent consultation notification letters to Native American tribes on the City's Master List pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 pertaining to government-to-government consultation regarding the project. All the tribes that were contacted did not respond.

12. Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics • Agriculture and Air Quality
Forestry Resources
• Biological Resources Cultural Resources Г Energy
X Geology/Soils • Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous
Emissions Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
• Recreation Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire • Mandatory Findings c ianificanc
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 11 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

3.0 Environmental Determination
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 shall be prepared
X I find that, although the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION shall be prepared.
• I find that the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment and/or deficiencies exist relative to the City's General Plan Quality of Life Standards, and the extent of the deficiency exceeds the levels identified in the City's Environmental Quality Regulations pursuant to Zoning Code Article 47, Section 33-924 (b), and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required.

I find that the proposed project might have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect: (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT shall be required, but it shall analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
— I find that, although the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment, no further documentation is necessary because all potentially significant effects: (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.

Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 12 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

4.0 Initial Study Checklist

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. A "No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards.

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

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

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (mitigated) negative declaration.

Section 15063(c) (3)(D).

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

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

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 13 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

4.1 Aesthetics
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
•
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
For the purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is defined as a long, expansive view of a highly valued landscape from a publicly accessible vantage point. "Highly valued landscapes" can include natural open spaces, topographic formations including mountains or hills, or more generally, areas that contribute to a high level of visual quality.

As described in the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), Orange Avenue from Third Street to San Diego Bay is designated as a view corridor (City of Coronado 2013). The project site is located approximately 182 feet east of Orange Avenue and therefore would not be located within the City's designated view corridor. Construction and operation of the project would not alter views from Orange Avenue. Although the existing structure would be replaced with a two-story synagogue, the height of the proposed synagogue would not exceed the height limit outlined in Sections 86.14.030 and 86.56.050 of the CMC. The new building would be constructed within the same general footprint of the existing structure. As such, the project would not affect the visual quality of the area or obstruct scenic views. Development of the project would involve grading, excavation, and other construction Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 14 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
activities which could create a visual impact. However, construction impacts would be temporary and would not permanently affect views of the project area. Therefore, impacts associated with the adverse effect on a scenic vista would be less than significant. b. Less than Significant Impact
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway Map Viewer (2024), the nearest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site is the San Diego-Coronado Bridge portion of State Route 75 and the Silver Strand portion of State Route 75 between Imperial Beach to Avenida Del Sol in Coronado.

The project site is located approximately 4,833 feet southwest of the San Diego-Coronado Bridge portion of State Route 75 and 2,398 feet northwest of the Silver Strand portion of State Route 75.

Construction and operation of the project would not alter views from Orange Avenue. Although the existing structure would be replaced with a two-story synagogue, the height of the proposed synagogue would not exceed the height limit outlined in Sections 86.14.030 and 86.56.050 of the CMC. The new building would be constructed within the same general footprint of the existing structure. Therefore, the project would not affect the visual quality of the area or obstruct scenic views. Additionally, the project site does not support any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The project site is currently developed with two one-story office buildings and ornamental landscaping. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Less Than Significant Impact
California Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an "urbanized area" as "(a) an incorporated City that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that City and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons." As estimated by the California Department of Finance (DOF) for 2024, the population of the City is 21,589 persons (DOF 2024). However, the City of San Diego is located east of the City and has an estimated population of 1,385,379 persons (DOF 2024). Therefore, the project is considered within an urbanized area, and the following analysis considers whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The City's land use and zoning designations for the project site are R3/P (Multiple Family Residential, 28 Dwelling Units/Acre [1/1,556 square feet] 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with Parking Overlay). In accordance with the CMC, Section 86.55.120, the project would be permitted with a Major Special Use Permit. In addition, the height of the proposed synagogue would not exceed the height limit outlined in Sections 86.14.030 and 86.56.050 of the CMC. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or any regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; impacts would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 15 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
d. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is currently developed and is surrounded by existing development that emits light.

Development of the project would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 80.00, and the location, type, and direction of the lighting would be reviewed during the Improvement Plan review to ensure compliance. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 1220[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?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 16 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The project site is in an urbanized area. According to the California Department of Conservation's (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder, most of San Diego County-including the City—is not mapped under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and, thus, does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively Important Farmland; DOC 2022). Therefore, no impacts associated with conversion of Important Farmland would occur.
b. No Impact
The City does not have any exclusive agricultural zones, and the project site and surrounding properties are not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur. c. No Impact
The City does not have any zoning classifications for forestland, timberland, or timberland production zones. The project site does not contain any forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220[g], Public Resources Code Section 4526, or Government Code Section 51104(g).

No impact would occur.
d. No Impact
The project site does not contain any forestlands or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220[g], Public Resources Code Section 4526, or Government Code Section 51104(g). No impact would occur.
e. No Impact
There are no agricultural uses or forestlands on-site or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in conversion of farmland or forestland. No impact would occur.

4.3 Air Quality
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air • X
quality plan?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 17 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is •
non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
• X •
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely • X •
affecting a substantial number of
people?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
Project consistency is based on whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and/or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan, which would lead to increases in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations.

Following the California Clean Air Act, California was divided geographically into 15 air basins for managing the state air resources on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to share the same air masses and, therefore, have similar ambient air quality. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Stationary sources of air emissions within each air basin are regulated by regional air quality districts, of which the project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).

Air districts are tasked with regulating emissions such that air quality in the basin does not exceed national or California ambient air quality standards (National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] and California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS]); where NAAQS and CAAQS represent the maximum levels of background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. NAAQS and CAAQS have been established for six common pollutants of concern known as criteria pollutants, which include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SOz), nitrogen dioxide (NOz), lead (Pb), and respirable particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns [PMio] and less than 2.5 microns [PM2.s]).

The RAQS is the applicable regional air quality plan that sets forth the SDAPCD's strategies for achieving the NAAQS and CAAQS. The SDAB is designated a non-attainment area for the federal and state ozone standard. Accordingly, the RAQS was developed to identify feasible emission control measures and provide expeditious progress toward attaining the standards for ozone. The two pollutants addressed in the RAQS are reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx, which are precursors to the formation of ozone. Projected increases in motor vehicle usage, population, and growth create Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 18 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
challenges in controlling emissions and, by extension, to maintaining and improving air quality. The RAQS was most recently updated in 2022.

The growth projections used by the SDAPCD to develop the RAQS emissions budgets are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans (LUPs) developed in general plans and used by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the development of the regional transportation plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by SANDAG's growth projections and/or the City General Plan (General Plan) would not conflict with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. In the event a project proposes development that is greater than anticipated in the growth projections, further analysis would be warranted to determine if the project would exceed the growth projections used in the RAQS for the specific subregional area.

The project site is designated as R3/P (Multiple Family Residential, 28 Dwelling Units/Acre [1/1,556 square feet] 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with Parking Overlay). The project is a permitted use with a Major Special Use Permit and would therefore be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the project site. The project would be consistent with the growth assumptions of the General Plan. Additionally, as discussed under Section 4.3.b below, project emissions would not exceed the screening level thresholds associated with air quality impact screening. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the RAQS. The project would not obstruct or conflict with implementation of the RAQS, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.3.a above, NAAQS and CAAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants (ozone, CO, SO, NO2, lead, and particulate matter). The City has not adopted air quality significance thresholds for these pollutants, and the SDAPCD does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or mobile source-related impacts.

However, the SDAPCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.1, 20.2, and 20.3). These trigger level thresholds align with attainment of the NAAQS and be protective of public health. Thus, air quality emissions below these levels would meet the NAAQS. The NAAQS were developed to protect public health, specifically the health of "sensitive" populations, including asthmatics, children, and the elderly. The air quality impact screening levels used in this analysis are shown in Table 3.

The project would result in short-term emissions from construction and long-term emissions associated with project operation. Construction and operational emissions associated with the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 (Appendix B; California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2022], which incorporates current air emission data. Planning methods, protocol, modeling methodology, and assumptions are summarized below.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 19 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 3
Air Quality Impact Screening Level Thresholds
Emission Rate
Pollutant Pounds/Hour Pounds/Day Tons/Year
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM1o) -- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.s) - 552 10a
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 250 40
Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Lead and Lead Compounds 3.2 0.6
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 750 13.7C
SOURCE: San Diego Air Pollution Control District, Rules 20.1, 20.2, 20.3; County of San Diego 2007. a Based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards" published September 8, 2005. Also used by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
b Threshold for VOCs based on the threshold of significance for VOCs from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Coachella Valley.
c13.7 tons per year threshold based on 75 pounds per day multiplied by 365 days per year and divided by 2,000 pounds per ton.

Construction Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of construction-related air emissions include the following:
• Fugitive dust from grading and rock-breaking activities; • Construction equipment exhaust;
• Construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks; and • Construction-related power consumption.

Construction-related pollutants result from dust raised during demolition and grading, emissions from construction vehicles, and chemicals used during construction. Fugitive dust emissions vary greatly during construction and are dependent on the amount and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Vehicles moving over paved and unpaved surfaces, demolition, excavation, earth movement, grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces are all sources of fugitive dust.

Construction operations are subject to the requirements established in Regulation 4, Rules 52, 54, and 55 of the SDAPCD's rules and regulations.

Heavy-duty construction equipment is usually diesel powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment contain more NOx, SOx, and particulate matter than gasoline-powered engines. However, diesel-powered engines generally produce less CO and less ROG than do gasoline-powered engines. Standard construction equipment includes tractors/loaders/backhoes, rubber-tired dozers, excavators, graders, cranes, forklifts, rollers, paving equipment, generator sets, welders, cement and mortar mixers, and air compressors.

Primary inputs are the numbers of each type of equipment and the length of each construction stage. CalEEMod can estimate the required construction equipment based on surveys performed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District of typical construction projects, which provide a basis for scaling Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 20 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
equipment needs and schedule with a project's size. Emission estimates in CalEEMod are based on the duration of construction phases; construction equipment type, quantity, and usage; grading area; season; and ambient temperature, among other parameters. Project emissions were modeled for the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Project construction was modeled beginning in January 2025 and lasting approximately 10 months. Because excavation would be required, the site preparation phase duration was extended from the default of one day to five days, and the grading phase duration was extended from the default of two days to three months. The default durations for the demolition, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings phases were modeled. Project grading would include the export of 3,414 cubic yards of soil. CalEEMod default construction equipment usage was modeled, and an excavator was added to the grading phase. Additionally, there is a possibility that site dewatering would be required if groundwater is encountered during excavation. If it is, a pump would be required to remove excess water. As a conservative assessment, a pump was modeled 24 hours per day during the grading phase of construction. It is unknown how long dewatering would be required; however, as the significance of criteria pollutant emissions is evaluated as maximum emissions per day, this is a worst-case analysis since it assumes the pump would operate 24 hours per day. Table 4 summarizes the modeled construction parameters.

Table 4
Construction Parameters
Phase Duration Hours per
Construction Phase (Days) Equipment Amount Day
Concrete/Industrial Saw 8
Demolition 10 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6
Grader 1 8
Site Preparation 5
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 8
Excavator 1 8
Grader 1 6
Grading 65 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 6
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 7
Pump 1 24
Crane 1 4
Building Construction 100 Forklifts 2 6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6
Paver 1
Paving 5 Rollers
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1
Architectural Coatings 5 Air Compressor 6
SOURCE: California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1, Appendix B.

Table 5 shows the total projected construction maximum daily emission levels for each criteria pollutant. The CalEEMod output files for construction emissions for the project are contained in Appendix B.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 21 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 5
Summary of Maximum Construction Emissions
(pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM25
Demolition 1 5 6 <1 1 <1
Site Preparation <1 4 6 <1 1 <1
Grading 13 13 <1 6 3
Building Construction 5 8 <1 <1 <1
Paving 4 6 <1 <1 <1
Architectural Coatings 25 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Daily Emissions 25 13 13 <1 6 3
Significance Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = oxides of sulfur; PM1o = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM25 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
SOURCE: Appendix B.

To assess the significance of the air quality emissions resulting from construction of the project, construction emissions were compared to the significance thresholds. As shown, maximum daily construction emissions associated with the project are projected to be less than the applicable thresholds for all criteria pollutants. These thresholds are designed to provide limits below which project emissions would not significantly change regional air quality. In addition, the project applicant would implement standard construction measures compliant with mandatory SDAPCD rules and regulations (Rules 50, 51, 52, 54, and 55) for controlling emissions from fugitive dust and fumes:
• Water the grading areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. • Provide sufficient erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. • Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling.
• Periodically sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces to reduce re-suspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Clean approach routes to construction sites of construction-related dirt.

Further, all construction equipment is subject to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. This regulation, which applies to all off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater, limits unnecessary idling to five minutes, requires all construction fleets to be labeled and report to CARB, bans Tier O equipment and phases out Tier 1 and 2 equipment (thereby replacing fleets with cleaner equipment), and requires that fleets comply with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements.

Therefore, as project construction emissions would be below threshold limits and the project would implement standard construction measures compliant with mandatory SDAPCD rules and regulations and CARB's In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, construction emissions would not result in regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS or contribute to existing violations. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in a cumulatively Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 22 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would result in long-term emissions from mobile, energy, and area sources.

Due to the unique nature of the project's proposed land uses, a site-specific trip generation was estimated for each day of a typical week and for special events and holidays based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. Based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment prepared for the project, during regular operations the project would generate up to 48 average daily trips (ADT), and during special events the project would generate up to a maximum of 104 ADT (Appendix C). This maximum trip generation would be associated with weddings/receptions, which would only occur approximately four times per year. As a worst-case analysis, 48 ADT was modeled for each weekday and 104 ADT was modeled for each Saturday and Sunday. The modeling therefore accounts for any other special events that would occur throughout the year. CalEEMod default trip lengths and vehicle emission factors for the soonest operational year of 2026 were modeled.

Energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas used for water heating, and area sources include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment, consumer products (aerosols, cleansers, etc.), and architectural coatings (e.g., building and parking lot paint). These energy and area sources were calculated based on default CalEEMod regional use factors.

Table 6 provides a summary of the total operational emissions generated by the project. CalEEMod output files for operation of the project are contained in Appendix B.

Table 6
Summary of Maximum Operational Emissions
(pounds per day)
Emission Source ROG NOX CO 5Ox PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources <1 <1 3 <1 1 <1
Area Sources 1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total 1 1 5 <1 1 <1
Significance Threshold 100 55
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = oxides of sulfur; PM1o = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
SOURCE: Appendix B.

NOTE: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.

As shown in Table 6, operation of the project would not generate regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS or contribute to existing violations. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 23 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
c. Less Than Significant Impact
A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is more susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large. Examples of sensitive receptor locations in the community include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, churches, athletic facilities, retirement homes, and long-term health care facilities. Land uses surrounding the project site include multi-family residential uses to the northeast, a church and preschool to the east and southeast, and commercial properties to the south, southwest, and northwest.

The two primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and CO. Projects that would site sensitive receptors near potential CO hotspots or would contribute vehicle traffic to local intersections where a CO hotspot could occur would be considered as having a potentially significant impact. The project would not introduce any new sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs); therefore, project operation would not produce a cancer risk.

Diesel Particulate Matter
Projects that would result in exposure to toxic air contaminants resulting in a maximum incremental cancer risk greater than 10 in one million for projects implementing BACT measures for air toxics or a health hazard index greater than one would be considered as having a potentially significant impact. Construction of the project would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel construction activities and on-road diesel equipment used to bring materials to and from the project site. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. It is estimated that construction of the project would occur over a ten-month period. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015). Thus, if the duration of proposed construction activities near any specific sensitive receptor were ten months, the exposure would be less than three percent (ten months divided by 30 years) of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation.

Due to the limited time of exposure, project construction is not anticipated to result in a cancer risk in excess of 10 in one million. Additionally, with ongoing implementation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and CARB requirements for cleaner fuels, off-road diesel engine retrofits, and new low-emission diesel engine types, the DPM emissions of individual equipment would be substantially reduced. Thus, DPM generated during construction would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 24 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot
Localized CO concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity at signalized intersections (e.g., idling time and traffic flow conditions), particularly during peak commute hours and meteorological conditions. The SDAB is a CO maintenance area under the federal Clean Air Act. This means that SDAB was previously a non-attainment area and is currently implementing a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards. Due to increased requirements for cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels, CO levels in the state have dropped substantially. All air basins are attainment or maintenance areas for CO. Therefore, more recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in their 2022 CEQA Guidelines (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022). These screening criteria are considered applicable in the SDAB because the San Francisco Bay Air Basin and the SDAB have the same CO maintenance designations. If the following screening criteria are met, operation of a project would result in less than significant impacts related to CO:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • Project-generated traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
• Project-generated traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

As discussed, the project would generate up to 48 ADT, and during special events the project would generate up to a maximum of 104 ADT (see Appendix C). The forecasted volume on Orange Avenue is 20,800 ADT, and volumes on other roadways surrounding the project site are much less. Peak hour volumes are typically 10 percent of the total daily volume. Based on the project daily traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of the project site, the hourly turning volumes at nearby intersections are projected to be well less than the screening criteria. Additionally, the project would be consistent with San Diego Forward, which is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/SCS, as it would not conflict with implementation of its key goals and 5 Big Moves (see Section 4.8). Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a CO hot spot.

The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Less Than Significant Impact
SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) and California Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 41700 prohibit the emission of any material which causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of the public. Projects required to obtain permits from SDAPCD, typically industrial and some commercial projects, are evaluated by Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 25 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
SDAPCD staff for potential odor nuisance, and conditions may be applied (or control equipment required) where necessary to prevent occurrence of public nuisance.

During construction, diesel equipment may generate some nuisance odors. Odors would also be generated during paving activities. However, these odors generated during construction would be temporary, intermittent, disperse quickly, and would not affect a substantial number of people. Once operational, the project would not be a source of odors. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.4 Biological Resources
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Have substantial adverse effects, 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 (CDFW) or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the CDFW or
USFWS?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, • • •
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 26 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological • X
resources, such as 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?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The project site is currently developed and does not support any sensitive habitats or listed species as designated by the USFWS or CDFW. Therefore, no impacts associated with sensitive habitats or listed species would occur.
b. No Impact
The project site is currently developed and does not support any riparian habitat or other sensitive vegetation community identified by a local or regional plan, the CDFW, or the USFWS. Therefore, no impacts associated with riparian or sensitive vegetation communities would occur. c. No Impact
The project site is currently developed, and no federally defined waters of the U.S. or state occur within the project site. This includes the absence of federally defined wetlands and other waters (e.g., drainages) and state-defined waters (e.g., streams and riparian extent; USFWS 2024). Therefore, no impacts associated with state or federally protected wetlands would occur. d. No Impact
The project site is currently developed and is surrounded by dense commercial and residential development. Therefore, the project would not interfere 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, and no impact would occur. e. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site contains ornamental trees. The project site is privately owned property, and therefore would not be subject to Chapter 52.32 of the CMC, which outlines requirements for removal of public trees. Therefore, impacts associated with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 27 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
f. No Impact
The project site is not located within any habitat conservation plan; natural community conservation plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservations plan area. Therefore, no impacts associated with an adopted conservation plan would occur.

4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
c. Disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
The project would demolish two existing 4,874-square-foot office buildings. Title 84 in the CMC requires any structure that is 75 or more years old that is proposed for a project and includes demolition or removal of original features that are visible from the street right-of-way shall be reviewed for historic significance through a Determination of Historic Significance process. The existing buildings on the project site were constructed in 1950 and 1951 and are not 75 years old.

Therefore, the existing buildings are not subject to a Determination of Historic Significance Review.

Although a Determination of Historic Significance Review is not required, the following analysis derived from the City's Draft Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (Dudek 2023) has been included for additional context.

The existing office buildings were originally constructed as dental buildings in 1950 and 1951 by Fifield Bros. contractors for Chas. C. Latham. Since construction, the office buildings have been used as medical, dental, and commercial offices or shops. An exterior concrete walkway separates the two buildings and leads to the curb on C Avenue. The buildings both exhibit single-story massing, low hipped roof forms with deep overhangs supported by simple posts, and a combination of stucco and brick exterior finishes and brick planters. Alterations over time include interior remodeling of various office suites and replacement of original roof material with composition shingles.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 28 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
The existing office buildings were designed by Robert A. Bradt, an architect who resided in the City and had an oftice in the City of San Diego. Bradt was known tor designing commercial anc institutional buildings and designed many civic buildings, offices, and schools in the San Diego region. In the City, several structures known to have been designed by Bradt have been found in newspaper records. These structures include the following:
• 731 A Avenue, Coronado (1949)
• Storetront for Elliotts Photo Supplies, 950 Orange Avenue (1950) • Medico-Dental Building, Coronado, 970 C Avenue and 1117-25 10" Street (1950 and 1951) • First Baptist Church (1953)
• Coronado Elementary School (1954)
• La Avenida Motel, 1321 Orange Avenue (1955)
• Coronado Police Station and Jail (1956)
• Coronado Woman's Club (1959)
• Junior Library Wing, Coronado Library (1961)
• Coronado High School and Auditorium (1962)
• Coronado Professional Center (1965)
• Hotel del Coronado expansion (1977)
The contractor, Fifield Bros. is known to have constructed numerous structures in the City, based on permit and newspaper records:
• 933 Orange Avenue (1950)
• 172 C Avenue (1951)
• 176 C Avenue (1951)
• 1615 San Luis Rey Avenue (1951)
• 970 C Avenue, and 1117-25 10th Street (1950 and 1951) • Fred Furhman Building (1952)
• 420 Glorietta Boulevard (1954)
• Coronado Library addition (1957)
• 511 H Avenue (1958)
• 1722 Monterey Avenue (1961)
• 981 Cabrillo Avenue (1961)
• 728 Jacinto Place (1962)
• 1611 Miguel Avenue (1962)
• 924 Pomona Avenue (1964)
• 551 Ocean Boulevard (1964)
• 825 Guadalupe Avenue (1965)
• Coronado High School and Elementary School science and library rooms remodel (1966) • 353 F Avenue (1965)
• 925 Ocean Boulevard (1965)
• Coronado Hospital Improvements (1972)
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 29 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Cursory research into the occupancy history of the various offices on site from construction through 1970 found the following building occupants used each of the on-site buildings, as follows:
• 970 C Avenue
Ethel M. Waters, Physician (1951 to 1964)
C. J. Soderbery & Son, Accountant (1967 to 1970)
• 1117 10th Street
Paul H. Morton, Physician (1951 to 1970)
• 1121-23 10th Street
William C. Hamby, Physician (1951 to 1969)
Charles J. Horky, Physician (1970 to 1970)
John C. Schmidt, Physician (1970)
• 1125 10* Street
Chas. C. Latham, Dentist (1951 to 1961)
Merrill H. Duncan, Dentist (1951 to 1963)
Bernard W. Leuck, Dentist (1962)
Robert P. Steed, Dentist (1962 to 1970)
William P. Vetter, Dentist (1962 to 1963)
Harold A. Davis, Physician (1965)
Dr. Ethel M. Waters was a pediatrician and opened her office at 970 C Avenue in 1951. She was named Chief of Staff of Coronado Hospital in 1958, the first woman to hold that post. By 1966, Dr. Waters had relocated her office to the Coronado Professional Building on the 1300 block of Ynez Place, where her practice remained until her retirement in 1982. Dr. Waters was active in local clubs such as Soroptimist International and the Coronado Women's Club. After retirement from her Coronado practice, Dr. Waters continued to serve as pediatrician at the County of San Diego cerebral palsy clinic in the City of Chula Vista, which she had helped found in 1945. Dr. Waters was recognized by the community upon her retirement and in 1984 was named Coronado Rotary "Citizen of the Year." She passed away in Coronado in 2000.

Dr. William Paul Vetter (1983) maintained his dental office at the property from 1962 to 1963. By 1966, he had relocated his office to the Coronado Professional Building on the 1300 block of Ynez Place, a building that he constructed to house his practice. Dr. Vetter was active in local clubs and organizations including the Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Symphony Association, the Mission Park Corporation, Navy League, Rotary Club, Coronado Yacht Club, and Friends of the Library.

