La Mesa City Council
May 9, 2023

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-12 August 2022
eaves, and composition shingles. Features include stucco wall surfaces, horizontal sliding metal-framed windows, and smooth flush wood-framed doors.

The East Restroom and Laundry Building, historically identified as the Utility Building, is located on the east side of Alvarado Creek on the east portion of the property. The building is a one-story building with a rectangular plan, a low-pitched front-gable roof, wide overhanging eaves, and composition shingles.

Features include stucco wall surfaces, horizontal sliding metal-framed windows, and smooth flush woodframed doors.

These six remaining buildings on the site only reflect a portion of the site’s original use. The original mobile homes and features were removed, so the property no longer represents an intact mobile home park design that offered affordable housing options for long-term local occupants and snowbirds amid a wave of residential growth in the post-World War II period. Although six remaining buildings are still standing, the site no longer conveys an association with the development of post-World War II mobile home parks in the San Diego region. Additionally, while the site’s builder, Chris A. Cosgrove, is regarded as a Master Builder for some of his work, the current site is not regarded as a masterful representation of his work as a builder. The property was laid out in a manner consistent with mobile home parks throughout the country, and has lost many of its original character-defining features, such as the mobile homes, monumental roof signage, landscape features, shuffleboard and badminton courts, and patios, barbeques, and storage units for each trailer. The current property would not appear to yield information that could be regarded as important to local, regional, state, or national history, and is not considered an archeological or paleontological site at this time. For these reasons, the San Diego RV Resort does not meet the CRHR or La Mesa Historic Landmark eligibility criteria (as identified in Sections 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.3, respectively) 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. Impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

4.3.5.2 Archaeological Resources
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the project site included a SCIC records search for an area that included the project site and a one-half mile radius around it. 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. As a result, implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to archaeological resources.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-13 August 2022

4.3.5.3 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 3: 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 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.

The Sacred Lands File check from the NAHC indicated that no known sacred lands or Native American cultural resources have been identified within the project area and as stated above in Section 4.3.5.2, the SCIC records search did not identify any known prehistoric cultural resources on or within 0.5 mile of the project site and none were observed during the field survey.

In accordance with the requirements of PRC Section 21080.3.1, AB 52, and SB 18, the City of La Mesa notified Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. The tribes were sent notification letters in September 2019 informing them of the proposed project and asking them of any knowledge or information about tribal cultural resources they may have about the project area. No specific tribal cultural resources were identified by the tribes and no requests for consultation were received. One response was received by the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on October 2, 2019 indicating that Viejas has cultural ties to the project site. No consultation was requested; however, a Kumeyaay cultural monitor was requested to be present during ground disturbing construction activities.

Based on the NAHC Sacred Lands Files, SCIC 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.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources.

4.3.6 Mitigation Measures

4.3.6.1 Historical Resources
No significant impacts related to historical resources would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-14 August 2022

4.3.6.2 Archaeological Resources
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to unknown archaeological resources. Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce this impact to a below a level of significance.

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.

4.3.6.3 Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to unknown tribal cultural resources. Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 identified above would reduce this impact to a below a level of significance.

4.3.7 Significance Determination
The significance of cultural resources impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.3-2, Significance Determination Summary of Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts. Impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Implementation of the proposed project, however, would result in potentially significant impacts related to archaeological and tribal cultural resources. With implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, these impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-15 August 2022
Table 4.3-2

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Historical Resources Less than significant None required Less than significant Archaeological Resources Potentially significant CUL-1 Less than significant Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially significant CUL-1 Less than significant

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.3-16 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-1 August 2022

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section of the EIR evaluates potential impacts associated with geology and soils resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The following discussion is based on the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2004), Interim Report of Site Conditions and Preliminary Opinions (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2018), and Report of Geotechnical Investigation Update (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2019), which are included as Appendix F of this EIR.

4.4.1 Existing Conditions

4.4.1.1 Geologic Setting
The project site is located within the coastal plain portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province (Province), a region characterized by relatively uplifted northwest-trending structural blocks and relatively down-dropped intervening fault zones and alluvial valleys. The Province extends approximately 920 miles from the Los Angeles Basin to the southern tip of Baja California and varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. Bedrock units in the Province include Jurassic (approximately 144 million to 206 million years old) metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous (approximately 65 to 144 million years old) igneous rocks of the Southern California Batholith (a large igneous intrusive body). The coastal plain area in San Diego County encompasses a series of stairstepped marine terraces that increase in age from west to east, and typically include a sequence of relatively undisturbed and non-conformable (i.e., not in direct chronologic sequence) upper Cretaceous through Pleistocene (between approximately 11,000 and 2 million years old) marine and non-marine sedimentary strata. These deposits have been dissected, in general, by west-flowing drainages to produce the characteristic canyon and mesa topographic features present today in western San Diego County, as well as deposit surficial materials such as alluvium, colluvium, and topsoil. Additional description of on-site surficial and formational deposits is provided below under the discussion of stratigraphy.

The project site is located within the seismically active San Diego region, which is on the eastern boundary of the Southern California Continental Borderland, part of the Province. This region is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. The actual plate boundary is characterized by a complex system of active, major, right-lateral strike-slip faults trending northwest/ southeast. This fault system extends eastward to the San Andreas Fault (approximately 84 miles from La Mesa) and westward to the San Clemente Fault (approximately 72 miles offshore from La Mesa).

4.4.1.2 Topography
Topographically, the project site is relatively level with an approximate on-site elevation of 410 feet AMSL. The project site is currently developed as an RV resort and is largely covered with concrete pads and asphalt used for vehicle parking and driveways. Alvarado Creek traverses the site and borders a portion of the southern edge of the site and flows from east to west.

4.4.1.3 Stratigraphy
Geologic and surficial units identified within the project site include artificial fill, stream deposits, and Stadium Conglomerate Formation.

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-2 August 2022
Artificial Fill
Since almost the entire project site has been previously graded and/or excavated during development of the RV resort, surface soils are highly disturbed. The surface of the project site is covered by a relatively shallow layer of artificial fill soils that extend to a depth of two to three feet. The fill consists of loose to medium dense and consists of damp, red-brown to gray-brown, silty, fine to medium and fine to coarse sand with pebbles and cobbles. The shallow fill soils are considered to have a low expansion potential.

These fill soils are not suitable in their current condition for bearing support of development.

Stream Deposits
The fill soils along the southern perimeter of the project site are underlain by stream deposits to an approximate depth of nine feet below the present surface grade. The stream deposits consist of a medium dense, wet, tan-gray and orange-brown, fine to coarse sand with abundant cobbles and boulders (to 14 inches in diameter). Stream deposits are considered to have low expansion potential.

These stream deposit soils are not suitable in their current condition for bearing support.

Stadium Conglomerate Formation
The entire site is underlain by dense cobble conglomerate formational material of the Tertiary Stadium Conglomerate Formation at depths below three feet. These formational soils are considered to have a negligible to very low liquefaction potential and low consolidation and expansion potential characteristics.

4.4.1.4 Faulting and Seismicity
There are no known active or potentially active faults are located at the project site (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2019). The closest active fault to the project site is the Rose Canyon fault, which is located 7.4 miles west of the site. Active faults are defined as those exhibiting historic seismicity or displacement of Holocene (less than approximately 11,000 years old) materials, while potentially active faults have no historic seismicity and displace Pleistocene but not Holocene strata.

Five major active faults are located within approximately 60 miles of the site, as shown in Table 4.4-1, Summary of Regional Fault Locations and Earthquake Magnitudes. Due to its proximity, the Rose Canyon fault is considered the dominant source of potential seismic-related hazards at the project site.

Table 4.4-1

SUMMARY OF REGIONAL FAULT LOCATIONS AND EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES Fault Name
Distance
from Project Site
(miles)
Direction
from Project Site
Maximum Earthquake
Magnitude (M)
Rose Canyon 7.4 W 7.5
Coronado Bank 21.3 SW 7.0
Elsinore 34 NE 7.1
Newport-Inglewood 35 NW 7.4
San Jacinto 55 NE 7.2
Source: Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2019
W=West; SW=Southwest; NE=Northeast; NW=Northwest

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-3 August 2022

4.4.1.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of three feet at one of the exploratory trenches along the southern perimeter of the project site, adjacent to Alvarado Creek and two exploratory borings in the western portion of the site.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting

4.4.2.1 State
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (PRC Section 2621 et seq.) is intended to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults.

The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as Earthquake Fault Zones (previously called Special Studies Zones and Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones) around the surface traces of active faults, and to distribute maps of these zones to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies.

The Act also requires completion of a geologic investigation prior to project approval, to demonstrate that applicable structures will not be constructed across active faults and/or that appropriate setbacks from such faults (generally 50 feet) are included in the project design.

California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Division 2, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690 et seq.) provides a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist local governments in protecting public health and safety relative to seismic hazards other than surface fault rupture, which is covered by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (described above). This Act is intended to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. The Act provides direction and funding for the State Geologist to compile seismic hazard maps and to make those maps available to local governments. The Act, along with related standards in the Seismic Hazards Mapping Regulations (CCR Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Article 10, Section 3270 et seq.), also directs local governments to require the completion and review of appropriate geotechnical studies prior to approving development projects. These requirements are implemented on a local level through means such as general plan directives and regulatory ordinances (with applicable City standards outlined below). Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (California Geological Survey 2008), contains guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC; CCR Title 24, Part 2) encompasses a number of requirements related to geologic issues. Specifically, these include general provisions (Chapter 1); structural design, including soil and seismic loading (Chapters 16/16A); structural tests and special inspections, including seismic resistance (Chapters 17/17A); soils and foundations (Chapters 18/18A); concrete (Chapters 19/19A); masonry (Chapters 21/21A); wood, including consideration of seismic design categories (Chapter 23); construction safeguards (Chapter 33); and grading, including excavation, fill, drainage, and erosion control criteria (Appendix J). The CBC encompasses standards from other applicable sources, including

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-4 August 2022
the International Building Code as outlined below, and ASTM International, with appropriate amendments and modifications to reflect site-specific conditions and requirements in California.

4.4.2.2 Local
City of La Mesa Building Code
La Mesa Municipal Code Title 14, Building Regulations, sets forth rules, regulations, and minimum standards for buildings, grading, and construction activities that take place in the City. Section 14.04.010 adopts the 2019 Edition of the CBC as the building code of the City of La Mesa that serves to regulate the erection, construction, alteration, enlargement, movement, repair, removal, demolition, occupancy, conversion, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of all buildings or structures.

Section 14.05.010 adopts Appendix J of the CBC, 2019 Edition, for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing the excavation and grading on private property, including the issuance of permits and providing inspections.

General Plan Safety Element
The Safety Element of the General Plan (City 2012a) identifies a number of applicable goals, objectives, and policies related to seismic, geologic, and structural considerations. Specifically, Goal SE-3 calls for protection from adverse effects caused by earthquakes and other seismic hazards. Objective SE-3.1 promotes ongoing efforts to improve the seismic safety of buildings and structures, and Policy SE-3.1.1 is to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development.

4.4.3 Methodology and Assumptions
The Geotechnical Investigation is based upon a field investigation consisting of testing conducted during multiple site visits. Nine cone penetrometer tests were placed on the project site on March 26, 2004.

The cone penetrometer measurements extended up to a maximum depth of eight feet and were performed to aid in evaluating soil types, basic strength parameters, and the liquefaction potential of existing subsurface soils. Three exploratory trenches were conducted at the site on April 26, 2004, and two supplemental drilling borings within the site were performed on July 24, 2018. The trenches and borings were performed on the site where the proposed structures and improvements are proposed to be located, and where feasible due to the existing structures and utilities currently on the site. The soil within the trenches was logged, and both bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken of the predominant soils during the investigation. The results of the field investigation are summarized in the Geotechnical Investigation found in Appendix F of this EIR (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2004, 2018, 2019).

Additionally, relevant information from the California Department of Conservation and the California Geological Survey, as well as relevant maps and geologic documentation, were reviewed.

4.4.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact associated with geology and soils would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause 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

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-5 August 2022
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides?

2. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

3. 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?

4. 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?

4.4.5 Impact Analysis

4.4.5.1 Seismic Hazards
Threshold 1: 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?
Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established earthquake fault and may result in the displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake typically must exceed a magnitude of 5.0. 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.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Ground Shaking
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, most notably the Rose Canyon fault (refer to Table 4.4-1). The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site and relative potential for damage from this hazard depends on the earthquake magnitude, distance from the source (epicenter), and the site response characteristics (ground acceleration, predominant period, and duration of shaking). Ground shaking can affect the integrity of surface and subsurface facilities such as structures, foundations, and utilities, either directly from vibration-related damage to rigid structures, or indirectly through associated hazards including liquefaction (as described below). The Rose Canyon fault is the dominant source of potential ground motion at the project site. The estimated maximum source

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-6 August 2022
of potential earthquake magnitude for the Rose Canyon fault is 7.5, and the calculated site acceleration corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.20g.1 In the event of a major earthquake, the project site and proposed buildings could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking, which has the potential to damage or destroy buildings and other structures, thereby exposing people to hazardous conditions. However, pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Title 14, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the CBC, which contains specific structural requirements for seismic safety. Proper engineering and adherence to the 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas with loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaken by an earthquake of sufficient magnitude. The occurrence of liquefaction under the described conditions results in a rapid pore-water pressure increase and a corresponding loss of shear strength, with affected soils behaving as a viscous liquid. Surface manifestations from these events can include effects such as a loss of bearing capacity for structures/foundations, ground subsidence, differential settlement (different degrees of settlement over relatively short distances), and lateral spreading (horizontal displacement on sloped surfaces as a result of underlying liquefaction). Lateral spreads develop on gentle slopes and entail the sidelong movement of large masses of soil as an underlying layer liquefies. Loss of bearing strength results when the soil supporting structures liquefies and causes structures to collapse. Loosely structured soils, such as alluvium or improperly compacted fill, are more susceptible to liquefaction, while clay-rich, well-compacted soils are less susceptible to liquefaction. A high groundwater table increases the risk of liquefaction hazard.

The Geotechnical Investigation (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2004, 2018, 2019) concludes that 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. Although groundwater was encountered on the site at a relatively shallow depth of three feet, it would not increase the potential for liquefaction to occur based on the characteristics of the underlying geologic formation. No loss of strength is anticipated to occur to the on-site soils due to an anticipated seismic event. Therefore, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.

Landslides
Landslides occur when rock, earth, or debris move down a slope, including rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows. Landslides and other slope failures may occur in hillside areas due to several factors including seismic ground shaking or substantial rainfall. Structures, engineered slopes, roadways, utilities, and people located on or below unstable areas could be subject to severe damage or injury. Landslide, debris flows, and surficial material failures affect the area where the material originates, as well as downslope areas where the landslide debris accumulates. 1 Ground acceleration is expressed in units of acceleration due to gravity (g), where 1 g corresponds to the vertical acceleration force due to gravity.

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-7 August 2022
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.5.2 Soil Erosion
Threshold 2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed project may result in or indirectly accelerate erosion on the project site during construction. Ground-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation, and stockpiling of excavated materials would expose bare soils that could be eroded by wind or water. Furthermore, vegetation removal could reduce soil cohesion and temporarily diminish the buffer provided by vegetation from wind, water, and surface disturbance, causing the exposed soils to be more susceptible to erosion.

Construction activities would comply with the CBC, which regulates excavation, construction of foundations and retaining walls, and grading, including drainage and erosion control. As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, SDAPCD Rule 55 requires that construction activities implement fugitive dust control measures, which would minimize the effects of wind erosion. As discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, erosion and sedimentation control BMPs would be implemented as part of the site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed pursuant to the NPDES Construction General Permit and the City’s Storm Water BMP Manual, which would minimize the effects of water erosion.

Although it is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed in two phases, grading of the entire project site may occur during the first phase with the development of the second phase improvements (Building 4 and associated improvements on the portion of the site east of Alvarado Creek) occurring much later, thereby leaving graded areas exposed during the interim period. All graded areas that would not be developed immediately would remain subject to the SDAPCD Rule 55, NPDES Construction General Permit, and City’s Storm Water BMP Manual until permanently stabilized in accordance with the standards contained within these regulations. As indicated above, compliance with these regulations requires the implementation of dust control measures and construction BMPs, which include provisions for the stabilization of inactive disturbed areas and graded slopes. Stabilization methods include hydroseeding, soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, tarps, fencing, or other erosion control measures. Following construction of each phase, any remaining disturbed areas within that phase would be stabilized with landscaping to prevent erosion and topsoil loss. With implementation of the dust control measures and construction BMPs described above, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.5.3 Unstable Soils
Threshold 3: 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?
As stated above in Section 4.4.5.1, the Geotechnical Investigation does not consider landslides to be a substantial risk for the project due to the generally flat nature of the site. The project site is also not

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-8 August 2022
located within a rain-induced landslide hazard area identified in the San Diego County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of San Diego 2018). 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. Additionally, the risk of liquefaction is minimal due to the dense nature of the site’s underlying formational material below three feet in depth. As a result, lateral spreading is not considered to be a substantial risk because it is often caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2004, 2018, 2019), 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. In the areas of the proposed garages, the fill and stream deposits would be removed during excavation. The Geotechnical Investigation recommends these soils be removed and recompacted as part of the site preparation prior to the addition of any new fill or structural 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.

Therefore, although shallow underlying soils may not be suitable to provide a stable base for the proposed development, adherence to the measures in the Geotechnical Investigation would ensure that the project would not result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.5.4 Expansive Soils
Threshold 4: 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? Expansion of soils may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors. Soils with a relatively high fines content (clays dominantly) are generally considered expansive or potentially expansive.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2004, 2018, 2019), 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. Therefore, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

4.4.6 Mitigation Measures

4.4.6.1 Seismic Hazards
No significant impacts related to seismic hazards would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-9 August 2022

4.4.6.2 Soil Erosion
No significant impacts related to soil erosion and topsoil loss would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.4.6.3 Unstable Soil
No significant impacts related to unstable soil would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.4.6.4 Expansive Soil
No significant impacts related to expansive soil would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.4.7 Significance Determination
The significance of impacts to geology and soils before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.4-2, Significance Determination Summary of Geological Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to geology and soils. Impacts related to seismic hazards, soil erosion, unstable soils, and expansive soils would be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulatory/industry standard and codes, including the CBC, NPDES requirements, and recommendations contained in the Geologic Investigation prepared for the project. No mitigation is required.

Table 4.4-2

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF GEOLOGICAL IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Seismic Hazards Less than significant None required Less than significant Soil Erosion Less than significant None required Less than significant Unstable Soils Less than significant None required Less than significant Expansive Soils Less than significant None required Less than significant

4.4 Geology and Soils
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.4-10 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-1 August 2022

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the EIR evaluates potential GHG impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The analysis in this section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (HELIX 2020b) prepared for the project, which is included as Appendix G of this EIR.

4.5.1 Existing Conditions

4.5.1.1 Global Climate Change Overview
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions over the entire Earth, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting light in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.

The temperature record shows a decades-long trend of warming, with 2018 ranked as the fourth warmest year on record with an increase of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit compared to the 1951-1980 average. Globally, 2018’s temperatures rank behind the three warmest years on record—2016, 2017 and 2015 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2019). GHG emissions from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013). The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The statistical models show a “high confidence” that temperature increase caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions could be kept to less than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels if atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at about 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) by the year 2100 (IPCC 2014).

4.5.1.2 Types of Greenhouse Gases
The GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each of these GHGs are described below.

Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the most important and common anthropogenic GHG. CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources include the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Data from ice cores indicate that CO2 concentrations remained steady prior to the current period for approximately 10,000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2010 was 390 ppm, 39 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750). As of January 2020, the CO2 concentration exceeded 412 ppm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2020).

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-2 August 2022
Methane. CH4 is the main component of natural gas used in homes. A natural source of methane is from the decay of organic matter. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle digestion.

Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid production.

Hydrofluorocarbons. Fluorocarbons are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth’s surface). Chlorofluorocarbons were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the 1989 Montreal Protocol.

Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semi-conductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHGs to disperse around the globe. Because GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, because methane and N2O are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP.

4.5.1.3 GHG Inventories
Global and National GHG Inventories
In 2014, total GHG emissions worldwide were estimated at 48,892 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e emissions (World Resource Institute [WRI] 2020). The U.S. contributed the second largest portion (13 percent) of global GHG emissions in 2014. The total U.S. GHG emissions was 6,319 MMT CO2e in 2019, of which 82 percent was CO2 emission (WRI 2020). On a national level, approximately 27 percent of GHG emissions were associated with transportation and about 38 percent were associated with electricity generation (WRI 2020).

