Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

CDE New Construction Plan Approval Toxics Process

This is the accessible version of the flowchart that outlines how districts seeking School Facilities Program funding must process their projects that are not eligible for categorical or statutory exemptions in the CEQA process.

This is an Accessible Alternative Version of the flowchart the California Department of Education (CDE) New Construction - Plan Approval Toxics Process (PDF), not all requirements are shown. The Adobe Acrobat Portable Document should be the preferred version for downloading.

(For Districts seeking School Facilities Program funding or CDE review, Assembly Bill 387/Senate Bill 162 effective 1/1/2000)

Disclaimer: This is a linear list of the decisions from the flowchart and it may not represent the actual flow of information.

Note: District may elect not to pursue a project at any point in this process, and not all requirements are shown on this chart.

District determines project is not eligible for categorical or statutory exemption in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the District does not have a current School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) Final Site or Plan approval which included a Phase I review for which conditions have not changed.

District contracts with qualified Environmental Assessor to prepare Phase I to ASTM standards.

Clean Site

Phase I concludes no further investigation is required, District submits two copies of the Phase I to SFPD with $1,5000 for Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) review.

SFPD submits Phase I to DTSC within ten calendar days.

DTSC conducts review of Phase I within 30 calendar days.

DTSC approves Phase I, determines "No Action" is needed and notifies the SFPD.

SFPD informs district that they may proceed with Final Plan Approval Form 4.07 requirements.

Clean Site but DTSC concludes Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) is needed, notifies District and SFPD.

Potential Hazardous Materials (including naturally occurring)

Phase I concludes PEA further investigation is needed, District submits one copy of Phase I to SFPD (no check), contacts regional DTSC office.

District enters into agreement with DTSC to oversee PEA in Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), District contracts with Environmental Assessor to prepare PEA.

District submits PEA to DTSC for their review within 60 days, 30 day public review of PEA.

DTSC approves PEA, determines further investigation is not required and notifies SFPD No Further Action needed.

SFPD informs District that they may proceed with Final Plan Approval 4.07 requirements.

Or DTSC disapproves PEA and District takes action secure approval.

DTSC approves PEA, determines release, threat, or naturally occurring hazardous materials for which further investigation/Response Action is required.

In VCP, District contracts for preparation of Removal Action Workplan or studies leading to a Remedial Action Plan for DTSC approval, prepares financial analysis and cost estimate of response action, assesses benefits compared to use of alternative sites, evaluates suitability of alternatives, obtains SFPD Contingent or Final Site Approval, District/DTSC completes CEQA.

District implements Response Actions under DTSC oversight.

DTSC certifies Response Actions completed.

District obtains final site approval.

SFPD informs District that they may proceed with Final Plan Approval Form 4.07 requirements.

Questions:   Michael O'Neill | moneill@cde.ca.gov | 916-322-1463
Last Reviewed: Wednesday, May 28, 2025
Recently Posted in School Facilities
  • The Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans (updated 10-Nov-2026)
    The Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans (LRFMP) was revised in 2026, with updated guidance on master planning for local educational agencies and Proposition 2 requirements for school districts applying for School Facility Program Funding.
  • Key Components of a Facilities Master Plan (added 10-Nov-2026)
    The elements of a typical facilities master plan (FMP) and guidance on what to include, how to organize the information, and why it matters, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Conclusion (added 10-Nov-2026)
    A summary on master plans as living documents that reflect thoughtful educational goals and future planning, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Education Programs with Specialized Facility Needs (added 10-Nov-2026)
    The importance of including specialized facilities in facilities master plans to meet the needs of educational programs and students with disabilities, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Additional Considerations and Planning the Future (added 10-Nov-2026)
    Integrating sustainability, safety, accessibility, and climate resiliency into every stage of facilities master planning, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.

  • Appendix A (added 10-Nov-2026)
    A table of Facilities Master Plan Elements vs. Proposition 2 Requirements, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Appendix B (added 10-Nov-2026)
    A summary of additional required elements per Proposition 2, from the Guide to Long- Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Facilities Master Planning Resources (added 10-Nov-2026)
    Additional resources, facilities master plan (FMP) exemplars, and links to the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) Guidelines for the Five-Year School Facilities Master Plan, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Introduction (added 10-Nov-2026)
    An introduction of the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.
  • Facilities Master Planning Process (added 10-Nov-2026)
    Best practices for launching a facilities master planning (FMP) effort, engaging stakeholders, and long-term planning, from the Guide to Long-Range Facilities Master Plans.