4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-5 August 2022
Table 4-9-2
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION AND GROUNDBORNE NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA Land Use Category
Groundborne
Vibration
Impact Levels
Frequent
Events1
Groundborne
Vibration
Impact Levels
Occasional
Events2
Groundborne
Vibration
Impact Levels
Infrequent
Events3
Groundborne
Noise Impact
Levels
Frequent
Events1
Groundborne
Noise Impact
Levels
Occasional
Events2
Groundborne
Noise Impact
Levels
Infrequent
Events3
Category 1: Buildings
where vibration would
interfere with interior
operations.
65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5
Category 2: Residences
and buildings where
people normally sleep.
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA
Category 3: Institutional
land uses with primarily
daytime use.
75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA
Source: FTA 2018 1 Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2 Occasional Events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. 3 Infrequent Events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes.
Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to groundborne noise.
VdB = decibel notation; N/A = not applicable; dBA = A-weighted decibel Federal Aviation Administration Standards
Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Part 150, which is enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration, regulates airport noise compatibility planning. This regulation prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. This regulation also identifies those land uses which are normally compatible with various levels of exposure to noise by individuals. The Federal Aviation Administration considers all land uses to be compatible with exterior noise levels less than 65 dBA LDN (or CNEL).
4.9.2.2 State
California Noise Control Act
California Health and Safety Code Sections 46000 through 46080, also known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, state that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare, and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage.
The Act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-6 August 2022
the State to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
California Code of Regulations
CCR Title 24, California Noise Insulation Standards, requires that residential structures be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noise so that the interior noise levels, with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable room. A habitable room is a room used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, closets, hallways, utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms for this regulation. The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be prepared whenever a multi-family residential building structure may be exposed to exterior noise levels of 60 CNEL or greater. The acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residences have been designed to limit intruding noise to a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL.
Division 2.5, Chapter 6, Section 5012 of Title 21 establishes that 65 CNEL is the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living near an airport.
4.9.2.3 Local
City of La Mesa General Plan
The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan is intended to identify noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources, define areas of noise impacts, establish policies and programs to protect the community from excessive noise, and reduce negative impacts from those noise sources (City 2012a). The Noise Element establishes acceptable noise compatibility noise levels for various land uses. For multi-family residential uses, exterior noise levels up to 65 CNEL are considered “normally acceptable” and noise levels up to 70 CNEL are considered “conditionally acceptable.” According to the Noise Element, in conditionally acceptable areas, “new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.” It further states that “conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice” (City 2012a). The Noise Element similarly states that exterior noise levels between 70 and 75 CNEL are considered “normally unacceptable” and that noise levels above 75 CNEL are considered “clearly unacceptable.” Where exterior noise levels are normally unacceptable, “a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design.” The Noise Element also specifies an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for multi-family uses.
Furthermore, Policy NS-1.1-3 clarifies that the noise compatibility standards also require that new developments minimize the effects of noise by incorporating noise reduction features to reduce exterior noise levels at multi-family outdoor use areas1 to 65 CNEL or less (i.e., to within the normally acceptable range of the noise compatibility guidelines).
Table 4.9-3, City of La Mesa Noise – Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, summarizes the City’s noise – land use compatibility guidelines contained in the Noise Element. These guidelines are intended to guide 1 Outdoor use areas associated with multi-family residential buildings typically include active recreation and public gathering spaces such as community swimming pools, clubhouses, private parks/tot lots, courtyards, and common patio/deck areas.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-7 August 2022
the design and location of future development and serve as a target for the reduction of noise in existing development.
Table 4.9-3
CITY OF LA MESA NOISE – LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Source: City 2012a
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-8 August 2022
La Mesa Municipal Code
Stationary Noise
La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 10.80, Noise Regulation, prohibits unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noises in the City of La Mesa. Section 10.80.040 establishes noise limits for on-site generated noise at adjacent properties and is based on zone or land use designation. The noise limits for each zone classification are summarized in Table 4.9-4, La Mesa Municipal Code Noise Limits. These standards apply when the ambient noise level does not already exceed the noise limit. In cases where the ambient noise level already exceeds the noise limit, the ambient noise level is the applicable noise limit.
Table 4.9-4
LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE NOISE LIMITS
Zone or Land Use Designation
Noise Level (dBA LEQ)
Daytime
(7 AM to 10 PM)
Noise Level (dBA LEQ)
Nighttime
(10 PM to 7 AM)
R1 (Urban Residential) and
R2 (Medium Low Density Residential)
55 50
R3 (Multiple Unit Residential) and
RB (Residential Business)
60 55
C (General Commercial),
CN (Neighborhood Commercial),
CD (Downtown Commercial), and
CM (Light Industrial and Commercial Service)
65 60
M (Industrial Service and Manufacturing) 70 70
Source: La Mesa Municipal Code Section 10.80.040
dBA = A-weighted decibel; LEQ = one-hour average sound level The project includes a Specific Plan that outlines a development concept for multi-family housing on the project site. The development intensity of proposed multi-family in-fill development does not fit into the existing land use zoning categories. For the purposes of this analysis, the closest equivalent zoning category was used for the proposed project, which would be Multiple Unit Residential (R3).
The zoning designations for adjoining properties to the south include Urban Residential (R1) and Multiple Unit Residential (R3). The zoning designation for the adjoining properties to the west and east is Light Industrial and Commercial Service (CM). Adjoining property to the south consists of Alvarado Road right-of-way, which is not assigned a zone classification.
Construction Noise
Municipal Code Section 10.80.100 regulates construction noise, and states that it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone or CN (neighborhood commercial) zone, or within 500 feet of these zones, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects or to any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist, or any other construction-type device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or on Sundays unless a special permit authorizing the activity has been duly obtained from the chief building official.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-9 August 2022
4.9.3 Methodology and Assumptions
Noise Modeling
Noise level predictions and contour mapping were developed using noise modeling software, SoundPlan Essential (SoundPLAN), version 4.1. SoundPLAN calculates noise propagation based on algorithms and reference levels published by various government agencies, such as the FTA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the International Standards Organization. The model uses various input parameters, such as distances between sources, barriers, and receivers; and shielding provided by intervening terrain, barriers, and structures. Receivers, sources, and barriers were input into the model using three-dimensional coordinates. The model outputs include noise level contours and noise levels at specific receivers. In all cases, receivers were modeled at five feet above ground or floor elevation, which represents the average height of the human ear.
Construction Noise
Project construction noise would be generated by diesel engine-driven construction equipment used for site preparation and grading, building construction, loading, unloading, and placing materials and paving. Diesel engine-driven trucks also would bring materials to the site and remove the soils from excavation. Construction equipment with a diesel engine typically generates maximum noise levels from 80 to 90 dBA LEQ at a distance of 50 feet (FTA 2018). Table 4.9-5, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, summarizes typical construction equipment noise levels.
Table 4.9-5
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Equipment
Typical Noise Level
[dBA at 50 feet
from source]
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Crane, Derrick 88
Dozer 85
Grader 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pump 76
Roller 74
Scraper 89
Truck 88
Source: RECON 2018b
dBA = A-weighted decibel
During excavation, grading, and paving operations, equipment moves to different locations and goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for non-equipment tasks.
Although maximum noise levels may be 85 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet during most construction activities, hourly average noise levels from the grading phase of construction would be 82 dBA LEQ at
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-10 August 2022
50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously. Noise propagation was modeled based on ISO 9613-2–Acoustics, Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors.
Vehicle Traffic Noise
Noise generated by future traffic was modeled using FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model algorithms and reference levels. The model uses various input parameters, such as projected hourly average traffic rates; vehicle mix, distribution, and speed; roadway lengths and gradients; distances between sources, barriers, and receivers; and shielding provided by intervening terrain, barriers, and structures. Receivers, roadways, and barriers were input into the model using three-dimensional coordinates. The locations of future buildings were obtained from project drawings.
The main source of traffic noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on I-8. For the purpose of the future traffic noise compatibility analysis, the noisiest condition is represented as the maximum level of service (LOS) C/minimum LOS D traffic volume. This condition represents a condition where the maximum number of vehicles are using the roadway at the maximum speed. LOS A and B categories allow full travel speed but do not have as many vehicles, while LOS E and F have a greater number of vehicles, but due to the traffic volume travel at reduced speeds, thus generating less noise. Eastbound I-8 has four mainline lanes and one auxiliary lane, and westbound I-8 has four mainline lanes. Using a capacity of 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour for mainlines and 1,200 vehicles per hour for auxiliary lines, it was calculated that I-8 has a capacity of 15,600 vehicles per hour. The maximum LOS C/minimum LOS D volume is 80 percent of the total capacity, or 12,480 vehicles per hour.
Additional traffic noise would be generated by Alvarado Road. Based on SANDAG Traffic Forecast Information Center data, Alvarado Road has a future year 2035 annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 6,300 vehicles and a speed limit of 35 mph (SANDAG 2013a). Peak hour traffic volumes on I-8 were modeled as 10 percent of the total ADT.
The vehicle classification mix for I-8 was obtained from Caltrans truck counts. Based on these truck counts, I-8 carries 96.8 percent automobiles, 2.0 percent medium trucks, and 1.2 percent heavy trucks (Caltrans 2015). Truck counts are not available for local roadways; Alvarado Road was also modeled with the same vehicle classification mix as I-8.
Trolley Noise
The MTS Green Line trolley corridor is located south of the project site, adjacent to the south side of Alvarado Creek. Noise generated by the trolley was modeled using the SoundPLAN program. SoundPLAN calculates trolley noise levels based on trolley speed, length, and the number of pass-bys that occur during the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The trolleys were modeled at a speed of 30 mph. This speed is based on the distances between trolley stations and the average timing between stations obtained from published trolley schedules. Adjacent to the project site, there are 96 daytime pass-bys, 18 evening pass-bys, and 23 nighttime pass-bys on weekdays. There are fewer trolley pass-bys on Saturdays and Sundays, therefore, the conservative weekday scenario was modeled.
On-site Generated Noise
The noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of a multi-family residential development, such as vehicles arriving and leaving,
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-11 August 2022
children at play, and landscape maintenance machinery. None of these noise sources is anticipated result in a substantial permanent increase in existing noise levels and thus were not modeled.
The project would include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units with a roof-mounted condenser unit for each dwelling unit. It is not known at this time which manufacturer, brand, or model of unit or units would be selected for use in the project. For the purposes of this analysis, to determine what general noise levels the HVAC units would generate, it was assumed that the rooftop units would be similar to a five-ton Carrier 25HHA4 units with a sound power level of 72 dBA. Roof-mounted condenser units would be clustered on the roof; with each condenser unit array having between 6 and 52 units (most commonly 8 units per array). Each condenser unit array was modeled as a point source
0.5 meter above the rooftop height with a composite sound power level between 79.8 and 89.3 dBA, depending on the number of units in the array. Rooftop features such as parapet walls typically provide noise attenuation. As the height and orientation of rooftop features has not been finalized, all rooftops were conservatively modeled as flat, with no features to obstruct noise propagation. For a conservative analysis, it was assumed that the air handling units would be continuously operated at maximum capacity.
Trolley Vibration
Analysis of vibration impacts associated with trolley operations on the adjacent MTS Green Line trolley corridor to future residences follows the guidance provided in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2018). The analysis follows the general assessment procedure outlined in the document. The general level of assessment uses generalized data to develop a curve of vibration level as a function of distance from the trolley tracks. The vibration levels at specific buildings are estimated and adjustments are applied to account for factors such as track support system, vehicle speed, type of building, and track and wheel condition. The FTA has developed base curves for three standard transportation systems: locomotive-powered passenger or freight trains, rapid transit or light rail vehicles, and rubber-tired vehicles.
Typical ground-surface vibration levels calculated by the FTA assume equipment is in good condition and travels at speeds of 50 mph for the rail systems (locomotive freight and rapid transit or light rail vehicles) and 30 mph for buses (rubber-tired vehicles). The levels of groundborne vibration and noise vary approximately as 20 times the logarithm of speed. This means that doubling, or halving, train speed would increase, or decrease, the vibration levels approximately six decibels. As discussed in Section 4.3, trolleys (light rail vehicles) were modeled at 30 mph in the vicinity of the project. Thus, to determine the vibration level at the project site, the FTA generalized ground surface vibration curves were used and then adjusted for speed.
Construction-related Vibration
Analysis of construction-related vibration impacts to existing and future residents was based on the guidance provided in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (FTA 2018).
Construction equipment vibration levels and reference distances are based on those provided in the FTA guidance. Vibration levels at specific properties were calculated using the annoyance assessment formula contained the FTA guidance.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-12 August 2022
4.9.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant noise impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:
1. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
4.9.5 Impact Analysis
4.9.5.1 Noise Standards
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise
Noise associated with the grading, building, and paving for the project would potentially result in shortterm impacts to surrounding properties. Nearby residential developments include the La Cuesta Apartments, Colony Mobile Plaza, Comanche Hills Apartments, Fleetwood Apartment Homes, and single-family residences located south of the project site (across Alvarado Creek and the MTS Green Line trolley corridor). Additionally, a motel (Motel 6) is located approximately 700 feet to the east of the project site.
A car dealership is located directly east of the project site, and the 70th Street Trolley Station is immediately west of the site; however, these uses are not considered noise sensitive. Additional residential uses are located north of the project site across I-8 but construction noise would not be anticipated to exceed ambient traffic noise at these residences due to vehicle traffic noise from I-8.
A variety of noise-generating equipment would be used during construction of the project, such as excavators, backhoes, front-end loaders, and concrete saws, along with others. Although maximum noise levels may be 85 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet during most construction activities, hourly average noise levels would be lower when taking into account the equipment usage factors. The loudest activities of construction would occur during the grading/excavation phase and would include dozers, loaders, and excavators. Construction noise levels were calculated assuming up to nine pieces of heavy equipment being active simultaneously.
Construction noise is considered a point source and would attenuate at approximately 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. To reflect the nature of grading and construction activities, equipment was
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-13 August 2022
modeled as an area source distributed over the project footprint. The total sound energy of the area source was modeled with all pieces of equipment operating simultaneously. Noise levels were modeled at a series of 12 receivers located at the adjacent property lines. The results are summarized in Table 4.9-6, Modeled Construction Noise Levels. Modeled receiver locations and construction noise contours are shown in Figure 4.9-2, Construction Noise Receiver Locations and Contours.
Table 4.9-6
MODELED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Receiver
Number Receiver Description Noise Level(dBA LEQ)
1 La Cuesta Apartments 64
2 5107 73rd Street Units 64
3 North end of Keeney Street 65
4 5084 Keeney Street 62
5 5061 Keeney Street 66
6 Colony Mobile Plaza 64
7 Colony Mobile Plaza 64
8 Colony Mobile Plaza 64
9 Colony Mobile Plaza 61
10 Comanche Hills Apartments 66
11 Comanche Hills Apartments 68
12 7570 Saranac Avenue 61
Source: RECON 2018b
dBA = A-weighted decibel; LEQ = one-hour average sound level As shown, construction noise levels at nearby residential properties would range from 61 to 68 dBA LEQ.
Additionally, the project could be developed in two phases, with proposed Buildings 1, 2, 3, as well as Alvarado Creek and public improvements occurring in Phase 1 and Building 4 occurring in Phase 2. In this event, the portion of the RV resort east of Alvarado Creek would remain in its existing condition during Phase 1 construction. People staying at the RV resort would be exposed to construction noise levels generated on the adjacent area during Phase 1 construction. If Phase 2 construction occurs after Phase 1 is constructed and buildings are occupied, then on-site residents of Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would potentially be exposed to construction noise levels from Phase 2 construction activities.
Although these receptors would likely be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary and would not be considered adverse.
Construction noise levels may be disruptive to nearby and on-site residences (existing and future based on development phases) and motel customers during the allowable daytime construction hours of operation. However, the City’s daytime noise limits (as identified in Table 4.9-4) do not apply to construction equipment. Rather, the City restricts the hours of operation of construction equipment to the hours considered least disturbing to residents. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generally occur on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., which is within the limits specified for construction in Section 10.80.100 of the municipal code. Because construction would comply with the applicable regulation for construction noise, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-14 August 2022
Transportation Noise
On-site Transportation Noise
The main source of noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on I-8 and Alvarado Road. Additional noise is generated by trolley traffic on the adjacent MTS Green Line trolley corridor.
On-site traffic noise contours were developed using the SoundPLAN program. Noise level contours were modeled at the ground-floor level. These contours account for shielding provided by proposed buildings, topography, and proposed grading. Future vehicle traffic noise contours are shown in Figure 4.9-3, Future Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours. As shown, first-floor exterior noise levels are projected to range from approximately 60 to 75 CNEL across the project site.
To refine the noise analysis and determine noise levels at proposed on-site outdoor use areas (patio above café, podium level courtyards, and top-floor sky decks) and building façades, exterior noise levels were calculated at a series of receiver locations throughout the project site. No specific receiver locations were modeled for the concrete parking garage podiums (one story for Building 1 and three stories for Buildings 2, 3, and 4) because they would not include noise-sensitive areas. Modeled receiver locations are shown in Figure 4.9-3.
Daytime noise contours due to trolley operations were developed using the SoundPLAN program. Noise level contours were modeled at the first-floor level and account for shielding provided by proposed buildings, topography, and proposed grading. Future trolley noise contours are shown in Figure 4.9-4, Future Trolley Noise Contours. Trolley noise levels were also modeled at the same 41 specific receiver locations as for vehicle traffic. Trolley noise levels are projected to be 60 CNEL or less at all modeled receivers.
Vehicle traffic and trolley noise levels were summed to calculate combined transportation noise levels.
Table 4.9-7, Transportation Noise Levels without Noise Reduction Features, summarizes the combined vehicle traffic and trolley noise levels at the 41 modeled receivers without incorporation of any noise reduction features.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-15 August 2022
Table 4.9-7
TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT NOISE REDUCTION FEATURES Receiver Description
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Second
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Third
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Fourth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Fifth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Sixth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Seventh
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Eighth
Floor
1-1
Building 1
Patio Above
Café
80 -- -- -- -- -- --
1-2 Building 1
Western Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- 70 -- --
1-3 Building 1
Eastern Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- 75 -- --
1-4 Building 1
Façade North
78 78 78 78 -- -- --
1-5 Building 1
Façade North
79 80 80 79 79 -- --
1-6 Building 1
Façade North
79 80 80 80 79 -- --
1-7 Building 1
Façade North
78 79 79 79 78 -- --
1-8 Building 1
Façade East
71 73 73 73 73 -- --
1-9 Building 1
Façade South
58 58 58 58 58 -- --
1-10 Building 1
Façade South
58 59 59 59 59 -- --
1-11 Building 1
Façade South
72 72 72 72 72 -- --
1-12 Building 1
Façade West
75 75 75 75 -- -- --
2-1 Building 2
Western Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- -- -- 68
2-2 Building 2
Podium
Courtyard
-- -- 39 -- -- -- --
2-3 Building 2
Podium
Periphery
-- -- 57 -- -- -- --
2-4 Building 2
Façade North
-- -- 79 79 79 78 78
2-5 Building 2
Façade North
-- -- 79 79 79 79 78
2-6 Building 2
Façade North
-- -- 79 79 79 79 78
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-16 August 2022
Table 4.9-7 (cont.)
TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT NOISE REDUCTION FEATURES Receiver Description
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Second
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Third
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Fourth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Fifth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Sixth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Seventh
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Eighth
Floor
2-7 Building 2
Façade East
-- -- 62 67 69 70 70
2-8 Building 2
Façade South
-- -- 57 58 58 58 58
2-9 Building 2
Façade South
-- -- 58 58 58 58 58
3-1 Building 3
Podium
Courtyard
-- -- 58 -- -- -- --
3-2 Building 3
Podium
Periphery
-- -- 67 -- -- -- --
3-3 Building 3
Western Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- -- -- 67
3-4 Building 3
Eastern Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- -- -- 71
3-5 Building 3
Façade West
-- -- 64 68 70 69 70
3-6 Building 3
Façade North
-- -- 79 79 79 79 78
3-7 Building 3
Façade North
-- -- 79 79 79 78 78
3-8 Building 3
Façade
Northeast
-- -- 75 75 75 75 75
3-9 Building 3
Façade East
-- -- 57 58 57 56 56
3-10 Building 3
Façade South
-- -- 57 57 58 58 57
4-1 Building 4
Podium
Courtyard
-- -- 38 -- -- -- --
4-2 Building 4
Podium
Periphery
-- -- 68 -- -- -- --
4-3 Building 4
Western Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- -- -- 70
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-17 August 2022
Table 4.9-7 (cont.)
TRANSPORTATION NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT NOISE REDUCTION FEATURES Receiver Description
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Second
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Third
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Fourth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Fifth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Sixth
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Seventh
Floor
Exterior
Noise
Level
(CNEL)
Eighth
Floor
4-4 Building 4
Eastern Sky
Deck
-- -- -- -- -- -- 70
4-5 Building 4
Façade
Northwest
-- -- 73 73 73 73 73
4-6 Building 4
Façade North
-- -- 76 76 76 76 76
4-7 Building 4
Façade East
-- -- 68 68 69 69 69
4-8 Building 4
Façade South
-- -- 58 58 58 58 58
4-9 Building 4
Façade South
-- -- 60 60 59 59 59
4-10 Building 4
Façade South
-- -- 58 59 59 59 58
Source: RECON 2018b
“--” denotes where the receiver does not exist on a floor (e.g., sky decks only exist on the top floor) CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
Pursuant to the noise – land use compatibility guidelines contained in the General Plan Noise Element, for multi-family residential uses, exterior noise levels up to 65 CNEL are considered normally acceptable.
Noise levels up to 70 CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable provided an analysis of noise reduction requirements is conducted and noise insulation features are included in the design, which normally can be achieved with closed windows and air conditioning units. Exterior noise levels between 70 and 75 CNEL are considered normally unacceptable, which means that new development must conduct a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design. Exterior noise levels in excess of 75 CNEL are considered clearly unacceptable and new development should generally not be undertaken.
Each residential unit within the proposed buildings would include an HVAC system. Additionally, standard wood-frame construction typically achieves an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 25 dBA (FHWA 2011). Exterior noise levels at the proposed building façades would need to be 70 CNEL or less (with closed windows) to achieve the CCR Title 24 interior noise standard of 45 CNEL in habitable areas of residences. Therefore, the project would be considered consistent with the Nose Element noise – land use compatibility guidelines if noise exposure levels at the building façades would not exceed 70 CNEL.
Furthermore, Noise Element Policy NS-1.1-3 clarifies that the noise compatibility standards also require that new developments minimize the effects of noise by incorporating noise reduction features to
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-18 August 2022
reduce exterior noise levels at multi-family outdoor use areas to 65 CNEL or less (i.e., to within the normally acceptable range of the noise compatibility guidelines).