Dr. Vetter was also active in local politics, serving as Mayor from 1968 to 1970, and as a council member and planning commissioner. In 1981, Dr. Vetter was appointed chairman of the Coronado Hospital Foundation Development Committee. He passed away only two years later in 1983. In 1984, the City Council named the triangular shaped park located at Cajon Place, Guadalupe Avenue, and Jacinto Place in his honor. In 2004, the City Council designated 14 City parks, including Vetter Park, as Historic Resources.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 30 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Architecturally, the buildings are modest and have been modified from their original appearance.

The buildings are among many works known to have been designed by Robert A. Bradt and built by Fifield in Coronado and compared to other known works the subject buildings do not appear important or remarkable. Additionally, the buildings do not appear to be significant for association with Drs. Waters and Vetter, as their practices are more appropriately associated with the Coronado Professional Building built for their purpose, and Dr. Vetter is already recognized by the naming of Vetter Park. Based on the City's Draft Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (Dudek 2023), the existing buildings were classified as Tier 3, which are heavily altered properties that retain little to no elements of a particular architectural style and have no potential for eligibility under City designation criterion C. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The three most common and identifiable prehistoric cultures within the San Diego area are the San Dieguito, La Jollan, and Diegueno. It is believed the oldest culture in the San Diego area was the San Dieguito culture. This nomadic hunting culture existed approximately 12,000 to 14,000 years ago.

However, the San Dieguito culture probably did not exist in the City because these people were more associated with lands east of the Laguna Mountains.

Approximately 7,000 to 9,000 years ago, the most predominant Native American culture in the San Diego Bay area was the La Jollan culture. These people were known to have coastal encampments along bays, estuaries, and lagoons throughout San Diego County and essentially existed by fishing An indication of the La Jollan culture's presence in an area is the existence of large shell middens or refuse mounds.

Approximately 1,000 to 7,000 years ago the Diegueno people inhabited the San Diego Bay area.

Although these people are more associated with having permanent settlement along drainage basins, temporary coastal encampments were set up. This is characterized by the existence of small, scattered shell middens. The Diegueno culture was known to be a gathering culture that was essentially vegetarian.

Impacts to archaeological resources typically occur as a result of construction activities, such as grading or trenching that can damage or destroy unknown buried resources. The project proposes to excavate approximately 15 feet below existing grade to construct an underground parking garage.

Although the property has been subject to prior site disturbances, there are no records of previous development grading to the depths necessary to construct the proposed project. Accordingly, the project would disturb native soils in a culturally sensitive area that has potential to support buried archaeological resources.

RECON Environmental, Inc. conducted an in-house records search of the project area. No archaeological resources have been recorded within the project area or within 1,000 feet of the project area; however, there are 10 known recorded archaeological sites within the City. The types of sites found within the City range from one located within the Navy Radio Receiving Facility property that is considered to have major archaeological significance to others that have little significance.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 31 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Records of prehistoric artifacts include shell middens, pottery fragments, mano fragments, and other indications of campsites (City of Coronado 1994).

Consequently, to ensure grading activities do not disturb subsurface resources, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce the potential for the project to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 to a less than significant level.
c. Less than Significant Impact.

The project is not likely to disturb any human remains because the project site does not include a formal cemetery or any archaeological resources that might contain interred human remains. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered on-site during earth disturbing activities, the project would comply with state and federal laws and regulations regarding human remains (i.e., California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5; and California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). Therefore, potential impacts to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring. The project applicant will be required to hire a City-approved, qualified archaeological monitor. At the commencement of demolition of the foundation of the existing structure, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct an archaeological monitoring program. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted during all ground disturbance within the project site, including the removal of any asphalt or other ground surface covering, the demolition or removal of any building foundations, and any boring and trenching scheduled prior to mass grading. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted during mass grading until a depth is reached in which no cultural material would be expected.

If discoveries are made during monitoring, construction in the area shall be halted until the archaeological principal investigator has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the discovery in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and evaluated the discovery for eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources. The City of Coronado shall be notified immediately of any potentially eligible discoveries. Construction activities may continue in other areas of the project site until a testing program and evaluation of the resource are complete. Construction activities may resume after the completion of the recovery of an adequate sample of eligible resources and/or the recordation of features.

All cultural material collected during the monitoring and data recovery program shall be processed and conveyed to a Native American group of appropriate tribal affinity.

Alternatively, the cultural material may be curated at a local curation facility.

After the completion of the monitoring, a report shall be prepared. If no significant cultural resources are discovered, a brief letter shall be prepared. If significant cultural resources are discovered, a report with the results of the monitoring and data recovery (including the interpretation of the data within the research context) shall be prepared.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 32 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

4.6 Energy
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary •
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or •
energy efficiency?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
Energy use associated with a project typically includes fuel (gasoline and diesel), electricity, and natural gas, and sources include the following:
: Construction-related vehicle and equipment energy use.

Transportation energy use from people traveling to and from the project area during operation.
• Building and facility energy use of the project during operation.

Construction-Related Energy Use
Construction of the project would consume energy during both construction and operation. Energy use during construction would occur within two general categories: vehicle fuel used by workers commuting to and from the construction site, and fuel use by vehicles and other equipment to haul materials and conduct construction activities. While construction activities would consume fuels, project-related consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. In addition, mobile equipment energy usage during construction would be minimized as the project would comply with CARB's idling regulations, which restrict idling diesel vehicles and equipment to five minutes. Additionally, consistent with state requirements, all construction equipment would meet CARB Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards. Engines are required to meet certain emission standards, and groups of standards are referred to as Tiers. A Tier O engine is unregulated with no emission controls, and each progression of standard level (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc.) generates lower emissions, uses less energy, and is more advanced technologically than the previous tier. CARB's Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards requires that construction equipment fleets become cleaner and use less energy over time. The fuel Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 33 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
consumed during construction would also be typical of similar construction projects and would not require the use of new energy resources beyond what are typically consumed in California. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation-Related Energy Use
Buildout of the project and vehicle trips associated with the project would result in transportation energy use. Trips by individuals traveling to and from the project site would result from the use of passenger vehicles. Vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fueled by diesel or electricity. As discussed in Section 4.17, the trip generation calculations show that Tuesdays are expected to be the highest traffic generating "typical" day with 48 ADT, followed by Sundays with 46 ADT. Weddings/receptions and summer camp are the highest generating special events, with 104 and 88 ADT, respectively. Project fuel consumption would decline over time beyond the initial operational year of the project as a result of continued implementation of increased federal and state vehicle efficiency standards. Additionally, the City's compact land use pattern, small-block grid street pattern, and well-connected and accessible bicycle and pedestrian network lends itself to being a well-connected mobility hub with many active alternative forms of transit. Existing transit services near the project site include the Route 904 free summer shuttle that provides bus services between the Coronado Ferry Landing and City Hall along Orange Avenue one block northwest of the project site, as well as the Coronado Ferry, which provides transportation to the City from San Diego/Harbor Drive that could be used by future patrons who do not live within the City. There is no component of the project that would result in unusually high vehicle fuel use during operation. Therefore, operation of the project would not create a land use pattern that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

Non-transportation energy use would be associated with electricity and natural gas. The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) promotes diversification of the state's electricity supply and decreased reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. Originally adopted in 2002 with a goal to achieve a 20 percent renewable energy mix by 2020 (referred to as the "Initial RPS"), the goal has been accelerated and increased by Executive Orders (EOs) S-14-08 and S-21-09 to a goal of 33 percent by 2020. In April 2011, Senate Bill (SB) 2 (1X) codified California's 33 percent RPS goal. SB 350 (2015) increased California's renewable energy mix goal to 50 percent by the year 2030. SB 100 (2018) further increased the standard set by SB 350 establishing the RPS goal of 44 percent by the end of 2024, 52 percent by the end of 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Once operational, the project would be served by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Based on the latest report to the legislature, SDG&E has obtained an energy mix of 59 percent renewables as of 2022 (CPUC 2023) and is on track to achieve future RPS goals. Thus, electricity provided to the City is increasingly coming from renewable sources. Additionally, the project would comply with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements. Therefore, there are no project features that would support the use of excessive amounts of energy or would create unnecessary energy waste, or conflict with any adopted plan for renewable energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 34 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
b. Less Than Significant Impact
The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and RPS, and the applicable local plan is the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP).

As discussed in Section 4.8, the project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of 2022 CALGreen and the 2022 California Energy Code. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, or with SDG&E's implementation of RPS. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the City's CAP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause
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?
il. Strong seismic ground shaking? • • •
ili. Seismic-related ground failure, •
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or X •
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
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 35 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), X
creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal
•
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or •
site or unique geologic feature?
EXPLANATIONS:

The following section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering on May 9, 2024 (Appendix A).
a.i. and a.ii. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. However, the project site is located within the zone of influence of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Several faults associated with the Rose Canyon Fault Zone including, the Coronado Fault (approximately 0.25 mile east), the Silver Strand Fault (approximately 0.75 mile east), and the Spanish Bight Fault (approximately 0.75 mile west) are located near the project site. Therefore, the project site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake. The effects of seismic shaking would be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the California Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Further, the project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the California Building Code design standards, the City's Grading Ordinance, and would incorporate geotechnical recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix A) to ensure soil stability and proper engineering design, thus reducing potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Therefore, based on compliance with applicable local and state requirements related to seismic hazards, impacts associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
aiii. Less Than Significant Impact
Construction of the project would consist of cuts of up to 15 feet below existing grade to accommodate the proposed basement. As described in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 36 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
(see Appendix A), subsurface explorations at these elevations indicated old paralic deposits to be in a medium dense to very dense state meaning the potential for liquefaction would be relatively low.

Additionally, project construction would adhere to the recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, including removal of loose, potentially compressible old paralic deposits underlying the proposed settlement. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.
a.iv. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is in an area considered to be marginally susceptible to slope failures. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix A) concluded that the likelihood of slope stability related problems is very low. Therefore, the project would not cause or increase the potential for landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact
The project would involve earthwork and other construction activities that would disturb surface soils and temporarily leave exposed soil on the ground's surface. Common causes of soil erosion from construction sites include stormwater, wind, and soil being tracked off site by vehicles. To help curb erosion, project construction activities would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations for erosion control. The project would be required to comply with standard regulations, including SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction erosion impacts. Rule 402 requires that dust suppression techniques be implemented to prevent dust and soil erosion from creating a nuisance off site (SCAQMD 1976). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with BACT measures so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source (SCAQMD 2005).

As will be discussed in Section 4.10.a, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the Statewide Construction General Permit. This requires implementation of water quality BMPs to ensure that water quality standards are met, and that stormwater runoff from the construction work areas does not cause degradation of water quality in receiving water bodies. Some of these BMPs include use of silt screening or fiber filtration rolls, appropriate handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick up, and vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance in designated areas. Upon completion of construction, the land disturbed by construction would return to conditions similar to existing conditions; revegetation and paved areas would stabilize soils to minimize erosion. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c. Less Than Significant Impact
As determined by the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix A), the project site is in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is generally underlain by old paralic deposits.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 37 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Landslide
As previously mentioned in Section 4.7.a.iv, the likelihood of slope stability-related problems is very low. Therefore, impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral ground spreading can occur when viscous liquefied soils flow downslope, usually towards a river channel or shoreline. The project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Pacific Ocean and is nearly level. Based on this condition, the relatively level hydraulic gradient that is expected across the project area, and the shallow depth of the ocean shelf, if liquefaction were to occur during an earthquake, the project site would likely experience only minor lateral movement towards the Pacific Ocean. As such, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Liquefaction or Collapse
As previously discussed in Section 4.7.a.iii, subsurface explorations indicated old paralic deposits to be in a medium dense to very dense state meaning the potential for liquefaction would be relatively low. Additionally, project construction would adhere to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Report including removal of loose, potentially compressible old paralic deposits underlying the proposed settlement. As such, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant.
d. Less Than Significant Impact
Expansive soils are characterized by their potential shrink/swell behavior. Shrink/swell is the change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in certain fine-grained clay sediments from the cycle of wetting and drying. Clay minerals are known to expand with changes in moisture content.

The higher the percentage of expansive minerals present in near-surface soils, the higher the potential for substantial expansion.

As determined by the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix A), the soils on the project site were found to have a very low Expansion Index (El <20). In addition, the project site does not contain clay soils, which are typically expansive. Therefore, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
e. No Impact
The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated According to the City of San Diego General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, the Bay Point Formation is a near shore marine sedimentary deposit that is about 220,000 years old (City of San Diego 2008). This formation has produced a large and diverse amount of well-preserved marine invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. The Bay Point Formation is exposed along the northern shore of Mission Bay (i.e., Crown Point), along the City of San Diego waterfront, and throughout the Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 38 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
City of Coronado. It is assigned high resource sensitivity. As such, construction of the project has the potential to uncover potentially sensitive paleontological resources. Under the City's LCP, Policy J.2 requires that new development permitted within the City is designed to maintain public access to the coast. In support of this policy, sub policies have been implemented to strengthen policy goals.

Sub-policy b requires reasonably mitigating adverse archaeological or paleontological impacts resulting from development. Therefore, mitigation measure GEO-1 would be required to mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from construction activities within the Bay Point Formation to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURES
GEO-1 Due to the possibility of uncovering highly sensitive paleontological resources, project construction that will impact the Bay Point Formation shall require paleontological monitoring. In the event that paleontological resources (fossil remains) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a Qualified Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's 2010 guidelines, can assess the nature and importance of the find. Depending on the significance of the find, the Qualified Paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue, or may recommend salvage and recovery of the resource. All recommendations will be made in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's 2010 guidelines, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City. Work in the area of the find may only resume upon approval of a Qualified Paleontologist. If it is determined that specific locations of excavation would be located in soils that have no potential for paleontological resources to be present, the Qualified Paleontologist may allow for monitoring to be suspended at these locations.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a • X
significant impact on the
environment?
Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for • •
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
EXPLANATIONS:

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 39 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
a. Less Than Significant Impact
The City adopted a CAP on March 15, 2022 (City of Coronado 2022). The CAP is not considered a qualified CAP, rather, it includes voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies that could be taken to reduce GHG emissions under local control or influence. The City has not adopted a GHG threshold of significance for general use as part of its environmental review process. Guidance from the CAPCOA report CEQA & Climate Change, dated January 2008, identifies several potential approaches for assessing a project's GHG emissions (CAPCOA 2008). Among these approaches, the guidance introduces the concept of establishing thresholds based on GHG emission market capture rates. Following this approach, a lead agency defines an acceptable market capture rate and identifies the corresponding emissions level.

State GHG emissions reduction targets proposed and/or codified by EO S-3-05, AB 32, EO B-30-15, and SB 32 include achieving 1990 emission levels by 2020; 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The most ambitious reduction target, 80 percent below 1990 levels, corresponds to a 90 percent reduction in statewide business-as-usual emissions. Thus, the guidance identifies project-level thresholds that would correspond to a 90 percent market capture rate, annual emission of 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT COZE). Following rationale presented in the CAPCOA Guidance, the aggregate emissions from all projects with individual annual emissions that are equal to or less than 900 MT COzE would not impede achievement of the state GHG emissions reduction targets codified by AB 32(2006) and SB 32(2016), and impacts under CEQA would, therefore, be less than cumulatively considerable.

As this 900 MT COZE screening level corresponds to the most ambitious state reduction target, 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not account for emission reductions achieved by federal, state, and local reduction measures implemented between 2020 and 2050, it is highly conservative. Projects with annual emissions that exceed 900 MT COzE would warrant more detailed conformity analysis for 2020 and 2030 targets.

The project's criteria pollutant and GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (CAPCOA 2022). Construction emissions were calculated using the methodology and assumptions discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality. Table 7 summarizes the total construction-related GHG emissions. Based on guidance from the SCAQMD, total construction GHG emissions resulting from a project should be amortized over 30 years and added to operational GHG emissions to account for their contribution to GHG emissions over the lifetime of a project (SCAQMD 2009). Thus, total construction emissions were divided by 30 and added to the operational emissions provided in Table 8.

Table 7
Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions
(MT COzE per Year)
Year Project GHG Emissions
2025 160
Amortized over 30 years 5
GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCOZE = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 40 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Operational sources of GHG emissions include mobile (on-road vehicles), area (consumer products [cleansers, aerosols, solvents, etc.], landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings), water and wastewater, solid waste, and refrigerants. Mobile source emissions were calculated using the parameters discussed in Section 4.3.

Energy use emissions are generated by activities that utilize electricity and natural gas as energy sources. GHGs are emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels off-site in power plants. These emissions are considered indirect but are calculated in association with a building's overall operation. Electric power generation accounts for the second largest sector contributing to both inventoried and projected statewide GHG emissions. Electricity use does not result in emissions of criteria pollutants. Combustion of fossil fuel (natural gas) emits criteria pollutants and GHGs directly into the atmosphere. When this occurs in a building, it is considered a direct emissions source associated with the building. CalEEMod estimates emissions from the direct combustion of natural gas for space and water heating. Energy source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod default assumptions.

Area sources include criteria pollutant and GHG emissions that would occur from the use of landscaping equipment. The use of landscape equipment emits criteria pollutant and GHGs associated with the equipment's fuel combustion. Area sources also include consumer products and architectural coatings. However, only criteria pollutant emissions are associated with these sources and not GHG emissions. Area source emissions were calculated using default CalEEMod emission factors.

The amount of water consumed and wastewater generated by a project has indirect GHG emissions associated with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit both methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N¿O). CalEEMod Version 2022.1 calculates outdoor water use based the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and calculates non-residential indoor water used based on the Pacific Institute's Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California 2003 (as cited in CAPCOA 2022). Wastewater treatment is based on the region-specific distribution of wastewater treatment methods (CAPCOA 2022). Water and wastewater emissions were calculated using default CalEEMod data.

The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. To calculate the GHG emissions generated by disposing of solid waste for the project, the total volume of solid waste was calculated using waste disposal rates identified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change method, using the degradable organic content of waste. GHG emissions associated with the project's waste disposal were calculated using these default parameters.

Small amounts of GHG emissions result from refrigerants used in air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. Emissions due to refrigerants were calculated using CalEEMod default values, which are based on industry data from the U.S. EPA.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 41 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 8 summarizes the total project GHG emissions. CalEEMod output is provided in Appendix B.

Table 8
Total Project GHG Emissions
(MT COzE per Year)
Source Project GHG Emissions
Mobile 83
Energy 63
Area <1
Water
Waste 48
Refrigerants
Construction (amortized) 5
Total GHG Emissions 201
Screening Threshold 900
GHG = greenhouse gas; MT COZE = metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent
SOURCE: CalEEMod Output, Appendix B.

As shown, the project would result in a total of 201 MT COZE per year. Therefore, the project would not exceed the 900 MT COZE screening threshold for GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact
This section discusses the project's consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan, San Diego Forward, and the City's CAP.

Scoping Plan
EO S-3-05 and EO B-30-15 established GHG emission reduction targets for the state, and AB 32 launched the CARB Climate Change Scoping Plan that outlined the reduction measures needed to reach the 2020 target, which the state has achieved. As required by SB 32, CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines reduction measures needed to achieve the interim 2030 target. AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, codified the carbon neutrality target as 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan was adopted in December 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279.

Table 9 summarizes the project's consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan actions.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 42 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 9
Project Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan
Actions Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
ncrease the Renewables Portfolio Standard t California Public Utilities Consistent: The project would use ;0% of retail sales by 2030 and ensure gri Commission (CPUC), energy from San Diego Gas & Electric reliability. California Energy (SDG&E), which has committed to Commission (CEC), diversifying the portfolio of energy
California Air Resources sources by increasing energy from wind Board (CARB) and solar sources. Based on the latest
Establish annual targets for statewide energy report to the legislature, SDG&E has obtained 59 percent renewables as of
efficiency savings and demand reduction that
will achieve a cumulative doubling of 2022 (CPUC 2023) and is on track to statewide energy efficiency savings in achieve future RPS goals. Thus, electricity provided to the City is
electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030
Reduce GHG emissions in the electricit increasingly coming from renewable sector through the implementation of the sources. The project would not interfere above measures and other actions as with or obstruct SDG&E energy source diversification efforts. Additionally, the
modeled in Integrated Resource Planning
(IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions project would comply with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
planning targets in the IRP process. Load-
Standards and the 2022 California
serving entities and publicly- owned utilities
meet GHG emissions reductions planning Green Building Standards Code targets through a combination of measures as (CALGreen) requirements. The project would not interfere with statewide
described in IRPs.
efforts to implement energy efficiency
standards.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in CARB, California State Consistent. These strategies are a part hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025. Transportation Agency of the CARB Mobile Source Strategy.

At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in (CalSTA), Strategic Growth The project would not obstruct or hybrid light-duty EVs by 2030 Council (SGC), California interfere with the implementation of Further increase GHG stringency on all light- Department of these strategies. As these are CARB duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Transportation (Caltrans), enforced standards, vehicles within the Clean cars regulations. CEC, Governor's Office of City must comply with the standards Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 Planning and Research and would therefore comply with these (OPR), Local Agencies strategies. The project's patrons would utilize vehicles that are in compliance
with CARB standards.

Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite Not Applicable. This strategy is not of to-be-determined innovative clean transit specifically applicable to the project. options. Assumed 20% of new urban buses However, the project area is served by purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero the San Diego Metropolitan Transit emission buses with the penetration of zero- System (MTS). MTS has prepared a Zero emission technology ramped up to 100% of Emission Bus Program that will guide new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas the transition to 100 percent zero buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, emission bus operations. The first zero starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy- emission vehicles were purchased duty low-NOx standard. ahead of the 2023 state mandate.

Beginning in 2029, 100 percent of new
bus purchases will be zero emission
buses, with the goal of full transition by
2040.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 43 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 9
Project Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan
Actions Responsible Parties Consistency
Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would Not Applicable. This strategy is not result in the use of low NOx or cleaner specifically applicable to the project. engines and the deployment of increasing This is a CARB Mobile Source Strategy. numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for he project would not obstruct c class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. nterfere with CARB efforts to improv This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5% of last mile delivery emissions. new Class 3-7 truck sales in local fleets
starting in 2020, increasing to 10% in 2025
and remaining flat through 2030.

Further reduce VMT through continued Consistent. The project would be implementation of SB 375 and regional consistent with San Diego Forward (see Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS); Table 10), which is the region's forthcoming statewide implementation of SB Sustainable Communities Strateg 743; and potential additional VMT reduction SCS); therefore, would be consisten strategies not specified in the Mobile Source with Senate Bill (SB) 375. The City's Strategy but included in the document compact land use pattern, small-block "Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for grid street pattern, and well connected and accessible bicycle and pedestrian
Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable network lends itself to being a well- Communities Strategy (2035 targets). connected mobility hub with many active alternative forms of transit. The
project is located on an infill site within
a walkable/bikeable location. The
project would result in less than
significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
impacts (refer to Section 4.17).

Harmonize project performance with CalSTA, SGC, OPR, CARB, Consistent. Although this is directed emissions reductions and increase Governor's Office of towards CARB and Caltrans, the project competitiveness of transit and active Business and Economic would be consistent with these actions. ransportation modes (e.g., via guidelin Development, California The project is located on an infill site locuments, funding programs, projec Infrastructure and within a walkable/bikeable location. The selection, etc.). Economic Development City's Active Transportation Plan (City of Bank, Department of Coronado 2018) supports the planning Finance, California and implementation of non-motorized Transportation forms of travel.

Commission, Caltrans
By 2019, develop pricing policies to support CalSTA, Caltrans, California Not applicable. These measures are not low-GHG transportation (e.g., low-emission Transportation within the purview of the project. vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, Commission, OPR, SGC, parking pricing, transit discounts) CARB
Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency. CalSTA, California Not applicable. These measures are not Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and Environmental Protection within the purview of the project. equipment capable of zero emission Agency (CalEPA), California operation and maximize both zero and near- Natural Resources Agency, zero emission freight vehicles and equipment CARB, Caltrans, CEC, powered by renewable energy by 2030. Governor's Office o Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a Business and Economic Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%. Development
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 44 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 9
Project Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan
Actions Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030 40% reduction in methane and CARB, California Not applicable. These measures are not hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 Department of Resources within the purview of the project. levels. Recycling and Recovery,
50% reduction in black carbon emissions California Department of below 2013 levels. Food and Agriculture,
By 2019, develop regulations and programs to California State Water support organic waste landfill reduction goals Resource Control Board, in the SLCP and SB 1383 Local Air Districts
Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program with declining annual caps.

By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California's land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through California Natural Not applicable. These measures are not conservation easements and other incentives. Resources Agency, within the purview of the project.

