La Mesa City Council
May 9, 2023

Implementation
Alvarado Specific Plan
Page IV-6
All costs associated with the consideration and formation of such financing districts or funding mechanisms shall be paid by Owner subject to reimbursement, as may be legally authorized, out of the proceeds of any Public Financing District. The cost of providing Public Improvements and Infrastructure to the Project or the Property would be consistent with the following principles:
(i) a reasonable relationship between the Project and any Public Improvement or Infrastructure required to by constructed by the Project; (ii) a reasonable relationship between the services and the Project; (iii) the costs that are to be borne for such services by the Project shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing such services; and (iv) a reasonable relationship between any fee required to finance Project Improvements, infrastructure or municipal services, and the cost of such improvements or services funded by such fee. For purposes of this paragraph “reasonable relationship” between the Project and any requirement imposed thereon, shall mean an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the Project in accordance with State law.

III - 1 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines

CHAPTER III
Development Standards and
Design Guidelines
Previous chapters in the Alvarado Specific Plan include the planning background and policy foundation for a new and forward looking land use plan for this unique location.

The Specific Plan Area has a history that has been impacted by the growth and development major transportation infrastructure in La Mesa. The Alvarado Specific Plan represents a “master development plan” for the revitalization of the Area in a manner which is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Mesa General Plan. As discussed in Chapters I and II, implementation of the development plans is anticipated to occur in two major phases of construction. The Specific Plan will be implemented as primarily private development projects in partnership with the City of La Mesa and other affected public Agencies to achieve the public safety, environmental protection and enhancement, and infrastructure needs in the Specific Plan Area.

This Chapter provides the land use and regulatory framework for development projects and public improvements to be implemented in the Plan Area to:
 create a high quality “transit-oriented development” with a diversity of new multi-family housing
 provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area;  be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa;  be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and,  be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.

The purpose of the development standards and design guidelines is to provide direction and clarity to owners, design professionals and builders, City staff, public decision makers and the public in the process of designing and approving future projects within the Plan Area. The Development Standards and Design Guidelines are intended to intended to assist in achieving the goals and objective of the Specific Plan and not to unnecessarily limit flexibility and creativity through the implementation of these provisions. Project designs that vary from the plan illustrative concepts in the Plan, yet are able to meet the design intent and vision for the Alvarado Specific Plan can be deemed in substantial conformance through the implementation process. A project can be determined to be in conformance with the Specific Plan without the project being consistent with every development standard or design guideline.

This Chapter contains project development guidelines that provide the basis for project evaluation through the City’s review process as outlined in Chapter IV. Objective Design Standards are provided

III - 2 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines that combine the elements of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards are included to implement Senate Bill (SB 35) signed into law in 2017 and SB 330 (which in part amended the Housing Accountability Act) signed into law in 2019, and will apply to projects within the Specific Plan Area which meet the requirements of such state laws. Projects in the Plan Area qualifying under SB 35 or SB 330 are subject to the objective design standards within this chapter. These projects are not subject to subjective design guidelines as a matter of state law; however, the intent and application of subjective guidelines is encouraged to be implemented by developers to the greatest extent feasible to ensure high-quality development that is consistent with the community identity of the Plan Area.

III – A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
III - A. 1. Consistency with Specific Plan
This Chapter serves to outline the regulatory development standards and design guidelines to be used in the final design and basis of review for the development projects that will implement the private and public improvement plans described within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will be the guiding reference for the implementation and project review steps which are further described in Chapter IV - Implementation. As the guiding regulatory tool for all subsequent implementing projects, each future discretionary and ministerial project authorized by the Plan will be subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the supporting Program EIR documentation for the Plan.

III – A. 2. Substitution for Zoning Ordinance
All subsequent projects to implement the Alvarado Specific Plan will rely on the Plans, Development Standards and Design Guidelines approved by the City and subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the project EIR.

As described in this Section, the Specific Plan will substitute for the land use and zoning standards that would traditionally be used to regulate new private development in the Specific Plan Area. Documentation of this transfer of regulatory standards will be implemented through the approval of an “Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone” to clearly establish the implementation area, role, and authority of the Specific Plan as outlined in Chapter IV - Implementation.

III - 3 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – A. 3. Form-Based Development Approach
As describe above, a new approach is proposed to clearly communicate what development standards are to be used to review and evaluate individual projects within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area. This section of the Plan defines a “form-based” approach as an effective means to ensure the goals and policies of the Plan are met at the project review level. This Section includes the set of defining characteristics and limiting factors that can achieve the development goals and policies of La Mesa for the Specific Plan Area. Application of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines will:
 create a high quality “transit-oriented development” with a diversity of new multi-family housing
 provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area;  be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa;  be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and,  be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.

The form-based approach serves to clearly communicate with text and diagrams the type, size, location, mix of uses, open spaces, landscaping and quality of the development that is authorized by the Specific Plan. The form-based approached established by the descriptions and diagrams in the Specific Plan provides a much more well defined and predictable image of the what will be built and how it will fit into the site and surrounding community than the traditional general plan/zoning classification approach.

This approach is in contrast to the traditional zoning regulations which focus on separation of uses, setbacks from adjoining properties, parking ratios and density calculations, with little emphasis on the unique characteristics or constraints of an actual location. Equally as important, this method describes the project review process and defines elements within each phase for providing the site improvements, public improvements, environmental enhancements, open space elements and transit connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other infrastructure that is not as clearly defined by a traditional zoning approach.

Figures 39 and 40 show a diagram of the overall site area and illustrate site sections through the project to specify the key dimensions that will define the proposed building envelope, distribution of uses, limiting factors that describe the individual multi-family residential buildings and the site improvements for the Alvarado Specific Plan. The descriptive elements in these diagrams correspond to the overall Site Development Plan shown in Figure 12 and described in detail in Chapter II – Land Use and Development Plan.

III - 4 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines There are two key elements that have been used to create this “form-based” definition for the Development Plan. One is the overall site plan which has been designed to reflect the site’s physical characteristics and constraints in concert with the broader land use goals and infrastructure needs for the Area. The second primary basis for the development standards is the application of the current applicable Building Codes in California that define the limiting dimensions allowed for the proposed multi-family residential construction type over a Type I parking garage structures.

Within the “form-based” building envelope established by the Specific Plan, it is intended that the Plan may permit flexibility during implementation through the City’s Site Development Plan and Urban Design Program review process to achieve a determination of consistency with the Plan through an alternative mix of residential unit types and/or architectural design approaches.

Figures 41 to 44 define the areas in which Buildings 1-4 will be constructed in relation to the Alvarado Road improvements and the interior private street/emergency access road. Figures 40 and 41a - d provide typical site sections to define:
the overall height limits for the primary structures,
the requirements to comply with the minimum floodway elevations, and the maximum number of residential floors above the parking levels.

Figure 42 provides an oblique view of the overall Specific Plan Area with a simplified graphic representation of the building envelopes that are defined by the site Figures 43a - e illustrate the typical floor levels for Buildings 1-4 to define arrangement of uses with project vehicle parking levels, parking access points, and multi-family residential uses on levels above the parking structure podium deck level.

Figure 43 - c represents the location and design concept for “liner units” that will be permitted on building facades oriented to the interior of the site and away from Alvarado Road.

On the Building facades oriented to Alvarado Road, parking levels will be adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle facility zone and required to be architecturally screened as described in the Design Guidelines section of this Chapter.

Figure 39 Alvarado Specific Plan Land Use and Development Plan (with details identified) Figure 40 Form-based Development Standards Plan View
Figure 41 a. b. c. d. Form-based Development Standards Section Views Figure 42 Form-based Development Standards Schematic View of Development Envelopes
Figure 43 a. b. c. d. e. Form-based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View by Floor Level

III - 5 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Figure 44 Plan View to Show Site Access Points and Distance to Parking Structure Entries and Sec Gates
III – A. 4. Multi-family Residential Unit Mix
Multi-family Apartments: The unit mix for buildings 1-4 will include Studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. Final unit mix will be set at the time of Site Development Plan and Design Review by the City. The total number of residential units in an individual project will be limited by the location, site area, height and building massing parameters set in the form-based development standards established in this Chapter. “Liner” Units: Buildings may incorporate liner units located below the parking structure podium deck levels on the interior elevations of the projects not directly oriented to the Alvarado Road frontage. The liner units may use a “loft” style design concepts within the mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units. This design concept may also employ designs which include a front “stoop” element where direct access is available to the creek side interior private street and pedestrian pathways and open space areas. The liner units will meet the Flood Overlay zone requirements.

Student Housing: As described in the Land Use and Development Plan, Building 2 may be built as a “student housing” project focused on serving college and university students in the community with an economical housing option and direct and convenient existing Trolley access to the campus. Although the same standards for building location, size, and mass within the “form-based” concept described above apply, the net residential unit count for Building 2 will be lower with the “student housing” option due to the use of larger shared living design concepts as shown in Chapter II. The unit mix with the “student housing” concept may include a mix of: one-bedroom/one-bed units; two-bedroom/ two and four-bed units; and four-bedroom/four-bed units.

The student housing configurations are much closer to dormitory style housing, allowing for independent living, yet within a fully managed and operated residential concept.

Some of the key elements of the Student Housing project will include:
 Fully furnished units
 Limited access and secured building
 24/7 Security presence
 On-site management and professionally trained staff
 Defined policy on resident behavior and enforcement
III – A. 5. Parking and Vehicle Access

III - 6 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Although the Alvarado Specific Plan is conceived as a Transit Oriented Development, parking and vehicle access still remains an important development and design standard.

Implementation of the Specific Plan requires review and approval of Site Development Plans as described in Chapter IV - Implementation. Individual projects will provide vehicle parking and access as described in Chapter III – Land Use and Development Plan. The development standards for parking and project circulation are outline below and illustrated in Figure 44.

Parking Structures: Resident vehicle parking for each Building will be provided within a multi-level parking structures as illustrated in Figures 41 – 43 above for Buildings 2,3, and 4.

Building 1 plans for one level of structured parking. Each parking structure will provide adequate ingress and egress to the interior private street. Parking structure access locations will provide sufficient distance from Alvarado Road for queuing space on-site and away from public street traffic.

Parking Ratios: For Buildings 2,3, and 4, within the multi-level parking structures to be constructed, the estimated parking ratio will be approximately 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit as described in Chapter II. This off-street parking ratio will be compatible with the reduced parking and automobile dependency objectives for a transit-oriented development (TOD). This same parking volume will be provided in the student housing option for Building 2 which results in a similar parking amount when correlated with the planned “bed” count with fewer but larger residential units. For Building 1 with an estimated 60 residential units above one level of parking, the off-street parking ratio will be approximately 0.5 space per residential unit.

These parking levels will serve as the total off-street parking requirements for the project and will be inclusive of the anticipated demand for guest parking and the secondary resident-oriented mixed uses that may be permitted on a limited basis within the project.

Guest Parking: Guest parking within each project is accounted for in two general areas.

A limited number of exterior spaces surface parking spaces will be provided in the vicinity of the main entry/leasing office for each project as shown on the Specific Plan diagram in Figure 39. Visitor parking spaces will also be designated within the lower level of Buildings 2-4, and near building leasing offices and parking garage entrances.

Security: Resident parking within the parking structures will be secured with gates and require an automated access control system within the parking structure. Along the private interior streets, there will also be security gates beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic and reserve this area as primarily a part of the pedestrian pathways and creek-side open space. Limited vehicle access will be permitted beyond the security gates for deliveries and move-ins.

Unbundled Resident Parking: As described in Chapter II - Land Use and Development Plan, all on-site vehicle parking provided within the required parking areas and structured parking levels may be unbundled from any requirement for an on-site parking per-unit ratio or an assigned residential unit parking space designation. With this unbundled

III - 7 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines parking standard, the management, use, and charges for resident on-site parking for each Building will be the responsibility of the project owner(s).

Services, Deliveries and Move-ins: The Alvarado Specific Plan has been designed with serious consideration given to the changes that have occurred in how people shop and live in a contemporary multi-family environment. As a result, the site development plan will provide access and space for vehicles within the site for service and delivery vehicles, as well as move-in locations that will maintain the required emergency vehicle access requirements. This is intended to assist with maintaining the interior private street and pedestrian pathways and primarily on open space feature and to keep traffic flow and safety directed to Alvarado Road.

On-street Parking: The streetscape plans for Alvarado Road in the Specific Plan include the construction of improvements along the entire length of the site Area as part of Phase 1 projects. This includes on-street parallel parking spaces along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage in areas that insure proper site distances from primary project ingress/egress locations. The on-street parking areas are planned to be delineated by “bulb-out” features as part of the streetscape plan. This concept proposes to dedicate a limited number of spaces in the vicinity of each primary project entry as “timed parking” and/or “loading zones” to facilitate and encourage the use of shared transportation options, such as ride sharing and delivery services.
 Alternative Transportation Support: As a transit-oriented development, a key goal of the project is to facilitate future tenant use of alternatives to the single person vehicle trip.
 Bicycle Parking: All multi-family residential projects will include bicycle parking facilities.
 EV Charging Stations: All multi-family residential parking structures will incorporate spaces dedicated for electric vehicle charging stations.  Transit Access: The primary feature of the project supporting this objective is the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. The project proposes constructing new public pedestrian improvements for access to the Station on Alvarado Road to complete the missing public links to the MTS station. Phase 1 projects will also improve and complete pedestrian access for project tenants from the interior private streets along Alvarado Creek to the Station.
 Transit Passes: It the intent of the Specific Plan to work with MTS and project developments to incorporate incentives for transit use by project residents.

III – A. 6. Open Space and Site Landscaping
Two of the most important design elements in the Alvarado Specific Plan are the mix of high-quality open space concepts and landscaping solutions. These two key areas were assigned a high priority in the formulation of the Land Use and Development Plans. This

III - 8 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines commitment in the Plan can work within the physical demands of the site and still create a very livable and transformative environment the future tenants of the Area and achieve the objectives of La Mesa’s General Plan.

To balance the physical demands of the site improvements and with the goal of creating a quality living environment for the future tenants and the community as a whole, the master plan provides for a mix of well-designed and highly functional open space and landscaping solutions.

An illustration of the basic elements of the open space concepts and the major landscaping features of the project is shown in Figure 45. The overall site development plan shown in Figure 39 also graphically represents the important role of open spaces and landscaping elements distributed throughout the project Area. Each of these key components is briefly described below:

Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvements:

The proposed frontage along Alvarado Road includes parallel parking, a minimum 25 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle and landscaping zone along the entire Alvarado Road frontage. The shared pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle shown in Figure 46 includes street trees with tree grates, foundation planting, and vines planting at the building façade to assist in screen garage levels. The streetscape design also proposes a new pedestrian bridge that will provide a crossing over Alvarado Creek providing a contiguous sidewalk connection within the project limits to the existing 70th Street trolley station. The streetscape concept also will provide for on-street parallel parking zones defined by popouts that will include tree planting.

Interior Private Street and Creek-side Pedestrian Pathway:

The project proposes a pedestrian promenade around the perimeter of the building that embraces the Alvarado Creek, providing pedestrians better access to the new landscape areas and a visual connection to the Creek. Figure 47 illustrates the key design elements to be incorporated into the interior street plans. The pedestrian pathways have several nodes that are designed for outdoor activity. Improvements may include shade elements, park benches, and synthetic turf. Each node accentuates and highlights the existing creek habitat while also increasing the outdoor walkable open space that also serves as the projects Emergency Vehicle Access plan. The pathway will be secured with and incorporate decorative fencing, lighting and paving to provide safety as well as enhance the pedestrian experience. Some creek side areas along the interior streets may also serve as part of the on-site storm water retention systems to meet regional water quality standards.

III - 9 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Exterior Courtyard Open Spaces and Indoor Amenities:

Each building is proposed with exterior courtyards landscaped to provide residents a variety of outdoor spaces and indoor facilities to meet the open space and recreational activity needs of residents. The open space concepts include passive restorative spaces, social nodes, and flexible spaces for a wide array of community activities. Furniture and social elements animate the spaces while garden landscapes and pools and water features help refresh and provide a sense of retreat. The courtyard amenities are planned to accommodate features such as pool and spas, outdoor seating, cabanas, water and fire elements, and barbeques with picnic tables. The project features are illustrated in Figure 48. In addition, as shown in the Development Standards, Buildings 2-4 will evaluate the feasibility of providing “sky deck” outdoor spaces that provided an additional amenity for residents and capture the opportunity to provide longer vistas of the surrounding community.

Alvarado Creek Flood Improvements and Urban Creek Restoration:

In concert with the interior private street, described above, is the goal of restoring and maintaining the riparian environment within Alvarado Creek as a key visual element of the open space plan. A goal of the Specific Plan is to address the impact from flooding and urban storm-water drainage from much of north La Mesa on the site by improving and maintaining Alvarado Creek as a valued open space resource for the future residents of this newly created urban village. Figure 49 illustrates the proposed Alvarado Creek restoration and maintenance area.

Figure 45 Open Space Concept Plan
Figure 46 Plan View of Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvement Plans Figure 47 Plan View of Interior Street Improvement Plans Figure 48 Plan View to Illustrate Podium Deck Open Space and Landscaping Concept Figure 49 Plan View to Illustrate the Alvarado Creek Planting and Restoration Area III – A. 7. Site Grading and Flood Chanel Improvements
The Specific Plan site characteristics and constraints are described in detail in Chapter I which outlines the planning context and history associated with the Area. While the site has many challenges, it is also unusual for La Mesa in that it is relatively flat. Developed originally in the 1950’s with the alignment of Interstate 8 and Alvarado Road as a freeway frontage road, the initial urbanization of the site created an essentially flat site for use as a mobile-home park. The site has a very low slope gradient from east to west generally matching the flow line of Alvarado Creek.

III - 10 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines The development plans for public improvements and multi-family housing will require grading of nearly all of the site area with the exception of the areas within the defined Alvarado Creek channel. Grading of the project site is largely driven the Alvarado Creek floodplain and floodway. The project will increase the capacity of the flood channel so that the required 100-year flood flows will be contained within the channel. This will be done through a combination of minor widening the channel width and raising the elevation of the top of the bank. Retaining walls will steepen the creek edge, thus allowing the bed of the Creek to be widened without significantly impacting the developable area of the building pads. The top of bank elevation for the site and garage entry elevations will all be elevated a minimum of 1.0 foot above the 100-year flood elevation.

Grading within the channel will be limited to the minimum needed to construct the retaining walls and the relocation of the City’s sanitary sewer trunk line from the channel to a new easement within the interior private street as shown in Figure 50. The flood control improvements will actually increase the area of the channel and allow for additional planting of appropriate riparian plant materials as an environmental enhancement from the past conditions.

All earth work in the channel and the site which is within the FEMA mapped “floodplain” will be part of the required multi-agency cooperation and authorization needed to implement the Specific Plan. In addition, all grading and earthwork construction activity will be subject to any mitigation measures and monitoring requirements established by the Project EIR.

III - 11 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – A. 9. Public Improvements, Utilities, and Infrastructure The public improvements that will be provided through the approval of the Specific Plan and its implementing actions are described below. These improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the Phase 1 development plans as part of the private development requirements. The agencies that will be involved in coordinating and approving the plans are listed with each project.

Alvarado Road: Improvement of Alvarado Road will include the following components:

Streetscape improvement plans to include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, street trees, bulb-out landscape tree planting area, on-street parallel parking land, pedestrian connection to 70th Street Trolley Station, pedestrian bridge on south side of Alvarado Creek bridge, a traffic safety signal west of the Alvarado Creek bridge (City of La Mesa, MTS).

Overhead Power and Communication Line Relocation: The existing 12KV and communications lines that cross I-8 from Parkway Drive currently cross overhead in the San Diego RV Resort facility. This major power transmission line will need to be relocated underground generally around the west end of the project area before going overhead again to its current location on the south side of the MTS light rail tracks (City of La Mesa, SDG&E, Caltrans, MTS).

Flood Channel Improvements: The project includes seeking approvals to finally address the FEMA mapped need to address the flooding of the project site from Alvarado Creek.