As shown in Table 4.9-7, exterior noise levels would exceed 65 CNEL at some of the proposed outdoor use areas and 70 CNEL along some proposed building façades without the incorporation of any noise reduction design features, including:
Building 1
• Patio above café (80 CNEL)
• Eastern sky deck (75 CNEL)
• Northern, western, eastern, and western half of southern building façades (71 to 80 CNEL) Building 2
• Western sky deck (68 CNEL)
• Northern building façade(78 to 79 CNEL)
Building 3
• Podium periphery (67 CNEL)
• Western sky deck (67 CNEL)
• Eastern sky deck (71 CNEL)
• Northern and northeastern building façades (75 to 79 CNEL) Building 4
• Podium periphery (68 CNEL)
• Western sky deck (70 CNEL)
• Eastern sky deck (70 CNEL)
• Northern and northwestern building façades (73 to 76 CNEL) As set forth in the Noise Element, where exterior noise levels are in the conditionally acceptable or normally unacceptable ranges, “a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design” (City 2012a). A project-specific noise analysis was conducted that identified noise reduction design features to achieve consistency with the noise compatibility standards (RECON 2018b). Identified design features include incorporation of soundattenuating architectural treatments on exterior walls along the northern, western, eastern, and western half of southern façades of Building 1; the northern façade of Building 2; the northern and northeastern façade of Building 3; and the northern and northwestern façade of Building 4. These walls would include components such as windows, doors, finishes (e.g., stucco, wood siding), and/or wall assemblies (i.e., framing) with architectural treatments that would achieve a composite sound transmission class rating of 35.
Additionally, the project would incorporate sound walls into the design at various locations to reduce exterior noise levels at outdoor use areas. The sound walls would consist of solid masonry, acrylic glass, or a combination thereof and would include 10- to 12-foot-high walls around the patio above the café in Building 1, 6-foot-high walls along the eastern sky deck in Building 1, and 5-foot-high walls along the other sky decks and podium periphery identified above.
With these noise reduction design features that have been incorporated into the project design, interior noise levels at all habitable rooms would be reduced to levels that comply with the City interior noise
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-19 August 2022
compatibility standards of 45 CNEL or less. The incorporation of the identified noise walls would reduce noise levels at all outdoor use areas that would comply with the City’s exterior noise compatibility standards of 65 CNEL or less. Therefore, impacts related to on-site transportation noise would be less than significant.
Off-site Transportation Noise
The project site is accessed exclusively via Alvarado Road and thus project-generated traffic would contribute to increased traffic noise levels along Alvarado Road. Nearby 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 between 0.03 and
0.07 mile 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. Traffic volumes along Alvarado Road would essentially double with implementation of the project based on existing and forecasted daily traffic volumes (Kimley Horn 2020). A doubling of traffic volumes on a given roadway typically results in a three dBA increase in ambient noise levels. However, ambient noise levels along Alvarado Road are primarily attributable to vehicle traffic on I-8 rather than vehicle traffic on Alvarado Road itself. Vehicle traffic on I-8 would be anticipated to remain the dominant traffic noise source due to the relative volume and speed of vehicle traffic (vehicles on I-8 typically travel at 65 mph and the speed limit for Alvarado Road is 35 mph). Although the project would contribute to an increase in traffic volumes along Alvarado Road, ambient noise increases would be anticipated to be less than three dBA. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project such that noise levels at nearby NSLUs would exceed applicable noise standards. Impacts associated with off-site transportation noise would be less than significant.
On-site Generated Noise
Noise sources on the project site following construction are anticipated to be typical of any residential complex, such as vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play, and landscape maintenance machinery.
None of these on-site noise sources is anticipated to exceed the La Mesa Municipal Code noise limits at adjacent properties or result in a substantial permanent increase in existing noise levels. However, HVAC equipment with a roof-mounted condenser unit for each residence would be placed on each proposed building. These on-site generated noise sources were modeled to calculate noise levels at 12 receivers located adjacent to the southern property line.
The location of each condenser unit array was obtained from the project roof plans. Noise generated by HVAC equipment would occur on an intermittent basis, primarily during the day and evening hours and less frequently during the nighttime hours. For a conservative analysis, it was assumed that the HVAC units would operate continuously. The location of the modeled receivers and HVAC units are shown in Figure 4.9-5, On-site Generated Future Noise Contours. Future projected HVAC noise levels at adjacent residential properties are presented in Table 4.9-8, HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Residential Properties.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-20 August 2022
Table 4.9-8
HVAC NOISE LEVELS AT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Receiver Receiver Description Noise Level
[dBA LEQ]
Noise Level
Limit (dBA LEQ)
Daytime
Noise Level
Limit (dBA LEQ)
Nighttime
1 La Cuesta Apartments 39 60 55
2 5107 73rd Street Units 40 60 55
3 North end of Keeney Street 41 55 50
4 5084 Keeney Street 44 55 50
5 5061 Keeney Street 42 60 55
6 Colony Mobile Plaza 45 55 50
7 Colony Mobile Plaza 45 55 50
8 Colony Mobile Plaza 45 55 50
9 Colony Mobile Plaza 44 55 50
10 Comanche Hills Apartments 41 60 55
11 Comanche Hills Apartments 39 60 55
12 7570 Saranac Avenue 41 55 50
Source: RECON 2018b
As shown, on-site generated noise levels from HVAC equipment would range from 39 to 45 dBA LEQ and would not exceed the noise limits set forth in LA Mesa Municipal Code Section 10.80.040 at adjacent properties.
Additionally, the project could be developed in two phases: Phase 1 would include proposed Buildings 1, 2, 3, as well as the Alvarado Creek and public improvements; Buildings 1, and Phase 2 would include Building 4. If Phase 2 occurs after Phase 1 is constructed and buildings are occupied, there could be an interim period where Phase 1 and the remaining portion of the RV resort are both in operation. In this case, people staying at the RV resort could potentially be exposed to noise levels from HVAC equipment on Buildings 1, 2, and 3. The project site currently has a commercial zone classification (CM) and thus, applicable municipal code noise limits are 65 dBA LEQ during the daytime and 60 dBA LEQ during the nighttime. It is anticipated that noise levels generated from on-site HVAC equipment at the RV resort would be similar to, but slightly higher than the calculated levels at adjacent residences above (in Table 4.9-8) because some of the RV spaces are closer to the HVAC equipment than the model receivers.
Given that the upper range above is 45 dBA LEQ, on-site generated noise levels at the RV resort would not be expected to exceed 60 dBA LEQ. Therefore, impacts related to on-site generated noise would be less than significant.
4.9.5.2 Vibration
Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The main concern associated with groundborne vibration from typical development projects is annoyance; however, vibration-sensitive operations and equipment, such as those in hospitals and laboratories, can be disrupted at much lower levels than would typically affect other uses. In extreme cases, groundborne vibration can cause damage to buildings, particularly those that are old or otherwise fragile. In addition, excessive levels of groundborne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses or schools.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-21 August 2022
Common sources of groundborne vibration are trains and construction activities such as blasting, piledriving, and heavy earth-moving equipment. Impacts related to the potential exposure of vibrationsensitive land uses to excessive groundborne vibration levels from these sources are assessed based on screening distances determined by the FTA and Caltrans:
• Vibration-sensitive land uses within 600 feet of a railroad may be exposed to disruptive vibration (FTA 2018)
• Major construction activity within 200 feet and pile driving within 600 feet may be potentially disruptive to vibration-sensitive operations (Caltrans 2002) Trolley Vibration
The project site is located adjacent to the MTS Green Line trolley corridor, and the proposed buildings would be as close as approximately 65 feet from the tracks. Because the proposed residential uses are within the 600-foot screening distance for railroads, vibration levels were calculated to determine if the proposed on-site buildings would be subject to excessive vibration due to trolley pass-bys. Vibration levels at the project site were determined by the FTA generalized ground surface vibration curves (based on a reference speed of 50 mph) and then adjusted for speed based on project area trolley characteristics.
The closest proposed building façade, the southern façade of Building 4, would be approximately 65 feet from the railroad centerline. Based on the FTA vibration curves, trolleys traveling at 50 mph would generate a vibration level of 71 VdB at a distance of 65 feet. Adjusting these levels for speed results in an estimated vibration level of 67 VdB. As shown in Table 4.9-2, the applicable groundborne vibration impact criterion for Category 2 land uses (residential uses) is 72 VdB for frequent events, which is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Trolley vibration levels of 67 VdB would not exceed the impact criteria of 72 VdB and thus, project residents would not be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Vibration impacts to on-site residents associated with trolley pass-bys would be less than significant.
Construction-related Vibration
The project consists of a residential development with some limited resident-serving commercial uses.
This type of development does not include uses or equipment that generate excessive groundborne vibration. Construction activities however would involve equipment that creates groundborne vibration.
Thus, the following analysis evaluates potential annoyance due to construction-related vibration at nearby vibration-sensitive land uses.
Vibration-sensitive land uses in the project area include nearby single- and multi-family residences, a motel, and an educational facility. No hospitals, laboratories, or research facilities that could use vibration-sensitive equipment occur in the project vicinity. The closest residences range from approximately 150 to 400 feet away from the project site to the south. The motel is approximately 700 feet to the east, and the educational facility is approximately 1,000 feet to the northeast. Some of the residences to the south are within the screening distances for major construction activities and thus could be subject to intermittent groundborne vibration during project construction, particularly during demolition, site clearing, and grading.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-22 August 2022
Construction equipment utilized during the construction phases of the project that would generate the highest levels of construction-related vibration would be a bulldozer, which creates a vibration level of 87 VdB at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). At a distance of 150 feet, which is the approximate distance to the closest residential use, this level would be expected to reduce to 63.7 VdB (applying the FTA annoyance assessment equation). Based on the vibration impact criteria in Table 4.9-2, the applicable vibration impact level for construction activities at the nearby residential land uses is 80 VdB for infrequent events. Normal construction activities are considered infrequent events with the exception of vibratory pile driving which are frequent events (due to the potential duration of the activity); however, no vibratory pile driving would be required for project construction. As construction vibration levels at the closest residential use would not exceed impact criteria of 80 VdB, project construction would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels.
Additionally, the project could be developed in two phases, with proposed Buildings 1, 2, 3, as well as Alvarado Creek and public improvements occurring in Phase 1, and Building 4 occurring in Phase 2. In this event, the portion of the RV resort east of Alvarado Creek would remain in its existing condition during Phase 1 construction. People staying at the RV resort would be exposed to construction-related groundborne vibration levels generated on the adjacent area during Phase 1 construction, particularly during site preparation and grading (when the heaviest construction equipment operates). If Phase 2 construction occurs after Phase 1 is constructed and buildings are occupied, then on-site residents of Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would potentially be exposed to construction-related vibration levels from Phase 2 construction activities.
During Phase 1 construction, the closest RV spaces from the construction area would range from 30 to 45 feet. At a distance of 30 feet, groundborne vibration levels would be between approximately 79 and 85 VdB, which would exceed the vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events. This calculation is based on a conservation assumption of a bulldozer operating near the eastern end of the construction area. However, it should be noted that vibration from construction equipment is a source that continually moves across the site, so the exposure would not be a constant source at any one location. Vibration levels at RV spaces at distances of 43 feet or greater from the source (i.e., specific construction equipment), which would be most of the spaces in the RV resort, would not exceed 80 VdB.
Furthermore, vibration events would be short-term and infrequent during initial site clearing and grading activities and would occur during allowable day time hours (per Municipal Code Section
10.80.100). Thus, while some people staying at the RV resort would potentially be exposed to construction-related vibration during Phase 1 construction that could be considered an annoyance, Phase 1 construction activities would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels.
During Phase 2 construction, the closest on-site building, Building 3, would be approximately 50 feet from the construction area. At a distance of 50 feet, groundborne vibration levels would be approximately 78 VdB, which would not exceed the vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events. As a result, Phase 2 construction activities would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels.
Based on the analysis above, the project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-23 August 2022
4.9.5.3 Airport Noise
Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No private airstrips or public airports are located in the project vicinity. The closest public airport to the project site is Gillespie Field, which is approximately five miles to the northeast in the City of El Cajon.
The next closest airports include Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport (approximately seven miles to the northwest in the City of San Diego) and MCAS Miramar (approximately eight miles to the northwest in the City of San Diego). The project site is not located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of Gillespie Field, Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, or MCAS Miramar (SDCRAA 2010a, 2010b, and 2008). The Grossmont Hospital heliport is located approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the project site in the City of La Mesa. The heliport is privately owned and operated by the Grossmont Hospital District.
Five to ten flights are normally flown to the hospital every month, typically during standard business hours (City 2012a). This relatively low number of flights is not enough to generate noise levels above 60 CNEL at the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels generated by airports. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.9.6 Mitigation Measures
4.9.6.1 Noise Standards
No significant noise impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable noise standards would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.9.6.2 Vibration
No significant impacts related to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.9.6.3 Airport Noise
No significant impacts related to airport noise would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.9.7 Significance Determination
The significance of noise impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.9-9, Significance Determination Summary of Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant noise impacts. Impacts related to noise standards, vibration, and airport noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.9 Noise
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.9-24 August 2022
Table 4.9-9
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS
Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Noise Standards Less than significant None required Less than significant Vibration Less than significant None required Less than significant Airport Noise Less than significant None required Less than significant
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.9-1_AmbientNoise.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Ambient Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 4.9-1
Source: RECON 2018
Measurements
FIGURE 4
!(
!(
!(
KEENEY ST
73RD ST
MARYLAND AVE
COLONY DR
PARKWAY DR
ALVARADO RD
WILLIAMS AVE
SARANAC ST
SARANAC AVE
GRABLE ST
COMANCHE DR
GUESSM
AN AVE
1 2
3 §¨¦8
0 Feet 250
Image source: NearMaps (flown Nov 2017)
[
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig4_nos.mxd 2/5/2018 sab
Project Boundary
!( Measurements
Measurements
FIGURE 4
!(
!(
!(
KEENEY ST
73RD ST
MARYLAND AVE
COLONY DR
PARKWAY DR
ALVARADO RD
WILLIAMS AVE
SARANAC ST
SARANAC AVE
GRABLE ST
COMANCHE DR
GUESSM
AN AVE
1 2
3 §¨¦8
0 Feet 250
Image source: NearMaps (flown Nov 2017)
[
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig4_nos.mxd 2/5/2018 sab
Project Boundary
!( Measurements Measurements
FIGURE 4
!(
!(
!(
KEENEY ST
73RD ST
MARYLAND AVE
COLONY DR
PARKWAY DR
ALVARADO RD
WILLIAMS AVE
SARANAC ST
SARANAC AVE
GRABLE ST
COMANCHE DR
GUESSM
AN AVE
1 2
3 §¨¦8
0 Feet 250
Image source: NearMaps (flown Nov 2017)
[
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig4_nos.mxd 2/5/2018 sab
Project Boundary
!( Measurements
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.9-2_ConstructionNoise.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Construction Noise Receivers and Contours
Figure 4.9-2
Source: RECON 2018
Construction Noise Contours
FIGURE 5
!( !( !(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( KEENEY ST
73RD ST
MARYLAND AVE
COLONY DR
PARKWAY DR
ALVARADO RD
WILLIAMS AVE
SARANAC ST
SARANAC AVE
GRABLE ST
COMANCHE DR
GUESSM
AN AVE
7 8
6 5 3 2
1 4
11 10
12 9
§¨¦8
0 Feet 250
Image source: NearMaps (flown Nov 2017)
[
M:\JOBS2\4167.2\common_gis\fig5_nos.mxd 2/5/2018 sab
Project Boundary
Limits of Construction
Property Lines
!( Receivers
Construction Noise Contours
60 Leq
65 Leq
70 Leq
75 Leq
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.9-3_FutureVehicleNoise.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Future Vehicle Noise Contours
Figure 4.9-3
Source: RECON 2018
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.9-4_FutureTrolleyNoise.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK Future Trolley Noise Contours
Figure 4.9-4
Source: RECON 2018
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.9-5_OnsiteNoise.indd LAM-08 5/7/2020 - RK On-site Generated Noise Contours
Figure 4.9-5
Source: RECON 2018
4.10 Paleontological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.10‐1 August 2022
4.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section of the EIR evaluates potential impacts associated with paleontological resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The following discussion is based, in part, 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.
4.10.1 Existing Conditions
4.10.1.1 Paleontological Resources
Paleontology is the science dealing with prehistoric plant and non‐human animal life. Paleontological resources (or fossils) typically include the buried remains or traces of prehistoric organisms (i.e., animals, plants, and microbes). Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, leaves, and wood, as well as trace fossils such as tracks, trails, burrows, and footprints, are found in geologic units composed of the sediments that originally buried them. The formation of fossils typically involves the rapid burial of plant or animal remains and the formation of casts, molds, or impressions in the associated sediment (which subsequently becomes sedimentary bedrock). Paleontological resources include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities and the geologic formations containing those localities.
Fossils are considered important scientific and educational resources because they serve as direct and indirect evidence of prehistoric life and are used to understand the history of life on Earth, the nature of past environments and climates, the membership and structure of ancient ecosystems, and the patterns and processes of organic evolution and extinction. Fossils are also considered to be non‐renewable resources because typically the organisms they represent no longer exist.
The potential for fossil remains at a location can be predicted through previous correlations that have been established between the fossil occurrence and the geologic formations within which they are buried. Geologic formations possess a specific paleontological resource potential wherever the formation occurs based on discoveries made elsewhere in that particular formation.
4.10.1.2 Paleontological Resource Sensitivity
Paleontological resource sensitivity of geologic formations is typically rated from zero to high. The sensitivity of the paleontological resource determines the significance of a paleontological impact.
Paleontological resource sensitivity ratings, derived from Deméré and Walsh (1993), are briefly defined as follows:
High Sensitivity – High sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations are known to contain paleontological localities with rare, well‐preserved, critical fossil materials. Generally, high‐ sensitivity formations produce vertebrate fossil remains or are considered to have the potential to produce such remains.
Moderate Sensitivity – Moderate sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations known to contain paleontological localities with poorly preserved, common elsewhere, or stratigraphically unimportant fossil material. The moderate sensitivity category is also applied to geologic
4.10 Paleontological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.10‐2 August 2022
formations that are judged to have a strong, but often unproven, potential for producing unique fossil remains.
Low Sensitivity – Low sensitivity is assigned to geologic or surficial formations/materials that, based on their relatively young age and/or high‐energy depositional history, are judged unlikely to produce unique fossil remains.
Zero Sensitivity – Zero sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations that consist of volcanic or plutonic igneous rocks with a molten origin (such as basalt or granite), or artificially and/or mechanically‐generated materials (such as fill and topsoil), and do not exhibit any potential for producing fossil remains.
4.10.1.3 Geologic Setting
The project site is located within the coastal plain of San Diego County, which lies at the western edge of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. Along the coastal plain, crystalline basement rocks of the Jurassic‐ to Cretaceous‐age Santiago Peak Volcanics and the Cretaceous‐age Peninsular Ranges Batholith are overlain by a “layer cake” sequence of sedimentary strata of late Cretaceous, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, and/or Pleistocene age.
4.10.1.4 Geologic Formations
Knowing the geology of a particular area and the fossil productivity of formations that occur in that area, it is possible to predict where fossils will, or will not, be encountered. The City is located in areas underlain by very old paralic (deposits laid down on the landward side of a coast in shallow fresh water subject to marine invasions resulting in marine and nonmarine sediment interbedding) deposits of Pleistocene‐age (approximately 0.5 to 1 million years old) and three middle Eocene‐age formations: the Stadium Conglomerate (approximately 44 million years old), Mission Valley Formation (43 million years old), and Pomerado Conglomerate (37 million years old; El Adli 2012, Kennedy and Tan 2005, 2008).
Geologic formations located underlying the project site are identified below, along with associated paleontological resource sensitivity ratings.
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 a loose to medium density and consists of damp, red‐brown to gray‐brown, silty, fine to medium and fine to coarse sand with pebbles and cobbles. Artificial fill deposits exhibit zero potential for the occurrence of sensitive paleontological resources. Stream Deposits – The fill soils along the southern portion of the site are underlain by stream deposits to an approximate depth of three to nine feet below the present surface grade. The stream deposits consist of a medium dense, wet, tan‐gray to orange‐brown, fine to coarse sand with abundant cobbles and boulders. River deposits in the County are generally grouped together because there is insufficient stratigraphic data available to differentiate them (Deméré and Walsh 1993). Stream deposits exhibit a low to moderate to high potential for the occurrence of sensitive paleontological resources.
4.10 Paleontological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.10‐3 August 2022
Stadium Conglomerate Formation – The entire site is underlain by dense cobble conglomerate formational material of the Tertiary Stadium Conglomerate Formation at depths greater than three feet. Stadium Conglomerate exhibits a moderate to high potential for the occurrence of sensitive paleontological resources.
4.10.1.5 Unique Geologic Features
A unique geological feature may be the best example of its kind locally or regionally, illustrate a geologic principle, provide a key piece of geologic information, be the “type locality” of a fossil or formation, or it may have high aesthetic appeal. Unique geologic features may be exposed or created from natural weathering and erosion processes, or from human excavations. These unique geological features provide aesthetic, scientific, educational, or recreational value. There are no known unique geological features located within the City.
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
4.10.2.1 State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of a project on unique paleontological resources. CEQA requires an assessment of impacts associated with the direct or indirect destruction of unique paleontological resources or sites that are of value to the region or state. Pursuant to Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines (CCR Sections 15000–15387), a lead agency must find that a project would have a significant effect on the environment when the project has the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory, including significant paleontological resources.
4.10.2.2 Local
City of La Mesa Municipal Code
Title 25, Historic Preservation, of the City’s Municipal Code implements the goals of the Historic Preservation Element of the City’s General Plan. Section 25.01.060 created the Historic Preservation Commission and established their powers and duties. Section 25.03.010 identifies the Historic Landmark and Historic District Designation Criteria. Under Section 25.03.010, a cultural resource may be recommended for designation as a landmark or historic district if it is an archaeological or paleontological site that has the potential of yielding information of scientific value. If designated as a landmark, any alteration or relocation of the resource is prohibited without a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission of City Council.
4.10.3 Methodology and Assumptions
The identification of underlying geologic formations was based on field testing conducted as part of the Geotechnical Investigation for the project (Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. 2004, 2018, 2019). The field testing consisted of cone penetrometer tests, exploratory trenches, and two supplemental drilling borings within the site, as described in greater detail in Section 4.4.3. Relevant information from the California Department of Conservation and the California Geological Survey, as well as relevant maps and geologic documentation, were also reviewed.
4.10 Paleontological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.10‐4 August 2022
Additionally, relevant information and paleontological resource sensitivity data contained Paleontological Resources County of San Diego (Deméré and Walsh 1993) was reviewed.
4.10.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact to paleontological resources would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in the following:
1. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4.10.5 Impact Analysis
4.10.5.1 Paleontological Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Because paleontological resources are limited, non‐renewable resources of scientific, cultural, and/or educational value, the loss of fossils that could yield information important to prehistory, or that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of organism, environment, period of time, or geographic region, would be considered a significant environmental impact. Impacts to paleontological resources primarily entail the destruction of non‐renewable paleontological resources and the loss of information associated with such resources. If potentially fossiliferous bedrock is disturbed, the disturbance could result in the destruction of paleontological resources and subsequent loss of information.
Geological formations within the project site include a shallow layer of fill (approximately two to three feet), stream deposits in the southern portion of the site at depths from three to nine feet, and the Stadium Conglomerate Formation underlying the entire site at depths greater than three feet. There is no potential for paleontological resources to exist within the fill material. The stream deposits have a low to moderate potential for resources. The Stadium Conglomerate Formation is assigned a high paleontological resource sensitivity rating. Thus, ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the project have the potential to uncover paleontological resources. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction, such resources could potentially be damaged or destroyed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts to paleontological resources.