Increase the long-term resilience of carbon Departments Within storage in the land base and enhance California Department of sequestration capacity. Food and Agriculture,
Utilize wood and agricultural products to CalEPA, CARB
increase the amount of carbon stored in the
natural and built environments.

Establish scenario projections to serve as the
foundation for the Implementation Plan.

Implement Forest Carbon Plan California Natural
Resources Agency,
California Department of
Forestry and Fire
Protection, CalEPA and
Departments Within
Identify and expand funding and financing State Agencies & Local mechanisms to support GHG reductions Agencies
across all sectors.

SOURCE: CARB 2017.

AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, codified the carbon neutrality target as 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan includes local actions that jurisdictions may take to reduce GHG emissions in line with AB 1279 goals. It includes project attributes for residential and mixed-use projects to qualitatively determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, however, it does not include measures specific to other land use projects such as the project.

However, the project would support the 2022 Scoping Plan key prioritization strategies and provide its "fair share" contribution towards the statewide goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The project would use energy from SDG&E which has obtained 59 percent renewables as of 2022 (California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] 2023) and is on track to achieve future RPS goals. The project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (refer to Section 4.6). Additionally, the project would comply with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 45 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Standards and the 2022 CALGreen requirements. The project is located on an infill site, is consistent with the region's SCS, San Diego Forward, and would result in less than significant VMT impacts.

Furthermore, project emissions would decline beyond the buildout year of the project due to continued implementation of federal, state, and local reduction measures, such as increased federal and state vehicle efficiency standards, and SDG&E's increased renewable sources of energy in accordance with RPS goals. Based on currently available models and regulatory forecasting, project emissions would continue to decline through at least 2050. Given the reasonably anticipated decline in project emissions that would occur post-construction, the project is in line with the GHG reductions needed to achieve the 2045 GHG emission reduction targets identified by AB 1279.

San Diego Forward
San Diego Forward is the regions RTP/SCS. It establishes an implementation plan for how the region will grow over the next 30 years and demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction targets through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Table 10 illustrates the project's consistency with all applicable goals and policies of the Regional Plan (SANDAG 2021).

Table 10
San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan Consistency Analysis Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis Complete Providing a regional transportation Consistent. The project is located on an infill site Corridors system using technology, infrastructure, within a walkable/bikeable location. The project improvements, pricing and connectivity would not conflict with SANDAG's efforts to improve to support all forms of movement. the regional transportation system with technology, infrastructure, improvements, pricing or connectivity.

Transit Leap Offering people a network of high- Consistent. The project would not conflict with capacity, high-speed, and high- creating a network of high-capacity, high-speed, and frequency transit services that will high-frequency transit services. Existing transit incorporate new modes of transit while services near the project site include the Route 904 also improving existing services. free summer shuttle that provides bus services between the Coronado Ferry Landing and City Hall
along Orange Avenue one block northwest of the
project site as well as the Coronado Ferry which
provides transportation to the City of Coronado from
San Diego/Harbor Drive that could be used by future
patrons who do not live within the City.

Mobility Hubs Centers of activity where a high Consistent. The City's compact land use pattern, concentration of people, destinations, small-block grid street pattern, and well connected and travel choices converge. They will and accessible bicycle and pedestrian network lends offer on-demand travel options and itself to being a well-connected mobility hub with afe streets to enhance connections t many active alternative forms of transit. The City's iah-quality transit while also making Active Transportation Plan (City of Coronado 2018) easier for people to take short trips supports the planning and implementation of non- without needing a car. motorized forms of travel. Additionally, the Metropolitan Transit System and the City offer a free
summer shuttle (Route 904) that provides bus
services between the Coronado Ferry Landing and
City Hall along Orange Avenue one block northwest
of the project site. This would provide future patrons
with alternative forms of transportation to and from
the project site.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 46 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 10
San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan Consistency Analysis Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis Flexible Fleets Offer people a variety of on-demand, Consistent. Refer to the Mobility Hubs response shared vehicles, including micro transit, above.
bikeshare, scooters, and other modes of
transportation that will connect them to
transit and make travel easy within
Mobility Hubs
Next Operating This will be the "brain" of the Not applicable. The project would not impair System (Next OS) transportation system—an integrated SANDAG's ability to provide Next OS improvements digital platform that ties the to the transportation system. transportation system together. Next
OS will be the digital network that
analyzes data in real time from the
region's physical networks, making
them all work better-more integrated,
more efficient, and most of all, more
responsive to people's immediate needs
Active Providing critical connections along Consistent. Refer to the Mobility Hubs response Transportation Complete Corridors and other streets, above. providing people with safe and
convenient ways to connect to transit
and other destinations within and
between Mobility Hubs.

Goods Movement Supports the local, interregional, and Not applicable. The project would not impair international movement of goods. SANDAG's ability to support goods movement.

Sustainable A regional pattern of growth and Consistent. The project is located on an infill site Growth and development that reflects smart growth, within a walkable/bikeable location. The project Development transit-oriented development, would not affect natural resources or agricultural preserving natural resources and lands.
agricultural lands, and building
communities that are resilient to the
consequences of climate change and
other environmental changes.

Habitat To Protect, Connect, and Respect Not applicable. The project site is currently Conservation species and their natural habitats to developed and does not contain natural habitats. prevent their extinction in San Diego The project would not impair SANDAG's species and County
SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; City = City of Coronado; ATP = Active Transportation Plan; CALGreen = California Green Building Standards Code
SOURCE: SANDAG 2021
Coronado Climate Action Plan
The City adopted a CAP on March 15, 2022 (City of Coronado 2022). The CAP is not considered a qualified CAP, rather, it includes voluntary GHG-reduction strategies that could be taken to reduce GHG emissions under local control or influence. The CAP identifies 17 quantified local strategies that would guide City efforts to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below baseline levels by 2030, as well as 28 non-quantified supporting measures that could also be implemented to either support the quantified strategies or provide additional reductions. Table 11 summarizes project consistency with the applicable local strategies and objectives.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 47 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
City of Coronado Climate Action Plan Project Consistency Local Strategy Project Consistency
On-Road 4: Provide Implement an electric microtransit/transit Consistent. The project site is served by the Electric Microtransit shuttle service to reduce VMT and GHG City's electric shuttle, Island Express.

Shuttles emissions associated with gasoline-
fueled passenger vehicles
On-Road 5: Recent Expand on 2019 ferry service and future Consistent. The project site is served by a free Expansion of Ferry subsidized service to increase ferry summer bus that travels between the Ferry Service and Future ridership and reduce VMT and GHG Landing and City Hall.

Electrification emissions associated with gasoline-
fueled passenger vehicles. Future
electrification would avoid ferry diesel
emissions.

On-Road бa: Improve Increase bicycle paths/routes included in Not Applicable. The project would not Bike Infrastructure the ATP to reduce VMT and GHG increase bicycle paths/routes included in the emissions associated with gasoline- ATP.
fueled passenger vehicles.

On-Road 6b: Improve Increase pedestrian facilities included in Not Applicable. The project would not Pedestrian Infrastructure the ATP to reduce VMT and GHG increase pedestrian facilities included in the emissions associated with gasoline- ATP.
fueled passenger vehicles.

Fleet-1: Fleet Vehicle and Increase the number of municipal Consistent. The project would be constructed Equipment Efficiency vehicles that are zero emissions as in accordance with the 2022 Title 24 Energy vehicle fleet is replaced over time. Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen requirements, which includes electric vehicle
parking spaces and electric vehicle charging
stations.

Energy-1: Solar Energy Install 4 MW of residential and 5 MW of Consistent. The project would be constructed nonresidential solar by 2030 and 5 MW in accordance with the 2022 Title 24, Part 6, of residential and 6 MW of nonresidential Building Energy Efficiency Standards which solar by 2045 to avoid GHG emissions includes prescriptive requirements for associated with grid electricity. photovoltaic systems.

Energy-2: Solar Water Achieve 6.5% of existing and 13% of new Not applicable. The project does not include Heaters residential development.

Energy-3: Outdoor Consistent. The project would be constructed Public Lighting in accordance with the 2022 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen
requirements, which includes outdoor lighting
requirements.

Water-1: Water Recycling Implement the water recycling plant to Not Applicable. The project does not include Plant a water recycling facility.
would save 208 million gallons of potable
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 48 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
City of Coronado Climate Action Plan Project Consistency Local Strategy Objective Project Consistency
Waste 1. Increased Divert at least 75% of waste generated in Consistent. The project would comply with Waste Diversion the City and 65% of construction the City's programs to encourage recycling materials and debris and progress and waste reduction, including the Mandatory toward 100% diversion of organic waste Commercial Organics Recycling, the from landfills by 2045 to avoid methane Mandatory Business/Commercial Recycling, emissions associated with landfilling of and the Recycle More at Home Programs. the City's waste.

Increased Renewable Join the existing SDCP or CEA CCAs or Consistent. The project would use energy Energy Portfolio implement a CCA in combination with from SDG&E which has committed to other jurisdictions or implement other diversifying the portfolio of energy sources by programs to have higher renewable increasing energy from wind and solar electricity portfolio than mandated by SB sources. Based on the latest report to the 100 by achieving 100% renewable energy legislature, SDG&E has obtained 59 percent citywide by 2035. renewables as of 2022 (CPUC 2023) and is on track to achieve future RPS goals. Thus,
electricity provided to the City is increasingly
coming from renewable sources. The project
would not interfere with or obstruct SDG&E
energy source diversification efforts.

Additionally, the project would comply with
the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards and the 2022 CALGreen
requirements. The project would not interfere
with City efforts to implement 100%
renewable energy citywide by 2035.

VMT = vehicle miles traveled; GHG = greenhouse has; ATP = Active Transportation Plan; City = City of Coronado; MW = megawatt; % = percent; SDCP = San Diego Community Power; CEA = Clean Energy Alliance _CA = Community Choice Aggregator; CALGreen = California Green Building Standards Code; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission
SOURCE: City of Coronado 2022

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through X
routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 49 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
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
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or • X
waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section • X •
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport П X
or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing
or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant X
risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 50 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
During construction of the project, potentially hazardous materials would likely be handled on the project site. These materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products required to operate and maintain construction equipment as well as specific materials for building construction, such as asphalt and concrete. Handling of these potentially hazardous materials would be temporary and would coincide with the short-term construction phase of the project. Hazardous materials would be stored in designated areas away from environmentally sensitive areas in quantities that would not pose significant hazard to the public in the event of a release.

Although these materials would likely be stored on the project site, storage would be required to comply with the guidelines set forth by each product's manufacturer and with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the storage of hazardous materials. Consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, the transport of hazardous materials to and from the project site would be conducted by a licensed contractor. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the U.S. EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Caltrans, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the SDAPCD. Therefore, short-term construction impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Operation
Project operation would require the use of limited amounts of hazardous materials such as common cleaning products, pesticides, and paint, all of which are routinely found in residential and commercial areas. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has primary regulatory authority for enforcing hazardous materials regulations. Additionally, State hazardous waste regulations are contained primarily in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Furthermore, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed rules and regulations regarding worker safety around hazardous and toxic substances. If used, transported, and stored or disposed of properly, these materials do not pose a substantial risk or hazard to the public or the environment. Any potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, although minimal, would be further minimized with adherence to applicable regulations. As such, operational impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact
As described in Section 4.9.a, operation of the project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant hazardous materials. Furthermore, project construction would be required to implement the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of California Construction Safety Plan/Hazard Communication Program; in case of accidental release, the project would be required Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 51 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations Section 1910.120. Therefore, the project would not create upset and accident conditions that could result in the release of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Less Than Significant Impact
The following schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site:
• Graham Memorial Preschool (approximately 150 feet northeast) • Christ Church Day School (approximately 240 feet north) • John Harvard Academy (approximately 940 feet north)
• My Montessori School of Coronado (approximately 1,102 feet northeast) Construction of the project would not require the use of acutely hazardous materials and would be limited to the use of small amounts of lubricants, cleaners, paint, oils, adhesives, solvents, asphalt, and fuel for equipment. Use of these common hazardous materials in small quantities would not represent a significant hazard to the public or environment, and the use and handling of hazardous materials during construction would be conducted consistent with all applicable regulations (see Section 4.9.a). Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Department of Toxic Substances Control 2024; State Water Resources Control Board 2024. However, the GeoTracker database identified the following property with an "open" cleanup status within one mile of the project site:

1. Coronado Cleaners (case number: H21248-002) located approximately 312 feet south of the project site. As of March 16, 2012, the cleanup status of the site was "Open." The EnviroStor database identified the following properties within one mile of the project site, none of which are active or located on the project site:

1. Crown Elementary School (EnvioStor ID: 60000044) located approximately 528 feet northwest of the project site. The site received an "Inaction - Needs evaluation" determination as of August 5, 2004.

2. Hotel Del Coronado (EnvioStor ID: 80001018) located approximately 264 feet southeast of the project site. The site received an "Inaction - Needs evaluation" determination as of August 15, 2004.

3. Swimming Pool Sites (EnvioStor ID: 60000043) located approximately 264 feet northeast of the project site. The site received an "Inaction - Needs evaluation" determination as of August 5, 2004.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 52 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

4. 875 Orange Avenue (EnvioStor ID: 37000069) located approximately 573 feet north of the project site. The site received a "Refer: 1248 Local Agency" determination as of August 24, 2004.

5. Coronado Center Dry Cleaner (EnvioStor ID: 37720027) located approximately 528 feet northeast of the project site. The site received a "Refer: 1248 Local Agency" determination as of February 23, 2004.

6. US Navy Barracks (EnvioStor ID: 80001152) located approximately 264 feet northeast of the project site. The site received an "Inaction - Needs evaluation" determination as of June 1, 2005.

Therefore, although there are some properties in proximity to the project site with a history of hazardous activity, the project site itself is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and impacts would be less than significant.
e. Less Than Significant Impact
According to the NASNI Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is within the ALUCP's airport influence area (NASNI 2019). The project would not introduce any residential uses which could expose people to excessive aircraft noise, and operation of the project would include 11 employees, which is similar to the number of employees working in the existing office buildings. The proposed two-story synagogue would result in a height increase when compared to the two existing one-story office buildings. Although the height increase would be consistent with the existing land use and would not exceed the height limit outlined in Sections 86.14.030 and

86.56.050 of the CMC, the increase in height would require the project applicant to supply either a Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Determination of No Hazard to air navigation with no conditions, or certification by an appropriate licensed professional in the State of California that there is no need to file a Notice of Construction or alteration per Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Section 77.9(e)(1). Project adherence to the Airport Land Use Commission review process would reduce potential impacts associated with public airport hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
f. Less Than Significant Impact
State Routes 75 and 282 are the primary transportation routes for regional emergency response and evacuation within the City. During construction of the project, temporary construction and staging areas would be located within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, surrounding roads would remain fully accessible and impacts associated with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.
g. Less Than Significant Impact
A review of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Services' (CALFIRE) fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) maps and data revealed that the project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a very high FHSZ (CALFIRE 2024). Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 53 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
existing development in an urbanized portion of the City away from any urban/wildland interface.

Therefore, impacts associated with wildland fire hazards would be less than significant.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
•Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or • • •
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such •
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
C. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces in a manner, which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
• •
siltation on- or off-site;
substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
ili. create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood
flows?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 54 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due X
to project inundation?
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality • X
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
Construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavation, could impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages.

Grading activities could lead to exposed areas of loose soil and sediment stockpiles that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment, primarily from weathering by water and wind action, improperly managed construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment.

However, both state and local regulations implemented through the building permit process effectively reduce potential for construction stormwater runoff impacts. During construction, including demolition activities, the project would be required to implement effective erosion control, sediment control, and SWPPP BMPs in accordance with the CMC Title 61 "Stormwater and Urban Run-Off Management and Discharge Control" and the Municipal Storm Water Permit (NDES Permit No. 2007-0001) issued by the San Diego RWQCB to prevent the discharge of sediment and contaminants into the storm drain system and receiving waters. The project would maintain existing natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features. Surface water runoff during project operation would be managed via a partial retention bioswale located on the northern edge of the project site and a BMP planter located at the southwestern corner of the project site. Additional BMPs and SWPPP measures would include, but not be limited to, conducting daily site cleanings, developing spill response and containment procedures, educating employees and subcontractors about BMPs, developing an erosion control plan for wind and rain, and regularly maintaining all BMPs at the project site. Project adherence with the CMC Title 61 would lessen potential impacts associated with water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix A), construction of the project would consist of cuts of up to 15 feet below existing grade to accommodate the proposed basement. The seasonally high capillary groundwater level is at 16 feet below the existing grade and would be below the proposed maximum excavated depth required for the shoring lagging installation. Any groundwater encountered during the installation of the drilled shafts for the temporary shoring cantilevered soldier piles would stay onsite and would not be discharged into the Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 55 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
City storm water or sewer systems. Any excess water produced during wet hole drilling would be placed into storage tanks and would be recycled or removed and disposed of at a wastewater treatment facility. In the event that dewatering is required, dewatering would be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of the San Diego RWQCB. A construction NPDES permit, issued by the RWQCB to discharge water from dewatering activities, would be required prior to start of construction. Project adherence with these standard regulations would reduce potential groundwater impacts from dewatering. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c.i. Less Than Significant Impact
There are no streams or rivers on or near the project site. The project would not alter existing off-site drainage patterns and would not substantially increase impervious surfaces resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. As discussed in Section 4.10.a, the project would be required to implement erosion-control measures pursuant to the CMC, Title 61, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control, and comply with requirements of the NPDES. Therefore, the project would not result in significant erosion or siltation on - or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.
c.ii. Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.10.a, the project would maintain existing natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features. Surface water runoff during project operation would be managed via a partial retention bioswale located on the northern edge of the project site and a BMP planter located at the southwestern corner of the project site. Therefore, the project would not cause an increase in surface runoff or flooding and impacts would be less than significant. c.ili. Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.10.a, the project would be required to implement erosion-control measures pursuant to the CMC, Title 61. Project adherence with CMC, Title 61, would lessen potential impacts associated with stormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant. c.iv. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not within a 100-year flood zone mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2019). The project site is currently developed with two office buildings and ornamental landscaping. The project would demolish the existing office buildings and construct a two-story synagogue. As discussed in Section 4.10.a, the project would maintain existing natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features. Surface water runoff during project operation would be managed via a partial retention bioswale located on the northern edge of the project site and a BMP planter located at the southwestern corner of the project site. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not located within a flood hazard area (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). The project site is located approximately 1,945 feet northwest of Glorietta Bay and Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 56 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
approximately 2,030 feet northeast of the Pacific Ocean. A review of the California Department of Conservation Tsunami Hazard Area map revealed that the project site is located outside of a tsunami hazard area (DOC 2024). A seiche is a series of standing waves in a fully or partially enclosed body of water caused by earthquakes or landslides. Glorietta Bay may cause seiche during seismic events.

Although the project site could be impacted by seiche, the project site is already developed with urban uses, and the redevelopment of the site would not release pollutants substantially different from the existing uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. No Impact
As discussed in Section 4.11.b, the City's water system is served entirely by treated surface water purchased from the City of San Diego by the California American Water District, and no Groundwater Management Plans apply to the City (State Water Resources Control Board 2024). Therefore, the project would not conflict with implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. No impact would occur.

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation • •
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature (such as a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. Under the existing condition, the project site is not used as a connection between established communities. Therefore, no impacts associated with physical division of an established community would occur.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 57 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
b. Less Than Significant Impact
The City's land use and zoning designations for the project site are R3/P (Multiple Family Residential, 28 Dwelling Units/Acre [1/1,556 square feet] 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with Parking Overlay). In accordance with CMC, Section 86.55.120, the project would be permitted with a Major Special Use Permit. The project would adhere to the goals and policies set forth in the City's General Plan and LCP LUP, as follows.

City of Coronado General Plan
The City's General Plan serves to preserve and improve the City as a beautiful, pleasant residential community in which to live, work, shop, and pursue leisure activities. Additionally, the General Plan provides the means for guiding and influencing the many public and private decisions that create the future of the City (City of Coronado 2003a).

Goals and Policies
Land Use Element, Land Use Goal 9: That the "built-out" nature of Coronado should be acknowledged by maintaining identical land uses for the City in the CMC, General Plan, and LCP.

Consistency
The project would be permitted in the existing R3/P land use with a Major Special Use Permit.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CMC, General Plan, and LP.

Local Coastal Planning Program
The City's LCP is a planning document that identifies the location, type, densities, and other ground rules for future development in the coastal zone. The LCP includes a LUP and its implementing measures. The LUP represents the City's good faith effort to devise a program that will allow the City to assume the responsibility of implementing and enforcing the requirements and intent of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as amended), while maintaining the community's ambiance (City of Coronado 2005).

Goals and Policies
Goal 15: That the City continue to assure that adequate public parking facilities are available in all areas of the City. Maintaining sufficient, free public parking for visitors shall be a priority in shoreline areas.

Consistency
The project would construct an underground parking structure with 50 parking spaces and not require additional parking in free public parking areas. Therefore, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the California Coastal Act and the City's certified LCP.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 58 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan
The project site is located adjacent to the boundaries of the Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area. The Specific Plan is primarily composed of the Orange Avenue corridor that stretches from First Street in the north and continues to Adella Avenue in the south. The Specific Plan provides a policy and regulatory bridge between the City's General Plan and individual, project-level development (City of Coronado 2003b). As the project site is not located within the Specific Plan area, the project would not conflict with policy or zoning regulations.

Conclusion
The project would not conflict with any LUP, goal, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including policies of the General Plan or LCP LUP.

Therefore, impacts associated with LUPs, policies, and regulations would be less than significant.

4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
X
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 • X
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
EXPLANATIONS.
a. No Impact
As depicted in Figure 2 of the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements for Mineral Resources (County of San Diego 2008), the project site is within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3)." MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. The project site is currently developed, and redevelopment of the site would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. Furthermore, development of the project would not preclude the discovery of previously unidentified mineral resources in the future. There would be no impacts to known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the state.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 59 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
b. No Impact
As discussed under Section 4.12.a, the project site is within MRZ-3, which is defined as areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.

No mineral extraction activities occur on or adjacent to the project site, and no known mineral resources are present on-site. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

4.13 Noise
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of • •
standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan, or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the area to excessive
noise levels?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and, therefore, may cause general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Decibels (dB) are the standard unit of measurement of the sound pressure generated by noise sources and are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale for earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 60 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the noise energy would result in a 3 dB decrease.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A-weighted scale, which approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds, was devised. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written as dB(A). It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dB(A) (increase or decrease) and that a change of 5 dB(A) is readily perceptible. An increase of 10 dB(A) is perceived as twice as loud, and a decrease of 10 dB(A) is perceived as half as loud (Caltrans 2013).

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.

The noise descriptors used for this study are the equivalent noise level (Leg) and the maximum noise level (Lmax).

The Lea is the equivalent steady-state noise level in a stated period of time that is calculated by averaging the acoustic energy over a time period; when no period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The maximum noise level is the highest sound level occurring during a specific period.

Construction Noise
The following is from CMC Noise Abatement and Control Regulations:

41.10.040 Construction noise curfew.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day or on legal holidays and Sundays to erect, construct, demolish, excavate for, alter or repair any building or structure in such a manner as to create a disturbing, excessive or offensive noise unless a noise control permit has been applied for and granted beforehand by the Noise Control Officer. In granting such a permit, the Noise Control Officer should consider whether the construction noise in the vicinity of the proposed work site would be less objectionable at night than during the daytime; whether obstruction and interference with traffic, particularly on streets of major importance, would be less objectionable at night than during the daytime; whether the type of work to be performed emits noises at such a low level as to not cause significant disturbances in the vicinity of the work site; the character and nature of the neighborhood of the proposed work site; whether great economic hardship would occur; if the work is in the general public interest; and he shall prescribe such conditions, working time, types of construction equipment to be used and permissible noise levels as he deems to be required in the public interest.

B. The provisions of subsection A of this section shall not apply to emergency work as defined herein; provided, that the Noise Control Officer shall be notified in writing of such emergency work no later than 48 hours after work commences.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 61 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

41.10.050 Construction noise limits.

Except as provided in CMC 41.10.040(B), it shall be unlawful for any person, including the City of Coronado, to conduct any construction activity so as to cause, at or within the property lines of any property zoned residential, an average sound level greater than 75 decibels during a one-hour period any time between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. unless a variance has been applied for and granted by the Noise Control Officer.