State GHG Inventory
The CARB performed statewide inventories for the years 1990 to 2017, as shown in Table 4.5-1, California State Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector. The inventory is divided into six broad sectors of economic activity: agriculture, commercial, electricity generation, industrial, residential, and transportation. Emissions are quantified in MMT CO2e. As shown, statewide GHG source emissions totaled 431 MMT CO2e in 1990, 471 MMT CO2e in 2000, 449 MMT CO2e in 2010, and 424 MMT CO2e in

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-3 August 2022
2017. Transportation-related emissions consistently contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial emissions.

Table 4.5-1

CALIFORNIA STATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Sector
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
1990
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
2000
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
2010
Emissions
(MMT CO2e)
2017
Agriculture and Forestry 18.9 (4%) 31.0 (7%) 33.7 (8%) 32.4 (8%) Commercial 14.4 (3%) 14.1 (3%) 20.1 (4%) 23.3 (5%)
Electricity Generation 110.5 (26%) 105.4 (22%) 90.6 (20%) 62.6 (15%) Industrial 105.3 (24%) 105.8 (22%) 101.8 (23%) 101.1 (24%) Residential 29.7 (7%) 31.7 (7%) 32.1 (7%) 30.4 (7%)
Transportation 150.6 (35%) 183.2 (39%) 170.2 (38%) 174.3 (41%) Unspecified Remaining 1.3 (<1%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) TOTAL 430.7 471.1 448.5 424.1
Source: CARB 2007 and CARB 2019
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Regional GHG Inventory
A San Diego regional emissions inventory that was prepared by the University of San Diego School of Law, Energy Policy Initiative Center (EPIC) accounted for the unique characteristics of the region (EPIC 2017). Its 2014 emissions inventory update for San Diego is presented in Table 4.5-2, San Diego County GHG Emissions by Sector in 2014. The sectors included in this inventory are somewhat different from those in the statewide inventory. Similar to the statewide emissions, transportation related GHG emissions contributed the most countywide, followed by emissions associated with energy use.

Table 4.5-2
SAN DIEGO COUNTY GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2014
Sector 2014 Emissions
MMT CO2e (% total)1
On-Road Transportation 1.46 (45%)
Electricity 0.76 (24%)
Solid Waste 0.34 (11%)
Natural Gas Consumption 0.29 (9%)
Agriculture 0.16 (5%)
Water 0.13 (4%)
Off-Road Transportation 0.04 (1%)
Wastewater 0.02 (1%)
Propane 0.01 (<0.5%)
TOTAL 3.21
Source: EPIC 2017 1 Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-4 August 2022
On-site GHG Inventory
For the project site, existing on-site sources of GHG emissions are from vehicle emissions associated with customers, employees, and vendors driving to and from the RV resort; emissions resulting from energy (i.e., electricity and natural gas) used in resort operation; emissions resulting from the disposal of solid waste; emissions from the energy required for the sourcing, conveyance and treatment of water and wastewater; and emissions from maintenance and landscaping activities. The existing on-site GHG emissions inventory was calculated using CalEEMod, described in Section 4.5.3. The estimated existing land use GHG emissions are presented in Table 4.5-3, Estimated Existing On-site Land Use GHG Emissions.

Table 4.5-3

ESTIMATED EXISTING ON-SITE LAND USE GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Sources Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Area (e.g., painting and consumer products) 1.6 (<0.1%) Energy (i.e., electricity and natural gas use) 389.4 (40.0%) Vehicular (Mobile) 484.4 (49.8%)
Solid Waste 29.8 (3.1%)
Water and Wastewater 66.6 (7.0%)
TOTAL 971.9
Source: HELIX 2020b
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting

4.5.2.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. USEPA that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The USEPA announced that GHGs (including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA’s GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the USEPA and the United States Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The standards were established on April 1, 2010 for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles and on October 15, 2012 for 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles (USEPA 2017; USEPA and NHTSA 2012).

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The USEPA and the NHTSA worked together on developing a national program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025. On August 2, 2018, the agencies released a notice of proposed rulemaking—the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-5 August 2022
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The purpose of the SAFE Vehicles Rule is “to correct the national automobile fuel economy and GHG emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment (USEPA 2018).” The direct effect of the rule is to eliminate the standards that were put in place to gradually raise average fuel economy for passenger cars and light trucks under test conditions from 37 miles per gallon in 2020, to 50 miles per gallon in 2025. By contrast, the new SAFE Vehicles Rule freezes the average fuel economy level standards indefinitely at the 2020 levels. The new SAFE Vehicles Rule also results in the withdrawal of the waiver previously provided to California for that State’s GHG and zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) programs under section 209 of the CAA. The combined USEPA GHG emission standards and NHTSA Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both federal programs and the standards of the State of California and other states that have adopted the California standards (USEPA 2017; USEPA and NHTSA 2012).

4.5.2.2 State
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6
CCR Title 24 Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for water heating) results in GHG emissions.

The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The most significant efficiency improvement to the residential standards is a requirement for on-site photovoltaic electricity generation (e.g., solar panels) for most new or modified residential building up to three stories high. The project proposes five-story residential buildings and thus, the solar panel requirement would not apply to the project.

The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards – the energy budgets – that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach. Future development per the proposed project would be required to be designed to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards.

California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial buildings) throughout California. The code is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the CCR (CBSC 2019). The 2019 Standards went into effect on January 1, 2020.

The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-6 August 2022
energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.

CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency.

Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. In an effort to avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, 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.

Under the Sustainable Communities Act, CARB sets regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). CARB periodically reviews and updates the targets, as needed.

Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its regional transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. CARB must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPOs’ determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional GHG targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate alternative planning strategy (APS) to meet the targets. The APS is not a part of the RTP. Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing. SANDAG is San Diego’s local MPO and has responded to the requirements of SB 375 with the preparation of an RTP/SCS, San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015).

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-7 August 2022
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts for land use projects and plans in California. Further, parking impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the environment for select development projects within infill areas with nearby frequent transit service. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions.

Senate Bill 97
SB 97 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28-nation European Union. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, SB 32 was passed by the California legislature in August 2016 to codify the EO’s California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and requires the State to invest in the communities most affected by climate change. AB 197 establishes a legislative committee on climate change policies to help continue the State’s activities to reduce GHG emissions.

Assembly Bill 1493 – Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.” On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments bind California’s enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to merge its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (CARB 2017a). In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars (CARB 2017a).

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-8 August 2022
Assembly Bill 341
The State legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code Section 42649.2), increasing the solid waste diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 requires all businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012 and went into effect on July 1, 2012.

Executive Order S-01-07
This EO, signed on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs CARB to determine whether an LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is therefore continuing to implement the LCFS statewide.

Senate Bill 350
Approved on October 7, 2015, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. In addition, large utilities are required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans to detail how each entity will meet their customers resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and increase the use of clean energy.

Senate Bill 100
Approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 extends the renewable electricity procurement goals and requirements of SB 350. SB 100 requires that all retail sale of electricity to California end-use customers be procured from 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by the end of 2045.

California Air Resources Board: Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (CARB 2008) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing VMT and vehicle GHG emissions through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather than on a project by project basis.

In response to EO B-30-15 and SB 32, all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target (CARB 2014). The mid-term target is critical to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-9 August 2022
investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue driving down emissions. In December 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2017b).

4.5.2.3 Local
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015) is the long-range planning document developed to address the region’s housing, economic, transportation, environmental, and overall quality-of-life needs. The underlying purpose is to provide direction and guidance on future regional growth (i.e., the location of new residential and non-residential land uses) and transportation patterns throughout the region as stipulated under SB 375. The Regional Plan establishes a planning framework and implementation actions that increase the region’s sustainability and encourage “smart growth while preserving natural resources and limiting urban sprawl.” The Regional Plan encourages an increase in residential and employment concentrations in areas with the best existing and future transit connections, and to preserve important open spaces. The focus is on implementation of basic smart growth principles designed to strengthen the integration of land use and transportation. General urban form goals, policies, and objectives are summarized as follows:
• Mix compatible uses.
• Take advantage of compact building design.
• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
• Create walkable neighborhoods.
• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. • Preserve open space, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. • Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. • Provide a variety of transportation choices.
• Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective. • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.

The Regional Plan also addresses border issues, providing an important guideline for communities that have borders with Mexico. In this case, the goal is to create a regional community where San Diego, its neighboring counties, tribal governments, and northern Baja California mutually benefit from San Diego’s varied resources and international location.

On February 22, 2019, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved an action plan to develop a new vision for the 2021 Regional Plan that would transform the way people and goods move throughout the region. Development of the 2021 Regional Plan, including the associated projects, programs, and

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-10 August 2022
policies, is underway and going through the planning process with an anticipated adoption by late 2021.

While work progresses to develop this new vision, SANDAG prepared and adopted a 2019 Federal RTP (2019 Federal RTP; SANDAG 2019b) that complies with federal requirements for the development of regional transportation plans, retains air quality conformity approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and preserves funding for the region’s transportation investments. The 2019 Federal RTP builds on The 2015 Regional Plan with updated project costs and revenues and a new regional growth forecast.

City of La Mesa Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in March 2018. The CAP describes the 2010 GHG emissions baseline and forecasted emissions for 2020 and 2035, and identifies achievable, measurable strategies and actions for the City to implement to reduce emissions to 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 53 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (City 2018). These CAP reduction goals were designed to enable the City to meet the 2020 GHG reduction mandates of AB 32, the 2030 GHG reduction mandates SB 32, and to be on-track to meet the 2050 of EO-S-3-05 goal of GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The CAP contains reduction measures within the City’s direct influence to achieve the City’s 2020 and 2035 GHG reduction targets in five strategy areas: energy; transportation and land use; water; solid waste; and green infrastructure (City 2018).

4.5.3 Methodology and Assumptions

4.5.3.1 Emissions Modeling
The project’s GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer model that estimates criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicular) sources, area sources (fireplaces, woodstoves, and landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (electricity and natural gas used in space heating, ventilation, and cooling; lighting; and plugin appliances), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Emissions are estimated based on land use information input to the model by the user. Refer to Section 4.1.3.1 of this EIR for additional details regarding emissions modeling.

4.5.3.2 Construction Emissions
The methodology and assumptions utilized in the construction emissions modeling of GHG emissions is the same as used for criteria air pollutants, as described in detail in Section 4.1.3.2 of this EIR.

4.5.3.3 Operational Emissions
Area Source Emissions
The CalEEMod module estimates the GHG emissions that would occur from the use of hearths (e.g., wood or gas fireplaces and wood stoves), and landscaping equipment. This module also estimates emissions due to use of consumer products and architectural coatings that have VOCs; however, these sources do not emit GHGs. The project would not include wood burning fireplace or woodstoves; the modeling assumed only natural gas hearths.

The use of landscape equipment emits GHGs associated with the equipment’s fuel combustion.

CalEEMod estimates the number and type of equipment needed based on the number of summer days

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-11 August 2022
given the project’s location as entered in the project characteristics module. The model defaults for landscaping equipment were assumed.

Vehicle (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with project-related vehicle trip generation and trip length. Based on the trip generation rate from the TIA prepared for the project, the project would generate 5,415 average daily trips and the existing land use generates 668 average daily trips for a net increase of 4,747 average daily trips. The TIA also analyzed the project’s VMT and determined that each trip would have an average distance of 4.83 miles (Kimley Horn 2020). All CalEEMod default trip rates, purposes and distances were replaced by the project specific trip data from the TIA.

Energy Source
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. GHGs are generated during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels off-site in power plants. These emissions are considered indirect and are calculated in CalEEMod as associated with a building’s operation.

CalEEMod default energy values are based on the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies, which identify energy use by building type and climate zone. Each land use type input to the land use module is mapped in the energy module to the appropriate CEUS and RASS building type. Because these studies are based on older buildings, adjustments have been made in CalEEMod to account for changes to Title 24 building codes. The default adjustment is to the 2016 Title 24 energy code (part 6 of the building code).

Solid Waste Sources
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. CalEEMod determines the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste into landfills. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. CalEEMod methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method using the degradable organic content of waste. Existing land use GHG emissions associated with waste disposal were all calculated using CalEEMod’s default parameters. A conservative 25 percent solid waste diversion rate was applied in CalEEMod to the new construction and redevelopment that would occur to account for mandatory compliance with AB 341.

Water and Wastewater Sources
The amount of water used, and wastewater generated, by a project has indirect GHG emissions associated with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment can directly emit both methane and nitrous oxide.

CalEEMod uses default electricity intensity values for various phases of supplying and treating water from CEC’s Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. The model estimates water/ wastewater emissions by multiplying the total projected water/wastewater demand by the applicable water electricity intensities and by the utility intensity GHG factors.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-12 August 2022
The default CalEEMod water use assumptions were used for the GHG emissions estimates for existing land uses and operation of the project. For the project’s water and wastewater GHG emissions, an overall 20 percent reduction in water use was applied in the CalEEMod mitigation section to account for recent requirements of CALGreen.

4.5.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact associated with GHG emissions would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

2. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs?

4.5.5 Impact Analysis

4.5.5.1 Generation of GHG Emissions
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
To determine whether the project would result in emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, the project’s GHG emissions were compared to the GHG emissions efficiency threshold of

3.46 MT CO2e per capita by the year 2035 selected as a target by the City for GHG reductions in the CAP (City 2018). This target was developed 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 in accordance with SB 32 and EO S-3-05.

A 2035 target value between the 2030 and 2050 state reduction targets would require GHG reductions of 50 percent below 1990 levels. A 50 percent reduction below 1990 levels is equivalent to a 53 percent reduction below 2010 levels. A 53 percent reduction below La Mesa’s 2010 baseline of 7.37 MT CO2e per capita would be 3.46 MT CO2e per capita (City 2018).

Construction Emissions
GHG emissions generated during project construction activities were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 4.1.3.2. Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. As shown in Table 4.5-4, Construction GHG Emissions, the total estimated GHG emissions associated with construction of the project would be approximately 3,679 MT CO2e. Neither the SDAPCD nor the City have adopted thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s temporary construction GHG emissions. To be conservative in accounting for all the project’s GHG emissions, the construction period emissions were amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated 30-year lifespan of the project buildings and added to the project’s operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 122.6 MT CO2e emissions per year.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-13 August 2022
Table 4.5-4

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Project Phase and Year Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Phase 1 2021 325.7
Phase 1 2022 1,330.1
Phase 1 2023 1,008.0
Phase 2 2023 98.8
Phase 2 2024 643.3
Phase 2 2025 273.1
TOTAL 3,679.0
Amortized Emissions (Total Emission/30 Years) 122.6
Source: HELIX 2020b
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
Operational Emissions
The project’s operational GHG emissions and the existing land use GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 4.5.3.3. The project’s net annual operational emissions would be the total project annual emissions for the first year of full buildout, after completion of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in 2025, plus the amortized construction emissions (described above) and minus the existing land use emissions that would occur without implementation of the project. As shown in Table 4.5-5, Net Operational GHG Emissions, the project would result in approximately 6,385 MT CO2e per year.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-14 August 2022
Table 4.5-5

NET OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Project Phase and Source Emissions
(MT CO2e/year)
Phase 1 Area 289.1
Phase 1 Energy 1,820.6
Phase 1 Vehicular (Mobile) 2,462.8
Phase 1 Solid Waste 117.9
Phase 1 Water and Wastewater 280.5
Phase 1 Subtotal1 4,970.9
Phase 2 Area 136.7
Phase 2 Energy 850.5
Phase 2 Vehicular (Mobile) 1,093.9
Phase 2 Solid Waste 52.9
Phase 2 Water and Wastewater 129.3
Phase 2 Subtotal1 2,263.4
Project Total (Phase 1 Subtotal + Phase 2 Subtotal) 7,234.3 Amortized Construction Emissions (from Table 4.5-4) 122.6 Less Existing Land Use Emissions (from Table 4.5-3 (971.9) Net Emissions 6,385.0
Net Emissions Per Capita2 2.25
Threshold (MT CO2e per capita per year) 3.46
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: HELIX 2020b
1 Totals may not sum due to rounding. 2 Net emissions per capita = net emissions divided by the estimated future project population of 2,717 residents.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
For comparison with the City’s 2035 GHG reduction target from the CAP, the project’s net operational emissions were divided by the project’s estimated future population. Based on the emissions modeling, the CalEEMod default population density for high-rise multi-family apartments for San Diego County would be 2.86 persons per DU and the project’s future residential population would be approximately 2,717 residents. As shown in Table 4.5-5, the project’s per capita emissions would be approximately

2.25 MT CO2e per year, below the City’s GHG emissions target of 3.46 MT CO2e per capita by the year 3035. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

4.5.5.2 Conflicts with GHG Reduction Plans, Policies, or Regulations Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs?
The City’s CAP describes the 2010 GHG emissions baseline and forecasted emissions for 2020 and 2035, and identifies achievable, measurable strategies and actions for the City to implement to reduce emissions to 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 53 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (City 2018). These CAP reduction goals were designed to enable the City to meet the 2020 GHG reduction mandates of AB 32, the 2030 GHG reduction mandates SB 32, and to be on-track to meet the 2050 of EO S-3-05 goal of GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-15 August 2022
The CAP contains reduction measures within the City’s direct influence to achieve the City’s 2020 and 2035 GHG reduction targets in five strategy areas: energy; transportation and land use; water; solid waste; and green infrastructure (urban forest). The project is within 0.5 mile of the 70th Street Trolley Station, which serves the MTS Green Line Trolley. Due the project’s proposed high-density multi-family housing and proximity to a major transit stop, the project would be considered TOD. The project would also add pedestrian and bicycle lane/sidewalks on Alvarado Road and add pedestrian and bicycle access to the 70th Street Trolley Station. Therefore, the project would support the CAP Transportation and Land Use reduction strategies and measures T-1, Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Development, and T-4, Mixed-Use and Transit-Oriented Development. In addition, the project’s conformance to the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency code and Part 11 CALGreen code would ensure the project is consistent with the CAP building energy, water use, and solid waste diversion strategies and measures.

In addition, the project would be consistent with the green infrastructure strategies and measures by implementing the 2019 CALGreen and City standards for public right of way and parking lot shade trees and by restoring the Alvarado Creek channel with native planting.

As discussed in Section 4.5.1.3, the transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the state and in the San Diego region. A project’s GHG emissions from cars and light trucks are directly correlated to the project’s VMT. A reduction of VMT through implementation of TOD projects is a key component of SANDAG’s Regional Plan to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and reduce GHG emissions (SANDAG 2015). The TIS analyzed the project’s VMT per capita and compared it to the San Diego regional VMT per capita. The regional VMT per capita is 15.3 miles and the project VMT per capita would be 13.5 miles, based primarily on proximity to the transit station (Kimley Horn 2020).

The TIA also includes estimated VMT reductions from SANDAG’s Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool that would further reduce the project’s VMT. These features would further reduce the project’s mobile source GHG emissions by reducing VMT. The VMT reductions include:
• 1D Employer Transit Pass Subsidy: 0.3-percent VMT reduction • 2A Transit Oriented Development: 5.2-percent VMT reduction • 3A Parking Pricing: 7.5-percent VMT reduction
• 4B Pedestrian Facility Improvement: 1.4-percent VMT reduction • 4D Bike Facility Improvement: 0.1-percent VMT reduction Note that the employer transit pass subsidy and the parking pricing measures would need to be implemented by the developer and are not guaranteed at this time. In addition, as described in Section 4.5.5.1, the project’s estimated GHG emissions per capita would be below the City’s GHG emissions per capita reduction target selected for the 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 TOD 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. Associated impacts would be less than significant.

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.5-16 August 2022

4.5.6 Mitigation Measures

4.5.6.1 Generation of GHG Emissions
No significant impacts related to generation of direct or indirect GHG emissions would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.5.6.2 Conflicts with GHG Reduction Plans, Policies, or Regulations No significant impacts related to conflicts with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.5.7 Significance Determination
The significance of GHG emissions impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.5-6, Significance Determination Summary of GHG Emissions Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant GHG emissions impacts. Impacts related to generation of GHG emissions and conflicts with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.5-6

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Generation of GHG Emissions Less than significant None required Less than significant Conflicts with GHG Reduction
Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Less than significant None required Less than significant

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-1 August 2022

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section of the EIR evaluates potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The following discussion is based, in part, on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project (SCS Engineers 2018), which is included as Appendix H of this EIR.