This will involve multi-agency approval to make the necessary channel improvements with engineered retaining walls within the San Diego RV Resort property (City of La Mesa, MTS, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of San Diego).

Sanitary Sewer System Improvements: The environmental improvements to Alvarado Creek will include the relocation of one City sewer trunk line out of the channel and under the planned interior street. The sewer work will also address the removal of abandoned sewer lines in the creek and raising and capping an existing manhole that cannot be relocated to above the flood flow levels (City of La Mesa, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, City of San Diego).

Figure 50 Preliminary Grading Plan and Sections for Flood Channel Improvements Figure 51 Plan View with Major Public Improvements and Utilities

III - 12 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – B. Specific Plan Project Design Guidelines
Implementation of the Specific Plan will require all the multi-family residential projects to complete the City’s Site Development Plan and Design Review process. The two primary objectives of the implementation steps will be to make sure the future projects are: one, consistent with the Alvarado Specific Plan; and two, meet the principles of the City’s Urban Design Program.

Principles from the Urban Design Program that have been employed in formulating the Land Use and Development Plans for the Specific Plan projects include:
 Preserve and enhance the community character and sense of place by delivering projects and programs that build upon positive design features.
 promote a positive community identity and imageability;  enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community through circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways;
 assure high quality community design for new construction;  encourage energy conservation and safety conscious design methods for new development; and,
 provide specific project elements that will provide the attributes including: vitality, function, spatial form and quality, safe and efficient access, structural orientation, congruence, safety and defensible space principles, and stability. La Mesa Urban Design Program, page 13.

The design guidelines that can be applied more directly to the projects as part of the implementation steps for the Specific Plan are outlined in the following sections.

III - 13 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – B. 1. Site Design
a.) The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements will use a coordinated set of street lighting, tree grates, street trees, landscaping, and paving materials to establish a strong design statement that ties the four development parcels into a cohesive project area. b.) Within the private interior streets, a coordinated palette of enhanced paving, decorative fencing and gates, lighting, street furniture, shade structures, tree planting and landscaping will be used to tie the overall site development plan together. c.) Project lighting and landscaping along Alvarado Road, the interior private streets and pedestrian pathways connecting to the 70th Street Trolley Station will used to create a safe and secure residential environment.
d.) Project signs may include entry monument signs and/or signs incorporated into the project architecture. Each sign shall be so designed to complement the architectural style of the main building. Project signs should add clarity and direction to the project circulation system.
e.) Throughout the Specific Plan Area, a unified system of site features and signage will be used to enhance the wayfinding character of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. f.) As a unique location that will be transformed from a challenging freeway oriented location, landscaping will play a strong role in creating a vital residential environment. Key areas that should be the focus to meet the project design objectives with landscaping solutions will be the:
 Alvarado Road streetscape street tree types, frequency and initial planting sizes.  Significant role of planting areas and materials within the podium deck open space and recreations areas
 Coordinated use of planting materials and design features along the interior private street creek side pathways and socializing nodes  Alvarado Creek flood channel plant restoration and maintenance plan III – B. 2. Architectural Design Guidelines
a.) All four primary multi-family residential project buildings should have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style or theme, yet express an individual character with varying forms, features and materials to avoid an overuse of a single design concept for the Specific Plan Area.
b.) As a major new land use change and highly visible gateway statement along the I8 corridor, individual project design will provide strong forms and architectural elements at the primary project entrances to the interior private streets.

III - 14 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines c.) On the northern Alvarado Road facades, where balconies may not be feasible due to noise attenuation requirements, buildings will use sufficient architectural design forms, features and changes in materials to provide visual interest and variance in the elevations from the I-8 view corridor.
d.) On the Alvarado Road frontages with exposed parking garage levels, buildings will incorporate both architecturally coordinated building materials and landscaping solutions to add value to the pedestrian scale and environment along the Alvarado Road streetscape zone.
e.) Roof top mechanical equipment should be architecturally screened from views from locations above the site to the south.
f.) Interior elevations viewed from the podium deck open space areas and elevations fronting on to the interior private street pathways should reflect sufficient architectural interest with forms, massing, fenestration, balconies and viewing locations to enhance a sense of an active residential environment.

III – C. Objective Design Standards

TO BE ADDED AS ADDENDOM

1 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

ALAVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN

CHAPTER III UPDATE
DRAFT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS – 6/6/2022
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT:

The purpose and intent of the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan Objective Design Standards are to provide clear direction and understanding of the City’s expectations for multifamily residential projects that are proposed within the Specific Plan Area. The following Objective Design Standards have been written to be consistent with the goals, objectives, development plans and guidelines established by the Alvarado Specific Plan. The Objective Design Standards shall be applied to projects which qualify under state housing laws which mandate the application of objective design standards, such as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Projects that meet these requirements shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Alvarado Specific Plan and any requirements established by the Alvarado Specific Plan Project EIR.

B. LAND USE:

1. The primary land use within the Specific Plan Area shall be multi-family residential located in Buildings 1-4 (See Exhibit 37). The primary multi-family residential structures will comply with the Form-Based Development Standards established by the Specific Plan and further described within the Development Standards below, which define the building locations, massing, orientation, separations, setbacks, description and distribution of open spaces, parking, circulation, and public improvements, as shown in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e.

2. Parking to serve each primary multi-family residential structure (Buildings 1-4) shall be provided within structured parking levels for each Building. Development Standards for off-street parking are described further below.

3. Non-residential uses shall be permitted, but not required within each of Buildings 1-4.

Such uses shall be limited to uses providing commercial and service uses intended primarily for the residents of the SP projects. Such non-residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet within any one Building.

C. SITE DEVELOPMENT:

2 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

1. All new residential structures and the improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel will be constructed to meet the requirements of the City’s Floodplain Ordinance.

2. Contingent upon approvals from all required Federal, State and local agencies, the project will construct improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel as illustrated in Figure 48. As part of the Flood Channel improvements, the improvements will require restoration of any disturbed area of the channel with appropriate plant materials defined by the permitting agencies.

3. Individual multi-family residential projects as defined by the Alvarado Specific Plan are to be developed in a coordinated manner that can be completed in Phases as further defined in the Specific Plan. All development of projects in Building sites 1-4, whether constructed individually or grouped by phases, shall guarantee all necessary site preparation, including but not limited to: site grading, installation of public utilities, construction public improvements and public utilities, and public safety access, as a condition of occupancy.

4. All site grading shall be in accordance with the overall project development plans established by the Alvarado Specific Plan and the City’s grading regulations and standards.

D. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

1. Form Based Development Standards: As described in this Chapter, a Form Based Development Standards is used to define the physical locations and limits of the primary multi-family residential projects authorized by the Alvarado Specific Plan. This concept is described in detail in both the text and exhibits within the Specific Plan. The following Development Standards apply to multi-family development projects within the Specific Plan Area, as illustrated in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e. a. Building Height and Step-Backs:
(1). Maximum height per California Building Code
(a). 75’ to top of habitable floor.
(b). 85’ to top of roof sheathing
(2). No vertical step-backs required (see Massing Articulation section below)
b. Building Setbacks and Encroachments:

3 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Building Height encroachments are permitted for non-habitable roof appurtenances of up to a maximum of 12’-0”.
(2). Where no minimum setbacks are provided, residential units shall be located a minimum 5’ from back of a pedestrian path or walkway.

2. Off-street parking shall be provided for each of the proposed Buildings 1-4 within parking garage structures as illustrated in Figures 37, 39a-g, 41a-c, and 42, and shall meet the following standards:
a. Off-street parking will be provided for Buildings 2-4 in three levels and will meet the City’s structured parking garage design requirements for size, access and circulation. Building 1 will provide just one level of structured parking at the ground level.
b. All off-street parking spaces located within parking structures will utilize Universal Parking Space dimensions of 9’ wide by 18’ deep with 24’ wide twoway travel lanes. c. The only exception to structured parking locations will this be for limited on-site parking spaces outside the parking structures that will serve as visitor parking as shown on the Alvarado SP site development plan.
d. All off-street parking spaces provided in Buildings 1-4 shall be “unbundled” and made available residents of the individual buildings as part of the rent for the residential unit as managed by the project owners. Parking spaces within the parking structures can be reserved for related uses such as, but not limited to, deliveries, guest parking, and shared EV charging stations. e. All parking structures shall provide secured bicycle parking enclosures at the ground level.
f. All off-street parking shall comply with the number, distribution and location of spaces to meet the requirements for Disabled Persons.

E. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS:

1. Massing Articulation and Building Design:
a. Vertical plane breaks – Min. 3’ deep x 10’ wide break every 150’ maximum b. The horizontal composition of building planes shall provide visual breaks as follows:

4 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Base and top definition for buildings 3 stories or lower (2). Base, middle, and top definition for buildings over 3 stories (3). Vertical plane continuity is allowed for a maximum 40% of the façade length
c. Building entrances shall be visible from, and face, the public right-of-way or a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway, incorporating at least one of the following:
(1). Change of massing through vertical or horizontal plane breaks (see above)
(2). Change of exterior finish color and/or materials
(3). Change of transparency by using glazing for a minimum of 50% of the entrance width
d. Roofline variation: Vertical and horizontal variation every 150’ maximum using one or more of the following in combination:
(1). Varying parapet heights by a minimum of 12”
(2). Eave overhangs
(3). Parapet offsets every 150’ following vertical plane standards above e. Buildings shall carry the same design theme and pallet of colors and materials on all exterior elevations. For the purpose of this standard, a theme includes primary (non-accent) forms, materials and colors. Exterior Finish Materials and Colors for Buildings 1-4 shall use:
(1). A minimum two (2) exterior finish materials, each material must cover min.
20% of building façade
(2). A minimum two (2) exterior colors, each color must cover min. 20% of building façade
(3). Material changes with a minimum 6” offset in depth or equivalent as appropriate to the materials used
(4). No mirrored glass

5 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
f. Mixed-Use Spaces shall be integrated into the Form-Based Standards for Buildings 1-4 and required to be differentiated from residential and commercial/ retail spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
g. Building shall clearly differentiate residential and non-residential service/commercial spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one (1) contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
h. Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate a distinctive vertical corner design element to identify the primary entry location for each Building in the immediate vicinity of the driveway entry serving that Building.
i. All mechanical equipment located on building rooftops shall be screen with visual screening panels or devices with a minimum height of 42”.

2. Liner Units: Interior elevations (not facing Alvarado Road) that include liner units, shall incorporate a pallet of materials and colors that clearly differentiate these lower floors from the residential floors above the podium deck level. a. As shown in Exhibit 16a, 16b and 16c, liner units are proposed along the interior facades for Buildings 2,3, and 4. The liner units add more direct interaction and visibility for the pedestrian promenade areas. If incorporated into these locations, the ground level liner units located within 36” of adjacent finished grade shall provide direct access to the promenade via steps and/or ramps.

3. Podium Deck Open Spaces: Buildings 2-4, which incorporate a Podium Deck Area as part of the active and passive open space amenities provided for the project. The Podium Deck Area for Buildings 2-4 is defined by the space created by the location of a double-loaded interior corridor serving residential units that face either to the building’s exterior or to the Podium Deck Area (see Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e). Due to

6 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
the irregular shape of the Specific Plan Area each Building site results in an irregularly shaped parking structure and corresponding Podium Deck open space area is defined by the residential unit arrangement around the perimeter of the parking structure. a. Each unique Podium Deck Area will be oriented toward the interior of the Specific Plan Area (i.e., away from I-8) and incorporate at least one segment that is open to views of the pedestrian promenade area and Alvarado Creek.

4. Exterior Parking Levels: All elevations with exposed parking garage levels above grade facing Alvarado Road shall use a combination of architectural screening materials and landscaping to differentiate the parking level elevations from the residential floors above podium deck, and to screen all views of parked vehicles on the interior of the parking structures.

5. Signs: Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate building identification with project naming signage and street numbers, and located on the building façade in a location that assists in directing people to the appropriate project address and entrance. a. Monument signs shall be permitted in the vicinity of each primary Building entrance in a limited in size and location that will not limit site visibility for vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles.
b. Building identification signs shall be indirectly lighted and shall not use internal illumination.

F. MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION:

1. No direct access to individual parking structures will be permitted from Alvarado Road.
a. Access to off-street parking for all residential units will from driveway entrances to the interior loop roads serving Buildings 1-4. Parking garage entrance and exits shall be located as shown in the Specific Plan to allow sufficient queuing on the project site and prevent waiting for turning movements on Alvarado Road. b. All security gates defining the pedestrian promenade area shall be located beyond the parking structure entrances to allow free vehicle movements into the structure.
c. Recess gates at vehicular entrances to parking structures shall provide a minimum of 20’ from the primary building facade.

7 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

2. A combined public pedestrian walkway and bike lane will be constructed along the Alvarado Road frontage of the SP Area. These public improvements will include a pedestrian bridge of a minimum 15’ in width to cross Alvarado Creek on the south side of the existing Alvarado Road bridge within the City’s right-of-way to maintain connectivity between the public sidewalk and bike lane from the building sites for Buildings 1-3 and Building 4.

3. The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include: planting of street trees, installation of tree grates and decorative street lights in accordance with the City’s standards for spacing and design.

4. Project improvements shall include the construction of pedestrian connections from the Alvarado Road frontage improvements and from the private interior ring road improvements to the 70th Street MTS Trolley/Bus Station.

5. All parcels developed for Building 1-4 shall provide for reciprocal access for the shared use of the interior pedestrian promenade areas along the restored Alvarado Creek areas.

6. The interior ring road area improved to provide pedestrian access to the linear open spaces along the restored Alvarado Creek shall incorporate a unified set of landscape planting, street furniture, pedestrian scale lighting, enhanced paving materials, creekside viewing nodes and wayfinding signage.

7. The interior ring road will provide control gates at locations beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic except for service vehicles and move-in locations.

G. PUBLIC SAFETY:

1. Emergency access to serve Buildings 1-4 shall be provided by the interior loop roads provided for Buildings 1-3 to the west of the Alvarado Road bridge and for Building 4 on the east side of the Alvarado Road bridge.
a. The interior ring road will be constructed to meet the City’s specifications for access and load baring capability for Fire Department vehicles. A dedicated Fire Lane shall be executed for the emergency access use of the interior loop road.

2. If Building 2 is developed with the Student Housing option described in the SP, the project will be required to operate with the following services:
a. Fully furnished units

8 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
b. Access to the building via a secured entry with a staffed 24/7 presence c. On-site management and professionally trained staff
d. A designated staff liaison with San Diego State University e. A clear policy requiring a lease agreement with provisions regarding resident behavior and enforcement for all tenants

3. As shown on the approved Alvarado SP site development plan, automated securing gates will be installed in locations beyond the parking garage level access points with pedestrian gates to maintain the value of the promenade area as part of the project open space and to provide access to the adjacent transit facilities.

4. Site Lighting: All development projects shall comply with the following standards to create a safe environment for the residents of the Specific Plan Area:
a. All active outdoor open spaces, including the Creekside pedestrian area, the Alvarado Road streetscape area, the Alvarado Creek pedestrian bridge, podium level open space areas, and pathways connecting the project to the 70th Street MTS Trolley/Bus Stations shall provide dusk to dawn pedestrian scale safety lighting with a uniform design standard throughout the Specific Plan Area. Other than street light installed in the Alvarado Road public sidewalk and bike lane, freestanding lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, unless approved by the Director of Community Development b. All outdoor lighting, shall be focused, directed, and arranged to minimize glare and illumination of streets, the night sky, or adjoining property. This will require the use of shields and the appropriate lighting design and specifications, and can limit the location, type and height of light fixtures.
c. Service area lighting shall be contained within the service area boundaries d. Lights shall be durable, recessed, or otherwise designed to reduce the problems associated with damage and vandalism
e. All electrical meter pedestals and light switch/control equipment shall be located with minimum public visibility if possible or shall be screened with appropriate plant material
f. All community landscape common areas, private facilities, streetscape areas, and other use Specific Plan areas are permitted, at the discretion of the project developer or builders, to use accent or other night lighting elements H. UTILITIES, SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE:

9 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards

1. All existing overhead utilities will be placed underground and all new utilities will be placed underground. The existing SDG&E electrical transmission line that crosses the site will receive a down pole on the Alvarado Rd frontage and continue underground to the south side of the new residential structures where it will connect with a new up-pole on the north side of Alvarado Creek to continue in service to the south of the SP Area.

2. All trash collection facilities shall be located within the parking structure serving each of Buildings 1-4 individually.

3. Contingent upon the execution of a mutually agreed upon reimbursement agreement, to the extent feasible, the project will facilitate the relocation of the existing sewer main located within the SP Area in the Alvarado Creek channel to a new location in a public easement within the proposed ring road serving Buildings 1-3.

4. Improvements to the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel as described above.

I. LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE

1. Open space will be provided in elements that are shared throughout the Specific Plan Area and in locations that are provided for the use of residents of the in each multi-family development project. Open spaces for the benefit of the Specific Plan Area shall include both active and passive spaces and uses. To reflect the unique characteristics and opportunities as outlined in the Specific Plan (illustrated in Figures 43- 47), the Open Space objectives will be provided within the following areas which will combine both active and passive open space functions:
a. Outdoor podium deck areas and adjoining interior facilities for community rooms, gym spaces serving Buildings 2-4. Building 1 shall include interior spaces for active recreation and community room
b. Interior promenade areas adjacent to Alvarado Creek and within the vehicle control gates
c. The Alvarado Creek restoration area
d. The Alvarado Road shared pedestrian path and bicycle lane, including landscape areas
e. Landscape areas included within required stormwater management facilities

2. Podium deck areas for Buildings 2-4 shall consist of a network of gardens, social nodes, flexible use areas, and planting include at least 4 of the following elements:

10 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
a. Pool
b. Landscaping to include canopy trees and low planting materials to define spaces within the podium deck
c. Seating areas for individuals and group settings
d. Shade structures and/or umbrellas
e. Direct access to adjoining recreation and community activity rooms f. BBQ facilities or adjoining community room with cooking facilities g. Alvarado Creek viewing areas

3. All project landscaping shall comply with the City of La Mesa Water Efficient Landscaping standards and Model Water Efficient Landscape ordinance.

4. Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall be constructed along the Alvarado Road frontage within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area as illustrated in Exhibit 48 to improve traffic and pedestrian safety, provide stormwater management, enhance the streetscape environment, and implement the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies. The facilities to be constructed as part of the Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include:
a. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lane, pedestrian bridge crossing Alvarado Creek, driveway aprons, street trees with tree grates, and street lighting to meet the City’s standards and specifications. Street trees species, size and distribution shall meet the City’s specifications and standards.
b. The shared 16’-0” bike lane and pedestrian sidewalk shall extend from the easterly property line frontage, connect with the planned pedestrian bridge at Alvarado Creek, and extend westerly to connect with the existing MTS 70th Street Trolley Station. The shared bike land and pedestrian sidewalk will be paved and striped to define 8’-0” for the bicycles and 8’-0” for the pedestrian zone. c. A minimum of one short-term bike rack shall be located with the streetscape improvements in the vicinity of each entrance to Buildings 1-4. d. A minimum 5’-0” landscaped buffer area shall be provided between bike lane/pedestrian sidewalk and the building facades facing Alvarado Road. The planting design and materials in this area shall be coordinated with the project

11 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
requirements for screening the parking structure elevations facing Alvarado Road.

5. The interior roadway serving as the linear creek-side pedestrian promenade open space element shall include:
a. Enhanced paving
b. The promenade/fire lane shall be secured with decorative vehicular and pedestrian gates at all vehicular points of entry and exit
c. Bench seating and gathering nodes distributed throughout the project area with a minimum of 100’ spacing
d. Pedestrian scale lighting
e. Canopy trees that will not interfere with access or movement within the dedicated fire lane
f. Wayfinding signage
g. Landscaped bioswales area
J. SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS:

1. All new residential dwelling units will use electrical services and appliances only.

2. All new residential buildings will be constructed to meet or exceed Calgreen requirements.

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2019059095
August 2022
Prepared for:

City of La Mesa
Community Development Department
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, California 91942

Alvarado Specific Plan
Final Program Environmental Impact Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I Introduction to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
III Comments and Responses
IV Final Program Environmental Impact Report

SECTION I
Introduction to the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR I-1 August 2022

INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared on behalf of the City of La Mesa (City) for the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan and associated discretionary actions (collectively referred to as the “project”). The Draft PEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on September 9, 2020 and ending on October 26, 2020 (SCH No. 2019059095). During that time, the document was reviewed by various state and local agencies, as well as by interested individuals and organizations. A total of three written comment letters were received by the City. All comments received by the City have been fully addressed in written responses in this Final PEIR. The public review comments are contained in Section III of this Final PEIR.