There are no unique geologic features known or expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to unique geologic features.
4.10.6 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to unknown paleontological resources. Implementation of mitigation measure PAL‐1 would reduce this impact to below a level of significance.
PAL‐1 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to construction, the owner/permittee shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor. The paleontological monitor shall attend pre‐construction meeting(s)
4.10 Paleontological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.10‐5 August 2022
with the construction manager and shall be present during all initial cutting, grading, or excavation of previously undisturbed substratum. If a fossil is encountered, all operations in the area where the fossil was found shall be suspended immediately, the City shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the City to evaluate the significance of the find; to salvage, record, clean, and curate significant fossil(s); and to document the find in accordance with current professional paleontological standards. Within 30 days of completion of ground‐ disturbing activities, either a letter signed by the paleontological monitor stating that no fossils were found or, if fossils were found, a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist documenting the mitigation program shall be submitted to the City.
4.10.7 Significance Determination
The significance of paleontological resources impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.10‐1, Significance Determination Summary of Paleontological Resources Impacts. No impacts related to unique geological features would occur, and no mitigation is required. Implementation of the proposed project, however, would result in potentially significant impacts related to paleontological resources. With implementation of mitigation measure PAL‐1, these impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.
Table 4.10‐1
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Paleontological Resources Potentially significant PAL‐1 Less than significant
4.10 Paleontological Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.10‐6 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-1 August 2022
4.11 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
This section of the EIR evaluates potential impacts to public facilities and services resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Public services are those functions that serve residents on a community-wide basis. These functions include fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, and other facilities such as recreation centers, community centers, and senior centers.
4.11.1 Existing Conditions
Existing public facilities that serve the project area are described below and their locations are shown on Figure 4.11-1, Existing Public Facilities.
4.11.1.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Fire protection services in La Mesa are provided by Heartland Fire and Rescue (Heartland Fire), an organization formed by a joint powers agreement (JPA) that includes the cities of La Mesa, El Cajon, and Lemon Grove. Heartland Fire and Rescue was established in 2010 to provide cooperative fire services for all three cities for a more efficient allocation of services. The JPA gives the participating cities greater flexibility in how these services are utilized by pooling resources and streamlining management procedures within each fire department, thereby enabling these departments to service a larger area.
Heartland Fire includes over 130 staff that serves a population of over 186,000 people and responds to over 22,000 calls for emergency service each year (Heartland Fire 2020). The La Mesa Operations Division is staffed with one Operations Division Chief, one Battalion Chief, 12 fire captains, 12 fire engineers, and 15 firefighters/paramedics (Heartland Fire 2020).
Heartland Fire operates eight fire stations, with three located in La Mesa. Station 11, located at 8034 Allison Avenue, serves the central and western sections of the City, and is staffed with three career personnel daily, including one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter/paramedic, one medic engine, one rescue engine, and one fire truck. Station 12, located at 8844 Dallas Street, serves the northern section of the City and employs three career personnel daily, including one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter/paramedic, and maintains one medic engine and one reserve engine on site (Dudek 2019). Station 13, located at 9110 Grossmont Boulevard, serves the eastern section of the City.
Station 11 is the closest fire station to the project site, at approximately 0.75 mile to the southeast and would primarily serve the project.
4.11.1.2 Police Services
The City’s Police Department provides police protection and general law enforcement services for the City. The Police Department’s headquarters building is located at 8085 University Avenue, approximately 0.75 mile southeast of the project site. The City maintains three patrol shifts that provide 24-hour response to calls for assistance and traffic control. The Police Department has 69 sworn officers and 31 civilian employees, as well as a large contingent of retired senior volunteers, and answers over 100,000 calls for service each year (City 2020b). The Police Department includes a Patrol Division, Investigations Unit, Special Investigations Unit, Traffic Unit, School Resource Unit, and Crime Prevention/Community Resource Unit and provides services such as patrol, investigations, traffic, school resources, support services, animal control, parking enforcement, and community resources services.
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-2 August 2022
4.11.1.3 Schools
The project area is served by the La Mesa Spring Valley School District for primary education. The La Mesa–Spring Valley School District serves approximately 12,400 students within 26 square miles and includes 22 schools comprising 17 elementary schools and 5 middles schools/academies (Education Data Partnership [Ed Data] 2020). Rolando Elementary School, located at 6925 Tower Street, and La Mesa Arts Academy, located at 4200 Parks Avenue, would serve elementary and middle school students generated from the proposed project. Rolando Elementary School had an enrollment of 550 students during the 2018-2019 school year, and the La Mesa Arts Academy had an enrollment of 1,085 students during the same school year (Ed Data 2020).
The project area is served by the Grossmont Union High School District for secondary education. The Grossmont Union High School District covers 465 square miles, including the cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, Santee, and Lemon Grove; a small portion of the City of San Diego; and the unincorporated areas of Spring Valley, Dulzura, Alpine, Jamul, and Lakeside. Grossmont Union High School District serves 21,342 students across nine traditional high schools, two charter schools, two alternative high schools, one continuation high school, and three special education programs (Ed Data 2020). The project site is within the boundaries for Grossmont High School, located at 1100 Murray Drive. High school students generated from the proposed project would be served by Grossmont High School. Grossmont High School had an enrollment of 2,219 students during the 2018-2019 school year (Ed Data 2020).
4.11.1.4 Parks
There are 14 public parks in the City of La Mesa encompassing a total area of approximately 136 acres of parkland. The City’s General Plan categorizes parks into four different classifications: regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, and pocket parks. Regional parks typically serve several communities and have substantially more acreage than parks in individual communities. Regional parks have a variety of recreation facilities and larger scale uses such as golf courses and swimming pools.
Harry Griffen Park, located 2.8 miles northeast of the project site, is an approximately 53-acre regional park with amenities including picnic tables, a children’s play structure, an off-leash dog park, hiking trails, and a large amphitheater that is utilized for special events.
Community parks serve a larger population within either a single community area or multiple communities, and uses typically include amenities such as field sports, picnic areas, play areas, and community centers. MacArthur Park is an approximately 22-acre community park located 1.2 miles east of the project site. The park includes a municipal pool, a historic building used for special events, a community center, and a recreation center.
Neighborhood parks serve a smaller population within an area, but still include passive and active recreational facilities. Neighborhood parks may include tot lots, picnic facilities, and a multi-use court.
Most of the City’s parks are classified as neighborhood parks. The closest neighborhood park to the project site is Aztec Park, located approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the project site. This park consists of large, mature shade trees with large expanses of rolling turf. In addition, the park has picnic areas and a children’s playground.
Pocket parks are less than one acre in size and are primarily made up of hardscape-type plazas and walkways that support a variety of recreational opportunities. Examples of pocket parks in the City include the historic La Mesa Depot Museum, which is a historical museum about the time when
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-3 August 2022
Southern Pacific Railway trains traveled through the City, and the “Walkway of the Stars,” which is a pedestrian walkway that includes decorative art murals and seating areas.
4.11.1.5 Other Public Facilities
The project site and surrounding areas are served by the La Mesa Library for public library services. The La Mesa Library is a branch of the San Diego County Library system; however, the building is owned by the City and shares space with the La Mesa post office at the Civic Center complex at 8074 University Avenue. The library building is 17,725 SF with approximately 10,525 SF devoted to library space (City 2012a). The La Mesa Library circulates over 60,000 titles each month, making it one of the top circulating branches in the San Diego County Library system.
A community center and recreation complex are located within MacArthur Park at 4975 Memorial Drive that includes banquet facilities, a municipal pool, and a baseball field. The recreation center holds classes and activities primarily for youth, teens, and younger adults. The municipal pool provides aquatic activities and classes for all ages. The Kuhlken Baseball Field is used by youth sports organizations.
The La Mesa Adult Enrichment Center is located within Porter Park and offers a variety of classes, activities, and programs for adults to promote active, healthy aging. Activities include a broad range of individual and group services and activities for active mature adults, as well as access to many other community resources and agencies serving senior citizens. This includes educational, recreational, social and cultural events, daily lunch program, day and extended day trips, legal services, information and referral, health screenings, exercise, and dance.
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
4.11.2.1 State
California Mutual Aid Plan
The California Mutual Aid Plan establishes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for requesting and providing inter- and intra-agency assistance in emergencies. The plan directs local agencies to develop automatic or mutual aid agreements, or to enter into agreements for assistance by hire (e.g., Schedule A contracts) where local needs are not met by the framework established by the Mutual Aid Plan.
Senate Bill 50
SB 50, or the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, restricts the ability of local agencies to deny project approvals on the basis that public school facilities (classrooms, auditoriums, etc.) are inadequate. School impact fees are collected at the time when building permits are issued. Payment of school fees is required by SB 50 for all new residential development projects and is considered “full and complete mitigation” of any school impacts. School impact fees are payments to offset capital cost impacts associated with new developments, which result primarily from costs of additional facilities, related furnishings and equipment, and projected capital maintenance requirements. As such, agencies cannot require additional mitigation for any school impacts (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998).
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-4 August 2022
Quimby Act and Assembly Bill 1359
Cities and counties have been authorized since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The dedicated land or fees may only be used for the development or rehabilitation of neighborhood or community parks or recreational facilities in the subdivision they were provided for, according to AB 1359 (Chapter 412, Statutes of 2013), unless certain requirements are met, and an exception is made. The goal of the Quimby Act is to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements. The Act gives authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties. Special districts must work with cities and/or counties to receive parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fees. The fees must be paid, and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that provide park and recreation services communitywide.
4.11.2.2 Local
City of La Mesa General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains a Public Services and Facilities Element to address publicly managed and provided facilities and services. This element provides policies for financing, prioritization, developer, and City funding responsibilities for public facilities in the City. The Public Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan contains the following goals, objectives, and policies related to public services as they pertain to development:
Goal PSF-4: A safe community.
• Objective PSF-4.1: The City will maintain a Police Department that is adequately staffed and funded to ensure a safe community.
• Policy PSF-4.1.1: The City will monitor and prepare assessments of Police services to identify the level of Police staffing necessary to achieve the goal of a safe community, within budgetary constraints.
Goal PSF-5: A community where fire risk is minimal.
• Objective PSF-5.1: The City will provide fire suppression services and prevention information and services.
• Policy PSF-5.1.1: The Department will continue to provide first response medical emergency services.
Additionally, the Recreation and Open Space Element contains goals, objectives, and policies for the maintenance and enhancement of recreation and open space amenities, including parks. Relevant polices applicable to the project include the following:
Goal RO-1: A network of public parks throughout the City that will be convenient and beneficial to all segments of the community.
• Objective RO-1.1: Give priority to maintaining and improving the City’s public park lands.
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-5 August 2022
• Policy RO-1.1.1: Use standards established within the Parks Master Plan for improvements to existing and proposed park facilities.
• Policy RO-1.1.4: Continue to collect park in-lieu fees from developers to fund needed park improvements.
• Objective RO-1.2: Improve accessibility to parks.
• Policy RO-1.2.1: Situate park and recreation facilities and improve access to these facilities so that no resident is more than a 15-minute walk from an opportunity to engage in a recreational activity.
4.11.3 Methodology and Assumptions
Potential impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project were evaluated based on relevant information from the General Plan (City 2012a), Parks Master Plan (City 2012b), La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Grossmont Union High School District, Heartland Fire and Rescue, and La Mesa Police Department. Additionally, population estimates and other relevant demographic data, as well as aerial photography coverage, were reviewed and used in the analysis.
4.11.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a significant impact related to public facilities and services would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:
1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• fire protection?
• police protection?
• schools?
• parks?
• other public facilities?
2. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
3. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-6 August 2022
4.11.5 Impact Analysis
4.11.5.1 Public Facilities
Threshold 1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• fire protection?
• police protection?
• schools?
• parks?
• other public facilities?
Fire Protection
The project proposes the addition of up to 950 multi-family residential units and up to 15,000 SF of resident-serving commercial space, which would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services in the service area and could potentially adversely impact current response times. Based on a persons per household of 2.37 for La Mesa, as identified by SANDAG demographic data (SANDAG 2019c), the project could result in an additional 2,252 people in the project area, although some project residents may be relocating from other areas within the City, potentially resulting a smaller actual population increase from the project. However, the project site is already served by Heartland Fire.
Heartland Fire has facilities and staffing in the project area to adequately serve the project. Although the project would potentially result in increases in calls for fire protection and/or emergency service, no new facilities or improvements to existing facilities would be required as a result of the project. The proposed project is located in a highly developed urban area of La Mesa, which is not considered at high risk for wildland fires and is not adjacent to any undeveloped open land areas that are susceptible to wildland fires. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Fire Code (La Mesa Municipal Code Title 11), including all applicable requirements for fuel management, brush clearance, and sprinklers for the proposed buildings to minimize on-site fire hazards. Heartland Fire provided input in the design of the proposed project to ensure that it meets state and local fire safety standards.
Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities. Impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
Police Protection
The project proposes the addition of up to 950 multi-family residential units and up to 15,000 SF of resident-serving commercial space with up to approximately 2,252 residents, which would increase the demand for police protection services in the service area and could potentially adversely impact current response times. The project site is currently provided with police protection services by the La Mesa Police Department. The La Mesa Police Department has indicated that it has the capacity and capability to provide service to the project. The 40,000-SF Police Department Headquarters building, located at 8085 University Avenue, was constructed in 2010 and meets present space needs and includes currently underused capacity committed to house the expanded police service functions required to meet the needs of future development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-7 August 2022
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities. Impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant.
Schools
The project proposes the addition of up to 950 multi-family residential units with up to approximately 2,252 residents, which would generate new students in the area that would need to be accommodated at nearby schools that serve the project site, including Rolando Elementary, La Mesa Arts Academy, and Grossmont High School. Capacity information for these three schools are presented in Table 4.11-1, School Capacity and Enrollment Data.
Table 4.11-1
SCHOOL CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT DATA
School Design Capacity1 2018-2019 Enrollment2 Resulting Excess/ (Deficit) Capacity
Rolando Elementary 575 550 25
La Mesa Arts Academy 1,156 1,085 71
Grossmont High School 2,586 2,219 367 1 Reported school design capacities in the La Mesa General Plan Final Program EIR (City 2013a). 2 Enrollment numbers from Educational Data Partnership (Ed Data 2020).
As shown, the three schools designated to serve the project are not operating at full capacity. While these schools may or may not have sufficient capacity in the near term to serve new students generated by the project, planning for future school facilities is the responsibility of the school districts.
Government Code Section 65995 and Education Code Section 53080 authorize school districts to impose facility mitigation fees on new development to address any increased enrollment that may result. SB 50, enacted on August 27, 1998, substantially revised developer fee and mitigation procedures for school facilities as set forth in Government Code Section 65996. The legislation holds that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is payment of a school impact fee prior to issuance of a building permit. Once paid, the school impact fees would serve as mitigation for any project-related impacts to school facilities. As such, the City is legally prohibited from imposing any additional mitigation related to school facilities, as payment of the school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation.
Both La Mesa–Spring Valley School District and Grossmont Union High School District collect developer fees for residential and commercial projects, and the project would be required to pay applicable school facilities fees prior to issuance of building permits. Payment of school fees would provide full and complete mitigation for impacts to school facilities in accordance with state law pursuant to Government Code Section 65996 and SB 50. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities.
Impacts related to schools would be less than significant.
Parks
The project proposes the addition of up to 950 multi-family residential units and up to 15,000 SF of resident-serving commercial space with up to approximately 2,252 residents, which would increase the demand for use of existing public parks in the project area. The Parks Master Plan (City 2012b) establishes population-based park standards for neighborhood and community parks, including one
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-8 August 2022
neighborhood park per 5,000 residents and 1 community park per 20,000 residents. Based on the current population of La Mesa at 61,261 residents (SANDAG 2019c), 12.25 neighborhood parks and
3.06 community parks are needed to achieve the population-based park standards. The City currently provides 12 neighborhood parks and 1 community park and thus, a shortage of parkland currently exists.
Additionally, Policy RO-1.2.1 in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan states that no resident should be more than a 15-minute walk from an opportunity to engage in a recreational activity such as a park. As noted above in Section 4.1.1.4, the closest neighborhood park to the project site is Aztec Park, which is approximately 0.6 mile (as the crow flies) to the northeast; however, Aztec Park is located across I-8 and is not accessible on foot within the 15-minute accessibility goal. The closest park south of I-8 is MacArthur Park at a distance of approximately one mile to the southeast. Using the fastest pedestrian route on public streets (Alvarado Road to Guava Road to El Cajon to Baltimore Drive to University Avenue to Memorial Drive), Google Maps approximates that it would take approximately 35 minutes to walk to this park, which exceeds the 15-minute goal.
In order to generate funds for park improvements or to acquire land for parks, the City adopted two park development impact fees as part of the City’s Municipal Code, including the Residential Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee (Municipal Code Section 9.20.040) and the Residential Park Improvement Impact Fee (Municipal Code Section 9.20.050). These impact fees are designed for single and multi-family residential developments to mitigate the impact of new development on the City’s existing facilities and infrastructure. Residential development projects are obligated to dedicate three acres of undeveloped parkland per one thousand people. The fees developed were based on population and growth projections, facility standards, amount/cost of facilities required to accommodate growth, and total cost of facilities per unit of development. By collecting these fees, the goals and priorities of the City's recreational space and facilities standards established in the Parks Master Plan and General Plan can be met. The project is subject to these fees. With payment of a parkland improvement fee to comply with the City’s standards for parks, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered population-based parks. Impacts related to parks would be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities
The project proposes the addition of up to 950 multi-family residential units, which could increase the demand for public facilities such as libraries, community centers, and senior centers. As stated above in Section 4.11.1.5, the project site and surrounding areas are served by the La Mesa Library for public library services, which includes 10,525 SF of library space at the Civic Center complex. A minimum space service goal for the San Diego County Library system is 0.50 SF per capita (County of San Diego 2011).
The La Mesa Library provides approximately 0.17 SF per capita based on the 2018 City population of 61,261 (SANDAG 2019c). Using the San Diego County Library system size metric, the La Mesa Library would need to be 30,631 SF to meet the current need, which is 20,106 SF more than the existing space.
Therefore, the La Mesa Library is already below the San Diego County Library system space service goal.
Based on a persons per household of 2.37 for La Mesa, as identified by SANDAG demographic data (SANDAG 2019c), the project could result in an additional 2,252 people in the project area, although some project residents may be relocating from other areas within the City, potentially resulting a smaller actual population increase from the project. Nonetheless, the project’s introduction of 2,252 residents to the area would not cause a substantial change or increased demand for additional library services. With the additional 2,252 residents, the library space service goal would decrease by a negligible amount of 0.006 (from 0.172 to 0.166 SF per capita). Similarly, the additional project residents
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-9 August 2022
would not substantially increase the demand for other public facilities within the City (such as the community center, recreation center, municipal pool, baseball field, and Adult Enrichment Center) such that new or expanded facilities would be required as a result of the project. Implementation of the project therefore would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library or other public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.11.5.2 Deterioration of Existing Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities Threshold 2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed above in Section 4.11.5.1, the project would increase the demand for use of existing public parks and recreational facilities in the project area due to the addition of up to 950 new residential units and 2,252 residents, which could potentially result in physical deterioration of such facilities. However, the project would be required to pay a parkland improvement fee pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.20.040 and 9.20.050. These impact fees are designed for single and multi-family residential developments to mitigate the impact of new development on the City’s existing facilities and infrastructure. With payment of a parkland improvement fee, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.11.5.3 Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities Threshold 3: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project would include on-site recreational amenities for project residents. The proposed buildings would include interior project amenity facilities and active outdoor spaces on the podium deck levels.
Building amenities are anticipated to include clubhouses, pools, and gymnasiums, as well as patios and balconies. Outdoor recreation areas would include a pedestrian promenade, courtyards, public gathering spaces, seating areas, and observation areas (e.g., seating and/or interpretive signage at Alvarado Creek overlook areas). A pedestrian promenade would be located along the interior of the project site and much of it would be adjacent to the enhanced Alvarado Creek. The environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed on-site recreational amenities are evaluated in this EIR and where potential adverse physical effects could occur, mitigation is identified that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
As discussed in Section 4.11.5.1, the project would contribute to the existing citywide need for additional park and recreational facilities. The project would require payment of a parkland improvement fee pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.20.040 and 9.20.050 to offset the impact of new development on the City's existing facilities and infrastructure. Payment of a parkland improvement fee would not result in physical effects on the environment. Accordingly, impacts associated with construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.
4.11 Public Facilities and Services
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.11-10 August 2022
4.11.6 Mitigation Measures
4.11.6.1 Public Facilities
No significant impacts related to public facilities, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, or other public facilities would result from the implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.11.6.2 Deterioration of Existing Neighborhood Parks and Recreational Facilities No significant impacts related to deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.11.6.3 Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities No significant impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would result from the implementation of the proposed project with implementation of mitigation measures identified throughout this EIR. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.
4.11.7 Significance Determination
The significance of public facilities and services impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.11-2, Significance Determination Summary of Public Facilities and Services Impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to public facilities and services. Impacts related to public facilities and deterioration of existing neighborhood parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. Impacts associated with construction or expansion of recreational facilities would also be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified throughout this EIR such that no additional mitigation is required.
Table 4.11-2
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Public Facilities
Fire Protection Less than significant None required Less than significant Police Protection Less than significant None required Less than significant Schools Less than significant None required Less than significant Parks Less than significant None required Less than significant Other Public Facilities Less than significant None required Less than significant Deterioration of Existing
Neighborhood Parks and
Recreational Facilities
Less than significant None required Less than significant Construction or Expansion of
Recreational Facilities
Less than significant No additional measures
required
Less than significant
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( Aztec Park
MacArthur Park
La Mesa Library
Fire Station 11
Harry Griffen Park
La Mesa Depot Museum
La Mesa Arts Academy
La Mesa Community Center
Rolando Elementary School
La Mesa Adult Enrichment Center
Police Department Headquarters
Grossmont High School
Aä
?Ë
Aä
?Ë
!"_$
University Ave
Fletcher Pky
Lake Murray Blvd
El Cajon Blvd
Spring St
Figure 4.11-1
Existing Public Facilities
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.11-1_PublicFacilities.mxd LAM-08 5/12/2020 - RK Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2017) K
Alvarado Specific Plan
0 3,000 Feet
Project Site
Public Facilities
!( Park
!( School
!( Other
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-1 August 2022
4.12 PUBLIC UTILITIES
This section of the EIR evaluations potential impacts associated with public utilities resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The following discussion is based, in part, on the Preliminary Drainage Study and Floodplain Analysis (Fuscoe 2020a), Sewer Study (Fuscoe 2020b), and Water Supply Assessment (Fuscoe 2020c) prepared for the project, which are included as Appendices I, L, and M of this EIR, respectively.