4.6.1 Existing Conditions

4.6.1.1 Hazardous Materials Sites
Hazardous materials are substances with certain physical or chemical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials are used for a variety of purposes, including service industries, various small businesses, medical uses, schools, and households. Many chemicals used in household cleaning, construction, dry cleaning, film processing, landscaping, and automotive maintenance and repair are considered hazardous. Small-quantity hazardous waste generators include facilities such as automotive repair, dry cleaners, and medical offices.

A search of federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agency databases was conducted to identify listed hazardous materials sites on and within up to a one-mile radius of the project site. A total of 89 reported facilities were identified in various databases within the search radius. Additional details on the databases searched and the search results are provided in Appendix H of this EIR.

The project site is listed on the following two regulatory databases:
• Historic Auto: The listing on this database is referred to as Wright Mobil Service 7407 Alvarado Road, listed to occupy the site from 2001 to 2005. The regulatory database report lists this facility as a gasoline service station; however, a gasoline service station has never been on the site. As such, this interpretation is considered erroneous. • California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS): The CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (i.e., accidental releases or spills). Types of hazardous materials were not reported, and no violations were listed.

Off-site listed facilities were screened to six properties with potential to impact the project site from releases of hazardous materials, as identified in Table 4.6-1, Listed Facilities in the Project Vicinity with Potential to Impact the Project Site.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-2 August 2022
Table 4.6-1

LISTED FACILITIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY WITH POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PROJECT SITE Facility Location Distance/Direction
from Project Site Database Potential Concern
Sid’s Auto Body 7241 Alvarado Road 800 feet/West SAM, CPS-SLIC Cleanup site (soil and groundwater) – case
closed
Sport and Import
Auto Service
7243 Alvarado Road 680 feet/West FINDS, RCRASQG, SWEEPS

UST, HMMD,
ECHO, Historic
Auto
Hazardous waste
generator
Southern Paint 7
Auto Body Shop
7245 Alvarado Road 680 feet/West Historic Auto Hazardous waste generator
Parkway Cleaners 7200 Alvarado Road 600 feet/
Northwest
Historic Cleaners Hazardous waste
generator
UST Registered UST
Alvarado Creek
Redevelopment
Site
8181 Alvarado Road 200 feet/East SWRCB Cleanup site (soil) – case closed
Bob Stall Chevrolet 7601 Alvarado Road Adjacent RCRA-SQG, AST,

HMMD, FINDS,

ECHO, SAM,
LOP, LUST, Hist

UST, SWEEPS
UST, EMI, Hist

CORTESE,
HAZNET
Cleanup site (soils)
Hazardous waste
generator
Source: SCS 2018
SAM = Site Assessment and Mitigation Program, CPS-SLIC = Cleanup Program Sites -Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup, FINDS = Facility Index System/Registry System, RCRA-SQR = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-Small Quantity Generator, SWEEPS UST = Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System Underground Storage Tank, HMMD = San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division, ECHO = Enforcement and Compliance History Information, SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board, AST = aboveground storage tank, LOP = Local Oversight Program, LUST = leaking underground storage tank; UST = underground storage tank, EMI = Emissions Inventory Data, HAZNET = Facility and Manifest Data

4.6.1.2 Aircraft Hazards
The State of California requires that the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, as the Airport Land Use Commission, prepare an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for each public-use airport and military air installation in San Diego County. An ALUCP contains policies and criteria that address compatibility between airports and future land uses that surround them by addressing noise, overflight, safety, and airspace protection concerns to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the airport influence area (AIA) for each airport over a 20-year horizon.

The closest public airport to the project site is Gillespie Field, which is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site in the City of El Cajon. Gillespie Field is a general aviation reliever airport operated by the County of San Diego Department of Public Works. According to the Gillespie Field ALUCP, the project site is not located within the airport’s AIA (SDCRAA 2010a). The next closest airports include Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport approximately seven miles to the northwest in the City of San Diego and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar approximately eight miles to the northwest in

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-3 August 2022
the City of San Diego. Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport is a general aviation reliever airport operated by the City of San Diego. According to the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP, the project site is located within Review Area 2 of the airport’s AIA (SDCRAA 2010b). The project site is not within the AIA of MCAS Miramar (SDCRAA 2008). The Grossmont Hospital heliport is located approximately 1.8 miles east of the project site in the City of La Mesa. The heliport is privately owned and operated by the Grossmont Hospital District.

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting

4.6.2.1 Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980 and provides federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Federal actions related to CERCLA are limited to sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) for cleanup activities, with NPL listings based on the USEPA Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is a numerical ranking system used to screen potential sites based on criteria such as the likelihood and nature of the hazardous material release, and the potential to affect people or environmental resources. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites; required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other state and federal environmental laws and regulations; provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools; increased state involvement in every phase of the Superfund program; increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites; encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up; and increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion.

Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
The federal Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, provides for the management of hazardous wastes from generation to disposal to ensure that it is handled in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Under RCRA, the USEPA has established regulations and procedures for the generation, transportation, storage, and disposal activities of hazardous waste handlers, as well as technical standards for the design and safe operation of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to minimize the release of hazardous waste into the environment. RCRA’s corrective action program is designed to investigate and guide the cleanup of any contaminated air, groundwater, surface water, or soil from hazardous waste management of spills or releases into the environment as a result of the past and present activities at RCRA-regulated facilities.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Railroad Administration are the three entities that regulate the transport of hazardous materials at the federal level. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 CFR 171, Subchapter C) governs the

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-4 August 2022
transportation of hazardous materials. These regulations are promulgated by DOT and enforced by USEPA.

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has primary responsibility for the safety of civil aviation. The FAA’s major functions regarding hazards include the following: (1) developing and operating a common system of air traffic control and navigation for both civil and military aircraft; (2) developing and implementing programs to control aircraft noise and other environmental effects of civil aviation; (3) regulating U.S. commercial space transportation; and (4) conducting reviews to determine that the safety of persons and property on the ground are protected. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace; sets forth the requirements for notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction or alteration; provides for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation in order to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace; provides for public hearings on the hazardous effect of proposed construction or alteration on air navigation; and provides for establishing antenna farm areas.

FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, must be filed with the FAA regional office prior to construction of buildings that are 200 feet or higher above the graded terrain. Minimum FAA safety standards include the marking or lighting of any structures 200 feet in height or greater from the graded terrain.

4.6.2.2 State
California Code of Regulations
Most state and federal regulations and requirements that apply to generators of hazardous waste are codified in CCR Title 22, Division 4.5. Title 22 contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Because California is a fully authorized state under RCRA, most RCRA regulations are integrated into Title 22. The CalEPA/California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the USEPA through Title 22, which does not include as many exemptions or exclusions as the equivalent federal regulations. Title 22 also regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than RCRA. The State has compiled a number of additional regulations from various CCR titles related to hazardous materials, wastes, and toxics into CCR Title 26 (Toxics), and provides additional related guidance in Titles 23 (Waters) and 27 (Environmental Protection), although California hazardous waste regulations are still commonly referred to as Title 22.

CCR Title 24, Part 9, the California Fire Code is based on the International Fire Code, with necessary California amendments. The purpose of the California Fire Code is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, as well as to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Additionally, CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 4 regulates exposure to asbestos (Section 1529) and lead-based paint (Section 1532.1) during construction work.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-5 August 2022
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act requires facilities that handle hazardous materials in amounts above threshold quantities to establish and implement hazardous materials business plans. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25504, hazardous materials business plans must contain a hazardous materials inventory disclosing the type, quantity, use, location, and health risks of every hazardous substance, chemical product, and waste handled by the facility; emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material; and provisions for employee training in safety procedures.

Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the California Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including CalEPA, the California Highway Patrol, CDFW, and RWQCB.

California Government Code Section 65962.5
The provisions of California Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the Cortese List, which refers to several government databases, compiled and updated by state regulatory agencies that identify potential hazardous materials sites, including sites that may have been subject to a release of hazardous substances and hazardous waste facilities. A site’s presence on this list can affect the local permitting process and compliance with the CEQA. Data resources that provide information regarding the sites and facilities identified as meeting the Government Code Section 65962.5 list requirements include the following (CalEPA 2020):
• List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database; • List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites from the Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database;
• List of Solid Waste Disposal Sites identified by the SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit; • List of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the SWRCB; and • List of Hazardous Waste Facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25187.5, identified by DTSC.

Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the California Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including CalEPA, the California Highway Patrol, CDFW, and RWQCB.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-6 August 2022

4.6.2.3 Local
San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Long-term prevention, mitigation efforts, and risk-based preparedness for specific hazards within San Diego are addressed as a part of the 2018 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP). It is intended to educate the public, help serve as a decision-making tool, supplement local policies regarding disaster planning, and improve multi-jurisdictional coordination. The MHMP identifies specific risks for San Diego County and provides methods to help minimize damage caused by natural and man-made disasters. The list of hazards profiled for San Diego County include climate change; sea level rise, coastal storms, erosion, and tsunami; dam failure; earthquake; flood; rain-induced landslide; liquefaction; structure/wildfire fire; extreme heat; drought/water supply; and manmade hazards.

Hazardous materials (associated with transport, use, and storage) are identified in the Hazard Mitigation Plan as the top hazard in La Mesa (County of San Diego 2018) San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) serves as the region’s Airport Land Use Commission, which is responsible for adopting ALUCPs for the County’s 16 public-use and military airports. ALUCPs provide guidance on appropriate land uses surrounding airports to protect the health and safety of people and property within the vicinity of an airport, as well as the public in general.

ALUCPs focus on a defined area around each airport known as the AIA, which is comprised of noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight factors. The AIA is divided into the following areas:
• Review Area 1: Review Area 1 consists of locations where noise and safety concerns may necessitate limitations on the types of land use actions. Specifically, Review Area 1 encompasses locations exposed to aircraft noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or greater together with all of the safety zones.
• Review Area 2: Review Area 2 consists of locations beyond Review Area 1 but within the airspace protection and overflight notification areas. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2.

The recordation of overflight notification documents is also required in locations within Review Area 2.

Once ALUCPs have been adopted, local agencies with land located within the AIA boundary for any of the airports must, by law, amend their planning documents to conform to the applicable ALUCP. By providing direction to local agencies in their land use decisions, ALUCPs help maintain the nation’s air transportation infrastructure by protecting airports from encroachment by incompatible land uses that could restrict their operations.

San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation Program The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) is the regional agency generally entrusted with the monitoring and enforcement of various laws and regulations governing the handling, use, transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The DEH maintains the Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) list of contaminated sites that have previously or are currently undergoing environmental investigations and/or remedial actions. The SAM Program, within the Land and Water Quality Division of the DEH, has a primary purpose to protect human health, water resources,

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-7 August 2022
and the environment within San Diego County by providing oversight of assessments and cleanups in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and the California Code of Regulations. The SAM’s Voluntary Assistance Program also provides staff consultation, project oversight, and technical or environmental report evaluation and concurrence (when appropriate) on projects pertaining to properties contaminated with hazardous substances.

City of La Mesa Emergency Operations Plan
The La Mesa Emergency Operations Plan describes a comprehensive emergency management system for response to natural and man-made disasters. The Emergency Plan identifies lines of authority and operational responsibilities and outlines a framework for the continuity of government and maintenance of City services. The Emergency Plan provides City staff with the basis for an effective response in the event of a local or region-wide disaster.

City of La Mesa Fire Code
La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 11.04, Fire Code, adopts the 2010 California Fire Code as the fire code of the City of La Mesa for regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous substances, materials, and devices; and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises, erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, equipment use, and maintenance of buildings and structures.

4.6.3 Methodology and Assumptions
The hazardous materials study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix H) included a site reconnaissance; site research; a historical land use review; interviews with site personnel; and a search of relevant federal, State and local regulatory agency databases and records. The site reconnaissance was conducted on October 10, 2018 to observe and document existing site conditions. The interiors of the existing on-site buildings were observed, and the site grounds and perimeter were systematically traversed on foot. Available previous environmental reports and site records were reviewed, including those from the County DEH, La Mesa Building Department, and Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Additionally, historic aerial photographs, City directories, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, topographic maps, and geological maps were reviewed. The regulatory database search was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and included a comprehensive search of listed facilities on numerous federal and state agency databases within a radius of up to one mile from the project site.

Potential impacts related to aircraft hazards are based on a review of the ALUCPs for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport.

4.6.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a significant impact related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-8 August 2022

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

4.6.5 Impact Analysis

4.6.5.1 Release of Hazardous Materials
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold 2: 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?
Project construction would involve the on-site use and/or storage of hazardous materials/wastes such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, concrete, paint, and portable septic system wastes. The location of material storage and construction staging areas would be dictated by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit, which includes such measures as regular maintenance of construction equipment, and storage criteria for oil, gasoline, and other potential contaminants that commonly occur during construction activities. Based on compliance with regulatory requirements, potential impacts from use/storage of construction-related hazardous materials would be effectively avoided or addressed.

The project site contains six existing buildings, all constructed between 1954 and 1959, that would be demolished. Due to the age of these buildings, the potential exists for them to contain ACM and/or LBP and thus, demolition activities could potentially release these hazardous building materials into the environment. Associated construction-related impacts from demolition activities would be potentially significant.

As a residential development, the project would involve the limited use of household cleaning products, chemical pesticides and fertilizers required to maintain proposed landscaping, and chemicals associated with maintenance of the swimming pool. Any regulated materials would be properly handled, used, stored, transported, and/or disposed of in accordance with regulatory standards. Use of these common hazardous materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-9 August 2022

4.6.5.2 Hazards to Schools
Threshold 3: 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?
There are five schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site, including the following:
• Maryland Avenue Elementary School, located at 5400 Maryland Avenue, which is approximately

0.23 mile north of the site;
• National University – La Mesa Campus, located at 7787 Alvarado Road, which is approximately

0.21 mile east of the project site;
• Taproot Montessori – La Mesa, located at 5173 Guava Avenue, which is approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site;
• St. Martin of Tours Academy, located at 7708 El Cajon Boulevard, which is 0.25 mile southeast of the project site; and
• AKA Head Start, located at 7520 El Cajon Boulevard, which is approximately 0.25 south of the project site.

The proposed project would involve the temporary use and/or storage of fuels, oils, and other potential hazardous materials during construction, and the limited use/storage of household cleaning products, landscaping pesticides, and pool chemicals during operation. The project’s use of hazardous materials during construction would be handled in accordance with NPDES SWPPP requirements, as well as compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations associated with hazardous materials.

Adherence to these applicable regulations would avoid exposure to construction-related and common residential hazardous materials from occurring to nearby schools.

As discussed in Section 4.6.5.2, however, the existing on-site buildings that would be demolished could potentially contain ACM and/or LBP. If present, people at nearby schools could potentially be exposed to emissions of these hazardous materials during demolition activities. Potential construction-related impacts on nearby schools from demolition activities would be potentially significant.

4.6.5.3 Listed Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold 4: 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? A search of federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agency databases was conducted to identify listed hazardous materials sites on and within up to a one-mile radius of the project site.

Project Site Listings
The project site is listed on two hazardous materials databases, including the Historic Auto database and CHMIRS. The Historic Auto database lists the site as being occupied by Wright Mobil Service from 2001

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-10 August 2022
to 2005, and the EDR lists this facility as a gasoline service station. However, based on a review of La Mesa Building Department records and historic photos, a gasoline service station has never been present on the site, so this listing is considered erroneous. The listed facility is likely related to a mobile car detailing or mobile auto repair service that used the project site as a hub or mailing address. No recorded cases, violations, or incident reports are associated with this listing. While the site is also listed on the CHMIRS database, types of hazardous materials were not reported and no violations were recorded. Therefore, neither of the project site listings on hazardous materials databases are considered to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Off-site Listed Facilities
Off-Site listed facilities identified in the regulatory agency database search were evaluated as to their potential to impact the project site based on the following criteria:
• Reported distance of the facility to the project site; • The nature of the database on which the facility is listed, and/or whether the facility is listed on a database reporting unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or hazardous wastes;
• Reported case type (e.g., soil only, failed UST test only); • Reported substance released (e.g., chlorinated solvents, gasoline, metals); • Reported regulatory agency status (e.g., case closed, “no further action”); and • Location of the facility with respect to the reported groundwater flow direction and depth to groundwater.

Based on these criteria, off-site listed facilities were screened to six facilities in the project vicinity with potential to impact the project site from releases of hazardous materials. The six facilities are described below, as well as an assessment of their potential to represent a recognized environmental condition to the project site.

Sid’s Auto Body (7241 Alvarado Road)
Sid’s Auto Body, located at 7241 Alvarado Road, is approximately 800 feet west of the project site and listed on the County SAM and Cleanup Program Sites Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup (CPS-SLIC) databases for potential diesel contamination of the aquifer used for drinking water supply. Soils containing elevated concentrations of lead were mitigated in 2004 and the remaining contaminants in the soil and groundwater were either below contaminant levels or not detected above laboratory reporting limits. The DEH issued a case closure letter on October 18, 2005 indicating that the cleanup goals were met.

Based on the reported mitigation to below cleanup goals, the closure letter issued by the DEH, the distance from the project site, and the location of this facility with respect to the reported groundwater flow direction (i.e., downgradient from the project site), this facility is not considered to represent a recognized environmental condition to the project site.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-11 August 2022
Sport and Import Auto Service (7243 Alvarado Road)
Sport and Import Auto Service, located at 7243 Alvarado Road, is approximately 680 feet west of the project site and listed on the Facility Index System/Registry System (FINDS), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Small Quantity Generator (RCRA-SQG), Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) Underground Storage Tanks (UST), San Diego Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD), Enforcement and Compliance History Information (ECHO), and Historic Auto databases. The facility was reported in 1985 as a RCRA small quantity generator (SQG) for more than 100 and less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste during any calendar month and is listed as an automotive service. Types of hazardous materials were not reported, and no violations were listed.

Based on the lack of known and reported releases from this facility, the lack of reported violations, the location of this facility to the west of the project site and cross-to down-gradient position with respect to the groundwater flow direction, this facility is not considered to represent a recognized environmental condition to the project site.

Southern Paint 7 Auto Body Shop (7245 Alvarado Road)
Southern Paint 7 Auto Body Shop at 7245 Alvarado Road is approximately 680 feet west of the project site and listed on the Historic Auto database. The facility was reported in 1971 as an automobile repair shop. The DEH file includes compliance inspection reports (CIRs) for the period from 1991 through 2009.

In addition, the September 2010 DEH HE-17 database of facilities storing hazardous materials, generating hazardous wastes, and discharging unauthorized releases was reviewed. Reported violations at the site include batteries recycled, hazardous waste recycled, missing labels, and two tanks removed.

Based on the types and quantities of hazardous materials and petroleum products used and stored and hazardous waste generated at this facility, the absence of disposal violations, and the lack of known and reported releases, the distance from the project site, and the location of this facility with respect to the reported groundwater flow direction (i.e., cross- to downgradient from the project site), there is a low likelihood that a recognized environmental condition exists at the project site in connection with the listing of the reported hazardous materials and petroleum products at this facility.

Parkway Cleaners (7200 Alvarado Road)
Parkway Cleaners at 7200 Alvarado Road is located approximately 600 feet northwest of the project site and is listed on the Historic Cleaners database. The facility was reported in 2004 to 2006 as a drycleaning plant, with no known reported releases or violations.

Based on the lack of known and reported releases from this facility, the lack of reported violations, the down-gradient position of this facility with respect to the project site, the facility only being in operation for four years, and the reported depth to groundwater, this facility is not considered to represent a recognized environmental condition to the project site.

Alvarado Creek Redevelopment Site (8181 Alvarado Road)
Alvarado Creek Redevelopment Site at 8181 Alvarado Road is located approximately 200 feet east of the project site and is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database. Phase I and II site assessments conducted in 1996 show soils only surface spillage of waste petroleum and asphaltic debris. Soil sample analytical data indicates there is very limited surficial impact to the environment. In

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-12 August 2022
addition, a stockpile of construction type material located adjacent to the concrete lined Alvarado Creek bed was determined to be non-hazardous. The DEH issued a case closure letter on August 7, 1996 indicating that the cleanup goals established for this project were met. Based on the closure letter issued by the DEH, and the distance from the Site, this facility is not considered to represent a recognized environmental condition to the project site.