This Final PEIR includes the following items as required in Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
• Minor additions, revisions, or clarifications to the Draft PEIR; • Comments and recommendations received on the Draft PEIR; • List of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR; • Responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review; and • Any additional information considered pertinent by the lead agency.

FINAL PEIR ORGANIZATION
This Final PEIR is organized in four parts: the first section of this document is the Introduction to the Final PEIR, the second section contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, the third section contains Comments and Responses, and the fourth section is the Revised Draft PEIR. Each of these sections has its own purpose and serves to aid the reader in fully understanding the project and its implications. A brief description of each section follows.

Section I, Introduction to the Final PEIR, serves to explain the purpose of the Final PEIR and familiarize the reader with the preparation and public review processes, as well as to explain how the document can be used to understand the project and its consequences. The Notice of Availability and Environmental Document Transmittal for the Draft EIR are also contained in this section, in addition to a copy of the printed public notice. The Introduction also includes a section which provides revisions or clarifications to the Draft EIR.

The MMRP contained in Section II of the Final PEIR has been prepared in response to Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The State CEQA Guidelines require that an MMRP be adopted upon certification of an EIR to ensure mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented.

Section I Introduction to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR I-2 August 2022
The Comments and Responses contained in Section III of the Final PEIR include the letters received during the Draft PEIR public review period and the City’s responses to each comment. The comments are presented in a side-by-side format, with the reproduced comment and corresponding responses on the same page.

The full text of the Draft PEIR, as revised, and its appendices are included in Section IV of the Final PEIR.

The Draft PEIR, as revised, is part of the Final PEIR and is presented herein with changes incorporated after the completion of public review. As identified in the Minor Revisions or Clarifications to the Draft PEIR section below, the revisions or clarifications to the Draft PEIR are presented in strike‐out and underline format.

No new significant impacts or increased magnitude of impacts have been identified as part of the Final PEIR process, and the impact conclusions reached in the Draft PEIR have not changed. Recirculation is not required because the changes presented herein merely clarify or amplify or make insignificant modifications to information in an adequate EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5[b]).

MINOR REVISIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT PEIR
Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft PEIR, some minor revisions or clarifications were made to the Draft PEIR. Based, in part, on the comments received. Those changes are described below and shown in strike-out/underline format to indicate deletions and inserts in the Draft PEIR text. The Final PEIR has incorporated these revisions in Section IV and are also indicated in strike‐out and underline format.

Chapter 1 Introduction
The following revision has been made in Chapter 1 in the Final PEIR (page 1-5) to clarify that the project would occur outside of the Caltrans right-of-way and would not result in direct impacts to facilities, infrastructure, or resources within the Caltrans right-of-way.

1.5.2.7 California Department of Transportation
I-8 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages and maintains the right-of-way associated with I-8.

The project includes improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel and utilities that would extend into the Caltrans right-of-way.

Chapter 3 Project Description
Section 3.3.2.8 (page 3-7) in the Final PEIR has been revised as follows to clarify that vines on the retaining wall along Alvarado Road are not proposed as part of the landscape plan for the Specific Plan:

Landscape treatments planned for the Alvarado Road street frontage include street trees with mixed heights and species to create a vertical edge separating the roadway from the new sidewalk. The streetscape plan also includes a series of bulb-outs in the parking lane to add both depth and height to help reinforce the tree line street edge and provide some screening for above-grade parking levels facing the street. In addition, a planting area would be provided between the sidewalk and the parking structures to provide additional landscape screening of

Section I Introduction to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR I-3 August 2022
the parking structures. The existing retaining wall along the north side of Alvarado Road would be planted with vines.

Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-12 have also been revised to no longer show vines on the retaining wall.

Table 3-2 in the Final PEIR has been revised as shown below to clarify that an encroachment permit from Caltrans is not anticipated for implementation of the project.

Table 3-2

ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Action/Approval/Permit Agency
Certification of PEIR City of La Mesa
Adoption of the Alvarado Specific Plan City of La Mesa
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish an
Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone
City of La Mesa
Development Agreement City of La Mesa
Site Development Plans City of La Mesa
Design Review City of La Mesa
Demolition Permits City of La Mesa
Grading Permits City of La Mesa
Building Permits City of La Mesa
Encroachment Permits MTS, Caltrans
Clean Water Action Section 404 Permit USACE
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification RWQCB Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement CDFW NPDES Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit RWQCB Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Section 4.10 Paleontological Resources
Section 4.10.6 (page 4.10-5) in the Final PEIR has been revised as follows to clarify the responsible party for implementation of mitigation measure PAL-1.

PAL-1 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to construction, the owner/permittee shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor. The paleontological monitor shall attend pre-construction meeting(s) with the construction manager and shall be present during all initial cutting, grading, or excavation of previously undisturbed substratum. If a fossil is encountered, all operations in the area where the fossil was found shall be suspended immediately, the City shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the City to evaluate the significance of the find; to salvage, record, clean, and curate significant fossil(s); and to document the find in accordance with current professional paleontological standards. Within 30 days of completion of ground-disturbing activities, either a letter signed by the paleontological monitor stating that no fossils were found or, if fossils were found, a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist documenting the mitigation program shall be submitted to the City.

Section I Introduction to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR I-4 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
SCH No. 2019059095
September 9, 2020
To all interested parties:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) has been prepared for the Alvarado Specific Plan project (proposed project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of La Mesa (City), as the Lead Agency, is inviting your comments regarding the adequacy of the PEIR. This Notice of Availability (NOA) of a PEIR was published in the San Diego Daily Transcript and publicly noticed and distributed on September 9, 2020. The Draft PEIR and associated technical appendices can be accessed at the following link:
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1639/Alvarado-Specific-Plan The Draft PEIR is also available for review at the City of La Mesa located at 8100 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91942; please call for an appointment at (619) 667-1177. A copy of the Draft PEIR is also available for review at the La Mesa Library located at 8074 University Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91942.

Project Location: The project is located on an approximately 12-acre site along the south side of Alvarado Road generally between 70th Street on the west and Guava Avenue on the east in La Mesa, California. The project site is bound by the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west, the Green Line trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership to the east, and Alvarado Road and Interstate 8 to the north. The site is developed and currently contains a recreational vehicle (RV) resort facility with paved access roadways, RV spaces, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, and three billboards. Alvarado Creek traverses the property as it flows under Alvarado Road in the eastern portion of the site and continues southwesterly and westerly along the southern boundary of the western portion of the site.

Project Description: The proposed project entails a master development plan for a phased transitoriented development and associated public improvements. The project would include four development parcels that would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the parcels (Parcels 1- 3) west of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Phase 2 includes the parcel (Parcel 4) east of the intersection of the Creek and Alvarado Road. Each parcel would be developed with a multifamily residential building.

Phase 1 would feature two multi-family residential buildings built on a podium deck over multi-level parking in the central portion of the site and a smaller-scale building in the western-most parcel. Phase 2 would include one building in the eastern portion of the site similar in size and scale to the two larger buildings constructed in Phase 1. The buildings would include up to five stories of residential units and one to three levels of parking. Each building would include a mix of housing types and sizes, ranging

2 from two-bedroom, one-bedroom, studios, and loft units. A total of 850 to 950 residential units would be constructed at buildout. In addition to the residential uses, the project could include ground floor, resident-serving commercial uses.

The buildings would include interior project amenity facilities and active outdoor spaces on the parking structure podium deck levels. A comprehensive landscaping plan would be implemented as the site is developed. Site access would be provided from Alvarado Road to two internal loop roads. Beyond the parking access points, the loop road would primarily function as a pedestrian promenade connecting the buildings and site amenities, as well to the Alvarado Road frontage improvements and adjacent 70 th
Street Trolley Station.

As part of the project, several public improvements would be implemented. Frontage road improvements to Alvarado Road would be provided, including a shared pedestrian/bicycle path, curb and gutter, streetlights, street trees, an on-street parking lane, a pedestrian bridge over the Alvarado Creek channel, and a pedestrian connection to the adjacent 70 th Street Trolley Station. Existing overhead
utility lines that extend across the site would be relocated underground. Improvements would also be made to the Alvarado Creek channel that traverses the site to control flood and storm water flows within the channel. Sewer system improvements are proposed, including relocating an existing sewer trunk line within the channel out of the channel and raising and capping an existing manhole.

In conjunction with the adoption of the Alvarado Specific Plan, a Development Agreement is proposed to be adopted by Ordinance of the City Council in accordance with California Government Code sections 65864 et seq.to memorialize the project entitlements and the provisions for construction of proposed public improvements.

CEQA Compliance
This NOA has been prepared in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Draft PEIR will be circulated for a 45-day review period during which your comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft PEIR are welcomed. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, the 45-day review period will extend from September 9, 2020 through October 26, 2020. Your comments must be received by 5:30 PM on October 26, 2020. Comments on the adequacy of the Draft PEIR can be mailed to:

Kirt Coury
Project Planner, Community Development Department
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Or provided via email to [email protected].

Sincerely,
Kerry Kusiak
Director of Community Development

Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in.

Revised 2010
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: 
Lead Agency:  Contact Person: 
Mailing Address:  Phone:

City:  Zip: County: 
Project Location: County:  City/Nearest Community:  Cross Streets: Zip Code:

Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): ° ′ ″ N / ° ′ ″ W Total Acres:

Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp.: Range: Base:

Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways:

Airports: Railways: Schools:

Document Type:

CEQA: NOP Draft EIR NEPA: NOI Other: Joint Document
Early Cons Supplement/Subsequent EIR EA Final Document
Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) Draft EIS Other:

Mit Neg Dec Other: FONSI
Local Action Type:

General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation
General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Other:

Development Type:

Residential: Units Acres
Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type
Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral
Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Power: Type MW
Educational: Waste Treatment:Type MGD
Recreational: Hazardous Waste:Type
Water Facilities:Type MGD Other:

Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Aesthetic/Visual Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation
Agricultural Land Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Water Quality Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian Biological Resources Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Growth Inducement Coastal Zone Noise Solid Waste Land Use
Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous Cumulative Effects Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Other:

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:

Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary)

SCH # 
Appendix C
Print Form
2019059095
Alvarado Specific Plan
City of La Mesa Kerry Kusiak
8130 Allison Avenue 619-667-1177
La Mesa 91942 San Diego
San Diego La Mesa
Alvarado Road, 70th Street, Guava Avenue 91942
32 46 20 117 02 13 12
Multiple 16S 2 West
I-8 Alvarado Creek
MTS Green Line Maryland Elementary
950 12
Recreational vehicle resort facility/Commercial Manufacturing -Flood Overlay-Design Overlay/Regional Serving Commercial The proposed project entails a master development plan for a phased transit-oriented development and associated public improvements. The project would include four development parcels that would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the parcels (Parcels 1-3) west of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Phase 2 includes the parcel (Parcel 4) east of the intersection of the Creek and Alvarado Road. Each parcel would be developed with a multi-family residential building. In addition to the residential uses, the project could include ground floor, resident-serving commercial uses.

Revised 2010
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X".

If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".

Air Resources Board Office of Historic Preservation
Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Public School Construction California Emergency Management Agency Parks & Recreation, Department of California Highway Patrol Pesticide Regulation, Department of Caltrans District # Public Utilities Commission
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Regional WQCB #
Caltrans Planning Resources Agency
Central Valley Flood Protection Board Resources Recycling and Recovery, Department of Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm.

Coastal Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy Colorado River Board San Joaquin River Conservancy
Conservation, Department of Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy Corrections, Department of State Lands Commission
Delta Protection Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
Education, Department of SWRCB: Water Quality
Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Rights
Fish & Game Region # Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Water Resources, Department of General Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of Other:

Housing & Community Development Other:

Native American Heritage Commission
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date Ending Date
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):

Consulting Firm: Applicant:

Address: Address:

City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip:

Contact: Phone:

Phone:

Signature of Lead Agency Representative: Date:

Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.

X
X 11
X
X 5
X
X
X
X
X
9 X
X
X
September 9, 2020 October 26, 2020
9/8/2020

LEGAL NOTICES FAX (619) 232-1239
PAGE 28 • WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT (619) 232-3486
[email protected]
piscinas vernal.

FAA da aviso de acuerdo con 36 C.F.R.§
800.8(c) que está utilizando el proceso
de NEPA para notificar al público de su
conclusión que la Acción Propuesta no
afectará al Auxiliary Naval Air Station
Brown Field Historic District, ni ninguna
propiedad en la lista o eligible de estar en
la lista del Registro Nacional de Lugares
Históricos (National Register of Historic
Places, en inglés).

REVISIÓN PUBLICA
Antes del 14 de septiembre, una copia
de la EA estará disponible en el sitio web
de la ciudad: http://www.sandiego.gov/
airports. Una copia de la presentación de
la audiencia pública y la hoja de datos
estarán disponibles en el mismo sitio 10
días antes de la audiencia pública. Los
que no tienen acceso al internet pueden
pedir que se les mande una copia del
EA imprenta o electrónica. Solicitudes se
pueden hacer por teléfono (858) 573-1441
con un mensaje con su nombre, número
de teléfono, formato preferido del EA (disco
compacto o copia impresa), y su dirección.
*AVISO COVID-19*
En el 2020, la Organización Mundial
de Salud (World Health Organization,
en inglés) caracterizo el COVID-19
como una pandemia. Debido a los
requerimientos de salud pública
y seguridad asociados con el
coronavirus, la revisión publica y
comentarios sobre la EA se llevarán a
cabo de acuerdo con la dirección de
salud pública del estado de California y
la ciudad de San Diego y están sujetos
a cambio. La audiencia pública para
la EA será por medio de internet y
teléfono como se explica abajo.

Audiencia Pública:

Como resultado de la dirección de salud
referente a COVID-19 y bajo la dirección
del estado de California y la ciudad de San
Diego, la audiencia pública se llevará a
cabo virtualmente. Está invitado a asistir
una audiencia pública virtual el miércoles,
14 de octubre, 2020 a las 17:30 – 19:30
Horario del Pacifico para aprender más
sobre la Acción Propuesta y la EA, hacer
preguntas, y proporcionar comentarios
formales. La audiencia pública comenzará
con una presentación de parte de los
patrocinadores del proyecto. Después
de la presentación, tendrá la oportunidad
de hacer preguntas y proporcionar
comentarios. Respuestas a las preguntas
se darán al final de la presentación. Todos
los comentarios públicos se grabarán
como parte del registro oficial de la
audiencia pública y serán hecho parte del
archivo público.

Durante la parte de testimonios públicos de
la audiencia pública, a cada persona se le
permitirá 3 minutos para dar su testimonio.

Si tiene comentarios adicionales que le
gustaría dar más allá de lo que pudo dar
durante su tiempo permitido, por favor
entréguelos por escrito. A los comentarios
escritos se las da la misma atención que
a los comentarios orales presentados
durante la audiencia pública.

Podrá participar en la audiencia pública
por medio de computadora visitando
al enlace https://PublicInput.com/
BrownFieldMAPNEPA y/o por teléfono
al 855-925-2801, código 8860. Durante
la audiencia pública, preguntas y
comentarios se podrán entregar por medio
de varias formas:

1. Por computadora en la ventana de chat
a un lado de la presentación/transmisión
en vivo por https://PublicInput.com/
BrownFieldMAPNEPA; o

2. Por teléfono llamando al 855-925-2801,
código 8860 o por texto M326 al 855- 925-2801.

Esta plataforma permanecerá abierta
durante el período de comentarios
públicos. Comentarios escritos
s e r á n a c e p t a d o s p o r e m a i l a
BrownFieldMAPNEPA@PublicInput.
com antes o después de la audiencia
pública.

Adaptaciones Especiales: Se puede
proporcionar ayuda y servicios auxiliares
a pedido. Las solicitudes para estos
servicios se pueden hacer llamando al
(858) 573-1441 al menos 5 días antes de
la audiencia pública. Se harán todos los
esfuerzos razonables para adaptarse a las
necesidades especiales.

Aquellas personas no hablan inglés,
o tienen limitaciones para leer, hablar
o entender inglés, podrían recibir
servicios de interpretación si los
solicitan antes de la audiencia pública
llamando al (858) 573-1441, al menos 5
días antes de la audiencia pública. Se
harán todos los esfuerzos razonables
para adaptarse a las necesidades de
interpretación.

Comentarios Públicos Escritos:

Antes de incluir su dirección, número
de teléfono, dirección de correo
electrónico, u otra información
de identificación personal en su
comentario, tenga en cuenta que su
comentario completo - incluida su
información de identificación personal
- puede estar disponible públicamente
en cualquier momento. Mientras
pueda pedirnos en su comentario que
retengamos de la revisión pública
su información de identificación
personal, no podemos garantizar que
podamos hacerlo. Los comentarios recibidos sobre la EA y las respuestas a esos comentarios serán incluidos en la
EA Final.

Comentarios escritos serán aceptados
por email a BrownFieldMAPNEPA@
PublicInput.com antes o después de la
audiencia pública. También se aceptarán
comentarios escritos por correo a:

Jorge E. Rubio, A.A.E.

Airports Deputy Director
City of San Diego - Airports
3750 John J. Montgomery Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
Los comentarios deben recibirse
antes de las 5:00 p.m. Horario del
Pacífico el 24 de octubre de 2020. Por favor asegúrese de que haya tiempo suficiente para enviar por correo. Todos
los comentarios deben recibirse antes de la fecha límite, no simplemente con matasellos de esa fecha. 9/9/20 SD-3396563#
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
City of San Diego Airports Division

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOCATION
Metropolitan Airpark Project, Brown Field
Municipal Airport, San Diego, San Diego
County, California.

Pursuant to Title 49, United States Code,
§47106(c)(1)(A), notice is hereby given
that the City of San Diego, California,
through its Airport Division (Sponsor),
proposes to permit a private developer
to implement the proposed Metropolitan
Airpark Project (Proposed Action) at the
Brown Field Municipal Airport (SDM). The
Proposed Action includes the construction
of a fixed-base operator (FBO) building,
aircraft parking apron, aircraft hangar
buildings, and a helicopter business
center. The Proposed Action also
includes site preparation and grading,
utilities installation, road construction,
and road widening. The purpose of the
Proposed Action is to accommodate the
unmet demand for additional corporate
jet aviation facilities in south San Diego
County. Implementation of the Proposed
Action would result in new facilities at SDM
that would be designed to meet applicable
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
airport design standards.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
provides information on the proposed
project and discusses the potential
economic, social, and environmental
impacts of the Proposed Action with
consideration of its alternatives (including
the No Action Alternative) and has been
prepared pursuant to the requirements
of Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
and Section 509(b)(5) of the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as
amended. The FAA is the lead federal
agency and will ensure compliance with
NEPA for airport development actions.

The Draft EA has also been prepared
in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, FAA Order 5050.4B,
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Implementing Instructions for
Airport Actions, the federal Endangered
Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, and National Historic Preservation
Act, and Executive Order 11990 on
Protection of Wetlands. The Draft EA
includes an analysis of prudent or feasible
alternatives; potential economic, social
and environmental effects; and mitigation
measures, as appropriate.

Pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, the FAA gives
notice that the FAA has determined the
Proposed Action may affect, is likely to
adversely affect, the following federally
listed species: endangered San Diego fairy
shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis),
endangered San Diego button celery
(Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), and
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica). The FAA
has determined the Proposed Action will not affect the federal endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha
quino).

The Proposed Action would affect 1.01
acres of Waters of the U.S. (Waters)
regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of
the Clean Water Act. This includes 0.73
acre of non-wetland Waters and 0.28 acre
of wetland Waters in the form of vernal
pools.

