5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-3 August 2022
Table 5-1 (cont.)
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Cumulative
Project No.1 Location Development Type Project Description Status 24 8055 La Mesa
Boulevard
Mixed-use A mixed-use development with 7 units. Under
Construction
25 8525 La Mesa
Boulevard
Multi-family
Residential
A residential development with 130
units.
Under
Construction
26 8970 La Mesa
Boulevard
Commercial A new sales and services building at an
existing Ford dealership.
Under
Construction
27 4355 Rosebud Lane Multi-Family
Residential
A multi-family residential development
with 7 apartment units.
Under
Construction
28 5601 Grossmont
Center Drive
Commercial A commercial development of an acute
care center.
Discretionary
Review
Source: City 2020a
5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion of cumulative impacts includes each environmental topic addressed in Chapter 4 of this EIR. A description of the area of influence for cumulative impacts with respect to each environmental topic is provided, followed by an analysis of the potential cumulatively considerable contributions of the proposed project to any significant cumulative impacts.
5.2.1 Air Quality
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative air quality impacts is the SDAB. It is appropriate to consider the entire air basin as air emissions can travel substantial distances and are not confined by jurisdictional boundaries; rather, they are influenced by large-scale climatic and topographical features.
While some air quality emissions can be localized, such as a CO hotspot or odor, the overall consideration of cumulative air quality is typically more regional. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact.
The SDAB is a federal and/or state nonattainment area for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the SDAB, and this regional impact is cumulative rather than attributable to any one source. Cumulative projects throughout the air basin generate construction and operational air pollutant emissions that contribute to air quality impacts. The thresholds of significance are relevant to whether a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the existing cumulative air quality conditions. These thresholds are designed to identify those projects that would result in significant levels of air pollution and to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and federal ambient air quality standards. If a project’s emissions would be less than those threshold levels, the project would not be expected to result in a considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact.
The proposed project and the other projects in the SDAB would contribute particulates and the ozone precursors VOC and NOX to the area during short-term construction. As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, emissions during project construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Construction emissions would be less than the significance thresholds. Therefore, the project’s construction emissions would not be cumulatively
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-4 August 2022
considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. Long-term emissions also would be well below regional thresholds and, therefore, not cumulatively considerable. Since the project would be well below regional thresholds and, therefore, not cumulatively considerable, its emissions would be consistent with assumptions in the RAQS and SIP, and long-term emissions would not produce a cumulatively significant impact to air quality or human health. As discussed in Section 4.1, no exceedances of the CO standard or substantial generation of TACs would occur. The project also would not result in the creation of odors affecting a substantial number of people. These impacts would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5.2.2 Biological Resources
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources is defined as the La Mesa Subarea HCP/NCCP Plan study area (City 1998). The La Mesa Subarea Plan identifies MSCPcovered species and sensitive habitat for protection from cumulative development in the City. Similar to the proposed project, any cumulative projects in the City that would impact biological resources would be required to mitigate impacts to below a level of significance to the extent feasible. If mitigation would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, then the combination of multiple projects impacting biological resources could result in a significant cumulative impact.
As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts related to special status species, specifically nesting and migratory birds and sensitive communities, including freshwater marsh, willow woodland, and wetlands. Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be implemented to ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to these biological resources. These measures would also reduce the proposed project’s potential cumulative impacts to nesting and migratory birds and sensitive communities to a less than significant level.
The project would also result in impacts to state and federal jurisdictional waters and wetlands associated with the proposed improvements to Alvarado Creek. A “no net loss” policy has been established for wetlands by state and federal resource agencies; therefore, the project is required (BIO-3) to establish/re-establish jurisdictional habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Other projects that would impact wetlands would be required to mitigate impacts as well, at ratios commensurate with the type and location of the impacts, pursuant to the MSCP and regulatory agency requirements, thereby ensuring that cumulative impacts would result in no net loss of wetlands. Pursuant to BIO-3, and the implementation of applicable mitigation for other projects, construction of the project and other cumulative projects would not result in the net loss of jurisdictional resources. Accordingly, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to loss of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to biological resources.
5.2.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to historical resources is defined as the City of La Mesa and immediately surrounding lands. The Historic Preservation Element of the adopted La Mesa General Plan provides policies and objectives for the preservation of the City’s historic sites, buildings, and districts (City 2012a). The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (LMMC Title 25) implements the goals of the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan, and establishes specific regulations regarding alteration or demolition of a historic landmark, contributing structure within a
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-5 August 2022
historic district, cultural resources included in the Historic Resources Inventory, and cultural resources listed on the Potential Landmark Registry. If known historic resources would be impacted by any of the cumulative projects identified in Table 5-1, that individual cumulative project would be required to mitigated potentially significant impacts in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and CEQA. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact related to historical resources would not occur.
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources is defined as the San Diego region. Multiple cumulative projects would involve excavation and other ground-disturbing activities, which allows for the potential for discovering previously unknown buried archaeological resources and human remains. As discussed in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to unknown buried archaeological resources. However, mitigation measure CUL-1, consisting of cultural monitoring during grading of any native soils, would be implemented to ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to these resources. This mitigation measure would also reduce the proposed project’s potential cumulative impacts to unknown buried cultural resources.
Tribal outreach has resulted in concurrence that the proposed mitigation measures for the site are adequate and no need for additional consultation was identified. Thus, the project is not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts within the region to cultural and cultural tribal resources, and with the application of similar cultural resources/tribal assessment, consultation and monitoring requirements to the other cumulative projects as well, cumulative impacts to historical and tribal resources would be less than significant.
5.2.4 Geology and Soils
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to geology and soils is the City of La Mesa and immediately surrounding lands. Geology and soil features can be very specific to certain locations and sites, but can also have broad reaching elements, such as faults and underlying bedrock formations. However, potential geologic or soil hazards resulting from development are generally localized to the site and immediate surrounding lands rather than a broad reaching area. In this way, potential cumulative impacts resulting from seismic and geologic hazards would be minimized on a site-by-site basis to the extent that standard construction methods and code requirements provide.
Throughout the City, cumulative projects would also be susceptible to similar geologic hazards. The specific geologic condition of each individual project site, soil type, and project excavation requirements would dictate the severity of the potential geologic risks.
As described in Section 5.4, Geology and Soils, all potential site-specific geotechnical impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through conformance with geotechnical recommendations and established regulatory standards. Specifically, with the exception of erosion/ sedimentation (as discussed below), potential geology and soils effects are inherently restricted to the areas proposed for development and would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with other planned or proposed development. That is, issues including ground rupture, ground acceleration, liquefaction and related effects, landslides/slope stability, expansive/corrosive soils, subsidence/ shrinkage, settlement, and shallow groundwater would involve effects to (and not from) the site and/or are specific to on-site conditions. Accordingly, addressing these potential hazards for the project would involve using measures to conform to existing requirements and/or site-specific design and construction. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, as well as the fact that the listed cumulative projects would also be subject to the noted
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-6 August 2022
standards, associated potential cumulative impacts related to the identified geology and soils issues would be less than significant.
During construction of the project, graded areas would be exposed to potential erosion and sedimentation impacts. Project-related erosion and sedimentation could contribute to associated cumulative effects in concert with other existing and future development in the project vicinity. Project implementation, however, would include a number of avoidance and minimization measures related to erosion and sedimentation impacts, including the types of BMPs described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. These (or other appropriate) measures in the project SWPPP would ensure conformance with applicable federal (NPDES), state and local regulatory standards related to erosion and sedimentation, and would reduce any project-related contribution to cumulative impacts involving construction-generated erosion and sedimentation to below cumulatively significant levels.
As described in Section 4.7, erosion and sedimentation are not considered to be significant long-term concerns at the project site, as developed areas would be stabilized through installation of associated structures/hardscape and landscaping. As the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would exhibit similar long-term conditions, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to long-term erosion and sedimentation.
Overall, cumulative projects would be subject to the same regulations and engineering practices as the project, such as the City’s grading ordinance, storm water regulation and associated BMPs, as well as CBC requirements. Potential cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.
5.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The geographic scope of consideration for GHG emissions is global, as such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. By nature, GHG impacts are cumulative as they are the result of combined worldwide emissions over many years, and additional development would incrementally contribute to this cumulative impact. The discussion presented in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, also serves as the project’s cumulative impact analysis.
As detailed in that section, a number of plans, policies, and regulations have been adopted for the purpose of reducing cumulative GHG emissions. The project would be a TOD and has incorporated a number of sustainable features into its design to reduce overall emissions, reflecting the types of measures recommended by public agencies to reduce the magnitude of GHG emissions and help California achieve its statewide goals. The project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to GHG emissions.
5.2.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
For the most part, hazardous materials impacts are site-specific and would not combine with impacts from other projects to result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials is defined as the project site and adjacent properties.
The cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 consist of residential, commercial, and office uses; none of the cumulative projects propose industrial land uses or other land uses that would require the
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-7 August 2022
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials other than oil and hydrocarbons during construction and standard cleaning and landscaping products during operation. All cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials, including the requirements for spill containment and cleanup procedures. Proper handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the potential for accidental spills, while implementation of spill containment and cleanup procedures would prevent significant hazard to the public or the environment in the event of accidental spills. Any cumulative project that proposes development of a potential hazardous materials site would be required to remediate the existing site contamination consistent with applicable regulations. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would not occur.
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to airport safety hazards is the AIA of Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport, within which the proposed project is located. All cumulative projects would be subject to the ALUCP, which would require compliance with development limitations within in the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight notification zones of Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport’s AIA. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact related to airport safety hazards would not occur.
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to emergency response and evacuations plans and wildland fires is the City of La Mesa and immediately surrounding areas. The cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 may require temporary roadway closures during construction that could cumulatively impede emergency access and/or evacuation routes throughout La Mesa. As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, the proposed project may require that the segment of Alvarado Road that passes in front of the project site be temporarily closed during construction, but this would not impede emergency access or evacuation routes, as other routes would be available. Thus, implementation the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to emergency response and evacuation plans. In addition, some cumulative projects would be developed in wildland-urban interface areas that could cumulatively increase risks associated with wildland fires. The proposed project is located within a highly developed urban area of La Mesa, which is not considered at high risk for wildland fires. Therefore, implementation the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to wildland fires.
5.2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
The geographic scope for analysis of impacts related to hydrology and water quality is the San Diego HU, one of 11 major drainage areas identified in the RWQCB Basin Plan. Lands and water bodies within the watershed are part of an interrelated hydrologic system, such that modifications to a portion of a watershed or water pollution produced by development in one location may result in hydrology and water quality impacts that affect other water bodies in the watershed.
To the extent that other projects listed in Table 5-1 would be developing/operating at the same time as the project, related construction and operation activities could contribute to potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts associated with runoff generation, flooding hazards, drainage alteration, hydromodification, and water quality concerns. As described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the project (as well as the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1) would require conformance with a number of regulatory requirements related to hydrology and water quality, including applicable elements of the CWA, NPDES, City storm water standards, Porter-Cologne
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-8 August 2022
Water Quality Control Act, FEMA floodplain standards, and RWQCB Basin Plan. Based on such conformance, including implementation of related project design measures, all identified project-level hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the project would be effectively avoided or reduced below a level of significance.
The described regulatory requirements constitute a regional effort to implement hydrology and water quality protections through a watershed-based program designed to meet applicable criteria such as Basin Plan Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives. To this end, these standards require the implementation of efforts to reduce runoff/contaminant discharges and related effects to the MEP, with the NPDES Municipal Permit identifying the specific goals of limiting or prohibiting storm water and non-storm water discharges, and promoting attainment of water quality objectives necessary to support designated beneficial uses. The City has implemented requirements to meet these goals (and other applicable regulatory criteria) in the form of the associated storm water standards, as well as related education, planning, and enforcement procedures. Based on the described regional/watershed-based approach required for hydrology and water quality issues in existing regulatory standards, as well as the fact that conformance with these requirements would be required for all identified projects within the cumulative projects area (including the project), cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts would be less than significant.
5.2.8 Land Use
The geographic scope for the land use cumulative analysis includes the City of La Mesa. Land uses and development patterns are typically established in local land use planning documents specific to jurisdictions but can have implications on surrounding areas.
Cumulative projects with the City would be required to comply with the General Plan. Projects that are not consistent with existing land use designations would require approval of a General Plan amendment, as applicable. Projects that require a General Plan amendment are required to demonstrate conformance with pertinent goals, policies, and recommendations. Through adoption of the proposed Specific Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan as is demonstrated for the project in Section 4.8 of this EIR. As the project would not result in a significant impact related to consistency with applicable planning documents, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a land use compatibility impact.
5.2.9 Noise
The geographic scope for this analysis is the area immediately surrounding the project site and roadways that would be used by resident vehicles. Generally, noise impacts are limited to the area directly surrounding the noise generator, as noise attenuates with distance and only has the potential to combine with other noise sources in the immediate vicinity.
The project would temporarily elevate existing ambient noise levels at adjacent and nearby residentially zoned properties from construction noise. It would be unlikely that construction equipment use from development in nearby areas would occur simultaneously with project construction activities, especially within distances close enough to the same NSLUs to further elevate noise levels. Cumulative projects in close proximity to the project site include three smaller multi-family development projects to the south (cumulative projects 2, 11, and 16 in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1), which are currently in the plan review or discretionary review stage and would likely not be under construction at the same time as the project. In
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-9 August 2022
addition, construction activities from the proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with municipal code Section 10.80.100 that regulates construction activities. Therefore, cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts would not occur.
In addition, the implementation of cumulative development projects would have the potential to increase ambient noise from new operational noise. As described in Section 4.9, Noise, the project would not exceed the LMMC noise limits and would comply with the land use compatibility guidelines contained in the General Plan Noise Element. Operational noise from other projects in the area would also have to comply with these limits. With compliance with the LMMC limits, the project’s contribution to ambient noise level increases would not be cumulatively considerable.
5.2.10 Paleontological Resources
The geographic scope for analysis of potential paleontological resource impacts generally consists of the coastal plain of San Diego County, where paleontological resources similar to those that could occur on the project site have the potential to occur. Cumulative projects that require substantial excavation have the potential to result in disturbance to paleontological resources. These projects would be subject to state and local regulations requiring the recovery and curation of paleontological resources. As such, significant paleontological resource impacts resulting from future development would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis.
The project has the potential to result in disturbance of paleontological resources during excavation activities. On-site monitoring during grading and submittal of a monitoring results report or letter is required, along with fossil recovery and curation, as detailed in mitigation measure PAL-1. With implementation of the required paleontological mitigation program, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to paleontological resource impacts.
5.2.11 Public Facilities and Services
The geographic scope for analysis of public facilities and services is the City of La Mesa and immediately surrounding areas. The provision of public services and facilities is often specific to jurisdictional providers or confined by set service boundaries and funding specifications. Public services and facilities generally serve residents on a community-wide basis. Typically, changes in development influence the demand for public services and related facilities to be provided within a local city, county, or service district.
As discussed in Section 4.11, Public Facilities and Services, La Mesa is a member of the Heartland Fire and Rescue and maintains three fire stations that offer operations and emergency medical services. The City provides a full-service law enforcement program for its residents. The proposed project and 22 of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 include residential development that could introduce new residents into the City. The total number of residential units proposed from the cumulative projects excluding the proposed project is 1,068 units citywide. Including the proposed project, the number of proposed new residential units would potentially be 2,018 (with addition of 950 units). Therefore, the project could contribute to an increased need of public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
However, similar to the project, cumulative projects would be required to pay development impact fees and generate sales and property taxes over time, which would help to offset the additional costs to
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-10 August 2022
public service providers. These fees allow the City to have a source of funding available to provide new or additional facilities necessary to achieve and maintain adequate public service provision per population-based requirements and development as it occurs within an area. Development impact fees would be required to be paid prior to building permit issuance. Therefore, the potential for cumulative environmental impacts associated with public services and facilities effects would be minimized. For these reasons, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to public services and facilities.
5.2.12 Public Utilities
The geographic scope for the public utilities cumulative analysis is the La Mesa region. Public utilities can be specific to jurisdictions; however, some service providers offer service throughout a region and across multiple jurisdictions. Thus, changes in development influence the demand for utilities across the region and can drive the need for new or expanded utility infrastructure. Pending and future projects would be required to analyze public utilities demand and supply to avoid conflicts and provide upgrades or development impact fees toward new infrastructure facilities, as needed.
The project’s water demand has been considered in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the City through the WSA. This analysis determined that sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project in conjunction with other development.
The project also would not result in the need for new or altered off-site water systems.
As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Utilities, a Sewer Study (Fuscoe 2020b) was conducted for the project to determine the impact the project would have on City’s sewer infrastructure. The study concluded that the existing public sewer lines that would receive project flows have capacity to accommodate the project. Existing wastewater conveyance and treatment infrastructure would be adequate to serve the project and cumulative development projects.
The project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
The project would not result in a need for new off-site public utility systems or infrastructure or require substantial alterations to existing off-site utilities or infrastructure. The existing off-site utilities systems that currently serve the project area would be sufficient in serving the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to public utilities impacts when viewed together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
5.2.13 Transportation
The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to transportation is defined as the City of La Mesa and immediate surrounding areas. The VMT analysis presented in Section 4.13, Transportation, evaluates cumulative impacts for the Horizon Year (2035) conditions, which considers project traffic and project-implemented roadway improvements to forecasted 2035 conditions, based on the SANDAG Series 13 regional model.
As discussed in Section 4.13, project impacts related to VMT would be considered less than significant due to its proximity to a major transit stop. The project would not result in significant adverse cumulative impacts with respect to consistency with transportation plans, transportation design hazards
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-11 August 2022
or emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to transportation.
5.2.14 Visual Resources
The geographic scope for the visual resources cumulative analysis includes the City of La Mesa, primarily focused on the viewshed of the proposed project, which generally encompasses the I-8 corridor and portions of the residential neighborhoods to the south and north. This area is mostly built out with commercial and transportation facilities near the project site and residential uses in the outlying areas of the viewshed. Implementation of the project and identified cumulative projects would continue to add to the sense of an urban community; however, this development would be required to be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character and utilize appropriate architecture, materials, and development patterns as necessary for consistency with the aesthetic goals, principles, and objectives of the General Plan as detailed in Section 4.14, Visual Resources.
Due to the urbanized nature of the area, there are no designated scenic vistas or panoramic views located within the project vicinity, and the project site is not visible from any of them except for Mount Helix. However, the project site is barely visible in the distance from this vista; the on-site palm trees can be seen in the distance, but they are not visually prominent and other existing on-site features are not apparent. Several of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 are also visible from Mount Helix, but implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with views of the cumulative projects from Mount Helix.
The project site is 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, including the cumulative projects listed at 5061 Keeney Street and 7385 Colony Drive. 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 cumulative project sites after construction of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to scenic vistas would occur.
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 not 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. Cumulative development would not represent a substantial cumulative degradation in visual quality. While visual character within the project area would continue to change over time in accordance with the applicable
5.0 Cumulative Impacts
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 5-12 August 2022
planning documents, visual impacts as a result of implementation of the project would not be cumulatively considerable.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.14, the proposed project would result in additional sources of lighting. Several of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would also result in additional sources of lighting in the region. However, the cumulative projects closest to the proposed project include residential developments that would not be considered substantial on a citywide or regional scale due to the urbanized nature of the region. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to light and glare.
When considered with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the viewshed vicinity, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to visual resources.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Aä
?Ë
!"_$
University Ave
Fletcher Pky
Lake Murray Blvd
El Cajon Blvd
Spring St
La Mesa Blvd
El Paso St
Lake Murray Blvd
Dallas St
Fletcher Pky
La Mesa Blvd
University Ave
Baltimore Dr
Harbinson Ave
Garfield St
Jackson Dr
Normal Ave
Palm Ave
Mariposa St
Eastridge Dr
Maple Ave
Acacia Ave
Echo Dr
Parks Ave
Jessie Ave
13 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
28 27
26 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 12
11 10
Figure 5-1
Cumulative Projects
I:\PROJECTS\L\LAM\LAM-08_AlvaradoSP\Map\EIR\Fig5-1_CumulativeProjects.mxd LAM-08 9/8/2020 - RK Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2017) K
Alvarado Specific Plan
0 2,000 Feet
Project Site
Mixed Use
!(1 7930 Hillside Drive
!(5 7472 El Cajon Boulevard
!(6 7808 El Cajon Boulevard
!(7 8135 El Paso Street
!(9 4400 Palm Avenue
!(14 7664 El Cajon Boulevard
!(17 4949 Baltimore Drive
!(18 7353 El Cajon Boulevard
!(19 7561 El Cajon Boulevard
!(20 7604 El Cajon Boulevard
!(24 8055 La Mesa Boulevard
Residential
!(2 5061 Keeney Street
!(3 7643 University Avenue
!(4 7735 University Avenue
!(10 8234 University Avenue
!(11 7385 Colony Drive
!(12 Eastridge Drive
!(15 High Street
!(16 5042 Keeney Street
!(21 7735 El Cajon Boulevard
!(25 8525 La Mesa Boulevard
!(27 4355 Rosebud Lane
Commercial
!(8 9160 Fletcher Parkway
!(13 7393 El Cajon Boulevard
!(22 8165 Fletcher Parkway
!(23 5335 Jackson Drive
!(26 8970 La Mesa Boulevard
!(28 5601 Grossmont Center Drive
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-1 August 2022
6.0 OTHER MANDATORY DISCUSSION AREAS
This chapter addresses the issues of effects found not to be significant, growth inducement, significant effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, and significant irreversible environmental changes.