Bob Stall Chevrolet (7601 Alvarado Road)
The Bob Stall Chevrolet car dealership at 7601 Alvarado Road is located adjacent to the east of the project site and is listed on several regulatory databases, including the RCRA-SQG, Aboveground Storage Tank (AST), HMMD, FINDS, ECHO, SAM, LOP, LUST, Hist UST, SWEEPS UST, EMI, Hist CORTESE, and HAZNET databases. The facility was reported in 1986 to 1996 in the Local Oversite Program (LOP), DEH Site Assessment and Mitigation agency, with a soils-only case that was closed July 26, 1996. The facility was also reported in 1996 as a RCRA SQG for more than 100 and less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste during any calendar month and is listed as an automotive service. Types of hazardous materials were not reported, and no violations were listed. The DEH file includes CIRs for the period from 1991 through 2010. In addition, the September 2010 DEH HE-17 database of facilities storing hazardous materials, generating hazardous wastes, and discharging unauthorized releases was reviewed. The reported violations at the site include missing labels, inadequate training, records keeping, not properly drained, hazardous waste recycled, waste container not closed, improper management, improperly contaminated, unauthorized disposal, disposal or causing the disposal to an unauthorized point, generator of waste not determined, waste determination not made, waste on site greater than 90/180/270 days, second containment not kept empty, and missing daily tank inspection. Details of the unauthorized disposal incident were not reported.

Based on the types and quantities of hazardous materials and petroleum products used and stored and hazardous waste generated at this facility, and the distance of auto repair bays at this facility from the project site (200 feet away or greater), there is a low likelihood that a recognized environmental condition exists at the project site in connection with the various hazardous materials related permit listings of this facility.

This property is also listed in the LUST database. Four USTs were removed in 1988, including one 550-gallon used oil UST, two 550-gallon new oil USTs, and one 2,000-gallon regular gasoline UST.

Samples indicated that groundwater was not impacted—only soils with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH). In 1992, soil excavated from the area of the former USTs were confirmed to have TPH and TRPH concentrations. In 1996, the groundwater monitoring wells were monitored, purged, and sampled, and results indicate that no TPH or TRPH were present. The SWRCB GeoTracker database shows the LUST case as closed as of July 26, 1996.

Based on the reported removal of the tanks and impacted soil, confirmation from the soil samples that the extent of the release was limited to 30 feet from the area of the former USTs and that groundwater was not impacted, and that the case was closed by DEH, there is a low likelihood that a recognized environmental condition exists at the project site as a result of this known and reported release.

Conclusion
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

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-13 August 2022
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. Impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.

4.6.5.4 Airport Safety Hazards
Threshold 5: 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?
As stated in Section 4.6.1.3 above the project site is located approximately five miles from Gillespie Field airport, approximately seven miles from Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, approximately eight miles from MCAS Miramar, and approximately 1.8 miles from the Grossmont Hospital heliport. The project site is not located within the AIA for Gillespie Field or MCAS Miramar, which is the area in which airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight notification factors may affect or necessitate restrictions on land uses (SDCRAA 2010a, 2008). Thus, the project site would not be subject to safety hazards associated with Gillespie Field or MCAS Miramar operations. However, the project site is located within Review Area 2 of the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport AIA, which consists of locations beyond the noise and safety zones, but within the airspace protection and overflight notification areas (SDCRAA 2010b). Specifically, the project site lies within the airspace surfaces of Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, which depict areas that should be kept free of obstruction and protected for the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft. 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.5.5 Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
Threshold 6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The La Mesa Emergency Operations Plan is the adopted emergency response plan for the City. During construction of the project, heavy construction vehicles could interfere with emergency response to the site or emergency evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency (e.g., vehicles traveling behind the slow-moving truck). Additionally, 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. Furthermore, Alvarado Road is not a major corridor that would be used as an evacuation route. As a result, the project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

The project would construct 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

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-14 August 2022
and gutter, a shared pedestrian/bicycle path, and street-side landscaping. Additionally, the project site access points along Alvarado Road would be designed to provide for adequate site distances for both directions. These roadway improvements would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles.

The project would provide adequate emergency access within the site. Access for emergency vehicles would be provided along the proposed perimeter road. Fire lanes would also be provided on site to accommodate emergency response vehicles such that Alvarado Road would not be obstructed for public safety vehicle movement as well as local traffic both to the east and west in the event of an emergency.

Therefore, implementation of the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.6.6 Mitigation Measures

4.6.6.1 Release of Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant hazards impact during demolition activities associated with release of ACM and/or LBP. Implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1 would reduce this impact to below a level of significance.

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 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.

4.6.6.2 Hazards to Schools
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.

Implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1 identified above would reduce this impact to below a level of significance.

4.6.6.3 Listed Hazardous Materials Sites
No significant impacts associated with listed hazardous materials sites would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-15 August 2022

4.6.6.4 Airport Safety Hazards
No significant impacts associated with airport safety hazards would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.6.6.5 Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
No significant impacts associated with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.6.7 Significance Determination
The significance of impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.6-2, Significance Determination Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites, airport safety hazards, and emergency response and evacuation plans.

Implementation of the proposed project, however, would result in potentially significant impacts related to the release of hazardous materials and hazards to schools. With implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, these impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

Table 4.6-2

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Release of Hazardous Materials Potentially significant HAZ-1 Less than significant Hazards to Schools Potentially significant HAZ-1 Less than significant Listed Hazardous Materials Sites Less than significant None required Less than significant Airport Safety Hazards Less than significant None required Less than significant Emergency Response and
Evacuation Plans
Less than significant None required Less than significant

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.6-16 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-1 August 2022

4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section of the EIR evaluates potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The following discussed is based, in part, on the Preliminary Drainage Study and Floodplain Analysis for the Alvarado Specific Plan (Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. [Fuscoe] 2020a) and Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP; Fuscoe 2018) prepared for the project, which are included as Appendices I and J of this EIR.

4.7.1 Existing Conditions

4.7.1.1 Hydrologic Setting
In California, the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality are carried out by the SWRCB. Due to the statewide variations in water quality and quantity, California is divided into nine regions for the purposes of regional administration of California’s water quality control program, and each region has a RWQCB and Water Quality Control Plan. The project site is located in Region 9, the San Diego Region. The San Diego Region encompasses approximately 3,900 square miles that extend from the Pacific Ocean east to the Laguna Mountains. The northern boundary of the Region starts near Laguna Beach, and the southern boundary is the border between the United States and Mexico (RWQCB 2016).

The San Diego Region is divided into 11 hydrologic units. The project site is located within the San Diego Hydrologic Unit (HU), which is an elongated, triangular-shaped area encompassing approximately 440 square miles drained by the San Diego River. The San Diego HU includes four hydrologic areas (HA), including the Lower San Diego HA, San Vicente HA, El Capitan HA, and Boulder Creek HA. Each hydrologic area is further divided into hydrologic subareas (HSA). The project site lies within the Mission San Diego HSA (Basin 907.11) of the Lower San Diego HA. The main receiving water body in this HSA is the San Diego River. The San Diego River is located approximately 3.2 mile north of the project site; however, Alvarado Creek bisects the project site and drains into the San Diego River downstream of the site.

4.7.1.2 Water Quality
Surface Waters
Storm flows are subject to variations in water quality due to local conditions such as runoff rates/ amounts and land use. The main surface water occurring in the vicinity of the project is Alvarado Creek, which runs through the project site and drains into the San Diego River downstream before eventually discharging into the Pacific Ocean. Typical pollutant sources and loadings for various land use types provided in Table 4.7-1, Summary of Typical Pollutant Sources for Urban Storm Water Runoff, and Table 4.7-2, Typical Loadings for Selected Pollutants in Runoff from Various Land Uses.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-2 August 2022
Table 4.7-1

SUMMARY OF TYPICAL POLLUTANT SOURCES FOR URBAN STORM WATER RUNOFF Pollutants Pollutant Sources
Sediment and Trash/Debris Streets, landscaping, driveways, parking areas, rooftops, construction activities, atmospheric deposition, drainage channel erosion Pesticides and Herbicides Landscaping, roadsides, utility rights-of-way, soil wash-off Organic Compounds Landscaping, streets, parking areas, animal wastes, recreation areas Oxygen Demanding Substances Landscaping, animal wastes, leaky sanitary sewer lines, recreation areas Heavy Metals Automobiles, bridges, atmospheric deposition, industrial areas, soil erosion, corroding metal surfaces, combustion processes Oil and Grease/Hydrocarbons Roads, driveways, parking lots, vehicle maintenance areas, gas stations, illicit dumping to storm drains
Bacteria and Viruses Landscaping, roads, leaky sanitary sewer lines, sanitary sewer crossconnections, animal wastes, recreation areas Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) Rooftops, landscaping, atmospheric deposition, automobile exhaust, soil erosion, animal wastes, detergents, recreation areas
Source: USEPA 1999
Table 4.7-2

TYPICAL LOADINGS FOR SELECTED POLLUTANTS IN RUNOFF FROM VARIOUS LAND USES (lbs/acre/year)
Land Use TSS TP TKN NH3 - N NO2 +
NO3 - N BOD COD Pb Zn Cu
Commercial 1000 1.5 6.7 1.9 3.1 62 420 2.7 2.1 0.4
Parking Lot 400 0.7 5.1 2 2.9 47 270 0.8 0.8 0.04
HDR 420 1 4.2 0.8 2 27 170 0.8 0.7 0.03
MDR 190 0.5 2.5 0.5 1.4 13 72 0.2 0.2 0.14
LDR 10 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.1 N/A N/A 0.01 0.04 0.01
Freeway 880 0.9 7.9 1.5 4.2 N/A N/A 4.5 2.1 0.37
Industrial 860 1.3 3.8 0.2 1.3 N/A N/A 2.4 7.3 0.5
Park 3 0.03 1.5 N/A 0.3 N/A 2 0 N/A N/A
Construction 6000 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: USEPA 1999
HDR = High Density Residential; MDR = Medium Density Residential; LDR = Low Density Residential N/A = Not available; insufficient data to characterize; TSS = Total Suspended Solids; TP = Total Phosphorus; TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; NH3 – N = Ammonia - Nitrogen; NO2 + NO3 – N = Nitrite + Nitrate - Nitrogen; BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand; COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand; Pb = Lead; Zn = Zinc; Cu = Copper Beneficial Uses
The Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses for surface waters in the Region. Beneficial uses are defined in the Basin Plan as “the uses of water necessary for the survival or well-being of man, plus plants and wildlife.” Identified existing and potential beneficial uses for applicable receiving waters near and downstream from the project site are summarized below:
• Alvarado Creek: Agricultural Supply (AGR), Industrial Service Supply (IND), Contact Water Recreation (REC-1), Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), and Wildlife Habitat (WILD). Alvarado Creek is excluded from the MUN beneficial use. • San Diego River: AGR, IND, REC-1, REC-2, WARM, WILD, and Rare Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE). The San Diego River is excluded from the MUN beneficial use.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-3 August 2022
• Pacific Ocean: IND, Navigation (NAV), REC-1, REC-2, Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM), Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL), WILD, RARE, Marine Habitat (MAR), Aquaculture (AQUA), Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR), Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN), and Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL).

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies and Total Maximum Daily Loads Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop a list of water quality limited segments. Waters on the list do not meet water quality standards even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires establishment of priority rankings for water on the lists and develop action plans, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), to improve water quality. The San Diego RWQCB is responsible for developing the 303(d) list in the San Diego region.

The receiving waters for the CPU area that are currently listed as impaired (based on the 2014 – 2016 303[d] List) include Alvarado Creek for nitrogen and selenium; San Diego River (lower) for enterococcus, fecal chloroform, low dissolved oxygen, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and toxicity; and the Pacific Shoreline at the San Diego River Outlet at Dog Park for enterococcus and total coliform.

4.7.1.3 Groundwater
Groundwater is defined as subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated. Groundwater bearing formations sufficiently permeable to transmit and yield substantial quantities of water are called aquifers. A groundwater basin is defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connected and interrelated aquifers. The principal groundwater basins in the San Diego region are relatively small in area and usually shallow.

Although these groundwater basins are limited in size, the groundwater yield from the basins has been historically important to the development of the region. Nearly all of the local groundwater basins have been intensively developed for municipal and agricultural supply purposes.

Groundwater within the Mission San Diego HSA of the Lower San Diego HA of the San Diego HU has identified existing beneficial uses of AGR, IND, and Industrial Process Supply (PROC). MUN is a potential beneficial use.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation Update prepared for the project, groundwater was encountered at a depth of three feet along the southern perimeter of the project site, adjacent to Alvarado Creek (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2019). As such, it is anticipated that groundwater would be encountered during grading operations in these areas of the project site.

4.7.1.4 Drainage
The existing site can be divided into two major basins. Basin 1 encompasses approximately 4.5 acres and consists of the portion of the site east of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site, while Basin 2 consists of the portion of the site to the west of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site. Topographically, Basin 1 is generally very flat, with the exception of the slopes along the southerly end of the basin. The trolley tracks and the associated storm drain lines intercept all drainage to south of the trolley line. Basin 1 also accepts drainage from a portion of Alvarado Road. This drainage enters the site through the two

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-4 August 2022
entrances from Alvarado Road. The on-site drainage collects in the RV resort streets and flows over the Alvarado Creek bank in several locations.

Basin 2 encompasses approximately 7.7 acres and consists of the portion of the project site that is to the west and north of Alvarado Creek. This basin generally slopes to the west at an approximately

1.5 percent grade. Runoff from the site flows along the RV resort streets, and roughly parallels Alvarado Creek. Basin 2 also accepts drainage from a small section of Alvarado Road immediately to the west of the creek overcrossing. Drainage from Basin 2 exits the western end of the project site and is intercepted by a storm drain system constructed as part of the 70th Street trolley station.

The existing drainage conditions within the project site and adjacent areas are shown on the Existing Hydrology Exhibit included as Exhibit B of the project Drainage Study in Appendix I of this EIR. Peak flows under existing drainage pattern conditions total 15.28 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 100-year storm within Basin 1 and 18.13 cfs within Basin 2 (Fuscoe 2020a).

4.7.1.5 Flood Hazards
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped flood hazards within the project site and vicinity. The majority of the project site is designated as “Zone AE,” which means it is within a 100-year floodplain and is considered a special flood hazard area with a one percent annual chance of flooding (FEMA 2020, 2012). Alvarado Creek and the immediate surrounding areas are specifically classified as a Regulatory Floodway, which is defined as an area that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height (FEMA 2019). The base flood elevations for the project site are listed as approximately 409 feet AMSL at the western end of the site and gradually increase to approximately 425 feet AMSL at the eastern boundary of the site. Most of the eastern portion of the project site located east of Alvarado Creek is designated as “Zone X,” which means these areas are outside of identified 100-year floodplains and are considered minimal flood hazard areas.

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting

4.7.2.1 Federal
Clean Water Act/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Requirements The project is subject to applicable elements of the CWA, including the NPDES. Specific NPDES requirements associated with the project include conformance with the following: (1) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit, NPDES No. CAS000002, SWRCB Order 2009-0009-DWQ; as amended by Order Nos. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ); (2) General Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters Permit (Groundwater Permit; NPDES No. CAG919003, Order No. R9-2015-0013); (3) Waste Discharge Requirements for MS4 Permit (Municipal Permit, NPDES No. CAS 0109266, Order No. R9- 2013-0001, as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100). In California, USEPA has delegated authority for implementing NPDES requirements to the SWRCB and RWQCB, with these permits described below under state standards.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-5 August 2022
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program in order to provide flood insurance within communities that were willing to adopt floodplain management programs to mitigate future flood losses. This Act also required the identification of all floodplain areas and the establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 expanded the National Flood Insurance Program by substantially increasing limits of coverage authorized under the program, and by requiring known flood-prone communities to participate in the program and to adopt adequate flood plan ordinances. This Act also made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory for property owners who are being assisted by federal programs, agencies, or institutions in the acquisition or improvement of land or facilities located in identified areas having special flood hazards. The National Flood Insurance Program has been further amended by subsequent reform acts. FEMA is the primary agency responsible for administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. FEMA is responsible for preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which delineate both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.

4.7.2.2 State
NPDES Construction General Permit
Construction activities exceeding one acre (or meeting other applicable criteria) are subject to pertinent requirements under the Construction General Permit. This permit was issued by the SWRCB, pursuant to authority delegated by the USEPA. Specific conformance requirements include implementing a SWPPP, an associated Construction Site Monitoring Program (CSMP), employee training, and minimum BMPs, as well as a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) for applicable projects (e.g., those in Risk Categories 2 or 3).

Under the Construction General Permit, project sites are designated as Risk Level 1 through 3 based on site-specific criteria (e.g., sediment erosion and receiving water risk), with Risk Level 3 sites requiring the most stringent controls. Based on the site-specific risk level designation, the SWPPP and related plans/efforts identify detailed measures to prevent and control the off-site discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. Depending on the risk level, these may include efforts such as minimizing/ stabilizing disturbed areas, mandatory use of technology-based action levels, effluent and receiving water monitoring/reporting, and advanced treatment systems (ATS). Specific pollution control measures require the use of best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and/or best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) levels of treatment, with these requirements implemented through applicable BMPs. While site-specific measures vary with conditions such as risk level, proposed grading, and slope/soil characteristics, detailed guidance for construction-related BMPs is provided in the permit and related City standards (as outlined below), as well as additional sources including the EPA National Menu of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II – Construction, and California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks. Specific requirements for the project under this permit would be determined during SWPPP development, after completion of site development plans and application submittal to the SWRCB.

NPDES Groundwater Permit
Shallow groundwater is expected to occur on site as previously described. If project-related construction activities entail the discharge of extracted groundwater into receiving waters, the applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Groundwater Permit. Conformance with this permit is generally

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-6 August 2022
applicable to all temporary and certain permanent groundwater discharge activities, with exceptions as noted in the permit fact sheet. Specific requirements for permit conformance include: (1) submittal of appropriate application materials and fees; (2) implementation of pertinent (depending on site-specific conditions) monitoring/testing, disposal alternative, and treatment programs; (3) provision of applicable notification to the associated local agency prior to discharging to a municipal storm drain system; (4) conformance with appropriate effluent standards (as outlined in the permit); and (5) submittal of applicable documentation (e.g., monitoring reports).

NPDES Municipal Permit
The Municipal Permit implements a regional strategy for water quality and related concerns and mandates a watershed-based approach that often encompasses multiple jurisdictions. The overall permit goals include: (1) providing a consistent set of requirements for all co-permittees; and (2) allowing the co-permittees to focus their efforts and resources on achieving identified goals and improving water quality, rather than just completing individual actions (which may not adequately reflect identified goals). Under this approach, the co-permittees are tasked with prioritizing their individual water quality concerns, as well as providing implementation strategies and schedules to address those priorities. Municipal Permit conformance entails considerations such as receiving water limitations (e.g., Basin Plan criteria as outlined below), waste load allocations (WLAs), and numeric water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs). Specific efforts to provide permit conformance and reduce runoff and pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) involve methods such as: (1) using jurisdictional planning efforts (e.g., discretionary general plan approvals) to provide water quality protection; (2) requiring coordination between individual jurisdictions to provide watershed-based water quality protection; (3) implementing appropriate BMPs, including LID measures, to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate effects such as increased erosion and off-site sediment transport (sedimentation), hydromodification1 and the discharge of pollutants in urban runoff; and (4) using appropriate monitoring/assessment, reporting, and enforcement efforts to ensure proper implementation, documentation, and (as appropriate) modification of permit requirements. The City has implemented a number of regulations to ensure conformance with these requirements, as outlined below under local standards.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the principal California legal and regulatory framework for water quality control. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is embodied in the California Water Code. The California Water Code authorizes the SWRCB to implement the provisions of the federal CWA. The State of California is divided into nine regions governed by RWQCBs. The RWQCBs implement and enforce provisions of the California Water Code and the CWA under the oversight of the SWRCB. The City is located within the purview of the San Diego RWQCB (Region 9). The Porter-Cologne Act also provides for the development and periodic review of Basin Plans that designate beneficial uses of California’s major rivers and other surface waters and groundwater basins and establish water quality objectives for those waters.
1 Hydromodification is generally defined in the Municipal Permit as the change in natural watershed hydrologic processes and runoff characteristics (interception, infiltration and overland/groundwater flow) caused by urbanization or other land use changes that result in increased stream flows and sediment transport.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-7 August 2022

4.7.2.3 Local
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin
The San Diego Basin encompasses approximately 3,900 square miles, including most of San Diego County and portions of southwestern Riverside and Orange Counties. The basin is composed of 11 major hydrologic units, 54 hydrologic areas, and 147 hydrologic subareas, extending from Laguna Beach southerly to the United States/Mexico border. Drainage from higher elevations in the east flow to the west, ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. The RWQCB prepared the Water Quality Control Plan for the Basin Plan (Basin Plan), which defines existing and potential beneficial uses and water quality objectives for coastal waters, groundwater, surface waters, imported surface waters, and reclaimed waters in the basin. Water quality objectives seek to protect the most sensitive of the beneficial uses designated for a specific water body.