4.12.1 Existing Conditions
4.12.1.1 Water Supply
Helix Water District
The Helix Water District (HWD) provides water services to 276,000 customers through a water system that serves over 50 square miles in the cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove, and El Cajon; and the unincorporated communities of Spring Valley and Lakeside within the County of San Diego. HWD imports approximately 83 percent of its water from other areas such as northern California and the Colorado River (HWD 2016). To do this, HWD purchases imported water from the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority). The Water Authority was formed for the purpose of purchasing Colorado River water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for conveyance to San Diego County.
HWD’s water system consists of a large network of infrastructure connecting residents and businesses to the water supply and includes 56,255 service meters, 735 miles of water transmission and distribution pipeline, 25 reservoir tanks, 25 water pump stations, and one water treatment plant, the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant with a total capacity of 106 million gallons per day (HWD 2020).
HWD’s primary water collection and storage facilities are at Lake Cuyamaca, Lake Jennings and El Capitan Reservoir. Grossmont Reservoir, located under Harry Griffin Park, has a storage capacity of
31.4 million gallons (MG). Twenty-two other aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are located throughout the HWD service area with eleven of these located in La Mesa. The ASTs provide an additional 38.5 MG for a total storage capacity of approximately 70 MG of water (HWD 2015).
HWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was developed to serve as the overarching water resources planning document to address HWD’s water system, water demand, water supply resources, conservation efforts, and historic and projected water use. The 2015 UWMP was prepared in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, requiring urban water suppliers to adopt and submit a plan every five years to the California Department of Water Resources.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
The MWD was formed in 1928 to develop, store, and distribute supplemental water in Southern California for domestic and municipal purposes. The MWD is a wholesale supplier of water to its member agencies, which includes the Water Authority. It obtains supplies from local sources as well as the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueducts, which it owns and operates. It also obtains water supplies via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via the State Water Project. Planning documents such as the Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) and Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP)
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-2 August 2022
help to ensure the reliability of water supplies and the infrastructure necessary to provide water to Southern California.
MWD’s IWRP was updated in 2015 to accommodate recent changes in retail demands, water use efficiency, and local and imported supplies, and to update resource targets. The IWRP sets reliability targets to identify developments in imported and local water supply and in water conservation to reduce water shortages and mandatory restrictions. These regional targets are set for conservation, local supplies, State Water Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. MWD’s 2015 RUWMP, adopted in June 2016, documents the availability of these existing supplies and additional supplies required to meet future demands. It includes the resource targets in the IWRP and contains an assessment of water supply reliability. The Long-Term Conservation Plan was implemented in July 2011 with the goal to achieve the conservation target in MWD’s 2010 IWRP as well as to pursue water efficiency innovations and to transform the public’s perception of the value of the regional water supply.
San Diego County Water Authority
The Water Authority is an independent public agency that serves as the County’s regional water wholesaler. As a retail member agency of the Water Authority, HWD purchases water from the Water Authority for retail distribution within its service area.
The Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP was adopted by the Water Authority Board in June 2016 in accordance with state law and the RUWMP. The 2015 Plan contains a water supply reliability assessment that identifies a diverse mix of imported and local supplies necessary to meet demands over the next 25 years in average, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year periods. The UWMP documents that although no shortages are anticipated during a normal year through 2040, shortages may occur during a single-dry year starting in 2035, and during a multiple-dry water year event starting in 2028. The Water Authority also prepares an annual water supply report providing updated documentation on existing and projected water supplies.
4.12.1.2 Water Distribution System
HWD provides water service to the project area via HWD’s R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and/or the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct Pipeline. Water is distributed from these facilities to the project area in a system of large water pipelines that connect to numerous distribution main lines within the City. An existing 10-inch-diameter water main is located within Alvarado Road that currently provides potable water service to the project site.
4.12.1.3 Wastewater Collection System
The City provides sanitary sewer service for all areas within the City limits and owns, operates, and maintains approximately 165 miles of sewer main and several interagency connection facilities located in the County of San Diego. The City’s collection system is divided into four major sewer drainage basins, including the Alvarado, University, Spring Valley, and Lemon Grove Sewer Basins. The City is a member of the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority, which is a coalition of agencies that utilize the Point Loma WTP operated by the City of San Diego. As such, the City’s wastewater ultimately flows into the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater System for treatment and disposal (City 2019).
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-3 August 2022
The project site is in the Alvarado Basin, located in the northwestern portion of the City, and wastewater from the project area flows to the Alvarado Trunk Sewer main pipeline The Alvarado Trunk sewer main extends within Alvarado Road and is composed of a 21-inch-diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP). A 15-inch diameter sewer lateral extends southward from the sewer main in Alvarado Road in the eastern portion of the site and then turns to the west across the site where it connects to an eight-inch-diameter sewer pipe within Alvarado Creek. Another eight-inch-diameter sewer pipe extends southward from the on-site lateral and off the site beneath the MTS Green Line trolley corridor to Colony Drive. Two other sewer lines extend off-site to the south from the pipe within Alvarado Creek.
4.12.1.4 Storm Water Drainage System
The City’s storm water drainage system includes approximately 53 miles of concrete and corrugated metal storm drain pipeline (City 2012a). Storm water runoff in the northern half of the City drains to the San Diego River watershed and to the San Diego Bay watershed in the southern half of the City. The project site is located within the San Diego River watershed.
The project is developed and has extensive impervious surfaces. Nearly all rainfall can be expected to become runoff because of limited opportunities for infiltration. Typical runoff response from highly impervious areas is flashy with high peak flow rates for short durations. Storm water runoff from the project site is conveyed to Alvarado Creek via surface flow and storm drain inlets.
4.12.1.5 Electric Power
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is the owner and operator of electricity transmission, distribution, and natural gas distribution infrastructure in San Diego County, and currently provides electric and gas services to the project site. The SDG&E service area covers 4,100 square miles within southern California. Energy is provided by SDG&E to 3.6 million customers through 1.4 million electric meters and 873,000 natural gas meters (SDG&E 2020).
SDG&E supplies customers with electricity generated both locally and outside of the utility’s service territory, with local facilities currently capable of generating a total of approximately 3,100 megawatts (MW) of power. SDG&E owns and contracts with generation facilities both within and outside its service territory, and power is also produced in local facilities that are non-utility owned. Local generation is important for local power supply needs due to the voltage support it provides that keeps the electric system running smoothly.
Table 4.12-1, SDG&E 2018 Power Mix, lists SDG&E’s energy sources and the most recent available data of the power mix of those energy sources. As shown, SDG&E used biomass, solar, and wind sources, and obtained 44 percent of its energy from renewable resources in 2018 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2019). As directed by the California Renewables Portfolio Standard in SB 1078, SDG&E and other statewide energy utility providers are targeted to achieve a 33 percent renewable energy mix by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030.
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-4 August 2022
Table 4.12-1
SDG&E 2018 POWER MIX
Energy Source Power Mix
(%)
Renewables 43
Biomass 2
Solar 20
Wind 21
Natural Gas 29
Unspecified 27
Source: CEC 2019
Currently, there are no local mandated standards or ordinances requiring reliance on alternative energy by new developments. Title 24 of the California Public Resources Code contains energy efficiency requirements for residential and commercial uses that the project would be required to adhere to.
Existing 12-kilovolt overhead electrical lines extend across most of the site. These lines currently cross over I-8, the central portion of the site, and up to Keeney Street in a generally north-south alignment.
4.12.1.6 Natural Gas
Natural gas is imported into the San Diego region by pipeline after being produced at any of several major supply basins located from Texas to Alberta, Canada. Although the San Diego region has access to all of these basins by interstate pipeline, the final delivery into the SDG&E system is dependent on just one Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) pipeline that enters San Diego County from Orange County located along I-5.
Natural gas consumption by sector varies somewhat each year. In general, power plants account for the highest percentage of natural gas consumption in the San Diego region. Residential consumption of natural gas for heating and cooking is the second highest percentage, followed by cogeneration, commercial and industrial consumption, and natural gas fueled vehicles.
A 16-inch-diameter gas line traverses the southern portion of the project site in generally an east-west alignment and extends off the site.
4.12.1.7 Communications
Communications systems for telephones, computers, and cable television are serviced by utility providers such as Cox, AT&T, Spectrum, and other independent cable companies. Facilities are located above and below ground within private easements. In recent years, the City has initiated programs to promote economic development through the development of high-tech infrastructure and integrated information systems. The City also works with service providers to underground overhead wires, cables, conductors, and other overhead structures associated with communication systems in residential areas in accordance with proposed development projects.
Existing overhead communications lines extend across most of the site. These lines currently cross over I-8, the central portion of the site, and up to Keeney Street in a generally north-south alignment.
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-5 August 2022
4.12.1.8 Solid Waste Management
Solid waste disposal is provided by EDCO Waste and Recycling, a private franchise hauler which handles all residential, commercial, and industrial collections within the City. Waste is collected and hauled to the Otay Landfill, located at 1700 Maxwell Road in Chula Vista. Otay Landfill is a privately owned facility operating under a permit from the state with local enforcement by the County DEH. According to the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Otay Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 21,194,008 cy of solid waste as of May 2016. Based on the remaining capacity and disposal rates, the Otay Landfill is expected to close in February 2030 (CalRecycle 2020a).
Another landfill, Sycamore Landfill, provides disposal capacity within the region. The Sycamore Landfill is located at 8514 Mast Boulevard in the city of San Diego. The SWIS database indicates that the Sycamore Landfill has a remaining capacity of 113,972,637 cy as of December 2016 and is expected to close in December 2042 (CalRecycle 2020b).
The City has implemented an aggressive effort to curb the amount of waste headed to landfills. Working with EDCO, recycling of most categories of waste is available for all residences and commercial establishments located in the City.
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
4.12.2.1 Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), passed by Congress in 1974, authorizes the federal government to set national standards for drinking water. These National Primary Drinking Water Regulations protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants. Enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water also resulted from the SDWA. All water providers in the United States, excluding private wells serving fewer than 25 people, must treat water to remove contaminants.
The 1986 amendments to the SDWA and the 1987 amendments to the CWA established the USEPA as the primary authority for water programs throughout the country. The USEPA is the federal agency responsible for providing clean and safe surface water, groundwater, and drinking water, and protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems.
4.12.2.2 State
Senate Bill 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 went into effect in January 2002 with the intention of linking water supply availability to land use planning by cities and counties. SB 610 requires water suppliers to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) report for inclusion by land use agencies during the CEQA process for new developments subject to SB 221. SB 221 requires water suppliers to prepare written verification that sufficient water supplies are planned to be available prior to approval of a large-scale subdivision of land under the State Subdivision Map Act. Large-scale projects include the following:
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-6 August 2022
• Residential developments of more than 500 units;
• Shopping centers or businesses employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 500,000 SF of floor space;
• Commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 250,000 SF of floor space;
• Hotels or motels having more than 500 rooms;
• Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plants or industrial parks planned to house more than 1,000 people or having more than 650,000 SF of floor space; • Mixed-use projects that include one or more of the above types of projects; and • Projects that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-du project.
Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) of 1989 (California AB 939), which is administered by CalRecycle, requires counties to develop an Integrated WMP (IWMP) that describes local waste diversion and disposal conditions, and lays out realistic programs to achieve the waste diversion goals. IWMPs compile Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) that are required to be prepared by each local government, including cities. SRREs analyze the local waste stream to determine where to focus diversion efforts and provide a framework to meet waste reduction mandates. The goal of the solid waste management efforts is not to increase recycling, but to decrease the amount of waste entering landfills. AB 939 required all cities and counties to divert a minimum 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal. In 2011, the State legislature enacted AB 341 (PRC Section 42649.2), increasing the diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 also requires the provision of recycling service to commercial and residential facilities that generate four cy or more of solid waste per week.
4.12.2.3 Local
Urban Water Management Plans
Urban water purveyors are required to prepare and update an UWMP every five years. UWMPs address water supply, treatment, reclamation, and water conservation, and contain a water shortage contingency plan. UWMPs prepared by local water districts supplement the regional plans prepared by the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District. Urban retail water suppliers must develop a water-use target and report on progress toward achieving the target.
MWD’s 2015 UWMP describes and evaluates sources of water supply, efficient uses of water, demand management measures, implementation strategies and schedules, and other relevant information and programs. Information from MWD’s UWMP is used by local water suppliers in the preparation of their own plans. The information included in MWD’s UWMP represents the district’s most current planning projections of demand and supply capability developed through a collaborative process with the member agencies.
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-7 August 2022
The Water Authority developed its 2015 UWMP in coordination with its 24 member agencies. The main components of the UWMP include baseline demand forecasts under normal weather, dry weather and climate change scenarios; conservation savings estimates and net water demand projections; a water supply assessment; supply reliability analysis; and scenario planning.
HWD developed a 2015 UWMP, which was adopted by the HWD’s Board of Directors in 2016 (HWD 2016). The 2015 UWMP provides an overview of the water system; quantifies existing and projected water uses and water use targets; addresses water supply sources, reliability, and shortages; and outlines conservation strategies.
San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan
Pursuant to the state’s Integrated Waste Management Act, the County prepared a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan that was approved on June 25, 1997. The County consistently provides Five-Year Review Reports to document adherence to the plan and any additional updates. A total of four Five-Year Review Reports have been released since the approval of the original report, with the most recent one released in August 2017 (County Department of Public Works 2017). The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan includes goals, policies, and objectives for coordinating regional efforts to divert, market, and dispose of solid waste. County policies and programs are included in local jurisdiction’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element. Regional cooperation encourages a coordinated and planned approach to integrated waste management.
City of La Mesa Municipal Code
Title 7, Health and Sanitation, of the La Mesa Municipal Code includes regulations related to waste management and storm water control. Title 14, Building Regulations, covers topics related to construction, energy efficiencies, and waster-conserving landscaping. Title 17, Sewers, covers sewage collection and disposal. Title 21, Public Utilities, and Title 26, Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, cover public utilities and cable communication services, respectively.
4.12.3 Methodology and Assumptions
Potential impacts to public utilities resulting from implementation of the proposed project were evaluated based on relevant regulations and development guidelines, existing conditions, data on existing facilities and projected capacity needs found in online documentation and the CalRecycle SWIS Database, the WSA prepared for the project (Fuscoe 2020c; Appendix M), the sewer study prepared for the project (Fuscoe 2020b; Appendix L), and the drainage study prepared for the project (Fuscoe 2020a; Appendix I).
4.12.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a significant impact related to public utilities would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:
1. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-8 August 2022
2. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
3. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
4. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
5. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
4.12.5 Impact Analysis
4.12.5.1 Utilities
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water
The project would connect to an existing 10-inch-diameter water main within Alvarado Road for potable water service. HWD provided a letter to the City confirming that it has the capacity and capability to provide water service to the project site (HWD 2018). Based on the availability and suitability of existing water infrastructure to serve the project, the project would not result in the need for new or expanded water facilities. Impacts to water distribution facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Sewer system improvements are proposed as part of the project, 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 within Alvarado Creek, removal of portions of existing on-site sewer lines, and construction of new on-site sewer lines. The proposed sewer utility improvements are included as part of the project and potential impacts related to these sewer utility improvements are addressed by the environmental analysis of this EIR. The improvements would not result in environmental effects aside from those outlined in this EIR.
Sewer Capacity
The project site is located in the Alvarado Wastewater Drainage Basin, and wastewater from the project area is conveyed to the Alvarado Trunk Sewer located within Alvarado Road, which consists of a 21-inch diameter VCP. The proposed project would include two new connections, or points of confluence (POC), to the Alvarado Trunk Sewer to serve the project—one at the western end of the site, just west of the proposed western access drive (POC A) and one at the eastern end of the site, just east of the proposed eastern access drive (POC B). Segments of the Alvarado Trunk Sewer along the project frontage of
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-9 August 2022
Alvarado Road generally between POC A and POC B were analyzed to determine potential impacts to the capacity of the existing wastewater system resulting from the project. Proposed on-site sewer lines, which would be eight inches in diameter, were also analyzed to determine if they could accommodate flows generated by the project.
For the Alvarado Trunk Sewer analysis, existing wastewater peak design flow rates under both dry and wet weather conditions were obtained from the City of La Mesa Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (City 2008). Since completion of the aforementioned wastewater master plan, development has continued to occur within the Alvarado Wastewater Drainage Basin. In order to account for this subsequent development (including both constructed and planned developments), wastewater flows generated by such development were calculated and added to the existing flows. Where the subsequent developments resulted in an increase in sewer flows, this was added to the existing flows entering the site. Sewer flows that would be generated by the proposed project at buildout were then calculated and added to the existing plus subsequent developments flows entering the site. For the proposed on-site sewer analysis, only flows from subsequent development and the proposed project were considered since these lines do not currently exist.
Sewer flow rates were calculated using a generation rate of 180 gallons per day (gpd) per multi-family dwelling unit, as specified in the City of La Mesa Wastewater Master Plan (City 2008). Because proposed Building 2 is conservatively planned as student housing, residential units within this building would have more beds than a typical multi-family development. Thus, wastewater flows for proposed Building 2 were calculated using a generation rate for boarding schools from the 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code of 100 gpd per bed. Peaking factors for project flows were based on the City of San Diego Sewer Guide and used a conservative value of 3.5 population per dwelling unit. Calculations were performed using the Flowmaster software program. The results of this analysis are shown below in Table 4.12-2, Wastewater Flow Results in Existing and Proposed Conditions.
Table 4.12-2
WASTEWATER FLOW RESULTS IN EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Line No. Weather
Condition
Existing
Conditions
Peak Design
Flow (CFS)
Existing
Conditions
dn (feet)
Existing
Conditions
dn/D
Proposed
Conditions
Peak Design
Flow (CFS)
Proposed
Conditions
dn (feet)
Proposed
Conditions
dn/D
Alvarado
Trunk Sewer
Lines
PA0013.05 Dry 5.54 0.72 0.41 5.71 0.79 0.45
Wet 6.09 0.72 0.41 6.27 0.84 0.48
PA0012.05 Dry 5.54 0.71 0.41 5.71 0.78 0.45
Wet 6.09 0.71 0.41 6.27 0.82 0.47
PA0011.05 Dry 5.54 0.70 0.40 5.71 0.78 0.45
Wet 6.09 0.70 0.40 6.27 0.82 0.47
PA0010.05 Dry 5.54 0.71 0.41 5.71 0.78 0.45
Wet 6.09 0.71 0.41 6.27 0.82 0.47
PA0009.05 Dry 5.54 0.61 0.35 5.71 0.67 0.38
Wet 5.54 0.61 0.35 6.27 0.70 0.40
PA0008.05 Dry 5.54 0.75 0.43 6.36 0.71 0.41
Wet 6.09 0.79 0.45 6.92 0.93 0.53
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-10 August 2022
Table 4.12-2 (cont.)
WASTEWATER FLOW RESULTS IN EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS Line No. Weather
Condition
Existing
Conditions
Peak Design
Flow (CFS)
Existing
Conditions
dn (feet)
Existing
Conditions
dn/D
Proposed
Conditions
Peak Design
Flow (CFS)
Proposed
Conditions
dn (feet)
Proposed
Conditions
dn/D
Proposed
On-site
Sewer Lines
PA008.01 Dry -- -- -- 0.02 0.04 0.06
Wet -- -- -- 0.02 0.04 0.06
PA009.01 Dry -- -- -- 0.23 0.16 0.24
Wet -- -- -- 0.23 0.16 0.24
PA009.02 Dry -- -- -- 0.23 0.16 0.24
Wet -- -- -- 0.23 0.16 0.24
PA009.03 Dry -- -- -- 0.23 0.17 0.26
Wet -- -- -- 0.23 0.17 0.26
PA0008.17 Dry -- -- -- 0.09 0.10 0.15
Wet -- -- -- 0.09 0.10 0.15
PA0008.16 Dry -- -- -- 0.52 0.24 0.36
Wet -- -- -- 0.52 0.25 0.38
PA0008.15 Dry -- -- -- 0.52 0.24 0.36
Wet -- -- -- 0.52 0.25 0.38
PA0008.14 Dry -- -- -- 0.52 0.24 0.36
Wet -- -- -- 0.52 0.25 0.38
PA0008.13 Dry -- -- -- 0.52 0.23 0.35
Wet -- -- -- 0.52 0.23 0.35
PA0008.13b Dry -- -- -- 0.11 0.12 0.18
Wet -- -- -- 0.11 0.12 0.18
PA0008.12 Dry -- -- -- 0.62 0.30 0.45
Wet -- -- -- 0.63 0.30 0.45
PA0008.11 Dry -- -- -- 0.62 0.31 0.47
Wet -- -- -- 0.63 0.30 0.45
PA0008.10 Dry -- -- -- 0.65 0.31 0.47
Wet -- -- -- 0.66 0.31 0.47
Source: Fuscoe 2020b
CFS = cubic feet per second, dn = depth of flow, dn/D = depth of flow to pipeline diameter ratio Pursuant to the City’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (City 2008), a dn/D ratio of less than
0.75 is required for pipes greater than 15 inches in diameter, and less than 0.50 is required for pipes at 15 inches or less in diameter. The dn/D ratio is the depth of flow within a pipeline divided by the diameter of the pipeline and provides a measure of a pipeline’s operating capacity as a percentage. If a pipeline has a dn/D ratio of 0.50, it means that the pipeline at 50-percent capacity.
As shown in Table 4.12-2, under proposed conditions, the maximum dn/D ratio for Alvarado Trunk Sewer lines would be 0.53 under wet weather conditions and 0.45 under dry weather conditions, which would not exceed the maximum dn/D ratio of 0.75 for pipes greater than 15 inches. The maximum dn/D ratio for the proposed on-site sewer lines would be 0.47 under wet weather and dry weather conditions, which would not exceed the maximum dn/D ratio of 0.50 for pipes at 15 inches or less in
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-11 August 2022
diameter. Based on the estimated project flows combined with both existing flows and subsequent developments, the existing and proposed sewer systems would have capacity to serve the project.
Downstream Wet Weather Capacity
Downstream of the project site, the Alvarado Trunk Sewer connects to the City of San Diego sewer system at a metering manhole west of 70th Street. Flows at this metering manhole have exhibited large spikes during wet weather conditions, resulting in overflows and near overflows. A downstream wet weather capacity analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the proposed project could exacerbate this condition.
Under existing conditions, approximately 1,035 linear feet of existing 15-inch and eight-inch VCP and five manholes occur within Alvarado Creek at the project site. As part of the project, the existing sewer lines within Alvarado Creek would be abandoned and the flows entering from the south would be rerouted through to the project site to the Alvarado Trunk Sewer in Alvarado Road. Two manholes would be required in Alvarado Creek where the sewer lines from the south are intercepted. These manholes would be reconstructed with watertight, elevated lids to prevent the intrusion of stormwater into the manholes.
To assess the condition of the existing sewer lines in Alvarado Creek and the project site, video inspection of the existing sewer lines was performed. Evidence of infiltration into the sewer lines were found at multiple locations. Removal of the existing sewer lines and manholes from within Alvarado Creek would reduce infiltration and interception into the sewer system, which would help alleviate wet downstream weather flow spikes. Thus, the project would not substantially contribute to, or exacerbate existing downstream sewer system capacity impacts.