6.1 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Based upon initial environmental review, the City has determined that the project would not have the potential to cause significant impacts associated with the following issue areas:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
• Energy;
• Mineral Resources;
• Population and Housing; and
• Wildfire
6.1.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The project site is developed and contains an RV resort. No active agricultural operations are present on the site or in the project vicinity. Based on farmland mapping prepared by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) California Important Farmland Finder, the project site and surrounding areas are not identified as containing Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
According to the California Important Farmland Finder, the project site and surrounding areas are classified as Urban and Built-Up Land (CDC 2016). Therefore, implementation of the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
The Williamson Act is only applicable to parcels within an established agricultural preserve consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland, or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. The Williamson Act is designed to prevent the premature and unnecessary conversion of open space lands and agricultural areas to urban uses. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land for use as agricultural or related open space. The project site is approximately 12 acres in size and is not classified as Prime Farmland. As stated above, the project site and surrounding areas are classified as Urban and Built-Up Land, where the Williamson Act does not enforce development restrictions. Therefore, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Based on the above considerations, the project is not anticipated to have impacts relative to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses because no such uses exist within the project site or vicinity.
No forestland occurs within the project area or immediate vicinity that would conflict with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of farmland or forestland. No impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would occur.
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-2 August 2022
6.1.2 Energy
6.1.2.1 Construction-related Energy Use
Energy used for construction would primarily consist of fuels in the form of diesel and gasoline. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction and would include the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities, haul trucks involved in the removal or construction and demolition materials, and smaller support equipment (such as lighting) would consume petroleum-based fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction, presumably in gasoline-powered vehicles.
While construction activities would consume petroleum-based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. The petroleum consumed during project construction would also be typical of similar construction projects and would not require the use of new petroleum resources beyond what are typically consumed in California. Based on these considerations, construction of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, the project would be built and operated in accordance with existing, applicable regulations, which include, but are not limited to, the California Green Building Standards Code and CARB regulations. Construction equipment and operation equipment would be maintained to allow for continuous energy-efficient operations. The project would therefore not conflict with the City’s CAP, and impacts associated with construction-related energy use would be less than significant.
6.1.2.2 Operation-related Energy Use
Electricity, natural gas, water demand, and wastewater generation, as well as anticipated VMT associated with the existing land use and operation of the project, were calculated in CalEEMod, using CalEEMod defaults and features such as project size and location. Table 6-1, Estimated Annual Energy Consumption at Buildout (Operational), summarizes this information and converts the values to British thermal units (BTU) for energy comparison purposes. The existing annual energy consumption associated with the current RV resort was deducted from the energy consumption estimated for the project to yield the net energy use resulting from implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Table 6-1, the project would result in a net increase in annual energy consumption of approximately 107,241 BTU.
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-3 August 2022
Table 6-1
ESTIMATED NET ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT BUILDOUT (OPERATIONAL) Source Quantity BTU
Existing Land Use Operations
Electricity 699,753 (kWh) 2,388
Natural Gas 2,979,497 (kBtu) 2,979
Water/Wastewater 162,372 (kWh) 554
Transportation 93,731 (gallons) 12,192
Total Existing Annual Energy
Consumption 18,113
Project Operations
Electricity 6,984,030 (kWh) 23,831
Natural Gas 7,090,760 (kBtu) 7,091
Water/Wastewater 1,010,199 (kWh) 3,447
Transportation 699,204 (gallons) 90,985
Total Proposed Annual Energy
Consumption
125,354
Net Total Annual Energy
Consumption (Project minus Existing)
107,241
Source: HELIX 2020b
kWh= kilowatt hours; kBtu= kilo-British thermal units; BTU = British thermal units While the project would increase the consumption of energy related to electricity, natural gas, water, and wastewater, the increase is consistent with the energy projections for the state and the region. The project would also include the following sustainable design features, which would also help to ensure the project’s gas/water/wastewater energy usage is not excessive or wasteful:
• Native and drought-tolerant landscape materials and plant species to reduce water usage; • Low-flow sprinkler heads, drip irrigation, and automatic weather-sensitive controllers in irrigation systems to reduce water usage;
• Light-colored stone pavers to reduce heat absorption; • Provision of electric vehicle charging stations; and
• Energy-conserving lighting to reduce electricity consumption.
As shown in Table 6-1, transportation is the greatest source of energy consumption. Energy is used for transportation in the form of fuel for vehicular trips. While the project would increase the consumption of gasoline and diesel proportionately with projected population growth, the increase is consistent overall with the energy projections for the state and the region. The project also would incorporate a number of project design features and assumptions that would lower vehicular traffic trips, and therefore energy consumption rates related to private vehicular transportation to help ensure the project’s transportation-related energy usage is not excessive or wasteful:
• Increased transit accessibility and within a TPA;
• Provision of electrical vehicle charging stations; and
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-4 August 2022
• Provision of a pedestrian and bicycle facilities links on-site uses and connect to existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site.
Additionally, operation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and nonresidential, which are mandatory requirements for efficiency and design. The project would be consistent with the requirements of Title 24 through implementation of energy-reduction measures, such as energy efficient lighting and appliances. As described in Section 4.8 of this EIR, the project would be consistent with applicable energy conservation goals and policies within the General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to operationrelated energy use would be less than significant.
6.1.3 Mineral Resources
According to the Conservation and Sustainability Element of the City’s General Plan, the City is not identified as having significant mineral resources (City 2012a). Approximately 98 percent of the City's land area has been developed with residential and commercial land uses. The project site is currently developed as an RV resort; no existing or past mineral extraction facilities are located on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the project area is not known as a locally important mineral resource recovery site and is not delineated on any plan for mineral resource recovery uses. The site has not been associated with mineral mining, and therefore, no impacts to the loss of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site would occur.
6.1.4 Population and Housing
The project site is currently developed with an RV resort containing 174 full-hookup RV spaces that would be removed with implementation of the project. However, the RV resort serves a combination of short-term and extended stay visitors, so implementation of the project would not displace a significant number of people or eliminate a large number of housing units. Additionally, the RVs are mobile in nature and would be able to move to another location. Furthermore, the project proposes the construction of housing, so there would not be a net loss in housing.
The proposed project entails a master development plan for a phased TOD consisting of multi-family residential and resident-serving commercial uses. In total, an estimated 850 to 950 residential units would be constructed at buildout. There is a recognized housing shortage both in San Diego County and statewide that is contributing toward rising rents and housing costs. According to the 2010 Census, the City’s population increased approximately four percent in the ten years since the 2000 Census.
Additionally, according to SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, the City is anticipated to experience a 38-percent increase in population between 2008 and 2050 (SANDAG 2011). The City’s population continues to grow and there is a need of new housing units to accommodate the growth in the City’s population. Therefore, the additional 850 to 950 residential units proposed by the project would help to meet the existing and anticipated need for additional housing in La Mesa. The additional housing would likely be used to meet existing population growth and would not be expected to influence an increase in population growth in the region.
Based on the preceding analysis, no adverse population and housing impacts would be associated with the project. In fact, the proposed addition of housing would help the City accommodate the increasing population.
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-5 August 2022
6.1.5 Wildfire
The project site is located in a region of the County that experiences warm wet winters and hot dry summers with occasional droughts. According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, wildland fires occur in rural areas where development interfaces with undeveloped areas. Although the City is an urban community, wildland fires are present in the remaining pockets of undeveloped open area including, the open space portions of Eastridge, and Mount Helix (City 2012a). The project site is developed, but there is a small strip of undeveloped open space directly south of the site (i.e., Alvarado Creek banks and channel). However, the undeveloped open space is small and isolated, so it does not present significant risks of wildland fire to the project site.
The City of La Mesa acknowledges and reinforces the County of San Diego’s Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which identifies risks and ways to minimize damage caused by natural and humanmade disasters. The project would be included in this plan because the project site is located within the city limits. The project site is accessed via Alvarado Road. During construction, heavy construction-related 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). However, delays would be both minor and temporary. Additionally, operation of the proposed project would involve minimal and infrequent traffic in and out of the project site and would not result in interference with emergency response access. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Additionally, implementation of the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or require the installation or maintenance or associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. The project does involve several public improvements, including frontage road improvements to Alvarado Road (including new sidewalk, curb and gutter, streetlights, a pedestrian bridge, and a pedestrian connection to the trolley station), relocation of existing utility lines, sewer system upgrades, and improvements to Alvarado Creek. However, such improvements would not cause wildfire risks at the project site to substantially increase from existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant.
6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that EIRs include an evaluation of potential growth inducement impacts to “Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” This can include projects which remove obstacles to population growth, such as through the provision of expanded public utility capacity that may allow additional construction in the associated service area (e.g., the major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant). The referenced CEQA Guidelines section also notes that “It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.”
6.2.1 Short-term Effects
During the project construction phase, demand for various construction trade skills and labor would increase. It is anticipated that this demand would be met by the local labor force and would not require importation of a substantial number of workers that could cause an increased demand for temporary or permanent housing in this area.
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-6 August 2022
6.2.2 Long-term Effects
As discussed in Section 6.1.4, Population and Housing, the City’s population continues to grow and there is a need of new housing units to accommodate the anticipated growth. Similarly, the population of the region has been increasing at twice the rate of the production of new housing in the region, and the City is behind in the production of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) allocation for 2010 – 2020 of 1,722 new units. Consistent with an urbanized, largely built-out community, La Mesa has experienced relatively little housing growth since 1990. The housing stock in the City grew from 24,154 units in 1990 to 26,167 units in 2010, or an eight percent increase over 20 years (City 2012a). Based on the SANDAG Series 13 Growth Forecast (SANDAG 2013b), the housing stock in La Mesa only slightly increased by 2020, which creates a shortfall in the RHNA allocation.
The proposed development of up to 950 multi-family residential units would provide much needed housing within the City to respond to the existing housing shortage in La Mesa, as well as in San Diego County and statewide, consistent with the City’s RHNA. The project would not directly or indirectly increase population growth in the region. No significant pressure on local housing supply or demand is expected from development of the project. Proposed residential development would accommodate growth and demand that is already occurring within the region. The project site is currently developed with a RV resort and is surrounded by existing development and infrastructure. The project would not require the extension or expansion of roadways, public services, utilities, or infrastructure into areas currently without service. As a result, development of the project would not remove any physical barriers to growth. Therefore, growth inducement would not be significant as a result of the project.
6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if a project is implemented. As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, implementation of the project would result in significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Paleontological Resources. Each of these impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through the identified mitigation.
Therefore, the project would not result in any significant unavoidable environmental effects.
6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of significant irreversible environmental changes which would occur should a project be implemented. Irreversible environmental changes typically fall into three categories: (1) primary impacts, such as the use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., biological habitat, agricultural land, mineral deposits, water bodies, energy resources, and cultural resources); (2) secondary impacts, such as road improvements which provide access to previously inaccessible areas; and (3) environmental accidents potentially associated with the project.
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that current consumption of such resources is justified.
6.4.1 Primary Impacts Related to Nonrenewable Resources Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that current consumption of such resources is justified.
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-7 August 2022
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant irreversible impacts to agricultural land or forestry resources, mineral deposits, and energy resources, as described in Section 6.1. Although the project would impact sensitive biological resources (riparian habitat) and potential jurisdictional areas, mitigation for the impacts would generate a net gain in resource quality by providing for on-site mitigation (as approved by the responsible resource agencies during the permitting process). Water bodies in the project area include Alvarado Creek which bisects the project site and continues downstream to the San Diego River. Implementation of the project would include improvements to Alvarado Creek to control flood and storm water flows within the channel, as well as to enhance the creek as an open space amenity and natural feature. As discussed in Section 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would comply with applicable regulations and implementation of construction and post-construction BMPs to prevent and/or treat pollutant discharge into receiving waters.
The project would entail the commitment of energy and non-renewable resources, such as energy in the form of electricity, energy derived from fossil fuels, natural gas, construction materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, sand and gravel, petrochemicals, steel, and lumber and forest products), potable water, and labor during the construction phases. The project features a number of sustainability elements to minimize its consumption of energy and non-renewable resources, as described in Section 6.1.2 and associated impacts would be less than significant. Nevertheless, use of these resources on any level would have an incremental effect on the regional consumption of these commodities, and therefore result in long-term, irretrievable losses of non-renewable resources, such as fuel and energy.
Cultural and paleontological resources could potentially be disturbed during project grading, but would be salvaged, as necessary, and any resources encountered would be recovered in accordance with mitigation, as described in Sections 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and 4.10, Paleontological Resources. Impacts to paleontological and cultural resources would not result in irreversible changes to those resources.
6.4.2 Secondary Impacts Related to Access to Previously Inaccessible Areas The project would not involve road or highway improvements that would provide access to previously inaccessible areas. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities would increase accessibility and connectivity, but such facilities would not connect areas that are not currently inaccessible. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant irreversible impact with regard to access to previously inaccessible areas.
6.4.3 Impacts Related to Environmental Accidents
With respect to environmental accidents, and as further discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, potential impacts related to hazardous materials and associated health hazards from implementation of the proposed project would be avoided or reduced to below a level of significance through mandatory conformance with applicable regulatory/industry standards and codes and identified mitigation. The project site is located in a developed area with a generally low potential for wildfire hazards, as described in Section 6.1.5. Further, no major environmental accidents or hazards are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation, with incorporation of the mitigation discussed in Section 4.6.
6.0 Other Mandatory Discussion Areas
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 6-8 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-1 August 2022
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs describe “…a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Section 15126.6(f) of the State CEQA Guidelines further states that “the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” The State CEQA Guidelines provide several factors that should be considered with regard to the feasibility of an alternative. Those factors include: (1) site suitability; (2) economic viability; (3) availability of infrastructure; (4) general plan consistency; (5) other plans or regulatory limitations; (6) jurisdictional boundaries; and (7) whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (if an off-site alternative is evaluated).
SUMMARY OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the project alternatives are assessed relative to their ability to: (1) meet the basic objectives of the project; and (2) avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project. As there are no identified significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the project, this alternatives analysis considers a comparative analysis of the project’s less than significant effects with mitigation measures incorporated.
Project Objectives
As described in Section 3.1 of this EIR, Project Goals and Objectives, the following are the primary goals and objectives of the project:
1. Address the City’s housing supply needs by providing for the development of a mix of housing types to maximize the advantages of locating new infill housing in close proximity to existing regional transportation facilities, including the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, connecting bus routes, and freeway access;
2. Establish a land use plan that would improve public safety in the project area by providing public improvements at current City standards for Alvarado Road, construct channel improvements to address flooding conditions from Alvarado Creek, and relocation and improvement of existing sanitary sewer system infrastructure within the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel;
3. Provide high quality student housing with a short and direct link to San Diego State University from the 70th Street Trolley Station;
4. Establish a land use plan that would transform the site with private development and public improvements that would serve as a new and positive gateway image for the community;
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-2 August 2022
5. Construct and maintain a multi-modal circulation system for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to enhance accessibility and support active transportation and public transit use;
6. Transform Alvarado Creek within the Specific Plan Area into an urban creek and open space feature within a planned residential community;
7. Provide an environmentally sustainable residential development through the implementation of features such as energy conservation, sustainable landscape, water conservation, and support for alternative transportation, consistent with the City’s CAP; and
8. Create a unified private development plan that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Based on the evaluations in Section 4.0 of this EIR, Environmental Analysis, the project would result in significant but mitigable impacts related to the environmental resources areas discussed below.
Implementation of the project could result in potentially significant biological resources impacts to sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk and other raptor species) and nesting birds, sensitive vegetation (freshwater marsh and willow woodland), jurisdictional waters and wetlands (freshwater marsh, willow woodland, and non-wetland waters/streambed), and consistency with habitat conservation plans (La Mesa HCP/NCCP Subarea Plan due to potential impacts MSCP-covered species). Impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through the mitigation measures (BIO-1 through BIO-3) described in Section 4.2.6.
The project has the potential to impact subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be located underground within the site. This impact would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of an archaeological monitoring program during project construction, followed by the preparation and submittal of a monitoring report, as described in mitigation measure CUL-1 in Section 4.3.6.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant hazards impact during demolition activities associated with release of ACM and/or LBP. Impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of an ACM and LBP survey and disposal, as described in mitigation measure HAZ-1 in Section 4.6.6.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to unknown paleontological resources given the entire project site is underlain by Stadium Conglomerate Formation, which is assigned a high paleontological resource sensitivity rating. This impact would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of paleontological monitoring program during project construction, followed by the preparation and submittal of a monitoring report, as described in mitigation measure PAL-1 in Section 4.10.6.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify alternatives that were considered and rejected as infeasible, and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. Alternatives
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-3 August 2022
considered but rejected from further study for the project include the Project Location Alternative, Existing Zoning Alternative, and Senior Housing Alternative as outlined below.
Project Location Alternative
The State CEQA Guidelines recommend that off-site alternative locations be considered if relocating the project would result in the avoidance of significant impacts of a project. There are no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts anticipated from project implementation; therefore, relocation of the project would not avoid a significant impact of the project. However, relocation of the project to another site could potentially result in a substantial reduction or avoidance of an impact that would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures that have been identified for the project. Factors that need to be considered when identifying an off-site location for the project include the size of the site, sensitive environmental resources on the site, its location relative to major transportation corridors (e.g., I-8) and regional transit facilities, the General Plan land use designation, and ability to meet the project objectives.
The project applicant has owned the project site for over 20 years and has operated the RV resort as a “non-conforming” use, which means that the current use is permitted until such time that it is removed.
However, the long-term vision has been to redevelop the site with a high-density multi-family residential use as contemplated in the General Plan. The General Plan describes long-term goals and policies encouraging redevelopment and revitalization of the Specific Plan area with more intensive infill development, the need for missing and updated public improvements, and provision of flood protection facilities for the Specific Plan area. The project applicant considered this prior to the purchase of the project property.
Primary considerations for selecting the project location included properties that could accommodate a housing development near existing infrastructure and regional transportation and transit opportunities, and at a site that was previously developed. As a result, the project location on a previously developed site within an existing area located adjacent to a major freeway corridor (i.e., the I-8 freeway) and within a half mile of transit opportunities was selected. Most of the areas in La Mesa are developed and there are no similar properties in the area that would support the project. No alternative locations were identified for the project that could meet the project objectives and substantially reduce project impacts, and therefore this alternative is rejected.
Existing Zoning Alternative
The Existing Zoning Alternative corresponds with the maximum development allowed under the existing underlying Light Industrial and Commercial Service (CM) zoning of the project site. Per municipal code Section 24.06.010, the CM zone is intended to include heavy commercial activity and light industrial services. As a result, this alternative would entail an entirely different land use than the proposed project, as the only allowable residential use within this zone is one caretaker apartment for each business entity. Based on the commercial and light industrial uses, this alternative would be expected to result in greater impacts to transportation as these uses typically generate more daily traffic trips than residential uses. VMT would also be expected to be greater because residential uses would not be developed at the site, which is within a TPA and Smart Growth area. Given the anticipated increase in traffic tips and VMT, air emissions and GHG would also be greater than residential uses.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-4 August 2022
The Existing Zoning Alternative would not provide the much needed additional housing within the City to respond to the existing housing shortage in La Mesa, as well as in San Diego County and statewide.
Additionally, development under this alternative would not be TOD or capitalize on the site’s proximity to adjacent transit facilities in accordance with SANDAG’s Regional Plan. In consideration of the above discussion and because this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, the Existing Zoning Alternative is rejected and not carried forward.
Senior Housing Alternative
During the public circulation of the NOP, members of community suggested providing senior housing as a major component of the project (refer to Appendix A). The population of seniors (age 65 and older) within La Mesa is generally higher compared to the region. Approximately 17.1 percent of the existing population of La Mesa comprises seniors compared to approximately 14.4 percent in the San Diego region (SANDAG 2019c and 2019d). The percentage of seniors in La Mesa is forecasted to increase to
23.1 percent in 2035 compared to 19.2 percent in the region, and 23.4 percent in 2050 compared to
19.7 percent in the region (SANDAG 2013b and 2013c). Based on the current and projected population of seniors in La Mesa, there is a market demand for senior housing, especially for for-rent senior units.
Senior housing facilities are ideally located in or near village or town centers because they would provide seniors with easier access to essential services, such as a pharmacy, food market, shops, banks and general merchandise within a close distance to their home. Although the project site is located adjacent to transit facilities, the site is not within or near commercial areas that provide any of the noted essential services. Moreover, mixing senior housing with non-senior housing and particularly student housing within the same development would not ideally be compatible or preferable by these residential sectors.
This alternative would achieve all of the identified project objectives. It would not, however, avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration.
PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following three alternatives are carried forward and evaluated in this analysis:
• No Project Alternative;
• Reduced Density Alternative; and
• Phase 1 Only Alternative.