FAA provides notice pursuant to 36 C.F.R.§
800.8(c) that it is using the NEPA process
to notify the public of FAA’s finding that
the proposed undertaking will not affect
the Auxiliary Naval Air Station Brown Field
Historic District or any properties listed or
eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places.

PUBLIC REVIEW
By September 14th, 2020, a copy of the
Draft EA will be available at the City of San
Diego Airports website: www.sandiego.
gov/airports. A copy of the public hearing
presentation and project fact sheet will be
posted to the same website 10 days prior
to the public hearing. Those who do not
have Internet capability or ability to access
online materials may request a hard or
electronic copy of the Draft EA be sent
to you. Requests can be made by calling
(858) 573-1441 and leaving a voicemail
with your name, phone number, preferred
format of the Draft EA (CD or hard copy),
and address.
*COVID-19 NOTICE*
In 2020, the World Health Organization
characterized COVID-19 as a
pandemic. Due to the public health
and safety requirements concerning
the coronavirus, the public review and
comments regarding the Draft EA shall
be conducted in accordance with the
public health guidance provided by the
State of California and the City of San
Diego which are subject to change. The
public hearing for the Draft EA will be
held online and via telephone as further
described below.

Public Hearing:

As a result of public health guidance
regarding COVID-19 and under the
direction of State of California and the
City of San Diego, the public hearing
will be held virtually. You are invited to
attend a virtual public hearing scheduled
for Wednesday October 14th, 2020
from 5:30 – 7:30 pm Pacific Time to learn more about the Proposed Action and Draft EA, ask questions, and provide
formal comments. The public hearing will
begin with a presentation by the project’s
proponents. After the presentation, you
will have the opportunity to ask questions
and provide comments. Questions will be
answered at the end of the presentation. All
public comments will be recorded as part
of the official public hearing transcript and
will be made part of the public record.

During the public testimony portion of the
public hearing, each speaker will be given
3 minutes for their testimony. If you have
additional comments that you would like
to submit beyond what you are able to
address during your allotted time, please
submit them in writing. Written comments
are given the same attention as oral
comments presented during the public
hearing.

You may participate in the public
hearing via computer by visiting https://
PublicInput.com/BrownFieldMAPNEPA
and/or via phone by calling 855-925- 2801, code 8860. During the public hearing, questions and comments may be
submitted through several channels:

1. Submit via computer in the chat box next
to the presentation livestream at https://
PublicInput.com/BrownFieldMAPNEPA.

2. Submit via phone by calling 855-925-
2801, code 8860 or texting M326 to 855-
925-2801.

This platform will remain open for the
duration of the public comment period.

Written comments will be accepted via
email at BrownFieldMAPNEPA@
PublicInput.com prior to, or after, the
public hearing.

Special Accommodations: Auxiliary aids
and services may be provided upon
request. Requests for these services can
be made by calling (858) 573-1441 at least
5 days prior to the public hearing. Every
reasonable effort to accommodate special
needs will be made.

Persons who do not speak English,
or have a limited ability to read, speak,
or understand English, may receive
interpretive services upon request prior
to the public hearing by calling (858) 573-
1441 at least 5 days prior to the public
hearing. Every reasonable effort to
accommodate translation needs will be
made.

Aquellas personas no hablan inglés,
o tienen limitaciones para leer, hablar
o entender inglés, podrían recibir
servicios de interpretación si los
solicitan antes de la audiencia pública
llamando al (858) 573-1441, al menos 5
días antes de la audiencia pública. Se
harán todos los esfuerzos razonables
para adaptarse a las necesidades
especiales.

Written Public Comments:

Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in
your comment, be advised that your
entire comment – including your
personal identifying information – may
be made publicly available at any time.

While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold from public review your
personal identifying information, we
cannot guarantee that it will be able to
do so. Comments received on the Draft EA and the responses to those comments will be disclosed in the Final EA.

Written comments will be accepted via
email at BrownFieldMAPNEPA@
PublicInput.com prior to, or after, the
public hearing. Written comments may also
be mailed to:

Jorge E. Rubio, A.A.E.

Airports Deputy Director
City of San Diego - Airports
3750 John J. Montgomery Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
Comments must be received by 5:00
p.m. Pacific Time on October 24th, 2020.

Please ensure adequate time for mailing.

All comments must be received by the deadline, not simply postmarked by that date. 9/9/20 SD-3396560#

SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION for

INNOVATION LAB OPPORTUNITIES
The San Diego County Regional
Airport Authority (“Authority”) is seeking
applications from firms or individuals to
bring innovative ideas and/or solutions
that, 1) will allow contactless movement
of passengers throughout the airport.

Considerations could include passenger
identification, security, concessions pointof-sale, or more; and 2) utilize technology to communicate social distancing
recommendations, identify congestion, or
otherwise guide queuing to more efficient
logistics at the San Diego International
Airport (“Airport”). For more information
and to submit an application, apply at: san.
org/innovate
Application Due Date: October 4, 2020
Department #: 29
9/9/20
SD-3396549#

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN SCH No. 2019059095 September 9, 2020
To all interested parties:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a
Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) has been prepared for the
Alvarado Specific Plan project (proposed
project) in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
City of La Mesa (City), as the Lead Agency,
is inviting your comments regarding
the adequacy of the PEIR. This Notice
of Availability (NOA) of a PEIR was
published in the San Diego Daily Transcript
and publicly noticed and distributed on
September 9, 2020. The Draft PEIR and
associated technical appendices can be
accessed at the following link:
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1639/
Alvarado-Specific-Plan
The Draft PEIR is also available for review
at the City of La Mesa located at 8100
Allison Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91942;
please call for an appointment at (619)
667-1177. A copy of the Draft PEIR is also
available for review at the La Mesa Library
located at 8074 University Avenue, La
Mesa, CA 91942.

Project Location: The project is located
on an approximately 12-acre site along
the south side of Alvarado Road generally
between 70th Street on the west and Guava Avenue on the east in La Mesa, California. The project site is bound by
the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west,
the Green Line trolley corridor to the
south, a car dealership to the east, and
Alvarado Road and Interstate 8 to the
north. The site is developed and currently
contains a recreational vehicle (RV) resort
facility with paved access roadways, RV
spaces, a clubhouse, a swimming pool,
and three billboards. Alvarado Creek
traverses the property as it flows under
Alvarado Road in the eastern portion of
the site and continues southwesterly and
westerly along the southern boundary of
the western portion of the site.

Project Description: The proposed
project entails a master development plan
for a phased transit-oriented development
and associated public improvements. The
project would include four development
parcels that would be constructed in two
phases. Phase 1 includes the parcels
(Parcels 1-3) west of the intersection of
Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Phase
2 includes the parcel (Parcel 4) east of
the intersection of the Creek and Alvarado
Road. Each parcel would be developed
with a multi-family residential building.

Phase 1 would feature two multi-family
residential buildings built on a podium
deck over multi-level parking in the central
portion of the site and a smaller-scale
building in the western-most parcel. Phase
2 would include one building in the eastern
portion of the site similar in size and scale
to the two larger buildings constructed in
Phase 1. The buildings would include up to
five stories of residential units and one to
three levels of parking. Each building would
include a mix of housing types and sizes,
ranging from two-bedroom, one-bedroom,
studios, and loft units. A total of 850 to 950
residential units would be constructed at
buildout. In addition to the residential uses,
the project could include ground floor,
resident-serving commercial uses.

The buildings would include interior project
amenity facilities and active outdoor
spaces on the parking structure podium
deck levels. A comprehensive landscaping
plan would be implemented as the site is
developed. Site access would be provided
from Alvarado Road to two internal loop
roads. Beyond the parking access points,
the loop road would primarily function as
a pedestrian promenade connecting the
buildings and site amenities, as well to the
Alvarado Road frontage improvements and
adjacent 70th Street trolley station.

As part of the project, several public
improvements would be implemented.

Frontage road improvements to Alvarado
Road would be provided, including a
shared pedestrian/bicycle path, curb
and gutter, streetlights, street trees, an
on-street parking lane, a pedestrian bridge
over the Alvarado Creek channel, and
a pedestrian connection to the adjacent
70th Street Trolley Station. Existing
overhead utility lines that extend across
the site would be relocated underground.

Improvements would also be made to the
Alvarado Creek channel that traverses
the site to control flood and storm water
flows within the channel. Sewer system
improvements are proposed, including
relocating an existing sewer trunk line
within the channel out of the channel and
raising and capping an existing manhole.

In conjunction with the adoption of the
Alvarado Specific Plan, a Development
Agreement is proposed to be adopted
by Ordinance of the City Council in
accordance with California Government
Code sections 65864 et seq.to memorialize
the project entitlements and the provisions
for construction of proposed public
improvements.

CEQA Compliance
This NOA has been prepared in
accordance with Section 15087 of the
State CEQA Guidelines. The Draft PEIR
will be circulated for a 45-day review period
during which your comments regarding
the adequacy of the Draft PEIR are
welcomed. Due to the time limits mandated
by state law, the 45-day review period will
extend from September 9, 2020 through
October 26, 2020. Your comments must be
received by 5:30 PM on October 26, 2020.

Comments on the adequacy of the Draft
PEIR can be mailed to:

Kirt Coury
Project Planner, Community Development
Department
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue La Mesa, California 91942
Or provided via email to alvaradosp@
cityoflamesa.us.
9/9/20 SD-3396305#

NOTICE TO BIDDERS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
City of San Diego will receive bids for
commodities and services. Bid packages
can be downloaded from the City of San
Diego’s Bid & Contract Opportunities,
third party website, found at http://www.
planetbids.com/.

If you are unable to utilize the online option,
bid packages can be requested by calling
Purchasing & Contracting Department at
(619) 236-6000.

Furnish the City of San Diego with RFP
No. 10089717-21-K, Strategic Real
Estate Advisory Services, as may
be required until completion of services
from effective Date, as defined in Article I,
Section 1.2 of the City’s General Contract
Terms and Provisions, revised January
16, 2020.

RFP No. 10089717-21-K.

RFP Closing Date: September 21, 2020
@ 2:00 p.m.

Christiana Gauger
Interim Director of Purchasing &
Contracting
9/9/20
SD-3396242#
The City of San Diego Transportation and
Storm Water Department in accordance
with National Flood Insurance Program
regulation 65.7(b)(1), hereby gives
notice of the City’s intent to revise the
flood hazard information, generally
located between Fashion Valley Road to
approximately 1,200 feet east of Fashion
Valley Road. Specifically, the flood hazard
information will be revised along the
San Diego River from the westerly side
of Fashion Valley Road to approximately
700 feet west of the Avenida Del Rio river
crossing.

Chang Consultants is applying for a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) on behalf of Lowe Enterprises
and Holland Construction to revise FIRM
06073C1618G for the city of San Diego,
CA along the San Diego River. Chang
Consultants is proposing to revise the
FIRM to reflect the Town and Country
mixed-use redevelopment project.

As a result of the revision, the 1-percentannual-chance water-surface elevations shall decrease, and the 1-percent-annualchance floodplain will widen and narrow within the area of revision compared to
existing conditions.

Maps and detailed analysis of the
revision can be reviewed at the city
of San Diego Transportation and Storm
Water Department at 9370 Chesapeake
Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123.

Interested persons may contact Sean
Torres, Floodplain Administrator of the
City of San Diego, at (858) 541-4348 for
additional information from 8AM to 4PM,
Monday through Friday.
9/3, 9/4, 9/8, 9/9, 9/10/20 SD-3395375#
The County of San Diego, Owner, invites
bids for OTAY VALLEY REGIONAL PARK
BIKE SKILLS COURSE. PROJECT NO.
1021894; BID No. 10427.

Sealed bids will be received at the
Department of Purchasing and
Contracting, at 5560 Overland Avenue,
Ste. 270, San Diego, 92123, until 2:00 PM
on September 21, 2020, at which time they
will be publicly opened and read aloud.

Please refer to the COVID-19 Letter to
Contractors, dated March 20, 2020, on
how to submit responses; letter is posted
to BuyNet. Contract documents including
Plans, Specifications and Bid Forms are
available for download on the County
Buynet site: https://buynet.sdcounty.ca.gov.

You must be registered at the site in order
to download documents. The Contractor
shall possess, at the time of submitting
the bid, a California contractor’s license,
Classification A, General Engineering
Contractor License. The cost of project
is estimated to be between $500,000 to
$600,000. Bid security of no less than 10%
required at time of bid. Successful bidder
shall provide Payment and Performance
Bonds for 100% of the contract amount.

Prevailing Wage rates apply. The Owner,
as a matter of policy, requires Disabled
Veterans Business Enterprise (DVBE)
participation for this project. For complete
bid information, go to County of San Diego
Purchasing and Contracting website
at https://buynet.sdcounty.ca.gov. For
questions, please contact PCS, Michael
Bautista at Michael.Bautista@sdcounty.
ca.gov.
9/3, 9/4, 9/8, 9/9, 9/10, 9/11, 9/14, 9/15,
9/16, 9/17/20
SD-3394983#
Request for Proposals 20-21-18-01
OVCDC Legal Services
Owens Valley Career Development
Center is seeking proposals from
responsible qualified Attorneys and
Law Firms with Tribal Law experience
licensed to practice in the State of
California and Federal Courts to
provide general legal services. This
project will be funded entirely with
Government Grant funds not to exceed
$85,000.00/yr.

For full Request for Proposals please
visit www.ovcdc.com
Bids will be received by OVCDC until 5:00
pm, PST, September 18, 2020 at the office
of OVCDC Finance, P.O. Box 847, Bishop,
CA 93515 or 2574 Diaz Lane, Bishop, CA
93514. Electronic submission preferred to
hard copy. Email [email protected]
and Phone (760) 873-5107 Ext 275 with
questions
9/2, 9/9, 9/16/20 SD-3394553#
The County of San Diego, Owner, invites
bids for REPAIR, REPLACEMENT AND

CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE

SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 -2020 ORACLE
PROJECT NO. 1021882: BID No. 10466.

Sealed bids will be received at the
Department of Purchasing and
Contracting, at 5560 Overland Avenue,
Ste. 270, San Diego, 92123, until 2:00
PM on September 24, 2020,at which time
they will be publicly opened and read
aloud. Contract documents including
Plans, Specifications and Bid Forms are
available for download on the County
Buynet site: https://buynet.sdcounty.
ca.gov. You must be registered at the
site in order to download documents.

The Contractor shall possess, at the
time of submitting the bid, a California
contractor’s license, Classification A,
General Engineering Contractor License.

The cost of construction is estimated to be
from $655,000 to $700,000. Bid security of
no less than 10% required at time of bid.

Successful bidder shall provide Payment
and Performance Bonds for 100% of the
contract amount. Prevailing Wage rates
apply. The Owner, as a matter of policy,
requires Disabled Veterans Business
Enterprise (DVBE) participation for this
project. For complete bid information, go
to County of San Diego Purchasing and
Contracting website at https://buynet.
sdcounty.ca.gov. For questions, please
contact PCO, William Eames at William.

SECTION II
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-1 August 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with project development. In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring and reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant effects [Section 15097(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines]. The State CEQA Guidelines require that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted upon certification of an EIR to ensure mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented.

According to Section 15097(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.

The MMRP assigns responsibility for monitoring mitigation measures incorporated into the project. The City of La Mesa Community Development Department, as office of record for CEQA compliance, is responsible for reporting on the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this MMRP, in accordance with Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

A record of the MMRP will be maintained at the City of La Mesa, Community Development Department, 8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, 91942.

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-2 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-3 August 2022
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party
Verification
Date
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Biological Resource Protection
I. Prior to Construction
a. Biologist Verification – The owner/permittee shall designate a project biologist (Qualified Biologist) to be retained to implement a project biological monitoring program.
b. Pre-construction Meeting – The Qualified Biologist shall attend the pre-construction meeting(s), discuss the project’s biological monitoring program.
c. Avian Protection Requirements – To avoid direct impacts to avian species identified as listed, candidate, sensitive, or special status, removal of habitat that supports active nests in the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If removal of habitat in the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting bird species on the proposed area of disturbance. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The owner/permittee shall submit the results of the pre-construction survey to the City of La Mesa for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting activities for any sensitive bird or MBTA-protected species are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan in conformance with applicable state and federal law (i.e., appropriate follow up surveys, monitoring schedules, construction and noise
barriers/buffers, etc.) shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that take of birds or eggs or disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of La Mesa for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City.

Condition of approval Pre-construction
meetings
Pre-construction
surveys (as required)
and survey report
and/or mitigation plan
(as required)
Site visits and
documentation to
verify appropriate
restrictions and
fencing are in place
Monitoring reports
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits
and throughout
construction
Community
Development
Department
and
construction
contractors

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-4 August 2022
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party
Verification
Date
Biological Resources (cont.)
d. Resource Delineation – Prior to construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall supervise the placement of orange construction fencing or equivalent along the limits of disturbance adjacent to sensitive biological habitats.
e. Education – Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Qualified Biologist shall meet with the owner/permittee or designee and the construction crew and conduct an on-site educational session regarding the need to avoid impacts outside of the approved construction area and to protect sensitive biological resources.

II. During Construction
a. Monitoring – All construction (including access/staging areas) shall be restricted to areas previously identified, proposed for development/staging, or previously disturbed as shown on the approved grading plans. The Qualified Biologist shall monitor construction activities as needed, to ensure that construction activities do not encroach into biologically sensitive areas, or cause other similar damage, and that the work plan has been amended to accommodate any sensitive species located during the pre-construction surveys.
b. Subsequent Resource Identification – The Qualified Biologist shall note/act to prevent any new disturbances to habitat, flora, and/or fauna on-site (e.g., flag plant specimens for avoidance during access, etc.). If active nests or other previously unknown sensitive resources are detected, all project activities that directly impact the resource shall be delayed until species-specific local, state or federal regulations have been determined and applied by the Qualified Biologist.

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-5 August 2022
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party
Verification
Date
Biological Resources (cont.)
BIO-2 Sensitive Habitat Replacement. Temporary impacts to 0.04 acre of freshwater marsh and 0.01 acre of willow woodland shall be mitigated within the biological survey area at a minimum 1:1 ratio through revegetation and establishment within Alvarado Creek.

Temporarily impacted areas of Alvarado Creek shall be
revegetated, and new wetlands shall be established in areas of the widened creek bed. The revegetation and establishment areas shall be planted with wetland native species, including broadleaved cattail, Olney’s three-square bulrush, and southern bulrush and shall be maintained and monitored for an initial period of five years in accordance with a project Habitat Restoration Plan and regulatory permit conditions.

Condition of approval Plan check process
and landscape plan
approval
Habitat Restoration
Plan
Prior to
construction
Community
Development
Department
BIO-3 Wetland Habitat Replacement. Temporary and permanent impacts to federal and state jurisdictional waters (i.e., wetlands, non-wetland/streambed/bank and associated sensitive
vegetation communities) shall be mitigated within the biological survey area through wetland revegetation and establishment within Alvarado Creek, as identified in Table 4.2-8, Summary of Proposed Jurisdictional Waters Mitigation, in the Final PEIR.

Temporarily impacted areas of Alvarado Creek shall be
revegetated, and new wetlands shall be established in areas of the widened creek bed. The revegetation and establishment areas shall be planted with wetland native species, including broadleaved cattail, Olney’s three-square bulrush, and southern bulrush and shall be maintained and monitored for an initial period of five years in accordance with a project Habitat Restoration Plan and regulatory permit conditions. Following project construction, Alvarado Creek, within the limits of the project site, shall be preserved and enhanced as part of the long-term maintenance and management of Alvarado Creek in accordance with an
approved Management Plan. Long-term maintenance task shall include removal of non-native species and selective thinning of woody vegetation.

Condition of approval Plan check process
and landscape plan
approval
Habitat Restoration
Plan
Management Plan
Prior to
construction
Community
Development
Department

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-6 August 2022
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party
Verification
Date
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Archaeological and Native American Construction Monitoring.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the owner/permittee shall prepare a cultural resources monitoring program that shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Community Development Department. The monitoring program shall include the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a Native American (NA) monitor.

The archaeological and NA monitors shall attend a preconstruction meeting with the construction manager and be in attendance during initial ground disturbing activities at the project site. The monitors shall determine the extent of their presence during soil disturbing activities.