Conclusion
While some sewer line relocations and improvements within and adjacent to the project site are proposed (new connection points, removal/abandonment of existing lines and manholes, raising sewer manholes, and new on-site sewer lines), implementation of the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Storm Water Drainage
As discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the project site comprises two major drainage basins. Basin 1 encompasses approximately 4.5 acres and consists of the area to the east of where Alvarado Creek bisects the site, while Basin 2 is approximately 7.7 acres and consists of the area to the west of Alvarado Creek.
To analyze project impacts on the existing storm drain system, peak runoff flow rates and times of concentrations1 were calculated for the 100-year storms under the existing and proposed drainage patterns on the project site. With implementation of the proposed project, the peak discharge under the 100-year storm event would decrease in Basin 1 but would increase in Basin 2 primarily due to the slight 1 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.
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-12 August 2022
increase in impervious surfaces and the decreased time of concentration (Fuscoe 2020a). However, the project would provide on-site drainage features, including detention basins, grass-lined swales, catch basins, and storm drains that have been sized for the 100-year storm. Therefore, the proposed storm drain system for the project would have sufficient capacity to convey the 100-year storm event without causing flooding on or off the site. While new storm water drainage facilities would be constructed within the project site in conjunction with the project, the proposed facilities would connect to the existing municipal storm drain system, the capacity of which would not be adversely affected by the project. Therefore, implementation of the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities. Impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.
Electric Power and Natural Gas
Electric and natural gas utilities exist in the area and such service is currently provided to the existing uses on the project site. There are existing 12-kilovolt overhead power lines that extend across the project site. The lines currently cross over I-8, the central portion of the site, and up to Keeney Street in a general north-south alignment. The portion of the overhead power lines that cross the site would be relocated underground in the western end of the site as part of the project. Relocation of the electric power utilities would not result in environmental effects aside from those outlined in this EIR. While some electric power line relocations would occur within the project site in conjunction with the project, the relocated lines would connect to the existing electric power distribution system, the capacity of which would not be adversely affected by the project.
Similarly, the project would connect to existing gas lines within the project area and would not adversely affect the capacity of the existing gas distribution system. A 16-inch-diameter gas line traverses the southern portion of the project site in generally an east-west alignment and extends off the site. A portion of this existing line that would be under the buildings would be removed.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas distribution facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
Telecommunications Systems
There are existing communications overhead lines that extend across the project site on the same facilities and alignment as the existing overhead electric power lines discussed above. The lines currently cross over I-8, the central portion of the site, and up to Keeney Street in a general north-south alignment. The portion of the overhead telecommunications utility lines that cross the site would be relocated underground in the western end of the site. The relocation of these telecommunication utilities is included as part of the project and potential impacts related to the relocation of such utilities are addressed by the environmental analysis of this EIR. Relocation of the telecommunication utilities would not result in environmental effects aside from those outlined in this EIR. While some telecommunication line relocations would occur within the project site in conjunction with the project, the relocated lines would connect to the existing telecommunications distribution system, the capacity of which would not be adversely affected by the project. Therefore, implementation of the project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities.
Impacts would be less than significant.
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-13 August 2022
4.12.5.2 Water Supply
Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? A WSA was prepared for the proposed project (Fuscoe 2020c) in compliance with SB 610 to assess whether sufficient water supplies would be available to meet the projected water demands of the proposed project during a normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year period during a 20-year projection. The WSA identifies existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements.
The MWD and the Water Authority have developed water supply plans to improve reliability and reduce dependence upon existing imported supplies. MWD’s RUWMP and IWRP, and the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP and annual water supply report include water infrastructure projects that meet long-term supply needs through securing water from the State Water Project, Colorado River, local water supply development, and recycled water.
As demonstrated in the WSA, there is sufficient water planned to supply the proposed project’s estimated annual average usage. The expected potable water demand generated by the project at buildout is 179,949 gallons per day or 201.5 acre-feet per year. This represents an increase of approximately 147 acre-feet per year (AFY) as compared to existing water demands. To estimate future water demands, HWD uses land use data from the SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast, which is SANDAG’s projection of land use, population, and economic growth through the year 2050. The HWD 2015 UWMP utilized the La Mesa General Plan to estimate future demand projections associated with the project. For the Specific Plan area, the General Plan land use designation is Regional Serving Commercial. This land use designation allows for retail shopping centers, large office complexes and uses providing services to the traveling public such as restaurants, service stations, hotels, and motels. In addition, mixed-use or high-density residential developments would also be permitted. Therefore, it is anticipated that similar water demands to those of the proposed project were incorporated into HWD’s 2015 UWMP.
The 147 AFY increase in demand is also accounted for through the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP. As documented in the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, the Water Authority is planning to meet future and existing demands, which include the demand increment associated with the accelerated forecasted growth. The Water Authority will assist its member agencies in tracking the environmental documents provided by the agencies that include WSAs and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment to demonstrate supplies for the development. In addition, the next update of the demand forecast for the Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP will be based on SANDAG’s most recently updated forecast, which will include the project. Therefore, based on the findings from the HWD’s 2015 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, the proposed project would result in no unanticipated demands on water supply.
The Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP provides for a comprehensive planning analysis at a regional level and includes water use associated with accelerated forecasted development as part of its municipal and industrial sector demand projections. These housing and commercial units were identified by SANDAG in the course of its regional housing needs assessment but are not yet included in existing general land use
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-14 August 2022
plans of local jurisdictions. The demand associated with accelerated forecasted residential development is intended to account for SANDAG’s land use development currently projected to occur between 2035 and 2050 but has the likely potential to occur on an accelerated schedule. SANDAG estimates that this accelerated forecasted residential and commercial development could occur within the planning horizon (2015 to 2035) of the 2015 UWMP. This land use is not included in local jurisdictions’ general plans, so their projected demands are incorporated at a regional level. When necessary, this additional demand increment, termed accelerated forecasted growth, can be used by the Water Authority’s member agencies to meet the demands of development projects not identified in the general land use plans.
The WSA concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the water demands assumptions included in the regional water resource planning documents of HWD, Water Authority, and MWD.
Current and future water supplies, as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies, have been identified in the water resources planning documents of HWD, Water Authority, and MWD to serve the projected demands of the Specific Plan area, in addition to the existing and planned future water demands of HWD. Impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
4.12.5.3 Wastewater
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The City of La Mesa is a member of the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (MWJPA), a coalition of agencies that utilize the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP) operated by the City of San Diego. Wastewater generated within the City is collected by the City’s sewer service and then conveyed to the Point Loma WTP located at the south end of the Point Loma peninsula. The Point Loma WTP treats approximately 175 mgd of wastewater generated in a 450-square-mile area by more than
2.2 million residents. Located on a 40-acre site on the bluffs of Point Loma, the WTP has a treatment capacity of 240 mgd (City of San Diego 2020). The Point Loma WTP is owned and operated by the City of San Diego and allows 15 other municipalities, including La Mesa, to purchase allocations of wastewater treatment capacity at the plant.
The project would increase wastewater generation at the site due to the construction of additional housing units. Based on the sewer generation rates used in the sewer capacity analysis described in Section 4.12.5.1 (180 gpd per multi-family dwelling unit and 100 gpd per bed for student housing), the project would generate 181,100 gpd of wastewater. Given an existing remaining treatment capacity of 65 mgd (240 mgd total capacity less the current 175 mgd of treated effluent) at the Point Loma WTP, the project’s increase would represent less than one percent of the WTP’s remaining capacity.
Therefore, the Point Loma WTP has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.12.5.4 Solid Waste Management
Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-15 August 2022
The proposed project would generate solid waste and recycling during both the construction and operation of the project. Consistent with Title 14.27, Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion, of the City’s Municipal Code, 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, salvation or donation, thereby minimizing the amount of construction solid waste that ends up in the landfill.
During operation, the proposed project would divert at least 75 percent of operational waste from landfills through reuse and recycling in accordance with AB 341 and provide areas for storage and collection of recyclables and yard waste in accordance with 2019 Title 24 Part 11 CALGreen Standards.
Following such standards would ensure that the project would also comply with Title 7.22, Mandatory Recycling, of the City’s Municipal Code and AB 939, which mandates that 50 percent of solid waste generated be diverted from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, or composting. Once constructed, solid waste and recycling generated from the project site would be typical of that generated by similar residential uses, and could potentially include small amounts of hazardous materials, as discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. Landscaping would be designed to reduce green waste generation.
The project site would be serviced by EDCO, which maintains a current contact with the City, and all waste would be disposed of at either the Sycamore Landfill or the Otay Landfill. Based on the 2017 Five-Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan prepared for San Diego County pursuant to AB 939, the County has sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate disposal for at least the next 15 years, which meets the state requirements that the County maintains a minimum of 15 years of future disposal capacity. Therefore, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. It would also comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts related to solid waste management would be less than significant.
4.12.6 Mitigation Measures
4.12.6.1 Utilities
No significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities infrastructure would result from implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.12.6.2 Water Supply
No significant impacts related to water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development would result from the implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.12.6.3 Wastewater
No significant impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.12 Public Utilities
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.12-16 August 2022
4.12.6.4 Solid Waste Management
No significant impacts related to solid waste management would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.12.7 Significance Determination
The significance of public utilities impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.12-3, Significance Determination Summary of Public Utilities Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to public utilities. Impacts related to utilities, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste management would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table 4.12-3
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Utilities Less than significant None required Less than significant Water Supply Less than significant None required Less than significant Wastewater Less than significant None required Less than significant Solid Waste Management Less than significant None required Less than significant
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-1 August 2022
4.13 TRANSPORTATION
This section of the EIR evaluates potential impacts on the transportation system resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The analysis is based, in part, on a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project (Kimley Horn 2020), which is included as Appendix N of this EIR.
4.13.1 Existing Conditions
The existing roadways, public transit network, bicycle network, and pedestrian network surrounding the project site are discussed below and shown in Figure 4.13-1, Existing Transportation Network.
4.13.1.1 Roadway Network
The principal roadways and highways in the project area are described briefly below. 70th Street
70th Street functions as a north-south major arterial that extends between University Avenue and Lake Murray Boulevard. Near the project site (between El Cajon Boulevard and Lake Murray Boulevard), 70th Street includes four vehicular lanes south of Alvarado Road and five lanes to the north over the I-8 freeway. 70th Street provides direct access to westbound I-8 and indirect access eastbound I-8 via Alvarado Road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway south of Amherst Street. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road except for a few gaps between Saranac Street and I-8. Class II bicycle facilities are provided along both sides of the road except for the northbound side between Saranac Street and I-8.
Alvarado Road
Alvarado Road is an east-west, two-lane collector that extends between I-8 in La Mesa and College Avenue in the City of San Diego. The roadway generally parallels I-8 and functions as a frontage road to the freeway. Alvarado Road forms the northern boundary of the project site and provides access to the site. The posted speed limit for Alvarado Road is 35 mph. Within the project area (between I-8 eastbound ramp and Comanche Drive), on-street parking is provided along portions of the south side of the road, but no sidewalks or bicycle facilities are provided along the project frontage.
Fletcher Parkway
Fletcher Parkway is a six-lane major arterial that extends between I-8 in La Mesa to State Route 67 in El Cajon. Near the project site (between the I-8 westbound ramp and Baltimore Drive), Fletcher Parkway provides access to I-8 and to Alvarado Road. This segment does not have a posted speed limit and no on-street parking, sidewalks, or bicycle facilities are provided.
Guava Avenue
Guava Avenue is a two-lane collector that extends between Alvarado Road and La Mesa Boulevard in a north-south alignment. Near the project site (between Alvarado Road and El Cajon Boulevard), Guava Avenue provides access to I-8 via El Cajon Boulevard and to Alvarado Road. This segment has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. On-street parking is permitted along the northbound side of the road. Sidewalks are provided along portions of both sides of the roadway, but no bicycle facilities are provided.
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-2 August 2022
El Cajon Boulevard
El Cajon Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial that extends through the cities of La Mesa and San Diego in an east-west alignment. Near the project site (between Guava Avenue and Baltimore Drive), El Cajon Boulevard provides direct access to I-8 east of Baltimore Drive and indirect access via 70th Street. The segment has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. On-street parking, Class II bicycle facilities, and sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway.
Interstate 8
I-8 is an east-west interstate highway that extends between Ocean Beach in the west and I-10 in Arizona. Within the project area, I-8 includes four general purpose lanes in each direction with interchanges at 70th Street/Lake Murray Drive and Fletcher Parkway.
4.13.1.2 Transit Network
The project site is located within a designated Transit Priority Area (TPA) and Smart Growth Area per the City of San Diego and SANDAG. TPAs include areas within one-half mile of major transit station or a station along a high-quality transit corridor. A major transit stop is a site that contains a rail transit stations, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes, each having a frequency of service of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Smart growth areas are locations that either contain existing smart growth development or allow planned smart growth in accordance with the identified land use targets and are accompanied by existing or planned transit service.
Existing public transportation within the project area consists of trolley and bus service provided by MTS. The major routes served in the immediate project area include the MTS Green Line Trolley and Bus Route 14. Both of these operate out of the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station to the west. However, there are no existing pedestrian or bicycle connections to the Trolley Station from the project site.
The Green Line Trolley runs from Santee to Downtown San Diego, through Downtown San Diego, Old Town, Mission Valley, and El Cajon to Santee. There are 27 stops along this route one of which is at the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. This line runs on weekdays and weekends departing at 5:03 am and ends around 12:30 am with 15-minute headways. The project site is located directly north of the Green Line Trolley corridor.
Bus Route 14 runs from the Grantville Trolley Station to the Baltimore Drive and Lake Murray Boulevard bus stop. The route runs along Friars Road, College Avenue, Montezuma Road, 70th Street, and Lake Murray Boulevard, and stops at the 70th Street Trolley Station. This route runs on weekdays departing at 6:25 am with 60-minute headways. Weekend service is not provided.
4.13.1.3 Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle network within the project area includes Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes along local roadways. Class II bike lanes provide a striped lane designated for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited. Bike lanes are one-way facilities located on either side of a roadway. Additional enhancements such as painted buffers and signage may be applied. Class II facilities are currently present along the following roadways within the project area:
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-3 August 2022
• 70th Street: along the southbound side between Alvarado Road and University Avenue, and along the northbound side between Saranac Street and University Avenue. • Lake Murray Boulevard: along the southbound and northbound sides from approximately 1,000 feet north of I-8 to the City limits near Flume Road. • Fletcher Parkway: along both sides of the road from Baltimore Avenue to the City limits approximately 1,000 feet north of Dallas Street.
• Baltimore Drive: along the southbound side between El Cajon Boulevard to Fletcher Parkway and between Lake Murray Boulevard and the City limits at Blue Lake Drive, and along the northbound side between El Cajon Boulevard and the City limits at Blue Lake Drive. • El Cajon Boulevard: along both sides of the road between Baltimore Drive and 73rd Street.
Class III bike routes provide shared use of traffic lanes with cyclists and motor vehicles, identified by signage and/or street markings such as “sharrows.” Bike routes are best suited for low-speed, low-volume roadways with an outside lane of 14 feet or greater. Bike routes provide network continuity or designate preferred routes through corridors with high demand. Existing Class III facilities in the project area provided along both sides of El Cajon Boulevard between 73rd Street and 70th Street.
No bicycle facilities currently exist along Alvarado Road.
4.13.1.4 Pedestrian Facilities
Existing pedestrian facilities within the project area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks along local roadways. Along some project area roadways, sidewalks are contiguous on one or both sides, but others have gaps. No sidewalks are provided along either side of Alvarado Road between 70th Street and the project frontage. Just east of the project site, contiguous sidewalks are provided along the eastbound side of the road to Guava Avenue. Alvarado Road serves as the only access road to the project site and currently, there are no pedestrian facilities that provide access to the project site.
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
4.13.2.1 State
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, which was codified in PRC Section 21099 on September 27, 2013, required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Specifically, SB 743 required the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Particularly within areas served by transit, those alternative criteria must promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. To that end, OPR published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018, and the California Natural Resources Agency has certified and adopted, changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify VMT as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by LOS and other similar metrics, are no longer the basis for determining a significant
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-4 August 2022
environmental effect under CEQA. The City is using the OPR guidance for conducting transportation impact analyses.
4.13.2.2 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 of the Regional Plan 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 San Diego County 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 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 Regional Transportation Plan (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
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-5 August 2022
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 General Plan
The Circulation Element of the adopted La Mesa General Plan outlines circulation goals, policies, and objectives related to streets and highways, scenic highways, public transit (trolley lines, bus, and paratransit), non-motorized transportation (bicycle facilities and pedestrian circulation), and regional transportation. The Circulation Element establishes a system for the classifying streets according to their intended function and identifies standards for the required elements (e.g., number of lanes, parking lanes, sidewalks, medians, bicycle lanes) of each functional classification. The following goals, objectives, and policies from the Circulation Element are relevant to the project:
Goal CE-1: A comprehensive, flexible transportation system that is functional, safe, accessible and attractive.
• Objective CE-1.1: Enhance and maintain City streets to meet the diverse needs of the community.
• 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.
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. • Objective CE-3.1: Maximize the utility of La Mesa’s transit services. • Policy CE-3.1.5: Develop and apply Design Standards applicable to future developments that improve access to public transit.
Goal CE-4: Local and regional facilities that accommodate the unique needs of bicycle travelers. • Objective CE-4.2: Improve safety for bicyclists and motorists alike. • Policy CE-4.2.1: Design bicycle facilities in accordance with Caltrans design criteria.
Goal CE-5: Provide opportunities that encourage safe pedestrian travel. • Objective CE-5.1: Improve the pedestrian network and walkability in La Mesa. • Policy CE-5.1.3: Within a quarter mile of transit services, the needs of pedestrians will be a priority for future capital investment.
City of La Mesa Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan The Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan (City 2012c) provides a framework for the future development of the City’s bicycle network and also makes the City eligible for local, state, and
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-6 August 2022
federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The plan objectives are to address the following issues as identified through discussions with City staff and the public:
• Provide a comprehensive bikeway system that provides a network of facilities serving destinations throughout the City.
• Place importance on sidewalk continuity and pedestrian safety during transportation facility improvements.
• Provide more programs to educate residents about the health benefits of cycling and walking. • Provide enforcement and education of both motorists and cyclists to improve safety and awareness throughout the City.
• Develop a Complete Streets framework that encourages all modes of transportation and reduces traffic congestion, increases alternative transportation options and connectivity, and improves public health and safety.
The planned system builds upon existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City with enhancements to overall connectivity, support facilities, safety and education programs. Coupled with bicycle and pedestrian education, as well as enforcement and promotional programs, the anticipated result is an increase in the number of commuters choosing to ride a bicycle and walk to nearby destinations.
4.13.3 Methodology and Assumptions
The VMT analysis conducted for the project was based on the OPR Technical Advisory. The Technical Advisory provides agencies with recommendations on screening thresholds, VMT analysis methodologies, project VMT thresholds, and mitigation strategies.
Screening thresholds are used to identify projects that are anticipated to result in less than significant transportation impacts without requiring a detailed transportation study. OPR recommends agencies develop thresholds to screen out projects based on project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. If a project meets any of the following screening thresholds, it is assumed to result in less than significant impacts related to VMT and a detailed transportation study is not required.
The four screening thresholds are identified below:
• Project size: projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. • Screening maps: maps created with VMT data can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT and would likely result in similar levels of VMT with new development can be used to screen residential and office projects.
• Proximity to transit: certain projects (residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within one half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor would result in a less than significant impact on VMT.
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-7 August 2022
• Affordable Residential Development: A 100-percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact.
The OPR Technical Advisory provides suggested methodologies to analyze VMT associated with a project. For residential and office projects, tour- and trip-based1 approaches are recommended for assessing project VMT and comparing to the VMT thresholds. The OPR Technical Advisory also provides recommended numeric VMT thresholds for residential, office, and retails land projects. The methodology consists of calculating the VMT per capita and comparing it to the citywide or regionwide VMT per capita. If the ratios for the residential project exceed 85 percent of the city or regional average, a significant transportation impact would occur. This methodology was used for the proposed project’s VMT analysis (Kimley Horn 2020). VMT for the project was estimated using the Series 13 regional SANDAG model under 2035 Horizon Year conditions for TAZ 3168 where the project site is located.
Additionally, the SANDAG Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool was used to assess VMT reductions for the project.
4.13.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact associated with transportation would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:
1. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
2. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
3. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
4. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
4.13.5 Impact Analysis
4.13.5.1 Transportation Plans
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The proposed project would be consistent with applicable transportation plans, including San Diego Froward: The Regional Plan, the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and the City of La Mesa Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, as discussed below. 1 Trip-based assessment of a project’s effect on travel behavior counts VMT from individual trips to and from the project. It is the most basic, and traditionally the most common, method of counting VMT. A tour-based assessment counts the entire home-back-to-home tour that includes the project.
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-8 August 2022
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
The proposed project would be consistent with the overarching principles of the Regional Plan of increasing residential concentrations in areas served by transit and implementation of smart growth designed to strengthen the integration of land use and transportation. The project site is identified as a smart growth area on SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map (SANDAG 2016a) that includes the area surrounding the 70th Street Trolley Station. This smart growth area, identified as site LM-10, is designated a Community Center Smart Growth place type and described as “potential exists for a transit-oriented, mixed-use development located adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station” (SANDAG 2016b). Each smart growth place type is associated with certain housing and employment density targets and transit service thresholds and can qualify as either “Existing/Planned” or “Potential,” depending upon whether it meets the thresholds included by reference in the Regional Plan. The minimum land use and transit targets for a Community Center include a minimum residential target of 20 dwelling units per acre and minimum transit service characteristics of high-frequency local bus or streetcar/shuttle within an urban area transit strategy boundary. Site LM-10 is designated an Existing/Planned smart growth area, which is a location that either contains existing smart growth development or allows planned smart growth in accordance with the identified land use targets and are accompanied by existing or planned transit services included in The Regional Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with both the land use target and transit characteristics.
The project would be consistent with other Regional Plan goals and strategies of increasing transportation mode choices and reducing reliance on the single-occupancy automobile. Currently, the project is well served by public transit, but the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station is not easily accessible from the project site. Connections to the east and west of the project site are limited by lack of pedestrian infrastructure. The project would provide an accessible route for resident and public access the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station by walking or biking via a shared-use path along the south side of the Alvarado Road. The shared-use path would continue from the project site to the east along Alvarado Road and connect to the existing sidewalk on Comanche Drive for access to other neighborhoods and destinations. The proposed shared-use path would also connect to planned future bicycle facilities along Alvarado Road. Provision of these multi-modal facilities would improve access to and from a major transit station for pedestrians and bicyclists and would provide project residents alternatives to single occupancy vehicular transportation. The potential for the project to incorporate a student housing component within the mix of residential units would likely reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips to and from the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and strategies of the Regional Plan.
General Plan Circulation Element
The proposed project would be consistent with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the Circulation Element identified in Section 4.13.2.2. The project would construct a TOD that would provide direct connections to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, as well as roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements along Alvarado Road. Improvements are proposed to Alvarado Road along the project site frontage include road right of-way dedication and a public access easement to provide for a shoulder, parking lane, curb and gutter, a Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle path, pedestrian bridge over Alvarado Creek, and street-side landscaping. On-site access roads and pedestrian facilities would also be provided, including two internal access roads that would loop around the building perimeters, a pedestrian promenade along Alvarado Creek, and several other pedestrian paths connecting on-site areas.