The following rationale was considered when developing this range of alternatives:
• The No Project Alternative is required per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). It provides a basis for comparing the impacts that would occur if the project were approved, relative to what would occur if the project were not approved.
• The Reduced Density Alternative and Phase 1 Only Alternative are included in this section to evaluate whether any impacts would be reduced substantially when compared to the project.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-5 August 2022
These alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, because they provide feasible alternate development patterns that would reduce (but not eliminate) the significant impacts associated with the project. The impacts associated with these alternatives are compared to those identified for the project in the following analysis, and the alternatives are assessed relative to their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project, with an overview of project and alternative impacts provided in Table 7-1, Comparison of Project and Alternative Impacts, located at the end of this section.
No Project Alternative
Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that the “no project” analysis “shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if a project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” For a development project, the “no project” alternative is defined as the circumstance under which the project does not proceed and a comparison of the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against the environmental effects associated with the project. Accordingly, the No Project Alternative assumes that the project would not be adopted, no multi-family residential buildings would be constructed, and no public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, or utilities would be constructed. The existing RV resort would remain as well as other existing conditions described in Chapter 2 of this EIR.
Environmental Analysis
Air Quality
No demolition, grading, construction, or new development would occur under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would not have the potential to increase air pollutant emissions from the site as would occur with the project. Although air quality impacts would not be significant under the project, this alternative would result in lower environmental effects associated with air quality during construction because no new construction or demolition would occur.
No demolition, grading, construction, or additional development would occur under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would not have the potential to increase the existing air pollutant emissions associated with the existing use of the site as an RV resort. This is compared to the project for which impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. No new construction or demolition air pollution emissions or long-term, daily vehicle trip emissions would occur, compared to the project, for which such emissions would occur. No air quality impacts would occur under the No Project Alternative. In terms of long-term, regional effects, potential benefits related to reduced vehicle trips/miles due to placement of higher-density multi-family residential uses in close proximity to transit with easy access to public transportation options as well as improvements in connectivity between pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes would not occur.
Biological Resources
Under this alternative, the project site would remain as it currently exists, mostly developed and disturbed with some areas of natural vegetation along and within Alvarado Creek. No development would occur and there would be no impact to biological resources. The No Project Alternative would
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-6 August 2022
avoid impacts to biological resources resulting from the project, including sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk and other raptor species) and nesting birds, sensitive vegetation (freshwater marsh and willow woodland), jurisdictional waters and wetlands (freshwater marsh, willow woodland, and non-wetland waters/streambed), and consistency with habitat conservation plans (La Mesa HCP/NCCP Subarea Plan due to potential impacts MSCP-covered species). The benefits of an improved Alvarado Creek associated with restoration and hydrology would not be realized with this alternative.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, no excavation or grading activities would occur and the potential for impacts to unknown subsurface historical resources (including Native American resources and remains) from implementation of the project would be avoided. As described in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, the identified potential for impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources associated with implementation of the project would be significant but mitigable with the implementation of a monitoring program. No archaeological and tribal cultural resources impacts are associated with the No Project Alternative.
Geology and Soils
The No Project Alternative would not result in additional development or related disturbance on the project site, with no associated impacts related to geology and soils. Neither the project nor this alternative would result in significant impacts associated with geologic hazards and conditions; however, this alternative would have even less potential for geology impacts as there would be no excavation or grading on the site and no introduction of additional structures or people to the site. The less than significant impacts of the project would be avoided. It should also be noted that the project site would remain subject to a number of existing geologic hazards under the No Project Alternative (e.g., seismic ground shaking), as described in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to air quality, this alternative would not result in new GHG emissions or impacts over the existing contributions from the current use of the site as an RV resort. This is compared with the project which is anticipated to have less than significant GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project. It also, however, would not result in implementation of strategies to reduce regional GHG emissions, such as concentrating high-density residential development near a transit station and improving connectivity with and between alternative modes of travel, including bicycle and pedestrian travel and improved access to transit.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the site contains existing buildings that potentially could contain ACM and/or LBP based on their construction date. This presents potential health hazards during construction due to the potential for release of these hazardous building materials into the environment that could adversely affect the health of construction personnel and nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residents and school children). These potential adverse effects would be addressed through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction hazardous building materials survey and if required, appropriate remediation in compliance with regulatory requirements during the demolition and removal of the buildings to prevent the release of such materials. Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The No Project Alternative
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-7 August 2022
would leave the project site in its current condition; the existing buildings would remain along with any potentially hazardous building materials present on them. Although there would be no development activities and no impact would occur thus avoiding the potentially significant impact of the project, a potential benefit of the project to remove potentially hazardous materials would not be realized with this alternative.
Neither the project nor this alternative would result in significant impacts associated with airport hazards; however, this alternative would have even less potential for such impacts as there would be substantially less people residing at the site compared to the development of up to 950 multi-family residential units.
The project would have a less than significant impact with respect to wildfire and emergency response/evacuation, as described in Section 4.6, and because no development would occur under this alternative, no impacts would occur. However, under this alternative, a potential benefit of improving Alvarado Road that would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles would not be realized.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As the No Project Alternative would not result in additional development, it would not result in potential impacts related to the generation of impervious surfaces, increases in runoff rates/ amounts, storm drain capacity, flooding, erosion/sedimentation, hydromodification, drainage alteration, and water pollutants. All of these impacts under the project would, however, be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through implementation of proposed design measures and required conformance with applicable regulatory/industry standards.
As the No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in additional development, it would not result in potential impacts related to the generation of impervious surfaces, increases in runoff rates/ amounts, storm drain capacity, flooding, erosion/sedimentation, hydromodification, drainage alteration, and water pollutants. No action would be taken and no impacts would occur. Drainage and water quality conditions on the project site would remain as they currently are. As described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site, alter drainage patterns, and introduce uses that could generate pollutants and impact the quality of storm water runoff. These potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant, however, conformance with applicable storm water standards and water quality regulations (including the NPDES Construction General, Municipal and Groundwater permits) would be required.
If the project site operates in its current state under this alternative, it would continue to generate associated urban contaminants similar to those described for the project. Based on the construction date of current on-site development, it is anticipated that no associated volume/flow-based or other pollutant control BMPs are present, and that the related long-term storm water pollutant generation from the site could, therefore, be more detrimental to water quality under the No Project Alternative than for the project (which would include pollutant control BMPs in conformance with associated regulatory requirements). Additionally, the proposed improvements to Alvarado Creek would not occur under this alternative and thus, the existing drainage and flood issues associated with the site that would be addressed with the project would remain and could continue to worsen over time (particularly since the channel would not be improved and cleared of non-native vegetation and debris). Therefore,
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-8 August 2022
although hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be less than significant because no development would occur, they would be greater than the project impacts.
Land Use
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing uses and physical conditions on the project site would remain. The RV resort would continue to operate as a non-conforming use and Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, the overhead utility lines, and existing sewer facilities would remain in their current condition and configuration. While the RV resort is not consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the site, it is permitted at the site based on its non-conforming use status. Thus, as with the proposed project, no land use plan consistency impacts would occur. However, this alternative would not implement or further express the goals, objectives, or policies of the General Plan. Furthermore, it would not support goals in SANDAG’s Regional Plan that encourage high-density development in proximity to transit facilities. As with the project, this alternative would not physically divide an established community. No significant land use impacts are anticipated with the project, and none would occur under this alternative.
Noise
As described in Section 4.9, Noise, of this EIR, noise impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. The No Project Alternative would not result in demolition or construction activities or new stationary and mobile noise sources in the vicinity of existing noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required. The existing noise conditions on the project site would continue and there would be no new noise sources at the site that could potentially impact off-site uses.
Paleontological Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, project development would not occur, and no other development/disturbance activities would be implemented. Accordingly, no associated impacts to paleontological resources would result, and impacts identified to the Stadium Conglomerate Formation (moderate to high resource potential) from implementation of the project would be avoided. As described in Section 4.10, Paleontological Resources, of this EIR, the noted impacts to paleontological resources associated with implementation of the project would be reduced below a level of significance through the required monitoring program.
Public Facilities and Services
The less than significant impacts of the project with respect to public services such as police, fire, parks, and library services, would not occur under this alternative. No development would occur under the No Project Alternative that would increase population, resulting in a need to expand public services and facilities. Impacts related to demand for these services also would be less than significant for the project.
Public Utilities
As the No Project Alternative would not alter the intensity of development on the project site, it would not result in demand for additional water, sewer, solid waste disposal, or other utility services. Impacts related to demand for these services also would be less than significant for the project. Under this
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-9 August 2022
alternative, a potential benefit of relocated the existing overhead utility lines that traverse the site underground would not be realized.
Transportation
As no development is proposed under this alternative, no additional traffic beyond existing conditions would be generated and no impact would occur. Similarly, because no development would occur, there would be no associated transportation design hazard impacts.
The No Project Alternative would not result in construction-related traffic impacts, as no construction would occur. In addition, the project improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as improved access to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, would not be implemented with this alternative. Thus, while there would be no impacts because no development would occur, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with applicable transportation plans, including the General Plan Circulation Element and Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan. Furthermore, it would not be consistent with SANDAG’s Regional Plan that encourage high-density development in proximity to transit facilities.
The project would have a less than significant impact with respect to emergency access, as described in Section 4.13, Transportation, of this EIR, and because no development would occur under this alternative, no impacts would occur. However, under this alternative, a potential benefit of improving Alvarado Road that would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles would not be realized.
Visual Resources
The No Project Alternative would retain existing visual conditions at the site. This alternative would not result in the introduction of new residential structures, enhanced landscaping, or architectural design that would improve the relationship of the project site to the surrounding areas. Views from the freeway and adjacent residential neighborhoods would continue to be the developed RV resort and the stand of mature palm trees. As this alternative would not result in any site improvements that would change the existing visual environment, no impacts to visual resources would occur.
Conclusion
The No Project Alternative would avoid significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and paleontological resources identified for the project. It would also avoid all other impacts of the project related to air quality, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public facilities and services, public utilities, transportation, and visual resources, which would be less than significant for the project.
However, the benefits of the proposed project would not be realized under the No Project Alternative, including the following:
• Long-term, regional benefits of reduced air and GHG emissions related to reduced vehicle trips/miles due to placement of higher-density multi-family residential uses in close proximity to transit as well as improvements in connectivity between pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes; • Alvarado Creek would not be improved to resolve drainage and flooding issues, and would not be restored with riparian vegetation;
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-10 August 2022
• The project site would not be improved with volume/flow-based or other pollutant control BMPs to treat storm water runoff before being conveyed to Alvarado Creek; and • The project would potentially remove hazardous building materials that may be present on existing on-site buildings.
Based on the preceding analysis and the fact that no development of any of the project features would occur with the No Project Alternative, this alternative would fail to meet any of the basic project objectives listed above in Section 7.2.1.
Reduced Density Alternative
Description
There were no feasible residential development alternatives identified that could eliminate any of the impacts associated with the project. Therefore, an alternative was selected for analysis that would potentially lessen project impacts and would result in a feasible development for the applicant to implement. The Reduced Density Alternative would involve a similar development proposal to the project, but with a 25-percent reduction in the number of residential units. Specifically, this alternative considers the development of 712 multi-family residential units along with up to 15,000 SF of residentserving commercial space. The public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, and utility facilities proposed as part of the project also would occur under this alternative. Under this alternative, the development footprint and number of buildings would be the same as the project; however, buildings would include fewer floors of residential built on the podium.
Environmental Analysis
Air Quality
Demolition, grading, and construction activities would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative and would generate air emissions during construction and operation; however, air emissions during both construction and operations would be incrementally less overall when compared to the project, because fewer units would be constructed. Emissions during grading would be expected to be similar as it is anticipated that most of the site would still need to be graded and a substantial amount of excavation would still be needed to remove existing fill materials that are unsuitable for building foundations. The Reduced Density Alternative would generate less daily vehicle trips than the project. As vehicle emissions would be the predominant source of operational emissions, this alternative would be expected to generate less air pollution than the project. Overall, both the project and the Reduced Density Alternative would have less than significant air quality impacts, but the impacts associated with the alternative would be slightly less than those associated with the project.
Biological Resources
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the site would be redeveloped with the same land uses as the project and with a similar development footprint; however, with 25-percent fewer homes. Impacts to sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk and other raptor species) and nesting birds, sensitive vegetation (freshwater marsh and willow woodland), jurisdictional waters and wetlands (freshwater marsh, willow woodland, and non-wetland waters/streambed), and consistency with habitat conservation plans (La Mesa HCP/NCCP Subarea Plan due to potential impacts MSCP-covered species) that would require
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-11 August 2022
mitigation under the project would likely still occur in order to implement the residential development and Alvarado Creek improvements. Both the project and the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources, with similar mitigation requirements.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR, no significant on-site cultural resources were identified, but there is the potential for unknown resources to be discovered during on-site grading. The noted impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with implementation of the project would be reduced below a level of significance through mitigation measures requiring monitoring of specific ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance associated with development of the Reduced Density Alternative would be slightly less than that associated with the project, because it is likely that slightly less grading would be required. Therefore, the likelihood of encountering cultural resources would be similar, but slightly less than the project. Both scenarios would have a significant but mitigable potential for impacts to unidentified prehistoric or ethnohistoric resources (including Native American resources and remains), with the same mitigation requirements for construction monitoring.
Geology and Soils
Both the project and the Reduced Density Alternative would be required to comply with the applicable recommendations of an on-site geotechnical investigation, and it is expected that these recommendations would be very similar for both of these scenarios. Both would require a similar amount of grading, including excavation and recompaction of much of the existing on-site fill materials to create suitable building foundations, although grading could be slightly less for the alternative. This alternative would expose 25 percent fewer buildings and people to geologic hazards on the project site should a seismic event occur. Impacts would be less than significant for both the project and this alternative, with slightly less impacts anticipated for the alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in site-specific GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project, but at a reduced amount associated with the 25 percent reduction in the number of residential units. As a result, GHG impacts would remain less than significant but would be incrementally reduced under this alternative when compared to the project due to a reduction in traffic trips and development intensity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the existing on-site buildings have potential to contain ACM and/or LBP. These conditions present potential health hazards during construction due to the potential for release of these materials to adversely affect the health of construction personnel and nearby sensitive receptors (residents and school children). These potential adverse effects would be addressed through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction hazardous building materials survey and if required, appropriate remediation in compliance with regulatory requirements during the demolition and removal of the buildings to prevent the release of such materials. Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The Reduced Density Alternative would implement a similar, but slightly less intense, residential development on the project site, which would also require the removal of the existing buildings.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-12 August 2022
Accordingly, the impacts and required mitigation would be the same for this alternative as for the project. Both types of development would be required by law to properly store, use, and dispose of hazardous substances used in the course of construction and long-term maintenance of the developed site.
The project would have a less than significant impact with respect to airport hazards and this alternative would have a slightly less potential for such impacts given the lower building heights, 25 percent reduction in residential units, and associated reduction in the number of people residing at the site.
It is anticipated that this development alternative would result in a similar transportation infrastructure to that associated with the project. This would include similar benefit of improving Alvarado Road that would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles. The project and this alternative would have a similar, less than significant impact with respect to wildfire and emergency response/evacuation.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the same type of development as the project, except there would be 25 percent less development. Potential impacts related to the generation of impervious surfaces, increases in runoff rates/amounts, storm drain capacity, flooding, erosion/sedimentation, hydromodification, drainage alteration, and water pollutants would generally be similar given that the development footprint and number of buildings would be the same as the project. As described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant as conformance with City storm water standards, water quality regulations (including the NPDES Construction General, Municipal and Groundwater permits) and water conservation policies would be required. As a result, the less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the Reduced Density Alternative would be similar compared to the project even though the intensity and use of the site may be slightly reduced.
Land Use
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the existing RV resort would be removed and replaced with a residential development, similar to the project, but with 25 percent fewer residences. Like the project, this alternative would implement and further express goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and also would support goals in SANDAG’s Regional Plan to promote higher density development near transit facilities, although to a lesser extent than the project. As with the project, this alternative would not physically divide an established community. It should be noted that this alternative would provide less housing at a time when the City is seeking to increase its available housing supply. Land use impacts would be less than significant but slightly greater than the project.
Noise
Noise impacts to surrounding development from project construction, traffic, and on-site operations were determined to be less than significant for the project. The Reduced Density Alternative would involve less construction and less long-term operational traffic, which would in turn result in reduced noise impacts compared to the project. While specific impacts to adjacent properties would depend on the design of the project, similar to the project, a reduced intensity residential development would be required to conform with applicable City noise standards.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-13 August 2022
While this alternative would involve a new site plan that could potentially locate planned residential uses farther from I-8, residential units and exterior usable spaces would still be exposed to noise from I-8 in excess of applicable noise standards, requiring noise reduction design features measures similar to those identified for the project to be incorporated into the design of this alternative. It is expected that this alternative would also need to incorporate private exterior use area noise barriers and higher STC-rated building materials to be consistent with General Plan noise-land use compatibility standards.
Land use impacts associated with noise compatibility would be less than significant and similar for the project and this alternative. Overall, noise impacts associated with the Reduced Density Alternative would remain less than significant and would likely be reduced compared to the project, depending on the specific design of the alternative development.
Paleontological Resources
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the extent of grading would be slightly reduced but the anticipated depth of excavation would be similar to the project due to the site conditions associated with the floodplain. Impacts to potential paleontological resources associated with the Stadium Conglomerate Formation (moderate to high resource potential) would, therefore, be the same as the project. Both scenarios would have a significant but mitigable potential for impacts to paleontological resources, with the same mitigation requirements for construction monitoring, as described in Section 4.10, Paleontological Resources.
Public Services and Facilities
Impacts related to demand for most public services and facilities, including police, fire, libraries, and parks/recreation, would be about 25 percent less under this alternative compared to the project, proportional to the reduced number of residents. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would place less demand on public services than the project; however, impacts under either scenario would be less than significant.
Public Utilities
As the Reduced Density Alternative would involve the construction and operation of 25 percent less development than the project, it would result in reduced demand for additional water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and other utility services. Impacts related to demand for public utilities under the project and this alternative would both be less than significant; overall, however, impacts under the Reduced Density Alternative would be comparatively less than the project.
Transportation
Development of the project site with 25 percent fewer residential units would result in a corresponding decrease in traffic compared to the project. This would result in slightly reduced traffic volumes and VMT. Both the project and this alternative would be within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop and thus, transportation impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. Moreover, this alternative would incorporate the same VMT reduction measures as the project, which would result in a further reduction in VMT.
The Reduced Density Alternative would include reduced transportation/circulation impacts during construction as less materials and equipment associated with earthwork and structural development would be needed when compared to the project. Similar to the project, no transportation hazards would
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-14 August 2022
occur under this alternative. It is anticipated that this alternative would provide similar pedestrian and bicycle amenities to benefit the proposed residents and the surrounding community.
The same project improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as improved access to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, would be implemented with this alternative. Thus, like the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be consistent with adopted transportation plans, including the General Plan Circulation Element, Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, and SANDAG’s Regional Plan.
Both the project and this alternative would have a less than significant impact with respect to emergency access because both would include improvements to Alvarado Road that would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles.
Overall, less than significant transportation impacts would be associated with both the project and this alternative but would be incrementally less with the Reduced Density Alternative.
Visual Resources
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve the replacement of the existing RV resort with a residential development similar to the project but with 25 percent fewer units. Depending on the layout of the project site under this alternative, it may be possible to achieve lower building heights with slightly wider setbacks from existing development; these modifications may be discernible to some nearby residents but would likely not be substantial enough to be noticeable during brief public views from such vantagepoints. While both the project and this alternative would be compatible with the surrounding community and would have less than significant impacts related to visual resources, the impacts associated with the Reduced Density Alternative would be slightly less than the impact of the project.
Conclusion
The Reduced Density Alternative would not avoid any significant but mitigable impacts associated with the project. Significant but mitigable impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be slightly less than the project impacts, but the required mitigation would be the same. The project and this alternative would have essentially the same significant impacts with the same mitigation required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels relative to biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and paleontological resources. Less than significant impacts associated with both the project and this alternative with respect to air quality, geology and soils, GHG, noise, public services and facilities, public utilities, transportation, and visual resources would be slightly less for this alternative, while less than significant hydrology/water quality impacts would be approximately the same. The differences are primarily associated with the slightly reduced intensity of development required for this alternative. Less than significant land use impacts would be slightly greater due to the reduction in residential units that would not fully capitalize on the site’s proximity to transit facilities.
As the Reduced Density Alternative would involve a reduction by 25 percent of the development intensity of the project but with the same uses and public improvements, it would meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project given the reduction of residential units.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-15 August 2022
Phase 1 Only Alternative
Description
As stated in Section 7.5, there were no feasible residential development alternatives identified that could eliminate any of the impacts associated with the project. As with the Reduced Density Alternative, this alternative was selected for evaluation in that it would potentially lessen project impacts and would result in a feasible development for the applicant to implement. The Phase 1 Only Alternative would involve a similar development proposal to the project, as only Phase 1 would be developed on the project site. Under this alternative, the portion of the site west of Alvarado Creek would be developed with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 that would include up to 645 multi-family residential units along with some resident-serving commercial space. The buildings would the same as those of the project in terms of size, area, number of units, design, location, etc. The total area of the commercial space would be slightly less than the 15,000 SF associated with the project since three buildings would be constructed instead of four. The public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, and utility facilities proposed as part of the project also would occur under this alternative. The eastern portion of the project site would not be redeveloped, and the existing RV resort would continue to operate in this portion of the site.