Project construction noise would be generated by diesel engine-driven construction equipment used for site preparation and grading, building construction, loading, unloading, and placing materials and paving. Diesel engine-driven trucks also would bring materials to the site and remove the soils from excavation. The project site is surrounded by multi-family residential uses to the northeast, a church and preschool to the east and southeast, and commercial properties to the south, southwest, and northwest. Construction noise levels were modeled at the adjacent receivers assuming the simultaneous use of an excavator and a loader, which would generate a combined sound power level of 113.9 dB(A) Lpw. This noise level was modeled as an area source covering the entire project site. The existing wall located between the project site and the property to the north was taken into account. The results are summarized in Table 12. Modeled receiver locations and construction noise contours are shown in Figure 6.

Table 12
Construction Noise Levels at Adjacent Receivers
[dB(A) Leal
Construction Noise Level
Receiver Zoning Limit Construction Noise Level
1 R-3/P 75 74
2 R-3/P 75 75
3 R-3/P 75 75
4 R-3/P 75 74
5 C 78
6 7 --
8 9 C 72
10 C 72
11 71
R-3 70
13 R-3 75 70
14 R-3 75 70
dB(A) Leą = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level
R-3/P = Multiple Family Residential, 28 dwelling units per acre, 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with parking overlay
C = Commercial
R/3 = Multiple Family Residential, 28 dwelling units per acre, 3,500 square feet minimum lot size Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 62 ends

Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 DAVE
ALLEY 09TH ST
ALLEY
0 0 2 0 CAVE ALLEY.
6 ISABELLA AVE 13
10TH ST
101)
PARKPL

ORANGE AVE
B AVE 1822NA
Project Boundary Construction Noise Contours
Feet 150
Receivers 60 dB(A) Leg
• 65 dB(A) Lea
70 dB(A) Leq
FIGURE 6
RECON 75 dB(A) Lea
Construction Noise Contours
M:VOBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\MND\fig6.mxd 6/25/2024 fmm Attachment 1
Initial Study
As shown, construction noise levels are anticipated to be 75 dB(A) Leq or less at all residentially zoned properties. Although the existing adjacent uses would be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary. In accordance with Section 41.10.040 of the CMC, construction activities would not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and holidays.

As construction activities associated with the project would comply with requirements of the CMC temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant. Note that modeled construction noise levels take into account the existing wall located between the project site and the residential uses to the north. In order to comply with the noise level limits of the CMC, it shall be required that this wall remain in place during all project construction activities.

Although construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed 75 dB(A) Leq, due to the proximity of the adjacent residential uses, impacts associated with construction noise could be significant. To reduce potentially significant impacts, mitigation measure NOS-1 would be implemented to ensure project compliance with the CMC.

With implementation of mitigation measure NOS-1, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.

Dewatering
There is a possibility that site dewatering would be required if groundwater is encountered during excavation. Dewatering would require the use of a 5-horsepower pump that would operate continuously including during the nighttime hours. Based on calculation details provided in An Introduction to Sound Level Data for Mechanical and Electrical Equipment (Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 2013), a 5-horsepower pump with a 3,000 to 3,600 rotations per minute motor generates a noise level of 76.0 dB(A) Leq at 3 feet which is equivalent to a sound power level of

83.2 dB(A) Lpw. This noise level was modeled as a point source near the center of the project site. The results are summarized in Table 13. Modeled receiver locations and dewatering noise contours are shown in Figure 7.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 64 ends

Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 "09TH ST
ALLEY
10TH ST

PARKPL CAVE
14 13
ALLEY
10 11

ORANGE AVE
Feet 100
Project Boundary Dewatering Noise Contours
Receivers 40 dB(A) Lea
45 dB(A) Leq
50 dB(A) Lea FIGURE 7
RECON Dewatering Noise Contours
M:VOBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\MND\fig7.mxd 7/2/2024 jgf Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 13
Dewatering Noise Levels at Adjacent Receivers
[aB(A) Leal
Receiver Zoning Noise Level Limit Pump Noise Level
R-3/P 45 39.6
2 R-3/P 45 40.9
3 R-3/P 45 40.8
R-3/P 45 39.5
5 47.5 42.0

47.5 43.2

47.5 42.2

47.5 35.1

35.3 10 35.3
C
·46777
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level
R-3/P = Multiple Family Residential, 28 dwelling units per acre, 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with parking overlay
C = Commercial
R/3 = Multiple Family Residential, 28 dwelling units per acre, 3,500 square feet minimum lot size Since pump operation would occur outside the times allowable by Section 41.10.040 of the CMC, the applicable noise level limits would be those provided in Section 41.10.010 of the CMC. These limits include 45 dB(A) Leq at the residentially zoned properties and 47.5 dB(A) Leq at the commercially zoned properties. As shown, pump noise levels are not anticipated to exceed the applicable noise level limits at the adjacent properties. However, due to the proximity of the adjacent residential uses and the fact that the pump would need to operate during the nighttime hours, noise impacts related to dewatering could be significant. Therefore, mitigation measure NOS-2 would be implemented to ensure that the project complies with the CMC. With implementation of mitigation measure NOS-2, temporary increases in noise levels from dewatering activities would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise - On-Site Noise Compatibility
Noise and land use compatibility is regulated by the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Noise levels for the project are considered clearly acceptable up to 55 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and normally acceptable up to 60 CNEL. In normally acceptable areas, common building construction would make the indoor noise environment acceptable.

The main source of traffic noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on 10th Street, C Avenue, and Orange Avenue. The methodology and vehicle traffic parameters used to calculate on-site noise levels are provided in the Noise Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix D). Noise levels were also modeled at a series of 12 specific receiver locations on the project site. These receivers and noise contours are shown in Figure 8. On-site vehicle traffic noise levels are summarized in Table 14.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 66 ends

Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 LLEY
CAVE
10TH ST
Project Boundary Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours
0 Feet 50
Site Plan • 50 dB(A) Leq
Building 55 dB(A) Leq
Receivers 60 dB(A) Lea
FIGURE 8
RECON 65 dB(A) Lea
Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours
M:OBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\MND\fig8.mxd 6/25/2024 fmm Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 14
On-site Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels
Exterior Noise Level (CNEL)
Receiver 1st Floor 2nd Floor
57 57
2 56 57
56 57
57 58
5 56 57
55 56
7 54 55
47 50
45 10 42 47
11 44 50
12 48 53
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
As shown, vehicle traffic noise levels are projected to be 60 CNEL or less and would be considered normally acceptable. Thus, the project could be compatible with City standards.

The interior noise level standard for noise sensitive land uses is 45 CNEL. Interior noise levels can be reduced through standard construction techniques. When windows are closed, standard construction techniques provide various exterior-to-interior noise level reductions depending on the type of structure and window. According to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance, buildings with masonry façades and double-glazed windows can be estimated to provide a noise level reduction of 35 dB, while light-frame structures with standard windows may provide noise level reductions of at least 20 dB (FHWA 2011). Because exterior noise levels are projected to be 60 CNEL or less, assuming a 20 dB exterior-to-interior noise reduction would result in interior noise levels that are 40 CNEL or less. Thus, interior noise levels would not exceed the standard of 45 CNEL. Exterior and interior noise impacts would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise - Ambient Noise Level Increases
The project was also evaluated to determine if project-generated traffic would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels. The project would contribute traffic to the local roadways. However, the project would not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways nor would the project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. Thus, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. While changes in noise levels would occur along any roadway where project-related traffic occurs, for noise assessment purposes, noise level increases are assumed to be greatest nearest the project site, as this location would represent the greatest concentration of project-related traffic. A substantial noise increase is defined as an increase of 3 dB above existing conditions.

During regular operations the project would generate up to 48 ADT, and during special events the project would generate up to a maximum of 104 ADT (see Appendix C). Table 15 summarizes the Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 68 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
traffic noise levels without and with the project and the associated increase in noise. As shown, the project would result in a noise increase of 0.3 dB or less, which would not be an audible change in noise levels. Therefore, the project would not result in the exposure of noise sensitive land uses to significant noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 15
Off-site Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels
(CNEL)
Without Project With Project - Regular Operations With Project - Special Event Increase Over Increase Over
Roadway Segment Noise Level Noise Level Existing Noise Level Existing Orange Avenue
North of 10th Street 66.5 66.5 0.0 66.5 0.0
South of 10th Street 66.6 66.6 0.0 66.6 0.0
10th Street 54.8 54.9 0.1 55.1 0.3
C Avenue 54.8 54.9 0.1 55.1 0.3
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
NOTE: Noise levels are modeled at 50 feet from the roadway.

On-Site Generated Noise
The applicable property line noise level limits provided in Section 41.10.010 of the CMC are summarized in Table 16. These maximum one-hour sound level limits are the maximum noise levels allowed at any point on or beyond the property boundaries due to activities occurring on the property. Where two or more zones adjoin, the sound level limit is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones.

Table 16
Property Line Noise Level Limits
One-Hour Average
Sound Level
Land Use Zone Time of Day [d(A) Leal
7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. 50
Residential: All R-1A; R-1B 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 45
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55
Residential: AlI R-3; R-4; R-PDC; and R-5 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
Commercial (C); Commercial Recreation (C-R); 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 Hotel/Motel (H-M); Civic Use (C-U); Open 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m 60 Space (SO); and Parking Overlay (P-1) 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 SOURCE: City of Coronado Municipal Code Section 4.10.010.

The project site is zoned R-3/P. The property to the northeast is zoned R-3/P, the properties to the southeast are zoned R-3, and the properties to the south, west, and north are zoned C. Therefore, the applicable property line limits between the project site and the adjacent residential uses are 55 dB(A) Lea during the daytime, 50 dB(A) Lea in the evening, and 45 dB(A) Leg during the nighttime, and the applicable property line limits between the project site and the adjacent commercial uses Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 69 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
are 57.5 dB(A) Leq during the daytime, 55 dB(A) Leg in the evening, and 47.5 dB(A) Leq during the nighttime.

The operational noise sources on the project site are anticipated to be those that would be typical of religious facility, and would include rooftop mechanical equipment, people gathering, amplified music within the Assembly Hall during weddings/receptions, vehicles arriving and leaving, and landscaping equipment. Noise associated with landscaping equipment is anticipated to be similar to the existing landscaping activities on the project site and typical of landscaping activities throughout the City and would not generate noise levels in excess of CMC limits. Parking activities would occur within the underground parking garage which would be accessed from the alley to the west, away from adjacent residential uses. As such, noise levels from underground parking activities would not be audible at the adjacent residential uses and are not anticipated to exceed the CMC noise level limits. This analysis therefore focuses on noise levels generated by rooftop mechanical equipment, people gathering in outdoor spaces, and amplified music. Noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios: (1) weddings/receptions with maximum occupancy and amplified music, (2) larger events with maximum occupancy and no amplified music, and (3) nighttime operation of the rooftop mechanical equipment. The methodology and noise parameters used to calculate on-site generated noise levels are provided in the Noise Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix D). The modeling results are summarized in Table 17. Operational noise contours are shown in Figures 9a through 9C.

Table 17
Operational Noise Levels at Adjacent Receivers
[dB(A) Leg]
Operational Noise Level
Noise Level Limit Special Event with Event without Rooftop Mechanical Receiver Zoning Day/Evening/Night Amplified Music Amplified Music Equipment Only 1 - 1st Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 45 43 33
1 - 2nd Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 50 49 37
2 - 1st Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 44 37 36
2 - 2nd Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 46 42 40
3 - 1st Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 40 38 38
3 - 2nd Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 43 42 42
4 - 1st Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 41 40 40
4 - 2nd Floor R-3/P 55/50/45 43 43
5 57.5/55/47.5 38 38 38
6 C 57.5/55/47.5 33 31 31
7 57.5/55/47.5 33 31 31
8 C 57.5/55/47.5 34 34
9 57.5/55/47.5 38 37 36
C 57.5/55/47.5 40 38 37
11 C 57.5/55/47.5 40 38 35
12 R-3 55/50/45 41 40 30
13 R-3 55/50/45 42 41 30
14 R-3 55/50/45 41 40 30
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level
R-3/P = Multiple Family Residential, 28 dwelling units per acre, 3,500 square feet minimum lot size with parking overlay
C = Commercial
R/3 = Multiple Family Residential, 28 dwelling units per acre, 3,500 square feet minimum lot size Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 70 ends

Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 14 CAVE
13 12
10TH ST
10 11
Feet 50
Project Boundary Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Operational Noise Contours • Site Plan Air Conditioning 35 dB(A) Lea
Building Boiler • 40 dB(A) Lea
Receivers - 45 dB(A) Lea
50 dB(A) Lea
55 dB(A) Lea
60 dB(A) Lea FIGURE 9a
Operational Noise Contours -
RECON Event with Amplified Music
M:OBS5\9641.2\common_gis\D\MND\fig9a.mxd 6/25/2024 fmm
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 14 CAVE
13 10TH ST
11 Feet 50
Project Boundary Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Operational Noise Contours Site Plan Air Conditioning 35 dB(A) Lea
Building Boiler • 40 dB(A) Lea
Receivers - 45 dB(A) Lea
• 50 dB(A) Lea
55 dB(A) Lea
60 dB(A) Lea FIGURE 9b
Operational Noise Contours -
RECON Event without Amplified Music
M:VOBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\MND\fig9b.mxd6/25/2024 fmm Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2024) Attachment 1 ALLEY
14 CAVE
13 12
10TH ST
0 Feet 50
Project Boundary Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Operational Noise Contours Site Plan Air Conditioning 30 dB(A) Leq
Building • Boiler 35 dB(A) Lea
Receivers - 40 dB(A) Lea
FIGURE 9c
Operational Noise Contours -
RECON Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Only
M:JOBS5\9641.2\common_gis\MXD\MND\fig9c.mxd 6/25/2024 fmm Attachment 1
Initial Study
The noise sources modeled for the first scenario, special event with amplified music, includes indoor amplified music and speech, people gathering on the outdoor terrace, and rooftop mechanical equipment. The noise sources modeled for the second scenario, event without amplified music, include people gathering on the outdoor terrace and rooftop mechanical equipment As shown in Table 17, noise levels due to these on-site noise sources would not exceed either the daytime or evening noise level limits. All events would end at 10:00 p.m. Therefore, the only remaining on-site noise source during the nighttime hours would be the rooftop mechanical equipment. As shown, noise levels due to this equipment would be less than the applicable nighttime noise level limit.

However, due to the proximity of the adjacent residential uses and the fact that all doors and windows in the Assembly Hall would need to remain closed during events with amplified music, noise impacts due to events could be significant. Therefore, the mitigation measure NOS-3 would be implemented to ensure that the project complies with the CMC. With implementation of mitigation measure NOS-3, impacts due to on-site noise sources would be less than significant. b. Less Than Significant Impact
Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in, as well as individual sensitivity. For example, outdoor vibration is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying. Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Based on several federal studies, the threshold of perception is 0.035 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV), with 0.24 in/sec PPV being distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2013). Vibration perception would occur at structures, as people do not perceive vibrations without vibrating structures (FTA 2018).

Construction activities produce varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. Ground vibrations from typical construction activities rarely reach levels high enough to cause damage to structures. Based on best available data, impacts associated with project construction equipment vibration shall be considered significant if the PPV exceeds 0.2 in/sec which is the standard recommended by the FTA for assessing construction vibration impacts at masonry structures such as those surrounding the project site (FTA 2018).

Table 18 summarizes the vibration levels generated by equipment that could be used at the project site.

Table 18
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Distance to 0.2 PPV (feet) Small Bulldozer 0.003 <1
Loaded Truck 0.076 10
Jackhammer 0.035 5
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inch per second
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration 2018.

Construction equipment with the greatest potential to generate vibration would be a loaded truck.

According to the FTA, loaded trucks generate vibration levels of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. Vibration levels would exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV at distances closer than 10 feet between the equipment and a building. The nearest building is located approximately 10 feet from the edge of the project footprint.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 74 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
A loaded truck would not be located immediately adjacent to the building due to physical constraints.

Rather, they would be located either on the adjacent roads or on the project site at distances greater than 10 feet from the adjacent buildings. All other construction equipment operating on-site would generate vibration levels that are less than a loaded truck. Further, all construction activities would occur during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. as required by the CMC Noise Abatement and Control Regulations and would not generate any vibration during the night when it would be more likely to create a disturbance. Therefore, project construction is not anticipated to generate significant vibration levels and impacts would be less than significant. Once operational, the project would not be a source of ground borne vibration. c. Less Than Significant Impact
NASNI is located 1.3 miles northwest of the project site. According to the NASNI ALUCP, the project site is not located within the 65 CNEL airport noise contour (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2020); therefore, future patrons would not be exposed to aircraft noise levels greater than 65 CNEL and impacts associated with noise from NASNI would be less than significant.

The project site is located approximately 3.0 miles south of the San Diego International Airport.

According to the San Diego International Airport ALUCP, the project site is located well outside the 60 CNEL airport noise contour (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2014). Thus, impacts associated with noise from San Diego International Airport would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
NOS-1 The City shall ensure that the construction contractor(s) contract and specifications for all project-related activities include the following requirements during construction activities:
• The existing wall located between the project site and the residential uses to the north shall remain in place during all project construction activities. • Construction hours shall be conducted in compliance with CMC 41.10.040 with respect to allowable timeframes and days of the week (including weekends and holidays). Per CMC 41.10.050, noise from construction activities shall meet the standard of 75 dB(A) Leg over any one-hour period, unless authorization to exceed this limit has been granted via permit by the City's Noise Control Officer in advance. • Construction during nighttime hours is prohibited unless authorized by the Noise Control Officer in advance via permit.
• All idling (i.e., engines running) equipment shall be kept to a minimum. • The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be used for safety warning purposes only.
• Communication with local residents shall be maintained prior to and during construction. Specifically, the local residents shall be informed of the schedule, Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 75 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
duration, and progress of the construction and shall be provided contact information (e.g., a telephone hotline and/or email address) for noise- or vibration-related complaints. The City shall establish a process to investigate these complaints in a timely manner and, if determined to be valid, detail efforts to provide a timely resolution and response to the complainant-with copy of outcome description documented in a log for the duration of the construction activities.
• Locate fixed/stationary equipment (e.g., generators, compressors) shall be located as far as possible from residential uses.
• All noise-producing equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers (or comparable noise-reducing exhaust flow treatments); air-inlet silencers; and, hoods, shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specifications. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors, generators) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.

NOS-2 The City shall ensure that the construction contractor(s) contract and specifications for all project-related activities include the following requirements during dewatering activities:
• The existing wall located between the project site and the residential uses to the north shall remain in place during all project construction activities.

The pump shall be operated in compliance with the CMC 41.10.010 with respect to the allowable daytime and nighttime noise level limits. Per CMC 41.10.010, noise from nighttime pump operation shall meet the standards of 45 dB(A) Leq at the adjacent residentially zoned properties and 47.5 dB(A) Lea at the adjacent commercially zoned properties. The following considerations shall be implemented as necessary to ensure that noise levels due not exceed the applicable CMC limits:
• The noise specifications for the selected pump shall not exceed a sound pressure level of 76.0 dB(A) Leq at 3 feet.
• The pump shall be located as far away from the residentially zoned properties as feasible, and shall not be located closer than 50 feet from the residentially zoned properties.
• An enclosure or barrier shall be constructed around the pump in order to shield noise from the adjacent residentially zoned properties. • Communication between the applicant team and local residents shall be maintained prior to and during construction, including all dewatering activities.

Specifically, the local residents shall be informed of the schedule, duration, and Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 76 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
progress of the dewatering activities and shall be provided contact information (e.g., a telephone hotline and/or email address) for noise- or vibration-related complaints. The City shall investigate these complaints in a timely manner and, if determined to be valid, detail efforts to provide a timely resolution and response to the complainant-with copy of outcome description documented in a log for the duration of the construction activities.

NOS-3 The project's Major Special Use Permit shall include the following conditions:
• Noise levels shall not exceed the applicable noise level limits specified in the CMC The applicable noise level limits between the project site and the adjacent R-3 and R-3/P zones are 55 dB(A) Leq between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 50 dB(A) Leq between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 45 dB(A) Leq between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The applicable noise level limits between the project site and the adjacent C zones are

57.5 dB(A) Lea between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 55 dB(A) Leg between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 47.5 dB(A) Leg between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

During all events with amplified music, all facility windows and doors shall remain closed
• Amplified music shall not exceed a noise level of 72 dB(A) Lea when measured at 50 feet from the speakers.

4.14 Population and Housing
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and • •
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 77 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
The project does not include the construction of any new housing and only a limited number of new employment opportunities. It is assumed that most of the congregates attending the proposed synagogue already reside in relatively close proximity to the project site. As a result, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. No Impact
The project would not require the demolition or alteration of existing housing. As such, the project would not displace people or require replacement housing. Therefore, people and housing would not be displaced, and no impact would occur.

4.15 Public Services
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 78 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
EXPLANATIONS:
a.i. Less Than Significant Impact
The Coronado Fire Department (CFD) provides an array of services to the City, including fire protection, fire prevention, emergency response, disaster preparedness, medical aid, search and rescue, lifeguard services, and community education programs. The CFD has two fire stations operating on a 24-hour basis. The CFD headquarters is within central Coronado on 6th Street, and a secondary station is in the Coronado Cays. The CFD also participates in a robust mutual aid system in the region to ensure response of additional resources as needed (CFD 2020).

The project would demolish the existing office buildings and construct a two-story synagogue which would replace the existing Chabad of Coronado synagogue located at 1330 Orange Avenue, Suite 120-130. Therefore, the demand for additional fire services in the City is not anticipated to increase.

Additionally, the CFD would be required to review and approve all final site plans for the project prior to project development to ensure adequate emergency accessibility. The project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the latest California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) to ensure that all development would benefit from the most current fire prevention and safety standards. If determined necessary, the City Council may also approve a public facility fee program pursuant to the CMC, Chapter 8.2, and require new development to provide funds toward capital improvements for public services including fire facilities. If determined that incremental development would require additional fire services, the City has authority to impose additional fees under the public facilities program. Therefore, development of the project would not result in an increase in demand on fire protection services in comparison to existing conditions, and the CFD is anticipated to provide adequate services without the need for the construction of new or expanded fire facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. a.ii. Less Than Significant Impact
The Coronado Police Department provides law enforcement services and comprises approximately 70 paid employees and 30 civilian volunteers. The Coronado Police Department is headquartered at one station located at 700 Orange Avenue. The project would demolish the existing office buildings and construct a two-story synagogue which would replace the existing Chabad of Coronado synagogue located at 1330 Orange Avenue, Suite 120-130. Therefore, the demand for additional police services in the City is not anticipated to increase and the project is not anticipated to result in physical expansion of police stations. Additionally, if determined necessary, the City Council may approve a public facility fee program pursuant to the CMC, Chapter 8.2, and require new development to provide funds toward capital improvements for public services including police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
a.ili. No Impact
The project would not introduce any residential uses that would generate any student enrollment that would increase demand for school services. As such, the project would not induce growth that would require school services. Therefore, the project would not require new or expanded school facilities. No impact would occur.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 79 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
a.iv. Less Than Significant Impact
The project would not result in a substantial increase in population growth that would result in an increase in use of or demand for parks. Additionally, if determined necessary, the City Council may approve a public facility fee program pursuant to the CMC, Chapter 8.2, and require new development to provide funds toward capital improvements for public services, including park facilities. It is expected that the project would be adequately served by existing park facilities.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
a.v. No Impact
Other public facilities include libraries and government administrative services. The project would not result in a substantial increase in population growth that would require additional public facilities.

Therefore, the project would not require new or expanded public facilities. No impact would occur.