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-9 August 2022
These improvements would be consistent with Policy CE-1.13 (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), Policy CE-3.1.5 (Develop and apply Design Standards applicable to future developments that improve access to public transit), Objective CE-4.2 (Improve safety for bicyclists and motorists alike), Goal CE-5 (Provide opportunities that encourage safe pedestrian travel), and Objective CE-5.1 (Improve the pedestrian network and walkability in La Mesa). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Circulation Element.
Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan
The project would include bicycle facilities that would not conflict with those identified in the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan (City 2012c). This plan identifies provision of Class II bike lanes along Alvarado Road between 70th Street and Guava Avenue. The project proposes a Class I facility along the south side of Alvarado Road along the project frontage that would connect to planned future bicycle facilities along Alvarado Road to the east and west. Provision of a Class I facility along the south side of Alvarado Road would provide more protection for bicyclists than Class II facilities and is a more practical facility for this site for access between the project site and the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, as westbound bicyclists would not have to cross Alvarado Road. Thus, while the project would provide a different type of bicycle facility along a portion of Alvarado Road than identified in the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, it would provide a separated bikeway that would accommodate both bicycle and pedestrians.
The project would be a TOD and would include improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, encouraging the use of alternative transportation. The La Mesa General Plan Circulation Element proposes Class II bicycle lanes along Alvarado Road. The project would provide a shared-use path along the south side of Alvarado Road that will provide more protection for bicyclists than Class II bicycle lanes. The project would also connect to the Class II bike lanes that are proposed to be installed to the east of the project site. Therefore, the project would be developed in accordance with the City’s Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan and the City’s General Plan. The project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.13.5.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts and states that generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. As discussed in Section 4.13.4, the project VMT analysis was conducted using the methodologies and thresholds contained in the OPR Technical Advisory.
VMT Screening
Per the OPR Technical Advisory screening thresholds, a project located within one half mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. A major transit stop is defined as a site containing an existing rail transit
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-10 August 2022
station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The project site is located adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station, which meets the definition of a major transit stop since it contains an existing rail station. The project therefore meets the VMT screening thresholds for land use projects due to the project site’s proximity to a major transit stop. Thus, the proposed project may be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and no detailed VMT analysis is required.
VMT Analysis
Although not required per the VMT screening threshold for proximity to transit, a VMT analysis was conducted for the project to determine whether it would exceed VMT thresholds. The VMT analysis was based on a Series 13 regional SANDAG model under 2035 Horizon Year conditions. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4.13-1, 2035 Regionwide, Citywide, and Project VMT Per Resident.
Table 4.13-1
2035 REGIONWIDE, CITYWIDE, AND PROJECT VMT PER RESIDENT Scenario Residents Total Trips VMT VMT per Capita
Regionwide 3,855,696 13,756,249 58,989,617 15.3
City of La Mesa 72,248 264,684 1,011,045 14.0
Proposed Project 2,112 7,766 28,418 13.5
Source: Kimley-Horn 2020
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
The VMT per capita resulting from the proposed project is 13.5 miles, which is 88 percent of the regional average of 15.3 miles and above the threshold of 85 percent for residential projects.
VMT Reductions
The proposed project includes various transportation demand management strategies and multi-modal improvements that would be incorporated into the project as design features that are covered in the SANDAG Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool. These VMT reduction features include construction of a TOD and provision of pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.
As stated in the SANDAG VMT Reduction Calculator Tool, “TOD refers to projects built in compact walkable areas that have easy access to public transit” and are “places within a 10-minute walk of high-frequency rail transit station (e.g., SPRINTER, COASTER, Trolley).” The project would fulfill this requirement because the project is within one half mile of a rail transit station and would provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the 70th Street Trolley Station. This design feature would reduce the project’s VMT per capita by 5.2 percent. Additionally, the project would include improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A shared-use path would be provided along the south side of Alvarado Road, providing an accessible walkway for residents to access the 70th Street Trolley Station by walking or biking. The shared-use path would continue to the east side of the project site, with a bridge structure over the creek, connecting to the City-planned bicycle facilities east of the project. Per the SANDAG VMT Reduction Calculator Tool, such improvements would reduce the project’s VMT per capita by 1.5 percent. Incorporation of the project features listed above would reduce the project’s VMT per capita to approximately 81 percent of the regionwide VMT per capita, which is below 85 percent of the
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-11 August 2022
regional average. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Transportation impacts related to VMT would be less than significant.
4.13.5.3 Transportation Design Hazards
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
There would be no hazardous design features or incompatible uses introduced as a result of the project.
The project would involve improvements to Alvarado Road along the project site frontage, including road right-of-way dedication and a public access easement to provide for a shoulder, parking lane, curb and gutter, a pedestrian bridge over Alvarado Creek, a shared pedestrian/bicycle path, and street-side landscaping. The shared-use path along the south side of the Alvarado Road project frontage would be constructed as a Class I facility, which would provide a buffered facility dedicated for bicyclists and pedestrians, where none currently exist.
On-site access roads and pedestrian facilities would also be provided, including two internal access roads that would loop around the building perimeters, a pedestrian promenade along Alvarado Creek, and several other pedestrian paths connecting on-site areas. The internal streets would provide ingress and egress for residents to the parking structures, guest parking spaces near the project entry points, access and circular routes for service vehicles, and emergency vehicle access and dedicated fire lanes.
The design of these improvements would be required to conform with applicable federal, State, and City design criteria which contain provisions to minimize transportation hazards.
Additionally, the project site access points along Alvarado Road would be designed in accordance with City standards to consider adequate sight distances for both directions. These transportation improvements are intended to improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians on the roadway.
The proposed residential and resident-serving commercial uses are not anticipated to generate the types of traffic that would be incompatible with the existing transportation network or composition of traffic. Traffic generated by the project would include standard automobiles, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, which would be consistent with the existing traffic in the area.
Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Impacts related to transportation design hazards would be less than significant.
4.13.5.4 Emergency Access
Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? 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. As a result, the project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-12 August 2022
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 and gutter, a shared pedestrian/bicycle path, pedestrian bridge over Alvarado Creek, and street-side landscaping. Additionally, the project site access points along Alvarado Road have been 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, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.13.6 Mitigation Measures
4.13.6.1 Transportation Plans
No significant impacts associated with transportation plans would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.13.6.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled
No significant impacts associated with VMT would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.13.6.3 Transportation Design Hazards
No significant impacts associated with transportation design hazards would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.13.6.4 Emergency Access
No significant impacts associated with emergency access would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.13.7 Significance Determination
The significance of impacts to transportation before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.13-2, Significance Determination Summary of Transportation Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to transportation plans, VMT guidelines, transportation design hazards, or emergency access. Therefore, impacts related to transportation would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-13 August 2022
Table 4.13-2
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Transportation Plans Less than significant None required Less than significant VMT Less than significant None required Less than significant Transportation Design Hazards Less than significant None required Less than significant Emergency Access Less than significant None required Less than significant
4.13 Transportation
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.13-14 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank
!(T !"_$
Fletcher Pky
El Cajon Blvd
70th St
Alvarado Rd
Guava Ave
Figure 4.13-1
Existing Transportation Network
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.13-1_TransportationNetwork.mxd LAM-08 5/11/2020 - RK Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2017) K
Alvarado Specific Plan
0 3,000 Feet
Project Site
!(T 70th Street Trolley Station
Green Line Trolley
Bus Route 14
Roads
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-1 August 2022
4.14 VISUAL RESOURCES
This section of the EIR describes the existing visual setting of the project site and vicinity within the context of the surrounding community, identifies applicable guidelines and regulations related to visual resources, and evaluates potential visual impacts related to implementation of the project. The following discussion includes information based on the Visual Impact Analysis for the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan (HELIX 2019), which is included as Appendix O of this EIR.
4.14.1 Existing Conditions
4.14.1.1 Landforms
The City’s jurisdiction encompasses 9.2 square miles and is located approximately 14 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The City is in a transition zone between the coast and foothills in an area of San Diego County that is dominated by a series of geological features known as marine terraces. Canyons such as those containing Alvarado Creek cut through these terraces. The terraced topography results in substantial topographical variation and provides panoramic views of much of the City from a variety of locations. Topographical features, such as Mount Nebo and foothills of Mount Helix further define the geography and landforms of the City.
The project site is relatively level with a slight topographical variation as it slopes downward from east to west to the degree of approximately 10 feet. Existing on-site elevations range from approximately 400 feet to 410 AMSL. Land to the north includes Alvarado Road and I-8 corridors, which are generally at grade with the project site. Across I-8, the terrain gradually ascends within the existing developed neighborhoods to an elevation of approximately 500 feet AMSL. To the south of the project site, the land rises approximately 10 to 30 feet to a bench where the trolley corridor occurs. Beyond this bench, steep hillsides supported by retaining walls rise an additional 10 to 50 feet to a mesa at the edge of residential neighborhoods.
4.14.1.2 Visual Setting and Site Characteristics
The project site comprises four separate parcels that encompass approximately 12 acres. All four parcels are developed and currently occupied by the San Diego RV Resort. The RV Resort contains 174 fullhookup RV spaces and serves a combination of short-term and extended stay visitors. One of notable visual features of the project site includes a stand of approximately 155 Mexican fan palm trees that are scattered throughout the project site. These trees are informally grouped, and most have reached a relatively uniform height of approximately 80 feet. Due to the number of trees and associated heights, this stand of palm trees is highly visible and fairly prominent from surrounding areas.
Apart from the alignment of Alvarado Creek, which has retained some natural vegetation along the channelized banks, the project site is developed with a combination of paved surfaces and ornamental landscaping, as pictured in Figure 4.14-1, Existing Visual Conditions – San Diego RV Resort. Numerous RVs are parked within the paved areas and are grouped together along internal roadways. A combination of wrought iron and a wooden plank fence separate the site’s boundary from Alvarado Road. Low shrubs and street landscaping provide further separation between the site and the roadway, as shown in Figure 4.14-2, Existing Visual Conditions – Alvarado Road Frontage.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-2 August 2022
On-site structures include two laundry/bathroom buildings and an office/apartment complex comprised of four buildings. All six existing buildings were constructed between 1954 and 1959. The office/ apartment complex consists of a two-story, rectangular-shaped office building; a single-story meeting building; a two-story fitness center building; and a two-story apartment building. The office and apartment buildings exhibit a contemporary architectural style with stucco exterior facades and low-pitch gable roofs with wide boxed eaves. The office building is rectilinear and has numerous large, metal-framed windows, and the second story cants out on the two long sides. The meeting room is rectangular with angled walls, a flat roof with stucco wall surfaces, metal-framed windows with wood molding, and wood-framed doors. The fitness center building has an exercise room with a curved façade and large picture windows, as well as pilasters and bay windows. A small keyhole-shaped swimming pool is present immediately east of the office building and is surrounded by a concrete patio. The two laundry/bathroom buildings are rectangular, single-story buildings with stucco façades and low front gable roofs. Both buildings have a small laundry room at one end with restrooms and storage in the remaining space. These buildings are pictured in Figure 4.14-3, Existing Visual Conditions – Existing Buildings.
Alvarado Creek is another notable visual feature of the project site. Alvarado Creek enters the site at the intersection of Alvarado Road on the east and continues through the site, bisecting the property until it enters an underground storm drainage facility in the western portion of the property. Alvarado Creek is channelized as it enters into the project site from the northeast and flows through a box culvert underneath a bridge over Alvarado Road. Alvarado Creek consists of a trapezoidal channel with concrete-lined banks and a natural channel bottom aside from the concrete aprons near the Alvarado Road overcrossing and at the western end of the site (adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station). Much of the channel supports vegetation including native and non-native species at varying vegetative cover, and water regularly flows through this section of Alvarado Creek. This reach of Alvarado Creek is shown in Figure 4.14-4, Existing Visual Conditions – Alvarado Creek.
Three freeway-oriented billboard signs are located within the project site along the Alvarado Road frontage. One is located at the eastern boundary of the site and is single-sided sign and oriented for viewers traveling along eastbound I-8. The other two signs occur in the western portion of site and are double sided and visible to both eastbound and westbound viewers. These signs are depicted in Figure 4.14-5, Existing Visual Conditions – Billboards.
Overhead utility lines also cross over portions of the site that connect to 15 utility poles located throughout the site (see Figure 4.14-1).
4.14.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include Alvarado Road and I-8 to the north, the double-track Green Line trolley line to the south, a car dealership and motel to the east, and the 70th Street Trolley Station to the west of the site. A more detailed description of the visual environment of the surrounding land uses is provided below.
North of the Project Site
The northern boundary of the project site area is defined by Alvarado Road and beyond that, I-8.
Alvarado Road is a two-lane local collector with minimal improvements; no sidewalks or bicycle facilities are provided along the site frontage. Alvarado Road also serves as a frontage road to I-8 and as such it
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-3 August 2022
parallels the freeway in this area, divided by a concrete masonry wall along the western portion of the project frontage. The wall itself has been subject to graffiti and its removal is evidenced by the various swaths and patchwork of paint that are visually inconsistent and further accentuate the deteriorated condition of this roadway right-of-way.
Further east along the project frontage, I-8 is divided by a chain link fence and the alignment of Alvarado Creek. I-8 is a major east-west freeway and in the area of the project, I-8 has four general purpose lanes in each direction. The freeway is heavily traveled and has an annual average daily traffic count of approximately 20,800 (Caltrans 2017a).
North of I-8 along Parkway Drive are residential neighborhoods composed of single-family homes and multi-story apartment complexes that front Parkway Drive.
South of the Project Site
The Green Line trolley tracks and Alvarado Creek generally form the southern project site boundary.
Immediately adjacent land uses south of the project site include the Green Line trolley tracks and portions of Alvarado Creek. Beyond that and located up on a mesa are a combination of single and multi-family residences.
Within the western portion of the project site that abuts Alvarado Creek, the southern site boundary is formed by a four-foot tall cement wall. Beyond the wall, Alvarado Creek and vegetated open space separate the trolley tracks from the site. As the tracks extend eastward along and near the southern site boundary, they begin to rise in elevation on a bench and end up approximately 30 feet above the site in the eastern portion of the project site. The trolley corridor contains rail infrastructure, including double track rail, ballast, catenary poles and wires, signals, and fencing. Additionally, retaining walls occur on portions of the north-facing slopes on both sides of the trolley corridor.
Further south of the tracks and on a mesa that rises approximately 50 feet above the project site are a mixture of single-family and multi-family residences. The character of this neighborhood is eclectic, as there are a variety of residential building types at varying ages with different architectural styles.
Adjacent to the western end of the site are two large, two-story apartment complexes along Saranac Street (Fleetwood Apartment Homes and La Cuesta Apartments). Single-family homes along Keeney Street that include a mix of older and newer homes occur east of the apartment complexes. The Colony Mobile Plaza mobile home park and another large apartment complex (Comanche Hills) are located along the mesa east of the mobile home park and adjacent to the eastern portion of the project site.
There is little connectivity between these residential uses, such as sidewalks or streetscaping that would define the area as a collective unit or cohesive neighborhood. This area is served by a grid of local streets that connect to El Cajon Boulevard but have no direct street connection to each other or the project site below the mesa upon which they occur.
East of the Project Site
Directly east of the project site is Bob Stall Chevrolet, which occupies 3.67-acres of automobile sales and service land uses along Alvarado Road. The site supports an automotive sales building, automobile repair buildings, and a paved sales lot. As a commercial business, the site has nighttime lighting on both the structures themselves and on light standards spaced throughout the lot. Traveling further east on
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-4 August 2022
Alvarado Road is a motel (Motel 6) and the commercial fleet sales and service departments of the auto dealership.
West of the Project Site
Immediately west of the project site is the 70th Street Trolley Station. This station consists of covered bench seating areas, a park-and-ride lot, and a bus pull in and loading/unloading area. There is security lighting provided throughout the trolley station on light standards and affixed to the awning structures.
While there is some ornamental landscaping, it is mostly clustered in the parking area. West of the trolley station is an automobile repair business in a single-story warehouse-type building and a two-story, multi-tenant office building.
4.14.1.4 Visual Resources
Scenic Vistas
The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the City’s General Plan identifies specific panoramic views and vistas that contribute to the City’s community image. Panoramic views are described in the General Plan (Table LD-5) as providing “an overall image of a large portion of the city or outlying region.” The location may be within or adjacent to the city and from an easily access point such as a hilltop, pass, or atop a landmark. There are two designated panoramic views in the General Plan, including one from Mount Helix and one near the Fletcher Parkway/Amaya Drive intersection.
Vistas are described in the General Plan as “similar to panoramic views but with a much narrower angle.” These views are characterized by long vertically defined spaces that open to allow sight of a few select elements. Common examples occur along streets, corridors, or groves that open to views of the ocean, a major building, or a square. The General Plan designates four vistas, including a view of Lake Murray from Baltimore Drive, a view from Fletcher Parkway near Baltimore Drive, and two views along La Mesa Boulevard in the downtown village.
None of these designated panoramic views or scenic vistas are located within the project vicinity.
Furthermore, the project site does not contain any features that would be part of a scenic vista, nor does it provide any expansive views of notable regional landforms. There are very limited views of Cowles Mountain from the project site and the surrounding areas; however, existing urban development and natural topography largely obstruct views of Cowles Mountain.
Scenic Resources
There is not a comprehensive list of specific features that automatically qualify as scenic resources.
However, Caltrans provides some direction citing a partial list of visual qualities and conditions that if present indicate the presence of a scenic resource. This list includes a landmark tree or group of distinctive trees accented in a setting as a focus of attention. Conversely, trees that are commonplace and repetitious, occurring frequently along a roadway, lack the typical characteristics of a scenic resource (Caltrans 2019).
The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the City’s General Plan identifies visual resources within and adjacent to the City. In addition to the panoramic views and vistas discussed above, multiple landmarks/ nodes; districts and groupings; and gateways, paths, and edges are designated throughout the City.
Within the project site, the Mexican fan palm trees are identified in the General Plan as a landmark and
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-5 August 2022
a grouping. The General Plan Update defines a landmark as “usually either physical objects such as signs, isolated towers, unique buildings; or natural features such as a hill or a lake.” They may be seen within the city or at such a distance that they symbolize a constant direction. A grouping is defined as “smallto-medium sections of the city that are similar in relation to districts. They are a collection of similar units that bridge gaps left between districts and nodes. A grouping may be buildings of similar character, use, or history, or be non-structural such as a park or open space.” The palm trees are visible from I-8 approaching the project area from the west, providing a visual landmark indicating the entrance into the La Mesa area. Additionally, given their location near a freeway ramp, they may also provide navigational aid for drivers along I-8 entering the area. They are also visible from other nearby locations to the north and south but are most prominent from the freeway corridor and adjacent frontage roads (Alvarado Road and Parkway Drive). Their concentration, height, and resulting visual prominence create a visual focal point for the area. Palm trees, however, are commonplace in the southern California landscape and are frequently planted along roadways and within developed properties, including within the project area and other portions of the city. No other designated scenic resources occur on site or in the immediate project area.
The City has identified other visually sensitive areas through the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone and Hillside Overlay Zone. Most of the land within these overlay zones are located within the southern portion of the City. The project site is not within either of these overlay zones. There are also five additional “visually sensitive areas” where new development is required to be compatible with the physical characteristics of each of these sites and the surrounding environment. Although two of these additional visually sensitive areas are near the site (one to the east on an undeveloped hillside and one to the west on undeveloped land), none occur on or adjacent to the project site.
Additionally, there is one designated scenic highway in the city limits of La Mesa—a two-mile portion of SR 125 as it transitions from SR 94 to I-8. This scenic highway corridor passes through residential and commercial development and provides generally open views of the foothills and peak of Mount Helix, as well as more distant views of Mount Miguel and Dictionary Hill. The project site is approximately two miles northwest of this scenic highway corridor.
4.14.1.5 Visual Character
Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative, which means it is based on defined attributes that do not include subjective positive or negative value judgments. Visual character, as evaluated below is composed of pattern elements and pattern character.
Pattern Elements
Pattern elements are the artistic attributes inherent in the elements that compose a landscape and include the primary visual attributes of objects such as form, line, color, and texture. The form of an object is its visual mass, bulk, or shape. Line is introduced by the edges of objects or parts of objects. The color of an object is both its visual or reflective brightness and its hue. Texture is apparent surface coarseness. Awareness of pattern elements varies with distance.
The visual character of the project area encompasses diverse forms predominantly composed of built environment features intermixed with some natural features. The area is almost entirely developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, and transportation uses. Given the variety of uses, building forms differ considerably with respect to shape and mass. The structures provide geometric forms with linear
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-6 August 2022
elements and a mix of colors on the building facades and roofs. Textures are generally smooth to semi-coarse depending on the exterior surface treatment on buildings. Roadways and parking areas provide additional developed features that exhibit similar pattern elements but are more homogenous in color and texture. The trolley tracks provide a strong linear element, as do the alignments of I-8 and roadways. The natural features are positioned in between, and are surrounded by, urban development and consist of ornamental and native vegetation, hillsides, undeveloped land, and Alvarado Creek. These elements provide contrasting shapes, colors, and textures compared to the structures. The vegetation provides various shades of greens, yellows, and browns with soft textures. Within the project area, Alvarado Creek is channelized, which creates defined linear edges of the creek banks.
The project site itself lacks features with much apparent mass or bulk. There are five buildings on the site that are similar in form and color. The buildings are one to two stories with geometric forms and are painted a tan color. Most of the site consists of paved surfaces and parking stalls for RVs. This expanse of parking area provides a monotypic element in terms of color and texture. Landscaped and hardscaped areas divide the RV parking stalls for the RVs, which creates a sprawling but low-level form. The arrangement of parked RVs along an internal grid roadway network also provides some consistency in pattern elements. Extending vertically from the site and offering contrasting forms, shapes, colors, and textures are the palm trees, narrow and parallel to the low-lying structures and RVs. The palm trees are greater in height than any other of the site features and along with 15 utility poles, provide vertical linear elements. Overhead utility lines that cross the site create elevated horizontal line elements. The texture of the developed site features is typical of urban built environments, and include a combination of generally smooth hardscaped features, asphalt, and building and recreational vehicle façades and surfaces. On-site landscaping and vegetation cover, some of it rather dense, within Alvarado Creek provide verdant features with softer textures than the developed features.
Pattern Character
Pattern character describes the dominance, scale, diversity, or continuity between the pattern elements. Dominance occurs when a specific feature is prominently positioned, contrasted, or extended to a point where the specific feature strongly influences the pattern character of a scene. Scale is the size relationship among landscape components in the visual environment. Diversity is the frequency, variety, and positioning of pattern elements. Continuity is the uninterrupted flow or transition among pattern elements.
Within the project area, large-scale visually dominant elements include the I-8 freeway and associated roadway infrastructure (i.e., overcrossings and ramps), as well as the on-site billboards and stand of palm trees. Other man-made features, such as buildings and local roads are generally consistent with one another in terms of scale and prominence. Given the mixture of uses and presence of some natural features, the project area exhibits a moderately high degree of diversity. Although the area includes various uses, residential development is the prevalent use and the development patterns of residential neighborhoods provide some degree of continuity. Similarly, transportation corridors that traverse the area, most notably I-8 and the Green Line trolley corridor, also provide some continuity due to the alignment and expanse of these facilities as they extend through the project area.