Environmental Analysis
Air Quality
Under the phase 1 Only Alternative, demolition, grading, and construction activities would occur and would generate air emissions during construction and operation. Emissions during both construction and operations would be less overall when compared to the project. Emissions during grading would be expected to be reduced because the eastern portion of the site would not be graded; however, there would be adjacent sensitive receptors at the existing RV resort. The Phase 1 Only Alternative would generate less daily vehicle trips than the project due to the fewer units that would be developed. As vehicle emissions would be the predominant source of operational emissions, this alternative would be expected to generate less air pollution than the project. Overall, both the project and the Phase 1 Only Alternative would have less than significant air quality impacts, but the impacts associated with this alternative would be less than those associated with the project.
Biological Resources
Under the Phase 1 Only Alternative, the western portion of the site would be redeveloped with the same land uses as the project with the same development footprint on this portion of the project site.
The eastern portion of the site would not be redeveloped. Impacts to sensitive species (Cooper’s hawk and other raptor species) and nesting birds, sensitive vegetation (freshwater marsh and willow woodland), jurisdictional waters and wetlands (freshwater marsh, willow woodland, and non-wetland waters/streambed), and consistency with habitat conservation plans (La Mesa HCP/NCCP Subarea Plan due to potential impacts MSCP-covered species) that would require mitigation under the project would likely still occur in order to implement the residential development and Alvarado Creek improvements.
Both the project and the Phase 1 Only Alternative would result in similar significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources, with similar mitigation requirements.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-16 August 2022
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
No significant on-site cultural resources were identified on the project site, but there is the potential for unknown resources to be discovered during on-site grading. As described in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with implementation of the project would be reduced below a level of significance through mitigation measures requiring monitoring during certain construction activities involving ground disturbance.
Ground disturbance associated with development of the Phase 1 Only Alternative would be less than that associated with the project, because less grading would be required. Therefore, the likelihood of encountering cultural resources would be similar, but slightly less than the project. Both scenarios would have a significant but mitigable potential for impacts to unidentified cultural resources, with the same mitigation requirements for construction monitoring.
Geology and Soils
Both the project and the Phase 1 Only Alternative would be required to comply with the applicable recommendations of an on-site geotechnical investigation, and it is expected that these recommendations would be very similar for both of these scenarios. They both would require grading, including excavation and recompaction of the existing on-site fill materials to create suitable building foundations, although grading would be less for the alternative. This alternative would expose fewer buildings and people to geologic hazards on the project site should a seismic event occur. Impacts would be less than significant for both the project and this alternative, with less impacts anticipated for the alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Phase 1 Only Alternative would result in site-specific GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project, but at a reduced amount given that no development would occur on the eastern portion of the site. As a result, GHG impacts would remain less than significant and would be less under this alternative when compared to the project due to a reduction in traffic trips and development intensity.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The existing on-site buildings have potential to contain hazardous building materials associated with ACM and/or LBP, as discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. These conditions present potential health hazards during construction due to the potential for release of these materials to adversely affect the health of construction personnel and nearby sensitive receptors (residents and school children). Potential adverse effects would be addressed through implementation of a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction hazardous building materials survey and if required, appropriate remediation in compliance with regulatory requirements during the demolition and removal of the buildings to prevent the release of such materials. Project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The Phase 1 Only Alternative would require the removal of five of the existing six buildings. Accordingly, the impacts and required mitigation would be the same for this alternative as for the project. Both types of development would be required by law to properly store, use, and dispose of hazardous substances used in the course of construction and long-term maintenance of the developed site. It is noted that one of the existing buildings would remain under this alternative, which would potentially leave hazardous building materials on the project site.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-17 August 2022
The project would have a less than significant impact with respect to airport hazards and this alternative would have a slightly less potential for such impacts given the reduction in residential units and associated reduction in the number of people residing at the site.
Like the project, this alternative would include improvements to Alvarado Road that would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles. The project and this alternative would have a similar, less than significant impact with respect to wildfire and emergency response/evacuation.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Phase 1 Only Alternative would result in the same type of development as the project, except there would be less development. Potential impacts related to the generation of impervious surfaces, increases in runoff rates/amounts, storm drain capacity, flooding, erosion/sedimentation, hydromodification, drainage alteration, and water pollutants would generally be similar. Although there would be a smaller development footprint and reduced impervious surfaces associated with new development, the eastern portion of the site would remain in its current condition, which is almost entirely paved.
As described in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant as conformance with City storm water standards, water quality regulations (including the NPDES Construction General, Municipal and Groundwater permits) and water conservation policies would be required. As a result, the less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the Phase 1 Only Alternative would be similar compared to the project even though the intensity and use of the site would be reduced.
Land Use
Under the Phase 1 Only Alternative, the western portion of the existing RV resort would be removed and replaced with a residential development, similar to the project, but with three buildings and a corresponding reduction in the number of residential units. While this alternative would implement and further express goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and also would support goals in SANDAG’s Regional Plan to promote higher density development near transit facilities, it would do so to a lesser extent than the project because of the fewer number of residential units that would be developed. As with the project, this alternative would not physically divide an established community.
Land use impacts would be less than significant but slightly greater than the project. It should be noted that this alternative would provide less housing at a time when the City is seeking to increase its available housing supply.
Noise
Noise impacts to surrounding development from project construction, traffic and on-site operations were determined to be less than significant for the project. The Phase 1 Only Alternative would involve less construction and less long-term operational traffic, which would result in reduced noise impacts compared to the project. Impacts to adjacent properties would be similar to the project, and although an additional noise-sensitive land use would exist in the project area (the adjacent portion of the existing RV resort that would remain), this alternative would be required to conform with applicable City noise standards.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-18 August 2022
Like the project, residential units and exterior usable spaces would still be exposed to noise from I-8 in excess of applicable noise standards, requiring noise reduction design features measures similar to those identified for the project to be incorporated into the design of this alternative. It is expected that this alternative would also need to incorporate private exterior use area noise barriers and higher STC-rated building materials, in order to be consistent with General Plan noise-land use compatibility standards. Land use impacts associated with noise compatibility would be less than significant and similar for the project and this alternative. Overall, noise impacts associated with the Phase 1 Only Alternative would remain less than significant and would be similar in severity to the project.
Paleontological Resources
Under the Phase 1 Only Alternative, the extent of grading would be slightly reduced but the anticipated depth of excavation would be same as the project. Impacts to potential paleontological resources associated with the Stadium Conglomerate Formation (moderate to high resource potential) would, therefore, be the same as the project. Both scenarios would have a significant but mitigable potential for impacts to paleontological resources, with the same mitigation requirements for construction monitoring, as described in Section 4.10, Paleontological Resources.
Public Services and Facilities
Impacts related to demand for public services and facilities, including police, fire, libraries, and parks/recreation, would be reduced less under this alternative compared to the project because there would be fewer residential units and residents on the site with this alternative. People staying at the portion of the existing portion of the RV resort that would remain would continue to require and utilize public services and facilities. Overall, the Phase 1 Only Alternative would place less demand on public services than the project; however, impacts under either scenario would be less than significant.
Public Utilities
As the Phase 1 Only Alternative would involve the construction and operation of less development than the project, it would result in reduced demand for additional water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and other utility services compared to the project. People staying at the portion of the existing portion of the RV resort that would remain would continue to require public utility service. Impacts related to demand for public utilities under the project and this alternative would both be less than significant; overall, however, impacts under the Phase 1 Only Alternative would be less than the project.
Transportation
Development of only the western portion of the site would result in fewer residential units and a corresponding decrease in traffic compared to the project. This would equate to slightly reduced traffic volumes and VMT. Both the project and this alternative would be within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop and thus, transportation impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. Moreover, this alternative would incorporate the same VMT reduction measures as the project, which would further reduce VMT.
The Phase 1 Only Alternative would include reduced transportation/circulation impacts during construction as less materials and equipment associated with earthwork and structural development would be needed compared to the project. Similar to the project, no transportation hazards would occur under this alternative. The same project improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-19 August 2022
improved access to the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station, would be implemented with this alternative.
Thus, like the proposed project, the Phase 1 Only Alternative would be consistent with adopted transportation plans, including the General Plan Circulation Element, Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan, and SANDAG’s Regional Plan. Both the project and this alternative would have a less than significant impact with respect to emergency access because both would include improvements to Alvarado Road that would provide improved circulation along the roadway, including for emergency vehicles. Overall, less than significant transportation impacts would be associated with both the project and this alternative but would be incrementally less with the Phase 1 Only Alternative.
Visual Resources
The Phase 1 Only Alternative would involve the replacement of the existing RV resort west of Alvarado Creek with a residential development similar to the project but with one fewer building and a reduced number of residential units. The eastern portion of the site would remain as is with a RV resort.
Consequently, the bulk and scale of overall development associated with this alternative would appear to be less compared to the project from some vantage points. Building forms, heights, densities, and development envelopes would be the same as the project on the western portion of the site, as would architecture and design elements.
While both the project and this alternative would be compatible with the surrounding community and would have less than significant impacts related to visual resources, the impacts associated with the Phase 1 Only Alternative would be less than the project.
Conclusion
The Phase 1 Only Alternative would not avoid any significant but mitigable impacts associated with the project. Significant but mitigable impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be slightly less than the project impacts, but the required mitigation would be the same. The project and this alternative would have essentially the same significant impacts with the same mitigation required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels relative to biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and paleontological resources. Less than significant impacts associated with both the project and this alternative with respect to air quality, geology and soils, GHG, public services and facilities, public utilities, transportation, and visual resources would be slightly less for this alternative, while less than significant hydrology/water quality and noise impacts would be approximately the same. The differences are primarily associated with the slightly reduced intensity of development required for this alternative. Less than significant land use impacts would be slightly greater due to the reduction in residential units that would not fully capitalize on the site’s proximity to transit facilities.
As the Phase 1 Only Alternative would involve fewer buildings and residential units but with the same uses and public improvements, it would meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed project given the reduction of residential units.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The State CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed in an EIR, which is typically selected based on an ability to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental effects associated with the project. The guidelines also
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-20 August 2022
require that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified.
The project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, and mitigation measures or project design features have been identified to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. However, the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as this alternative would not result in any new impacts because no development would occur under this alternative. Some adverse conditions would remain (e.g., drainage and flood issues and onsite hazardous building materials) and some potential project benefits would not be realized (e.g., public improvements to Alvarado Creek, Alvarado Road, and utilities). This alternative, however, would avoid the significant but mitigable impacts associated with the project related to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and paleontological resources (refer to Table 7-1, Comparison of Project and Alternative Impacts). The No Project Alternative does not meet the purpose and objectives of the project, however, as outlined in Section 7.4.1.3.
Table 7-1
COMPARISON OF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS
Environmental Topic Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced Density
Alternative
Phase 1 Only
Alternative
Air Quality LS N LS< LS<
Biological Resources SM N SM= SM=
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources SM N SM< SM<
Geology and Soils LS N LS< LS<
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LS N LS< LS<
Hazards and Hazardous Materials SM N SM= SM=
Hydrology and Water Quality LS N LS= LS=
Land Use LS N LS> LS>
Noise LS N LS< LS=
Paleontological Resources SM N SM= SM=
Public Services and Facilities LS N LS< LS<
Public Utilities LS N LS< LS<
Transportation LS N LS< LS<
Visual Resources LS N LS< LS<
SM = significant but mitigable impacts; LS = less than significant impacts; N = no impacts <= comparatively reduced impact relative to the project (if impact designation is the same and impact varies) > = comparatively greater impact relative to the project (if impact designation is the same and impact varies) “=” = same/similar impacts relative to the project
Of the remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative would be the Reduced Density Alternative. This alternative would reduce many of the impacts of the project, except that the significant but mitigable impacts to biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and the less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts would be about the same for both the project and this alternative. Every other impact would be reduced with this alternative. This alternative would meet all of the identified project objectives although some to a lesser extent than the project.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-21 August 2022
The Phase 1 Only Alternative is similar to the Reduced Density Alternative in terms of potential impacts compared to the project and its ability to meet the project objectives. The main difference is that it would not reduce the less than significant noise impacts of the project like the Reduced Density Alternative would.
7.0 Alternatives
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 7-22 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-1 August 2022
8.0 REFERENCES CITED
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2018 Health Effects. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/.
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
2020 Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed March 2020. 2019 California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017 – By Sector and Activity. August 12.
Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_sector_sum_2000-
17.pdf.
2018a Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 2018b Federal Standard Area Designations. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm.
2017a Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Accessed December. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
2017b California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 2016 Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
2015 HARP AERMOD Meteorological Files, Individual Station Files 5-Year Data Set from 1/1/2009 to 1/2/2014. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-aermod-meteorological-files. 2014 2014 EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model, version 1.07, update March 15, 2015. 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan – A Framework for Change. December. 2007 California Greenhouse Gas Inventory – By Sector and Activity. November 19. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/archive/tables/ghg_inventory_sector_sum_90- 04_ar4.pdf.
2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC)
2019 CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Available at:
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-2 August 2022
California Department of Conservation
2016 California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed March 30, 2020. Available from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2020a SWIS Facility Detail, Otay Landfill (37-AA-0010). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/37-AA-0010. Accessed April 16, 2020.
2020b SWIS Facility Detail, Sycamore Landfill (37-AA-023). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0023/Detail/. Accessed April 16, 2020.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2019 Standard Environmental Reference, Guidance for Compliance, Chapter 27, Visual and Aesthetics Review. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmentalanalysis/standard-environmental-reference-ser/volume-1-guidance-for-compliance/ch27-visual-aesthetics-review. 2018 Truck Traffic: Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/f0017681-2016-aadt-trucka11y.pdf. 2017a Traffic Census Program, Traffic Volumes Annual Average Daily Traffic (2017). Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. 2017b List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. 2015 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. Compiled by Traffic Data Branch. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/docs/2015_aadt_truck.pdf. 2002 Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (TAV-02-01-R9201). February 20.
California Energy Commission (CEC)
2019 2018 Power Content Labels. July. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
01/2018_PCL_San_Diego_Gas_and_Electric.pdf.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
2020 Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed April 23, 2020. Available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-3 August 2022
California Geologic Survey (CGS)
2008 Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
2000 A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mineral-hazards/asbestos.
City of La Mesa (City)
2020a Active Development Projects. March 4.
2020b La Mesa Police Department website. Available at:
http://www.cityoflamesa.us/1611/Police-Department.
2019 City of La Mesa Sewer System Management Plan. Adopted July 2009, Updated August 2019.
2018 Climate Action Plan. Adopted March 13. Available at:
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/11008/LMCAP_CC03132018?bidId =.
2013a La Mesa General Plan Final Program EIR.
2013b Tree Policy Manual. March 11.
2012a City of La Mesa General Plan.
2012b Parks Master Plan.
2012c Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan. February. 2011 The City of La Mesa Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual – Part II. Updated January 2011.
2010 The City of La Mesa Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual – Part I. Updated February 2010.
2008 City of La Mesa Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. October. 1998 City of La Mesa Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Adopted by the La Mesa City Council February 1998.
City of San Diego
2020 Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. Accessed April 2020. Available at:
https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/customer-service/water-wastewaterfacilities/point-loma.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-4 August 2022
City of San Diego (cont.)
2019 Transit Priority Areas per SB 743. February 5. Available at:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/transit-priority-map.pdf.
County of San Diego
2018 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2011 San Diego County General Update Final Environmental Impact Report. August.
County of San Diego Department of Public Works
2017 County of San Diego Five Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. August.
Deméré Thomas A. and Stephen L. Walsh
1993 Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Department of Paleontology, San Diego Natural History Museum.
Dudek
2019 Jefferson La Mesa Project Initial Study. May.
Education Data Partnership (Ed Data)
2020 Education Data Partnership, CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Available from: http://www.eddata.org/district/San-Diego/La-Mesa--Spring-Valley. Accessed on April 16, 2020.
El Adli, J.
2012 Paleontological Locality Search for the La Mesa City Project.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
2020 Flood Zones Definitions. Accessed April 21, 2020. Available at:
https://www.fema.gov/flood-zones.
2019 Floodway. March 18. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/floodway. Accessed April 21, 2020.
2012 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Panel No. 06073C1643J. May 16.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2011 Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025.
December.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Planning and Environment.
September.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-5 August 2022
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.
2020a Preliminary Drainage Study and Floodplain Analysis, Alvarado Specific Plan. June. 2020b Alvarado Specific Plan Sewer Study. September.
2020c Water Supply Assessment for the Alvarado Specific Plan Project. August. 2018 Preliminary Storm Water Quality Management Plan, Alvarado Specific Plan. February.
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
2019 Report of Geotechnical Investigation update. Alvarado Creek Project, 7407 Alvarado Road, La Mesa, California. Job No. 04-8598. February 15. 2018 Interim Report of Site Conditions and Preliminary Opinions. Alvarado Creek Apartments, 7407 Alvarado Road, La Mesa, California. March 8.
2004 Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Paydar Apartment Project, 7407 Alvarado Road, La Mesa, California. Job No. 04-8598. June 30.
Google Maps
2020 Google Maps. Available at: https://www.google.com/maps/. Accessed April 29, 2020.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December.
Heartland Fire and Rescue
2020 About Heartland Fire and Rescue. Available at:
https://www.heartlandfire.org/153/About-Heartland-Fire-Rescue.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX)
2020a Air Quality Technical Report. April.
2020b Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report. April. 2019 Visual Impact Analysis. December.
Helix Water District (HWD)
2020 Infrastructure web page. Available at: https://hwd.com/infrastructure/. 2018 Will Serve Letter for the Alvarado Specific Plan. February 16. 2016 Urban Water Management Plan 2015. July.
2015 Capital Improvement Program Master Plan. April.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-6 August 2022
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM)
2019 San Diego/Montgomery Field Windrose Plot. Available at:
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?network=CA_ASOS&station= MYF.
Kennedy, Michael P., and Siang S. Tan
2008 Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. 2005 Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quandrangle, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Kimley-Horn
2020 Alvarado Specific Plan Transportation Report Part I: CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis (VMT Based). March.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
2019 NASA News & Features Releases. 2018 Fourth Warmest Year in Continued Warming Trend. February 6. Available at: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20190206/.
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP)
1998 NCCP General Process Guidelines.
1993a Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Conservation Guidelines. August. 1993b Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines. November.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
2020 Earth System Research Laboratory. Available at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html. Accessed April 21, 2020.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON)
2019 Biological Resources Report for the Alvarado Creek Apartments Project, La Mesa, California. June 10.
2018a Cultural Resources Survey for the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan, La Mesa, California.
February 12.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-7 August 2022
RECON (cont.)
2018b Noise Analysis for the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan Project, San Diego, California. July 13.
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
2016 Final 2014/2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.s html.
1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan), updated May 17, 2016.
Available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2016 Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Available At:
http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-land-use-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)
2018 Attainment Status. Available at:
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/apcd/en/air-qualityplanning/attainment-status.html. 2017 Rule 1206 - Asbestos Removal, Renovation, and Demolition. November. Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdc/apcd/en/complianceprograms/asbestos_program.html. 2016 2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County. Final.
December. Available at: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/ PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/2016%20RAQS.pdf.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2020 Transportation Forecast Information Center. Series 12 Traffic Volume Forecast. Available at: http://tfic.sandag.org/. Accessed May.
2019b Federal Regional Transportation Plan. October. Available at:
https://www.sdforward.com/2019-federal-rtp.
2019c La Mesa Current Estimates. May 25. Available at:
http://datasurfer.sandag.org/download/sandag_estimate_2018_jurisdiction_lamesa.pdf. 2019d San Diego Region Current Estimates. May 25. Available at:
http://datasurfer.sandag.org/download/sandag_estimate_2018_region_san-diego.pdf. 2016a Smart Growth Concept Map: Mid-City and East County Subregion. May. Available at:
https://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_296_13997.pdf.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-8 August 2022
SANDAG (cont.)
2016b Smart Growth Concept Map Site Descriptions. May 5. Available at:
https://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_296_14002.pdf. 2015 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October. Available at:
http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf. 2013a Transportation Forecast Information Center. Series 13 Traffic Volume Forecast.
Forecasts. adopted October.
2013b Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast for La Mesa. October. 2013c Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast for San Diego Region. October. 2011 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, City of La Mesa. October. 2009 Regional Energy Strategy for the San Diego Region. December. Available from:
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1476_10631.pdf.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA)
2010a Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 20. 2010b Montgomery Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 20. 2008 MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October.
San Diego County Water Authority
2020 Water Supplies – Groundwater. Available at: https://www.sdcwa.org/groundwater.
Accessed April 21,2020.