The archaeological and NA monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity if cultural resources are encountered. If an artifact is encountered, all operations in the area where the artifact was found shall be suspended immediately, the City shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the
owner/permittee to evaluate, in consultation with the NA monitor, the significance of the find; to salvage, record, clean, and curate significant artifact(s); and to document the find in accordance with current professional archaeological standards.

Within 30 days of completion of ground-disturbing activities, either a letter signed by the archaeological and NA monitors stating that no artifacts were found or, if artifacts were found, a report prepared by the qualified archaeologist and NA monitor documenting the mitigation program shall be submitted to the City.

Condition of approval Pre-construction
meetings
Submittal of a
negative findings
report or an artifactrecovery mitigation
program report
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits
Community
Development
Department
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Survey and Disposal. Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit, an asbestos and lead survey shall be conducted on the project site by a licensed asbestos/lead contractor. If the survey identifies hazardous building materials, the owner/permittee shall complete the necessary remediation identified in the survey prior to commencement of demolition activities in accordance with applicable laws, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, to ensure that no hazards to Condition of approval Asbestos/lead survey
and letter report
Prior to the
issuance of a
demolition or
grading permit
Community
Development
Department

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-7 August 2022
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Action
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Responsible
Party
Verification
Date
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (cont.)
the demolition crew, adjacent residents, or others are created by exposure to hazardous building materials. The owner/permittee shall provide a letter to the City’s Community Development Department stating that a licensed asbestos/lead contractor has been retained at the owner/permittee’s expense to conduct the asbestos and lead survey, and a letter report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations of the asbestos and lead survey shall be prepared and submitted to the City’s Community Development Department.

Paleontological Resources
PAL-1 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to construction, the owner/permittee shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor.

The paleontological monitor shall attend pre-construction meeting(s) with the construction manager and shall be present during all initial cutting, grading, or excavation of previously undisturbed substratum. If a fossil is encountered, all operations in the area where the fossil was found shall be suspended immediately, the City shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find; to salvage, record, clean, and curate significant fossil(s); and to document the find in accordance with current professional paleontological standards. Within 30 days of completion of ground-disturbing activities, either a letter signed by the paleontological monitor stating that no fossils were found or, if fossils were found, a report prepared by the qualified
paleontologist documenting the mitigation program shall be submitted to the City.

Condition of approval Pre-construction
meetings
Submittal of a
negative findings
report or a fossil
recovery mitigation
program report
Prior to the
issuance of
grading permits
and ongoing
during
construction
Community
Development
Department
and
construction
contractors

Section II Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR II-8 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

SECTION III
Comments and Responses

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-1 August 2022

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on September 9, 2020 and ending on October 26, 2020. All comment letters received on the Draft PEIR in response to the 45-day public review period have been organized by agency and organization or person according to date received. Each of the comment letters received during the public comment period was alphabetically and numerically coded to facilitate identification and tracking (Table III-1). The letters were reviewed and divided into individual comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern.

Individual comments and the responses to them were assigned corresponding numbers. The comment number consists of two parts. The first part is the letter of the document and the second is the number of the comment. Thus, Comment A-1 is the first comment (comment #1) of comment letter A. To aid readers, comments have been reproduced in this document together with corresponding responses on the same page.

Table III-1
List of Commenting Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Letter Designation Name
A Californian Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
B Shari Pomeroy
C Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
The following pages provide the comment letter on the left side, with each specific comment bracketed and numbered in the left-hand margin, and correspondingly numbered responses to each comment on the right-hand side. Some of the comments do not pertain to the adequacy of analysis in the Draft PEIR or to other aspects pertinent to the potential effects of the proposed project on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Regardless, a good faith effort has been made to respond to the comments submitted where they may touch on environmental analyses.

Section III Comments and Responses
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-2 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-3 August 2022
A-1
A-2
A-1 This introductory statement from Caltrans is noted. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), no further response is required.

A-2 The Draft PEIR incorrectly identified that proposed improvements to the Alvarado Creek Channel and utilities would extend into the Caltrans right-of-way. However, the project would occur outside of the Caltrans right-of-way and would not result in direct impacts to facilities, infrastructure, or resources within the Caltrans rightof-way. As such, the Final PEIR has deleted the text in Section 1.5.2.7 (see page 1-5) as shown below. For clarification, revisions have also been made to Table 3-2 (page 3-10) in the Final PEIR, which are also provided below. No new mitigation measures in addition to those identified in the Draft PEIR are included in the Final PEIR. Environmental resources listed in the Notice of Preparation are evaluated in Chapter 4 of the PEIR.

1.5.2.7 California Department of Transportation
I-8 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages and maintains the right-ofway associated with I-8. The project includes improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel and utilities that would extend into the Caltrans right-of-way.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-4 August 2022
A-3
A-4
Table 3-2

ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Action/Approval/Permit Agency
Certification of PEIR City of La Mesa
Adoption of the Alvarado Specific Plan City of La Mesa
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish an
Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone
City of La Mesa
Development Agreement City of La Mesa
Site Development Plans City of La Mesa
Design Review City of La Mesa
Demolition Permits City of La Mesa
Grading Permits City of La Mesa
Building Permits City of La Mesa
Encroachment Permits MTS, Caltrans
Clean Water Action Section 404 Permit USACE
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification RWQCB Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement
CDFW
NPDES Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit RWQCB Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)
A-3 The comment concurs with the significance conclusion in the Draft PEIR regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, as evaluated in Section 4.13.5.2 (pages

4.13-9 through 4.13-11 in the Draft PEIR). No further response is required.

A-4 This comment provides feedback and specific requests pertaining to the Preliminary Drainage and Floodplain Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix I of the Draft PEIR) This study provides a programmatic analysis of the proposed Specific Plan based on the development parameters contained in the Specific Plan.

No development within the Specific Plan area is proposed at this time. As discussed in Section 1.4 of the Draft PEIR, full project implementation would require subsequent approval of development proposals for each parcel within the Specific Plan area to carry out the land use plan and demonstrate compliance with policies presented in the Specific Plan. At that time, project-level technical studies, if required, would be prepared for review and approval. Coordination and consultation with Caltrans would also occur at that time regarding specific development proposals.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-5 August 2022
A-4
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-6 August 2022
A-5
A-6
A-5 As noted in response A-2, project improvements would occur outside of the Caltrans right-of-way and would not result in direct impacts to facilities, infrastructure, or resources within the Caltrans right-of-way. With regard to the vines on the retaining wall, they are not being proposed as part of the landscape plan for the Specific Plan. Section 3.3.2.8 (page 3-7) and Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-12 in the Final PEIR have been revised as follows to remove the vines:

Landscape treatments planned for the Alvarado Road street frontage include street trees with mixed heights and species to create a vertical edge separating the roadway from the new sidewalk. The streetscape plan also includes a series of bulb-outs in the parking lane to add both depth and height to help reinforce the tree line street edge and provide some screening for above-grade parking levels facing the street. In addition, a planting area would be provided between the sidewalk and the parking structures to provide additional landscape screening of the parking structures. The existing retaining wall along the north side of Alvarado Road would be planted with vines.

A-6 As noted in response A-2, the project would occur outside of the Caltrans right-ofway and would not result in direct impacts to facilities, infrastructure, or resources within the Caltrans right-of-way. Therefore, encroachment permits from Caltrans are not required. Revisions have been made to Section 1.5.2.7 (page 1-5) and Table 3-2 (page 3-10) in the Final PEIR for clarification (see response A-2 above).

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-7 August 2022
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-1 This comment states that the project’s traffic would be excessive. Traffic impacts resulting from the project are evaluated in Section 4.13 in the Draft PEIR, which concludes impacts would be less than significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the project (1) would be consistent with applicable transportation plans; (2) is located within one half mile of a major transit stop (70th Street Trolley Station) and would implement vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction features including construction of a transit-oriented development and provision of pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements; (3) would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses; and (4) would not result in inadequate emergency access. It should be noted that the project proposes improvements to Alvarado Road along the project site frontage, including road right of-way dedication and a public access easement to provide for a shoulder, parking lane, curb and gutter, a Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle path, pedestrian bridge over Alvarado Creek, and street-side landscaping.

B-2 This comment states there are homeless in the area and the project would encourage more homeless activity. However, the comment does not provide any facts or other information regarding how the project, which proposes a specific plan for the development of additional housing, would encourage more homeless activity. Since this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required. Nonetheless, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project.

B-3 This comment states that trash and graffiti in the area are terrible and are not cleaned up. Since this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

Nonetheless, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project.

B-4 This comment states there are crime in the area is severe and the project would create a more unsafe area. However, the comment does not provide any facts or other information regarding how the project would create a more unsafe area.

Section 3.3.2.10 of the Draft EIR describes the improvements to lighting which will be part of the project and which would contribute to enhanced public safety in the area. This comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required. Nonetheless, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-8 August 2022
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-5 This comment states the city failed to keep small and large businesses safe with the protests. This comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

B-6 This comment states the project is not fair to current residents of the mobile home park. However, the comment does provide any facts or other information about what is not fair. Section 6.1.4 of the Draft EIR analyzed the project’s potential impacts on Population and Housing and found such impacts would be less than significant. This comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, therefore no further response is required.

Nonetheless, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project.

B-7 This comment states that the Alvarado trolley station is unsafe now and more traffic and people would make it worse. However, the comment does not provide any facts or other information regarding how the project would make the Alvarado trolley station more unsafe. Since this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

Nonetheless, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project.

B-8 This comment states “[e]nvironmental impact of more cars (emissions) into the environment, etc., trash, etc.” Sections 4.1.5.2 (pages 4.1-18 through 4.1-22) and

4.1.5.3 (pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-25) in the Draft PEIR evaluate potential air quality impacts associated with mobile emissions resulting from the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. The Draft PEIR concludes that impacts due to increased emissions of criteria pollutants would be less than significant because the project’s construction and operational emissions would be below the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s daily limits. Other environmental impacts associated with additional cars potentially include noise. As discussed in Section 4.9.5.1 (page 4.9-19) in the Draft PEIR, even though the project would contribute to an increase in traffic volumes along Alvarado Road, ambient noise increases due to additional cars on this roadway would be anticipated to be less than three dBA and would not exceed applicable noise standards.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-9 August 2022
B-9 This comment states that the city looks terrible and new developments should not be allowed until the city cleans up existing conditions. Since this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required. However, it should be noted that as discussed in Section 4.14.5.3 (page 4.14-19) in the Draft PEIR, the overall visual quality of the site would be improved upon project implementation due, in part, to the removal of existing non-native invasive vegetation and debris within Alvarado Creek and construction of a cohesive development with consistent design elements.

B-10 This comment states that neighborhoods are now dirty and should be cleaned up.

Since this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-10 August 2022
C-1
C-2
C-1 The comment is an introductory statement that identifies the commenter and their interest in the project. The City of La Mesa (City) acknowledges the ability for the commenter to supplement comments prior to final hearings on the project.

C-2 Comment is noted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-11 August 2022
C-2
(cont.)
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-3 Southwest Carpenters will receive future notices on the project at the address noted on the comment letterhead (c/o Mitchell M. Tsai, 155 South El Molino Avenue, Suite 104, Pasadena, CA 91101).

C-4 Construction workforce is outside of the purview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project. No further response is required.

C-5 The project would be required to comply with applicable California Building Code standards and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). As noted in Section 4.5.2.2 (pages 4.5-5 and 4.5-6) of the Draft PEIR, CALGreen is intended to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction. While the comment also mentions the Los Angeles Green Building Standards Code, this code is not applicable to the project because the project is located in San Diego County.

C-6 The comment provides general guidance regarding CEQA. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-12 August 2022
C-6
(cont.)
C-7
C-7 The comment provides general guidance regarding CEQA. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-13 August 2022
C-7
(cont.)
C-8
C-8 The comment states that CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings and cites specific CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines sections (Public resources Code [PRC] Section 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines Section15065(a)(4)).

This is a misstatement that does not reflect the actual language contained in the cited CEQA references. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) states the following (with PRC Section 21083 (b)(3) containing similar language):
(a) A lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that any of the following conditions may occur:… (4) The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The project does not require a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA regarding the COVID 19 crisis because COVID 19 is an existing condition in the environment and is not an environmental effect of the project. CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze the potential effects of a project on the environment; CEQA does not require a lead agency to study the potential effects of the environment on a project or its users.

Other than the project’s status as a future employer during construction activities, the comment does not identify any facts or other information which shows that the project would exacerbate existing conditions regarding COVID 19. While it is acknowledged that COVID 19 is present in San Diego County, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has identified certain construction activities as varying from lower to high risk. Also as noted on their website (https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/construction.html):

The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to comply with safety and health standards and regulations promulgated by OSHA or by a state with an OSHA approved state plan. In addition, the Act’s General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1), requires employers to provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-14 August 2022
C-8
(cont.)
C-8 (cont.) The OSHA website includes COVID 19 control and prevention information.

COVID-19 - Control and Prevention | Occupational Safety and Health Administration (osha.gov).

The comment also contains specific recommendations for health safety related to COVID. Consistent with standard practice, future construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would occur in compliance with federal, state, and local law and regulations. Any COVID-related restrictions that are relevant during the period of project construction would be implemented by construction contractors. As noted above, this is not a CEQA issue and the comment does not relate to environmental analysis as required under CEQA.

Although no changes to the PEIR regarding this issue are required, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-15 August 2022
C-8
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-16 August 2022
C-8
(cont.)
C-9
C-9 The comment provides general guidance regarding CEQA. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required. As discussed below in response C-10, revisions and recirculation of the Draft PEIR are not required because no new significant information has been provided.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-17 August 2022
C-9
(cont.)
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-10 This comment states that the Draft PEIR should be revised and recirculated for public review due to new significant information and refers to subsequent comments as justification for this assertion. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), significant new information includes:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. 2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. 4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

As noted in responses C-1 through C-26, none of these conditions has occurred with respect to the project since circulation of the Draft PEIR. Therefore, revisions and recirculation of the Draft PEIR are not required.

C-11 The comment provides general guidance regarding CEQA. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

C-12 The EIR prepared for the project is Program EIR, which as described in Section 1.3 of the Draft PEIR and, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, is prepared for a series of actions that are characterized as one large project. The proposed project is a Specific Plan, which is a comprehensive planning document that provides the framework to guide project development within the Specific Plan area and contains site-specific development regulations. As such, the project analyzed in this PEIR is a master development plan for a phased transit-oriented development and associated public improvements as outlined in the Specific Plan.

No development within the Specific Plan area is proposed at this time. As discussed in Section 1.4 of the Draft PEIR, full project implementation would require subsequent approval of development proposals for each parcel within the Specific Plan area to carry out the land use plan and demonstrate compliance with policies presented in the Specific Plan. The Project Description contained in Chapter 3 of the PEIR adequately describes the future development parameters and associated development regulations for the site. As required by CEQA

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-18 August 2022
C-13
(cont.)
C-14
C-12 (cont.) Guidelines Section 15124, the Project Description contains the precise location and boundaries of the project, a statement of objectives of the project, and a general description of the project’s technical, economic and environmental characteristics, including extensive information regarding the nature and extent of development allowed under the Specific Plan, such as the number, size and type of allowable uses, building design, noise reduction features, improvements to Alvarado Creek, improvements to overhead utilities, streets and sewer, recreation and open space features, landscape and hardscape, signage, utilities and vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation.

C-13 The comment provides general guidance regarding CEQA. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required. Refer to responses C-14 through C-21 below with regard to substantial evidence to support the impact conclusions contained in the Draft PEIR.

C-14 The comment discusses CEQA Guidelines sections pertaining to the determination of the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts and the definition and requirements of a qualified GHG reduction plan when consistency with said plan is used to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. The methodology for estimating emissions and determining the significance of the project’s GHG impacts is explained in Section 4.5 of the PEIR. The comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft PEIR. No further response is required.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-19 August 2022
C-14
(cont.)
C-15
C-15 The comment asserts that the Draft PEIR’s quantitative analysis of the project’s GHG emissions relied on an incorrect and unsubstantiated model. However, the comment does not elaborate on the assertion, provide any evidence that the model used in the GHG analysis was incorrect, or suggest an alternate model or calculation method that could have been used. As described in Section 4.5.3 of the PEIR (page 4.5-10) and in Section 4.1 of the GHG technical report (pages 14-15; included as Appendix G to the Draft PEIR), the project’s GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate air emissions, including direct and indirect GHG emission, resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California.

CalEEMod was developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air quality management and pollution control districts. Emissions calculations that are used in the CalEEMod software program are presented in Appendix A (Calculation Details for CalEEMod) of the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 User’s Guide dated October 2017 (User’s Guide). Appendix D of the User’s Guide (Default Data Tables) contains all of the default factors used in the model except for the EMFAC emission factors, which are available on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) website.

Appendix E of the User’s Guide (Technical Source Documentation) identifies how the factors and assumptions that are used in CalEEMod were determined. The CalEEMod User’s Guide was cited in the project GHG technical report as the source of the model’s calculation methodology and default data. Appendices A, D, and E of the User’s Guide, along with other software documentation, are readily available to software users and the general public at http://www.caleemod.com/.

The City has determined that the technical documentation for CalEEMod included in the User’s Guide provides substantial evidence which supports the use of the CalEEMod software program for providing a reasonable estimate of the project’s GHG emissions.

As discussed in Section 4.5.5.1 of the Draft PEIR (pages 4.5-12 through 4.5-14), the project would contribute to the City’s population growth and would result in GHG emissions in the City. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) estimates GHG emissions levels for the years 2020 and 2035 and establishes a threshold of 3.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) per year per capita to meet the statewide GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and be on track to meet the 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 target.

The City has utilized this threshold in this PEIR to determine the significance of the project’s GHG emissions based on substantial evidence provided in the CAP that GHG emissions per capita below this level would enable the City to meet the statewide GHG reduction mandates and are consistent with the GHG reduction

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-20 August 2022
C-15
(cont.)
C-16
C-15 (cont.) targets recommended for local agencies in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. The comment also suggests that a bright line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year would be more appropriate to evaluate significance of the project’s GHG emissions impacts than the per capita metric identified in the City’s CAP. The 3,000 MT CO2e threshold was recommended in 2008 by a working group for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAMQD) and adopted as an interim threshold by the SCAQMD for evaluation of emissions from commercial and residential development projects in the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. The City is not within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, and the comment does not provide substantial evidence for how the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold would account for local conditions in the project area and enable GHG reductions locally (in the City) or regionally (in the County of San Diego) to meet reduction mandates. In addition, the SCAQMD’s interim threshold was developed to meet the GHG emissions mandates of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) of achieving 1990 levels by 2020. The project is anticipated to be fully operational in the year 2026. Furthermore, the comment does not provide substantial evidence of how the SCAQMD’s interim threshold would meet the GHG reduction mandates beyond 2020, as required by Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(c) and 15064.7(c), the City has the discretion to select the methodologies, models and thresholds of significance that it deems appropriate. CEQA neither identifies nor requires the City to use any “generally acceptable threshold.” The threshold of 3.46 MT CO2e per year per capita used in the Draft PEIR, which reflects SB 32 requirements, is supported by substantial evidence and is appropriate to evaluate the significance of the project’s GHG emissions in light of the project’s location within the City and first full operational year of 2026.

The comment is incorrect in the statement that the Draft PEIR erroneously relies upon the project’s consistency with the City’s CAP. As discussed in the Draft PEIR Section 4.5.5.1 (pages 4.5-12 through 4.5-14), the Draft PEIR did not rely on consistency with the City’s CAP to determine the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. The City’s CAP is a qualified plan meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and the analysis of the project’s GHG emissions could have been streamlined. However, the City has not developed methodologies or guidelines for determining a development project’s consistency with the CAP.

Therefore, the Draft PEIR analysis did not streamline the GHG analysis and instead quantified the project’s GHG emissions and determined the significance of those emissions using the 3.46 MT CO2e per year per capita threshold, as discussed above.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-21 August 2022
C-16
(cont.)
C-17
C-16 The comment incorrectly asserts that the Draft PEIR takes credit for emissions reductions resulting from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions.