City of La Mesa Storm Water BMP Manual
The City’s Storm Water BMP Manual was developed to meet the JURMP and SUSMP requirements of the NPDES Municipal Permit (described above). The purpose of the Storm Water BMP Manual is to:
(1) reduce discharges from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable; (2) prevent discharges of pollutants from the MS4 from causing or contributing to a violation of water quality standards; and (3) manage increases in runoff discharge rates and durations from development projects that are likely to cause increased erosion of stream beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to beneficial uses and stream habitat due to increased erosive force. Part I of the Storm Water BMP Manual contains the BMP requirements for industrial and commercial facilities, municipal facilities, and residences (City 2010). Part II of the Storm Water BMP Manual contains both construction BMP requirements and post-construction SUSMP requirements, including Low Impact Development (LID) design guidelines and other permanent BMPs (City 2011).

City of La Mesa Watercourse Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance
La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 7.18, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control, regulates all discharges into the storm water conveyance system and the waters of the State in order to preserve and enhance water quality for beneficial uses by:
a) Prohibiting non-storm water discharges to the storm water conveyance system; b) Eliminating pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent practicable, including pollutants from both point and non-point sources;
c) Prohibiting activities which cause, or contribute to, exceeding state and federal receiving water quality objectives; and
d) Protecting watercourses from disturbance and pollution.

The ordinance requires all dischargers to implement, install, use, and maintain all applicable BMPs and to comply with the City’s Storm Water BMP Manual, which is incorporated by reference, in order to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-8 August 2022

4.7.3 Methodology and Assumptions
Potential hydrology and water quality impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project were evaluated based on relevant information from Appendices I and J, as well as a review of relevant hydrology and water quality plans and maps. Runoff calculations were conducted using the design criteria contained in the County Department of Public Works Flood Control Division Hydrology Manual and based on the 100-year storm frequency. Floodplain analysis was conducted using the HEC-RAS model.

4.7.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

1. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

5. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

4.7.5 Impact Analysis

4.7.5.1 Water Quality
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Potential project-related water quality impacts are associated with both short-term construction activities and long-term operation and maintenance, as described below.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-9 August 2022
Construction Impacts
Potential water quality impacts related to project construction include erosion/sedimentation, the use and storage of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, etc.), generation of debris from demolition activities, and disposal of extracted groundwater (if required).

Erosion and Sedimentation
Project-related excavation, grading, and construction activities could potentially result in associated erosion and sedimentation effects. Construction activities would involve the removal of surface stabilizing features such as structure, paved surfaces, and vegetation; excavation of existing compacted materials from cut areas, redeposition of excavated material as fill in development areas, and potential erosion from disposal of extracted groundwater (if required). Project-related erosion could result in the deposition of sediment into downstream receiving waters, with associated water quality effects such as turbidity and transport of other pollutants that tend to adhere to sediment particles (e.g., hydrocarbons).

While graded, excavated, and filled areas associated with construction activities would be stabilized through efforts such as compaction and installation of hardscape and landscaping, erosion potential would be higher in the short-term than for existing conditions. Proposed development areas would be especially susceptible to erosion between the beginning of grading/construction and the installation of structures/pavement or establishment of permanent cover in landscaped areas.

Although it is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed in two phases, grading of the entire project site may occur during the first phase with the development of the second phase improvements (Building 4 and associated improvements on the portion of the site east of Alvarado Creek) occurring much later, thereby leaving graded areas exposed during the interim period. All graded areas that would not be developed immediately would remain subject to the SDAPCD Rule 55, NPDES Construction General Permit, and City’s Storm Water BMP Manual until permanently stabilized in accordance with the standards contained within these regulations.

Erosion and sedimentation are not considered to be long-term concerns for the project, as developed areas would be stabilized through installation of hardscape or landscaping as noted. The project would also incorporate long-term water quality controls pursuant to City and NPDES guidelines, including (among other efforts) measures that would avoid or reduce off-site sediment transport. This would include efforts such as the use of water quality (detention and filtration) facilities and drainage facility maintenance (e.g., to remove accumulated sediment).

Short-term water quality effects from project-related erosion and sedimentation could potentially affect downstream waters and associated wildlife habitats. These potential impacts would be addressed through conformance with City storm water standards and the related NPDES Construction General Permit. This would include implementing an authorized SWPPP for proposed construction, including (but not limited to) erosion and sedimentation BMPs.

The SWQMP prepared for the project identifies construction-related requirements for implementing a SWPPP and related BMPs, including efforts related to erosion/sedimentation. While project-specific BMPs would be determined during the SWPPP process based on site characteristics, they would include standard industry measures and guidelines from the City Storm Water BMP Manual and NPDES Construction General Permit. Typical erosion and sediment control BMPs that may be required in the

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-10 August 2022
project SWPPP include: (1) seasonal grading restrictions during the rainy season; (2) preparation and implementation of a CSMP and, if applicable, a REAP to provide enhanced erosion and sediment control measures prior to predicted storm events; (3) use of erosion control/stabilizing measures such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, or soil binders; (4) use of sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment transport, including measures such as inlet protection, silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, street sweeping, stabilized construction access points and sediment stockpiles, and use of properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles; (5) compliance with local dust control measures; (6) appropriate BMP performance monitoring and as-needed maintenance; and (7) implementation of additional BMPs as necessary to ensure adequate erosion/sediment control and regulatory conformance.

Construction-related Hazardous Materials
Project construction would involve the on-site use and/or storage of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, concrete, paint, and portable septic system wastes. The accidental discharge of such materials during construction could potentially result in significant impacts if these pollutants reach downstream receiving waters, particularly materials such as petroleum compounds that are potentially toxic to aquatic species in low concentrations. As described in Section 4.7.1.2, identified impairments in downstream receiving waters include toxicity and metals, with pollutants affecting these impairments to potentially be generated during construction from sources such as vehicle and equipment operations.

Implementation of a SWPPP would be required under City and NPDES guidelines as previously described and would include d measures to avoid potential impacts related to the use and potential discharge of construction-related hazardous materials.

As noted above under the discussion of erosion and sedimentation, the Project SWQMP identifies requirements for implementing a SWPPP and related BMPs. While detailed BMPs would be determined as part of the NPDES/SWPPP process based on project-specific parameters, they are likely to include standard industry measures and guidelines from sources including the City Storm Water Manual and Construction General Permit. Typical BMPs associated with construction-related hazardous materials that may be required in the project SWPPP include the following: (1) minimizing and properly locating (e.g., away from drainages/storm drains) hazardous material use/storage areas; (2) providing appropriate covers/enclosures, secondary containment (e.g., berms), monitoring/maintenance, and inventory control (e.g., delivery logs/labeling) for hazardous material use/storage areas; (3) restricting paving operations during wet weather and providing appropriate sediment control downstream of paving activities; (4) utilizing properly designed and contained washout areas for materials including concrete, drywall, and paint; (5) properly maintaining all construction equipment and vehicles, and providing appropriate containment for associated fueling and maintenance operations; (6) providing training to applicable construction employees on the proper use, handling, storage, disposal, and notification/cleanup procedures for construction-related hazardous materials; (7) storing appropriate types and quantities of containment and cleanup materials on site; (8) implementing appropriate solid waste containment, disposal, and recycling efforts; and (9) properly locating, maintaining, and containing portable wastewater facilities.

Demolition-related Debris Generation
Implementation of the project would involve the demolition of existing on-site facilities including structures and pavement. These activities would generate construction debris, potentially including particulates (e.g., from pavement removal), concrete, asphalt, glass, metal, drywall, paint, insulation,

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-11 August 2022
fabric, and wood. The introduction of demolition-related debris into local drainages or storm drain systems could result in downstream water quality impacts, potentially including pollutants contributing to identified downstream water quality impairments.

Project construction would be subject to a number of regulatory controls related to demolition, including City storm water standards and related NPDES/SWPPP requirements as previously described.

While detailed BMPs would be determined as part of the NPDES/SWPPP process based on projectspecific parameters, they are likely to include the following types of standard industry measures and guidelines from sources including the City Storm Water BMP Manual and Construction General Permit:
(1) recycle appropriate (i.e., non-hazardous) construction debris for on- or off-site use whenever feasible; (2) properly contain and dispose of construction debris to avoid contact with storm water; (3) use dust-control measures such as watering to reduce particulate generation for pertinent locations/activities (e.g., concrete removal); and (4) implement appropriate erosion prevention and sediment control measures downstream of all demolition activities.

Disposal of Extracted Groundwater
Shallow groundwater is expected to occur in the project site and vicinity and thus, construction dewatering could potentially be required during construction. Disposal of groundwater extracted during construction activities into local drainages and/or storm drain facilities could potentially generate significant water quality impacts through erosion/sedimentation or the possible occurrence of pollutants in local aquifers (including pollutants associated with impaired waters). Project construction would require conformance with NPDES Groundwater Permit criteria prior to disposal of extracted groundwater.

Operational Impacts
Based on analysis in the project SWQMP (Fuscoe 2018), the project is identified as a Priority Development Project. As a result, project development would require the implementation of applicable pollutant (treatment) and hydromodification control BMPs, in addition to site design and source control BMPs.

Urban pollutants accumulate in areas such as streets, parking areas, and drainage facilities, and are picked up in runoff during storm events. Runoff within the project site would be generated from construction of impervious surfaces as previously described, with corresponding pollutant loading potential. Because the site is currently developed, existing runoff also includes associated pollutant loading, and due to the date of existing site development (1950s) it is anticipated that standard pollutant control BMPs required by current regulatory criteria are not present. Accordingly, long-term operation could result in the on- and off-site transport of urban pollutants and associated effects per current regulatory standards, such as increased turbidity, oxygen depletion, and toxicity to attendant species in downstream receiving waters. As a result, based on the described conditions and related CWA Section 303(d) impaired water listings outlined in Section 4.7.1.2, implementation of the project could potentially result in long-term water quality impacts under current regulatory standards. The project SWQMP identifies measures to address potential long-term pollutant generation from implementation of the project, based on procedures identified in the City storm water standards and related NPDES Municipal Permit. Specifically, the project design would conform to applicable City and NPDES storm water standards to address these concerns, with such conformance to include the use of appropriate post-construction LID site design, source control, pollutant (treatment) control, and hydromodification

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-12 August 2022
management BMPs. Specific proposed BMPs are identified in the project SWQMP (Appendix J) and include applicable requirements from the City Storm Water BMP Manual and the NPDES Municipal Permit. These measures are summarized below, followed by a discussion of associated monitoring and maintenance activities.

Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs are intended to avoid or minimize the introduction of pollutants into storm drains and natural drainages to the MEP by reducing on-site pollutant generation and off-site pollutant transport. Specific source control BMPs are identified in the project SWQMP, based on requirements in the City Storm Water BMP Manual. These include efforts to prevent illicit discharges; provide appropriate “no dumping” signs/stencils at storm drain system inlets/catch basins; protect outdoor material storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal; properly design/contain trash storage areas (e.g., by providing containment); protect storm drain inlets; provide interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps; provide interior parking structures; implement non-chemical pest control measures; and provide applicable pollutant controls for pools, water features, plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots, refuse areas, and fire sprinkler test water. All of the proposed source control BMPs would help to improve long-term water quality within and downstream from the project site by avoiding or minimizing pollutant generation and exposure to storm flows at the source.

LID Site Design BMPs
LID site design BMPs are intended to avoid, minimize, and/or control post-development runoff, erosion potential and pollutant generation to the MEP. The LID process employs design practices and techniques to effectively capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff close to its source. Specific LID site design BMPs are identified in the project SWQMP, based on requirements in the City Storm Water BMP Manual. These strategies/measures include efforts to maintain natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features, minimize impervious areas, collect runoff, and use native and/or drought-tolerant landscaping. All of the proposed LID site design BMPs would help reduce long-term urban pollutant generation by minimizing runoff rates and amounts, retaining permeable areas, increasing on-site filtering, and reducing erosion/sedimentation potential.

Pollutant Control BMPs
Pollutant control BMPs are designed to remove pollutants from urban runoff for a design storm event to the MEP through means such as filtering or treatment. Pollutant control BMPs are required to address applicable pollutants of concern for Priority Development Projects and must provide medium or high levels of removal efficiency for these pollutants (per applicable regulatory requirements). Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the City Storm Water BMP Manual (Part 1), preliminary pollutant control BMPs identified in the project SWQMP include biofiltration modular wetland units and two detention basins.

The selection and design of the proposed BMPs was based on applicable site-specific conditions and City requirements, including the identification of associated Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) within the site. Specifically, four DMAs (were identified on site). The proposed pollutant control BMPs would operate as part of a “treatment train” in concert with the LID site design and source control BMPs described above. Summary descriptions of proposed pollutant control BMPs are provided below.

Runoff from Alvarado Road would be conveyed through a series of roadside proprietary filtration devices (Bioclean Modular Wetlands or equivalent approved facilities) and then discharged to

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-13 August 2022
Alvarado Creek. On-site runoff would be conveyed via a series of roof drains, area drains, and storm drain pipes to two, on-site drainage basins: one in the eastern portion of the site west of Building 4, and one in the western portion of the site adjacent to Building 1. These basins would include a shallow 6-inch ponding layer of mulch, 18 inches of biofiltration soil media, and a 12-inch to 36-inch storage layer. Following treatment within the basins, runoff would be discharged to Alvarado Creek.

Hydromodification Management Facilities
The proposed biofiltration basins also would be designed to address potential hydromodification impacts. Specifically, discharge from the hydromodification storage facility would be subject to appropriate flow regulation to meet applicable hydromodification requirements, prior to discharging to Alvarado Creek. As a result, the project would comply with applicable hydromodification requirements.

Post-construction BMP Monitoring/Maintenance Schedules and Responsibilities Identified BMPs include physical structures such as biofiltration basins, modular wetlands, and signs/stencils that require ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Pursuant to requirements in the City Storm Water BMP Manual and the related NPDES Municipal Permit (as outlined in Attachment 3 of the project SWQMP), the owner/permittee would be required to enter into a written Maintenance Agreement with the City for applicable facilities and implement an associated Operation and Maintenance Plan. Specifically, this process would entail identifying and documenting maintenance responsibilities, funding sources, activities, and schedules to ensure proper BMP function in perpetuity.

Conclusion
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. Water quality impacts would be less than significant.

4.7.5.2 Groundwater
Threshold 2: 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?
The project site is developed and almost the entirely paved or otherwise contains impervious surfaces.

There are some pervious areas associated with landscaping and Alvarado Creek, but groundwater recharge is minimal as runoff drains as surface flow over the paved areas and into Alvarado Creek. The project would include landscaped areas and two biofiltration basins but would result in a net increase in impervious areas of approximately 30,000 square feet (Fuscoe 2018). This would be an approximately 10-percent increase 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.

The groundwater table within the project area is shallow and it is anticipated that during construction, dewatering would be required. The City would be required to obtain a dewatering permit from the RWQCB. Dewatering permits are used to approve short-term discharges of groundwater to the sewer system and would include appropriate measures to safeguard against temporary adverse effects to

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-14 August 2022
groundwater recharge. The project does not propose the long-term use of groundwater, as potable water service would be provided by the Helix Water District. Thus, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Water quality impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

4.7.5.3 Drainage Pattern Alteration
Threshold 3: 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?
Drainage Patterns
As discussed in Section 4.7.1.4, the project site is currently divided into two major drainage basins.

Basin 1 encompasses approximately 4.5 acres and consists of the portion of the site east of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site. Basin 2 encompasses approximately 7.7 acres and consists of the portion of the site to the west of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site. The existing on-site drainage pattern within Basin 1 flows northerly and westerly within the existing RV resort streets and into Alvarado Creek.

Basin 1 also accepts drainage from a portion of Alvarado Road, which flows from the two site entrances within the RV resort streets and then westerly into Alvarado Creek. Within Basin 2, on-site drainage flows southerly and westerly along the RV resort streets and discharges into Alvarado Creek at the west end of the project site. Basin 2 also accepts some drainage from Alvarado Road.

Project implementation would result in modification of the existing on- and off-site drainage patterns and directions through proposed grading and construction. While Basins 1 and 2 would be the same upon project development, these two major basins would include a total of four sub basins. Basin 1 would include Sub Basins 100 and 300, and Basin 2 would include Sub Basins 200 and 400. With implementation of the project, Alvarado Road would no longer drain into the site due to the raising of the project site and proposed improvements along Alvarado Road. The proposed drainage conditions within the project site and adjacent areas are shown on the Proposed Hydrology Exhibit included as Exhibit B of the project Drainage Study in Appendix I of this EIR.

With implementation of the project, Sub Basin 100 would encompass the area of the project site to the east of Alvarado Creek, excluding Alvarado Road. Drainage from the building roofs and project streets would be directed to grass-lined swales or area drains. The swales would lead to storm drain catch basins. From the catch basins, drainage would be directed to a treatment/detention system for water quality treatment and detention of the peak flow from the project site. This treatment system would be in the southwesterly corner of Sub Basin 100, just west of Building 4. A storm drain line from the detention basin would outlet to Alvarado Creek through a headwall.

Sub Basin 200 would consist of the portion of the project site to the west of Alvarado Creek, excluding Alvarado Road. A system of grass-lined swales, catch basins, and storm drainpipes would be used to

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-15 August 2022
collect drainage from the project facilities. A treatment/detention system would be located at the westerly end of the project site and would outlet through the retaining wall into Alvarado Creek to the south.

Sub Basin 300 would only encompass the area of the Alvarado Road site frontage to the east of Alvarado Creek. Drainage from the road would be directed to proposed gutters and drain to a biofiltration system for water quality treatment located at the southwest corner of Sub Basin 300. Drainage would then be discharged into Alvarado Creek.

Sub Basin 400 would only encompass the area of the Alvarado Road to the west of Alvarado Creek.

Drainage from the road would be directed to proposed gutters and drain to two biofiltration system for water quality treatment located at the southwest corner and midway entrance of Sub Basin 400.

Drainage would then be discharged into Alvarado Creek.

On-site flows would continue to be directed to Alvarado Creek and after leaving the site, all projectrelated flows would continue to the San Diego River and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean, similar to existing conditions. Based on the described considerations, overall post-development drainage patterns would be similar to existing conditions.

Watercourse Alteration
Improvements are proposed to the Alvarado Creek channel that traverses the site to control flood and storm water flows within the channel, as well as to enhance the creek as an open space amenity and natural feature. Most sections of the existing trapezoidal concrete-lined banks along the channel would be removed and replaced with retaining walls to increase the width of the channel bottom. The improved creek would accommodate 100-year storm events to resolve the existing flooding conditions that occur on the project site during large storm events. These improvements would not alter the existing general alignment of Alvarado Creek or impede or redirect flood flows within Alvarado Creek, nor would they alter existing on-site drainage patterns, which would continue to be directed to Alvarado Creek. Associated drainage impacts would be less than significant.

Drainage Rates
Peak discharge rates and times of concentrations2 were calculated for the 100-year storms under the existing and proposed drainage patterns on the project site to determine potential impacts related to surface runoff. The results of the calculations are shown in Table 4.7-3, Drainage Discharge Under Existing and Proposed Conditions.
2 Time of concentration is a concept used in hydrology to measure the response of a watershed to a rain event. It is defined as the time needed for water to flow from the most remote point in a watershed to the watershed outlet and is a function of the topography, geology, and land use within the watershed.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-16 August 2022
Table 4.7-3

DRAINAGE DISCHARGE UNDER EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Drainage Basin Area
(acres)
Existing
Conditions
Q (cfs)
Existing
Conditions
TC (min)
Proposed
Conditions
Q (cfs)
Proposed
Conditions
TC (min)
Basin 1 4.5 15.28 9.57 12.74 12.48
Basin 2 7.7 18.13 15.00 23.39 13.10
Source: Fuscoe 2020a
Q = discharge; cfs = cubic feet per second; TC = time of concentration; min = minutes With implementation of the proposed project, the peak discharge under the 100-year storm event would decrease in Basin 1 from 15.28 cfs with a TC of 9.57 minutes to 12.74 cfs with a TC of

12.48 minutes. The decreased discharge in Basin 1 is due to the increased time of concentration. The peak discharge from Basin 2, however, would increase from 18.13 cfs with a TC of 15.00 minutes to

23.39 cfs with a TC of 13.10 minutes. The increased discharge in Basin 2 is primarily due to the slight increase in impervious surfaces and the decreased time of concentration. To minimize drainage impacts, the project would incorporate hydrologic features into the project design. A detention basin would be provided in Basin 2 to limit the peak discharge to existing conditions for the 100-year storm.