San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E)
2020 Company Information. Available at: https://www.sdge.com/more-information/ourcompany. Accessed April 22, 2020.
SCS Engineers
2018 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. October 30.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
2019a Learn About Asbestos. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-aboutasbestos. Accessed July 24, 2109. 2019b Learn about Lead. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead. Accessed July 24, 2019.
2015 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-qualitysignificance-thresholds.pdf.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-9 August 2022
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (cont.) 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
2018 U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021–2026 Vehicles.
November 11. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-and-dot-propose-fueleconomy-standards-my-2021-2026-vehicles. 2017 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. Last updated July 7. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findingsgreenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-clean. 1999 Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. August.
University of San Diego School of Law, Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) 2017 County of San Diego 2014 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Projections. Available at https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/advance/cap/publicreviewdoc uments/PostBOSDocs/CAP%20Appendix%20A%20%20-
202014%20Inventory%20and%20Projections.pdf.
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana)
2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report. October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USEPA and NHTSA)
2012 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. October 15.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)
2006 Western U.S. Climate Summaries, California, La Mesa (044735). Available at:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca4735.
World Resource Institute (WRI)
2020 CAIT Climate Data Explorer. Available: http://cait.wri.org/historical. Accessed April 21, 2020.
8.0 References Cited
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 8-10 August 2022
This page intentionally left blank
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 9-1 August 2022
9.0 INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED / LIST OF PREPARERS
9.1 LEAD AGENCY – CITY OF LA MESA
Kerry Kusiak, Director of Community Development
Allyson Kinnard, Senior Planner
Leon Firsht, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer Hamed Hashemian, P.E., Engineering Project Manager
Phil Kern, P.E., Engineering Project Manager
Kirt Coury, Project Manager (Civic Solutions)
9.2 EIR PREPARERS – HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Tim Belzman, Principal Planner
Joanne Dramko AICP, Principal Planner, Environmental Group Manager Brendan Sullivan, Environmental Planner
Kristen Garcia, Environmental Planner
Rebecca Kress, Senior GIS Specialist
Ana Topete, Document Coordinator/Word Processing/Production
9.3 TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Air Quality – HELIX Environmental Planning
Joanne Dramko AICP, Principal Planner, Environmental Group Manager Victor Ortiz, Senior Air Quality Specialist
Martin Rolph, Air Quality Specialist
Biological Resources – RECON
Beth Proscal, Associate Biologist
Archaeological Resources – RECON
Harry Price, Project Archaeologist
Sean Bohac, GIS Specialist
Stacey Higgins, Senior Production Specialist
Historical Resources – Urbana Preservation and Planning Wendy Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal Architectural Historian and Urban Preservation Planner Ginger Weatherford, MPS, Associate Historian/Preservation Specialist Geology – Geotechnical Exploration
Leslie Reed, President
Jaime Cerros, P.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Jay Heiser, Senior Project Geologist
9.0 Individuals Consulted / List of Preparers
Alvarado Specific Plan PEIR 9-2 August 2022
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – HELIX Environmental Planning Joanne Dramko AICP, Principal Planner, Environmental Group Manager Victor Ortiz, Senior Air Quality Specialist
Martin Rolph, Air Quality Specialist
Hazardous Materials – SCS Engineers
Allison O’Neal, Associate Professional
Luke Montague, Project Manager
Hydrology and Water Quality – Fuscoe Engineering
Kenneth Kozlik, P.E., Project Manager
Noise – RECON
Jack Emerson, Noise Analyst
Water and Wastewater – Fuscoe Engineering
Kenneth Kozlik, P.E., Project Manager
Transportation – Kimley Horn
David Sorenson, PE, Principal Traffic Engineer
Amy Jackson, Traffic Engineer
Visual Resources – HELIX Environmental Planning
Tim Belzman, Principal Planner
Joanne Dramko AICP, Principal Planner, Environmental Group Manager Kara Palm, Project Manager
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 391389.00001/4879-9320-0428.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
July 29, 2022
Greg Humora, City Manager
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
Re: Alvarado Specific Plan - Upcoming Planning Commission Hearing Dear Mr. Humora:
On July 13, 2022, I wrote to you requesting a long-overdue Planning Commission hearing for the above-referenced project. As you know, a Planning Commission recommendation is a prerequisite under state zoning and planning law to have the project considered for approval by the City Council. On July 14, 2022, you responded by email indicating that the matter would be docketed for the August 17, 2022, La Mesa Planning Commission agenda.
The project’s representative, Chris Wahl, spoke with you and senior City staff on July 28, 2022, about the upcoming proposed hearing. Staff indicated a preference that the hearing would not be for the purpose of soliciting a project recommendation from the Planning Commission. Instead, the hearing would enable staff to “seek input” and “guidance” from the Planning Commission on the application, as a public workshop, presumably with the intent of modifying the project in some respect based on such input and then later, at some unspecified future date, returning the project to Planning Commission for a formal recommendation.
Mr. Wahl indicated that staff’s proposal was not in keeping with the applicant’s previous requests for a Planning Commission hearing decision and would likely not be acceptable to the applicant. Staff also stated that if the public workshop is not accepted by the applicant, staff will recommend project denial.
Needless to say, the applicant is disappointed by staff’s position. A public workshop-style meeting may have been appropriate two years ago, but not now, after four years of processing and long after the project Draft EIR has been circulated for public review. Having taken the City’s assent to a Planning Commission hearing as positive news that the project would at last be moving forward, it appears that staff’s agreement to a public hearing may have been intended simply as a means for further delay.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Greg Humora, City Manager
July 29, 2022
Please accept this letter as the applicant’s demand for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing to result in a recommendation to the City Council. We are unaware of any basis for a staff recommendation of project denial. In fact, given the desperate need for additional housing in La Mesa, the region and our State, we had hoped that City staff would be enthusiastically recommending approval of this project. The singular issue of project concern recently raised by staff as a basis for not taking the project to public hearing was the design standards/guidelines contained in the Specific Plan. The applicant responded by submitting SB 330 compliant standards on June 6, 2022, to which staff has not provided any written comments to date.
Please include this letter in the administrative record for the project.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC:sn
Attachments
cc: Reza Paydar
Christopher Wahl
Dave Witt
Crista Sosenko, Esq.
Glenn P. Sabine, Esq.
Kerry Kusiak
Robin Huntley
Jose Ayala
Matthew T. Struhar, Esq.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 391389.00001/4864-0504-0936.1 Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
July 13, 2022
Greg Humora, City Manager
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
Re: Alvarado Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Humora:
As you know, this firm represents RV Communities/The Paydar Companies, the joint applicants (hereafter, “Applicant”) for the proposed Alvarado Specific Plan (“ASP”). The purpose of this letter is to again request that the City of La Mesa (“City”) allow the project to proceed to public hearing. The Applicant hereby demands that the City honor its commitment to notice the project for Planning Commission review on August 17, 2022. For your convenience, attached as Exhibits 1-3 are the Applicant's prior written requests for a public hearing, dated December 29, 2021, January 28, 2022, and March 31, 2022, respectively. The project application was submitted in September 2018, approaching four years ago. The Draft EIR was circulated for public comment in September of 2020. To our knowledge there is no impediment to prompt Planning Commission review.
While the Applicant does not doubt the sincerity of your prior statements that the Applicant will be afforded public hearings, the reality is that the project has been subjected to a deliberate pattern of delay, lack of responsiveness, and general disinterest, if not hostility, by City personnel with the responsibility to diligently process the application. This despite the fact that the project, as described below, is the right development in the right location, consistent with local, regional and state housing, transportation and environmental policies. Most recently, after repeated requests for a public hearing dating back to 2021 (see Exhibit 1), the City agreed to an August 3, 2022, Planning Commission hearing date, then pushed it to August 17th. As outlined below in connection with Senate Bill 330 compliance, City staff later changed its mind, informed the Applicant’s representatives that the project would not proceed to hearing in August, and offered no alternative hearing date. Once again, the project is in limbo.
Some staff members privately have expressed the view that the project is too ambitious, too big or too controversial for La Mesa. We firmly believe the project will be embraced by the public and elected officials alike once they’ve heard all the facts. The Applicant simply seeks an opportunity to make its case. The refusal or further delay of public hearings, or attempts to frustrate Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Greg Humora, City Manager
July 13, 2022
the project by other means in the hopes it will “go away” is not acceptable, and we respectfully ask that as the City Manager you remedy the situation.
We note that as of this writing the City’s Housing Element is out of compliance with state law, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) website. Given the importance of the project to the City’s Housing Element, we have copied HCD with this letter. This is a decision not taken lightly, given the inherent risk of local agency retribution. Yet, at this point in time the Applicant has few options to address the stalemate. With several millions of Applicant dollars spent over several years on project planning, City processing fees, third-party consultants hired by the City at the Applicant’s expense, and now the necessity of lawyers, we believe this to be an appropriate course of action. In this regard, the exigency of present project circumstances require that we provide relevant history and context, necessitating this lengthy letter and degree of formality.
I. THE PROJECT
ASP is a proposed master development plan for a multi-family transit-oriented development of 950 units on roughly 12 acres located just south of Interstate 8, separated only by Alvarado Road, near the City’s western border with the City of San Diego. The MTS light-rail (“LRT”) 70th Street Trolley Station is immediately west of the project site and the double track LRT Green Line is just south of the site. The project will be phased, with a total of four buildings, three of which will consist of up to five floors of residential construction atop Type I concrete parking structures.
Given the close proximity of San Diego State University to the west, and the immediately adjacent LRT station which links to the University, student housing is planned for one these buildings. The fourth building, adjacent to the MTS Trolley Station, will consist of 60 units with one level of structured parking.
The project site is bisected by the Alvarado Creek. As a result of upstream development over many years, the Creek regularly floods, creating a nuisance as well as health and safety risks, as explained in the draft Specific Plan. (See ASP, pp. I-10 – I-13.) Consequently, the project proposes significant site improvements to address FEMA mapped flood prone areas while retaining storm water flows within the creek’s defined flood channel. The project also will restore and revegetate the creek with appropriate plant materials and construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek, thereby improving flood protection, implementing clean water mandates and providing an amenity for the enjoyment of future project residents. Moreover, the project proposes significant pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve safety on Alvarado Road and enhance connectivity with the adjacent Trolley Station.
The Draft EIR concluded that any potentially significant impacts associated with the project would be reduced to below a level of significance. The Draft EIR and ASP are available on the City’s website at https://www.cityoflamesa.us/1639/Alvarado-Specific-Plan.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Greg Humora, City Manager
July 13, 2022
II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY HOUSING ELEMENT AND
IMPORTANCE IN ACHIEVING REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
In the 1980’s, the City embarked on a major redevelopment effort to improve the Alvarado Creek corridor, with the goal of removing perceived blight, solving the ongoing flooding issues, and installing needed public improvements. The project will accomplish these goals. The La Mesa General Plan Land Use & Urban Design Element designates the project site as Regional Serving Commercial, and describes the designation as follows:
This land use designation is assigned to those areas of the City which are suitable for more intense urban activities, such as high volume retail sales, and other sales and services which are expected to draw local and Regional customers. Areas designated Regional Commercial are served by convenient freeway access and public transportation. Grossmont Center, Fletcher Parkway and Alvarado Road are examples of areas where the designation is applied.
Examples of uses intended in the Regional Commercial designation include retail shopping centers, large office complexes and uses providing services to the traveling public such as restaurants, service stations, hotels, and motels. Entertainment uses such as movie theaters and nightclubs may be conditionally permitted. Within larger areas of the City, which have been designated Regional Serving Commercial; there may be areas which are suitable for mixed-use or high density residential developments. The appropriate mix of uses permitted within these areas will be determined on a case-by-case review or by the amendment or adoption of a specific plan which will also establish the appropriate residential density.
(LU&UD Element, p. LD-32, emphasis added.)
The Land Use & Urban Design Element of the General Plan emphasizes the importance of encouraging transit-oriented development:
Local jurisdictions have worked with SANDAG to develop the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic congestion and reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. An important part of this strategy is commitment of more of the region’s transportation resources to improve the public transit system. Transit systems work best in neighborhoods characterized by dense residential and commercial development. The La Mesa General Plan encourages TransitPage 1063 of 1126 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Greg Humora, City Manager
July 13, 2022
Oriented Development, by permitting an intensification of a mix of uses adjacent to trolley stations and along transit corridors. (LU&UD Element, p. LD-26.)
The Housing Element includes a variety of “Implementing Programs,” including the following:
9. Facilitate the Development of Higher Density Housing In an urbanized area like La Mesa, land represents a significant cost component in both multi- and single-family development projects.
One way to lower the cost of land per unit is to allow a greater number of dwelling units per acre of land. Increased density generally results in a lower land cost per unit, and greater unit affordability.
As a means of reducing residential land costs, La Mesa will encourage development at the upper end of its residential density ranges, particularly in targeted areas such as the mixed use districts along the City’s transit corridors. The City has identified 12 opportunity sites/expected projects to accommodate a significant portion of the City’s remaining RHNA of 2,274 units.
(Housing Element, p. 106.)
Acknowledging the suitability of the project site for high density residential development, the City’s Housing Element designates the project site as an “Opportunity Site” in Table HE-49, with the following description:
The [Alvarado] Specific Plan will provide 900 units of housing at above moderate income.
(Housing Element, Table HE-49, p. 91.)
The Housing Element also states:
It should be noted that based on allowable density of 40 to 80 du/acre, all of the [opportunity] sites are feasible to facilitate lower income housing, but the City is using 65% of the realistic capacity to accommodate for the lower income RHNA. The only opportunity site that did not utilize the 85% of maximum density is the Alvarado
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Greg Humora, City Manager
July 13, 2022
Specific Plan, which has been set to provide 900 above moderate income housing units.
(Housing Element, p. 90; note that the reference to 65% above appears to be a typographical error and should read 85%.)
The project is critical to the City’s satisfaction of its Housing Element goals and achieving Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) requirements in the 6th Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029). ASP accounts for 900 of the total 1,643 above moderate income dwelling units identified within the Opportunity Sites. (Housing Element, Table HE-49.) Of the 3,797 total dwelling units required to meet the City’s RHNA requirement, ASP accounts for 24%. (Housing Element, Table HE-53, p. 116.) With regard to the above moderate household RHNA requirement of 1,874 dwelling units, ASP represents 48%. (Ibid.) Of the “remaining RHNA of 2,274 units” referenced in the Housing Element above, ASP represents 40%.
There are no other housing projects being processed by the City that approach the size of ASP. The only other Opportunity Site of statistical consequence in achieving RHNA goals is Grossmont Center, which could produce 496 above moderate income units, as well as affordable housing. (Housing Element, p. 91.) The Housing Element pledges to “[i]nitiate the master planning of the Grossmont Center” by 2025, with the goal of “completing the planning effort” that would allow construction to start before the next Housing Element Cycle. (Housing Element, pp. 106- 107.) Given the entitlement timeline to date for ASP, the City’s anticipated timeline for Grossmont Center entitlement is unrealistic and unachievable, making the success of ASP all the more critical.
III. PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 330
Effective January 1, 2020, as part of a package of legislation commonly referred to as SB 330 and intended to address the housing crisis, Government Code section 65589.5 was amended to mandate the application of objective design standards to housing development projects, to the exclusion of subjective standards. The City of La Mesa has not adopted objective design standards. The Housing Element alternatively commits that such standards will be adopted, using SB 2 grant funds, no later than 2021 and 2022. (See Housing Element, p. 103 and p. 113, respectively.)
ASP was last revised in February 2020, and did not at that time include objective design standards in accordance with SB 330. Understanding that the City has no objective standards and has yet to commence that process in earnest, the Applicant submitted proposed ASP objective design standards to the City consistent with the SB 330 requirement to avoid further project delay. (See Exhibit 4.) City staff and the third party consultant hired by the City to advise on planning matters rejected the submittal without written comment or proposed revisions after taking weeks of review time. At that time, staff informed the Applicant that the project would not be considered by the Planning Commission in August, and offered no new hearing date. Should staff elect to
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Greg Humora, City Manager
July 13, 2022
provide written comments/suggestions, the Applicant will consider them. However, the standards proposed by the Applicant are compliant with applicable law. Absent timely City input which would not further delay public hearings, including a Planning Commission hearing date of August 17th, we request that the submittal as drafted be considered as part of the project.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Applicant’s ask is simple: allow the project finally to move forward by honoring the City’s previous commitment to schedule an August 17, 2022, Planning Commission hearing. The Applicant’s proposal is to construct much needed quality housing for the community and simultaneously remedy existing infrastructure deficiencies and persistent flooding problems not of the Applicant’s making, at no expense to the City or the public. The project will result in no significant environmental impacts and satisfies a raft of local, regional and state policy objectives, a few of which are addressed above. The Applicant and its team remain committed to a cordial and professional relationship with City staff, and are available to discuss these issues, yet insist that the project be allowed to proceed to public hearing for the reasons outlined above.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC:sn
Attachments
cc: Reza Paydar
Christopher Wahl
Dave Witt
Crista Sosenko, Esq.
Glenn P. Sabine, Esq.
Kerry Kusiak
Robin Huntley
Jose Ayala
Matthew T. Struhar, Esq.
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 391389.00001/4876-4206-6699.2 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail [email protected] / [email protected] January 28, 2022
Glenn Sabine, Esq.
La Mesa City Attorney
City of La Mesa
La Mesa City Hall
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Re: Proposed Alvarado Specific Plan Project
Dear Glenn:
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me this week about the Alvarado Specific Plan project (the “Project”) proposed in the City of La Mesa. As you know, my office represents the applicant, Reza Paydar. On December 29, 2021, Mr. Paydar wrote the City to request that the Project be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission as soon as reasonably possible. As outlined in Mr. Paydar’s letter, the applicant determined that after many months development agreement negotiations with City staff had reached impasse and he thus withdrew his request for such an agreement. He wishes to proceed with public hearings for the Project without a development agreement.
Today you confirmed that the City is willing and prepared to notice a Planning Commission hearing for Project, with the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council. You indicated that you will check with the Planning Director and let us know the potential hearing dates for the matter. I look forward to hearing from you next week.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC:sn
cc: Greg Humora, City Manager ([email protected]) Mr. Reza Paydar ([email protected])
Mr. David Witt ([email protected])
EXHIBIT 3
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Jeffrey A. Chine
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1525 File Number: 391389.00001/4867-1937-7946.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail [email protected] / [email protected] March 31, 2022
Glenn Sabine, Esq.
La Mesa City Attorney
City of La Mesa
La Mesa City Hall
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Re: Proposed Alvarado Specific Plan Project – Repeated Request for Planning Commission Hearing
Dear Glenn:
My client, the applicant for the above referenced housing development project, has twice requested in writing (on 12/29/21 and 1/28/22), as well as several verbal requests, that City staff calendar a Planning Commission hearing for the project. On February 9, 2022, project consultant Dave Witt spoke with you and the City Manager, Mr. Humora, again requesting a public hearing.
Dave was told that staff would get back to him within a couple weeks with a proposed Planning Commission hearing date. Since then, we’ve heard nothing.
Is it the City’s intention to schedule a Planning Commission hearing for the project, and if so, when?
As always, I’m available to discuss the project with you.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey A. Chine
JAC:rch
cc: Greg Humora, City Manager ([email protected]) Mr. Reza Paydar ([email protected])
Mr. David Witt ([email protected])
EXHIBIT 4
III - 1 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines
CHAPTER III
Development Standards and
Design Guidelines
Previous chapters in the Alvarado Specific Plan include the planning background and policy foundation for a new and forward looking land use plan for this unique location.
The Specific Plan Area has a history that has been impacted by the growth and development major transportation infrastructure in La Mesa. The Alvarado Specific Plan represents a “master development plan” for the revitalization of the Area in a manner which is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Mesa General Plan. As discussed in Chapters I and II, implementation of the development plans is anticipated to occur in two major phases of construction. The Specific Plan will be implemented as primarily private development projects in partnership with the City of La Mesa and other affected public Agencies to achieve the public safety, environmental protection and enhancement, and infrastructure needs in the Specific Plan Area.
This Chapter provides the land use and regulatory framework for development projects and public improvements to be implemented in the Plan Area to:
create a high quality “transit‐oriented development” with a diversity of new multi‐family housing
provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area; be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa; be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and, be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.
The purpose of the development standards and design guidelines is to provide direction and clarity to owners, design professionals and builders, City staff, public decision makers and the public in the process of designing and approving future projects within the Plan Area. The Development Standards and Design Guidelines are intended to intended to assist in achieving the goals and objective of the Specific Plan and not to unnecessarily limit flexibility and creativity through the implementation of these provisions. Project designs that vary from the plan illustrative concepts in the Plan, yet are able to meet the design intent and vision for the Alvarado Specific Plan can be deemed in substantial conformance through the implementation process. A project can be determined to be in conformance with the Specific Plan without the project being consistent with every development standard or design guideline.