The majority of the site is exemplified by the rows of RVs divided by asphalt hardscape and some softer ornamental vegetation, which does not lead to the dominance of a specific feature. However, the Mexican fan palm trees, as discussed previously, are visually prominent. While at ground level at the site they are not as recognizable as having dominance because of the relatively narrow profile of the trunks,
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-7 August 2022
at further distances from the site, they do become a dominant feature given their concentration and generally uniform height of approximately 80 feet. They are pronounced in relation to other landscaped components in the visual environment. The three billboards within the site are large-scale elements compared to other on-site features and given their size and positioning along the site frontage, exhibit visual dominance. The combination of the palm trees and billboards contribute to a moderate level of dominance. Diversity of the site is moderately low given the single use of the site and similar visual elements across the site. Trees, including the palms, occur throughout the project site, and although they are not arranged in a distinctive or formal pattern, their assemblage provides some continuity across the site. This is especially evident at further distances. The arrangement of RVs along a grid pattern within the internal roadways also creates continuity among on-site pattern elements. The trees and RVs contribute to a moderate degree of continuity.
Existing Visual Character Summary
Overall, the character of the project site and surrounding area is urban in nature due to the integration of the man-made environment comprised of a mixture of residential, commercial, and transportation uses with limited natural features. The site has a moderate level of dominance, low diversity, and a moderate degree of continuity.
4.14.1.6 Visual Quality
Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness, and unity present in the viewshed.
This approach to evaluating visual quality can help identify specific methods for mitigating specific adverse impacts that may occur as a result of a project. The three criteria for evaluating visual quality can be defined as follows:
• Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns.
• Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and man-made landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.
• Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.
In relation to vividness, the project site contains memorable visual elements, including a designated visual landmark, the palm trees, and three billboards. The concentration of the 155 trees at a generally uniform height of approximately 80 feet creates a distinctive focal point from surrounding areas. In addition, while not a landmark as defined by the City’s General Plan and urban in nature, the three billboards that are placed among the site’s interface with Alvarado Road are a distinctive feature of the site adding to the site’s memorability. Additionally, Alvarado Creek, and especially the dense vegetation within the creek, creates a vivid natural feature that contrasts with the surrounding developed elements. At the same time, the location of the project site within an almost entirely developed urban area and surrounded by development detracts from the vividness these on-site memorable features provide. This results in a moderate vividness rating for the project site and surrounding area.
The project site is part of the broader landscape that is dominated by I-8 and residential neighborhoods to the north, the trolley tracks as they elevate from at grade to approximately 30 feet higher than the
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-8 August 2022
site and the mesa with a mixture of incongruent residential land uses to the south, the trolley station to the west, and the auto dealership and motel to the east. The project area contains a mixture of land uses and exhibits a development pattern characteristic of an urbanized community, which provides some degree of intactness. There are very few natural elements that encroach into the built environment of the area, but there is some open space, undeveloped land, hillsides, and Alvarado Creek that to some extent disrupt the intactness of the built environment. The intactness of the area is therefore considered moderately low.
The visual unity of the project area is moderately low. Although the built portion of the area is composed mostly of residential development, neighborhoods and homes within them are diverse in terms of architectural style, size, color, configuration, and age. Some pockets of relatively homogenous neighborhoods are evident, but the overall visual mosaic contributes to moderately low unity.
Commercial and transportation facilities within the project area also reduce unity within the area. While there are some natural features present, they are generally isolated and are surrounded by built components; there is no connectivity to larger expanses of similar natural features.
The overall existing visual quality of the project site and surrounding is moderately low given the moderate degree of vividness and moderately low rating of intactness and unity.
4.14.1.7 Viewer Response
Viewer response, or awareness, is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure.
These elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual changes brought about by a project’s implementation.
Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers’ concern for scenic quality and the viewers’ response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. Local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional in a visual resource analysis.
Viewer exposure is typically assessed by measuring the number of viewers exposed to the resource change, type of viewer activity, duration of the view, the speed at which the viewer moves, and position of the viewer. A viewer’s response is also affected by the degree to which he/she is receptive to the visual details, character, and quality of the surrounding landscape. A viewer’s ability to perceive the landscape is affected by his/her activity. A viewer on vacation would probably take pleasure in looking at the landscape, and an individual may be strongly attached to the view from his home, but a local resident commuting to work may not “register” those same visual resources on a daily basis.
Viewer Groups
Prior to discussing the viewer exposure and sensitivity, it is important to define who the viewer groups are that would be potentially impacted by land use changes at the project site. For this project, the viewer groups consist of those people that frequent the neighboring land uses; residents; travelers along I-8, Alvarado Road, the other local serving roads (Parkway Drive to the north, Saranac Street, Keeney Street, Williams Street, and Comanche Drive to the south); and people utilizing the trolley and the 70th Street Trolley Station. These viewer groups include motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Therefore, the assessment of viewer response focuses on these three viewer groups with views of project elements from public vantage points.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-9 August 2022
Viewer Exposure
Viewer exposure is a measure of the viewer's ability to see a particular object. Viewer exposure has three attributes: location, quantity, and duration. Location relates to the position of the viewer in relationship to the object being viewed. The closer the viewer is to the object, the more exposure.
Quantity refers to how many people see the object. The more people who can see an object or the greater frequency an object is seen, the more exposure the object has to viewers. Duration refers to how long a viewer is able to keep an object in view. The longer an object can be kept in view, the more exposure. High viewer exposure helps predict that viewers will have a response to a visual change.
Motorists
Motorists along I-8 have direct open views into the project site from both the eastbound and westbound direction. The freeway generally is at the same elevation as the site and there are limited intervening elements between the travel lanes and the project site. Based on the posted speed of 65 mph, views onto the project site could have a duration of about half a minute for eastbound (approximately 36 seconds) and westbound (approximately 33 seconds) travelers within the viewshed of the site along the freeway. Based on the alignment of the freeway (i.e., curves) and presence of existing developed features and landscaping, existing site elements are generally visible from a distance of 0.7 mile in the eastbound direction (near the 70th Street/Lake Murray Boulevard overcrossing) and 0.6 mile in the westbound direction (near the Fletcher Parkway overcrossing). Given the project site’s proximity to the I-8, open views into the project site, and the large quantity of viewers along this stretch of the freeway (approximately 20,800 [Caltrans 2017a]), motorists’ viewer exposure on I-8 is considered high. Travelers on I-8 would comprise the largest viewer group in the project area.
Viewer exposure along other nearby local roads differs per vantage point. The freeway frontage roads on the south and north sides of I-8, Alvarado Road and Parkway Drive, offer open to partially obstructed views near the site. Alvarado Road abuts the site and provides immediate and direct open views into the site, as shown in Figure 4.14-6, Views from Public Vantage Points – Alvarado Road. Parkway Drive is higher in elevation than the site and provides some intermittent bird’s eye views into the site although roadside landscaping, walls, and the freeway block open views from some vantage points along this roadway, as shown in Figure 4.14-7, Views from Public Vantage Points – Parkway Drive. The number of motorists on these frontage roads is approximately 2,700 on Alvarado Road and 3,400 on Parkway Drive (SANDAG 2020). With posted speeds of 35 mph, the view duration would be about 21 seconds along Alvarado Road (for both the eastbound and westbound direction based on a site distance of approximately 0.2 mile for each direction) and about 41 seconds along Parkway Drive (both eastbound and westbound directions based on a site distance of approximately 0.4 mile). Motorists’ viewer exposure would be moderately high on Alvarado Road because of the direct adjacency of the viewer, and moderate on Parkway Drive.
Viewer exposure along public roadways on the mesa south of the site is limited, and the few views afforded from a public location are mostly obstructed by intervening structures, landscaping, and topography. Public roadways in this area dead end at a residence or private street, including Saranac Street, 73rd Street, Keeney Street, and Williams Street. These streets are not highly traveled as they do not connect to other streets and are utilized almost exclusively by residents or visitors of the homes along the roadways. Comanche Drive is another local street that provides access to primarily residents, but this roadway also connects to Alvarado Road where it intersects with Fletcher Parkway and the I-8 eastbound ramp. Consequently, the number of viewers along Comanche Drive is much higher
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-10 August 2022
(approximately 11,600 ADT) than the other local roadways named above (estimated at approximately 1,100 ADT or less [SANDAG 2020]). Furthermore, open views of the project site are generally not provided from these streets due to topography and intervening development. Brief glimpses of the site and/or tops of some of the on-site palm trees may be available in between buildings or above vegetation, but no discernible views encompassing the larger stand that mark the site are available.
Motorists’ viewer exposure from these public roadways is therefore considered very low.
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along surrounding local roadways would be moving at slower rates of travel compared automobiles resulting in longer durations of potential views. As discussed above, views into the site from surrounding local roadways are generally limited to the two frontage roads that parallel I-8: Alvarado Road and Parkway Drive. Views into the site are not generally provided from local roadways on the mesa to the south. While view durations could be longer for these viewer groups, the extent of views is essentially the same as motorists. Open proximal views are provided from Alvarado Road; however, there are no sidewalks or bike lanes along Alvarado Road. The absence of sidewalks and bicycle facilities does not necessarily preclude the use of this roadway for these viewer groups, but the number of pedestrians and bicyclists is expected to be relatively minimal. Moreover, people walking or biking along Alvarado Road are generally focused on safely traveling along the roadway and not at the surrounding visual environment. Nonetheless, viewer exposure of bicyclists and pedestrians would be moderate along Alvarado Road given the immediate adjacency of the project site.
Sidewalks are provided on the north side of Parkway Drive but there are no bike lanes on this roadway.
Pedestrians traveling on the sidewalks have varying degrees of view exposure into the project site. As shown in Figure 4.14-7, there are vantage points along the roadway where views into the site are fairly open across the roadway and I-8 while views from other vantage points are largely obstructed by vegetation and walls along the roadway with only the tops of some palm trees visible. Bicyclists along Parkway Drive would have similar views but slightly shorter durations because they would be traveling faster than pedestrians. Viewer exposure along Parkway Drive would be moderate given the variability in project views.
Overall, pedestrian and bicyclist viewer exposure on surrounding local roadways that provide views into the site would be moderate.
Transit Patrons
The Green Line trolley corridor extends just to the south of the project site on the south side of Alvarado Creek. The trolley tracks sit higher than the site and thus, transit riders have open views directly into the project site as trolleys pass by the site. Based on a maximum trolley speed of 55 mph and site distance of approximately 0.75 mile, trolley passengers could have a view duration of the project site of up to approximately 49 seconds as they pass by the site while riding a trolley. Transit patrons at the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station have static views of portions of the site, namely the tall palm trees and some of the billboards. Given the adjacency of open views from the trolley corridor and neighboring transit station, transit patrons’ viewer exposure would be moderately high.
Viewer Sensitivity
Viewer sensitivity is defined as both the viewers’ concern for scenic quality and the viewers’ recognition of change in the visual resources that make up the view.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-11 August 2022
A viewer’s concern for scenic quality is dependent upon in part, personal experiences and values and in part the context in which a viewer is observing. For this project, the viewer’s concern for scenic quality is dependent upon the viewer group. Specifically, a motorist on I-8 or the local roadways or a traveler along the trolley corridor would likely have a lower concern for scenic quality since their views are fleeting and the primary focus of the viewer is on reaching a particular locale as opposed to the scenic quality of the commute. Bicyclists and pedestrians would be more concerned with scenic quality since they are traveling at slower speeds and are generally more attuned to the visual aspects of their surroundings. Similarly, transit patrons are passengers and have more opportunity as passive observers to notice the visual landscape while at the trolley station or riding in a trolley.
A viewer’s recognition has three attributes: activity, awareness, and local values. Activity relates to the preoccupation of viewers and whether they are preoccupied or truly engaged in observing their surroundings. The more they are observing their surroundings, the more sensitivity viewers will have to changes to visual resources. Similar to the concern for scenic quality, a motorist or commuter traveling through the area en route to a destination is generally less engaged with the surroundings. Primary public views of the project site are from surrounding freeways and roadways, the trolley corridor, and the 70th Street Trolley Station. Viewers from these locations are likely focused on reaching their destination, but as discussed above, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit patrons would be expected to be more aware of scenic qualities of their surroundings.
Awareness relates to the focus of view and whether the focus is wide, and the view is general, or whether the focus is narrow, and the view is specific. The more specific the awareness, the more sensitive a viewer is to change. In general, commuters may not be particularly aware of all visual changes along a commute; however, given the scale and density of the project in comparison to the existing site setting, it is anticipated that the awareness would be high for all viewer groups. Visual changes at the other public vantage points would be noticeable through the narrow viewsheds that are offered in between the structural, landscape, and topographical obstructions. Given that viewer groups in these areas would most likely be residents, their awareness would also be expected to be high.
Local values and attitudes also affect viewer sensitivity. If the viewer group values aesthetics, or if a specific visual resource has been protected by local, state, or national designation, it is likely that viewers will be more sensitive to visible changes. Conversely, local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional in a visual resource analysis. Even when the existing appearance of a project site is uninspiring, a community may still object to projects that fall short of its visual goals. As previously noted, the palm trees on the site are considered a landmark in the City’s General Plan. There may be some local value placed upon these trees providing a navigational reference but the trees themselves are not unique to the region and are not indicative of spotlighting a greater scenic resource.
Based on the anticipated concern for scenic quality and recognition of change in the visual resources, viewer groups overall would be expected to have a high sensitivity to change.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-12 August 2022
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
4.14.2.1 State
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was created by legislature in 1963 (Streets and Highway Code Section 260 et seq.) and managed by the Caltrans. Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A state scenic highway is any designated freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. A scenic designation is determined by the local jurisdiction after consideration and evaluation of how much of the natural landscape a passing motorist sees and the extent to which visual intrusions (e.g., buildings, unsightly land uses, noise barriers) impact the “scenic corridor.” There is one officially designated scenic highway in the city limits of La Mesa—a two-mile portion of SR 125 as it transitions from SR 94 to I-8, which at its nearest point is approximately two miles east of the project site. Scenic resources within this corridor include hillsides and sloping terrain with prominent landforms of Mount Helix, Mount Miguel, and Dictionary Hill.
I-8 from Sunset Cliffs Boulevard near the Pacific Ocean to SR 98 in Imperial County is listed as an eligible scenic highway (Caltrans 2017b). An eligible status is not an official designation and does not provide the protections under the California Scenic Highway Program. There are no identified attributes associated with I-8 in the project area that make it an eligible scenic highway.
4.14.2.2 Local
La Mesa General Plan
The General Plan sets forth goals and policies that comprise a comprehensive, unified program for physical development within the City. The goals, objectives, and policies contained in the General Plan are intended to guide the City’s officials and staff in decisions concerning the use of land, as well as a wide range of issues relevant to growth and development within the City and are explained in detail in the varying General Plan Elements.
The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan contains five major concepts that are particularly important to all development that occurs within the City:
• 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 neighborhood 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 to ensure that the physical forms, patterns, and aesthetics of future development advance La Mesa’s goals for high quality life and a more sustainable future.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-13 August 2022
In particular, the following goals, objectives, and policies relate to visual resources as they pertain to development:
Goal UD-1: A built environment that contributes to the qualities distinguishing La Mesa’s unique community identity.
Objective UD-1.1: To protect La Mesa’s existing built environment and cultural heritage. • Policy UD-1.1.1: The visual quality and continuity of the community will be enhanced through consistent circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways and nodes, and removal of visually disruptive elements.
Goal UD-2: Well-designed development based upon proven urban design principles. • Objective UD-2.1: Preserve and enhance the aesthetic, environmental, economic, and social character of La Mesa through careful design review decisions. • Policy UD-2.1.1: Give careful attention to Urban Design Standards related to building scale, architectural materials, landscaping, and other elements to emphasize attractive building and site design in new developments and redevelopments.
• Policy UD-2.1-2: The review of projects should place a priority on the compatibility of adjacent land uses. Special attention should be given to buffering and transitional methods, when reviewing projects of differing densities or land uses.
Goal UD-3: A built environment that respects La Mesa’s natural environment and climate. • Objective UD-3.1: Development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive and is compatible with neighboring design and scale.
• Policy UD-3.1.5: Increase the amount of foliage, especially street trees, for aesthetic reasons and to provide shade, cooling, habitats, air quality benefits, and visual continuity.
La Mesa Zoning Ordinance
The La Mesa Zoning Ordinance (Title 24 of the LMMC) serves as the primary implementation of the General Plan. 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; minimum lot sizes; limitations on location, height, bulk, and scale of buildings; and other regulations such as lighting.
In addition to the development regulations established by the base zones, several overlay zones have been applied to particular areas of the City where supplemental permitted use and development standards are merited. Overlay zones applicable to visual resources include the Urban Design Overlay Zone and the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone. The Urban Design Overlay Zone is used to supplement the required land use regulations reviewed under the standard provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone established regulations for the recognized scenic areas in the City, the character of which could be adversely affected by development and the use of land without special
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-14 August 2022
regulations. The project site is located within an area designated with the Urban Design Overlay Zone, but not within the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone.
La Mesa Sign Ordinance
The La Mesa sign ordinance (Title 15 of the LMMC) provides regulations for signage intended to balance the means for conveying information with the needs to protect the visual environment. Specific regulations are generally guided by land uses. The project site currently contains three “nonconforming” freeway-oriented billboards. In accordance with the sign ordinance, all existing advertising structures (i.e., billboards) can retain their existing non-conforming status until such time that they are removed.
4.14.2.3 The Urban Design Program
The Urban Design Program uses principles of design during a review process that is intended to ensure that new development fits into the fabric of the community. The program includes guidelines for evaluating public and private projects based on the community image concept and hierarchy of land use ranging from regional to site-specific plans. The stated goal of the Urban Design Program is to “Preserve and enhance the community character and sense of place by delivering projects and programs that build upon positive design features.” Projects subject to design review include new or substantially renovated commercial properties, multi-unit residential developments, projects within the City’s mixed-use corridors, and sites within the Downtown Village Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan would include site-specific design recommendations and criteria for development within the project site that would supersede those required by the Urban Design Program.
4.14.3 Methodology and Assumptions
The analysis in this section of the EIR is based on the Visual Impact Analysis for the Alvarado Specific Plan (HELIX 2019), which is provided as Appendix O of this EIR. Visual impacts are identified through describing the existing visual setting, assessing the amount of change that would occur as a result of the proposed project, and interpreting how the affected public would respond to or perceive those changes.
The analysis and methodology are largely based on the concepts and visual assessment guidelines contained in the FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, as well conformance with applicable City policy guidelines, plans, and regulations that govern visual resources. The assessment utilized data from observations, a spatial analysis, and a photographic inventory of the project site and larger visual environment of the project area.
4.14.4 Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a significant visual impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in any of the following:
1. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista?
2. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-15 August 2022
accessible vantage point)? If the project is in an urbanized area, conflict with an applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
4. Would the project create new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day and nighttime views in the area?
4.14.5 Impact Analysis
4.14.5.1 Scenic Vistas
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the City’s General Plan identifies scenic vistas and panoramic views that contribute to the City’s community image. None of these designated scenic vistas or panoramic views are located within the project vicinity, and the project site is not visible from any of them except for Mount Helix. Mount Helix is identified in the General Plan as one of the panoramic views and a major landmark from which expansive views of a large portion of the City can be observed.
The project site is barely visible in the distance from this vista; the on-site palm trees can be seen in very distance, but they are not visually prominent and other existing on-site features are not apparent. At a distance of over three miles, the change from the existing RV resort to a multi-family residential development comprising four multi-story buildings would not be substantially discernible. At this distance and with the expanse of the view that encompasses multiple and diverse built environment features, the project elements would visually blend in with the surrounding urban development such that they would not adversely affect views from this designated vista.
The project site is also not located within the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone, Hillside Overlay Zone, or other identified visually sensitive areas. Furthermore, the project site does not contain any features that would be part of a scenic vista, nor does it provide any expansive views of notable regional landforms.
There are very limited views of Cowles Mountain from the project site and the surrounding areas; however existing urban development and natural topography largely obstruct views of Cowles Mountain. Intermittent views of Cowles Mountain would continue to be provided from the site. Impacts associated with adverse effects on scenic vistas would be less than significant.
4.14.5.2 Scenic Resources
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? An approximately two-mile segment of SR 125, between SR 94 and I-8, is an officially designated state scenic highway. Scenic resources within this corridor include views of the prominent foothills and peak of Mount Helix with distant views of Cowles Mountain to the northwest and Mount Miguel and Dictionary Hill to the southeast. The portion of this scenic highway at the highest elevation (approximately 650 feet AMSL) and with greatest potential for visibility of the project site is located near I-8. The project site is approximately two miles west of this portion of SR 125. Existing site features are not visible from this scenic highway due to distance, existing topography, and intervening development and vegetation. With the construction of the proposed buildings that would include five stories above one to three levels of parking with a maximum building height of 85 feet aboveground and considering the average site elevation of approximately 410 feet AMSL, the proposed buildings would not be visible
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-16 August 2022
from this designated scenic highway corridor for the same reasons that existing site features are not visible. I-8 is located approximately 30 feet to the north of the project site. While I-8 from Sunset Cliffs Boulevard near the Pacific Ocean to SR 98 in Imperial County is listed by Caltrans as an eligible scenic highway, it is not officially designated and as such, is not afforded aesthetic protection under the California Scenic Highway Program. Thus, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within any designated state scenic highway.
The existing stand of Mexican fan palm trees on the project site are identified as a scenic resource, specifically a landmark in the City’s General Plan. Project implementation would result in the loss of the 155 Mexican fan palms. The palm trees are highly visible from the adjacent I-8 corridor and are a visual landmark indicating the entrance into the La Mesa area. Their concentration, height, and resulting visual prominence create a visual focal point for the area. While the stand of on-site palm trees exists in a larger grouping than elsewhere in the area, neither the trees themselves nor their configuration within the larger visual context create a unique or distinctive landmark. Palm trees are quite common in the region and also occur within the surrounding project area and elsewhere in the city. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources.
Moreover, the project provides the opportunity to create a scenic resource through the enhancement and restoration of Alvarado Creek as it traverses through the project site. Currently, within the project area footprint, Alvarado Creek is a concrete-lined channel, prone to flooding, and is characterized predominantly by non-native vegetation and debris. The project would highlight Alvarado Creek as a visual amenity while achieving flood control and storm water quality improvements. The project includes a series of viewing nodes along a pedestrian pathway that would follow the creek alignment.
Overall, project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources or protected views and scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
4.14.5.3 Visual Character and Quality
Threshold 3: Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point)? If the project is in an urbanized area, conflict with an applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Landform Alteration
The project site is developed and relatively level with an approximate 10-foot existing grade differential.
There are no steep slopes or other notable landforms within the site. Alvarado Creek sits slightly lower than the adjacent development pads as it traverses the site. Project construction would involve grading nearly all of the site to raise the existing grade above the base floodplain elevation, but existing landforms and topographic conditions would essentially remain the same. Upon project development, the site would be relatively level with four building pads and a channelized watercourse. The adjacent slopes to the immediate south would not be affected. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial change to existing landforms.