Additionally, flow throughout the project site would be collected by a system of grass-lined swales, catch basins, and storm drains that have been sized for the 100-year storm (refer to Figure 3-1).

Therefore, the design of the storm drain system for the project would have sufficient capacity to convey the 100-year storm event without causing flooding of the proposed streets and development. Impacts related to drainage rates and storm drain system capacity would be less than significant.

Increase in Impervious Areas
Development of the project would result in the construction of impervious surfaces such as structures and pavement, which can increase both the rate and amount of runoff within and from a site by reducing infiltration capacity and concentrating flows. Such conditions can potentially generate impacts related to local flooding hazards (e.g., if storm drain capacities are exceeded), erosion and sedimentation (e.g., if increased runoff rates or amounts occur in local receiving waters), and/or local groundwater recharge rates if impervious areas are increased. The site is currently developed and largely impervious and as discussed in Section 4.7.5.2, implementation of the project would result in a net increase in impervious areas of approximately 30,000 square feet (Fuscoe 2018). This would be an approximately 10-percent increase over the existing condition. However, as discussed above, the storm drain system designed for the project would have sufficient capacity to convey the 100-year storm event. Thus, associated drainage impacts related to an increase in impervious areas would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, 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. Impacts related to drainage pattern alteration would be less than significant.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-17 August 2022

4.7.5.4 Flood, Tsunami, and Seiche Zones
Threshold 4: Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As previously discussed, FEMA has mapped the majority of the project site as a special flood hazard area within a 100-year floodplain and a small portion in the eastern end of the site as a minimal flood hazard area. Additionally, the portion of Alvarado Creek that bisects the project site is classified as a Regulatory Floodway. The project site also has a history of experiencing flood conditions during large storm events.

Because most of the site is located within a floodplain, the project would raise the existing grade to be above the base floodplain elevation. The top of bank elevation, ground floor finished floor, and garage entry elevations would all be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation.

Improvements would also be made to Alvarado Creek to contain the 100-year flood within the creek channel. Most sections of the existing trapezoidal concrete-lined banks along the channel would be removed and replaced with retaining walls to increase the width of the channel bottom. To analyze the impacts of the proposed improvements on the water surface elevation, floodplain analysis using HEC-RAS model was conducted. The water surface elevations were then compared to the existing conditions model. Based on the results of the HEC-RAS model, the proposed improvements would fully contain the 100-year flow within the 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, as discussed in Section 4.7.5.1. By incorporating the project site improvements, water quality impacts related to flooding would be less than significant.

Tsunamis are series of ocean waves generated by sudden displacements of a large volume of water due to earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. The project site is located approximately 12.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and sits at an elevation ranging from 408 to 425 feet AMSL. Due to the distance from the ocean and high elevation, the project site would not be subject to inundation by tsunami.

Therefore, water quality impacts associated with tsunamis would not occur as a result of the proposed project.

Seiches are standing waves caused by resonances in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water (lake, reservoir, bay, harbor) that has been disturbed by meteorological effects (wind and atmospheric pressure variations). The project site is located approximately 0.7 mile southeast of Lake Murray and approximately 2.9 miles west of Mount Helix Reservoir, which are the nearest inland bodies of water.

Due to the distance from these bodies of water, the project site would not be subject to inundation by seiche. Therefore, no water quality impacts associated with seiches would occur as a result of the proposed project.

4.7.5.5 Water Quality Plans
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site is located within the San Diego River Watershed (907.11) as identified in the Basin Plan (RWQCB 2016). Alvarado Creek traverses the site and is listed as impaired on the Section 303(d) List for nitrogen and selenium. Runoff from the project site would be collected by the on-site storm drain system, treated in accordance with the water quality regulations, and then discharged into Alvarado

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-18 August 2022
Creek. 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 SWQMP, as described in Section 4.7.5.3. The project would also comply with all storm water quality standards during construction and operation, as detailed in Section 4.7.5.1. Conformance with the Basin Plan water quality objectives would be demonstrated through compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of construction and postconstruction BMPs. Thus, the project would be consistent with the Basin Plan.

The project would not directly involve groundwater use, as no wells are proposed on-site and the project would not significantly alter groundwater percolation relative to the existing conditions, as discussed in Section 4.7.5.2. The site is also not within an alluvial groundwater basin identified by the San Diego County Water Authority (San Diego County Water Authority 2020) and the Basin Plan does not identify municipal groundwater or groundwater as a beneficial use for the Alvarado Creek area (RWQCB 2016). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.7.6 Mitigation Measures

4.7.6.1 Water Quality
No significant impacts related to water quality would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.7.6.2 Groundwater
No significant impacts related to groundwater would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.7.6.3 Drainage Patterns
No significant impacts related to drainage patterns would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.7.6.4 Flood, Tsunami, and Seiche Zones
No significant impacts related to flood, tsunami, or seiche zones would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.7.6.5 Water Quality Plans
No significant impacts related to water quality plans would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.7.7 Significance Determination
The significance of hydrology and water quality impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.7-4, Significance Determination Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to hydrology and

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-19 August 2022
water quality. Impacts related to water quality, groundwater, drainage pattern alterations, flood/tsunami/seiche zones, and water quality plans would be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulatory/industry standards and codes, including NPDES requirements and the hydrologic design measure incorporated into the project. No mitigation is required.

Table 4.7-4

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Water Quality Less than significant None required Less than significant Groundwater Less than significant None required Less than significant Drainage Pattern Alteration Less than significant None required Less than significant Flood, Tsunami, and Seiche Zones Less than significant None required Less than significant Water Quality Plans Less than significant None required Less than significant

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.7-20 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-1 August 2022

4.8 LAND USE
This section of the EIR discusses applicable land use policies and evaluates potential land use impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. It references planning and environmental information contained in other sections of this EIR, as applicable.

4.8.1 Existing Conditions

4.8.1.1 On-site Land Uses
The 12-acre site is entirely developed with a combination of six existing buildings, paved surfaces, and ornamental landscaping. The site is currently occupied by the San Diego RV Resort, which contains 174 full-hookup RV spaces and serves a combination of short-term and extended stay visitors. On-site buildings include two one-story laundry/bathroom buildings and a two-story office/apartment complex consisting of four buildings. Ornamental landscaping predominantly consists of a stand of approximately 155 Mexican fan palm trees that are scattered throughout the project site. Alvarado Creek bisects the eastern portion of the project site and extends along the southern site boundary until it enters an underground storm drainage facility near the western boundary. The creek supports vegetation including native and non-native species at varying vegetative cover, and water regularly flows through portions of Alvarado Creek. Three large billboard signs are located within the project site along the Alvarado Road frontage. Overhead utility lines connect to 15 utility poles located throughout the site.

4.8.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The existing land uses surrounding the project site include Alvarado Road and I-8 to the north, the double-track Green Line Trolley corridor to the south, a car dealership and motel to the east, and the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west of the site.

Other surrounding land uses in the project vicinity include single-family and multi-family residential uses north of I-8 and south of the Green Line Trolley corridor. A motel (Motel 6) and the commercial fleet sales and service departments of the car dealership are located to the east. West of the trolley station is an automobile repair business and a multi-tenant office building.

Nearby institutional uses include the National University La Mesa campus and Taproot Montessori school east of the site, as well as Maryland Avenue Elementary School to the north across I-8. The Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport is located approximately six miles northwest of the project site; the site is within the AIA of this airport. The project site is located within the boundaries of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan but is not located within a designated preserve area.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Land use plans applicable to the proposed project that include goals and policies intended to reduce or avoid environmental effects include the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, CAP, Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP, RAQS, and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. In addition, the regional planning context is provided in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The project also is subject to compliance with all other applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations. The applicable plans, ordinances, and regulations are described below.

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-2 August 2022

4.8.2.1 Federal
Federal Aviation Administration Noticing Requirements
FAA, under CFR Title 14, Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, requires submittal of a Notice of Construction or Alteration for applicable projects within identified airport Noticing Surface Areas. Specific requirements for such notices include structures more than 200 feet above the ground surface, construction or alteration that extends within identified (theoretical) slopes projecting from airport runways (or other applicable locations), all airport projects, and certain other transportation projects. After submittal of the required notice, the FAA conducts an aeronautical review prepared under the provisions of 49 US Code Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of CFR, Part 77.

Objects determined to be an obstruction or hazard by Part 77 or Terminal Instruction Procedures, or create change to flight operations, approach minimums, or departure routes would be considered incompatible. Proposed developments may be incompatible and would require evaluation if they would generate other obstructions, such as release of any substance that would impair visibility (e.g., dust, smoke, or steam); emit or reflect light that could interfere with air crew vision; produce emissions that would interfere with aircraft communication systems, navigation systems or other electrical systems; or attract birds or waterfowl. Upon completion of the aeronautical review, the FAA issues either a Determination of Hazard to Navigation (i.e., if a project would exceed an obstruction standard and result in a “substantial aeronautical impact”) or a Determination of No Hazard to Navigation. In the latter case, the FAA may include site-specific conditions or limitations to ensure that potential hazards are avoided (e.g., noticing requirements or lighting restrictions).

4.8.2.2 State Regulations
California Government Code
California Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457 establish the procedures and standards for specific plans and define both the contents and methods by which a specific plan must be locally adopted.

Government Code Section 65302.3 further requires that general plans and any applicable specific plan be consistent with ALUCPs prepared in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21675. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the ALUCP.

4.8.2.3 Local Regulations
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015) is an update of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the San Diego Region and the 2050 RTP and SCS, combined into one document. The Regional Plan provides a blueprint for San Diego’s regional transportation system to effectively serve existing and projected workers and residents within the San Diego region. In addition to long-term projections, the Regional Plan includes an SCS, in compliance with SB 375. The SCS aims to create sustainable, mixed-use communities conducive to public transit, walking, and biking by focusing future growth in the previously developed, western portion of the region along the major existing transit and transportation corridors.

The purpose of the SCS is to help the San Diego region meet the GHG emissions reductions set by the CARB. The Regional Plan has a horizon year of 2050, and projects regional growth and the construction

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-3 August 2022
of transportation projects over this time period. The project site and vicinity are identified as being in a Smart Growth Area and Potential Transit Priority Area (TPA).

City of La Mesa General Plan
The adopted La Mesa General Plan (City 2012a) is a long-term planning document that guides growth and development in La Mesa by establishing goals, policies, and objectives that reflect the City’s vision for the future. The General Plan is required to include a Land Use and Urban Design Element, which designates the proposed general location and distribution of land uses for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, and other public and private uses of land. Other elements of the General Plan include Land Use and Urban Design, Circulation, Conservation and Sustainability, Recreation and Open Space, Historic Preservation, Noise, Safety, Public Services and Facilities, Health and Wellness, and Housing. The following discussion summarizes each element that is relevant to the project. In addition, applicable goals within each element pertaining to the project are evaluated in detail as presented in Table 4.8-1, General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Consistency Evaluation. Because of its length, Table 4.8-1 is placed at the end of this section.

Land Use and Urban Design Element
The Land Use and Urban Design Element addresses the major issues that affect the physical form and development of the City. It offers policy guidance to help preserve and enhance the quality of life in the City and accommodate anticipated growth by balancing the preservation of established neighborhoods and new developments. The goals and policies of the Land Use and Urban Design Element emphasize the following five concepts:
• The City’s neighborhoods and facilities should be preserved and improved. • New development and redevelopment should exhibit high quality design and fit the characteristics of the City’s neighborhoods and districts. • Land use decisions should support sustainability by conserving valuable resources and planning for future generations.
• Promote local job creation and retention by encouraging new business opportunities. • Land Use and Urban Design are integrated in this Element to ensure that the physical forms, patterns, and aesthetics of future development advance La Mesa’s goals for high quality of life and a more sustainable future.

The Land Use and Urban Design Element serves as a guide for the ultimate pattern of development for the City. This Element’s policies provide the context for short-term actions involving development, public works, and zoning decisions, as well as the long-term vision. It contains a Land Use Map that sets the City’s vision for growth. The Land Use Map designates the project site as Regional Serving Commercial. This land use designation is assigned to those areas of the City that are suitable for more intense urban activities, such as high-volume retail sales and other sales and services expected to draw local and regional customers. Areas with this designation are served by convenient freeway access and public transportation.

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-4 August 2022
Circulation Element
The Circulation Element establishes goals and policies for a complete transportation system, incorporating all travel modes, including motor vehicle, transit, walking, and cycling. The Circulation Element plans for the coordinated movement of people and goods within the City’s network of streets and transportation services. It examines the existing transportation network and provides policy direction for implementing the City’s future transportation network. A key feature of the Circulation Element is the classification of the streets based on function. The classification system is a statement of policy and design criteria that guide decisions related to street improvements and future development.

The Circulation Element addresses streets and highways, public transit, and non-motorized transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Conservation and Sustainability Element
The Conservation and Sustainability Element establishes goals, objectives, and policies that address the conservation and enhancement of the City’s resources, safeguard human health and the environment, maintain a healthy and diverse economy, and improve the livability and quality of life for La Mesa residents. This Element examines the City’s conservation and sustainability efforts and then provides policy direction for enhancing these efforts. Major topics addressed in the Conservation and Sustainability Element include resource conservation, environmental and public health, economic development, transportation, and waste management.

Recreation and Open Space Element
The purpose of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to guide the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open space. This Element also outlines the City’s intentions for recreational facilities to improve the quality of life of residents. The Recreation and Open Space Element outlines the City’s existing park amenities and their classifications; includes discussion of public opportunities provided by the Community Services Department, as well as private recreational facilities; and covers the City’s natural open space amenities. This Element includes goals, objectives, and policies addressing public parks, natural open space areas, and private open space areas.

Historic Preservation Element
The purpose of the Historic Preservation Element is to provide a long-range blueprint to guide the process of historic preservation in the City, including the identification and treatment of historical and cultural resources, to support program management and decision-making, and to integrate preservation planning into the comprehensive urban planning and development process. The Historic Preservation Element contains goals, objectives, and policies intended to sustain and improve the quality of the City’s built and cultural environment, and to promote awareness and enthusiasm for the unique identity and heritage that La Mesa possesses.

Noise Element
The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels and provides a mechanism for including noise considerations in the planning process. The Noise Element contains goals, objectives, and policies to guide compatible land uses and the incorporation of noise attenuation measures for new development and redevelopment to protect people living and working in the City from an excessive noise environment. The Noise Element identifies the existing and future noise

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-5 August 2022
environment within the City and quantifies the community noise environment in terms of noise exposure contours for future transportation activities. These contours serve as the basis for the noiseland use compatibility guidelines (refer to Table 4.9-3 in this EIR) to ensure that new development and redevelopment are protected from unwarranted noise and do not contribute to unacceptable levels of noise within the community. Where noise sensitive uses are proposed in areas exposed to high noise levels, the Noise Element outlines policies and noise attenuating measures, including building placement, type of construction and materials selections.

Safety Element
The purpose of the Safety Element is to minimize the impact on the community from hazardous conditions and emergency situations. The Safety Element identifies existing local conditions within the City relative to specific hazards, including flood hazards, seismic hazards, landslides, fire hazards, and hazardous materials. Existing conditions are described along with the goals, objectives, and policies to minimize the risks associated with these conditions.

Public Services and Facilities Element
The Public Services and Facilities Element provides policy guidance for the provision of adequate public services and facilities for the City. The goals, objectives, and policies contained in this Element emphasize the following six concepts:
• Provide a balance of City services at a level that attempts to meet or exceed public expectations; • Provide a safe community through police and fire protection; • Maintain, expand, and improve the City’s public infrastructure to sustain the quality of life; • Provide the citizens with a range of recreation services; • Provide oversight and program administration for the physical and economic development of the community; and
• Provide a financial plan for the repair and replacement of capital facilities.

Health and Wellness Element
The Health and Wellness Element describes the measures La Mesa will take to make the health of the community a priority and achieve its vision of being the healthiest and most livable city in the San Diego Region. It offers policy guidance that will enable La Mesa’s residents to achieve an active lifestyle, have access to healthy food choices, enjoy a safe, livable community, and raise healthy, active children.

Housing Element
The Housing Element serves as a policy guide to address the comprehensive needs of the City and guide the City’s commitment to provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the City. It provides an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting such

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-6 August 2022
needs, as well as a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs. The Housing Element contains the following goals:
• Maintain and enhance the quality of existing residential neighborhoods in La Mesa; • Encourage adequate provision of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future needs of La Mesa residents; • Provide increased opportunities for home ownership;
• Provide housing support services to address the needs of the City’s low- and moderate-income residents; and
• Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.

Zoning Ordinance
The City or La Mesa Zoning Ordinance, Title 24 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, serves as the primary implementation tool of the General Plan. Whereas the General Plan is a policy document and sets forth direction for development decisions, the Zoning Ordinance is a regulatory document that establishes specific standards for the use and development of all properties in the City. The Zoning Ordinance regulates development intensity using a variety of methods, such as specific regulations regarding the use of land; the minimum lot size for subdivisions; limitations on location, height, and bulk of buildings on lots; and other regulations such as off-street parking standards. According to state law, the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan. In addition to development regulations established by the City's base zones, several overlay zones have been applied to particular areas of the City where supplemental permitted use and development standards are merited.

The existing zone classification for the project site is Light Industrial and Commercial Service - Flood Overlay Zone – Urban Design Overlay Zone. The Light Industrial and Commercial Service zone (CM) is applied in areas that are generally removed from residential uses such as along Alvarado Road. The CM zone is intended to include heavy commercial activity and light industrial services.

The Floodway Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone F) is intended for application in those areas of the City within floodways or water courses in which flood control structures and facilities are either required or planned to be installed or improved. The construction of buildings and structures within areas in Overlay Zone F are prohibited until adequate flood protection facilities are constructed or guaranteed to be constructed and temporary alternate arrangements are made to protect persons and property.

New development and major renovations or remodeling of property within the Urban Design Overlay Zone (Overlay Zone D) is subject to the requirements of the Urban Design Program and approval by the Design Review Board and City Council. This overlay zone is used to supplement the required land use regulations that are reviewed under the standard provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Projects developed within Overlay Zone D are evaluated on their compliance with both the unique design criteria that pertain to the visually sensitive areas and the general development guidelines established by the Urban Design Program. The proposed Specific Plan however would include site-specific design recommendations and criteria for development within the project site that would supersede those required by the Urban Design Program.

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-7 August 2022
City of La Mesa Climate Action Plan
The General Plan calls for the City to reduce its carbon footprint through actions including adopting new or amended regulations, programs, and incentives. The City adopted its CAP in March 2018 to outline the actions to be taken by the City to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions (City 2018). The CAP establishes a long-range roadmap to decrease energy and water waste, create safer streets for bicyclists and pedestrians, increase recycling, promote clean renewable energy, reduce vehicle trips, and increase the urban tree canopy. These efforts help drive down harmful emissions and support La Mesa’s vision of a community with a safe and healthy environment. The CAP establishes two community-wide GHG reduction goals to inform the City’s actions: 15 percent reduction from 2010 emissions by 2020 and 53 percent reduction from 2010 emissions by 2035. The CAP describes the 2010 GHG emissions baseline and forecasted emissions for 2020 and 2035, and identifies the achievable, measurable strategies and actions that the City will implement to reduce emissions.

Montgomery Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
As discussed in Chapter 2, Environmental Setting, of this EIR, the ALUC is an agency that is required by state law to exist in counties in which there is a commercial and/or a general aviation airport. The purpose of the ALUC is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly development of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports, to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The ALUC is responsible for preparation of the ALUCPs for each airport in the region. ALUCPs establish land use compatibility policies and development criteria for new development to protect the airports from incompatible land uses. The policies and criteria contained in applicable ALUCPs are addressed in the City of La Mesa’s General Plan (Land Use and Urban Design Element).