As discussed in Section 4.5.3 of the Draft PEIR (page 4.5-11), mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the project trip generation analysis and average trip distance, as analyzed in the Transportation Impact Report (Kimley Horn 2020). The project trip generation analysis includes a fivepercent daily trip reduction for land uses within 0.25 mile of a transit station, as recommended in the SANDAG’s Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). The trip generation analysis does not include a 5.2 percent VMT reduction from SANDAG’s Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool. In Section 4.5.5.2 of the Draft PEIR (page 4.5-15), the estimated VMT reductions analyzed in the Transportation Impact Report were discussed in the context of analyzing impacts related to the whether the project would conflict with State and local GHG reduction plans, policies, and regulations. It is noted on page 4.5-15 of the Final PEIR that the employer transit pass subsidy and parking price measures are not guaranteed, and as such no credit was applied for these potential measures in the project’s GHG emissions estimate. Since no credits for these VMT reductions were assumed in the project’s GHG emissions estimate, if instituted there would be a further reduction. As described in Section 4.5.5.1 of the Final PEIR, the project’s estimated GHG emissions per capita would be below the City’s GHG emissions per capita reduction target selected for the CAP. The City has determined that substantial evidence supporting the calculation of the project’s mobile emissions is provided in the Transportation Impact Report (included as Appendix N to the Draft PEIR). No revisions to, or recirculation of, the DEIR are required based on this comment.

C-17 This comments states that, if the Draft PEIR had used the threshold of significance recommended in by the commenter in Comment C-15, the project would have a significant impact and mitigation measures would be required. Please refer to the response C-15 above regarding the threshold of significance for GHG emissions.

The Draft PEIR concluded the impacts related to the project’s GHG emissions and the project’s consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant. This conclusion is based on substantial evidence as discussed in response C-15. Other than disagreement with the thresholds used in the Draft PEIR to determine whether GHG impacts would be significant, the comment does not provide any data or technical analysis contradicting the conclusions of the GHG analysis in the Draft PEIR indicating that

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-22 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)
C-17 (cont.) evidence that impacts related to GHG emissions would be more severe than identified in the Draft PEIR and exceed established thresholds, no mitigation measures (including those listed in the comment) to reduce the project’s GHG impacts are required. The comment also identifies a number of mitigation measures which it claims are applicable to the project. However, an EIR is not required to consider mitigation measures for impacts which are less than significant. Since the PEIR determined that impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant, mitigation measures are not required and no further response is required.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-23 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-24 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-25 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-26 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-27 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-28 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-29 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-30 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-31 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-32 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-33 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-34 August 2022
C-17
(cont.)
C-18
C-19
C-18 The comment is incorrect in the statement that the Draft PEIR failed to conduct a health risk assessment (HRA) to analyze the risk of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions for nearby sensitive receptors on and off the project site.

A quantitative HRA was completed to analyze the health risk impacts to future onsite sensitive receptors from exposure to DPM emissions and is documented in the project Air Quality Technical Report (pages 20-21, 29; included as Appendix B to the Draft PEIR). A qualitative assessment also was completed to consider the potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from project constructionperiod DPM emissions and to determine whether further analysis was warranted.

The comment is also incorrect in the statement that “The OEHHA document recommends that all [emphasis added] short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby receptors.” The document referenced in the comment is the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (guidelines; February 2015). The OEHHA guidelines acknowledge that “The local air pollution control districts sometimes use the risk assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots program in permitting decisions for short-term projects such as construction or waste site remediation.” The OEHHA guidelines provide recommendations for exposure periods to be used if the guidelines are used for evaluation of cancer risks from short-term projects.

The OEHHA guidelines do not require or recommend that “all” short-term projects longer than two months prepare a quantitative HRA.

The OEHHA document provides guidelines on how a quantitative HRA should be performed to meet the regulatory requirements for permitting of stationary sources of some pollutants subject to the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588). AB 2588 requires stationary sources of pollutants to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. Such permitting is within the authority of each individual air district. The construction activities associated with the project are not a stationary source of pollutants subject to AB 2588 reporting or health risk assessment requirements for which the guidance manual was prepared, nor does the project require a permit from the SDAPCD. The OEHHA guidelines acknowledge that cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is longterm exposure to the carcinogenic agent and there is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-35 August 2022
C-19
(cont.)
C-20
C-18 (cont.) The OEHHA guidelines do not provide any guidance for when or if a lead agency should consider using the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program guidance for mobile emissions or construction projects. As such, it is within the lead agency’s discretion to make a determination (using an evaluation of project-specific details) whether air dispersion modeling and a health risk assessment of mobile or construction emissions using the OEHHA guidelines is warranted, even though they are not stationary sources of toxic emissions.

As discussed in Section 4.1.5.3 of the Draft PEIR (pages 4.1-22 through 4.1-23), health risks to sensitive receptors from the project’s temporary construction DPM emissions were qualitatively evaluated and consideration was taken for the duration and intensity of each construction activity; the intermittent nature of the use of heavy diesel equipment in construction projects; the proximity of sensitive receptors to the project site; and the dispersive nature of DPM. With consideration of the above factors, the City determined that impacts to sensitive receptors from project construction DPM emissions would be less than significant.

The comment does not provide substantial evidence that impacts from project construction DPM would be more severe than the conclusions in the Draft PEIR.

No revisions to, or recirculation of, the Draft PEIR are required based on this comment.

C-19 As discussed in response C-18, above, the OEHHA guidelines were developed for HRAs performed to meet the regulatory requirements for permitting of stationary sources of some pollutants subject to AB 2588. Mobile emissions from vehicle operations associated with the project are not a stationary source subject to AB 2588. According to the California Air Resource Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (April 2005), health risks from emissions on California roadways are primarily associated with freeways, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, and rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. As stated in the project Transportation Impact Report, the highest volume project-affected surface street would be 70th Street, which carries approximately 32,500 vehicles per day (Kimley Horn 2020). With the addition of project trips (approximately 4,700 trips per day), this would still be well below the 100,000 vehicles per day criterion for health risk concerns on urban roads. Therefore, a quantitative analysis of potential health risks from project operational vehicle DPM emissions is not warranted. The comment does not provide substantial evidence the DPM emissions from long-term operation of the project would result in substantial impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. No revisions to, or recirculation of, the Draft PEIR are required based on this comment.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-36 August 2022
C-20
(cont.)
C-21
C-20 The comment states that the Draft PEIR erroneously fails to identify a significant construction noise impact to nearby sensitive receptors and future on-site residents. The City does not have any established quantitative noise limits for construction activities in the La Mesa General Plan or other local ordinance, nor does the City have any adopted CEQA significance thresholds regarding construction noise impacts. Thus, a qualitative significance threshold is utilized in the analysis. The Draft PEIR concludes that construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant because construction would comply with applicable regulations for construction noise. Construction noise is regulated by Section

10.80.100 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, which prohibits construction activities within a residential zone or neighborhood commercial zone, or within 500 feet of these zones, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or on Sundays. Given this, and that temporary elevated construction-related noise levels would not be excessive or a substantial increase above existing levels, the project would not result in significant construction-related noise impacts.

The Draft PEIR discloses that sensitive receptors, including existing nearby residences and future on-site residences could be subject to temporary increases in ambient noise levels during construction activities; however, the increase would not be substantial over existing ambient levels. Given the proximity to Interstate 8, the Green Line trolley corridor, and the 70th Street Trolley Station, the project site and surrounding areas are exposed to elevated ambient noise levels. These ambient noise levels would vary depending on the time of day.

Figure NS-2 of the City General Plan Noise Element shows freeway noise levels, as modeled over a 24-hour period, would range between 65 and 80 dBA CNEL within the project site. This figure does not account for additional noise sources such as the trolley. Short-term 15-minute measurements taken at the site ranged from approximately 64 to 72 dBA LEQ (refer to Table 4.9-1 on page 4.9-4 in the Draft PEIR). As identified in Table 4.9-6 (page 4.9-13) in the Draft PEIR, hourly construction noise levels at off-site sensitive receptors would range from 61 to 68 dBA. If the project is constructed in two phases, some on-site future residents could be exposed to construction noise levels estimated at 75 dBA. As shown in Figure 4.9-2, however, noise levels of 75 dBA would only be generated within the construction limits, and existing and future residents would therefore likely be exposed to noise levels well below 75 dBA LEQ. Conservatively using an estimate of 75 dBA LEQ, however, when converting the hourly construction noise to a 24-hour CNEL measurement, the hourly CNEL would be approximately 71 dBA.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-37 August 2022
C-21
(cont.)
C-22
C-23
C-20 (cont.) This is because construction noise would only take place during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and no construction noise would be generated outside those hours. Noise levels of approximately 71 dBA CNEL would be similar to the existing noise levels of the site as depicted in Figure NS-2 of the City General Plan.

Construction would therefore not represent a substantial increase above existing levels.

The comment also states that Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noise impact criteria should be used to evaluate construction-related noise impacts for the project. The City is the applicable agency for this project and outside agencies’ standards are therefore not required to be analyzed in this document. As stated above, the City does not have any established quantitative noise limits for construction noise impacts, and a qualitative threshold was utilized in the analysis.

Furthermore, FTA criteria would not apply to the project because the project is a residential development and not a transportation/transit project. No revisions to, or recirculation of, the Draft PEIR are required based on this comment.

C-21 The comment asserts that Draft PEIR fails to identify a potentially significant noise impact relating to transportation noise to on-site residences by improperly labeling noise mitigation measures as project design features. As discussed in Section 4.9.5.1 (pages 4.9-14 through 4.9-19) and identified in the project noise analysis (contained in Appendix K of the Draft PEIR), exterior noise levels would exceed maximum allowable levels at some of the proposed outdoor use areas and along some proposed building façades without the incorporation of any noise reduction design features. Pursuant to the General Plan Noise Element, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be conducted, and noise insulation features must be included in the design of the project. As such, a project-specific noise analysis was conducted that identified noise reduction design features to achieve consistency with noise compatibility standards. The identified design features include incorporation of sound attenuating architectural treatments on exterior walls and sound walls. These have been incorporated into the design of the project as set forth in the Noise Element and will be included in the development regulations/standards contained in the Specific Plan and will also be made conditions of approval and part of the project approval for future development proposals on the project site. The design elements are not mitigation measures but rather are part of the overall design of the project. By design, noise levels at the outdoor useable areas and building façades would not exceed maximum allowable levels and thus, impacts would be less than significant. Impact avoidance through project design does not violate CEQA.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-38 August 2022
C-23
(cont.)
C-22 The comment provides general guidance regarding CEQA and CEQA case law. As this comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, no further response is required.

C-23 The comment provides a general overview of the requirement for California cities to adopt a Housing Element as part of the General Plan, identifies specific policies in the City’s Housing Element, and includes statements regarding the City’s regional needs housing assessment (RNHA) allocation. The comment also incorrectly states that the Housing Element is required to be updated every five years when in fact it is required to be updated every eight years on a cycle tied to the regional growth forecast and RHNA. The comment further states a legal opinion that no inclusion of affordable housing in the project is inconsistent with General Plan and state housing law. As discussed in Section 4.8.5.2 in the Draft PEIR (Pages 4.8-10 and 4.8-11) and Table 4.8-1 (page 4.8-28), the project would be consistent with applicable policies of the General Plan Housing Element. Although the comment does not raise any environmental issues with respect to the adequacy of the Draft PEIR, the City Council will take this comment into consideration when it makes a decision whether or not to approve the project. No further response is required

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-39 August 2022
C-23
(cont.)
C-24
C-25
C-24 SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan is a blueprint for San Diego’s regional transportation system. It identifies major transportation infrastructure improvements, as well as broad planning policies to facilitate achievement of The Regional Plan’s overarching goals. One of the main overarching goals of the Regional Plan is to focus future growth in the previously developed, western portion of the region along the major existing transit and transportation corridors.

Consistent with this goal and with the Sustainable Communities Strategy component of the Regional Plan in compliance with Senate Bill 375 (which supports the State’s climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities), the project site is located within a designated Transit Priority Area (TPA) and Smart Growth Area per the City of San Diego and SANDAG.

TPAs include areas within one-half mile of major transit station or a station along a high-quality transit corridor. As stated above, the Regional Plan contains broad planning policies and as such it does not contain project-level goals and policies.

The PEIR contains an adequate level of analysis in Section 4.8.5.2 (page 4.8-9) that concludes the project is consistent with overarching goals of the Regional Plan.

See response C-23 above with regard to the statement that the project is not consistent with the General Plan.

C-25 The PEIR concludes in Table 4.8-1 (page 4.8-22) that the project would be consistent with Noise Element Policy NS-1.1.2. As discussed in response C-21, the project by design as stipulated in the development regulations contained in the proposed Specific Plan, would not expose outdoor use areas to exterior noise levels in excess of maximum allowable levels established by the Noise Element.

The PEIR concludes (Section 4.9.5.1, pages 4.9-14 through 4.9-19) that no significant noise impacts would occur and thus mitigation and consideration of alternative sites are not required. Refer to response C-21 for additional details. No revisions to, or recirculation of, the Draft PEIR are required based on this comment.

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR III-40 August 2022
C-25
(cont.)
C-26
C-26 This comment is a concluding statement that requests revision and recirculation of the Draft PEIR. As discussed in detail in response C-10, no new significant information has been presented. Furthermore, no new significant environmental impacts have been identified based on responses C-1 through C-25. Therefore, no revisions or recirculation of the Draft PEIR are required.

SECTION IV
Final Program Environmental Impact
Report

ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
Final Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2019059095
September 2020
Revised August 2022
Prepared for:

City of La Mesa
Community Development Department
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, California 91942

This page intentionally left blank

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR i August 2022
Alvarado Specific Plan
Final Program Environmental Impact Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Proposed Project............................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.1.1 Project Location and Setting.......................................................................... ES-1 ES.1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................ ES-2 ES.2 Project Objectives.......................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ................................................................. ES-3 ES.4 Alternatives.................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.4.1 No Project Alternative ................................................................................... ES-3 ES.4.2 Reduced Density Alternative......................................................................... ES-3 ES.4.3 Phase 1 Only Alternative ............................................................................... ES-4 ES.4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................... ES-4 ES.5 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................................... ES-4

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Scope ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of the Program EIR............................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Type of EIR ....................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Intended Uses of the PEIR ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies........................................................................ 1-4

1.5.1 Lead Agency..................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies.................................................................. 1-4

1.6 Scope and Content of the PEIR........................................................................................ 1-5

1.7 Organization of the PEIR.................................................................................................. 1-6

1.8 Environmental Review Process........................................................................................ 1-8

1.8.1 Draft PEIR......................................................................................................... 1-8

1.8.2 Final PEIR ......................................................................................................... 1-8

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Existing Site Conditions.................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Site History ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Existing Uses and Development ...................................................................... 2-1

2.2.3 Landform, Vegetation, Hydrological, and Geological Conditions.................... 2-2

2.3 Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Planning Context.............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.4.1 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan............................................................ 2-3

2.4.2 City of La Mesa General Plan........................................................................... 2-4

2.4.3 Zoning .............................................................................................................. 2-4

2.4.4 Regional Air Quality Strategy........................................................................... 2-5

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ii August 2022

2.4.5 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin .......................................2-5

2.4.6 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans..............................................................2-5

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Project Goals and Objectives........................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Relationship to the General Plan ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Project Characteristics..................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Development Summary................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.2 Project Components........................................................................................ 3-2

3.3.3 On-site Circulation/Access...............................................................................3-7

3.3.4 Utilities............................................................................................................. 3-8

3.4 Development Standards and Design Guidelines..............................................................3-9

3.5 Demolition, Grading, and Construction Phasing..............................................................3-9

3.6 Discretionary Actions..................................................................................................... 3-10

3.7 Specific Plan Administration and Implementation ........................................................3-11

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.1-7

4.1.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.1-11

4.1.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.1-16

4.1.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.1-17

4.1.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.1-26

4.1.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.1-26

4.2 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.2-8

4.2.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.2-12

4.2.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.2-12

4.2.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.2-13

4.2.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.2-18

4.2.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.2-21

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.3-4

4.3.3 Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................4.3-9

4.3.4 Significance Thresholds ................................................................................4.3-9

4.3.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.3-10

4.3.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.3-13

4.3.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.3-14

4.4 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.4-3

4.4.3 Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................4.4-4

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR iii August 2022

4.4.4 Significance Thresholds ................................................................................4.4-4

4.4.5 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................4.4-5

4.4.6 Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................4.4-8

4.4.7 Significance Determination ..........................................................................4.4-9

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...........................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.5-4

4.5.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.5-10

4.5.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.5-12

4.5.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.5-12

4.5.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.5-16

4.5.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.5-16

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.6-3

4.6.3 Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................4.6-7

4.6.4 Significance Thresholds ................................................................................4.6-7

4.6.5 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................4.6-8

4.6.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.6-14

4.6.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.6-15

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.7-4

4.7.3 Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................4.7-8

4.7.4 Significance Thresholds ................................................................................4.7-8

4.7.5 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................4.7-8

4.7.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.7-18

4.7.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.7-18

4.8 Land Use........................................................................................................................ 4.8-1

4.8.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.3 Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................4.8-8

4.8.4 Significance Thresholds ................................................................................4.8-8

4.8.5 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................4.8-9

4.8.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.8-13

4.8.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.8-13

4.9 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................4.9-4

4.9.3 Methodology and Assumptions....................................................................4.9-9

4.9.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.9-12

4.9.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.9-12

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR iv August 2022

4.9.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.9-23

4.9.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.9-23

4.10 Paleontological Resources..........................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.10-3

4.10.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.10-3

4.10.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.10-4

4.10.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.10-4

4.10.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4.10-4

4.10.7 Significance Determination ........................................................................4.10-5

4.11 Public Facilities and Services.......................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.11-3

4.11.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.11-5

4.11.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.11-5

4.11.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.11-6

4.11.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................4.11-10

4.11.7 Significance Determination ......................................................................4.11-10

4.12 Public Utilities.............................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.12-5

4.12.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.12-7

4.12.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.12-7

4.12.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.12-8

4.12.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................4.12-15

4.12.7 Significance Determination ......................................................................4.12-16

4.13 Transportation ............................................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.13-3

4.13.3 Methodology and Assumptions..................................................................4.13-6

4.13.4 Significance Thresholds ..............................................................................4.13-7

4.13.5 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4.13-7

4.13.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................4.13-12

4.13.7 Significance Determination ......................................................................4.13-12

4.14 Visual Resources.........................................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.1 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................4.14-12

4.14.3 Methodology and Assumptions................................................................4.14-14

4.14.4 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................4.14-14

4.14.5 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................4.14-15

4.14.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................4.14-23

4.14.7 Significance Determination ......................................................................4.14-23

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR v August 2022

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis............................................................................................. 5-3

5.2.1 Air Quality........................................................................................................ 5-3

5.2.2 Biological Resources........................................................................................ 5-4

5.2.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................5-4

5.2.4 Geology and Soils............................................................................................. 5-5

5.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................................5-6

5.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................5-6

5.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality..........................................................................5-7

5.2.8 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 5-8

5.2.9 Noise................................................................................................................ 5-8

5.2.10 Paleontological Resources...............................................................................5-9

5.2.11 Public Facilities and Services ...........................................................................5-9

5.2.12 Public Utilities................................................................................................ 5-10

5.2.13 Transportation............................................................................................... 5-10

5.2.14 Visual Resources............................................................................................5-11

6.0 OTHER MANDATORY DISCUSSION AREAS .................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant ................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Energy .............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.1.3 Mineral Resources........................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.4 Population and Housing .................................................................................. 6-4

6.1.5 Wildfire ............................................................................................................ 6-5

6.2 Growth Inducement......................................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.1 Short-term Effects ........................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.2 Long-term Effects ............................................................................................ 6-6

6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts......................................................6-6

6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes..............................................................6-6

6.4.1 Primary Impacts Related to Nonrenewable Resources...................................6-6

6.4.2 Secondary Impacts Related to Access to Previously Inaccessible Areas.........6-7

6.4.3 Impacts Related to Environmental Accidents .................................................6-7

7.0 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Summary of Project Objectives and Significant Effects...................................................7-1