4.16 Recreation
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
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, •
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the
environment?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed in 4.15.a.iv, the project would not result in a substantial increase in population growth that would result in an increase in use of or demand for parks. It is expected that the project would be adequately served by existing park facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 80 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
b. No Impact
The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

4.17 Transportation/Traffic
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
C. Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) X
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
EXPLANATIONS:

This section describes potential impacts related to transportation and is based on a VMT Assessment prepared for the project by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers dated May 2024 (see Appendix C).
a. Less Than Significant Impact
The project would generate vehicle trips during construction in the form of haul trucks and worker commute vehicles; however, the number of vehicles generated would be limited and would not likely result in congestion on nearby roadways. Due to the unique nature of the project's proposed land uses, operational traffic was measured with a site-specific trip generation estimated for each day of a typical week and for special events and holidays based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. Special events are not proposed to conflict with larger Sabbath gatherings on Friday and Saturday or any other gatherings. The trip generation calculations, summarized in Table 19, show that Tuesdays are expected to be the highest traffic generating "typical" day with 48 ADT, followed by Sundays with 46 ADT. Weddings/receptions and summer camp are the highest generating special Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 81 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
events, with 104 and 88 ADT, respectively. The trip generation tables for each of these four scenarios are shown in Tables 3-2a through 3-2d in Appendix C.

It should be noted that trip generation calculations for Fridays, Saturdays, and some special events re llkely overly conservative as the trips generated during those times are likely to be much lowe he project would serve members of the Orthodox Judaism community, most of whom generally di not operate motor vehicles on Jewish holidays, including Friday nights, Saturdays, and other major holidays.

Table 19
Project Trip Generation Summary
Day of Week/Event Average Daily Trips
Typical Operations
Sunday 46
Monday 32
Tuesday 48
Wednesday 22
Thursday 32
Friday 40
Saturday 24
Special Events
Saturday + Bar Mitzvah 84
Chanukah 40
Passover 48
Shavuot 32
Summer Camp 88
Weddings/Receptions 104
As shown in Table 19, the project is calculated to generate fewer than 110 ADT under all analyzed scenarios. Based on guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trip per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact because the trip addition would not affect the circulatory system, or policies related thereto.

Bus service in the City is provided by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. The bus route serving the immediate area surrounding the project site is Metropolitan Transit System Route 901.

Several bus stops are located along Orange Avenue and are walking distance to the project site. The City's Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan and Complete Streets Strategy (City of Coronado 2018) identifies a proposed bicycle lane along 10th Street, south of the project site, and a proposed bicycle route along C Avenue, east of the project site. The project would not alter the existing sidewalks along 10th Street and C Avenue and would not conflict with the City's proposed bicycle routes and bicycle lanes. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 82 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
b. Less Than Significant Impact
VMT is defined as the "amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project" per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network as well as land uses in a region. VMT is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (roundtrip) travel and is estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.

The City does not have published guidelines for the preparation of VMT studies. Therefore, this assessment has been prepared to evaluate the transportation effects of the Project using the VMT metric based on guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018).

As shown in Table 19, the project is calculated to generate fewer than 110 ADT under all analyzed scenarios. Based on guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact.

Therefore, project operation would result in a less than significant VMT impact. c. Less Than Significant Impact
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided along the alley located just west of the site.

Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the project site. The project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. The design of the project, including the underground parking structure, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the CMC and zoning development standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact
State Routes 75 and 282 are the primary transportation routes for regional emergency response and evacuation within the City. During construction of the project, temporary construction and staging areas would be located within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access to or from the project site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 83 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, detined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical X
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
ii. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
• • •
In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a California Native American
tribe?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 84 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
EXPLANATIONS:
a.i. and a.ii. No Impact
AB 52 establishes a formal consultation process between the lead agency, the City, and all California Native American tribes within the area regarding tribal cultural resource evaluation. AB 52 mandates that the lead agency must provide formal written notification to the designated contact of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have previously requested notice. Native American tribes are notified early in the project review phase by written notification that includes a brief description of the project, location, and the lead agency's contact information.

The tribal contact then has 30 days to request project-specific consultation pursuant to this section (Public Resources Code Section 21080.1).

As a part of the consultation pursuant Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b), both parties may suggest mitigation measures (Public Resources Code Section 21082.3) that can avoid or substantially lessen potential significant impacts to tribal cultural resources or provide alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource. The California Native American tribe may request consultation on mitigation measures, alternatives to the project, or significant effects. The consultation may also include discussion on the environmental review, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project's impact on the tribal cultural resources, project alternatives, or the measures planned to preserve or mitigate impacts on resources. Consultation shall end when either (1) both parties agree on the mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate significant effects on a tribal cultural resource or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached Per AB 52, the City initiated consultation with Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project to identify resources of cultural or spiritual value to the tribe.

On May 21, 2024, the City sent consultation notification letters to Native American tribes on the City's Master List pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 pertaining to government-to-government consultation. Table 20 summarizes the City's consultation efforts. To date, all 12 Native American tribes contacted did not respond., as noted in Table 20.

Table 20
Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
Date Letter Response Consultation
Tribe Individual Contacted Mailed Received Held
Jamul Indian Village Erica Pinto May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Campo Band of Diegueno Ralph Goff
Mission Indians May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Robert Pinto, Sr. DNR
Indians May 21, 2024 N/A
Jamul Indian Village Lisa Cumper May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians Michael Garcia May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 85 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Table 20
Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
Date Letter Response Consultation
Tribe Individual Contacted Mailed Received Held
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation DNR
Committee Clint Linton May 21, 2024 N/A
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of DNR
Mission Indians Carmen Lucas May 21, 2024 N/A
lipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez May 21, 2024 DNR N/A La Posta Band of Diegueno Gwendolyn Parada
Mission Indians May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Angela Elliott-Santos May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Nation
Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay
Cody J. Martinez May 21, 2024 DNR N/A
Nation
Viegas Band of Kumeyaay DNR N/A
Robert J. Welch, Jr. May 21, 2024
Indians
DNR = Did not respond; N/A = Consultation was not requested.

As described in Section 4.5.a above, the in-house records search completed for the project by RECON Environmental, Inc. did not identity any archaeological resources as recorded within the project area or within 1,000 feet of the project area. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource that would qualify or be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or the local register of historical resources in accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). No impact would occur.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water or wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or • • П
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 86 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future X
development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate • •
capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulation
related to solid waste?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less Than Significant Impact
Water Infrastructure
The project site is served by the California-American Water Company (CAW), who is supplied by the City of San Diego. The agreement between CAW and the City of San Diego guarantees that CAW has the right to purchase unlimited amounts of water for the foreseeable future (City of Coronado 2023). The project site has on-site water lines which would serve the project. No expansion of the water lines that convey water to the project site would be required. Therefore, the project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater Infrastructure
The City's Wastewater Division provides wastewater services to the project site. Wastewater from the City is conveyed to be treated at the City of San Diego's Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP). The PLWTP has a maximum capacity of 240 million gallons per day (mgd) of Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 87 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
wastewater. Currently, the plant treats an average of 175 mgd (City of San Diego 2024). The project is not expected to result in wastewater production that would cause the PLWTP to exceed its 240 mgd capacity. The project would not require the PLWTP to exceed its treatment capacity, and impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
The project would maintain existing natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features. Surface water runoff during project operation would be managed via a partial retention bioswale located on the northern edge of the project site and a BMP planter located at the southwestern corner of the project site. The required installation of the proposed drainage features are included as part of the project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in this IS.

Impacts related to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.

Electric Power
The project would connect to the existing SDG&E electrical distribution facilities and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
The project would connect to the existing SDG&E gas distribution facilities and would not require the construction of new natural gas facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunication
The City is currently supplied with telecommunications services through a variety of providers, such as AT&T, Cox, Spectrum, and other independent telephone, cable, and internet companies. The project site is currently served by various telecommunication facilities and would not require new telecommunication facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Less Than Significant Impact
The City obtains domestic water from CAW who is supplied by the City of San Diego. In 2020, the City of San Diego delivered 154,473 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water to its service area, consisting of 145,388 AFY to retail customers and 9,085 AFY (6 percent of the total delivery) to wholesale customers. The City of San Diego's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the normal year water demand forecast for wholesale water would be 11,518 AFY from 2025 to 2045 planning period, representative of approximately 5 to 6 percent of the total water demand for PUD, which ranged from 202,865 AFY in 2025 to 228,068 AFY in 2045. The 2020 UWMP concluded that there is adequate water supply to support the retail and wholesale water demand for normal, dry, and multiple dry years with conservation (CDM Smith 2021).

The project site is currently developed with two office buildings, and water service is provided by CAW. The proposed synagogue would not result in a substantial water supply increase in comparison to the existing office use. In addition, the project would be required to comply with CMC, Section

64.06, which outlines the City's Water-Efficient Landscape regulations, to reduce water use.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 88 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Therefore, water demand from the project would be consistent with the 2020 UWMP, and impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant. c. Less Than Significant Impact
The City's Wastewater Division provides wastewater services to the project area. As discussed under Section 4.19.a, wastewater from the City is conveyed to be treated at the City of San Diego's PLWTP.

The PLWTP has a maximum capacity of 240 mgd of wastewater. Currently, the plant treats an average of 175 mgd (City of San Diego 2024). The project would not result in wastewater production that would cause the PLWTP to exceed its 240 mgd capacity. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact
Solid waste disposal for the project would be provided by EDCO. The project site is currently served by EDCO and is not expected to result in a substantial increase in solid waste compared to the existing office use. AB 341 requires cities and counties to implement recycling programs, reduce refuse at the source, and compost waste to achieve the established 75 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills. The City offers a variety of programs to encourage recycling and waste reduction, including the Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling, the Mandatory Business/Commercial Recycling, and the Recycle More at Home Programs. Diversion of recyclable waste generated by the project would reduce the amount of waste disposed at the landfills that serve the City. The project would be required to comply with the City's efforts in reducing solid waste and solid waste regulations at the state level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Less Than Significant Impact
As described in Section 4.19.d, the project is not expected to result in solid waste production that would exceed the existing office use. The project would also comply with the City's programs to encourage recycling and waste reduction, including the Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling, the Mandatory Business/Commercial Recycling, and the Recycle More at Home Programs. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.20 Wildfire
Would the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 89 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
C. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities) that • • •
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream • •
flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
EXPLANATIONS:

CALFIRE is responsible for designating FHSZ within the SRA throughout California. FHSZs are geographical areas with an elevated risk for wildfire hazard. The SRA is the area for which the state assumes financial responsibility for fire suppression and protection. CALFIRE also creates recommended maps for very high FHSZ within the Local Responsibility Areas, which are then adopted, or modified and adopted, by local jurisdictions. Development within an SRA is required to abide by specific development. A review of the CALFIRE FHSZ maps and data revealed that the project site is not located within an SRA or a very high FHSZ (CALFIRE 2024). a. Less Than Significant Impact
State Routes 75 and 282 are the primary transportation routes for regional emergency response and evacuation within the City. During construction of the project, temporary construction and staging areas would be located within the boundaries of the project site. Therefore, impacts associated with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 90 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
b. No Impact
As previously mentioned, the project site is not located within an SRA or a very high FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2024). Furthermore, the project site is surrounded by existing development in an urbanized portion of the City away from any urban-wildland interface. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildland fire hazards would occur.
c. Less Than Significant Impact
The project does not propose the installation of associated infrastructure such as roads, fuels breaks, emergency water sources, or power lines. Therefore, impacts associated with the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment would be less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact
The project would not alter any natural waterways or drainages. The minor additional impervious surfaces associated with implementation of the project would be negligible and would not cause a substantial change in the volume of surface runoff or cause an increase in flooding or landslides.

Furthermore, the project is not located within a designated high risk or special flood hazard area.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the proposed project:

Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a. Have the potential to substantially
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?
Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 91 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issue Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
b. 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 futures projects)?
C. Have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse
•
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the project would involve excavation to accommodate the proposed basement, which could subsurface archaeological resources.

Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce the potential for the project to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 to a less than significant level. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, the project site is within the Bay Point Formation which is assigned as a high paleontological resource sensitivity area. As such, construction of the project has the potential to uncover potentially sensitive paleontological resources. Mitigation measure GEO-1 would be required to mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from construction activities within the Bay Point Formation to a less than significant level. The project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, impact fish or wildlife species, or plant communities. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated As provided in the analysis presented in this IS, the project would not result in significant impacts regarding aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, energy, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Mitigation measures identified in this IS for cultural resources, geology and soils and noise would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 92 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
The project would incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts for projects occurring within the vicinity of the project site. With mitigation, however, implementation of the project would not result in any residually significant impacts that could contribute to a cumulative impact. In the absence of residually significant impacts, the incremental accumulation of effects would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
c. Less Than Significant Impact
As described in Sections 4.1 through 4.20, the project would not result in any substantial adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

5.0 Preparers
City of Coronado
Richard Grunow, Director of Community Development
Jesse Brown, Principal Planner
Tricia Olson, Senior Planner
Marisa Smith, Associate Planner
RECON Environmental, Inc., 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108 Jennifer Campos, Project Director
Morgan Weintraub, Associate Project Manager
Lori Spar, Environmental Project Director
Michael Page, AICP, Environmental Division Leader
Jessica Fleming, Air Quality/GHG/Noise Analyst
Frank McDermott, GIS Specialist
Jennifer Gutierrez, Production Specialist

6.0 Sources Consulted
Aesthetics
California Department of Finance (DOF)
2024 E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2024 with 2020 Census Benchmark.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for- cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2024-with-2020-census-benchmark/ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2024 California State Scenic Highway Scenic Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116flaacaa.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 93 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Coronado, City of
2013 Local Coastal Program. Adopted 2013.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1060/Local-Coastal-Program-Land- Use-Plan-PDF? bidld=
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2022 California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2022 California Emissions Estimator model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (Guidance Manual), February.

San Diego, County of
2007 Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements, Air Quality. Land Use and Environment Group. March 19.

Biology
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2024 National Wetlands Inventory. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands- mapper/.

Cultural Resources
Dudek
2023 Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory, City of Coronado. https://www.coronado.ca.us/256/Historic-Preservation.

Coronado, City of
1994 General Plan - Conservation Element
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 402, Nuisance. Adopted May 7, 1976. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf.
2005 Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Adopted May 7, 1976; last amended June 3, 2005. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 94 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Geology and Soils
San Diego, City of
2008 City of San Diego General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, March 10, 2008.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2008 CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008 2022 California Emissions Estimator model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1.

California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2017 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
2023 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. November 2023.

Coronado, City of
2022 Climate Action Plan. Approved by City Council March 15, 2022. 2018 Active Transportation Plan. Adopted by City Council September 4, 2018.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2021 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 2021. https://www.sandag.org/regional- plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2009 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group 14. November

19. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Forestry and Fire Services' (CALFIRE) 2024 Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire- preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
2024 EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI)
2019 Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1116/Draft-ALUCP-PDF?bidld=.

State Water Resources Control Board
2024 GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 95 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
Hydrology and Water Quality
California American Water (CAW)
2022 2022 Annual Water Quality Report, Coronado.
https://www.amwater.com/ccr/coronado.pdf.

California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2024 Tsunami Hazard Area Map. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C1891H. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
2024 GeoTracker. Database. geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.

Land Use and Planning
Coronado, City of
2003a Coronado General Plan. Revised November 4, 2003.
https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1057/General-Plan-PDF?bidld=. 2003b Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Adopted November 4, 2003. https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1006/Orange-Avenue-Corridor- Specific-Plan-PDF?bidld=
2005 City of Coronado Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Amended 2005. https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1060/Local-Coastal-Program-Land- Use-Plan-PDF?bidld=.

Mineral Resources
San Diego, County of
2008 Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements - Mineral Resources.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/Mineral Resources Guidelines.pdf Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2013 Technical Noise Supplement. November.

Continuing Education and Development, Inc.
2013 An Introduction to Sound Level Data for Mechanical and Electrical Equipment. J. Paul Guyer, P.E., R.A., Fellow ASCE, Fellow AEl.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2011 Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025. December.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 96 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SCRAA)
2014 San Diego International Airport. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted April 3, 2014, Amended May 1, 2014.
2020 Naval Air Station North Island Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted October 1, 2020.

Public Services
Coronado, City of
2021 City of Coronado Emergency Operations Plan. September 7, 2021. https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1052/City-of-Coronado-EOP-Basic- Plan-PDF?bidld=.

Transportation/Traffic
CDM Smith
2021 City of San Diego 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. https://www. sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/city of san diego 2020 uwmp final 6 29 2021 send.pdf.

Coronado, City of
2018 Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan and Complete Streets Strategy. https://www.coronado.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/907/Full-Document---Final-Active- Iransportation-Plan-PDF?bidld=.

Utilities and Service Systems
Coronado, City of
2023 Coronado Municipal Code.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Coronado/#!/CoronadoSP/CoronadoSP09.html 2024 Stormwater Operations. https://www.coronado.ca.us/310/Storm-Water-Operations.

San Diego, City of
2024 "Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant." https://www.sandiego.gov/public= utilities/customer-service/water-wastewaterfacilities/point-loma.

Wildfire
California Department of Forestry and Fire Services' (CALFIRE) 2024 Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire- preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Chabad of Coronado Project

Page 97 ends

Attachment 1
Initial Study

APPENDICES
Under Separate Cover
Chabad of Coronado Project
Attachment 1

CHRISTIAN WHEELER

ENGINEERING

REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CHABAD CORONADO
970 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

CHABAD CORONADO
970 C AVENUE
CORONADO, CALIFORNIA 92118

PREPARED BY

CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
3980 HOME AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105
Geotechnical & Geological Consulting + Materials Inspection & Testing + Building Envelope Consulting + Laboratory Services www.christianwheeler.com + [email protected] + (619) 555-1700 Attachment 1

CHRISTIAN WHEELER

ENGINEERING
May 9, 2024
Chabad Coronado CWE 2230388.01
970 C Avenue
Coronado, California 92118
Attention: Gary Kippur
Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Chabad Coronado, 970 C Avenue, Coronado, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with our proposal dated July 7, 2023, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed structure to be constructed at the subject property. Presented within is a report of our findings and recommendations.

It is our opinion and judgment that no geotechnical conditions exist at, or in the vicinity of the subject property that would preclude the construction of the proposed project, provided the recommendations included in this report are fully implemented.

Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any questions or concerns. We appreciate the opportunity to provide professional services for the proposed project.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRIS EELER ENGINEERING
Dan Ite
Daniel B. 'Adler, RCE #36037, Daniel J. Flowers, CEG #2686 ENGINEERING DBA:dba:dif PANEL B. ADLER GEOLL
DANIEL J.
ec: [email protected]
[email protected] No. 36037 FLOWERS
No. 2686
CIL КАНТЕ ОК СЛІРОНА

STAFEOFCALFORIN
Geotechnical & Geological Consulting + Materials Inspection & Testing + Building Envelope Consulting + Laboratory Services www.christianwheeler.com + [email protected] + (619) 555-1700 Attachment 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Project Description..

Scope of Services...

Findings ....

Site Description....

General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ....

Geologic Setting and Soil Description
Old Paralic Deposits
Groundwater..

Tectonic Setting
General Geologic Hazards
General...

Surface Rupture
Slope Stability ...

Flooding...

Tsunamis
Seiches..

Liquefaction Induced Settlements
Lateral Ground Spreading.

Clays and Cyclic Softening...

Other Potential Geologic Hazards.

Conclusions..

Recommendations..

Grading and Earthwork
General..

Pregrade Meeting
Observation of Grading.

Clearing and Grubbing.

Site Preparation..

Special Condition...

Processing of Fill Areas...

Imported Fill
Compaction and Method of Filling.

Surface Drainage.

Temporary Slopes
Temporary Shoring...

General.... ...10
Drilling Conditions... ...11
Monitoring. .11
Foundations. ..11
General.. ...11
Dimensions. .11
Lateral Grading Foundations... .11
Bearing Capacity..... ...11
Footing Reinforcement .12
Lateral Load Resistance .12
Settlement Characteristics ...12
Expansive Characteristics .12
Foundation Excavation Observation ..12
Foundation Plan Review.. ..12
CWE 2230388.01
Chabad Coronado
970 C Avenue
Coronado, California
Attachment 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Soluble Sulfates........ ...13
Seismic Design Factors ....13
Slab-On-Grade. ..14
General. ...14
Interior Floor Slabs.. ...14
Under-Slab Vapor Retarders. ..14
Exterior Concrete Flatwork... .14
Earth Retaining Walls ...15
Foundations .15
Passive Pressure .15
Active Pressure... ...15
Waterproofing and Wall Drainage Systems... ...15
Backfill..... ..16
Limitations ..16
Review, Observation and Testing.. ....16
Uniformity of Conditions.... ...16
17 Time Limitations ....17
Professional Standard ...17
Client's Responsibility ...17
...18
...18

FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
TABLES
Table I Shoring Design Parameters
Table II Seismic Design Factors, 2022 CBC

ATTACHMENTS
PLATES
Plate 1 Site Plan & Geotechnical Map
Plates 2 Geologic Cross Section
Plate 3 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail

APPENDICES
Appendix Subsurface Exploration Logs
Appendix Laboratory Test Results
Appendix References
Appendix Recommended Grading Specifications - General Provisions CWE 2230613.01
Chabad Coronado
970 C Avenue
Coronado, California
Attachment 1

CHRISTIAN WHEELER

ENGINEERING

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CHABAD CORONADO
270 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for a proposed structure to be constructed at 970 C Avenue, Coronado, California. The following Figure No. 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the property.

We understand that the subject project will consist of the demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements and the construction of a two-story structure with a full basement. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be of masonry and wood-frame construction, supported by shallow foundations, with a conventional concrete on-grade floor slab. Grading to accommodate the proposed construction is anticipated to consist of cuts up to about 14 feet deep.

To assist in the preparation of this report, we were provided with miscellaneous architectural plans prepared by Christian Rice Architects, Inc., dated May 23, 2023. A copy of the proposed site plan was used to create our Site Plan and Geologic Map, which is included as Plate No. 1 of this report. A geologic cross section was also created to depict the proposed construction and subsurface soils conditions. Our geologic cross section is presented herein as Plate No. 2. The elevations portrayed on our cross section and assumed on our boring logs were derived from Google Earth® and should be considered rough estimates.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Chabad Coronado, and its design consultants, for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering (CWE) for conformance with our recommendations and to determine whether any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied.

Geotechnical & Geological Consulting + Materials Inspection & Testing + Building Envelope Consulting + Laboratory Services www.christianwheeler.com + [email protected] + (619) 555-1700 Attachment 1

SITE VICINITY
© OpenStreetMap contributors
Pork
6th Street
9th Street Orange Avenue + Adella Lane endleton Ra
• Sth Street: +
10th Street FAve
D Avenue C Avenue
mcino Row: Orange Avenue 9th Street Adella 2
Encino Lane 10th Street Avenue
Tolita Avenue Maria PLaCe
PROJE CT SITE Pomona Avenue
+
10th Street Guadalupe Avenue
Adell Cajon Place
enue
ynez Place
Beach
Churchin Place Wa Avenue Glorietta Boul
Adel
Orange Avenue → * wagement Ayeрue...

Hotel
Del Coronado

CHABAD CORONADO
970 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA
DATE: MAY 2024 REPORT NO.: 2230388.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER

ENGINEERING
BY: SD FIGURE NO.: 1
Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 2

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, and review of relevant geologic literature. The scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination, recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structures, evaluation or design of storm water infiltration facilities, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below.

More specifically, the intent of the preliminary geotechnical investigation was to:
• Obtain a boring permit from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health to perform the geotechnical borings.
• Drill 2 exploratory borings with a truck-mounted drill rig to explore existing soil conditions and obtain soil samples for laboratory testing.
• Backfill the boring holes using bentonite as required by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health.
• Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our experience with similar soil types, the engineering properties of the various soil strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics, and settlement potential.
• Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2022 edition of the California Building Code.
• Discuss potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide geotechnical recommendations to mitigate identified construction difficulties.
• Provide site preparation and grading recommendations for the anticipated work, as necessary. • Provide shored and unshored temporary cut slope recommendations. • Provide foundation recommendations for the type of construction anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Provide earth retaining wall design parameters.
• Provide a preliminary geotechnical report presenting the results of the investigation, including a plot plan showing the location of the subsurface explorations, excavation logs, laboratory test results, and conclusions and recommendations for the proposed project.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 3

FINDINGS

SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site consists of a rectangular-shaped lot located at 970 C Avenue, Coronado, California. The property is presently occupied by two structures and an associated paved parking area. The site is bounded on the east by C Avenue, on the south by 10" Street, on the west by a paved alley, and on the north by a residential structure. Topographically, the lot is relatively flat-lying. According to Google® Earth, average site elevation is about 25 feet.

GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on the subsurface conditions observed within the exploratory borings and review of readily available, pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature, it was determined that the area of the site investigated is generally underlain by old paralic deposits. These materials are described below:

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): Quaternary-age old paralic deposits were encountered underlying the site. The old paralic deposits exceeded the maximum exploration depth of approximately 20 feet below existing grade. These materials generally consisted of brown to reddish- brown, orangish-brown, and yellowish-brown, silty sand (SM). The old paralic deposits were loose to a depth of about 5 feet below grade, and increase in density from medium dense to very dense with depth. The old paralic deposits were damp to moist above the water table, and saturated below it. The old paralic deposits were judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI<20).

GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was encountered at approximately 17 feet and 18 feet below grade in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. In addition, a monitoring well was observed in the easterly portion of the site and the groundwater elevation was measured. The groundwater elevation within the monitoring well was measured to be at 18 feet below existing grade corresponding to the elevation in which we encountered groundwater in our borings. Cuts up to 14 feet are expected to accommodate the proposed basement level. It is our opinion that, unless deeper cuts are performed and except for shoring design and installation, groundwater will not significantly affect the proposed construction. However, it is our opinion that, for structural design purposes, the structure should be designed for a season high groundwater level at 16 feet below existing grade. It should be noted that variations in subsurface water (including perched water zones and seepage) may result from Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 4
fluctuations in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, precipitation, irrigation, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of the investigation. It should also be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur.

TECTONIC SETTING: No major faults are known to traverse the subject site. However, it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north-westerly direction. Some of the fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active, while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Geologic Survey. Active fault zones are characterized as having shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,700 years), while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,700 to 2.6 million years before the present), but no movement during Holocene time.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, as codified in the State of California Public Resources Code, requires the State Geologist to delineate special studies zones around Quaternary-age faults that are "sufficiently active and well-defined" as to be subject to surface rupture. Effective May 1, 2003, the State of California adopted five additional Alquist-Priolo (AP) Fault Zones within the city of Coronado and surrounding areas. The zones are located in the vicinity of the active faults identified within the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ). Although the site is located within the zone of influence of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone, it is not located within one of the AP zones.

The Coronado, Silver Strand, Spanish Bight faults, three en echelon wrench faults associated with the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, are located approximately ¼ mile east, ¾ mile east, and ¾ mile west of the site, respectively. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough and San Clemente Fault Zone to the west, the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest, and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 5

GENERAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
GENERAL: The site is located in an area where the risks of significant geologic hazards are relatively low.

No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude the construction of the subject project are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements.

SURFACE RUPTURE: No active or potentially active faults are known to underlie the subject site. As such, the site is not considered subject to surface rupture.

SLOPE STABILITY: As part of the investigation we reviewed the publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Area 2, which is considered to be "marginally susceptible" to slope failures. Based on our findings, the site topography, and the proposed construction, it is our opinion that the likelihood of slope stability related problems at the site is very low.

FLOODING: As delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), map No. 06073C1891H prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the site is in Zone X which is considered to be an "area of minimal flood hazard." Areas of minimal flood hazards are located outside of the boundaries of both the 100-year and 500-year flood zones.

TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption.

Historically, the San Diego area has been free of tsunami-related hazards and tsunamis reaching San Diego have generally been well within the normal tidal range. It is thought that the wide continental margin located off the coast acts to diffuse and reflect the wave energy of remotely generated tsunamis. The largest historical tsunami to reach San Diego's coast was 4.6 feet high, generated by the 1960 earthquake in Chile. A lack of knowledge of the offshore fault systems makes it difficult to assess the risk presented by locally generated tsunamis. According to the Tsunami Inundation Map For Emergency Planning (CGS, 2022) and the County of San Diego's Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (OES, 2023) the site is located outside the maximum tsunami projected run-up. Previous reports by tsunami researchers have indicated that that the runup height could be as high as approximately 13 to 15 feet. Considering that the site has an elevation of approximately 24 feet, there is a very low possibility that runup could occur at the subject site. Given this information and the site's location, the risk associated with tsunamis at the site is considered to be low.

However, the County of San Diego and the City of Coronado have developed a tsunami alert and evacuation Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 6
plan. The city has posted signs throughout the community showing routes of evacuation in the event of a tsunami warning, evacuation center locations, and the limits of tsunami hazard areas. The property owner should have an evacuation plan in place in the event of a tsunami warning.

SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs.

Due to the geology and configuration of the San Diego Bay, the site is considered to have a low risk potential for being affected by seiches.

LIQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENTS: Proposed construction indicates cuts of up to 14 feet below existing grade to accommodate proposed basement. As encountered in our subsurface explorations, at these elevations, blow counts during sampling utilizing a modified California split tube sampler indicate the old paralic deposits to be in a dense to very dense state and are therefore not considered potentially liquefiable. Based on our experience and the subsurface data from the relevant borings, it is our opinion that the materials of the old paralic deposits located immediately above and below the ground water table elevation are in a generally medium dense to very dense state. Based on this condition, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the subject site is relatively low.

LATERAL GROUND SPREADING: Another concern is the possible lateral ground spreading that could occur at the site. Lateral ground spreading can occur when the viscous liquefied soils flow downslope, usually towards a river channel or shoreline. The project area is located within about ½ mile of the Pacific Ocean and is relatively gently sloping. Based on this condition, the relatively level hydraulic gradient that is expected across the project area, and the shallow depth of the Ocean shelf, it is our opinion that if liquefaction were to occur during an earthquake, the site will likely experience only minor lateral movement towards the Pacific Ocean.

CLAYS AND CYCLIC SOFTENING: Cyclic softening is a term used to describe the development of significant strains or strength loss during a seismic event within fine-grained soils that exhibit clay-like behavior. These strains or strength loss can lead to differential settlement. It is our professional opinion that due to the predominantly sandy nature of the foundation-bearing soils, the risk of cyclic softening of fine- grained soils during a seismic event is considered negligible.

OTHER POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: Other potential geologic hazards due to volcanoes or seismic-induced settlement should be considered negligible or nonexistent.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 7

CONCLUSIONS
In general, it is our professional opinion and judgment that the subject property is suitable for the construction of the proposed project, provided the recommendations presented herein are fully implemented.

The main geotechnical condition affecting the proposed project consists of potentially compressible old paralic deposits underlying the site, proposed basement excavation, and groundwater.

As encountered in our borings, potentially compressible old paralic deposits underlie the site to a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade. Deeper compressible soils may exist in areas of the site not investigated.

These soils are considered unsuitable, in their present condition, for the support of settlement sensitive improvements. It is recommended that the potentially compressible soils underlying settlement sensitive improvements not removed to achieve finish pad grade be removed and replaced as compacted fill as described hereinafter.

It is anticipated that most of the temporary excavations associated with basement construction will require shoring.

Groundwater was encountered at approximately 17 feet and 18 feet below grade in borings B-1 and B-2, respectively. Cuts up to 14 feet are expected to accommodate the proposed basement level. It is our opinion that, unless deeper cuts are performed and except for shoring design and installation, groundwater will not significantly affect the proposed construction. However, it is our opinion that, for structural design purposes, the structure should be designed for a season high groundwater level at 16 feet below existing grade.

RECOMMENDATIONS

GRADING AND EARTHWORK
GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the current edition of the California Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Coronado, and the recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report.

PREGRADE MEETING: It is recommended that a pregrade meeting including the grading contractor, the client, and a representative from Christian Wheeler Engineering be performed, to discuss the recommendations of this report and address any issues that may affect grading operations.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 8
OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein.

CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the demolition of the existing garage and associated improvements. The resulting debris and any existing vegetation and other deleterious materials in areas to receive proposed improvements or new fill soils should be removed from the site.

SITE PREPARATION: It is recommended that loose, potentially compressible old paralic deposits underlying the proposed settlement sensitive improvements be removed. Based on our findings, these materials extended to a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade. However, deeper removals may be necessary in areas of the site not investigated or due to unforeseen conditions. Lateral removals limits should extend at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed improvements. No removals are recommended within 2 feet from property lines. All excavated areas should be approved by the geotechnical engineer or his representative prior to replacing any of the excavated soils. The excavated materials can be replaced as properly compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Compaction and Method of Filling" section of this report.

SPECIAL CONDITION: Removals along property lines and near existing improvements to remain will be limited. Special grading procedures such as slot excavations or shoring may be needed in these areas. This condition will be evaluated and recommendations provided as need during the grading operations.

PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, watered thoroughly, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

IMPORTED FILL: Imported fill soils may be necessary for retaining wall backfill. Imported fill should consist of low expansive (El between 21 to 50) silty sands or clayey sands free of rocks or lumps over 3 inches in maximum dimension. Imported fill should be approved by this office prior to delivery to the site in order to establish compatibility with the on-site soils and project requirements. Laboratory tests will be needed prior to import fill approval. A minimum 5 business days lead time should be assumed.

COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: In general, all structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum laboratory dry density as determined Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 9
by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of 3 inches in maximum dimension.

Utility trench backfill within 5 feet of the proposed structure and beneath all concrete flatwork or pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density.

SURFACE DRAINAGE: The drainage around the proposed improvements should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed improvements toward appropriate drainage facilities. Rain gutters with downspouts that discharge runoff away from the structure into controlled drainage devices are recommended.

The ground around the proposed improvements should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the improvements without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to structure slope away at a gradient of at least 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If the minimum distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative method of drainage runoff away from the building at the termination of the 5 percent slope will need to be used. Swales and impervious surfaces that are located within 10 feet of the building should have a minimum slope of 2 percent. It is essential that new and existing drainage patterns be coordinated to produce proper drainage. Pervious hardscape surfaces adjacent to structures should be similarly graded.

Drainage patterns provided at the time of construction should be maintained throughout the life of the proposed improvements. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscape growth. Over watering should be avoided. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, zones of wet or saturated soil may develop.

TEMPORARY SLOPES: Temporary cut slopes up to about 14 feet (including the foundation excavation) are anticipated for the construction of the subject project. It is anticipated that most of the slopes will be shored. It is recommended that the location of proposed unshored temporary cut slopes be reviewed by our office. Unshored temporary cut slopes should be excavated at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. It should be recognized that flatter inclinations could be required for wet or saturated soils or cohesionless sands. Deep, temporary confined excavations, such as for underground utility trenches, should use sloping sides, shoring, or "trench boxes" during construction, or any other approved construction Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 10
technique to assure stability of the excavations. Our firm should be contacted to observe all unshored cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as soil or equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. Where there is not room to construct temporary slopes, temporary or permanent shoring of the excavation sides will be necessary. Specific design criteria for shoring are presented in the "Shoring" section of this report.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor's "competent person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

TEMPORARY SHORING
GENERAL: Shoring may be necessary for the proposed construction. It is anticipated that the shoring system will utilize soldier beams with wooden lagging. The following design parameters may be assumed to calculate earth pressures on shoring.

TABLE I: TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN PARAMETERS
Soil Type Loose Old Paralic Deposits (0-5) Old Paralic Deposits (Below 5) Angle of friction 28° 32°
Apparent cohesion N/A 100 pounds per square foot
Soil unit weight 110 pounds per cubic foot (pct) 121 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) * *Buoyant Weight Below Groundwater Table
Active pressures can be applied to shoring that is capable of rotating 0.002 radians. At-rest pressures should be applied to a shoring system that is unyielding and not able to rotate. These values do not include surcharge loads. Construction surcharge loads should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Vertical and lateral movements of the temporary shoring are expected to be small assuming an adequate lateral support system.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 11
DRILLING CONDITIONS: Loose soils should be anticipated to a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater should be anticipated at a depth of about 17 feet below existing site grades.

MONITORING: Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of the soldier piles approximately every 50 lineal feet. We will need to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized.

FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgment, the proposed structure and associated improvements may be supported by conventional shallow continuous and isolated spread footings. The following minimum recommendations are based on the anticipated soil conditions, and are not intended to be in lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified engineer.

DIMENSIONS: Conventional footings supporting the proposed structure should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. Conventional footings supporting light on-grade light exterior miscellaneous improvements should have a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Retaining wall footings should be at least 24 inches wide.

LIMITED GRADING FOUNDATIONS: It is recommended that the bottom of footings in areas where the recommended site preparations are limited due to existing improvements or along property lines be moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent of its maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Compaction should be confirmed by performing in-place density tests. In addition, these footings should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

BEARING CAPACITY: Continuous footings supporting the proposed structure with a minimum embedment of 18 inches and a minimum width of 18 inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value may be increased by 500 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of embedment and 400 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width up to a maximum of 5,000 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings supporting the proposed light exterior improvements with a minimum embedment of 12 inches and a minimum width of 18 inches may be designed Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 12
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The bearing values may also be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads.

FOOTING REINFORCEMENT: The project structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for foundations. However, based on soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings should consist of at least 2 No. 5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and 2 No. 5 bars positioned near the top of the footing.

LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and fill material may be considered to be 0.30. The passive resistance for the fill may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third.

SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential footing static settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and 1 inch in 40 feet, respectively, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements.

EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated foundation soils are anticipated to have a very low expansion potential (EI<20). The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition.

FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All footing excavations should be observed by CWE personnel prior to placing of forms and reinforcing steel in order to determine whether the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed, and that the foundation-bearing soils are present in a condition anticipated during the preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated in a neat, level, and square manner. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.

FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The final foundation plan and accompanying details and notes should be submitted to this office for review. The intent of our review will be to verify that the plans used for construction reflect the minimum dimensioning and reinforcing criteria presented in this section, and that no additional criteria are required due to changes in the foundation type or layout. It is not our intent to review structural plans, notes, details, or calculations to verify that the design engineer has correctly applied the geotechnical Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 13
design values. It is the responsibility of the design engineer to properly design the foundations and other structural elements, based on the requirements of the structure, and considering the information presented in this report.

SOLUBLE SULFATES: The water-soluble sulfate content of a selected soil sample from the site was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. The results of this test indicate that the soil sample had a soluble sulfate content of <0.003 percent. Soils with a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent are considered to have a negligible potential for causing adverse effects on concrete and structural steel materials of the proposed footings. Therefore, no special requirements are considered necessary for the concrete mix design.

It should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If a corrosivity analysis is considered necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. The results of our corrosion testing should only be used as a guideline to determine if additional testing and analysis is necessary.

SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS
The seismic design factors applicable to the subject site are provided below. The seismic design factors were determined in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented in the following Table II.

TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS
Site Coordinates: Latitude 32.686°
Longitude 117.179°
Site Class D
Site Coefficient Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient Fr 1.794
Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods Ss 1.512 g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second Period S, 0.506 g SMS=F.SS 1.512 g
SMI =F,S, 0.908 g
SDs=2/3*SMs 1.008 g
SD1=2/3*SM1 0.605 g
Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 14
Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements.

SLAB-ON-GRADE
GENERAL: It is our understanding that the floor system for the proposed structure will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade. The following minimum slab-on-grade recommendations are based on the encountered soil conditions and are not intended to be used in lieu of structural considerations. These recommendations assume that the site preparation recommendations contained in this report are fully implemented.

INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The garage slab-on-grade should be designed to be at least 4 inches thick (actual), and reinforced with at a minimum No. 3 bars spaced at 18 inches on center in each direction. Slab- on-grade reinforcement should be supported on chairs, such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid- height within the floor slab. The slab-on-grade reinforcement should extend into the perimeter footings to a depth of at least 6 inches.

UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: The following recommendations apply to conventional slabs-on- grade. Steps should be taken to minimize the transmission of moisture vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially damage the interior floor coverings. Local industry standards typically include placement of a vapor retarder, such as polyethylene sheeting, in a layer of coarse sand placed directly beneath the concrete slab. Two inches of sand are typically placed above the sheeting. Stegowrap® polyethylene sheeting with the thickness of 15-millimeters should be considered as the minimum recommended material to be used as a vapor retarder. The 15-millimeter thickness Stegowrap® or a similar material with sealed seams should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the interior and perimeter footings. The sand should have a sand equivalent number of at least 30, and contain less than 10% material passing the No. 100 sieve, and less than 5% material passing the No. 200 sieve. The vapor retarder should be placed in accordance with the recommendation and consideration contained within American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication No. 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction" and ASTM standard E1643, "Standards Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs." It is the flooring contractor's responsibility to place floor coverings in accordance with the flooring manufacturer specifications.

EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK: Exterior concrete slabs on grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 15
(ocew). Driveway slabs should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars placed at 12 inches ocew. Driveway slabs should be provided with a thickened edge a least 12 inches deep and 6 inches wide. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special attention should be paid to the method of concrete curing to reduce the potential for excessive shrinkage cracking. It should be recognized that minor cracks occur normally in concrete slabs due to shrinkage. Some shrinkage cracks should be expected and are not necessarily an indication of excessive movement or structural distress.

EARTH RETAINING WALLS
FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for any proposed retaining walls should be constructed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented previously in this report.

PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the anticipated foundation soils may be considered to be 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The upper foot of embedment should be neglected when calculating passive pressures, unless the foundation abuts a hard surface such as a concrete slab. The passive pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The cofficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.30 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third.

ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 40 and 59 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values are based on a drained backfill condition.

Seismic lateral earth pressures may be assumed to equal an inverted triangle starting at the bottom of the wall with the maximum pressure equal to 13H pounds per square foot (where H = wall height in feet) occurring at the top of the wall.

WATERPROOFING AND WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: The need for waterproofing should be evaluated by others. If required, the project architect should provide (or coordinate) waterproofing details for the retaining walls. The design values presented above are based on a drained backfill condition and do not consider hydrostatic pressures. The retaining wall designer should provide a detail for a wall drainage system.

Typical retaining wall drain system details will be presented in Plate No. 3 for informational purposes.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 16
Additionally, outlet points for the retaining wall drain system should be coordinated with the project civil engineer.

BACKFILL: Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength.

LIMITATIONS

REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist for review and verification of compliance with this report and the California Building Code.

It is recommended that CWE be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the carthwork operations in order to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations, and to allow for design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction.

UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations. The recommendations are also based on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered during subsurface investigation. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer for evaluation of compliance with the recommendations contained herein.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 17

CHANGE IN SCOPE
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum.

TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man at this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us in order to verify the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.

PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality.

The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.

CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
It is the responsibility of the Client, or its representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to ensure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Page No. 18

FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Two subsurface explorations were excavated on March 27, 2024 at the locations indicated on the Site Plan and Geotechnical Map attached as Plate No. 1. These explorations consisted of borings drilled utilizing a portable drill rig. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel.

The subsurface explorations were logged during excavation activities. The logs are presented in Appendix A.

The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS). In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture, and the density or consistency is provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard.

Relatively undisturbed drive samples were collected using a modified California sampler. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin, brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. 'The driving weight is permitted to fall freely. The number of blows per foot of driving, or as indicated, are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the sampled materials. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, and sealed. Relatively undisturbed chunk samples and bulk samples of the earth materials encountered were also collected. Samples were transported to our laboratory for testing.

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted ASTM testing methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed and the subsequent results are presented in Appendix B.

Attachment 1
Coror
Chabad
Qop Qop
Groundwater monitoring well.

Groundwater at 18'

PROPOSED TWO
archi

STRUCTURE
B-1 FF Elev: 26.5
A A
chris

CWE LEGEND
• B-2 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
Note: Minor fills and landscape topsoil not mapped
Oop
Existing Site Plan
Tenth Street A1
20 40
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 20'

CHABAD CORONADO
970 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA W
SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP DATE: MAY 2024 TREPORT NO.: 2230388.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER PLATE NO.: ENGINEERING
BY: JMM
Attachment 1
N64°W A'
80 PL PL
- Proposed 2-Story Over Basement Structure Envelope
60 40

ELEVATION (FEET) L
20 Qop
Oop Oop
-20
20 10 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

RELATIVE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FEET)

CWE LEGEND
Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
...I. GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
Note: Minor fills and landscape topsoil not shown on cross section 0 SCALE: 1" = 20'

CHABAD CORONADO
970 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CARRIA W
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' DATE: REPORT NO.: 2230388.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER PLATE NO: ENGINEERING
BY: IMM 2
Attachment 1
6" MIN.
12" MIN.

Me
3 4.0

DETAIL DETAIL
2 6" MIN. 6" MIN.

4.-
4 DETAIL DETAIL
3 4

NOTES AND DETAILS
GENERAL NOTES:
1) THE NEED FOR WATERPROOFING SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY OTHERS. 2) WATERPROOFING TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS (CWE CAN PROVIDE A DESIGN IF REQUESTED). 3) EXTEND DRAIN TO SUITABLE DISCHARGE POINT PER CIVIL ENGINEER. 4) DO NOT CONNECT SURFACE DRAINS TO SUBDRAIN SYSTEM.

DETAILS:
4-INCH PERFORATED PVC PIPE ON TOP OF FOOTING, HOLES UNDERLAY SUBDRAIN WITH AND CUT FABRIC BACK FROM POSITIONED DOWNWARD (SDR 35, SCHEDULE 40, OR EQUIVALENT). DRAINAGE PANELS AND WRAP FABRIC AROUND PIPE. 2) ¾ INCH OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED AGGREGATE. COLLECTION DRAIN (TOTAL DRAIN OR EQUIVALENT)

LOCATED AT BASE OF WALL DRAINAGE PANEL PER
3 GEOFARBRIC WRAPPED COMPLETELY AROUND ROCK. MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL.

WALL DRAINAGE PANELS (MIRADRAIN OR EQUIVALENT)
PLACED PER MANUFACTURER'S REC'S.

CHABAD CORONADO
970 C AVENUE

CANTILEVER CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DATE: MAY 2024 REPORT NO.: 2230388.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER

ENGINEERING
BY: JMM PLATE NO.: 3
Attachment 1
Appendix A
Subsurface Explorations
Sample Type anAttachmeht fegend
LOG OF BORING B-1
PT Standard Penetration Test DR Driv
ST Shelby Tube
Date Logged: 3/27/24 Equipment: IR A 300
MD Max Density Con Consolation
Logged By: JMM 8" hollow stem SO, Soluble Sulfates Con
Auger Type: SA Sieve Analysis Expansion Index
Existing Elevation: ₺25' HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value Drive Type: 140lbs/30" drop Sand Equivalent Chl Soluble Chlorides Finish Elevation: +11' Depth to Water: 17' 1 Plasticity Ind Collapse Potent
ELEVATION (ft) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PENETRATION DEPTH (ft) GRAPHIC LOG USCS SYMBOL (based on Unified Soil Classification System) (blows per foot) SAMPLE TYPE MOISTURE CONTENT (%) BEASTY COMPACTION LABORATORY

BULK DRY TESTS
4" AC, no base
1 SM Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Brown to reddish-brown, damp to moist, loose, SILTY SAND, no cementation.
12 Cal 7.2 100.2
3-
Reddish-brown to orangish-brown to yellowish-brown, mottled, medium dense. 6-
33 Cal 9.8 109.6
10-
SO4
11 12
13 Reddish-brown to light gray to orangish-brown, very dense. 14 71 Cal 7.3 97.6 CP
15 16
Gray, saturated. Groundwater at 17'. SA
17 18
19 —
57 Cal 29.7 | 92.0
20-

21. 22
23 24
Notes:

Symbol Legend CHABAD CORONADO
Groundwater Level During Drilling 970 C AVENUE
Groundwater Level After Drilling CORONADO, CALIFORNIA
Apparent Seepage
DATE: MAY 2024 JOBNO.: 2230388.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER
No Sample Recovery

ENGINEERING
** rocks presentative Blow Count BY: SD APPENDIX: A-1
Sample Type anAttachmeht fegend
LOG OF BORING B-2
ST Standard Pentation Test DR Dru rive Ri
ST Shelby Tube
Date Logged: 3/27/24 Equipment: IR A 300
MD Max Density S Direct Sher
Logged By: JMM 8" hollow stem SO, Soluble Sulfates on Consolidatio Auger Type: SA Sieve Analysis EI Expansion Index
Existing Elevation: ₺25' R-Val Resistance Value
Drive Type: 140lbs/30" drop Chl Soluble Chlorides
Finish Elevation: +11' Depth to Water: 18'
ELEVATION (ft) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS PENETRATION CONTENT (%) DEPTH (ft) GRAPHIC LOG USCS SYMBOL (based on Unified Soil Classification System) (blows per foot) SAMPLE TYPE MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIVE COMPACTION LABORATORY BULK DRY (pct) TESTS
5" landscape topsoil
1- SM
Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Reddish-brown to brown, damp to moist, loose, SILTY SAND, no cementation.
3-
11 Cal 10.1 99.8
Reddish-brown to orangish-brown to yellowish-brown, mottled, medium dense. 6-
8-
Dense. 6.1 CP
39 Cal | 97.6
10-
11 12
13 Yellowish-brown to light gray to orangish-brown, very dense. 14 78 Cal 11.5 | 93.0 DS
15 16
17 Groundwater at 18'.
18 19 - 57 Cal 28.9 - 91.4
20- Bottom at 19.5 feet.