Development Patterns and Forms
The proposed development would be consistent with the development patterns in the surrounding area. The proposed project would entail the redevelopment of the existing RV resort with a multi-family
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-17 August 2022
residential development on a 12-acre site that is surrounded by existing development mostly composed of residential and commercial uses. Surrounding residential development includes a mixture of singlefamily homes and multi-family complexes. There are several apartment buildings atop the mesa to the south (along Saranac Avenue, 73rd Street, Mohawk Avenue, and Comanche Drive), as well as along Parkway Drive across the I-8 to the north. These buildings range in size and scale and are generally aligned along the I-8 corridor. Consistent with this visual pattern, the proposed project would add another multi-family development along this corridor.
Building forms associated with the proposed residential buildings would be similar to those of surrounding multi-family developments, consisting of a grouping of similarly designed multi-story, geometrically shaped buildings configured within individual sites. While shape and scale of buildings differ, this overall development pattern is evident. Thus, the project would not introduce a new land use or new type of building form that does not currently exist in the immediate area.
Massing and Scale
The proposed project would remove existing on-site elements, including paved RV spaces, five buildings, overhead utility lines and poles, and vegetation (including a large palm tree stand) and construct four multi-story buildings that would cover most of the 12-acre site. The buildings would be up to 85 feet tall with rectilinear building forms and strong line elements. Three of the proposed buildings would be similar in terms of bulk and scale and one building would be smaller in scale but generally at the same height. The buildings would be of the same construction type and would include parking garages on the lower levels with the residential units constructed on a podium deck above the parking levels. Given the size of the proposed buildings and overall lot coverage, the proposed development would be more intensive than surrounding developments in terms of bulk and scale. The development intensity at the site would substantially increase over the existing condition and even upon construction, would be greater than existing development in the project area. The project site, however, has been planned for dense redevelopment on a local and regional level. Specifically, the site is identified as a Smart Growth Opportunity Area in SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map (SANDAG 2016a). The site is shown as a Community Center, which has minimum residential densities of 20 dwelling units per acre served by high-frequency transit services and is described as a potential TOD adjacent to the 70th Street Trolley Station (SANDAG 2016b). The site has also been identified by the City for some time as a redevelopment opportunity site. Additionally, the General Plan designation of Regional Serving Commercial allows for high-density residential developments. The Land Use and Urban Design Element of the City’s General Plan identifies “redevelopment potential for more intensive mixed-use projects located near the 70th Street Trolley Station in the Alvarado Creek area. Sites in this area are designated for Regional Serving Commercial uses to contribute to the local economy, such as office, hotel, multi-family or mixed-use development.”
Because the proposed Specific Plan prescribes a “form-based” concept for the proposed buildings, no specific architectural styles or treatments for the proposed buildings are identified at the Specific Plan level. However, the buildings would incorporate common design elements and treatments utilizing a mixture of wood, metal, and glass materials. Architectural treatments such as articulations, varied roof lines, window and entry treatments, and provision of balconies and sky decks would also be incorporated into the building design to reduce mass effects of the vertical facades on the buildings. The podium decks would also provide relief along the building façades.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-18 August 2022
Each building would vary in shape depending on the building pad, and separation would be provided between each building so as not to create a uniform appearance or an uninterrupted building façade.
Project entries, landscaped areas, and the enhanced Alvarado Creek would provide separation between some of the buildings to reduce massing effects. In addition, proposed landscaping at the site along the perimeter, building façade, and common areas would interrupt and visually soften structure massing effects.
Public Views
Views of the project from public vantage points would primarily be available from I-8, surrounding local roadways, the Green Line trolley corridor, and the 70th Street Trolley Station. The largest number of viewers, as well as viewers having the most direct views onto the project site from public viewpoints, would be traveling along I-8, Alvarado Road, and the trolley corridor. These views would be open and project elements would be in the foreground. Views from local roadways within residential neighborhoods to the south would mostly be obscured due to intervening development, vegetation, and topography. From these areas, multi-family residential uses, an improved Alvarado Road frontage, and an enhanced Alvarado Creek would replace existing views of the RV resort and palm trees. Changes to the existing visual character and quality of the project site and surroundings are discussed below for each of these public vantage points.
Figure 4.14-8, Plan Perspective – Interstate 8, depicts a conceptual perspective of the project from eastbound I-8. Following implementation of the project, views from I-8 toward the project site would be dominated by the proposed buildings. Foreground views would encompass the building façade and streetscape along Alvarado Road, as well as the existing billboards that would remain. Glimpses of an existing multi-family residential building can be seen in the middle ground in the right side of the concept. Existing off-site vegetation is also visible in the middle ground in between the proposed on-site buildings. Background views are generally limited to the sky.
Figure 4.14-9, Plan Perspective – Alvarado Road, depicts a conceptual perspective of the project from Alvarado Road near the eastern project boundary. Views of the site would be dominated by the proposed residential buildings. From this vantage point, the dominance of the buildings would be perceived as more apparent because of the adjacency of these new elements to Alvarado Road and the corresponding view angle from this vantage point. As shown, foreground views would encompass the multi-story buildings and to a lesser extent, the improved Alvarado Road frontage. The new sidewalk, streetlights, streetscape plantings, and pedestrian bridge (over Alvarado Creek) can be seen along the site frontage. Also visible is one of the project access roads (in the left portion of the concept) that is lined with landscaping. Elements in the middle ground are subdued by the larger project elements in the foreground, but the existing Alvarado Creek channel is visible on the north side of Alvarado Road (right side of the concept).
Figure 4.14-10, Plan Perspective – South of Project Site, depicts a conceptual perspective of the project representative of viewpoints south of the project site at the trolley facilities. The perspective is a bird’s eye view looking downward at the project site as opposed to a ground-level view characteristic of a viewer along the trolley corridor (either traveling on the trolley or at the 70th Street Trolley Station) and thus encompasses a more expansive view; nonetheless, this perspective is a conservative representation of views from the adjacent trolley facilities. Project elements visible in the foreground include the enhanced Alvarado Creek and verdant riparian corridor, as well as portions of proposed on-site buildings (as seen in the right side of the concept). In the middle ground, the proposed buildings, outdoor
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-19 August 2022
courtyard and pool, and the pedestrian promenade along the enhanced creek are visible. Background views of hillsides are barely visible and likely would not be visible from the viewing angles provided at the grade of the trolley and trolley station. As seen, the buildings in the middle ground are the most dominant visual element from this vantage point, creating new strong rectilinear built forms. The buildings however are somewhat muted and softened by the meandering riparian corridor along the enhanced creek and trees and other landscaping along the site perimeter and building façades.
The project would result in a notable change to the existing visual condition from these public viewpoints. The existing trees (palms and other), RVs, and overhead utility lines and poles at the site would be replaced with large multi-story residential buildings, an enhanced Alvarado Creek, and an improved Alvarado Road frontage. While the scale of the buildings would be new dominant features within this viewshed, they would not represent new visual elements as other multi-story buildings are present in the immediate area, including apartment buildings on the mesa to the south and across the freeway to north, as well as the Allied Plaza commercial building located off Alvarado Road to the southeast. Furthermore, project elements would not obstruct any scenic resources from these vantages or modify horizon views of the open sky. Although the existing assembly of mature palm trees would be removed from the site, palm trees would be planted along the Alvarado Road frontage to provide a visual reference to the existing trees. Additional project landscaping along the improved Alvarado Road frontage and within and along the site perimeter would provide increased visual unity. Enhancements to Alvarado Creek, including removal of non-native vegetation, installation of native species, and provision of improved hydrologic flow within the channel, would also contribute to improved visual conditions at the site.
Although very different in character from the existing condition, the project would be visually compatible with surrounding development. Multi-story residential developments occur in the project area; building forms and design elements would be compatible with these existing elements. The new buildings would be consistent in terms of line, color, texture, treatments, styles, and form that would create a cohesive development within the site. Proposed landscaping would also be visually compatible with surrounding development and the enhanced Alvarado Creek, in combination with project landscaping, would provide for increased visual unity throughout the site. The proposed buildings would be memorable elements given their relative scale, massing, and configuration. The enhanced Alvarado Creek corridor would also provide a memorable site element. While the project would remove the Mexican fan palm tree stand that is considered a landmark in the General Plan, proposed landscaping includes the planting of palm trees along the Alvarado Road frontage that would provide a reference to the existing trees. Consequently, the project would result in increased vividness. The configuration of the proposed buildings with their similar scale/forms and incorporation of common design elements would increase the intactness of the site upon project development. The buildings would be buffered from the enhanced Alvarado Creek by pedestrian promenades and recreation/common areas thereby avoiding encroachment of built and natural elements from one another. The removal of the overhead utility lines would further contribute to increased intactness. Overall, the visual quality from these viewpoints would be increased based on the added visual interest and increased visual unity, vividness, and intactness.
Zoning and Scenic Quality Regulations
The project site is located within an urbanized area within the City. While the site is currently zoned Light Industrial and Commercial Service - Flood Overlay Zone – Urban Design Overlay Zone, the project proposes to create an Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone that would establish development regulations
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-20 August 2022
for the site, including those pertaining to visual quality. Therefore, there are no applicable scenic quality regulations associated with the underlying base zone classification that govern the site. The proposed Specific Plan prescribes a “form-based” development approach and site-specific design recommendations and criteria to be implemented as part of the Site Development Plan review process at the project level to guide site design principles for development in accordance with the Specific Plan.
The project site is within an Urban Design Overlay Zone. As required, all new development within the Urban Design Overlay Zone is subject to the requirements of the Urban Design Program and approval by the Design Review Board. Projects within this overlay zone are evaluated in part for their compliance and their incorporation of unique design criteria that pertain to visually sensitive areas. 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. Compliance with the Specific Plan design criteria would ensure that the new structures provide an appropriate level of design character and quality to be a good fit within the context of the project area and broader community.
The project would be consistent with applicable goals, objectives, and policies contained in the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan that relate to visual resources. Project consistency with these applicable goals, objectives, and policies (which are identified in Section 3.2 of this report) are summarized below in Table 4.14-1, Scenic Quality Policy Consistency Analysis.
Table 4.14-1
SCENIC QUALITY POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Goal/Objective/Policy Consistency Analysis
Goal UD – 1: A built environment that
contributes to the qualities distinguishing
La Mesa’s unique community identity.
The proposed project would not adversely affect views from designated vistas or substantially damage scenic resources or protected views that are identified in the General Plan as contributing to La Mesa’s community image. Refer to
Sections 4.14.5.1 and 4.14.5.2.
Objective UD-1.1: To protect La Mesa’s existing
built environment and cultural heritage.
As discussed above under Public Views, the overall visual quality of the site would be improved upon project
implementation. The existing on-site structures are not historical resources and thus, their demolition and removal would not adversely affect resources that contribute to La Mesa’s cultural heritage.
Policy UD-1.1.1: The visual quality and
continuity of the community will be enhanced
through consistent circulation patterns,
definition of community edges and boundaries,
distinct gateways and nodes, and removal of
visually disruptive elements.
Project implementation would not change existing circulation patterns and would not obfuscate any community edges or boundaries. No identified gateways or nodes are located on or immediately adjacent to the site. As discussed above under Public Views, the overall visual quality of the site would be improved upon project implementation due, in
part, to the removal of existing non-native invasive
vegetation and debris within Alvarado Creek and
construction of a cohesive development with consistent
design elements.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-21 August 2022
Table 4.14-1 (cont.)
SCENIC QUALITY POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Goal/Objective/Policy Consistency Analysis
Goal UD-2: Well-designed development based
upon proven urban design principles.
The project entails construction of a multi-family
development with an integrated design approach guided by the framework provided in the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed development would be subject to design review in conjunction with the Site Development Plan process, which would include a consistency analysis with the site-specific design criteria contained in the Specific Plan.
Objective UD-2.1: Preserve and enhance the
aesthetic, environmental, economic, and social
character of La Mesa through careful design
review decisions.
The project entails construction of a multi-family
development with an integrated design approach guided by the framework provided in the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed development would be subject to design review in conjunction with the Site Development Plan process, which would include a consistency analysis with the site-specific design criteria contained in the Specific Plan.
Policy UD-2.1.1: Give careful attention to Urban
Design Standards related to building scale,
architectural materials, landscaping, and other
elements to emphasize attractive building and
site design in new developments and
redevelopments.
The project entails construction of a multi-family
development with an integrated design approach guided by the framework provided in the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed development would be subject to design review in conjunction with the Site Development Plan process, which would include a consistency analysis with the site-specific design criteria contained in the Specific Plan.
Policy UD-2.1-2: The review of projects should
place a priority on the compatibility of adjacent
land uses. Special attention should be given to
buffering and transitional methods, when
reviewing projects of differing densities or land
uses.
The project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and development patterns, as discussed above under
Development Patterns and Forms.
Goal UD-3: A built environment that respects
La Mesa’s natural environment and climate.
The project would redevelop an existing developed site that would feature an enhanced Alvarado Creek. The creek would be restored with native vegetation and improved hydrologic flows.
Objective UD-3.1: Development that is
architecturally and environmentally sensitive
and is compatible with neighboring design and
scale.
The project would be visually compatible with surrounding development patterns and uses, as discussed above under Development Patterns and Forms. Although the project
would be at a greater scale than surrounding development, the design and configuration of buildings and landscaping would reduce massing effects. See discussion above under Massing and Scale. Additionally, the project would enhance Alvarado Creek by removing non-native vegetation and
debris within the channel and planting native vegetation.
Policy UD-3.1.5: Increase the amount of foliage,
especially street trees, for aesthetic reasons and
to provide shade, cooling, habitats, air quality
benefits, and visual continuity.
The project includes a comprehensive landscape plan
consisting of street trees, shrubs, and groundcovers along the Alvarado Road frontage, site perimeter, pedestrian
promenades, building façades, and other common areas. In addition, native vegetation would be planted within the enhanced Alvarado Creek.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-22 August 2022
Construction Period Impacts
Views of the site during construction would include grading and construction activities, presence of construction vehicles and workers, and storage of building materials. These short-term elements could temporarily reduce the existing visual quality of the site during the construction period due to the introduction of additional visually contrasting features, such as newly graded building pads, construction fencing, construction equipment, and construction materials stockpiling and storage. Open views would be particularly available from I-8 and Alvarado Road, as well as from other local roadways at higher elevations. Although adverse, the construction-period effects would be temporary in nature, and not visible from many viewpoints within the overall viewshed due to the general screening of the site by topography or existing structures and landscaping.
Summary of Resulting Visual Impacts
The project would change the mostly open and low-scale, developed nature of the site to a higher density development comprised of multi-story residential buildings. The resulting change in visual character and visual quality would be substantial as the proposed project would be much more pronounced than the existing land use. Viewer exposure of project elements would vary by viewer group (motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and transit patrons), ranging from moderate to high based on the closeness of the view, openness/expanse of the view, and duration of the view. Each viewer group would be expected to have a high sensitivity to change. However, this change is not considered to be adverse because (1) the project would not substantially alter existing site topography or landforms; (2) the project would be consistent with existing development patterns in the project area as it would add another multi-family development along the I-8 corridor; (3) the project would not introduce a new land use or new type of building form that does not currently exist in the immediate area; (4) although the project would be at a greater scale than surrounding development, the design and configuration of buildings and landscaping would reduce massing effects; (5) the project site is located in an urbanized area that is identified as suitable for redevelopment with higher development intensities; (6) the visual quality from public viewpoints would be increased based on the added visual interest and increased visual unity, vividness, and intactness; and (7) the project would be consistent with applicable scenic quality goals, objectives, and policies.
For these reasons, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.
4.14.5.4 Light and Glare
Threshold 4: Would the project create new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day and nighttime views in the area?
The project site is located in a developed urban area with substantial existing nighttime lighting from the existing on-site and surrounding land uses. The project site already includes some lighting features for nighttime safety and to illuminate the billboards. Other sources of nighttime lighting in the immediate area include security lights at the adjacent car dealership and the 70th Street Trolley Station, as well as a few streetlights along Alvarado Road. Additionally, vehicles traveling along I-8 contribute to the existing lighting conditions at and around the site. Implementation of the proposed project would result in additional sources of lighting. The internal street network, the Alvarado Road project frontage, the
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-23 August 2022
pedestrian promenades at the site perimeter, and proposed buildings would have exterior lighting for safety. Proposed buildings would also be illuminated from interior lights.
Although project lighting would produce light levels brighter than currently exists on the site, the net increase in nighttime lighting would not be considered substantial on a citywide or regional scale due to the urbanized nature of the site and surrounding area. Exterior lighting would be subject to the design guidelines contained in the proposed Specific Plan, which may require the use of shields and may limit the location, type, and height of light fixtures to prevent light spillover onto adjacent properties.
Furthermore, proposed buildings and other site amenities would not include large expanses of reflective material or surfaces such as glass or metal. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to new sources of light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views on the area.
4.14.6 Mitigation Measures
4.14.6.1 Scenic Vistas
No significant visual impacts related to scenic vistas would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.14.6.2 Scenic Resources
No significant visual impacts related to scenic resources would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.14.6.3 Visual Character and Quality
No significant visual impacts related to visual character or quality would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.14.6.4 Light and Glare
No significant visual impacts related to light and glare would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
4.14.7 Significance Determination
The significance of aesthetics impacts before and after mitigation is summarized in Table 4.14-2, Significance Determination Summary of Visual Resources Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant visual impacts. Impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character and quality, and light and glare would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.14 Visual Resources
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 4.14-24 August 2022
Table 4.14-2
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF VISUAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Issue Significance Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Measure
Significance After
Mitigation
Scenic Vistas Less than significant None required Less than significant Scenic Resources Less than significant None required Less than significant Visual Character and Quality Less than significant None required Less than significant Light and Glare Less than significant None required Less than significant
Existing Visual Conditions – San Diego RV Resort
Figure 4.14-1
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-1_SitePhotos_RVResort.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Alvarado Specific Plan
Existing Visual Conditions – Alvarado Road
Figure 4.14-2
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-2_SitePhotos_AlvaradoRd.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Alvarado Specific Plan
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-3_SitePhotos_Buildings.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Existing Visual Conditions – Existing Buildings
Figure 4.14-3
Source: Recon 2018
P:\4167-2\Arc\Arcsur Photos\Photos1-12.docx 02/01/18
PHOTOGRAPH 7
Front of Office Building
PHOTOGRAPH 8
Rear of Office Building
PHOTOGRAPH 11
Single-story Meeting Building
P:\4167-2\Arc\Arcsur Photos\Photos1-12.docx 02/01/18
PHOTOGRAPH 9
Front of the Apartment Building
PHOTOGRAPH 10
Rear of the Apartment Building
P:\4167-2\Arc\Arcsur Photos\Photos1-12.docx 02/01/18
PHOTOGRAPH 11
Single-story Meeting Building
PHOTOGRAPH 12
Front of Laundry/Bathroom Building in Eastern Portion of Project Office Building Apartment Building
Meeting Building Laundry/Bathroom Building
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-4_SitePhotos_AlvaradoCreek.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Existing Visual Conditions – Alvarado Creek
Figure 4.14-4 Page 984 of 1126
Existing Visual Conditions – Billboards
Figure 4.14-5
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-5_SitePhotos_Billboards.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Alvarado Specific Plan
Views from Public Vantage Points - Alvarado Road
Figure 4.14-6
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-6_VantagePoints_AlvaradoRd.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Alvarado Specific Plan
Views from Public Vantage Points - Parkway Drive
Figure 4.14-7
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-7_VantagePoints_ParkwayDr.indd LAM-08 06/27/19 -RK Alvarado Specific Plan
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-8_PlanPerspective_I8.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Plan Perspective – Interstate 8
Figure 4.14-8
Source: Schmidt Design Group 2018
Figure 27g - Site Plan Perspective Illustration
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-9_PlanPerspective_AlvaradoRd.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Plan Perspective – Alvarado Road
Figure 4.14-9
Source: Schmidt Design Group 2018
III - 8 | PageCh
t
III
D
l
Figure 27c - Site Plan Perspective Illustration
t Pl
Alvarado Specific Plan
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig4.14-10_PlanPerspective_South.indd LAM-08 05/11/20 -RK Plan Perspective – South of Project Site
Figure 4.14-10
Source: Schmidt Design Group 2018
III - 10 | Page
Figure 27e - Site Plan Perspective Illustration
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-1 August 2022
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a project when its incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. As defined in Section 15335, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project would be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, or probable future, projects.
According to Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects “... need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The evaluation of cumulative impacts is to be based on either:
A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those impacts outside the control of the agency; or B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency.
The basis and geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts is dependent on the nature of the issue and the project. In some cases, regional planning addresses cumulative impacts, while in other cases, the analysis takes into consideration more localized effects. For the analysis of cumulative impacts which are localized (e.g., traffic and noise), a list of past, approved, and pending (i.e., active applications) projects was identified by City staff and the City’s Community Development website (City 2020a) based on their ability to contribute to and/or compound impacts with those of the project. The location of these cumulative projects is illustrated on Figure 5-1, Cumulative Projects. Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects, contains a brief description of the development associated with these projects (with the numbers in the list corresponding to the locations on Figure 5-1). For other topics, like air quality, the cumulative setting is the region, and analysis is instead based on regional planning documents.
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-2 August 2022
Table 5-1
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Cumulative
Project No.1 Location Development Type Project Description Status 1 7930 Hillside Drive Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 22 apartment units and 5 commercial livework units.
Discretionary
Review
2 5061 Keeney Street Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 19 apartment units.
Discretionary
Review
3 7643 University
Avenue
Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 60 condominiums.
Discretionary
Review
4 7735 University
Avenue
Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 7 studio apartment units. It is a
conversion of a commercial use to a
residential use.
Discretionary
Review
5 7472 El Cajon
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 29
apartment units.
Entitled
6 7808 El Cajon
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 56
condominium units.
Entitled
7 8135 El Paso Street Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 20 residential condominium units.
Entitled
8 9160 Fletcher Parkway Commercial A commercial development of a restaurant and brewery.
Entitled
9 4400 Palm Avenue Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 21 apartment units and an office building.
Entitled
10 8234 University
Avenue
Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 10 apartment units.
Entitled
11 7385 Colony Drive Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 40 apartment units.
Plan Review
12 Eastridge Drive Residential A planned residential development with 30 units.
Plan Review
13 7393 El Cajon
Boulevard
Commercial A commercial development of a “Rally’s”
drive-thru restaurant with outdoor
seating.
Plan Review
14 7664 El Cajon
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 252
condominium units.
Plan Review
15 High Street Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 34 condominium units.
Plan Review
16 5042 Keeney Street Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 10 condominium units.
Plan Review
17 4949 Baltimore Drive Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 230 apartment units.
Under
Construction
18 7353 El Cajon
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 45
apartment units.
Under
Construction
19 7561 El Cajon
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 19
apartment units.
Under
Construction
20 7604 El Cajon
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 10
apartment units.
Under
Construction
21 7735 El Cajon
Boulevard
Multi-family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 10 condominium units.
Under
Construction
22 8165 Fletcher Parkway Commercial A commercial development of a Costco gas station.
Under
Construction
23 5335 Jackson Drive Commercial A commercial development of a coffee shop with a drive-thru and outdoor
seating.
Under
Construction