7.2.1 Project Objectives............................................................................................ 7-1

7.2.2 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project ...................................................7-2

7.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected.............................................................................7-2

7.3.1 Project Location Alternative............................................................................7-3

7.3.2 Existing Zoning Alternative..............................................................................7-3

7.3.3 Senior Housing Alternative..............................................................................7-4

7.4 Proposed Project Alternatives......................................................................................... 7-4

7.4.1 No Project Alternative ..................................................................................... 7-5

7.4.2 Reduced Density Alternative .........................................................................7-10

7.4.3 Phase 1 Only Alternative ...............................................................................7-15

7.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...........................................................................7-19

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR vi August 2022

8.0 REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................................ 8-1

9.0 INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED/LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................9-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
Appendix B Air Quality Technical Report
Appendix C Biological Resources Report
Appendix D Cultural Resources Survey
Appendix E Historical Resource Analysis Report
Appendix F Geotechnical Reports
Appendix G Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I Preliminary Drainage Study and Floodplain Analysis Appendix J Storm Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix K Noise Analysis
Appendix L Sewer Study
Appendix M Water Supply Assessment
Appendix N Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix O Visual Impact Analysis

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR vii August 2022

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title On or Follows Page
1-1 Regional Location .................................................................................................................... 1-10 1-2 Site Location ............................................................................................................................ 1-10 3-1 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-12 3-2 Building 1 Cross-section........................................................................................................... 3-12 3-3 Building 2 Cross-section........................................................................................................... 3-12 3-4 Building 3 and 4 Cross-section................................................................................................. 3-12 3-5 Alvarado Creek Flood Channel Improvements........................................................................3-12 3-6 Alvarado Creek Flood Channel Restoration.............................................................................3-12 3-7 Proposed Public Improvements ..............................................................................................3-12 3-8 Alvarado Road Improvements................................................................................................. 3-12 3-9 Landscape Plan Concept.......................................................................................................... 3-12 3-10 On-site Circulation Plan ........................................................................................................... 3-12 3-11 On-site Street Concept ............................................................................................................ 3-12 3-12 Shared Pedestrian/Bicycle Path............................................................................................... 3-12 3-13 Conceptual Grading Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-12

4.2-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the Biological Survey Area............4.2-22

4.2-2 Federal Jurisdictional Areas..................................................................................................4.2-22

4.2-3 State Jurisdictional Areas......................................................................................................4.2-22

4.2-4 Project Impacts to Biological Resources...............................................................................4.2-22

4.2-5 Project Impacts to Federal Jurisdictional Waters.................................................................4.2-22

4.2-6 Project Impacts to State Jurisdictional Waters.....................................................................4.2-22

4.9-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Locations..............................................................................4.9-24

4.9-2 Construction Noise Receivers and Contours........................................................................4.9-24

4.9-3 Future Vehicle Noise Contours.............................................................................................4.9-24

4.9-4 Future Trolley Noise Contours..............................................................................................4.9-24

4.9-5 On-site Generated Noise Contours ......................................................................................4.9-24

4.11-1 Existing Public Facilities......................................................................................................4.11-10

4.13-1 Existing Transportation Network........................................................................................4.13-14

4.14-1 Existing Visual Conditions – San Diego RV Resort ..............................................................4.14-24

4.14-2 Existing Visual Conditions – Alvarado Road........................................................................4.14-24

4.14-3 Existing Visual Conditions – Existing Buildings ...................................................................4.14-24

4.14-4 Existing Visual Conditions – Alvarado Creek.......................................................................4.14-24

4.14-5 Existing Visual Conditions – Billboards...............................................................................4.14-24

4.14-6 Views from Public Vantage Points – Alvarado Road ..........................................................4.14-24

4.14-7 Views from Public Vantage Points – Parkway Drive...........................................................4.14-24

4.14-8 Plan Perspective – Interstate 8...........................................................................................4.14-24

4.14-9 Plan Perspective – Alvarado Road ......................................................................................4.14-24

4.14-10 Plan Perspective – South of Project Site.............................................................................4.14-24 5-1 Cumulative Projects................................................................................................................. 5-12

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR viii August 2022

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation....................................................................... ES-6 ES-2 Summary of Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................... ES-28 3-1 Multi-family Residential Development Summary. ....................................................................3-3 3-2 Anticipated Discretionary Actions...........................................................................................3-10

4.1-1 Summary of Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants.............................................................4.1-2

4.1-2 Federal and State Air Quality Designations in the San Diego Air Basin..................................4.1-5

4.1-3 Air Quality Monitoring Data ................................................................................................... 4.1-5

4.1-4 Existing On-site Land Use Emissions.......................................................................................4.1-7

4.1-5 Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................................... 4.1-8

4.1-6 Construction Equipment Assumptions.................................................................................4.1-13

4.1-7 Screening-Level Thresholds for Air Quality Impact Analysis ................................................4.1-19

4.1-8 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ..............................................................................4.1-20

4.1-9 Phase 1 Operational and Phase 2 Construction Concurrent Emissions ...............................4.1-21

4.1-10 Net Total Operational Emissions..........................................................................................4.1-22

4.1-11 Project Residential Increased Incremental Cancer Risk from DPM......................................4.1-25

4.1-12 Significance Determination Summary of Air Quality Impacts..............................................4.1-26

4.2-1 Existing Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within the Biological Survey Area......................................................................................................................................... 4.2-2

4.2-2 Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Biological Survey Area ......................4.2-5

4.2-3 Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Biological Survey Area ..................4.2-6

4.2-4 Existing Federal and State Jurisdictional Areas within the Biological Survey Area ................4.2-8

4.2-5 Summary of Temporary Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities .............................4.2-15

4.2-6 Summary of Permanent Impacts to Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters......................4.2-16

4.2-7 Summary of Temporary Impacts to Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters......................4.2-16

4.2-8 Summary of Proposed Jurisdictional Waters Mitigation......................................................4.2-20

4.2-9 Significance Determination Summary of Biological Resources Impacts ..............................4.2-21

4.3-1 Project Site Buildings............................................................................................................4.3-11

4.3-2 Significance Determination Summary of Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 4.3-15

4.4-1 Summary of Regional Fault Locations and Earthquake Magnitudes......................................4.4-2

4.4-2 Significance Determination Summary of Geological Impacts ................................................4.4-9

4.5-1 California State Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector...........................................................4.5-3

4.5-2 San Diego County GHG Emissions by Sector in 2014..............................................................4.5-3

4.5-3 Estimated Existing On-site Land Use GHG Emissions.............................................................4.5-4

4.5-4 Construction GHG Emissions................................................................................................4.5-13

4.5-5 Net Operational GHG Emissions...........................................................................................4.5-14

4.5-6 Significance Determination Summary of GHG Emissions Impacts. ......................................4.5-16

4.6-1 Listed Facilities in the Project Vicinity with Potential to Impact the Project Site ..................4.6-2

4.6-2 Significance Determination Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.........4.6-15

4.7-1 Summary of Typical Pollutant Sources for Urban Storm Water Runoff.................................4.7-2

4.7-2 Typical Loadings for Selected Pollutants in Runoff from Various Land Uses .........................4.7-2

4.7-3 Drainage Discharge Under Existing and Proposed Conditions.............................................4.7-16

4.7-4 Significance Determination Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts................4.7-19

Table of Contents
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ix August 2022
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
No. Title Page

4.8-1 General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Consistency Evaluation..................................4.8-15

4.8-2 Significance Determination Summary of Land Use Impacts.................................................4.8-13

4.9-1 Noise Measurements.............................................................................................................. 4.9-4

4.9-2 Groundborne Vibration and Groundborne Noise Impact Criteria .........................................4.9-5

4.9-3 City of La Mesa Noise – Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ..................................................4.9-7

4.9-4 La Mesa Municipal Code Noise Limits....................................................................................4.9-8

4.9-5 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels........................................................................4.9-9

4.9-6 Modeled Construction Noise Levels.....................................................................................4.9-13

4.9-7 Transportation Noise Levels without Noise Reduction Features.........................................4.9-15

4.9-8 HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Residential Properties........................................................4.9-20

4.9-9 Significance Determination Summary of Noise Impacts......................................................4.9-24

4.10-1 Significance Determination Summary of Paleontological Resources Impacts.....................4.10-5

4.11-1 School Capacity and Enrollment Data ..................................................................................4.11-7

4.11-2 Significance Determination Summary of Public Facilities and Services Impacts................4.11-10

4.12-1 SDG&E 2018 Power Mix .......................................................................................................4.12-4

4.12-2 Wastewater Flow Results in Existing and Proposed Conditions...........................................4.12-9

4.12-3 Significance Determination Summary of Public Utilities Impacts......................................4.12-16

4.13-1 2035 Regionwide, Citywide, and Project VMT Per Resident..............................................4.13-10

4.13-2 Significance Determination Summary of Transportation Impacts.....................................4.13-13

4.14-1 Scenic Quality Policy Consistency Analysis.........................................................................4.14-20

4.14-2 Significance Determination Summary of Visual Resources Impacts..................................4.14-24 5-1 Cumulative Projects................................................................................................................... 5-2 6-1 Estimated Net Annual Energy Consumption at Buildout (Operational)....................................6-3 7-1 Comparison of Project and Alternative Impacts .....................................................................7-20

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR x August 2022

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADMRT Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool
ADT average daily traffic
AFY acre-feet per year
AGR Agricultural Supply
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMSL above mean sea level
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APN Accessor’s Parcel Number
APS alternative planning strategy
AQTR Air Quality Technical Report
AQUA Aquaculture
ASP Alvarado Specific Plan
AST aboveground storage tank
ATS advanced treatment system
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin BAT best available technology economically achievable
BCT best conventional pollutant control technology
BIOL Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance BMP best management practice
BTU British thermal units
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR xi August 2022
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEUS Commercial End Use Survey
CFG California Fish and Game
CFGC California Fish and Game Commission
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHMIRS California Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System CIR compliance inspection report
City City of La Mesa
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COMM Commercial and Sport Fishing
CPS-SLIC Cleanup Program Sites Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CSMP Construction Site Monitoring Program
CWA Clean Water Act
cy cubic yard
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DMA Drainage Management Area
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DU dwelling unit
du/ac dwelling units per acre
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
Ed Data Education Data Partnership
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPIC Energy and Policy Initiatives Center
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR xii August 2022
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FINDS Facility Index System/Registry System
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
g gravity
GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
gpd gallons per day
GWP global warming potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HA hydrologic area
HARP Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
Heartland Fire Heartland Fire and Rescue
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HMMD Hazardous Materials Management Division
HRA health risk assessment
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSA hydrologic subarea
HU Hydrologic Unit
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HWD Helix Water District
I- Interstate
IEM Iowa Environmental Mesonet
IND Industrial Service Supply
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITP Incidental Take Permit
IWMA Integrated Waste Management Act
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan
IWRP Integrated Water Resources Plan
JPA joint powers agreement
JURMP Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
LBP lead-based paint
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LDC Land Development Code
LEQ one-hour average sound level
LID Low Impact Development
LMMC La Mesa Municipal Code
LOP Local Oversite Program
LOS level of service
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MAR Marine Habitat

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR xiii August 2022
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCAS Marine Corps Air Station
MCL maximum contaminant level
MEP maximum extent practicable
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MIGR Migration of Aquatic Organisms
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
mph miles per hour
MPOs metropolitan planning organizations
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
MT metric ton
MTS Metropolitan Transit System
MW megawatt
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWJPA Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority
N2O nitrous oxide
NA Native American
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAV Navigation
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning
NED National Elevation Dataset
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA United States Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intention
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSLU noise-sensitive land use
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Office of Planning and Research

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR xiv August 2022
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
POC point of confluence
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PROC Industrial Process Supply
Province Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RARE Rare Threatened or Endangered Species
RASS Residential Appliance Saturation Survey
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA-SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Small Quantity Generator REAP Rain Event Action Plan
REC-1 Contact Water Recreation
REC-2 Non-contact Water Recreation
RECON RECON Environmental, Inc.

RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS root mean square
ROG reactive organic gas
RRP Rule Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
RV recreational vehicle
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Vehicles Rule Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule SAM Site Assessment and Mitigation
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCIC South Coast Information Center
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDCRAA San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SDREO San Diego Regional Energy Office
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEL sound exposure level

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR xv August 2022
SF square foot / feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SHELL Shellfish Harvesting
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SoundPLAN SoundPlan Essential
SPWN Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development
SQG small quantity generator
SR State Route
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SUSMP Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TC time of concentration
TDM transportation demand management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOD transit-oriented development
TPA Transit Priority Area
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
Urbana Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VCP vitrified clay pipe
VdB decibel notation
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WARM Warm Freshwater Habitat
Water Authority San Diego County Water Authority
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WILD Wildlife Habitat
WLA waste load allocation
WQBEL water quality-based effluent limitation

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR xvi August 2022
WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WRI World Resource Institute
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WTP Water Treatment Plant / Wastewater Treatment Plant
WURMP Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program
ZEV zero emissions vehicle

Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-1 August 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and associated discretionary actions (collectively referred to throughout this PEIR as the “project”) has been prepared on behalf of the City of La Mesa (City) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.).

The project analyzed in this PEIR is a master development plan for a phased transit-oriented development (TOD) and associated public improvements as outlined in the Specific Plan. The proposed Alvarado Specific Plan is a comprehensive planning document (i.e., specific plan) that provides the framework to guide project development within the Specific Plan area and contains site-specific development regulations that further implement the City’s General Plan.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121, the purpose of this PEIR is to provide public agency decision-makers and members of the public with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of the project, possible ways to minimize its significant effects, and reasonable alternatives that would reduce or avoid any identified significant effects.

ES.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
ES.1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Specific Plan area (project site) encompasses an approximately 12-acre site along the south side of Alvarado Road generally between 70th Street on the west and Guava Avenue on the east in the western portion of the City. The project site is bound by the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west, the Green Line trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership to the east, and Alvarado Road and Interstate 8 (I-8) to the north. The site is developed and currently contains a recreational vehicle (RV) resort facility with paved access roadways, RV spaces, a clubhouse, a swimming pool, other ancillary buildings, and three billboards. Alvarado Creek traverses the property as it flows under Alvarado Road in the eastern portion of the site and continues southwesterly and westerly along the southern boundary of the western portion of the site.

Alvarado Creek enters the site at the intersection of Alvarado Road on the east and continues through the site, bisecting the property until it enters an underground storm drainage facility in the western portion of the site. Alvarado Creek is channelized as it enters into the project site from the northeast and flows through a box culvert underneath a bridge over Alvarado Road. Alvarado Creek consists of a trapezoidal channel with concrete-lined banks and a natural channel bottom aside from the concrete aprons near the Alvarado Road overcrossing and at the western end of the site. Much of the channel supports vegetation including native and non-native species at varying vegetative cover, and water regularly flows through this section of Alvarado Creek.

Three freeway-oriented billboard signs are located within the project site along the Alvarado Road frontage. One is located at the eastern boundary of the site and is a single-sided sign oriented for viewers traveling along eastbound I-8. The other two signs occur in the western portion of site and are double sided. Overhead utility lines also cross over portions of the site that connect to 15 utility poles located throughout the site.

Executive Summary
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-2 August 2022
The project site is relatively level with a slight topographical variation as it slopes downward from east to west to the degree of approximately 10 feet. Existing on-site elevations range from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 410 AMSL.

ES.1.2 Project Description
The proposed project entails a master development plan (Specific Plan) for a phased transit-oriented development and associated public improvements. The project would include four development parcels that would be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the parcels (Parcels 1-3) west of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Phase 2 includes the parcel (Parcel 4) east of the intersection of Alvarado Creek and Alvarado Road. Each parcel would be developed with a multi-family residential building with ground-floor commercial uses.

Phase 1 would feature two multi-family residential buildings built on a podium deck over multi-level parking in the central portion of the site and a smaller-scale building in the western-most parcel. Phase 2 would include one building in the eastern portion of the site similar in size and scale to the two larger buildings constructed in Phase 1. The buildings would include up to five stories of residential units and one to three levels of parking. Each building would include a mix of housing types and sizes. In total, an estimated 850 to 950 residential units would be constructed at buildout. In addition to the residential uses, the project would include ground floor, resident-serving commercial uses.

The project would also include improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel within the project site, improvements to Alvarado Road, relocation of utilities, and pedestrian connection to the 70th Street Trolley Station.

ES.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives of the project are to:

1. Address the City’s housing supply needs by providing for the development of a mix of housing types to maximize the advantages of locating new infill housing in close proximity to existing regional transportation facilities, including the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, connecting bus routes, and freeway access;

2. Establish a land use plan that would improve public safety in the project area by providing public improvements at current City standards for Alvarado Road, construct channel improvements to address flooding conditions from Alvarado Creek, and relocation and improvement of existing sanitary sewer system infrastructure within the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel;

3. Provide high quality student housing with a short and direct link to San Diego State University from the 70th Street Trolley Station;

4. Establish a land use plan that would transform the site with private development and public improvements that would serve as a new and positive gateway image for the community;

5. Construct and maintain a multi-modal circulation system for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to enhance accessibility and support active transportation and public transit use;

Executive Summary
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-3 August 2022

6. Transform Alvarado Creek within the Specific Plan Area into an urban creek and open space feature within a planned residential community;

7. Provide an environmentally sustainable residential development through the implementation of features such as energy conservation, sustainable landscape, water conservation, and support for alternative transportation, consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP); and

8. Create a unified private development plan that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.

ES.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on May 21, 2019 for a 30-day public review and comment period, and a public scoping meeting was held on May 29, 2019 at the La Mesa Police Station located at 8085 University Avenue, La Mesa, California 91942. CEQA-related issues of potential controversy raised in response to the NOP include concerns related to regarding traffic, aesthetics, building heights, density, construction impacts, property management, property values, and residential unit types. Verbal and written comments received during the scoping process have been taken into consideration during the preparation of this PEIR. The NOP and comment letters are included in this PEIR as Appendix A.

ES.4 ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs describe “…a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines further states that “the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” Alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in Chapter 7, Alternatives, of this PEIR. The evaluations analyze the ability of each alternative to further reduce or avoid the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Each major issue area included in the impact analysis of this PEIR has been given consideration in the alternatives analysis. This PEIR evaluates three alternatives to the project: No Project Alternative, Reduced Density Alternative, and Phase 1 Only Alternative.

ES.4.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that the project would not be adopted, no multi-family residential buildings would be constructed, and no public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, or utilities would be constructed. The existing RV resort would remain as well as other existing conditions.

ES.4.2 Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve a similar development proposal to the project, but with a 25 percent reduction in the number of residential units. Specifically, this alternative considers the development of 712 multi-family residential units along with up to 15,000 square feet (SF) of resident-serving commercial space. The public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, and

Executive Summary
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-4 August 2022
utility facilities proposed as part of the project also would occur under this alternative. Under this alternative, the development footprint and number of buildings would be the same as the project; however, buildings would include fewer floors of residential built on the podium.

ES.4.3 Phase 1 Only Alternative
The Phase 1 Only Alternative would involve a similar development proposal to the project, as only Phase 1 would be developed on the project site. Under this alternative, the portion of the site west of Alvarado Creek would be developed with three buildings that would include up to 645 multi-family residential units along with some resident-serving commercial space. The buildings would the same as those of the project in terms of size, area, number of units, design, location, etc. The total area of the commercial space would be slightly less than the 15,000 SF associated with the project since three buildings would be constructed instead of four. The public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, and utility facilities proposed as part of the project also would occur under this alternative. The eastern portion of the project site would not be redeveloped, and the existing RV resort would continue to operate in this portion of the site.

ES.4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative. The guidelines also require that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified.

Based on a comparison of the alternatives’ overall environmental impacts and their compatibility with the proposed project’s goals and objectives, the Reduced Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative for this PEIR.

ES.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The PEIR addresses in detail potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Noise
• Paleontological Resources
• Public Services and Facilities
• Public Utilities
• Transportation
• Visual Resources
Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation, is presented at the end of this section and summarizes the results of the environmental analysis including the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and proposed mitigation measures to reduce or avoid these impacts.