Groundwater encountered at 18 feet.

21. Caved at 15 feet.
22 23
24 Notes:

Symbol Legend CHABAD CORONADO
Groundwater Level During Drilling 970 C AVENUE
Groundwater Level After Drilling CORONADO, CALIFORNIA
Apparent Seepage JOBNO.:

DATE: MAY 2024 2230388.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER
No Sample Recovery

ENGINEERING
** Nons presentative Blow Count BY: SD APPENDIX: A-2
Attachment 1
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
Attachment 1
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below:
a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for selected soil samples in accordance with ATM D 2937. The results are summarized in the boring logs presented in Appendix A.
c) DIRECT SHEAR: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 3080.
d) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D 422.
e) COLLAPSE POTENTIAL: Collapse potential tests were performed on selected undisturbed soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 5333.
f) SOLUBLE SULFATES: The soluble sulfate content of a selected soil sample was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417.

CHATO CAVENDADO LAB SUMMARY

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN WHEELER

ENGINEERING
BY: DBA DATE: MAY 2024 REPORT NO.-2230388.01 APPENDIX B: B-1 Attachment 1

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

CHABAD CORONADO
270 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA
DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080)
ample Locatior Boring B-2 @ 4' Boring B-2 @ 15'
Undisturbed Undisturbed
ricion Tel 28°
Cohesion 200 pst 100 psf
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D422)
Sample Location Boring B-1 @ 15-18 Boring B-2 @ ½-2½'
Sieve Size Percent Passing Percent Passing
#4 100 100
#8 100 100
#16 100 100
#30 98 98
#50 95 91
#100 68 57
#200 22 29
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL (ASTM D 5333)
Sample Location Boring B-1 @ 15' Boring B-2 @ 10'
Initial Moisture Content 7.3% 6.1%
Initial Density 97.6 pcf 97.9 pcf
Consolidation Before Water Added 1.3% 1.3%
Consolidation After Water Added 1.7% 1.6%
Final Moisture 24.1% 22.8%
SOLUBLE SULFATES (CALIFORNIA TEST 417)
Sample Location Boring B-1 @ 10-13'
Soluble Sulfate <0.003% (SO4)
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix B: B-2
Attachment 1
Appendix C
References
Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix C-1

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers; ASCE 7 Hazard Tool; https://asce7hazardtool.online California Geological Survey; 2010; Fault Activity Map of California; https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Dataviewer/
California Geological Survey; 2018; Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California; Special Publication 42.

California Geologic Survey, California Tsunami Maps and Data, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps
California Geological Survey; 2022; Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation; https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ Christian Rice Architects, Inc., Miscellaneous Architectural Plans, Chabad of Coronado, 970 C Avenue, Coronado, California, 92118, dated May 23, 2023.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 06073C1891H, effective December 20, 2019.

Graehl, N.G.; and Wilson, R.I.; 2022; Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Diego County; produced by the California Geological Survey and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services; dated 2022; displayed at multiple scales.

Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, Map No. 3.

Office of Emergency Services-Unified Disaster Council, San Diego County, 2010, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, dated August 2010.

Southern California Earthquake Data Center; 2023; Earthquake Information, Fault Name Index; https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/faults.html
Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix C-2
REFERENCES (continued)
Tan, S.S.; 1995; Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California; Relative Landslide Susceptibility and Landslide Distribution Map; Open File Report 95- 03; Map No. 33; Plate D.

United States Geological Survey; 2017; Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States; https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults.

Attachment 1
Appendix D
Recommended Grading Specifications - General Provisions Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix D, Page D-1

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHABAD CORONADO
270 C AVENUE

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

GENERAL INTENT
The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing and grubbing of the site area, compacting of the natural ground, preparing of areas for fill placement, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer.

OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations.

If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix D, Page D-2
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:

Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D1557 Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D1556 or ASTM D6938
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures.

PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of.

All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris.

After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density.

When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.

The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above-described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.

This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.

Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix D, Page D-3
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer.

FILL MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site.

PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report.

When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable.

Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix D, Page D-4
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained.

Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable.

Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.

If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer.

CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary.

Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency.

ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
Attachment 1
CWE 2230388.01 May 9, 2024 Appendix D, Page D-5
Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction.

SEASON LIMITS
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work.

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with ASTM D4829.

OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material are provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve.

TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required.

Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
1/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
2/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
3/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
4 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
6 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Chabad of Coronado
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency City of Coronado
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 20.0
Location 32.68570824529711, -117.1788559417891
County San Diego
City Coronado
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6453
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.24

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq Special Landscape Population Description ft) Area (sq ft)
7/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Place of Worship 26.8 1000sgft 0.32 26,806 1,050 - - -

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG IROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E | PM2.5D PM2.5TBCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R coze Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 25.0 25.0 13.4 13.2 0.02 0.58 5.54 6.12 0.53 2.63 3.16 - 2,691 2,691 0.12 0.10 1.47 2,724 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 1.80 1.49 13.4 13.1 0.02 0.58 5.54 6.12 0.53 2.63 3.16 - 2,684 2,684 0.12 0.10 0.04 2,716 Average - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.88 0.79 4.12 4.73 0.01 0.17 1.05 1.22 0.16 0.48 0.64 - 959 959 0.04 0.03 0.21 968 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Max)
Unmit. 0.16 0.14 0.75 0.86 < 0.005 0.03 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.09 0.12 - 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 160 Exceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Daily
Max)
Threshol - 75.0 250 550 250 - 100 - 55.0 - - - -
d
Unmit. - No No No No - No - No - - - - - - -
8/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Exceeds - - - - - -
(Average
Daily)
Threshol - 75.0 250 550 250 - - 100 55.0 - - - - - - -
d l
Unmit. - No No No No No No - - - -

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R coze Daily - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
2025 25.0 25.0 13.4 13.2 0.02 0.58 5.54 6.12 0.53 2.63 3.16 - 2,691 2,691 0.12 0.10 1.47 2,724 Daily - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
2025 1.80 1.49 13.4 13.1 0.02 0.58 5.54 6.12 0.53 2.63 3.16 - 2,684 2,684 0.12 0.10 0.04 2,716 Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
2025 0.88 0.79 4.12 4.73 0.01 0.17 1.05 1.22 0.16 0.48 0.64 - 959 959 0.04 0.03 0.21 968 Annual - - - - - - - - - -
2025 0.16 0.14 0.75 0.86 < 0.005 0.03 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.09 0.12 - 159 159 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 160

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 co2T CH4 N20 coze Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
9/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Unmit. 1.34 1.26 0.63 4.85 0.01 0.03 0.73 0.76 0.03 0.19 0.22 84.0 1,237 1,321 8.49 0.04 2.98 1,548 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 1.12 1.06 0.65 3.47 0.01 0.03 0.73 0.76 0.03 0.19 0.21 84.0 1,194 1,278 8.49 0.04 0.18 1,503 Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 1.03 0.98 0.51 2.76 0.01 0.03 0.44 0.46 0.03 0.11 0.14 84.0 876 960 8.47 0.03 0.85 1,181 Annual - - - - - - - -
(Max)
Unmit. 0.19 0.18 0.09 0.50 < 0.005 <0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 13.9 145 159 1.40 < 0.005 0.14 195 Exceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Daily
Max)
Threshol - 75.0 250 550 250 - - 100 - 55.0 - - -
d
Unmit. - No No No No - No - - No - - - - -
Exceeds - - - - - - - - -
(Average
Daily)
Threshol - 75.0 250 550 250 - 100 - 55.0 - - - - - -
d
Unmit. No No No No - - No - - No - - - - - - -

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R Coze Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 0.49 0.45 0.33 3.44 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.19 0.19 - 855 855 0.04 0.03 2.87 869 10/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Area 0.82 0.80 0.01 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 4.79 4.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.81 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 376 376 0.05 < 0.005 - 379 Water - - - - - - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 <0.005 - 7.64
Waste - - - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 - 288
Refrig. - - 0.10 0.10
Total 1.34 1.26 0.63 4.85 0.01 0.03 0.73 0.76 0.03 0.19 0.22 84.0 1,237 1,321 8.49 0.04 2.98 1,548 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 0.48 0.44 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.19 0.19 - 817 817 0.04 0.03 0.07 828 Area 0.61 0.61 - - - -
Energy 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 376 376 0.05 < 0.005 - 379 Water - - - - - - - - - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 < 0.005 - 7.64 Waste - - - - - - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 - 288
Refrig. - - 0.10 0.10
Total 1.12 1.06 0.65 3.47 0.01 0.03 0.73 0.76 0.03 0.19 0.21 84.0 1,194 1,278 8.49 0.04 0.18 1,503 Average - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Mobile 0.29 0.26 0.22 1.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 - 496 496 0.02 0.02 0.75 504 Area 0.71 0.70 < 0.005 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 2.37 Energy 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 376 376 0.05 < 0.005 379 Water - - - - - - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 < 0.005 - 7.64
Waste - - - - - - - - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 - 288
Refrig. - - - - - - - - - 0.10 0.10
Total 1.03 0.98 0.51 2.76 0.01 0.03 0.44 0.46 0.03 0.11 0.14 84.0 876 960 8.47 0.03 0.85 1,181 Annual - - - - - - -
Mobile 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 - 82.2 82.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 83.4 Area 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.39 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 62.3 62.3 0.01 < 0.005 - 62.7 11 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Water - - - 0.27 0.12 0.38 0.03 < 0.005 1.27
Waste - - - - - - - - - 13.6 0.00 13.6 1.36 0.00 - 47.7 Refrig. - - - - - - - - - - 0.02 0.02
Total 0.19 0.18 0.09 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 13.9 145 159 1.40 < 0.005 0.14 195

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG PM10E PM10D PM2.5T BC02 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R coze Onsite - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - -
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.56 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 - 0.16 0.14 - 0.14 - 852 852 0.03 0.01 - 855 Equipment
Demolitio - - - 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.07 - - -
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Off-Road 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005- 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.4 Equipment
Demolitio - - - - - - 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 - - - - - - Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
12/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Annual - - - - - - - - -
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 3.87 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 3.88 Equipment
Demolitio - - - - - < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - - - - Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 - 89.6 89.6 <0.005 < 0.005 0.01 90.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.56 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 - 410 410 0.02 0.06 0.02 430 Average - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 <0.005- 2.48 2.48 < 0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 2.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.8 Annual - - -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 <0.005 - 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling <0.005 < 0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.86 1.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R coze 13 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Onsite - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.56 0.47 4.16 5.57 0.01 0.21 - 0.21 0.20 - 0.20 859 859 0.03 0.01 - 862 Equipment
Dust - - 0.53 0.53 - 0.06 0.06 - - - - -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 — 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 11.8 Equipment
Dust - - - 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 - - - - -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual - - - - - - - - - -
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.95 Equipment
Dust - < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - - - - -
- - - - < 0.005 -- -
-
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite - - - - - - - - - - - -
14/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Daily, - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Daily, - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 45.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 0.62 <0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.63 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual - -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 co2T CH4 N20 coze Onsite - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.71 1.43 12.8 12.4 0.02 0.57 - 0.57 0.52 - 0.52 - 2,100 2,100 0.09 0.02 - 2,108 Equipment
15/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Dust - 5.32 5.32 - 2.57 2.57 - - - - - - -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily, - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 1.71 1.43 12.8 12.4 0.02 0.57 - 0.57 0.52 0.52 - 2,100 2,100 0.09 0.02 - 2,108 Equipment
Dust - - - - 5.32 5.32 - 2.57 2.57 - - - - - -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Off-Road 0.30 0.25 2.27 2.20 < 0.005 0.10 - 0.10 0.09 - 0.09 - 374 374 0.02 < 0.005 — 375 Equipment
Dust - - - - 0.95 0.95 - 0.46 0.46 - - - -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Off-Road 0.06 0.05 0.41 0.40 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 61.9 61.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 62.1 Equipment
Dust - - - 0.17 0.17 - 0.08 0.08 - - - - - - -
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
16/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Offsite - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 0.44 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.62 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 - 472 472 0.03 0.07 1.03 496 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 112 112 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 113 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.64 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 - 472 472 0.03 0.07 0.03 495 Average - - - - - - - -
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 - 84.1 84.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 88.2 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 _- 3.33 3.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.6

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R C02e Onsite - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
17/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Off-Road 0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 - 0.22 0.20 0.20 - 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 - 1,309 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily, - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Off-Road 0.17 0.14 1.41 1.90 < 0.005 0.06 - 0.06 0.05 - 0.05 - 357 357 0.01 < 0.005 359 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual - - - - - - - - - - - -
Off-Road 0.03 0.03 0.26 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 59.2 59.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 59.4 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 - 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 108 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 - 110 110 < 0.005 0.02 0.29 115 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - - - - - -
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 27.9 27.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.1 30.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Annual - - - - - - - -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.62 4.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.68 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.99 4.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.21 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Onsite - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.61 0.51 4.37 5.31 0.01 0.19 - 0.19 0.18 - 0.18 - 823 823 0.03 0.01 - 826 Equipment
Paving 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - -
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 11.3 Equipment
Paving 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - -
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual - - - - - - - - -
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 <0.005 - < 0.005 - 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.87 Equipment
Paving 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)

0.08 0.07 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.03 166 166 0.01 0.01 0.62 169 Worker 0.00 -
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 <0.005 - 2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R co2e Onsite - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
20 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Off-Road 0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Equipment
Architect 24.9 24.9 - - - - - - - - -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily, - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005- 1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 1.84 Equipment
Architect 0.34 0.34 - - - - - - - - -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual - - - - - - - - - - -
-
Off-Road < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.30 Equipment
Architect 0.06 0.06 - - - - - - - - - -
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 21.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Daily, - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Average - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual - - - -
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOX cO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R C02e Use
Daily, - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Place of 0.49 0.45 0.33 3.44 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.19 0.19 - 855 855 0.04 0.03 2.87 869 Worship
Total 0.49 0.45 0.33 3.44 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.19 0.19 - 855 855 0.04 0.03 2.87 869 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
22/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Place of 0.48 0.44 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.19 0.19 - 817 817 0.04 0.03 0.07 828 Worship
Total 0.48 0.44 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.74 0.01 0.19 0.19 - 817 817 0.04 0.03 0.07 828 Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Place of 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 - 82.2 82.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 83.4 Worship
Total 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 - 82.2 82.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 83.4

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Use
Daily, - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Place of - - - - - - - - - - - 29.7 29.7 0.02 < 0.005 - 31.1 Worship
Total - 29.7 29.7 0.02 < 0.005 - 31.1
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Place of - - 29.7 29.7 0.02 < 0.005 - 31.1
Worship
Total - - - - - - - - - 29.7 29.7 0.02 < 0.005 - 31.1
Annual - - - - - - - -
Place of - - - - - - - - - 4.92 4.92 < 0.005 <0.005 - 5.14 Worship
Total - 4.92 4.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 5.14
23 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBC02 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Use
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Place of 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 0.02 - 347 347 0.03 < 0.005 - 348 Worship
Total 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 347 347 0.03 < 0.005 - 348 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Place of 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 347 347 0.03 < 0.005 - 348 Worship
Total 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.24 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 347 347 0.03 < 0.005 - 348 Annual - - - - - - - - - -
Place of 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005- < 0.005 - 57.4 57.4 0.01 < 0.005 - 57.6 Worship
Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005- < 0.005- 57.4 57.4 0.01 <0.005 - 57.6

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 C02T CH4 N20 R Coze Daily, - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
24 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Consum 0.57 0.57 - - - - - - - -
er
Products
Architect 0.03 0.03 - - - - - - -
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.21 0.19 0.01 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 4.79 4.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 4.81 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.82 0.80 0.01 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.79 4.79 < 0.005 <0.005- 4.81 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Consum 0.57 0.57 - - - - - - - - - - - -
er
Products
Architect 0.03 0.03 - - - - - - - - -
ural
Coatings
Total 0.61 0.61 - - - - - - - - - -
Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Consum 0.10 0.10 - - - - - - - - -
er
Products
Architect 0.01 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - -
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 0.39 0.39 <0.005 <0.005 - 0.39 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.13 0.13 <0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - <0.005 - 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.39 25 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Use
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Place of — - - - - - - - - - - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 < 0.005 - 7.64 Worship
Total - - - - - - - - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 < 0.005 - 7.64 Daily, - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Place of - - - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 < 0.005 - 7.64
Worship
Total - 1.61 0.72 2.32 0.17 < 0.005 7.64
Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - -
lace of - - - - - - - - - 0.27 0.12 0.38 0.03 < 0.005 - 1.27 Norship
Total - - - - - - - - - - 0.27 0.12 0.38 0.03 <0.005 - 1.27

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) PM10E PM10D PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R coze Use
26/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Daily, - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Place of - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 - 288
Worship
Total - - - - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 - 288
Daily, - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Place of - - - - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 - 288
Worship
Total - 82.3 0.00 82.3 8.23 0.00 288
Annual -
Place of - - - - - 13.6 0.00 13.6 1.36 0.00 - 47.7
Worship
Total - - 13.6 0.00 13.6 1.36 0.00 - 47.7

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Use
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Place of — - - - - - - 0.10 0.10
Norship
Total - - - - - - - 0.10 0.10
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
27 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Place of - - - - 0.10 0.10
Worship
Total - - - - - - - 0.10 0.10
Annual - - - - - - - - - - -
Place of - 0.02 0.02
Worship
Total - - - - - 0.02 0.02

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total - - - -
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total - - - - - - - - - -
Annual - - - - - - -
Total - - - -

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 28/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Equipme TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Type
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Total - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Total - - - - - - -
Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - - - - - -

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 CO2e nt
Type
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Total - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Total - - - - - - - - - - - -
Annual - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - - - -
29 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio TOG PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D |PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Daily, - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Total - - - - - - - - - - -
Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - -
Winter
(Max)
Total - - - - - - -
Annual - - -
Total -

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R CO2e Use
Daily, - - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Total -
Daily, - -
Winter
(Max)
Total - - - - -
Annual - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - -
30 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (Ib/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (Ib/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N20 R coze Daily, - - - - - -
Summer
(Max)
Avoided - - - -
Subtotal - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ered
Subtotal - - - - - - - - -
Remove - - - - - -
d
Subtotal -
- -
Daily, -
Winter
(Max)
Avoided - -
Subtotal - - - -
Sequest - -
ered
Subtotal -
Remove - -
d
Subtotal -
- - -
Annual - - - - ||||
Avoided - - -
Subtotal - - - -
31 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Sequest -
Subtotal - - - - - - - -
Remove - - - - - -
Subtotal - - - - -
- - - - - - - -

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date |Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2025 1/15/2025 5.00 10.0 -
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/16/2025 1/22/2025 5.00 5.00 Grading Grading 1/23/2025 4/23/2025 5.00 65.0
Building Construction Building Construction 4/24/2025 9/10/2025 5.00 100 Paving Paving 9/11/2025 9/17/2025 5.00 5.00
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/18/2025 9/24/2025 5.00 5.00

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type [Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Saws
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 oes
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 32/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 oes
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 24.0 11.0 0.74
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 oes
Paving Cement and Mortar Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Mixers
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 oes
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition
Demolition Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor - 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 5.70 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck - HHDT
Site Preparation -
33 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor - 7.63 HHDT.MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck - - HHDT
Grading -
Grading Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA.LDT1.LDT2
Grading Vendor 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 6.57 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck - HHDT
Building Construction - -
Building Construction Worker 11.3 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.39 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck - - HHDT
Paving - -
Paving Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA, LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor - 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck - - HHDT
Architectural Coating -
Architectural Coating Worker 2.25 12.0 LDA.LDT1.LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor - 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck - HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
34 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated Residential Exterior Area Coated Non-Residential Interior Area Non-Residential Exterior Area Parking Area Coated (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 40,209 13,403 -

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Acres Paved (acres) Square Footage)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,874
Site Preparation 2.50 0.00
Grading 3,414 1.50 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Place of Worship 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (Ib/MVh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N20
35 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Place of Worship 23,776 460 1,036 1,036 228,107

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

0.00 40,209 13,403 -

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N20 and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 36 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N20 Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Place of Worship 240,541 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 1,082,004

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Place of Worship 838,730 15,691

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Place of Worship 153 -

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Place of Worship Household refrigerators R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00 and/or freezers
Place of Worship Other commercial AC R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 and heat pumps
Place of Worship Stand-alone retail R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and
freezers
Place of Worship Walk-in refrigerators R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 and freezers
37/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
38/45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 8.26 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.80 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 2.23 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score 39 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 N/A
Flooding N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 40 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators -
AQ-Ozone 29.9
AQ-PM 51.8
AQ-DPM 72.0
Drinking Water 24.7
Lead Risk Housing 26.8
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 53.6
Traffic 80.9
Effect Indicators -
CleanUp Sites 69.4
Groundwater 62.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 82.5
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 42.3
Sensitive Population -
Asthma 14.7
Cardio-vascular 3.43
Low Birth Weights 0.67
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators -
41 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Education 8.99
Housing 16.3
Linguistic 1.81
Poverty 19.4
Unemployment 17.1

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic
Above Poverty 90.23482613
Employed 39.71512896
Median HI 88.78480688
Education -
Bachelor's or higher 94.90568459
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 66.45707686
Transportation -
Auto Access 47.37585012
Active commuting 76.9665084
Social
2-parent households 14.56435262
Voting 97.38226614
Neighborhood -
Alcohol availability 50.63518542
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 65.43051456
42 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Supermarket access 80.5338124
Tree canopy 17.7210317
Housing -
Homeownership 66.6495573
Housing habitability 95.03400488
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.91428205 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 95.05966893
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes
Insured adults 59.70742974
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 88.8
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 66.2
Cognitively Disabled 52.2
Physically Disabled 50.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 98.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
43 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors -
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures -
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 77.4
Children 79.8
Elderly 4.6
English Speaking 92.4
Foreign-born 5.8
Outdoor Workers 69.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity -
Impervious Surface Cover 26.0
Traffic Density 52.5
Traffic Access 71.8
Other Indices
Hardship 11.9
Other Decision Support -
2016 Voting 94.8

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 5.00 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 85.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No 44 / 45
Attachment 1
Chabad of Coronado Detailed Report, 6/12/2024
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 26,806 sf building (including terraces and underground parking)

0.32 acres
1,050 sf landscaping
Operations: Vehicle Data Max weekday - 48 ADT, 1.79 trips/ksf Max weekend - 104 ADT, 4.03 trips/ksf
Construction: Construction Phases Site preparation phase extended to 5 days and grading phase extended to 3 months Construction: Off-Road Equipment Excavator added to grading phase Construction: Dust From Material Movement 3,414 cubic yards export 45 / 45
4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800 т
www.llgengineers.com
Pasadena
Irvine
San Diego

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ASSESSMENT

CHABAD OF CORONADO
970 C AVENUE
May 2024
LLG Ref. 3-24-3900
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:
4542 Ruffner Street
Amelia Giacalone John Boarman, P.E. Suite 100
Senior Transportation Planner Principal San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 т
858.300.8810 F
www.llgengineers.com
Attachment 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers has prepared this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Chabad of Coronado project (hereby referred to as the "Project"). The Project is proposed to be located at 970 C Avenue in the City of Coronado.

Project Description
The 970 C Avenue site is currently occupied by a one-story building containing a mixture of office, retail, and studio space. The Project proposes to construct in its place a two-story religious facility consisting of assembly space, a library, office space, a kitchen, and classroom space. As a result of the demolition and reconstruction of the existing lot, the Project will re-construct the access to the site along the alley located just west of the site.

The Project proposes to operate Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 9:30 PM and from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM on weekends. Amplified music will not be allowed on Friday evenings, all day Saturdays, or any holidays. A detailed operational schedule can be found in Appendix A. This operational schedule includes information regarding religious services, class schedules, and special annual events.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
VMT is defined as the "amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project" per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network as well as land uses in a region. VMT is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (roundtrip) travel and is estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.