The SDCRAA serves as the ALUC for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, which is approximately six miles northwest of the project site. The Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP is the fundamental tool used by the SDCRAA to promote land use compatibility between airports and the surrounding land uses in the air station vicinity. The ALUCP is intended to (1) provide for the orderly growth of the airport and area surrounding the airport; and (2) safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The ALUCP contains compatibility criteria, maps, and other policies to carry out these objectives (SDCRAA 2010b).

The site is within the AIA for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport. The AIA is defined as “the area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission” (SDCRRA 2010b). The AIA for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport serves as the planning boundary for the ALUCP and is divided into two review areas: (1) Review Area 1 includes the noise contours, safety zones, airspace protection surfaces, and overflight areas; and (2) Review Area 2 comprises the airspace protection surfaces and overflight areas. The project site is located within Review Area 2 for the airport.

To preclude incompatible development from intruding into areas of significant risk resulting from aircraft takeoff and landing patterns, the ALUCP identifies areas of significant risk as “Safety Zones.” The Safety Zones are used for evaluating safety compatibility for new development and are located adjacent

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-8 August 2022
to the ends of the runway’s primary surfaces, over which all aircraft using the airport must pass on either arrival or departure. The project site is not located within any designated Safety Zones.

As described in Section 4.8.2.1, the project site is located within the FAA Part 77 Noticing Area for Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport. Building height and obstruction restrictions apply around the airport to ensure that no object would interfere with the safe operation of aircraft or impact airport operations. The ALUCP contains criteria for determining airspace obstruction compatibility. Any proposed development that includes an object over 200 feet above the ground level or that penetrates the 100:1 slope extending 20,000 feet away from the nearest runway must be submitted to FAA for obstruction evaluation, as well as notifying SDCRAA.

Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)
The SDAPCD and SANDAG are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. The San Diego County RAQS was updated most recently in 2016. The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for ozone. The SDAPCD has also developed the air basin’s input to the SIP, which is required under the federal CAA for areas that are out of attainment of air quality standards. The SIP, approved by the USEPA in 1996, includes the SDAPCD’s plans and control measures for attaining the ozone national standard.

The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls.

The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The SIP also includes rules and regulations that have been adopted by the SDAPCD to control emissions from stationary sources. These SIP-approved rules may be used as a guideline to determine whether a project’s emissions would have the potential to conflict with the SIP and thereby hinder attainment of the national air quality standard for ozone.

Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin
The RWQCB adopted the Basin Plan in 1994 (updated in 2016) that recognizes and reflects regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface waters, and local water quality conditions and problems (RWQCB 1994). The Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters.

4.8.3 Methodology and Assumptions
Potential land use impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project were evaluated based on consistency of the proposed project with the applicable environmental goals and policies contained in the Regional Plan, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, CAP, Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, RAQS, Basin Plan, and other relevant land use plans, policies, and regulations.

4.8.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant land use impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-9 August 2022

1. Would the project physically divide an established community?

2. 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?

4.8.5 Impact Analysis

4.8.5.1 Community Division
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area.

The project site is currently developed with an existing RV resort and is located between two regional transportation corridors, I-8 and the MTS Green Line Trolley corridor, which bisect the City and create physical barriers for intracity travel. While these existing transportation corridors will remain and continue to divide the City, 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. The proposed multi-modal improvements would create new connections and enhance existing connections between the various uses present in the project area that could be accessed without relying on cars. 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.8.5.2 Consistency with Environmental Policies of Adopted Land Use Plans Threshold 2: 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?
Consistency with San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
The project would increase the intensity of uses in a previously developed area identified in the Regional Plan as a Smart Growth Area and Potential TPA (and subsequently confirmed by the City of San Diego as a TPA). The site is located adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station, which would provide access to the regional transportation network. In addition, the proposed project would enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to the adjacent trolley station. The proposed residential and resident-serving commercial uses would intensify uses and provide a mix of uses in this transit-oriented area, thus providing access to these transit facilities without reliance upon the automobile. This would be consistent with the intent of the Regional Plan to create sustainable, mixed-use communities conducive to public transit, walking, and biking by focusing future growth in the previously developed portion of the region along the major existing transit and transportation corridors. As such, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the Regional Plan.

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-10 August 2022
Consistency with General Plan
The project would be consistent with applicable environmental goals, objectives, and policies contained in the General Plan as described below and outlined in Table 4.8-1, General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Consistency Evaluation.

The General Plan designates the project site Regional Serving Commercial. As described in the Land Use and Urban Design Element, this land use designation is assigned to those areas that are suitable for more intense urban activities, such as high-volume retail sales, and other sales and services which are expected to draw local and regional customers, and are also served by convenient freeway access and public transportation. Grossmont Center, Fletcher Parkway, and Alvarado Road are examples of areas where this designation is applied. Examples of intended uses in the Regional Serving Commercial designation include retail shopping centers, large office complexes, restaurants, service stations, hotels, and motels. Entertainment uses such as movie theaters and nightclubs may be conditionally permitted.

The Land Use and Urban Design Element specifies that within larger areas of the City that have been designated Regional Serving Commercial, “there may be areas suitable for mixed-use or high-density residential developments. The appropriate mix of uses permitted within these areas will be determined on a case-by-case review or by the amendment or adoption of a specific plan, which will also establish the appropriate residential density” (City 2012a).

Consistent with this description, the project includes a specific plan to guide the development of the project site with residential and resident-serving commercial uses. A specific plan is a land use planning and regulatory tool authorized by the State to local governments as a means to implement the broad goals and policies of the local General Plan. A specific plan provides the link between the policies within a local General Plan and the more precise development plans for a defined area. State law requires that specific plans must be consistent with the adopted local General Plan.

Furthermore, specific plans must comply with Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457, which define the content of a specific plan and the methods by which the plan must be locally adopted.

Government Code Section 65451 requires that a specific plan must clearly define the objectives of the plan in text and diagrams which outline:
• the distribution, location, and intensity of land uses, including open space within the specific plan area;
• the distribution, location, and intensity of major infrastructure components; • design standards and criteria for development and use of natural resources; and • a program of implementation measures, including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the specific plan.

The specific plan must also include a section to state in detail the relationship of the Specific plan to the locally adopted General Plan and how implementation of the specific plan would assist in implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan has been prepared to meet these State requirements outlined above. Additionally, the Land Use and Urban Design Element of General Plan recognizes the use of specific plans as a tool to implement the General Plan for particular geographic areas or individual development sites. The City has utilized this General Plan implementation tool and adopted four specific plans.

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-11 August 2022
General Plan goals, objectives, and policies aimed at reducing or avoiding environmental effects applicable to the proposed project are contained in various Elements. As shown in Table 4.8-1, the project would be consistent with applicable goals, objectives, and policies from the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element; Circulation Element; Conservation and Sustainability Element; Recreation and Open Space Element; Historic Preservation Element; Noise Element; Safety Element; Public Services and Facilities Element; Health and Wellness Element; and Housing Element. Accordingly, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the General Plan.

Consistency with the Zoning Ordinance
Zoning classifications are generally aligned with General Plan land use designations that are linked to a General Plan land use map. In turn, the zoning ordinance typically defines the development standards for properties within the classification. The Alvarado Specific Plan has been established as a planning tool to bridge this relationship between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Adoption of a specific plan that is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan provides more flexibility for the land uses and development standards that are prescribed for the Specific Plan area based on the underlying zone. The development regulations to implement the Specific Plan, in lieu of standard zoning classifications, are established by the proposed Specific Plan. As such, although the site is located within the Light Industrial and Commercial Service zone (CM), land uses on site would be governed by the proposed Specific Plan through the establishment of a new overlay zone, the Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone. In cases where development standards are not specifically expressed in the Specific Plan, the existing policies and standards of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would apply. As the project would conform to the applicable policies and development standards of the Specific Plan that would implement the Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance.

Consistency with Climate Action Plan
The CAP contains reduction measures within the City’s direct influence to achieve the City’s 2020 and 2035 GHG reduction targets in five strategy areas: energy; transportation and land use; water; solid waste; and green infrastructure (urban forest). The project site is located within and designated TPA and within 0.5 mile of the 70th Street Trolley Station, which serves the MTS Green Line Trolley. Due the project’s proposed high-density multi-family housing and proximity to a major transit stop, the project would be considered TOD. The project would also add pedestrian and bicycle lane/sidewalks on Alvarado Road and add pedestrian and bicycle access to the 70th Street Trolley Station. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP transportation and land use reduction strategies. In addition, the project’s conformance to the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency code and Part 11 CALGreen code would ensure the project is consistent with the CAP building energy, water use, and solid waste diversion strategies and measures. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the green infrastructure strategies and measures by implementing the 2019 CALGreen and City standards for public right of way and parking lot shade trees and by restoring the Alvarado Creek channel with native planting. Thus, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the CAP.

Consistency with the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport is located approximately six miles from the project site. The project site is located within Review Area 2 of this airport’s AIA, which consists of locations that are

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-12 August 2022
within the airspace protection and/or overflight areas on the associated maps in the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP (SDCRAA 2010b). Since the site is within the overflight area for the airport, the project would be subject to review under FAA Part 77 Noticing Area requirements. Specifically, all projects that require notification to the FAA would be required to submit an FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation to the City prior to recommendation of discretionary approval of the project.

Depending on the results of this review, the project may be required to implement appropriate measures to maintain compatibility with airport operations and ensure that potential hazards are avoided.

Issues in Review Area 2 requiring review include projects that create objects in a High Terrain Zone,1 projects that create electrical or visual hazards to airplanes in flight, and projects that have the potential to cause an increase in birds or wildlife. The project site is not located within a High Terrain Zone. The project also does not propose uses that would create electrical hazards to aircraft, and it does not propose the use of neon lights that could be mistaken for airport lighting. The project does not include large water features or propose uses that would attract wildlife such as birds that would interfere with aircraft operations. The site is not located within any Safety Zone designated in the ALUCP. In addition, the project site is located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour as shown on the Compatibility Policy Map: Noise of the ALUCP.

Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP as development within the Specific Plan area would be subject to the requirements of the ALUCP and associated FAA requirements. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport ALUCP.

Consistency with Regional Air Quality Strategy
Although the SDAB is in non-attainment with the federal standard for ozone and the state standards for ozone and particulate matter, emissions associated with both project construction and operation would be below the SDAPCD significance criteria, as demonstrated in the Air Quality Technical Report prepared for the project (HELIX 2020a). The project would also not affect the SDAB’s ability to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards or result in adverse human health effects. Refer to Section 4.1, Air Quality, of this EIR for additional details. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the RAQS.

Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin The project would comply with applicable City and related water quality standards and requirements.

Conformance would be demonstrated through the use of appropriate low impact development (LID) site design, source control, and storm water control BMPs. Refer to the Section 4.9, Hydrology/Water Quality, in this EIR for additional details. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with or create inconsistencies with the Basin Plan.

Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with existing applicable local and regional land use plans, policies, and regulations as discussed above. 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 1 This zone is an area of land that penetrates a specific elevation defined by the FAA that radiates from an airport.

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-13 August 2022
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts related to consistency with environmental policies of adopted land use plans would be less than significant.

4.8.6 Mitigation Measures

4.8.6.1 Community Division
No significant land use impacts related to the physical division of an established community would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.8.6.2 Consistency with Environmental Policies of Adopted Land Use Plans No significant land use impacts related to consistency with environmental policies of adopted land use plans would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.8.7 Significance Determination
The significance of land use impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.8-2, Significance Determination Summary of Land Use Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts. Impacts related to community division and consistency with environmental goals of adopted land use plans would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 4.8-2

SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF LAND USE IMPACTS
Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Community Division Less than significant None required Less than significant Consistency with Environmental
Goals of Adopted Land Use Plans Less than significant None required Less than significant

4.8 Land Use
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-14 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-15 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)

CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN
Land Use and Urban Design Element
Goal LU-1: A safe and healthy community. The project would establish a safe and healthy community for future residents and the public by complying with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The project would provide shared use pedestrian/bicycle pathways designed to meet all safety requirements.

Yes
Policy LU-1.2.2: As part of the development review process, City departments will review all future development to ensure that safety requirements are met, including building and fire codes, accessibility standards and crime prevention techniques.

The project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to safety, including building and fire codes, accessibility standards, and crime prevention techniques.

Yes
Policy LU-1.2.3: Encourage the use of wider sidewalks where higher levels of pedestrian activity occur and the use of non-contiguous sidewalk design where appropriate to help separate pedestrians from auto traffic.

The project would provide a 12-foot-wide shared use
pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of Alvarado Road within a public use easement. The primary on-site pedestrian facilities would include 20- to 26-feet wide pedestrian promenades.

Yes
Policy LU-1.3.1: Seek opportunities to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections between neighborhoods and activity centers along easements and other areas where vehicles are not permitted.

The project includes a shared pedestrian/bicycle facility that would connect to the project’s on-site roadways and planned future bicycle facilities along Alvarado Road. The project would also include a pedestrian/bicycle connection from the project site to the 70th Street Trolley Station.

Yes
Goal LU-2: Residential neighborhoods with strong character and cohesion.

The project would have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style or theme yet express an individual character. The project would be subject to the City’s Urban Design Program. The Design Review Application process would ensure high quality site and architectural design with strong character and cohesion.

Yes
Policy LU-2.2.1: Create a superior living environment for multi-family dwellings.

The project would construct four multi-family residential buildings with an integrated design and cohesive architectural treatments. The project would also construct interior project amenity facilities and active outdoor spaces to serve future residents.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-16 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Land Use and Urban Design Element (cont.)
Policy LU-2.2.2: All new development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation within residential neighborhoods shall be constructed to fit within the context of its neighborhood.

The project would be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by following the architectural design guidelines contained in the proposed Specific Plan. Refer to Section 4.14, Visual Resources.

Yes
Goal LU-4: An equitable community that meets the needs of all residents.

All aspects of project development, including structures, roadway improvements, and pedestrian/bicycle pathways, would be designed and constructed in compliance with ADA requirements, and therefore the project facilities would be accessible to individuals of all abilities.

Yes
Policy LU-4.1.1: Opportunities for affordable housing should exist in all residential areas to support the policies and programs for the City’s Housing Element.

The project could serve as off-campus housing to provide an affordable housing choice to help meet the student housing demands for local colleges and the nearby university.

Yes
Policy LU-4.1.2: Ensure that development meets the needs of the aging and disabled population.

All aspects of project development, including structures, roadway improvements, and pedestrian/bicycle pathways, would be designed and constructed in compliance with ADA requirements, and therefore the project facilities would be accessible to individuals of all abilities.

Yes
Policy LU-4.2.3: New development shall provide adequate parking.

For projects located in the Downtown area or near transit, parking requirements may be reduced. Additionally, differing land uses on the same subject property may utilize shared parking provisions.

The project is located adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station; therefore, the project is a TOD and parking requirements are reduced.

Still, the project involves the construction of multiple parking garages to provide adequate parking for the development.

Yes
Circulation Element
Goal CE-1: A comprehensive, flexible transportation system that is functional, safe, accessible, and attractive.

The project would be considered a TOD because the site is adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station. The project would improve accessibility to the transit station by incorporating a public pedestrian/bicycle connection to the station. Additionally, the project would provide a 12-foot-wide shared use pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of Alvarado Road that would connect to on-site roadways and planned future bicycle facilities. Lighting and landscaping would be provided along Alvarado Road to improve safety and visual quality, respectively.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-17 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Circulation Element (cont.)
Policy CE-1.1.2: Streets will be configured and constructed according to the City’s standards. Where the streets standards show flexible width and optional improvements, a determination shall be in made in accordance with the Street Design Manual, the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, and the Sidewalk Master Plan.

The project includes improvements to Alvarado Road, including the addition of a 16-foot-wide public access easement along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage to provide for a 4-foot-wide landscape parkway and a 12-foot-wide shared pedestrian/bicycle path. The pathway would be designed in compliance with the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan and the Sidewalk Master Plan.

Yes
Policy CE-1.1.3: Require new developments to provide for on- and off-street improvements directly related to the project, found to be needed to meet the City’s policies regarding street function, design, and safety and that advance the City’s “Complete Streets” objectives.

The project would provide on- and of-street improvements directly related to the project. Improvements to Alvarado Road would include 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.

Yes
Policy CE-1.1.13: Work with San Diego Gas and Electric Company and other utilities, to place overhead utility lines underground along transportation corridors and in residential neighborhoods as funding becomes available.

The project includes the relocation of overhead utilities. The existing communications and 12-kilovolt power lines that extend across the site would be relocated underground within the western portion of the project site.

Yes
Goal CE-3: A diverse transit system offering a safe, time-efficient, and cost-effective transportation choice that reduces traffic congestion and improves air quality.

The project would be considered a TOD because it is adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station. The project would improve accessibility to the 70th Street Trolley Station by incorporating a pathway from the western end of the project site to the transit stop. The use of the existing transit system as an alternative to the automobile would reduce traffic and improve air quality.

Yes
Policy CE-3.1.5: Develop and apply Design Standards applicable to future developments that improve access to public transit.

The project includes the construction of a public connection to from the western end of the project site to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station to improve access to public transit. The project would also include a pedestrian/bicycle pathway along Alvarado Road, which would further improve access to the trolley station.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-18 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Circulation Element (cont.)
Goal CE-4: Local and regional facilities that accommodate the unique needs of bicycle travelers.

The project includes the construction of a 12-foot-wide shared use pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of Alvarado Road that would connect to the on-site roadways and planned future bicycle facilities along Alvarado Road. Additionally, the project’s connection to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station would also accommodate bicycles. The pathways would be constructed in compliance with the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan. Furthermore, the project would provide bicycle storage facilities to promote bicycling.

Yes
Policy CE-4.2.1: Design bicycle facilities in accordance with Caltrans design criteria.

The project includes the construction of a Class I 12-foot-wide shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage. The pathway would be designed in accordance with Caltrans design criteria.

Yes
Goal CE-5: Provide opportunities that encourage safe pedestrian travel.

The project includes the construction of a 12-foot-wide shared use pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of Alvarado Road. The project would also include a pedestrian/bicycle connection from the western end of the project site to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. Lighting would be provided along the pedestrian pathways for safety. Additionally, the pathway along Alvarado Road would be separated from the roadway for safe pedestrian/bicycle travel.

Yes
Policy CE-5.1.3: Within a quarter mile of transit services, the needs of pedestrians will be a priority for future capital investment.

The project is located within a quarter mile of a major transit station, and the project incorporates pedestrian facilities into the project design. The project would provide a shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway from the project site to the 70th Street Trolley Station.

Additionally, the project would construct a 12-foot-wide shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-19 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Conservation and Sustainability Element (cont.)
Goal CS-1: The sustainable use of natural resources and land. The project would not result in an excessive use of, or adverse impacts to natural resources. The project would improve water quality and restore and enhance natural resources at the site by incorporating improvements to Alvarado Creek. Additionally, the project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations relating to natural resources and land.

Yes
Policy CS-1.3.1: Support regional water conservation efforts, water reclamation, and prevention of water quality degradation.

The project would implement construction BMPs and require conformance with City storm water standards and associated requirements (including the NPDES Construction General, Municipal and Groundwater permits), minimizing potential water quality impacts during construction. During project operation, the development would require the implementation of applicable pollutant (treatment) and hydromodification control BMPs, in addition to site design and source control BMPs. Furthermore, the project design would conform to applicable City and NPDES storm water standards. Water-efficient fixtures would be provided in the residential units, and project landscaping incorporate droughttolerant species with low-drip irrigation systems to conserve water.

Yes
Policy CS-1.4.1: Facilitate savings-by-design and address energyefficient building and site design in the retrofit or renovation of new, and existing, developments.

The project would incorporate an energy-efficient features to comply with the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency code and the Part 11 CALGreen code.

Yes
Policy CS-2.1.1: Encourage composting, recycling, and other appropriate techniques to reduce waste by the City and its residents.

A minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition debris generated by the proposed project would be diverted from the landfill by on-site reuse, recycling, salvage, or donation. Additionally, the project would divert at least 75 percent of operational waste from landfills through reuse and recycling.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-20 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Conservation and Sustainability Element (cont.)
Goal CS-3: Safe mobility and access for all without compromising our ability to protect public health and safety.

The project would improve accessibility to the 70th Street Trolley Station by incorporating a public pedestrian/bicycle connection to the station. Additionally, the project would provide a 12-foot-wide shared use pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of Alvarado Road that would connect to on-site roadways and planned future bicycle facilities. Lighting would be provided along pedestrian/bicycle pathways to improve safety. Additionally, the pathway along Alvarado Road would be separated from the roadway by curb and landscaping for safety.