This Chapter contains project development guidelines that provide the basis for project evaluation through the City’s review process as outlined in Chapter IV. Objective Design Standards are provided
III - 2 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines that combine the elements of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards are included to implement Senate Bill (SB 35) signed into law in 2017 and SB 330 (which in part amended the Housing Accountability Act) signed into law in 2019, and will apply to projects within the Specific Plan Area which meet the requirements of such state laws. Projects in the Plan Area qualifying under SB 35 or SB 330 are subject to the objective design standards within this chapter. These projects are not subject to subjective design guidelines as a matter of state law; however, the intent and application of subjective guidelines is encouraged to be implemented by developers to the greatest extent feasible to ensure high‐quality development that is consistent with the community identity of the Plan Area.
III – A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
III - A. 1. Consistency with Specific Plan
This Chapter serves to outline the regulatory development standards and design guidelines to be used in the final design and basis of review for the development projects that will implement the private and public improvement plans described within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will be the guiding reference for the implementation and project review steps which are further described in Chapter IV - Implementation. As the guiding regulatory tool for all subsequent implementing projects, each future discretionary and ministerial project authorized by the Plan will be subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the supporting Program EIR documentation for the Plan.
III – A. 2. Substitution for Zoning Ordinance
All subsequent projects to implement the Alvarado Specific Plan will rely on the Plans, Development Standards and Design Guidelines approved by the City and subject to a finding of “substantial conformance” with the Alvarado Specific Plan and the project EIR.
As described in this Section, the Specific Plan will substitute for the land use and zoning standards that would traditionally be used to regulate new private development in the Specific Plan Area. Documentation of this transfer of regulatory standards will be implemented through the approval of an “Alvarado Specific Plan Overlay Zone” to clearly establish the implementation area, role, and authority of the Specific Plan as outlined in Chapter IV - Implementation.
III - 3 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – A. 3. Form-Based Development Approach
As describe above, a new approach is proposed to clearly communicate what development standards are to be used to review and evaluate individual projects within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area. This section of the Plan defines a “form-based” approach as an effective means to ensure the goals and policies of the Plan are met at the project review level. This Section includes the set of defining characteristics and limiting factors that can achieve the development goals and policies of La Mesa for the Specific Plan Area. Application of the Development Standards and Design Guidelines will:
create a high quality “transit‐oriented development” with a diversity of new multi‐family housing
provide for the construction of the needed public improvements in the Area; be financially feasible as a private investment in future of La Mesa; be a fiscally sound land use change through the revitalization of the Area: and, be a “good fit” within the existing fabric of the Specific Plan vicinity and the community as a whole.
The form-based approach serves to clearly communicate with text and diagrams the type, size, location, mix of uses, open spaces, landscaping and quality of the development that is authorized by the Specific Plan. The form-based approached established by the descriptions and diagrams in the Specific Plan provides a much more well defined and predictable image of the what will be built and how it will fit into the site and surrounding community than the traditional general plan/zoning classification approach.
This approach is in contrast to the traditional zoning regulations which focus on separation of uses, setbacks from adjoining properties, parking ratios and density calculations, with little emphasis on the unique characteristics or constraints of an actual location. Equally as important, this method describes the project review process and defines elements within each phase for providing the site improvements, public improvements, environmental enhancements, open space elements and transit connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other infrastructure that is not as clearly defined by a traditional zoning approach.
Figures 39 and 40 show a diagram of the overall site area and illustrate site sections through the project to specify the key dimensions that will define the proposed building envelope, distribution of uses, limiting factors that describe the individual multi-family residential buildings and the site improvements for the Alvarado Specific Plan. The descriptive elements in these diagrams correspond to the overall Site Development Plan shown in Figure 12 and described in detail in Chapter II – Land Use and Development Plan.
III - 4 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines There are two key elements that have been used to create this “form-based” definition for the Development Plan. One is the overall site plan which has been designed to reflect the site’s physical characteristics and constraints in concert with the broader land use goals and infrastructure needs for the Area. The second primary basis for the development standards is the application of the current applicable Building Codes in California that define the limiting dimensions allowed for the proposed multi-family residential construction type over a Type I parking garage structures.
Within the “form-based” building envelope established by the Specific Plan, it is intended that the Plan may permit flexibility during implementation through the City’s Site Development Plan and Urban Design Program review process to achieve a determination of consistency with the Plan through an alternative mix of residential unit types and/or architectural design approaches.
Figures 41 to 44 define the areas in which Buildings 1-4 will be constructed in relation to the Alvarado Road improvements and the interior private street/emergency access road. Figures 40 and 41a - d provide typical site sections to define:
the overall height limits for the primary structures,
the requirements to comply with the minimum floodway elevations, and the maximum number of residential floors above the parking levels.
Figure 42 provides an oblique view of the overall Specific Plan Area with a simplified graphic representation of the building envelopes that are defined by the site Figures 43a - e illustrate the typical floor levels for Buildings 1-4 to define arrangement of uses with project vehicle parking levels, parking access points, and multi-family residential uses on levels above the parking structure podium deck level.
Figure 43 - c represents the location and design concept for “liner units” that will be permitted on building facades oriented to the interior of the site and away from Alvarado Road.
On the Building facades oriented to Alvarado Road, parking levels will be adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle facility zone and required to be architecturally screened as described in the Design Guidelines section of this Chapter.
Figure 39 Alvarado Specific Plan Land Use and Development Plan (with details identified) Figure 40 Form-based Development Standards Plan View
Figure 41 a. b. c. d. Form-based Development Standards Section Views Figure 42 Form-based Development Standards Schematic View of Development Envelopes
Figure 43 a. b. c. d. e. Form-based Development Standards Typical Building Plan View by Floor Level
III - 5 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Figure 44 Plan View to Show Site Access Points and Distance to Parking Structure Entries and Sec Gates
III – A. 4. Multi-family Residential Unit Mix
Multi-family Apartments: The unit mix for buildings 1-4 will include Studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. Final unit mix will be set at the time of Site Development Plan and Design Review by the City. The total number of residential units in an individual project will be limited by the location, site area, height and building massing parameters set in the form-based development standards established in this Chapter. “Liner” Units: Buildings may incorporate liner units located below the parking structure podium deck levels on the interior elevations of the projects not directly oriented to the Alvarado Road frontage. The liner units may use a “loft” style design concepts within the mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units. This design concept may also employ designs which include a front “stoop” element where direct access is available to the creek side interior private street and pedestrian pathways and open space areas. The liner units will meet the Flood Overlay zone requirements.
Student Housing: As described in the Land Use and Development Plan, Building 2 may be built as a “student housing” project focused on serving college and university students in the community with an economical housing option and direct and convenient existing Trolley access to the campus. Although the same standards for building location, size, and mass within the “form-based” concept described above apply, the net residential unit count for Building 2 will be lower with the “student housing” option due to the use of larger shared living design concepts as shown in Chapter II. The unit mix with the “student housing” concept may include a mix of: one-bedroom/one-bed units; two-bedroom/ two and four-bed units; and four-bedroom/four-bed units.
The student housing configurations are much closer to dormitory style housing, allowing for independent living, yet within a fully managed and operated residential concept.
Some of the key elements of the Student Housing project will include:
Fully furnished units
Limited access and secured building
24/7 Security presence
On-site management and professionally trained staff
Defined policy on resident behavior and enforcement
III – A. 5. Parking and Vehicle Access
III - 6 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Although the Alvarado Specific Plan is conceived as a Transit Oriented Development, parking and vehicle access still remains an important development and design standard.
Implementation of the Specific Plan requires review and approval of Site Development Plans as described in Chapter IV - Implementation. Individual projects will provide vehicle parking and access as described in Chapter III – Land Use and Development Plan. The development standards for parking and project circulation are outline below and illustrated in Figure 44.
Parking Structures: Resident vehicle parking for each Building will be provided within a multi-level parking structures as illustrated in Figures 41 – 43 above for Buildings 2,3, and 4.
Building 1 plans for one level of structured parking. Each parking structure will provide adequate ingress and egress to the interior private street. Parking structure access locations will provide sufficient distance from Alvarado Road for queuing space on-site and away from public street traffic.
Parking Ratios: For Buildings 2,3, and 4, within the multi-level parking structures to be constructed, the estimated parking ratio will be approximately 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit as described in Chapter II. This off-street parking ratio will be compatible with the reduced parking and automobile dependency objectives for a transit-oriented development (TOD). This same parking volume will be provided in the student housing option for Building 2 which results in a similar parking amount when correlated with the planned “bed” count with fewer but larger residential units. For Building 1 with an estimated 60 residential units above one level of parking, the off-street parking ratio will be approximately 0.5 space per residential unit.
These parking levels will serve as the total off-street parking requirements for the project and will be inclusive of the anticipated demand for guest parking and the secondary resident-oriented mixed uses that may be permitted on a limited basis within the project.
Guest Parking: Guest parking within each project is accounted for in two general areas.
A limited number of exterior spaces surface parking spaces will be provided in the vicinity of the main entry/leasing office for each project as shown on the Specific Plan diagram in Figure 39. Visitor parking spaces will also be designated within the lower level of Buildings 2-4, and near building leasing offices and parking garage entrances.
Security: Resident parking within the parking structures will be secured with gates and require an automated access control system within the parking structure. Along the private interior streets, there will also be security gates beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic and reserve this area as primarily a part of the pedestrian pathways and creek-side open space. Limited vehicle access will be permitted beyond the security gates for deliveries and move-ins.
Unbundled Resident Parking: As described in Chapter II - Land Use and Development Plan, all on-site vehicle parking provided within the required parking areas and structured parking levels may be unbundled from any requirement for an on-site parking per-unit ratio or an assigned residential unit parking space designation. With this unbundled
III - 7 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines parking standard, the management, use, and charges for resident on-site parking for each Building will be the responsibility of the project owner(s).
Services, Deliveries and Move-ins: The Alvarado Specific Plan has been designed with serious consideration given to the changes that have occurred in how people shop and live in a contemporary multi-family environment. As a result, the site development plan will provide access and space for vehicles within the site for service and delivery vehicles, as well as move-in locations that will maintain the required emergency vehicle access requirements. This is intended to assist with maintaining the interior private street and pedestrian pathways and primarily on open space feature and to keep traffic flow and safety directed to Alvarado Road.
On-street Parking: The streetscape plans for Alvarado Road in the Specific Plan include the construction of improvements along the entire length of the site Area as part of Phase 1 projects. This includes on-street parallel parking spaces along the south side of the Alvarado Road frontage in areas that insure proper site distances from primary project ingress/egress locations. The on-street parking areas are planned to be delineated by “bulb-out” features as part of the streetscape plan. This concept proposes to dedicate a limited number of spaces in the vicinity of each primary project entry as “timed parking” and/or “loading zones” to facilitate and encourage the use of shared transportation options, such as ride sharing and delivery services.
Alternative Transportation Support: As a transit-oriented development, a key goal of the project is to facilitate future tenant use of alternatives to the single person vehicle trip.
Bicycle Parking: All multi-family residential projects will include bicycle parking facilities.
EV Charging Stations: All multi-family residential parking structures will incorporate spaces dedicated for electric vehicle charging stations. Transit Access: The primary feature of the project supporting this objective is the adjacent 70th Street Trolley Station. The project proposes constructing new public pedestrian improvements for access to the Station on Alvarado Road to complete the missing public links to the MTS station. Phase 1 projects will also improve and complete pedestrian access for project tenants from the interior private streets along Alvarado Creek to the Station.
Transit Passes: It the intent of the Specific Plan to work with MTS and project developments to incorporate incentives for transit use by project residents.
III – A. 6. Open Space and Site Landscaping
Two of the most important design elements in the Alvarado Specific Plan are the mix of high-quality open space concepts and landscaping solutions. These two key areas were assigned a high priority in the formulation of the Land Use and Development Plans. This
III - 8 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines commitment in the Plan can work within the physical demands of the site and still create a very livable and transformative environment the future tenants of the Area and achieve the objectives of La Mesa’s General Plan.
To balance the physical demands of the site improvements and with the goal of creating a quality living environment for the future tenants and the community as a whole, the master plan provides for a mix of well-designed and highly functional open space and landscaping solutions.
An illustration of the basic elements of the open space concepts and the major landscaping features of the project is shown in Figure 45. The overall site development plan shown in Figure 39 also graphically represents the important role of open spaces and landscaping elements distributed throughout the project Area. Each of these key components is briefly described below:
Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvements:
The proposed frontage along Alvarado Road includes parallel parking, a minimum 25 foot wide pedestrian/bicycle and landscaping zone along the entire Alvarado Road frontage. The shared pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle shown in Figure 46 includes street trees with tree grates, foundation planting, and vines planting at the building façade to assist in screen garage levels. The streetscape design also proposes a new pedestrian bridge that will provide a crossing over Alvarado Creek providing a contiguous sidewalk connection within the project limits to the existing 70th Street trolley station. The streetscape concept also will provide for on-street parallel parking zones defined by popouts that will include tree planting.
Interior Private Street and Creek-side Pedestrian Pathway:
The project proposes a pedestrian promenade around the perimeter of the building that embraces the Alvarado Creek, providing pedestrians better access to the new landscape areas and a visual connection to the Creek. Figure 47 illustrates the key design elements to be incorporated into the interior street plans. The pedestrian pathways have several nodes that are designed for outdoor activity. Improvements may include shade elements, park benches, and synthetic turf. Each node accentuates and highlights the existing creek habitat while also increasing the outdoor walkable open space that also serves as the projects Emergency Vehicle Access plan. The pathway will be secured with and incorporate decorative fencing, lighting and paving to provide safety as well as enhance the pedestrian experience. Some creek side areas along the interior streets may also serve as part of the on-site storm water retention systems to meet regional water quality standards.
III - 9 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines Exterior Courtyard Open Spaces and Indoor Amenities:
Each building is proposed with exterior courtyards landscaped to provide residents a variety of outdoor spaces and indoor facilities to meet the open space and recreational activity needs of residents. The open space concepts include passive restorative spaces, social nodes, and flexible spaces for a wide array of community activities. Furniture and social elements animate the spaces while garden landscapes and pools and water features help refresh and provide a sense of retreat. The courtyard amenities are planned to accommodate features such as pool and spas, outdoor seating, cabanas, water and fire elements, and barbeques with picnic tables. The project features are illustrated in Figure 48. In addition, as shown in the Development Standards, Buildings 2-4 will evaluate the feasibility of providing “sky deck” outdoor spaces that provided an additional amenity for residents and capture the opportunity to provide longer vistas of the surrounding community.
Alvarado Creek Flood Improvements and Urban Creek Restoration:
In concert with the interior private street, described above, is the goal of restoring and maintaining the riparian environment within Alvarado Creek as a key visual element of the open space plan. A goal of the Specific Plan is to address the impact from flooding and urban storm-water drainage from much of north La Mesa on the site by improving and maintaining Alvarado Creek as a valued open space resource for the future residents of this newly created urban village. Figure 49 illustrates the proposed Alvarado Creek restoration and maintenance area.
Figure 45 Open Space Concept Plan
Figure 46 Plan View of Alvarado Road Streetscape Improvement Plans Figure 47 Plan View of Interior Street Improvement Plans Figure 48 Plan View to Illustrate Podium Deck Open Space and Landscaping Concept Figure 49 Plan View to Illustrate the Alvarado Creek Planting and Restoration Area III – A. 7. Site Grading and Flood Chanel Improvements
The Specific Plan site characteristics and constraints are described in detail in Chapter I which outlines the planning context and history associated with the Area. While the site has many challenges, it is also unusual for La Mesa in that it is relatively flat. Developed originally in the 1950’s with the alignment of Interstate 8 and Alvarado Road as a freeway frontage road, the initial urbanization of the site created an essentially flatsite for use as a mobile‐home park. The site has a very low slope gradient from east to west generally matching the flow line of Alvarado Creek.
III - 10 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines The development plans for public improvements and multi‐family housing will require grading of nearly all of the site area with the exception of the areas within the defined Alvarado Creek channel. Grading of the project site is largely driven the Alvarado Creek floodplain and floodway. The project will increase the capacity of the flood channel so that the required 100‐year flood flows will be contained within the channel. This will be done through a combination of minor widening the channel width and raising the elevation of the top of the bank. Retaining walls will steepen the creek edge, thus allowing the bed of the Creek to be widened without significantly impacting the developable area of the building pads. The top of bank elevation for the site and garage entry elevations will all be elevated a minimum of 1.0 foot above the 100‐year flood elevation.
Grading within the channel will be limited to the minimum needed to construct the retaining walls and the relocation of the City’s sanitary sewer trunk line from the channel to a new easement within the interior private street as shown in Figure 50. The flood control improvements will actually increase the area of the channel and allow for additional planting of appropriate riparian plant materials as an environmental enhancement from the past conditions.
All earth work in the channel and the site which is within the FEMA mapped “floodplain” will be part of the required multi‐agency cooperation and authorization needed to implement the Specific Plan. In addition, all grading and earthwork construction activity will be subject to any mitigation measures and monitoring requirements established by the Project EIR.
III - 11 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – A. 9. Public Improvements, Utilities, and Infrastructure The public improvements that will be provided through the approval of the Specific Plan and its implementing actions are described below. These improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the Phase 1 development plans as part of the private development requirements. The agencies that will be involved in coordinating and approving the plans are listed with each project.
Alvarado Road: Improvement of Alvarado Road will include the following components:
Streetscape improvement plans to include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lights, street trees, bulb-out landscape tree planting area, on-street parallel parking land, pedestrian connection to 70th Street Trolley Station, pedestrian bridge on south side of Alvarado Creek bridge, a traffic safety signal west of the Alvarado Creek bridge (City of La Mesa, MTS).
Overhead Power and Communication Line Relocation: The existing 12KV and communications lines that cross I-8 from Parkway Drive currently cross overhead in the San Diego RV Resort facility. This major power transmission line will need to be relocated underground generally around the west end of the project area before going overhead again to its current location on the south side of the MTS light rail tracks (City of La Mesa, SDG&E, Caltrans, MTS).
Flood Channel Improvements: The project includes seeking approvals to finally address the FEMA mapped need to address the flooding of the project site from Alvarado Creek.
This will involve multi-agency approval to make the necessary channel improvements with engineered retaining walls within the San Diego RV Resort property (City of La Mesa, MTS, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of San Diego).
Sanitary Sewer System Improvements: The environmental improvements to Alvarado Creek will include the relocation of one City sewer trunk line out of the channel and under the planned interior street. The sewer work will also address the removal of abandoned sewer lines in the creek and raising and capping an existing manhole that cannot be relocated to above the flood flow levels (City of La Mesa, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife, San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, City of San Diego).
Figure 50 Preliminary Grading Plan and Sections for Flood Channel Improvements Figure 51 Plan View with Major Public Improvements and Utilities
III - 12 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – B. Specific Plan Project Design Guidelines
Implementation of the Specific Plan will require all the multi-family residential projects to complete the City’s Site Development Plan and Design Review process. The two primary objectives of the implementation steps will be to make sure the future projects are: one, consistent with the Alvarado Specific Plan; and two, meet the principles of the City’s Urban Design Program.
Principles from the Urban Design Program that have been employed in formulating the Land Use and Development Plans for the Specific Plan projects include:
Preserve and enhance the community character and sense of place by delivering projects and programs that build upon positive design features.
promote a positive community identity and imageability; enhance the visual quality and continuity of the community through circulation patterns, definition of community edges and boundaries, distinct gateways;
assure high quality community design for new construction; encourage energy conservation and safety conscious design methods for new development; and,
provide specific project elements that will provide the attributes including: vitality, function, spatial form and quality, safe and efficient access, structural orientation, congruence, safety and defensible space principles, and stability. La Mesa Urban Design Program, page 13.
The design guidelines that can be applied more directly to the projects as part of the implementation steps for the Specific Plan are outlined in the following sections.
III - 13 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines III – B. 1. Site Design
a.) The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements will use a coordinated set of street lighting, tree grates, street trees, landscaping, and paving materials to establish a strong design statement that ties the four development parcels into a cohesive project area. b.) Within the private interior streets, a coordinated palette of enhanced paving, decorative fencing and gates, lighting, street furniture, shade structures, tree planting and landscaping will be used to tie the overall site development plan together. c.) Project lighting and landscaping along Alvarado Road, the interior private streets and pedestrian pathways connecting to the 70th Street Trolley Station will used to create a safe and secure residential environment.
d.) Project signs may include entry monument signs and/or signs incorporated into the project architecture. Each sign shall be so designed to complement the architectural style of the main building. Project signs should add clarity and direction to the project circulation system.
e.) Throughout the Specific Plan Area, a unified system of site features and signage will be used to enhance the wayfinding character of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. f.) As a unique location that will be transformed from a challenging freeway oriented location, landscaping will play a strong role in creating a vital residential environment. Key areas that should be the focus to meet the project design objectives with landscaping solutions will be the:
Alvarado Road streetscape street tree types, frequency and initial planting sizes. Significant role of planting areas and materials within the podium deck open space and recreations areas
Coordinated use of planting materials and design features along the interior private street creek side pathways and socializing nodes Alvarado Creek flood channel plant restoration and maintenance plan III – B. 2. Architectural Design Guidelines
a.) All four primary multi-family residential project buildings should have a coordinated and unifying overall architectural style or theme, yet express an individual character with varying forms, features and materials to avoid an overuse of a single design concept for the Specific Plan Area.
b.) As a major new land use change and highly visible gateway statement along the I8 corridor, individual project design will provide strong forms and architectural elements at the primary project entrances to the interior private streets.