Methodology
The City of Coronado does not have published guidelines for the preparation of VMT studies.

Therefore, this Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the transportation effects of the Project using the VMT metric based on guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018).

Project Trip Generation
Due to the unique nature of the Project's proposed land uses, a site-specific trip generation was estimated for each day of a typical week and for special events and holidays based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy shown in Appendix A. Special events will never conflict with larger Sabbath gatherings on Friday and Saturday or any other gatherings.

The trip generation calculations, summarized in Table 3-1, show that Tuesdays are expected to be the highest traffic generating "typical" day with 48 ADT followed by Sundays with 46 ADT.

Weddings/Receptions and Summer Camp are the highest generating special events, with 104 and 88 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
i 970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report 3900. VMT Report.docx Attachment 1
ADT, respectively. The trip generation tables for each of these four scenarios are shown in Tables 3- 2a through 3-2d, respectively.

It should be noted that trip generation calculations for Fridays, Saturdays, and some special events are likely overly conservative as the trips generated during those times are likely to be much lower.

The Project will serve members of the Orthodox Judaism community, most of whom generally don't drive on Jewish holidays, including Friday nights, Saturdays, and other major holidays.

Special events will never conflict with larger Sabbath gatherings on Friday and Saturday or any other gatherings.

VMT Assessment
Based on guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trip per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation (VMT) impact.

The Project is calculated to generate fewer than 110 ADT under all analyzed scenarios as shown in Table 3-1 and can therefore be presumed to have a less than significant transportation (VMT) impact.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report 13900. VMT Report.docx Attachment 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction...... ...4

1.1 VMT Background 4

2.0 Project Description .... 5

3.0 Project Trip Generation ... 9

4.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment.. 14

4.1 Methodology…... 14

4.2 VMT Assessment.. 14

5.0 Conclusions... ... 15

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Schedule of Operations and Events
B. Project Trip Generation Tables

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION-FIGURE # PAGE
Figure 2-1 Vicinity Map.... .. 6
Figure 2-2 Project Area Map ... 7
Figure 2-3 Project Site Plan 8

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION-TABLE# PAGE
Table 3-1 Project Trip Generation Summary..... ...9
Table 3-2a Project Trip Generation: Typical Tuesday 10
Table 3-2b Project Trip Generation: Typical Sunday.

Table 3-2c Project Trip Generation: Special Event - Weddings and Receptions. 12 Table 3-2d Project Trip Generation: Special Event - Summer Camp. 13 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LILG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronad
70 C Avenu
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report|3900. VMT Report.docx Attachment 1

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ASSESSMENT

CHABAD OF CORONADO
970 C AVENUE
May 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers has prepared this Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment for the Chabad of Coronado project (hereby referred to as the "Project"). The Project is proposed to be located at 970 C Avenue in the City of Coronado.

This Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the transportation effects of the Project using the VMT metric, as proposed by the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement California State Law Senate Bill (SB) 743. The analysis methodology contained in this report utilizes guidance from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and OPR's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018).

1.1 VMT Background
VMT is defined as the "amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project" per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network as well as land uses in a region. VMT is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (roundtrip) travel and is estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.

The potential transportation impacts of the proposed Project are based on VMT to satisfy the CEQA guidelines through SB 743. Public Resources Code section 20199, enacted pursuant to SB 743, identifies VMT as an appropriate metric for measuring transportation impacts along with the elimination of auto delay/ Level of Service (LOS) for CEQA purposes statewide, effective July 1, 2020. The justification for this paradigm shift is that auto delay/LOS impacts may lead to improvements that increase roadway capacity, which may ultimately induce more traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, constructing projects in VMT-efficient locations assists California in meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets. Therefore, consistent with SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, the CEQA significance determination for the Project is based only on VMT and not on LOS.
→
LINSCOTT, Law & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900' Chabad of Coronad
4 70 C Avenu
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report|3900. VMT Report.docx Attachment 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 970 C Avenue site is currently occupied by a one-story building containing a mixture of office, retail, and studio space. The Project proposes to construct in its place a two-story religious facility consisting of assembly space, a library, office space, a kitchen, and classroom space. As a result of the demolition and reconstruction of the existing lot, the Project will re-construct the access to the site along the alley located just west of the site.

Figure 2-1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 2-2 shows a more detailed Project area map. Figure 2-3 shows the Project site plan.

LINSCOTT, Law & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
5 970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report 3900. VMT Report.docx Attachment 1

OCEANSIDE
VISTA

SAN MARCOS ESCOND DO

CARLSBAD
merS.D.

COUNTY,

ENCINITAS
S.D. COUNTY S.D. COUNTY
(SOLANA

BEACH POWAY
67 805
52 SANTEE
SAN DIEGO 1525

EL CAJON
163
→ LA MESA
LEMON
-GROVE
94 CORONADO
NATIONAL 1
ITY AC 54
Project Site

CHULA VISTA
125
N: \3900\Figures
LINSCOTT Date: 5/2/2024 Figure 2-1
LAW & Time: 12:59 PM
GREENSPAN Vicinity Map
engineers CHABAD OF CORONADO
Attachment 1
• Coronado Ferry Center
Spreckels Pk
Orange Ave
Coronado
Project
Site
• Coronado Beach Coronado Municipal Golf Course
Hotel cel Coronado
Bluewater Boathouse Seafood Grill
LL Date: 05022- N:13900|Figures Figure 2-2
Project Area Map

CHABAD OF CORONADO
Attachment 1
5 GẢL. ET 5 GAL PAR
- BH ausomasic metal gste 15 GAL LA
BH mosa fanse snd asse senauria
-oh wood senod іM 80лй с
CMU wal
L)[ L)
"(0)0)0)4)0)0(2000(0)0(00(0)20(00)0
Bicsnilo
OLE Existing (3 Queen
15 GAL. DL alms on C Ave to
Drivsnsy Ramp 20% remain. Provide 6'-6'
105 Cutina of root
tree we s wi(z
bubblers per tree. (typ).
uante oi socal Archtettural
prolecton

IS CAL PAN
1--

PROPOSED

TWO STORY

STRUCTURE
FF Elev: 26.5' ROS
5 GAL |TB C Avenue
17 SAN
5 GAL, ZEY
Cullne of second
Isor above
Provide 6-6
tree well w/ (2)
bubtlers.

Alley
‹ 3-0* in he
Encheure
Outdoor Terrace
3853
Ramp -3.85
TELE
Existing ADA ramp
Evietioo snd rama
Exisisting Bauhinia to
remain. Provide 6-4
tree well wl (2)
bubblers.

AS
REQ. TURF BAU Provide 6'-4
5 GAL ILSN
Existing (3) Queen Palms S.F. 36' BOX BLA tree well w/ (2) on Tenth Street to remain. Tenth Street
Prmme heil trep melis wi
(2) bubblers per tree. (typ)
LLG Dale: 050224 N:139001Figures Figure 2-3
Site Plan

CHABAD OF CORONADO
Attachment 1

3.0 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Due to the unique nature of the Project's proposed land uses, a site-specific trip generation was estimated for each day of a typical week and for special events and holidays based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy shown in Appendix A. Special events will never conflict with larger Sabbath gatherings on Friday and Saturday or any other gatherings.

The trip generation calculations, summarized in Table 3-1, show that Tuesdays are expected to be the highest traffic generating "typical" day with 48 ADT, followed by Sundays with 46 ADT.

Weddings/Receptions and Summer Camp are the highest generating special events, with 104 and 88 ADT, respectively. The trip generation tables for each of these four scenarios are shown in Tables 3- 2a through 3-2d, respectively.

The Project will serve members of the Orthodox Judaism community, most of whom generally don't drive on Jewish holidays, including Friday nights, Saturdays, and other major holidays.

The full trip generation calculation tables for each day of the week and special events, including vehicle occupancy rate assumptions by event type, are included in Appendix B.

TABLE 3-1

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Day of Week / Event Average Daily Trips (ADT)
Typical Operations
Sunday 46
Monday 32
Tuesday 48
Wednesday
Thursday 32
Friday 40
Saturday 24
Special Events
Saturday + Bar Mitzvah 84
Chanukah 40
Passover 48
Shavuot 32
Summer Camp 88
Weddings/Receptions 104
→
LINSCOTT, Law & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
9 970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado\Report13900.VMT Report.docx Attachment 1
TABLE 3-2a

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - TYPICAL TUESDAY
Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6рm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle Volume % of In:Out Volume In:Out Volume Occupancy Rate® ADT Our Total% oF ADT Split
Split In In Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Adult Education Class" 12 attendees 1 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 24 0% 50% : 50% 0% |50% : 50% 0 0 ....

Young Parents Class® 8 attendees 1 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 16 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 Administration Office 2 employees 1 employee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle 8 25% 100%: 0% 2 2 25% 0% : 100% 0 2 2 Total 48 2 2 0 2 2
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Adult education classes for 12 attendes. 6:30-7:30 PM. Assembly Hall. A vehicle accupaney rate of 1 attendee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Young parent classes for & attendees. 8:30-9:30 PM. Assembly Hall. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 attendee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

Administration office would be open between the hours of 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of I employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

LLG Ref 3-24-3900
Chabad of Coronado
LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, engineers 970 C Avenue
Attachment 1
TABLE 3-2b

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - TYPICAL SUNDAY
Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Rate Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Occupancy I Total
Proposed Land Use
Hebrew Classes - 8 students 1.5 student/vehicle 50% : 50% 0 3 trips/vehicle 0% 50% : 50% 0 0% 0 0
Student Age"
Hebrew Classes - 1 adult/vehicle 0%
Adults® 15 adults 2 trips/vehicle 50% : 50% 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 Total 46 0 0
Footnotes:

2. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy.

Hebrew class for & students. Assembly Hall. 10:30-11:30 AM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 student per vehicle and a trip rate of 3 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Hebrew class for 15 adults Assembly Hall. 9:15-10:15 AM. A vehicle accupancy rate of 1 adult per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

IG Ref. 3-24-2900
Chabad of Coronado
LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, engineers 970 C Avenue
Attachment 1
TABLE 3-2C
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SPECIAL EVENT: WEDDINGS OR RECEPTIONS Daily Trip Ends (ADTs)
Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Proposed Land Use
Attendees® 50% : 50%
Total
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Four weddings/receptions estimated per year. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

The maximum occupancy of the assembly hall is 130 people. Any amplitied sound to end at 10:00 pm.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 3-2d
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SPECIAL EVENT: SUMMER CAMP
Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Volume% ofADT % of ADT
Occupancy Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Camp Attendees® 30 Attendees 1.5 attendee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle 80 0% 50% : 50% 0% 50% : 50% 0 Camp Staff° 4 employees 1 employee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 8 50% 100% : 0% 4 4 50% 0% : 100% 4 4 Total 88 4 4 4 4
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of'operations and occupancy. b. Summer camp will be held over the first three (3) weeks of July from 9:30AM - PM PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

A vehicle occupaney rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

LLG Ref. 3-24-3900
Chabad of Coronado
LINSCOTT, LAW GREENSPAN, engineers 970 C Avenue
Attachment 1

4.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ASSESSMENT
This Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the transportation effects of the Project using the VMT metric based on guidance from CEQA and OPR.

4.1 Methodology
The City of Coronado does not have published guidelines for the preparation of VMT studies.

4.2 VMT Assessment
Based on guidance from the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation (VT) impact.

The Project is calculated to generate fewer than 110 ADT under all analyzed scenarios as shown in Table 3-1 and can therefore be presumed to have a less than significant transportation (VMT) impact.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
14 970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report 13900. VMT Report.docx Attachment 1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This Assessment has been prepared to evaluate the transportation effects of the Project using the VMT metric based on guidance from CEQA and OPR.

Based on guidance from the OPR's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation (VMT) impact.

The Project is calculated to generate fewer than 110 ADT under all analyzed scenarios as shown in Table 3-1 and can therefore be presumed to have a less than significant transportation (VT) impact.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
15 970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado Report 13900. VMT Report.docx 4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800 T
www.llgengineers.com
Pasadena
Irvine
San Diego

TECHNICAL APPENDICES TO THE VMT ASSESSMENT
CHABAD OF CoroNADO
970 C AVENUE
May 2024
LLG Ref. 3-24-3900
ARTILG

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Schedule of Operations and Events
B. Project Trip Generation Tables
→
LINSCOTT, Law & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado:VMT Appendices Appendices Cover Pages.doc attachmen
LLG

APPENDIX A
SCHEDULE OF OperaTIons AND Events
→
LINSCOTT, Law & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado:VMT Appendices Appendices Cover Pages.doc Architectural Abbreviations: Building Department Information: Project Directory: Allachment T a rexes burne to be dens
874 sq.

Project Totals:
ds Per Square Fog nant Condisioned Space: 120 0..
gEE antom Fle
Total Conditioned Area: 13,064 sq.fl.

DIP. Basement Parking: 9,653 sq. ft.

Outdoor Terraco 1: 970 C Avenue, Coronado, California 92118 1,482 sq.ft.
163 sq.

Second For Tease: 2,144 sq. ft.

Total Building Area: 26,806 sq.fl. Project Information:

Скотство • concorico
ject Descriptic
Cals Worr Operating Schedule:
3937 * a stay lous it prie propose recal parkin
Chabad of Coronado Wecidy Operational Schedule: The proposed use of the factity is as follows:
- Bile Shadew clesser
- Satan rice
NECH
BEFE 9:00am - 9:00am; Prayer Service (10-12 Allendeos) - Occurs in Assembly Hall Wier Chan
130am - 00pm Ten trade often a - ours in Assetly He 1 Accesstle space hursday Total Parking: 50 Spaces christian rice architects. inc. 1127 Isma avo, coconado, ca 92118 p 619.522.9040 Fridam 4.00pm: Administration Orice (2 Adults)
6pm - 7pm Sabbath Sarvice followed (25 Adulls/ 15 Children 7:00pm - 8:00pm Sabbath Dinner (25 Adults/15 Children)
Coverage of structure including overhangs = 7,300 s.f. (52.1%) Total Coverage: 7,300 sq. ft. (52.1%) 60% allowabk:

LAndSCaDe Coverage
Extra Events
Hardscape: 1.050 . . 7.59)

1. No amplified music fo Any holied mut i owed perent us bely evenings, ll day Salurdays, o Total: 2,100 gc.f1. (15%) Parking Calculation: First Fiora Ratio (FAR) CakuB6.677 sq. ft A eare events to be net in assembly neil. evers me never conta wit arger Sabbath gatherings on Friday and Saturday or any other gathering: second fica Bulding Area:

Use Area Renuiremente Phantom Floor: ,862 вq.

Annual Events
TOTAL: 19.770 sq. R.

Assembly 1,950 S.F 1 Space per 50 S.F
dran tel
Library 1.627 S.F THA
Space per 2 employe Sating space per students 22o ter
For Ares:

Office 472 S.F 3 Employees a 202023
Drawing Index:
172 S.F 2 Employees Tille Sheet
Classroom 1.570 S.F 1 Space per 2 empkyees 4 Employees Existing Site Flan Passover (40 Adults, 20 Kids) Plot Plans
2 nights in April from 6:00pm -9:00pm
otal Parking Spaces Require 49 Coronado Jewish Community spends Passover Seder together with an Basement Plan manine dinner and celebration for the holday Frst Floor Flan Note:

Sarind Flair Plan
50 parking spaces are proposed in the basement; See Parking Managemen 288288222 oof Pla Lilding Elvation
Building Elevations
Building Sections
Summe 3 weeds of July F 930am -2,30pm Preminary Poss-Construction BMP L1.0 Preliminary Landscape Plan
L1.1 Plant Legand
Receptions or Wedding:

Vicinity Map: Title Sheet
Caron Avenue
-SIE
T1

APPENDIX B
PROJeCT TrIP GeneratIon TaBles
→
LINSCOTT, Law & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3900 Chabad of Coronado
970 C Avenue
N: 13900 - Chabad of Coronado:VMT Appendices Appendices Cover Pages.doc Attachment 1
TABLE 1a

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SUNDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6рm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle In:Out Volume In:Out Volume Rate* Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Occupancy Split In Out Total Split In Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Hebrew Classes - Student
8 students 1.5 student/vehicle 3 trips/vehicle 16 0% 50% : 50% 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 Age'
Hebrew Classes - Adults® 15 adults 1 adult/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 30 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 Total 46 0
Footnotes:

2. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Hebrew class for 8 students. Assembly Hall. 10:30-11:30 AM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 student per vehicle and a trip rate of 3 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Hebrew class for 15 adults. Assembly Hall. 9:15-10:15 AM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 adult per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per chicle were applied.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1b

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - MONDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am)( PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6рm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Occupancy Rate* Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Proposed Land Use
Prayer Service Attendees ® 12 attendees 1 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle Administration Office ° 2 employees 1 employee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle Total 32 14 12 26 0 2 2
Footnotes:

2. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Prayer service for 10-12 attendees. 8:00-9:00 AM. Assembly Hall. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 attendee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Administration office would be open between the hours of 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900.Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1c

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - TUESDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6рm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle In:Out Volume In:Out Volume Rate* Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Occupancy Split In Out Total Split In Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Adult Education Class" 12 attendees 1 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 24 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 0% 50% : 50% 0 Young Parents Classs® 8 attendees 1 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 16 0% 50% : 50% 0 0% 50% : 50% 0 Administration Office ° 2 employees 1 employee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle 8 25% 100% : 0% 2 2 25% 0%: 100% 0 2 2 Total 48 2 2 0 2 2
Footnotes:
i. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Adult education classes for 12 attendees. 6:30-7:30 PM. Assembly Hall. A vchicle occupancy rate of 1 attendee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Young parent classes for 8 attendees. 8:30-9:30 PM. Assembly Hall. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 attendee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. d. Administration office would be open between the hours of 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900.Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1d

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - WEDNESDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am)( PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6рm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Rate* Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Occupancy Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Teen Class 7 Attendees 1.5 attendee/vehicle
Administration Office ® 2 employees 1 employee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle Total 22 2 2 2 2
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Teen classes for 7 attendees. 2:00-3:00 PM. Assembly Hall. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 student per vehicle and a trip rate of 3 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Administration office would be open between the hours of 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900.Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1e

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - THURSDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Occupancy Rate* Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Proposed Land Use
Prayer Service Attendees® 12 attendees 1 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle Administration Office ® 2 employees 1 employee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle Total 32 14 12 26 0 2 2
Footnotes:

4. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy b. Prayer service for 10-12 attendees. 8:00-9:00 AM. Assembly Hall. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 attendee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Administration office would be open between the hours of 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - FRIDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Occupancy Rate* Volume % of ADT OutTotal Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Sabbath Service Attendees® 40 attendees* 2.5 attendee/vehicle Administration Office ® 2 employees 1 employee/vehicle
Total
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-spocific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Sabbath service and dinner is offered on Friday from 6:00-8:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

Administration office would be open between the hours of 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied.

Including 25 adults and 15 children.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1g

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SATURDAY Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle Volume
Rate* Volume % of ADT % of ADT
Occupancy Out Total Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Sabbath Service Attendees" 30 attendees 2.5 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 50% : 50% 0% 50% : 50% Total 0 0 0
Footnotes:

3. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Sabbath service and lunch is offered on Saturday from 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

Including 20 adults and 10 children.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1h
CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SATURDAY + BAR MITZVAH Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6рm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle Rate* Volume % of ADT
Occupancy - % of ADT Out Total
Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Sabbath Service Attendees" 30 attendees* 2.5 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 0 Bar Mitzvah Attendees 75 attendees" 2.5 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 60 0% | 50% : 50% 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 Total 84 0 0 0 0 0 0
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Sabbath service and lunch is offered on Saturday from 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. c. Including 20 adults and 10 children.
d. 3-5 Bar Mitzvahs per year. 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied. e. Including 50 adults and 25 children.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900.Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1i

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - CHANUKAH Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle Rate* Volume % of ADT Volume Occupancy % of ADT Out Total
Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Chanukah Attendees" S0 attendees® 2.5 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 40 0% 50% : 50% 50% 100% : 0% 20 0 20 Total 40 0 20 20
Footnotes:

4. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-spocific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. One evening in December from 5:00 PM-7:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

Including 20 adults and 30 children.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1j

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - PASSOVER Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle Rate* Volume % of ADT Volume Occupancy % of ADT
Out Total Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Passover Attendees" 60 attendees® 2.5 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 0% 50% : 50% 50% 100% : 0% 24 24 Total 48 0 24 24
Footnotes:

4. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Two nights in April from 6:00-9:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

Including 40 adults and 20 children.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1k

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SHAVUOT Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle Rate* Volume % of ADT Volume Occupancy % of ADT
Out Total Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Shavuot Attendees" 40 attendees® 2.5 attendee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 32 0% 50% : 50% 0% 50% : 50% 0 0 Total 32 0 0
Footnotes:

4. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Two days in May from 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applicd.

Including 20 adults and 20 children.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 11

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - SUMMER CAMP Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Occupancy Rate*
Proposed Land Use
Camp Attendees® 30 Attendees 1.5 attendee/vehicle 4 trips/vehicle 50% : 50% 0 0% 50% : 50% 0 Camp Staff° 4 employees 1 employee/vehicle 2 trips/vehicle 50% 100% : 0% 4 50% 0% : 100% 4 4 Total 88 4 4 4
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Summer camp will be hell over the first three (3) weeks of July from 9:30AM 2:30 PM. A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 4 trips per vehicle were applied. . A vehicle occupancy rate of 1 employee per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900. Trip Generation Attachment 1
TABLE 1m

CHABAD CENTER OF CORONADO PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - RECEPTIONS OR WEDDINGS Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Commuter Peak Hour (7am-9am) PM Commuter Peak Hour (4pm-6pm) Land Use Size Average Vehicle
Volume % of ADT - % of ADT
Occupancy Out Total
Proposed Land Use
Attendees® 50% : 50%
Total
Footnotes:
a. Due the unique nature of the project, a site-specific trip generation was estimated based on the proposed schedule of operations and occupancy. b. Four weddings/receptions estimated per year. A vehicle occupancy rate of 2.5 attendees per vehicle and a trip rate of 2 trips per vehicle were applied.

The maximum occupancy of the assembly hall is 130 people. Any amplitied sound to end at 10:00 pm.

N: \3900 - Chabad of Coronado\Trip Gen\3900.Trip Generation Attachment 1
RECON
An Employee-Owned Company
July 23, 2024
Mr. Jon Becker
Project Design Consultants
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Reference: Noise Analysis for the Chabad of Coronado at 970 C Avenue (DR2023-13, PC2023-02, -03, and -04, and CP2023-03; RECON Number 9641-2)
Dear Mr. Becker:

The purpose of this report is to assess potential noise impacts from construction and operation of the Chabad of Coronado Project (project). Impacts are assessed in accordance with standards established in the City of Coronado's (City's) General Plan Noise Element and the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC).

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Description
The project site is located at 970 C Avenue in the city of Coronado, California. The project site is currently developed with two one-story commercial buildings. The project site is bounded by multi-family residential units to the northeast, C Avenue, a church and preschool to the east to the southeast, 10th Avenue and commercial uses to the southwest, and an alley followed by commercial uses to the northwest. Figure 1 shows the regional location and Figure 2 shows an aerial photograph of the project vicinity.

The project would demolish the existing on-site buildings totaling 4,874 square feet and construct a 26,806-square- foot, two-story religious structure with underground parking. The project would include 50 parking spaces consisting of 46 tandem parklift spaces, 2 compact spaces, 1 accessible van space, and 1 accessible space. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan.

The facility uses would include youth Hebrew classes, bible study, prayer services, and sabbath services. The weekly operating schedule is as follows:
• Sunday
• 9:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. - Hebrew Class (15 adults) - Occurs in Assembly Hall • 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. - Hebrew Class (8 students) - Occurs in Assembly Hall • Monday
• 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. - Administration Office (2 adults) • 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. - Prayer Service (10 to 12 attendees) - Occurs in Assembly Hall • Tuesday
• 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. - Administration Office (2 adults) • 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. - Adult Education Class (12 attendees) - Occurs in Assembly Hall 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. - Young Parents Class (8 attendees) - Occurs in Assembly Hall 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 | 619.308.9333 | reconenvironmental.com SAN DIEGO | OAKLAND | TUCSON
Attachment 1
Mr. Jon Becker

Page 2 ends

Coronado City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Coronado City Council
August 20, 2024