Impacts and mitigation measures are organized by issue in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis. Based on this analysis, implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts associated with the following issues:
• Biological Resources (sensitive species and nesting birds, sensitive vegetation, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and consistency with habitat conservation plans);

Executive Summary
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-5 August 2022
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (unknown archaeological and tribal cultural resources); • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (potential release of hazardous building materials during project construction); and
• Paleontological Resources (unknown paleontological resources).

The proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

Mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to below a level of significance.

The cumulative impact analysis determines whether the proposed project’s incremental effect would be “cumulatively considerable” when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, or probable future projects. Table ES-2, Summary of Cumulative Impacts, is presented at the end of this section and identifies the potentially significant cumulative impacts of the proposed project to which the proposed project may contribute and proposed mitigation measures to reduce or avoid these impacts, as discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of this PEIR.

The project would not result in potentially significant impacts with respect to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Wildfire, as described in Section 6.1, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this PEIR.

Executive Summary
Table ES-1

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-6 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation

AIR QUALITY
Quality Plans: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct the implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Although the project would increase population density over what was considered in the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), it would result in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita that would be below the region-wide average, which would overall reduce vehicular air pollutant emissions
consistent with regional goals such as SANDAG’s Regional Plan, Senate Bill (SB) 743, and the City’s General Plan.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Air Quality Standards: Would the project result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
The project’s construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutant and precursors would be below the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s screening-level
thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Sensitive Receptors: Would the project expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Construction of the project would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air
contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM). The project also would not result in the exposure of on-site sensitive receptors (i.e., future project residents) to substantial concentrations of DPM.

Although project construction may require the demolition or renovation of existing structures constructed prior to 1979, which could result in the disturbance of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP), compliance with established regulations would ensure that potential air quality impacts associated with exposure to ACMs and LBP would be less than significant.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-7 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AIR QUALITY (cont.)
The proposed project would not result in a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot or the exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial, project-generated, localized CO emissions.

Odors: Would the project result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Potential construction-generated odors would be localized, temporary, intermittent, and not expected to affect a
substantial number of people. The proposed project would not introduce land uses that would generate substantial odor during operations.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sensitive Species: Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Potentially significant impacts to sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk and other raptor species) and nesting birds could result from the proposed project.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure BIO-1
as identified in
Section 4.2.6.1
Less than
significant
Sensitive Habitats: Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the CDFW or USFWS?
No permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would occur. Implementation of the proposed project would result in temporary impacts to two sensitive vegetation communities, including freshwater marsh (0.04 acre) and willow woodland (0.01 acre).

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure BIO-2
as identified in
Section 4.2.6.2
Less than
significant
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands: Would the
project 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?
Implementation of the proposed project would result in
permanent impacts to 0.03 acre of federal jurisdictional waters and 0.09 acre of state jurisdictional waters.

Temporary impacts would occur to 0.06 acre of federal
waters and 0.23 acre of state waters.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure BIO-3
as identified in
Section 4.2.6.3
Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-8 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Wildlife Movement: Would the project 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?
Alvarado Creek functions as a local wildlife corridor.

However, the portion of Alvarado Creek within and adjacent to the project site is not considered a regional wildlife corridor because although it may function for some local wildlife movement, the project site and surrounding areas are developed such that this reach of the creek does not serve as a habitat linkage to off-site wildlife corridors or large native habitat areas. Consequently, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement within this local wildlife corridor.

No known or potential wildlife nursery sites occur on, or in the immediate vicinity, of the project site. As a result, the project would not impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Biological Resources Protection and Ordinances:

Would the project conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project would not conflict with applicable goals, objectives, and policies within the General Plan Conservation and Sustainability Element or Recreation and Open Space Element. The project would minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and Alvarado Creek would be revegetated with native riparian vegetation, which would provide for improved biological habitat and resources. New trees, ornamental landscaping, and native riparian
vegetation would be planted as part of the comprehensive landscape plan for the project. New trees would be planted in accordance with the City’s Tree Policy Manual, which provides a reference for existing guidelines, policies, and standards for the planting, care, preservation, maintenance, and replacement of trees. In addition, project
implementation would not impact the City’s habitat preserve area as identified in the La Mesa Subarea Habitat
Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-9 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Conservation Plan (HCP)/Natural Community Conservation
Plan (NCCP). Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Habitat Conservation Plans: Would the project
conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP,
NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
The project site is located within the boundaries of the City of La Mesa Subarea HCP/NCCP, but not within or in the
vicinity of areas designated as Multi-Habitat Planning Area, Core Biological Resource Areas and Linkages, or other
preserve lands as identified in the Subarea HCP/NCCP.

Although the project site is located within a highly developed area of the City, there are trees throughout the site and riparian habitat along Alvarado Creek that could potentially support sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk within trees and least Bell’s vireo within riparian habitat) protected by the Subarea Plan.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure BIO-1
as identified in
Section 4.2.6.1
Less than
significant

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Historical Resources: Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
The existing on-site buildings and the San Diego RV Resort do not meet the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or La Mesa Historic Landmark eligibility criteria and thus, is ineligible for listing on the CRHR and ineligible for
designation as a City of La Mesa Historic Landmark.

Accordingly, the property does not meet the definition of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Demolition and removal of the buildings,
structures, and site features at the proposed property would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-10 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Archaeological Resources: Would the project
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
No recorded prehistoric archaeological resources are listed on the project site or within the one-half mile radius buffer.

Additionally, no prehistoric archaeological resources were observed on or near the site during the field survey. The project site, however, is located within the Alvarado Creek floodplain and consequently, there is potential that unknown prehistoric material has been buried by streambed deposits from periodic flooding of the creek. It is possible that construction-related subsurface grading and trenching
activities may uncover buried unknown archaeological
resources. In the event that subsurface archaeological
resources are encountered during construction, such
resources could potentially be damaged or destroyed,
resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure CUL-1
as identified in
Section 4.3.6.2
Less than
significant
Tribal Cultural Resources: Would the project
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC 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:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
Based on the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Files, South Coastal Information Center records search, field survey, and Native American outreach, no tribal cultural resources are known to occur in the project area. However, there is potential for unknown buried tribal cultural
resources to be present given the site’s location within the Alvarado Creek floodplain. Project construction could
encounter unknown tribal cultural resources during
subsurface grading and trenching activities that may have been buried by streambed deposits from periodic flooding of Alvarado Creek. If encountered, such resources could
potentially be damaged or destroyed, resulting in a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure CUL-1
as identified in
Section 4.3.6.2
Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-11 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Seismic Hazards: Would the project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving 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; strong
seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction; or landslides?
The project site is not underlain by a known active or
potentially active fault. Therefore, the potential for ground surface rupture is considered to be low and it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project would directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground rupture.

The project site could potentially be subject to relatively high levels of ground shaking and site acceleration in the event of an earthquake on any of the major active faults in the region.

Proper engineering and adherence to the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines would minimize the risk to life and property from potential ground motion at the project site.

Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground shaking.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
The potential for liquefaction at the project site is minimal due to the dense nature of the underlying formational
materials associated with the Stadium Conglomerate.

Therefore, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction.

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-12 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (cont.)
The project area is underlain by generally flat bedding and lacks steep slopes. The proposed project would follow the construction recommendations provided by the
Geotechnical Investigation and CBC requirements, which
would avoid potential slope failure and/or landslide hazards.

Therefore, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from seismic-induced landslides.

Soil Erosion: Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
During project construction, erosion and sedimentation
control best management practices (BMPs) would be
implemented as part of the site-specific Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and the City’s Storm Water
BMP Manual, which would minimize the effects of water
erosion. Following construction of each phase, any remaining disturbed areas within that phase would be stabilized with landscaping to prevent erosion and topsoil loss.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Unstable Soils: Would the project be located on a
geological unit or soil that is unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on-site or
off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
The underlying formational materials (i.e., Stadium
Conglomerate) would provide adequate support for the
proposed structures and improvements. However, the
existing artificial fill and stream deposits on the site within the first nine feet of depth are not considered suitable in their current condition to provide a stable soil base to support the proposed structures and improvements.

Adherence to the recommendations contained in the
Geotechnical Investigation, which will be required as project conditions of approval and incorporated into the
construction contract specifications, would avoid impacts related to unstable soils.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-13 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEOLOGY AND SOILS (cont.)
Expansive Soils: Would the project be located on
an expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Soils at the project site are considered to have a very low to low expansion potential. Adherence to the
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Investigation, which will be required as project conditions of approval and incorporated into the construction contract specifications, would avoid impacts related to expansive soils.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions:

Would the project generate GHGs, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
The project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s GHG emissions target.

Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Conflicts with GHG Reduction Plans, Policies, or
Regulations: Would the project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs?
The project’s estimated GHG emissions per capita would be below the City’s GHG emissions per capita reduction target selected for the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the reduction strategies and GHG emissions per capita target and would be
consistent with the CAP. The project would implement
transit-oriented development near the 70th Street Trolley Station and reduce VMT per capita, consistent with
SANDAG’s Regional Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Release of Hazardous Materials: Would the
project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Would the project 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?
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant hazards impact during demolition activities associated with release of ACM and/or LBP.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure
HAZ-1 as
identified in
Section 4.6.6.1
Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-14 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
Hazards to Schools: Would the project emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant hazards impact to people at nearby schools during demolition activities associated with release of ACM and/or LBP.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure
HAZ-1 as
identified in
Section 4.6.6.1
Less than
significant
Listed Hazardous Materials Sites: Would the
project be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Although the project site is identified on two hazardous materials databases, neither listing represents a recognized environmental condition at the project site. Additionally, there are no off-site listed facilities that would represent a recognized environmental condition to the project site.

Therefore, the project site is not located on a listed
hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Airport Safety Hazards: For a project located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site is located within Airport Influence Area (AIA) Review Area 2 of the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport but the proposed project would not include any structures that would exceed the Federal Air Regulations Part 77 height restrictions for the airspace protection area (200 feet) and thus, the project site would not be subject to safety hazards associated with Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport
operations. Furthermore, due to the distance from the
Grossmont Hospital heliport and the relatively low number of flights from this facility, the project site would not be subject to safety hazards associated with related heliport operations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
project would not result in airport safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-15 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.)
Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans:

Would the project impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Construction of the project could require temporary detours and/or lane closures that could temporarily disrupt travel along Alvarado Road for a period of time within the
construction zone. Emergency access to all surrounding
properties, however, would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would provide adequate emergency access within the site. Therefore, implementation of the project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Water Quality: Would the project violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Based on the implementation of the project design elements, construction and post-construction BMPs, related
maintenance efforts, and required conformance with City storm water standards (including the NPDES Construction General, Municipal and Groundwater permits), the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Groundwater: Would the project substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Project implementation would result in an approximately 10-percent increase in impervious surfaces over the existing condition but would not substantially interfere with
groundwater recharge at the site since it is currently minimal given existing drainage patterns and characteristics.

It is anticipated that during construction, dewatering would be required and permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board would be required. The project does not
propose the long-term use of groundwater.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-16 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.)
Drainage Pattern Alteration: Would the project
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 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;
create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional resources of polluted
runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area that would 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, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff or
impeded or redirect flood flows.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Flood, Tsunami, and Seiche Zones: Would the
project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
The proposed improvements would fully contain the 100-
year flow within the Alvarado Creek channel, with no
adverse impacts to the water surface elevations upstream of the project site. Additionally, the proposed on-site storm drain system for the project has been designed with
sufficient capacity to convey the 100-year storm event
without causing flooding of the proposed streets and
development.

Due to the distance from the ocean and high elevation, the project site would not be subject to inundation by tsunami.

The project site would not be subject to inundation by seiche due to the distance from local water bodies.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-17 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (cont.)
Water Quality Plans: Would the project conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
The proposed project would implement a site-specific
SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES Construction General Permit and the City’s Storm Water BMP Manual and would adhere
to applicable requirements outlined in the project Storm Water Quality Management Plan. The project would also
comply with all storm water quality standards during
construction and operation. Conformance with the Water
Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan) water quality objectives would be demonstrated through
compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of construction and post-construction BMPs. Thus, the
project would be consistent with the Basin Plan.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

LAND USE
Community Division: Would the project physically
divide an established community?
The project would not introduce any new roads or other
linear features that would create new or exacerbate existing physical barriers. The project would improve mobility and connectivity within the project area. Consequently, the proposed project would reduce the amount of division that exists in the project area by improving walkability and bicycle opportunities within the project area and near the 70th Street Trolley Station. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established
community.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Consistency with Environmental Policies of
Adopted Land Use Plans: Would the project 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?
The proposed project would be consistent with existing
applicable local and regional land use plans, policies, and regulations, including San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, La Mesa General Plan, La Mesa Zoning Ordinance, Climate Action Plan, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for
Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, Regional Air Quality Strategy, and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. Therefore, the project would not 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.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-18 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
NOISE
Noise Standards: Would the project result in
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?
During project construction, nearby properties would likely be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions; however, the exposure would be temporary and would not be considered adverse. The project would comply with all applicable noise regulations related to construction noise, minimizing potential impacts related to noise generation during construction.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
The project site would experience noise from vehicle traffic on I-8 and Alvarado Road, in addition to noise from trolley traffic on the adjacent trolley corridor. Such noise may exceed the applicable thresholds outlined in City’s General Plan; however, the project would incorporate noise
reduction design features that have been incorporated into the project design, which would reduce on-site noise levels from traffic to acceptable levels.

Although the project would contribute to an increase in traffic volumes along Alvarado Road, ambient noise increases would be anticipated to be less than three dBA. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project such that noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses would exceed applicable noise standards.

Noise sources on the project site during project operation would not exceed the La Mesa Municipal Code noise limits at adjacent properties or result in a substantial permanent increase in existing noise levels.

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-19 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
NOISE (cont.)
Vibration: Would the project result in generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Project residents would not be exposed to excessive
groundborne vibration or noise levels from the trolley
corridor that would exceed applicable Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) vibration thresholds.

The project would not generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction that would exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds at nearby vibration-sensitive land uses.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Airport Noise: 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 project area to excessive noise
levels?
The project site is not located within the 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of the nearest airports, specifically Gillespie Field, Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, or MCAS Miramar. Additionally, the
nearest heliport, located at Grossmont Hospital, includes five to ten flights every month, which is not enough to generate noise levels above 60 CNEL at the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels generated by airports.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Paleontological Resources: Would the project
directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Geological formations within the project site include a shallow layer of fill, stream deposits, and the Stadium Conglomerate Formation. While there is no potential for paleontological resources to exist within the fill material, the stream deposits have a low to moderate potential for
resources and the Stadium Conglomerate Formation is
assigned a high paleontological resource sensitivity rating.

Thus, ground disturbing activities associated with
construction of the project have the potential to uncover and potentially damage or destroy paleontological resources.

Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure PAL-1
as identified in
Section 4.10.6
Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-20 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Public Facilities: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

The project would increase the demand for public facilities and services, such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Heartland Fire and the La Mesa Police Department have the capacity and
capability to provide service to the project. Additionally, the three schools designated to serve the project are not
operating at full capacity. Further, the project would be subject to school facilities fees, which would serve as mitigation to any project-related impacts to school facilities.

Similarly, the project would submit park development fees to Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
• fire protection;
• police protection;
• schools;
• parks; or
• other public facilities?
minimize impacts related to parks. Implementation of the project would not cause a substantial change or increased demand for additional library services, and the additional project residents would not substantially increase the
demand for other public facilities within the City (such as the community center, recreation center, municipal pool,
baseball field, and Adult Enrichment Center) such that new or expanded facilities would be required as a result of the project. Implementation of the project therefore would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities.

Deterioration of Existing Neighborhood Parks
and Recreational Facilities: Would the project
increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
The project would increase the demand for use of existing public parks and recreational facilities in the project area, which could potentially result in physical deterioration of such facilities. However, the project would be required to pay a parkland improvement fee pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.20.040 and 9.20.050. With payment of a parkland improvement fee, the project would not 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.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-21 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (cont.)
Construction or Expansion of Recreational
Facilities: Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project would include on-site recreational amenities for project residents. The environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed on-site recreational
amenities are evaluated in this PEIR and where potential adverse physical effects could occur, mitigation is identified that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.

The project would contribute to the existing citywide need for additional park and recreational facilities but would require payment of a parkland improvement fee pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.20.040 and 9.20.050 to offset the impact of new development on the City's existing facilities and infrastructure. Payment of a parkland improvement fee would not result in physical effects on the environment.

Less than
significant
No additional
measures
required
Less than
significant

PUBLIC UTILITIES
Utilities: Would the project require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
The project would not result in the need for new or
expanded water facilities. The project proposes some sewer line relocations and improvements within and adjacent to the project site; however, the improvements would not
result in environmental effects aside from those outlined in this PEIR. Further, based on the estimated project flows combined with both existing flows and subsequent
developments, the existing and proposed sewer systems
would have capacity to serve the project, and the project would not substantially contribute to, or exacerbate existing downstream sewer system capacity impacts.

The project would involve the construction of new storm water drainage facilities within the project site; however, the proposed facilities would connect to the existing municipal storm drain system, the capacity of which would not be
adversely affected by the project.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-22 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PUBLIC UTILITIES (cont.)
The project would involve the relocation of the existing overhead power lines and telecommunications utility lines to underground. Relocation of such utilities would not result in environmental effects aside from those outlined in this PEIR.

Additionally, the existing electric power distribution system and telecommunications distribution system would have
adequate capacity to serve the project. Further, the project would connect to existing gas lines and would not adversely affect the capacity of the existing gas distribution system.

Water Supply: Would the project have sufficient
water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
The project is consistent with the water demands
assumptions included in the regional water resource
planning documents of Helix Water District (HWD), San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

Current and future water supplies, as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies, have been identified in the water resources planning documents of HWD, Water
Authority, and MWD to serve the projected demands of the Specific Plan area, in addition to the existing and planned future water demands of HWD.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Wastewater: Would the project 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?
The project would increase wastewater generation at the site. However, the project’s increase would represent less than one percent of the remaining capacity at the project’s wastewater treatment provider, the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). Therefore, the Point Loma WTP has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to its existing commitments.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-23 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PUBLIC UTILITIES (cont.)
Solid Waste Management: Would the project
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?
Would the project comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The project would divert a minimum of 75 percent of waste during project construction and operation, thereby adhering to the requirements in Title 14.27 of the City’s Municipal Code and Assembly Bill (AB) 341. The project would also provide areas for storage and collection of recyclables and yard waste in accordance with 2019 Title 24 Part 11
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
Standards. Following such standards would ensure that the project would also comply with Title 7.22 of the City’s Municipal Code and AB 939.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
The project site would be serviced by EDCO, which would have sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate project waste for at least the next 15 years. Therefore, the project would not 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. It would also comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Plans: Would the project conflict
with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The proposed project would be consistent with applicable transportation plans, including San Diego Froward: The
Regional Plan, the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the City of La Mesa Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant

Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (cont.)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR ES-24 August 2022
Environmental Issue Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TRANSPORTATION (cont.)
Vehicle Miles Traveled: Would the project conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The project is located within one half mile of an existing major transit stop, specifically the 70th Street Trolley Station, and is therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT per the Office of Planning and Research
Technical Advisory screening thresholds.

Although not required per the VMT screening threshold for proximity to transit, a VMT analysis was conducted for the project to determine whether it would exceed VMT
thresholds. According to the VMT analysis prepared for the project, the VMT per capita resulting from the proposed project is 88 percent of the regional average, exceeding the 85 percent threshold for residential projects. However, the project would implement VMT reduction features including construction of a transit-oriented development and provision of pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, which would reduce the project’s VMT per capita to approximately
81 percent of the regionwide VMT per capita, meeting the 85 percent threshold. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant
Transportation Design Hazards: Would the
project substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
There would be no hazardous design features or
incompatible uses introduced as a result of the project. The proposed shared-use path would be constructed as a Class I facility, which would provide a buffered facility dedicated for bicyclists and pedestrians. Roadway improvements would
conform with applicable federal, State, and City design criteria which contain provisions to minimize transportation hazards. Further, the proposed uses are not anticipated to generate the types of traffic that would be incompatible with the existing transportation network. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.

Less than
significant
None required Less than
significant