III - 14 | Page ALVARADO SPECIFIC
PLAN
CHAPTER III – Development Standards and Design Guidelines c.) On the northern Alvarado Road facades, where balconies may not be feasible due to noise attenuation requirements, buildings will use sufficient architectural design forms, features and changes in materials to provide visual interest and variance in the elevations from the I-8 view corridor.
d.) On the Alvarado Road frontages with exposed parking garage levels, buildings will incorporate both architecturally coordinated building materials and landscaping solutions to add value to the pedestrian scale and environment along the Alvarado Road streetscape zone.
e.) Roof top mechanical equipment should be architecturally screened from views from locations above the site to the south.
f.) Interior elevations viewed from the podium deck open space areas and elevations fronting on to the interior private street pathways should reflect sufficient architectural interest with forms, massing, fenestration, balconies and viewing locations to enhance a sense of an active residential environment.
III – C. Objective Design Standards
TO BE ADDED AS ADDENDOM
1 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
ALAVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CHAPTER III UPDATE
DRAFT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS – 6/6/2022
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose and intent of the Alvarado Creek Specific Plan Objective Design Standards are to provide clear direction and understanding of the City’s expectations for multifamily residential projects that are proposed within the Specific Plan Area. The following Objective Design Standards have been written to be consistent with the goals, objectives, development plans and guidelines established by the Alvarado Specific Plan. The Objective Design Standards shall be applied to projects which qualify under state housing laws which mandate the application of objective design standards, such as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Projects that meet these requirements shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Alvarado Specific Plan and any requirements established by the Alvarado Specific Plan Project EIR.
B. LAND USE:
1. The primary land use within the Specific Plan Area shall be multi-family residential located in Buildings 1-4 (See Exhibit 37). The primary multi-family residential structures will comply with the Form-Based Development Standards established by the Specific Plan and further described within the Development Standards below, which define the building locations, massing, orientation, separations, setbacks, description and distribution of open spaces, parking, circulation, and public improvements, as shown in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e.
2. Parking to serve each primary multi-family residential structure (Buildings 1-4) shall be provided within structured parking levels for each Building. Development Standards for off-street parking are described further below.
3. Non-residential uses shall be permitted, but not required within each of Buildings 1-4.
Such uses shall be limited to uses providing commercial and service uses intended primarily for the residents of the SP projects. Such non-residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet within any one Building.
C. SITE DEVELOPMENT:
2 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
1. All new residential structures and the improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel will be constructed to meet the requirements of the City’s Floodplain Ordinance.
2. Contingent upon approvals from all required Federal, State and local agencies, the project will construct improvements to the Alvarado Creek channel as illustrated in Figure 48. As part of the Flood Channel improvements, the improvements will require restoration of any disturbed area of the channel with appropriate plant materials defined by the permitting agencies.
3. Individual multi-family residential projects as defined by the Alvarado Specific Plan are to be developed in a coordinated manner that can be completed in Phases as further defined in the Specific Plan. All development of projects in Building sites 1-4, whether constructed individually or grouped by phases, shall guarantee all necessary site preparation, including but not limited to: site grading, installation of public utilities, construction public improvements and public utilities, and public safety access, as a condition of occupancy.
4. All site grading shall be in accordance with the overall project development plans established by the Alvarado Specific Plan and the City’s grading regulations and standards.
D. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Form Based Development Standards: As described in this Chapter, a Form Based Development Standards is used to define the physical locations and limits of the primary multi-family residential projects authorized by the Alvarado Specific Plan. This concept is described in detail in both the text and exhibits within the Specific Plan. The following Development Standards apply to multi-family development projects within the Specific Plan Area, as illustrated in Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e. a. Building Height and Step-Backs:
(1). Maximum height per California Building Code
(a). 75’ to top of habitable floor.
(b). 85’ to top of roof sheathing
(2). No vertical step-backs required (see Massing Articulation section below)
b. Building Setbacks and Encroachments:
3 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Building Height encroachments are permitted for non-habitable roof appurtenances of up to a maximum of 12’-0”.
(2). Where no minimum setbacks are provided, residential units shall be located a minimum 5’ from back of a pedestrian path or walkway.
2. Off-street parking shall be provided for each of the proposed Buildings 1-4 within parking garage structures as illustrated in Figures 37, 39a-g, 41a-c, and 42, and shall meet the following standards:
a. Off-street parking will be provided for Buildings 2-4 in three levels and will meet the City’s structured parking garage design requirements for size, access and circulation. Building 1 will provide just one level of structured parking at the ground level.
b. All off-street parking spaces located within parking structures will utilize Universal Parking Space dimensions of 9’ wide by 18’ deep with 24’ wide twoway travel lanes.
c. The only exception to structured parking locations will this be for limited on-site parking spaces outside the parking structures that will serve as visitor parking as shown on the Alvarado SP site development plan.
d. All off-street parking spaces provided in Buildings 1-4 shall be “unbundled” and made available residents of the individual buildings as part of the rent for the residential unit as managed by the project owners. Parking spaces within the parking structures can be reserved for related uses such as, but not limited to, deliveries, guest parking, and shared EV charging stations. e. All parking structures shall provide secured bicycle parking enclosures at the ground level.
f. All off-street parking shall comply with the number, distribution and location of spaces to meet the requirements for Disabled Persons.
E. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Massing Articulation and Building Design:
a. Vertical plane breaks – Min. 3’ deep x 10’ wide break every 150’ maximum b. The horizontal composition of building planes shall provide visual breaks as follows:
4 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
(1). Base and top definition for buildings 3 stories or lower (2). Base, middle, and top definition for buildings over 3 stories (3). Vertical plane continuity is allowed for a maximum 40% of the façade length
c. Building entrances shall be visible from, and face, the public right-of-way or a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway, incorporating at least one of the following:
(1). Change of massing through vertical or horizontal plane breaks (see above)
(2). Change of exterior finish color and/or materials
(3). Change of transparency by using glazing for a minimum of 50% of the entrance width
d. Roofline variation: Vertical and horizontal variation every 150’ maximum using one or more of the following in combination:
(1). Varying parapet heights by a minimum of 12”
(2). Eave overhangs
(3). Parapet offsets every 150’ following vertical plane standards above
e. Buildings shall carry the same design theme and pallet of colors and materials on all exterior elevations. For the purpose of this standard, a theme includes primary (non-accent) forms, materials and colors. Exterior Finish Materials and Colors for Buildings 1-4 shall use:
(1). A minimum two (2) exterior finish materials, each material must cover min.
20% of building façade
(2). A minimum two (2) exterior colors, each color must cover min. 20% of building façade
(3). Material changes with a minimum 6” offset in depth or equivalent as appropriate to the materials used
(4). No mirrored glass
5 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
f. Mixed-Use Spaces shall be integrated into the Form-Based Standards for Buildings 1-4 and required to be differentiated from residential and commercial/ retail spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
g. Building shall clearly differentiate residential and non-residential service/commercial spaces through the use of:
(1). At least one (1) contrasting material and one contrasting color (2). Massing breaks (see Section E.1. above)
(3). Storefront and glazing for a minimum of 50% of the retail/ commercial frontage
h. Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate a distinctive vertical corner design element to identify the primary entry location for each Building in the immediate vicinity of the driveway entry serving that Building.
i. All mechanical equipment located on building rooftops shall be screen with visual screening panels or devices with a minimum height of 42”.
2. Liner Units: Interior elevations (not facing Alvarado Road) that include liner units, shall incorporate a pallet of materials and colors that clearly differentiate these lower floors from the residential floors above the podium deck level. a. As shown in Exhibit 16a, 16b and 16c, liner units are proposed along the interior facades for Buildings 2,3, and 4. The liner units add more direct interaction and visibility for the pedestrian promenade areas. If incorporated into these locations, the ground level liner units located within 36” of adjacent finished grade shall provide direct access to the promenade via steps and/or ramps.
3. Podium Deck Open Spaces: Buildings 2-4, which incorporate a Podium Deck Area as part of the active and passive open space amenities provided for the project. The Podium Deck Area for Buildings 2-4 is defined by the space created by the location of a double-loaded interior corridor serving residential units that face either to the building’s exterior or to the Podium Deck Area (see Figures 37, 38, 39a-g, 40 and 41a-e). Due to
6 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
the irregular shape of the Specific Plan Area each Building site results in an irregularly shaped parking structure and corresponding Podium Deck open space area is defined by the residential unit arrangement around the perimeter of the parking structure. a. Each unique Podium Deck Area will be oriented toward the interior of the Specific Plan Area (i.e., away from I-8) and incorporate at least one segment that is open to views of the pedestrian promenade area and Alvarado Creek.
4. Exterior Parking Levels: All elevations with exposed parking garage levels above grade facing Alvarado Road shall use a combination of architectural screening materials and landscaping to differentiate the parking level elevations from the residential floors above podium deck, and to screen all views of parked vehicles on the interior of the parking structures.
5. Signs: Primary Buildings 1-4 shall incorporate building identification with project naming signage and street numbers, and located on the building façade in a location that assists in directing people to the appropriate project address and entrance. a. Monument signs shall be permitted in the vicinity of each primary Building entrance in a limited in size and location that will not limit site visibility for vehicles, pedestrians or bicycles.
b. Building identification signs shall be indirectly lighted and shall not use internal illumination.
F. MOBILITY AND CIRCULATION:
1. No direct access to individual parking structures will be permitted from Alvarado Road.
a. Access to off-street parking for all residential units will from driveway entrances to the interior loop roads serving Buildings 1-4. Parking garage entrance and exits shall be located as shown in the Specific Plan to allow sufficient queuing on the project site and prevent waiting for turning movements on Alvarado Road. b. All security gates defining the pedestrian promenade area shall be located beyond the parking structure entrances to allow free vehicle movements into the structure.
c. Recess gates at vehicular entrances to parking structures shall provide a minimum of 20’ from the primary building facade.
7 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
2. A combined public pedestrian walkway and bike lane will be constructed along the Alvarado Road frontage of the SP Area. These public improvements will include a pedestrian bridge of a minimum 15’ in width to cross Alvarado Creek on the south side of the existing Alvarado Road bridge within the City’s right-of-way to maintain connectivity between the public sidewalk and bike lane from the building sites for Buildings 1-3 and Building 4.
3. The Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include: planting of street trees, installation of tree grates and decorative street lights in accordance with the City’s standards for spacing and design.
4. Project improvements shall include the construction of pedestrian connections from the Alvarado Road frontage improvements and from the private interior ring road improvements to the 70th Street MTS Trolley/Bus Station.
5. All parcels developed for Building 1-4 shall provide for reciprocal access for the shared use of the interior pedestrian promenade areas along the restored Alvarado Creek areas.
6. The interior ring road area improved to provide pedestrian access to the linear open spaces along the restored Alvarado Creek shall incorporate a unified set of landscape planting, street furniture, pedestrian scale lighting, enhanced paving materials, creekside viewing nodes and wayfinding signage.
7. The interior ring road will provide control gates at locations beyond the parking garage entrances to prevent through vehicle traffic except for service vehicles and move-in locations.
G. PUBLIC SAFETY:
1. Emergency access to serve Buildings 1-4 shall be provided by the interior loop roads provided for Buildings 1-3 to the west of the Alvarado Road bridge and for Building 4 on the east side of the Alvarado Road bridge.
a. The interior ring road will be constructed to meet the City’s specifications for access and load baring capability for Fire Department vehicles. A dedicated Fire Lane shall be executed for the emergency access use of the interior loop road.
2. If Building 2 is developed with the Student Housing option described in the SP, the project will be required to operate with the following services:
a. Fully furnished units
8 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
b. Access to the building via a secured entry with a staffed 24/7 presence c. On-site management and professionally trained staff
d. A designated staff liaison with San Diego State University e. A clear policy requiring a lease agreement with provisions regarding resident behavior and enforcement for all tenants
3. As shown on the approved Alvarado SP site development plan, automated securing gates will be installed in locations beyond the parking garage level access points with pedestrian gates to maintain the value of the promenade area as part of the project open space and to provide access to the adjacent transit facilities.
4. Site Lighting: All development projects shall comply with the following standards to create a safe environment for the residents of the Specific Plan Area:
a. All active outdoor open spaces, including the Creekside pedestrian area, the Alvarado Road streetscape area, the Alvarado Creek pedestrian bridge, podium level open space areas, and pathways connecting the project to the 70th Street MTS Trolley/Bus Stations shall provide dusk to dawn pedestrian scale safety lighting with a uniform design standard throughout the Specific Plan Area. Other than street light installed in the Alvarado Road public sidewalk and bike lane, freestanding lighting fixtures shall not exceed twenty‐five (25) feet in height, unless approved by the Director of Community Development b. All outdoor lighting, shall be focused, directed, and arranged to minimize glare and illumination of streets, the night sky, or adjoining property. This will require the use of shields and the appropriate lighting design and specifications, and can limit the location, type and height of light fixtures.
c. Service area lighting shall be contained within the service area boundaries d. Lights shall be durable, recessed, or otherwise designed to reduce the problems associated with damage and vandalism
e. All electrical meter pedestals and light switch/control equipment shall be located with minimum public visibility if possible or shall be screened with appropriate plant material
f. All community landscape common areas, private facilities, streetscape areas, and other use Specific Plan areas are permitted, at the discretion of the project developer or builders, to use accent or other night lighting elements H. UTILITIES, SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE:
9 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
1. All existing overhead utilities will be placed underground and all new utilities will be placed underground. The existing SDG&E electrical transmission line that crosses the site will receive a down pole on the Alvarado Rd frontage and continue underground to the south side of the new residential structures where it will connect with a new up-pole on the north side of Alvarado Creek to continue in service to the south of the SP Area.
2. All trash collection facilities shall be located within the parking structure serving each of Buildings 1-4 individually.
3. Contingent upon the execution of a mutually agreed upon reimbursement agreement, to the extent feasible, the project will facilitate the relocation of the existing sewer main located within the SP Area in the Alvarado Creek channel to a new location in a public easement within the proposed ring road serving Buildings 1-3.
4. Improvements to the Alvarado Creek Flood Channel as described above.
I. LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE
1. Open space will be provided in elements that are shared throughout the Specific Plan Area and in locations that are provided for the use of residents of the in each multi-family development project. Open spaces for the benefit of the Specific Plan Area shall include both active and passive spaces and uses. To reflect the unique characteristics and opportunities as outlined in the Specific Plan (illustrated in Figures 43- 47), the Open Space objectives will be provided within the following areas which will combine both active and passive open space functions:
a. Outdoor podium deck areas and adjoining interior facilities for community rooms, gym spaces serving Buildings 2-4. Building 1 shall include interior spaces for active recreation and community room
b. Interior promenade areas adjacent to Alvarado Creek and within the vehicle control gates
c. The Alvarado Creek restoration area
d. The Alvarado Road shared pedestrian path and bicycle lane, including landscape areas
e. Landscape areas included within required stormwater management facilities
2. Podium deck areas for Buildings 2-4 shall consist of a network of gardens, social nodes, flexible use areas, and planting include at least 4 of the following elements:
10 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
a. Pool
b. Landscaping to include canopy trees and low planting materials to define spaces within the podium deck
c. Seating areas for individuals and group settings
d. Shade structures and/or umbrellas
e. Direct access to adjoining recreation and community activity rooms f. BBQ facilities or adjoining community room with cooking facilities g. Alvarado Creek viewing areas
3. All project landscaping shall comply with the City of La Mesa Water Efficient Landscaping standards and Model Water Efficient Landscape ordinance.
4. Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall be constructed along the Alvarado Road frontage within the Alvarado Specific Plan Area as illustrated in Exhibit 48 to improve traffic and pedestrian safety, provide stormwater management, enhance the streetscape environment, and implement the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies. The facilities to be constructed as part of the Alvarado Road streetscape improvements shall include:
a. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lane, pedestrian bridge crossing Alvarado Creek, driveway aprons, street trees with tree grates, and street lighting to meet the City’s standards and specifications. Street trees species, size and distribution shall meet the City’s specifications and standards.
b. The shared 16’-0” bike lane and pedestrian sidewalk shall extend from the easterly property line frontage, connect with the planned pedestrian bridge at Alvarado Creek, and extend westerly to connect with the existing MTS 70th Street Trolley Station. The shared bike land and pedestrian sidewalk will be paved and striped to define 8’-0” for the bicycles and 8’-0” for the pedestrian zone. c. A minimum of one short-term bike rack shall be located with the streetscape improvements in the vicinity of each entrance to Buildings 1-4. d. A minimum 5’-0” landscaped buffer area shall be provided between bike lane/pedestrian sidewalk and the building facades facing Alvarado Road. The planting design and materials in this area shall be coordinated with the project
11 | Page
Chapter III – Draft Objective Design Standards
requirements for screening the parking structure elevations facing Alvarado Road.
5. The interior roadway serving as the linear creek-side pedestrian promenade open space element shall include:
a. Enhanced paving
b. The promenade/fire lane shall be secured with decorative vehicular and pedestrian gates at all vehicular points of entry and exit
c. Bench seating and gathering nodes distributed throughout the project area with a minimum of 100’ spacing
d. Pedestrian scale lighting
e. Canopy trees that will not interfere with access or movement within the dedicated fire lane
f. Wayfinding signage
g. Landscaped bioswales area
J. SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS:
1. All new residential dwelling units will use electrical services and appliances only.
2. All new residential buildings will be constructed to meet or exceed Calgreen requirements.
From: Kathleen Brand
To: Alvarado SP
Subject: Alvarado Specific Plan
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 11:50:49 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Kirt,
I would like to see all the conceptual drawings for the site. I don’t believe what you have posted on the website is the only drawing the developer has completed. It is very difficult to give comment back without a thorough understanding of how the architecture fits on the site. The City’s website should be the portal for accessing this information.
Your description of the project does not include an analysis of on-site parking, a count of the various types of units, and a very detailed description of the overall massing and height of the buildings with the parking garages.
After review of the one plan posted on the website, I do not agree with your assessment that the loop road would primarily function as a pedestrian promenade. The access gates are recessed into the site and the loading zones are almost in the center of the site. There should be a pedestrian walkway/trail along the creek edge as it appears on the western portion of the site, that wraps around weaves through the site. If you have been by Alterra and Pravada, the residents use the area next to the trolley tracks as a dog relief area. Providing true pedestrian and dog-friendly amenities will be an asset to the development. This ties into the “social nodes” shown on the plans, which will no more than the dog relief areas, so call them out as such and design them for that purpose.
I also think that if this is TOD development the developer and/or the City should implement the proposed bike path per the bike master plan for Alvarado from 70th Street Station to Guava. I would recommend that it be a class 4 cycle track instead of the class II proposed. We need better and more progressive bicycle infrastructure. You should eliminate any on-street parking along this site, since this is TOD there will not be a need for it. If you think people will need to park on the street, then the on-site parking should increase.
It looks like there are bulb-outs at the entrances to the development. I do not advocate for bulbouts. They severely limit the ability to put in better bicycle infrastructure.
Regards,
Kathleen Brand
Senior Planner/Landscape Architect
Civic San Diego
401 B Street, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101-4298
619.533.7138
www.civicsd.com
[email protected]
CSD_email
From: donshields66
To: Alvarado SP
Subject: Alvarado Specific Plan
Date: Saturday, May 25, 2019 11:05:36 AM
Kirt,
I want to make a few comments about the project on Alvarado road near the 70th street trolley station.
The first is there going to be enough parking to keep cars off Alvarado road? There is barely a shoulder there so there is really no parking and if childeren are going to be living in these residences how are they protectef from careless drivers on that road? Is there going to be a side walk put in as people transit from the trolley station all the way to the National University building. There are runners who use the road and could use a sidewalk. Just thinking about safety.
When all the RV`s are displaced what is the plan to keep them from living on the streets of La Mesa and San Diego ad some currenly do?
Best Regards,
Don Shields
From: Angela Deegan
To: Alvarado SP
Subject: Comments on NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING MEETING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 9:56:38 PM
Dear Kirt,
I reviewed the NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING MEETING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Alvarado Specific Plan. Here are my scoping comments in relation to it:
There needs to be a minimum of 20% affordable housing (in perpetuity) in this development. We desperately need more affordable housing in La Mesa, especially near transit. Lower income folks are less likely to own a car and therefore more likely to use transit. So it makes sense to site affordable homes here since it's adjacent to a trolley station.
Because the development is next to a trolley station, provide free or heavily discounted transit passes to all residents, to ensure they develop the habit of using transit.
Because the development is next to a trolley station, the number of parking spaces provided needs to be kept to a minimum! Centainly there should be no more than one level of parking in any of the buildings.
Any parking spots that are provided need to have 240 Volt electric vehicle charging facilities so that use of gas-powered cars is not incentivized.
Any parking spots provided need to be unbundled from the cost of the housing units, so that residents who wish to live car-free are not incentivized to own a car.
Bicycle storage facilities must be provided.
To make composting feasible and to improve the quality of life of the residents, there should be composting facilities for each of the four buildings and an area designated for a community garden where the compost can be used.