Yes
Recreation and Open Space Element
Goal RO-1: A network of public parks throughout the City that will be convenient and beneficial to all segments of the community.

The project would submit payment of the Residential Park Improvement Impact Fee. Such fees would be used to fund needed park improvements throughout the City that would be beneficial to all segments of the community.

Yes
Policy RO-1.1.1: Use standards established within the Parks Master Plan for improvements to existing and proposed park facilities.

The project would submit payment of the Residential Park Improvement Impact Fee. Such fees would be used to fund needed park improvements.

Yes
Policy RO-1.1.4: Continue to collect park in-lieu fees from developers to fund needed park improvements.

The project would submit payment of the Residential Park Improvement Impact Fee. Such fees would be used to fund needed park improvements.

Yes
Goal RO-2: A City that values areas of native vegetation for their open space and biological habitat.

The project includes improvements to Alvarado Creek, including the removal of non-native vegetation and debris and the restoration of native riparian vegetation, including broad-leaved cattail, Olney’s three-square bulrush, and southern bulrush. The enhanced creek would function as a major open space feature of the project and would provide ecologically valuable areas of native vegetation for the City.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-21 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Recreation and Open Space Element (cont.)
Policy RO-2.1.2: Consider opportunities to restore open space and natural areas where feasible.

The project includes improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel that traverses the site to enhance the creek as an open space amenity and natural feature. Alvarado Creek would also be enhanced and restored with riparian vegetation.

Yes
Goal RO-3: Open space areas within private developments that supplement and complement the City’s public open spaces.

The project would provide outdoor recreation areas including a pedestrian promenade, courtyards, public gathering spaces, seating areas, and observation areas such as seating and/or interpretive signage at Alvarado Creek overlook areas.

Yes
Policy RO-3.1.1: Planned residential developments, mixed-use projects, and multiple-family residential projects shall provide usable on-site open space areas as a supplement to the public parks and open space system.

The project would include interior project amenity facilities and active outdoor spaces for the project residents. Building amenities are anticipated to include clubhouses, pools, and gymnasiums, while outdoor recreation areas would include a pedestrian promenade, courtyards, public gathering spaces, seating areas, and observation areas.

Yes
Historic Preservation Element
Goal HP-2: Safeguarded heritage by preserving those elements that reflect our cultural, social, economic, and architectural history so that community residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.

Project implementation would not impact any historical structures.

The existing on-site buildings to be demolished were evaluated for historical significance. It was determined that the buildings do not meet the State or local criteria for designation as a historic landmark.

Additionally, no known archaeological or tribal cultural resources occur on the project site. Mitigation consisting of an archaeological monitoring program would ensure that impacts to resources inadvertently encountered during excavation activities would be avoided or minimized. Refer to Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-22 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Noise Element
Goal NS-1: A community where noise and the effects of noise are minimized.

The project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards. The project would not generate or be subject to excess noise, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels.

Additionally, the project would not experience significant impacts related to airport noise. Refer to Section 4.9, Noise.

Yes
Policy NS-1.1.2: Discourage development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or future noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL.

The project would experience noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL, primarily from vehicle traffic on I-8 and Alvarado Road, in addition to trolley traffic on the adjacent MTS Green Line trolley corridor.

However, the project would incorporate noise reduction design features as part of the project design to reduce noise levels to below 65 CNEL. Refer to Section 4.9, Noise.

Yes
Policy NS-1.1.3: Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning to ensure that areas intended for frequent outdoor use are subjected to 60 CNEL or less for single-family land uses and 65 CNEL or less for multi-family residential land uses and multi-family residential land uses within mixed-use developments.

The project would incorporate noise reduction features including sound-attenuating architectural treatments on exterior walls and the incorporation of sound walls as part of the project design. The sound walls would consist of solid masonry, acrylic glass, or a combination thereof. The noise reduction features would reduce noise levels at the outdoor use areas to below the 65 CNEL threshold for multi-family residential land uses. Refer to Section 4.9, Noise.

Yes
Policy NS-1.2.1: Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). Title 24 requires that an acoustical analysis be performed for all new multi-family residences in areas where the exterior sound level exceeds 60 CNEL. The analysis shall ensure that the building design limits the interior noise environment to 45 CNEL or below.

A project-specific noise analysis was performed for the project. The noise analysis found that the project would comply with the interior noise compatibility standards of 45 CNEL or less with the incorporation of noise reduction design features that are part of the project design standards. Refer to Section 4.9, Noise.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-23 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Safety Element
Goal SE-1: Protection from the adverse effects of flooding. The project would minimize the existing flood hazard risks by providing improvements to Alvarado Creek and the portion of the Alvarado Creek channel that traverses the site. The improved creek would accommodate 100-year storm events to resolve the existing flooding conditions that occur on the project site during high storm events. Refer to Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Yes
Policy SE-1.1.4 Require that all proposed development be designed to minimize the volume and velocity of surface runoff and to prevent adverse downstream effects.

The volume and velocity of surface runoff associated with the project would be minimized through the implementation of construction and post-construction BMPs, related maintenance efforts, and compliance with the City’s storm water standards, NPDES standards, and the project SWQMP. Refer to Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Yes
Policy SE-1.2.1: Continue to require that all new development in flood prone areas be elevated to or above the level of a 100-year flood.

Because most of the site is located within a floodplain, the project would raise the existing grade to be above the base floodplain elevation. The top of bank elevation, ground floor finished floor, and garage entry elevations would all be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Improvements would also be made to Alvarado Creek to contain the 100-year flood within the creek channel. Refer to Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Yes
Goal SE-2: Protection from risks associated with landslides and other geologic hazards.

The project site is underlain by generally flat bedding and lacks steep slopes. The project would follow the construction recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Investigation and CBC requirements to avoid potential landslides or other geologic hazards. Refer to Section

4.4, Geology and Soils.

Yes
Goal SE-3: Protection from adverse effects caused by earthquakes and other seismic hazards.

The project site is not underlain by a known active or potentially active fault. Still, the project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the CBC, which contains specific structural requirements for seismic safety. Refer to Section 4.4, Geology and Soils.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-24 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Safety Element (cont.)
Policy SE-3.1.1: Apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development.

Pursuant to La Mesa Municipal Code Title 14, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the CBC, which contains specific structural requirements for seismic safety.

Refer to Section 4.4, Geology and Soils.

Yes
Goal SE-4: Protection from risks associated with fire. The project is located in a developed area where the risk of wildland fire risk is minimal. The project would adhere with the City’s Fire Code, including all applicable requirements for fuel management, brush clearance, and sprinklers for the proposed buildings to minimize on-site fire hazards. Additionally, the existing fire facilities and staffing are capable of serving the project.

Yes
Policy SE-4.1.1: Continue to enforce fire codes involving new construction.

The project would comply with applicable fire codes, including the City’s Fire Code. Specifically, the project would include applicable requirements for fuel management, brush clearance, and sprinklers for the proposed buildings to minimize on-site fire hazards.

Yes
Goal SE-5: Protection from exposure to hazardous materials and waste.

Exposure to hazardous materials resulting from project
implementation would most likely occur during demolition activities due to the potential for the building materials to contain asbestos and/or lead. The project would minimize potential exposure by conducting an asbestos and lead survey prior to demolition of existing on-site buildings. Other exposures of hazardous materials would be minimized through compliance with the project’s SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES General Construction Permit. Refer to Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Yes
Policy SE-5.1.8: Participate in local and regional programs that facilitate the proper disposal of hazardous household waste.

As a residential development, the project would involve the limited use of household cleaning products, chemical pesticides, and fertilizers required to maintain proposed landscaping, and chemicals associated the swimming pool. Any regulated materials would be properly handled, used, stored, transported, and/or disposed of in accordance with regulatory standards.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-25 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Public Services and Facilities Element
Goal PSF-5: A community where fire risk is minimal. The project is located in a developed area where the risk of wildland fire risk is minimal. The project would adhere with the City’s Fire Code, including all applicable requirements for fuel management, brush clearance, and sprinklers for the proposed buildings to minimize on-site fire hazards. Additionally, the existing fire facilities and staffing are capable of serving the project.

Yes
Goal PSF-6: Infrastructure of streets, sewers, and storm drains that sustains a high quality of life.

The project involves improvements to Alvarado Road, 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. The project also involves sewer system improvements, including relocating an existing sewer trunk line within Alvarado Creek out of the channel and under the proposed internal access road, raising and capping an existing manhole, removal of portions of existing on-site sewer lines, and construction of new onsite sewer lines. Site drainage for the project site would be collected in a proposed private, on-site storm drain system consisting of detention basins, grass-lined swales, catch basins, and storm drains that would be directed to Alvarado Creek.

Yes
Policy PSF-6.2.2: A condition of approval of future development will include construction of improvements to the Storm Water System as appropriate.

The project includes improvements to Alvarado Creek to contain the 100-year flood within the creek channel. The project would include compliance with a SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES General
Construction Permit. The project would also comply with the City’s Storm Water BMP Manual and the guidelines outlined in the project’s SWQMP.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-26 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Public Services and Facilities Element (cont.)
Policy PSF-6.3.1: The Sidewalk Master Plan and Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan shall be utilized for guidance in the design and construction of street improvements.

The project involves the construction of a 12-foot-wide shared use pedestrian/bicycle path along the south side of Alvarado Road. The project would also construct a pedestrian/bicycle connection from the western portion of the project site to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. The pathways would comply with the Sidewalk Master Plan and Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan.

Yes
Policy PSF-6.5.2: The City will provide enforcement activities to ensure recycling for single-family, multi-family and commercial properties, and construction and demolition sites to reduce the amount of solid waste diverted to local landfills.

A minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition debris generated by the proposed project would be diverted from the landfill by reuse on site, recycling, salvage, or donation. Additionally, the proposed project would divert at least 75 percent of operational waste from landfills through reuse and recycling in accordance with AB 341.

Yes
Policy PSF-6.5.3: New construction and remodeling projects are required to provide space for recycling containers.

The project would provide adequate space for recycling containers.

The areas for collection of recyclables and yard waste would be in accordance with 2019 Title 24 Part 11 CALGreen Standards.

Yes
Policy PSF-8.1.1: Give careful attention to the building permit process, as well as Urban Design Standards related to building scale, architectural materials, landscaping, and other elements to emphasize attractive and safe building and site design in new development projects.

The project would have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style yet express an individual character. The project would be subject to the City’s Urban Design Program. The Design Review Application process would ensure high quality site and architectural design. Landscaping and improvements to Alvarado Creek would also be provided, which would improve visual quality at the site.

The project would ensure safe building design by complying with applicable federal, state, and local building regulations.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-27 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Health and Wellness Element
Goal HW-1: A community where residents are healthy and feel safe and secure.

Heartland Fire and the La Mesa Police Department would have adequate capacity to support the project. The pathways proposed by the project would be physically separated from roadways for safety.

Additionally, the project would provide lighting throughout the project site and along all proposed pathways to ensure residents feel safe and secure.

Yes
Policy HW-1.1.1: Encourage developers to incorporate building and site design techniques that reduce crime, such as utilizing Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) design strategies.

The project would incorporate lighting throughout the project site and along all proposed pedestrian/bicycle pathways for safety.

Lighting within the site would be provided along the internal access roads, pedestrian promenade, and pathways; within recreation areas and public outdoor spaces; on buildings, and at the project entry monument signs.

Yes
Policy HW-1.2.2: Continue to develop and implement Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to Transit.

The project would assist with the implementation of Safe Routes to Transit by construction a pedestrian/bicycle connection between the western end of the project site to the 70th Street Trolley Station. The pathway would have lighting and would be constructed in compliance with all applicable regulations. Additionally, the proposed shared pedestrian/bicycle path would provide pedestrian facilities that would connect to existing sidewalk and planned future bicycle facilities in support of the Safe Routes to School program.

Yes
Policy HW-1.2.3: Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through implementation of La Mesa’s Walkability Plan and Bicycle Master Plan, and evaluate and implement other plans and programs, as appropriate.

The project would construct shared pedestrian/bicycle pathways pursuant to La Mesa’s Walkability Plan and Bicycle Master Plan.

Yes

4.8 Land Use
Table 4.8-1 (cont.)

GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES CONSISTENCY EVALUATION Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.8-28 August 2022
Applicable Elements, Goals, and Policies Consistency Evaluation Consistent (Yes/No)
CITY OF LA MESA GENERAL PLAN (cont.)
Housing Element
Goal HE-1: High-quality and well-maintained residential neighborhoods.

The project would have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style yet express an individual character. The project would be subject to the City’s Urban Design Program. The Design Review Application process would ensure high quality site and architectural design. The project would also incorporate landscaping and would include upgrades to Alvarado Creek to improve storm water drainage and enhance the site’s existing visual quality.

Yes
Policy HE-1.2.2: Encourage developers to provide street planting, landscaping, lighting, and underground utilities as part of any subdivision.

The project would provide improvements to Alvarado Road, including streetlights and landscaping. The landscaping would consist of street trees with mixed heights and species, in addition to a series of bulb-outs in the parking lane.

Yes
Policy HE-1.2.3: Continue to implement design review criteria that encourage high quality standards of design and materials in all residential developments.

The project would have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style yet express an individual character. The project would be subject to the City’s Urban Design Program. The Design Review Application process would ensure high quality site and architectural design.

Yes
Policy HE-1.2.4: Encourage cost effective energy efficient housing, including the use of passive systems, to decrease energy use.

The project would comply with the 2019 Title 24 Part 6 building energy efficiency code and the Part 11 CALGreen code, minimizing energy usage.

Yes
Goal HE-2: Availability of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future needs of La Mesa residents.

The project would add a mix of housing units to the City to help meet the existing and future needs of La Mesa residents to address the current shortfall of housing stock within the City.

Yes
Policy HE-2.1.1: Provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City, including single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and residential mixed use to fulfill regional housing needs.

The project involves the construction of multi-family residences to help fulfill regional housing needs.

Yes

4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-1 August 2022

4.9 NOISE
This section of the PEIR addresses potential noise and vibration impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on a Noise Analysis prepared for the project (RECON 2018b), which is included as Appendix K of this EIR.

4.9.1 Existing Conditions

4.9.1.1 Fundamentals of Noise and Sound Level Descriptors Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing organ, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound, which interferes with normal activities, causes physical harm, or has adverse health effects.

Sound levels are described in units called decibels (dB). Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through simple addition. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a three-dBA increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be three dBA higher than one source under the same conditions.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To account for this phenomenon, the A-scale is used, which approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale is used for measurements and standards involving the human perception of noise. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are designated with the notation dBA.

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, there are a variety of noise descriptors for time-averaged noise levels. The noise descriptors used herein include the one-hour equivalent noise level (LEQ), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the sound exposure level (SEL). The CNEL is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added five dBA weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. The increases for certain times are intended to account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during the evening and night. The SEL is a noise level over a stated period of time or event and normalized to one second. These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances.

In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver contribute to the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.

4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-2 August 2022
Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound level decreases or drops off at a rate of six dBA for each doubling of the distance.

Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. The movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point when viewed over some time interval. The drop-off rate for a line source is three dBA for each doubling of distance.

The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site (such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water) receives no additional ground attenuation, and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) are simply the geometric spreading of the source. A soft site (such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) receives an additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Thus, a point source over a soft site would attenuate at 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.

Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, for most receivers, a three-dBA change in noise levels is clearly noticeable, a three-dBA change is typically the smallest increment that is perceivable, and one to two dBA changes are generally not detectable.

4.9.1.2 Fundamentals of Vibration
Vibration is defined as any oscillatory motion induced in a structure or mechanical device as a direct result of some type of input excitation. Vibration is transmitted through solid material such as the ground by wave motion, which is known as groundborne vibration. Sources of ground-borne vibration include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or manufactured (explosions, trains, machinery, traffic, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be transient, steady-state (continuous), or pseudo steady-state. Examples of transient construction vibrations are those that occur from blasting with explosives, impact pile driving, demolition, and wrecking balls.

Groundborne vibration propagates from sources through the ground into nearby structures and buildings. Soil properties affect the propagation of ground-borne vibration. The vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. When groundborne vibration interacts with a building, there is usually a ground-tofoundation coupling loss, but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as the rattling of windows or items on shelves or the motion of building surfaces. Vibration of building surfaces can also be radiated as sound and heard as a low-frequency rumbling noise.

Vibration effects can be described by its peak and root mean square (RMS) amplitudes. Building damage is often discussed in terms of peak velocity, or peak particle velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal. PPV is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings; it is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration and to discuss construction vibration. Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals, and as a result, the best metric to assess human response is average (as opposed to peak) vibration amplitude.

4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-3 August 2022
The RMS amplitude is useful for assessing human annoyance, while peak vibration is most often used for assessing the potential for damage to buildings and structures. Because the net average of a vibration signal is zero, the RMS amplitude is used to describe the “smoothed” vibration amplitude. The RMS amplitude is always less than the PPV and is always positive. The RMS average is typically calculated over a one-second period.

Decibel notation (VdB) is also commonly used for vibration. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower; this is well below the level perceptible by humans, which is approximately 65 VdB. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the roadway is smooth, the vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.

4.9.1.3 Existing Noise Environment
Noise Sources
The primary noise source in the project vicinity consists of vehicular traffic noise on I-8 and Alvarado Road. Additional noise is generated by trolleys on the adjacent San Diego MTS Green Line trolley corridor and trolleys and buses at the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west.

Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Uses
Noise Sensitive Land Uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, such as residential dwellings, schools, transient lodging (hotels), hospitals, educational facilities, and libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. NSLUs in the project area include multi-family residences (La Cuesta Apartments, Comanche Hills Apartments, Fleetwood Apartment Homes), a mobile home community, and single-family residences located south of the project site (across Alvarado Creek and the MTS Green Line); a motel approximately

0.13 mile east of the project site, and an educational facility (National University campus) approximately

0.2 mile southeast of the site. Additional residential uses are located north of the project site across I-8; however, construction and operational noise associated with the project would not be anticipated to exceed ambient traffic noise at these residences.

Land uses in which ground-borne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations, are considered “vibration-sensitive” (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the ground-borne vibration. In addition, excessive levels of ground-borne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses or schools. Vibration-sensitive land uses in the project area include the nearby singleand multi-family residences, motel, and educational facility, as well as the existing on-site RV resort.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Existing ambient noise levels were measured in the project area to provide a characterization of the existing noise environment. Short-term (15-minute) daytime noise measurements were conducted at three locations within the project area: one on the project site and two at adjacent locales.

Measurement location 1 was located in the central portion of the site adjacent to Alvarado Creek.

Measurement location 2 was located along Alvarado Road where Alvarado Creek crosses under the

4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-4 August 2022
roadway. Measurement location 3 was located at the eastern end of the 70th Street Trolley Station.

Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 4.9-1, Ambient Noise Measurement Locations.

Table 4.9-1, Noise Measurements, summarizes the measured existing noise levels at these selected locations.

Table 4.9-1

NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Measurement
Location No. Location Time Noise Sources
Measured
Noise Level
(dBA LEQ)
1 In the central portion of the project
site adjacent to Alvarado Creek
11:44 a.m. to
11:59 p.m.

Vehicular traffic on
I-8, trolleys

64.1 2 Along Alvarado Road where
Alvarado Creek crosses under the
roadway
12:16 a.m. to
12:31 p.m.

Vehicular traffic on
I-8 and Alvarado
Road

72.4 3 East end of the 70th Street Trolley
Station
12:50 p.m. to
1:05 p.m.

Vehicular traffic on
I-8, trolleys, buses

70.2 Source: RECON 2018b
dBA = A-weighted decibel; LEQ = one-hour average sound level The measured average noise levels ranged from 64.1 to 72.4 dBA LEQ. The sources of noise varied between sites, but the primary noise generator was vehicular traffic. Secondary sources included trolley pass-bys and trolley horns, trolley crossing bells, and buses.

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting

4.9.2.1 Federal
Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration Standards Although the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards are intended for federally funded mass transit projects, the impact assessment procedures and criteria included in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) are routinely used for projects proposed by local jurisdictions. The FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have published guidelines for assessing the impacts of groundborne vibration associated with rail projects, which have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects.

Table 4.9-2, Groundborne Vibration and Groundborne Noise Impact Criteria, presents vibration impact criteria that account for variation in receptor types as well as the frequency of events. The project would be considered a Category 2 land use, and the adjacent MTS Green Line trolley corridor involves frequent events, which are defined by the FTA as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.