The roofs of the buildings should have photovoltaic panels to serve the buildings.
There should be no artificial turf! Artificial turf retains heat. It creates a “heat island” effect, which holds in heat during the day and releases it at night – not what we need in drought-prone California. Underneath, it kills healthy soil bacteria, worms and root systems. It must be watered regularly to keep it cool — water that can be better used to maintain any of several types of drought-resistant sod or lush drought-resistant planting.
No palm trees should be included - only shade trees!
Sincerely,
Angela Deegan
La Mesa resident
619 916 9017
From: John Suhr
To: Alvarado SP
Subject: Alvarado plan details
Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 6:08:15 PM
Is the Alvarado plan proceeding?
What are the total height of the west-most building?
Will my view of Cowles Mountain be blocked?
Thanks,
John Suhr
7260 Saranac St.
La Mesa 91942
From: Greg Humora
To: Kerry Kusiak
Subject: FW: Alvarado Creek Apartment Project
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:24:23 AM
Attachments: Alvarado Creek Letter to City.docx
image001.gif
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Kerry,
FYI
Greg Humora | City Manager
City of La Mesa | 8130 Allison Avenue | La Mesa, California 91942 Phone: 619.667.1146 | Email: [email protected] | www.cityoflamesa.us To submit a request for service to public works click the button From: Julie Sutton-Hayes [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 5:02 PM
To: Greg Humora; Mark Arapostathis; Kristine Alessio; Akilah Weber; Colin Parent; Bill Baber Subject: Alvarado Creek Apartment Project
Dear City officials:
Attached is my letter of opposition to the planned development, Alvarado Creek Project. I would like to go on record as being opposed along with my mom Adeline Sutton. Both of us own homes on Maryland Ave.
We along with every neighbor we have spoken with oppose this project and are in agreement it is not appropriate for all the reasons I listed in my letter.
Please take the time to read it. We would like notification of all meetings or any developments as they relate to this project. This has been a terrible year for everyone and we have also encountered a death in our family. My sister and I take full time care (24/7) of my 101 year old mom so I have been unable to keep up with all of this. I am aware that I missed the 10-26 deadline to challenge the DEIR but I still want to tell all of you what we believe.
We believe in our city leaders. It is my sincerest wish that you will not sell out to big developers on this project. I respect the work you do and even if we may not agree on all issues, that is what democracy is all about. I just hope when you consider how this project will affect our city and its citizens you will not use the adage that we must sacrifice a few (we, the citizens of La Mesa) to benefit the many (people who are not even here). We may be the "few" but it is our tax dollars that have built and support this city. Some of us have been here all of our lives and paid taxes here all of our adult lives. Please don't turn our city into another El Cajon.
Overbuilding atrocities such as this project erodes of the character of our city and worries property owners in this area that are surrounded by commercial developments. How long will it be before the "sacrifice of the few to serve the many" mentality will serve to force us to sell our hones so some developer can build. At what point did this become about forgetting lifelong citizens of La Mesa in order to bring more people here. We are tired of being encroached upon. My parents and I as well invested here for our futures. We chose La Mesa because it has always been about its people and because we wanted the small town feel. Today, it is becoming harder and harder to see those values. Please restore our faith in your leadership. Please do not sell out for this project.
Respectfully,
Julie Sutton-Hayes
Julie Sutton-Hayes [email protected]
10-25-20
City of La Mesa
Attn: Mayor Arapostathis
City Manager
Council Members
Planning Commission
Re: Alvarado Creek Specific Plan Project.
Dear Mayor, City Manager, Council and Planning Commission:
I am writing to address issues and concerns I share with many other neighbors over the construction of 950 apartments across I-8 along Alvarado Rd. I own a home on Maryland Ave that I purchased in 1986 just a few houses away from my mother’s house (also on Maryland Ave). She and my dad purchased their house (where I grew up) in 1956. We have seen decades of changes, some good and some not.
We love our City. We have fought to keep the character of our neighborhood and our city that makes us the Jewel of the Hills. We are sorry to see the city inundated with apartments! We have fought to maintain the close knit community feeling that comes from neighborhoods where people know their neighbors and they watch out for one another. There is pride of ownership that is absent in many apartment settings. La Mesa is losing that appeal and quickly becoming like El Cajon using every conceivable speck of land to put up a new apartment complex.
Developers are allowed more and more concessions based upon density and affordable housing, etc.
There is however, somehow still not (actually) affordable housing. Now the developer is using the fact the Trolley is basically on-site. While we understand there are established guidelines that govern processes used to decide what can and cannot be built and what is and is not allowable. There is a tremendous amount of paperwork I have been wading through to try and understand the scope and essence of this project. Frankly, I find much of it based on complete speculation as to what is actually being built. The number of units ranges from 846 units to 950 units. There may or may not be student housing. The traffic studies base their figures on 2112 residents. How did they arrive at that number? I believe that number is quite low. At 950 units the average number of residents would have to be 2.2 per unit. That is totally unrealistic. There are just too many assumptions.
Regardless of the number of units, the project is obscenely inappropriate for the two lane road that services it. I don’t care what the traffic study says. Alvarado Rd, Comanche Dr, and all intersections involved were never designed to be accessed by the occupants of 950 more apartments! It is ridiculous to assume this is a viable plan. Traffic will be a disaster! Retiming of the signals, painting new lane markings or other changes listed fall sadly short of providing adequate traffic mitigation.
Access to the project from either end of Alvarado Rd. is not adequate for such a huge project.
Comanche Dr for example is an extremely narrow road that winds through an area already completely built out with apartments. Most of it has parking on both sides of the street or on one side only where the road narrows near Alvarado Rd. Along that stretch, two cars can barely fit next to parked cars. Saranac and Guava are also heavily residential. Guava has no pedestrian improvements and there are huge speed bumps all along the road. There are thousands of people in these apartments and homes that already use the freeway on ramps and would have to compete with the additional traffic from this project.
Additionally, there is no consideration of the traffic that will already be generated by the 4 story mixed use apartment project on Baltimore Dr. That project involves a unit mix of 8 studios, 138 onebedroom, 74 two-bedroom and six three bedroom units. So assuming the “Two plus One” rule, 1-2 per studio, 1-3 per one bedroom, 2-5 per two bedroom and 3-7 per 3 bedrooms; that is 226 units with the potential of 312 to 842 residents. That project offers 322 parking stalls and there is public parking offered nearby. Even that assumes only a fraction of residents will own cars. Personally, I believe that to be unrealistic as well. Any way you look at it the number of trips from those apartments is not even mentioned in the traffic study. Baltimore Dr. is already pretty backed up at times.
70th St at Alvarado Rd is already a very busy intersection. Northbound traffic from El Cajon Blvd coming down 70th St. is always backed up at peak hours already. Upon exiting I-8 from the west where the ramp meets Alvarado Rd it is very complicated. Often at rush hour traffic backs up onto the freeway now. The large influx of new traffic generated by the proposed project will make that intersection terrible and create dangerous back-ups onto I-8. Access to the eastbound ramp from Alvarado Rd would be equally problematic. It doesn’t matter what the studies say, we drive that intersection now and we know how bad it already can be. The 70th street bridge traffic is notoriously bad at rush hour in both directions already.
No studies appear to have been done on the impact of traffic on Parkway Dr on the north side of the freeway. This project will cause all of us on the north side of the freeway to have access problems at both ends of Parkway Dr. no matter which direction we will be going. As we predicted, we already have additional traffic issues at peak hours because of the apartments that went in at the old Coleman College site on Parkway Dr. The westbound ramp to I-8 at Parkway Dr. is already backed up at peak hours. Additionally, when that ramp is completely backed up one can travel further to 70th St, turn left and make an immediate right turn to access the other westbound ramp to I-8. At peak hours it is difficult to get to that ramp and since there is little transition to the freeway, there is always a back-up onto the bridge now. It is not unusual to have traffic backed up along Parkway Dr all the way to Merryfellows and beyond already. Parkway Dr at Baltimore Dr is also extremely busy at peak hours. Again, no matter what any studies say, we drive these roads. Nobody can tell us there will be no significant impact. Every addition of residences adds to the problems we already have. Ask anyone who lives along Parkway Dr.
It is unfathomable that this project as it stands can even be considered at this location. The very fact there are is no way to widen Alvarado Rd. should be enough to deter the building of this project.
There is absolutely no way there won’t be a back-up on Alvarado Rd when people are returning home after work or when leaving in the morning. The developer asserts that there will be sufficient area within the project so that the back-up will be inside the project and not spilled out onto Alvarado Rd.
Right. Fairfield was required to make a left turn storage lane on Parkway Dr. in order for residences to stage for entrance to the project and traffic still backs up at times.
The project itself seems like it is really tentative. It seems like they really haven’t decided what they are building. Is it 846 or 950 units? I see they listed 4 buildings, 1 six story and 3 eight story buildings.
The traffic studies say 2112 residents. Where did they materialize that figure? How many units are 3 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 1 bedroom and studios? So state they may or may not offer “parking pricing” where they “unbundle parking costs”. People who own cars will just budget the $75.00 extra for a parking space. According to the developer, “Parking is not (even) a guarantee associated with renting a unit.” That in itself says there is inadequate parking. How much parking is mandatory and how much parking is actually available? Also, there is no mention of RV parking lots. The developer assumes renters will not own cars and apparently they will also not have any other types of vehicles.
Often, even people who rent still have lots of “toys”. Gotta park their extra cars, boats, motorhomes, trailers etc. somewhere and as history will demonstrate, if there isn’t sufficient space for cars or other
vehicles and toys people will simply park on nearby streets. Well, in this case there are no nearby streets. Businesses will no doubt be battling apartment parking all the time as will the trolley station which was built with insufficient parking. When it was built, they tried to build a pedestrian bridge over I-8 so Trolley riders could park on our side of the freeway. We defeated that feature as there is nowhere for anyone to park here. The original plan included a parking lot at Merryfellows and Parkway Dr. which at the time already had 20/20 Vision on that developed site. Developers don’t care if it works for existing residents. They are interested in force fitting projects where they do not belong.
The developers say they will make accommodations for alternative forms of transit like busses. The roadway will not accommodate storage lanes or cutout for busses or cabs etc. Is the developer planning to use on site property to do these things? The road is extremely narrow to begin with. Bike lanes can be painted on the roadway but it will be a very narrow and heavily travelled road. Riding a bike would not be very safe. As with many locations, just because lanes are painted drivers don’t pay attention to them anyway.
So there may or may not be student housing and 3 buildings with “market rate housing”. La Mesa is always saying how we need more affordable housing but I don’t see any low income offerings here.
What are the rents supposed to run? What are the demographics? Historically, students go together to rent apartments especially for school. Additionally, they each have a car. We have experienced issues caused by students living in neighborhoods. Noise, vandalism, parties all night and tons and tons of cars came with the “mini-dorms” we had in our neighborhoods. It was common for “mini dorms” with 5 or 6 illegal bedrooms to have 10 or 12 occupants or more. It was also common for each person and /or their friends or family to have 10 or 12 cars or more! Developers often argue that since the apartments are not low income then there will be fewer problems and since the rents will be higher most students won’t be able to afford to live there. Unfortunately, multiple students will pile into one apartment and share costs. Developers say they will control the number of renters who stay in each apartment. Many argue they have a stake in the project so they will maintain a presence there.
Those are empty promises and nothing prevents the developers from selling out and moving on as did Fairfield.
The developers say the student housing will attract students and faculty from SDSU. Who knows how much housing will actually be needed now? Covid has caused a paradigm shift in this country and forced remote learning. This trend may or may not stay with us. Students also like cars if they can afford it! The Trolley doesn’t go many places to begin with. I know local people who attend and have attended SDSU who did not like the Trolley because they still had to walk a long way with their books etc from the station to the buildings where they attended classes.
The big sell here seems to be that transit is so near. The reality is that southern Californians love their cars. I know of residents in the apartments on Fletcher Parkway near Amaya who are Trolley riders and still own multiple cars. It is a mistake to assume that people who use mass transit use it exclusively. Just because California wants people to stop driving and use mass transit, the reality is most people here don’t want that. Especially now and for who knows how long, it is dangerous to ride mass transit for fear of contamination and exposure to Covid. The San Diego Union Tribune on 10/20/2019 even before Covid published an article that Nationwide Transit Ridership had been dropping and continued to plummet. They cited that Seattle was the only major metropolitan region in the US to increase ridership in recent years.
The floods that have always plagued the project site have historically made development of any scale financially prohibitive. Those conditions still exist. The architect from Fairfield told me they had in fact done extensive studies about the site before deciding to buy the Coleman property where they did build apartments. He told me nobody would ever be able to build there (Alvarado Creek) due to the huge financial burden of controlling the flooding issues. I know, for my whole life flooding happened
there just about every year on some part of the property. I had friends who grew up in the old trailer park there. Perhaps that is why there are no plans for low income units. They need big money and ridiculous density to make the project work.
That being said, the developer is asking for their own special plan. Obviously, height variances would be required. There is nothing 6-8 stories in La Mesa outside of the National University building and this sets a dangerous precedence. La Mesa citizens and the City have not allowed projects taller than 4 stories to be built as recently as 2019.
The developer wants everything and offers nothing meaningful to mitigate the obvious issues of access and traffic. That is probably because there are no meaningful ways to mitigate the problems as the project exists. I have not even addressed noise issues. I know what kind of noise can be generated by a student residence at one house. There is no way a student building will be any different. Even if residents call the police to address noise control I know also from experience that they won’t always come out. Besides, it will only be extra, unnecessary call outs for our PD taking them away from other “real life” problems.
I have not even brought up construction issues. Again, I don’t care what the reports say. Noise on Alvarado Rd definitely can be heard on the north side of the freeway. We hear phones ringing over outside speakers at businesses. We hear the Trolley constantly. I had an office next to the Trolley station at Lemon and Nebo Dr. We couldn’t even conduct business if the door or windows were open due to the noise. Every time any construction on the south side of I-8 across from us is going on we hear it all. Additionally, we face horrible dust from the work. Our cars are constantly covered in dirt and we must either keep our windows closed or deal with the mess from the dust. The construction will be ongoing for several years and it will be very disruptive to our daily lives. People and businesses near the site will definitely be plagued by noise and dust. I did not see any plans for mitigation as it applies to our side of the freeway. Perhaps large trees or an extension of the wall height along the freeway would be appropriate.
The land owner certainly has a right to develop this property but they are not entitled to having their own set of rules just to mitigate the problems they are facing to do so. This property has obvious problems including access and flooding. They have rights as landowners as do all of us. We all face issues with developing properties which may or may not prove to be prohibitive to our ability to build what we want. All it takes is money. Even then, if we want to build something that encroaches upon our neighbors or that does not fall within the limits of what we can build due to height variances, access issues or other obstacles we can’t. We don’t get to have a site specific plan. We have to reconcile the fact that our plans are not feasible. We have to realize it is not financially feasible because we have no way to make it work. We don’t get a pass. We have to realize the project we have in mind is not appropriate for our property.
The only reason the project needs the density, the height, market priced rents and bonus points for proximity to transit is because it is obscenely expensive to mitigate the flooding issues. There are no low income units offered in any of the information I’ve seen…..because they need high rents for this to work. The landowner definitely has always had and is obviously still having problems developing this property. Other huge, successful developers have looked at the property and opted out because of the massive flooding issues. Ordinarily, the landowner would be asked to reduce density in order to reduce height, accommodate parking, or to provide space where needed. This project no doubt has no room to compromise. While we concede the landowner has rights to develop his/her property, it should not be at the expense of our citizens. If any of the rest of us have property that is not appropriate for the type of development we want to do we have to deal with it. We have to admit it is just not worth as much as we would like it to be and cut our losses. This landowner must realize this.
As our city leaders I implore you to stop this project before dangerous precedence is set. This is an election year. Show us you deserve our votes. Please don’t sell out thousands of tax paying citizens for one landowner and a bunch of people who may or may not live in this project.
Respectfully,
Julie Sutton-Hayes &
Adeline Sutton
From: Julie & Don Dement
To: Megan Wiegelman
Subject: Alvarado specific proposal
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:23:23 PM
One of the reasons we moved to La Mesa was to have more room to grow and enjoy the peace and quiet here .
The recent approval of large developments has made both of those things more difficult.
Nine hundred fifty apartments will most likely mean 1900 new residents and the very distinct possibility of 1900 cars despite being somewhat close to transit. Whether public transit is used or not people are still going to have vehicles and will need to park them somewhere. What facility is going to be provided for real life parking?
The elimination of affordable housing at that site is also a concern as those residents will need to resettle somewhere as well. There will they find new affordable housing? Just thinking!
Don DeMent
50 year resident.
From: Angela Deegan
To: Megan Wiegelman
Subject: Public Comment for March 9th City Council meeting Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:00:35 AM
Mayor and Councilmembers:
La Mesa needs to ensure that all new developments are built in a manner that ensures that, by default, the occupants will have as low a carbon footprint as possible. This is necessary in order to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and rein in the worsening climate crisis.
I’m pleased there are plans for a large new apartment building next to a trolley station in our City - i.e. the Alvarado development. It makes total sense to have dense housing by transit.
However, La Mesa must get rid of parking minimums in transit priority areas, just as the City of San Diego did two years ago. Also, La Mesa must make the necessary code changes to prevent the cost of any parking spots in such developments from being bundled together with the cost of the housing units. Bundling them incentivizes car-ownership - an incentive which is particularly inappropriate for developments right next to transit.
A parking spot adds between $30,000 to $90,000 to the cost of a housing unit. That translates into thousands more a year in rent and mortgage payments. We need to reward people who get around without the use of a car, not punish them by forcing them to pay for a parking spot they won’t use.
Also, all new developments in the City must use electricity only - no gas. Otherwise we will fail to leverage as much greenhouse gas reductions as possible from our membership of San Diego Clean Power.
Until the City makes these necessary code changes, developers must be exempted from its parking minimums. The exemptions can be contingent on providing a higher percentage of units for low income renters or installing solar, or both. I urge the City to do this for the Alvarado and other developments.
Angela Deegan
From: David Harris
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment- Presentation on Alvarado Specific Plan Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:58:12 PM
Comments from David Harris
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
The Alvarado Specific Plan will enable the City to meet its regional housing needs goals by increasing the supply of multifamily housing and to potentially advance its Climate Action Plan goals by allowing higher density residential zoning adjacent to the 70th St. trolley station.
In general, transit oriented development supports the CAP goal of reducing carbon emission from VMTs, not only by building in close proximity to public transit but also by the construction of safe pedestrian walkways and bicycle lanes to access the trolley station. But the "devil" is always in the details. And that is why I advise the Council subcommittee that will be involved in negotiating the agreement to review the GHG reduction measures contained in the Alvarado Specific Plan EIR and ensure that these measures are clearly delineated in the final Development Agreement. For example, the EIR states that the developer will be responsible for implementing a transit pass subsidy as well as a parking pricing policy for residents. Regarding energy efficiency, I encourage the subcommittee to offer incentives for the developer to go beyond Title 24 by including additional PV solar on the rooftop, electric heat pump systems for space and water heating, a number of EV charging stations, and bicycle storage lockers. In conclusion, Alvarado is likely to be the largest residential development within the next five years. This is a great opportunity for the City and the developer to create a future-oriented housing development that incorporates the latest ecotechnology and lifestyle amenities that are necessary to meet the City's climate actions goals.
From: Wendy Mihalic
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment for 9 March Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:08:42 PM
Good evening Mayor and Council Members.
I would like to offer some thoughts on the Alvarado Specific Plan. La Mesa has five Trolley stations. This is more than any city in the county other than the City of San Diego. So, it is encouraging to learn that a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) has been proposed near the 70th Street Trolley station.
High density housing near transit is a win/win for our city. It addresses the need for more (and hopefully more affordable) housing and also helps reduce GhG emissions through the accessibility to public transit and other mobility options like walking and biking.
I am writing to encourage Council members to include provisions in the Draft Development Agreement that require the Alvarado units to be allelectric. This means no piping for gas. Building electric results in significantly lower construction costs which, presumably, would lead to more affordable housing. The benefits of all-electric go well beyond building cost and include healthier, safer homes and significant GhG reduction. CA has a strong climate commitment and building electrification has been adopted by over 40 jurisdictions in the state to support their Climate Action Plans. Our electricity is getting cleaner. Let’s use it to power new homes.
Thank you
Wendy Mihalic
La Mesa Resident
From: lisa mekenas
To: Alvarado SP
Subject: NO more multi complexes in La Mesa
Date: Monday, April 12, 2021 8:42:13 PM
I, as a home owner and taxpayer of La Mesa, wish to express my vote against the proposed building of this project.
La Mesa already has to many units and the already traffic and infrastructure is over burdened. The density also puts danger into the area for erosion and pollution. We don’t have the access and the roadways are to congested. The parking in La Mesa is overtaxed and the lack of concern by the present City Council and Mayor has destroyed the “small town feel” and La Mesa is no longer the Jewel of the Hills.
This project and the others that have over run my town directly effect my life.
Lisa and Dan Kincaid
Pomona Ave La Mesa.
From: John Suhr
To: Kerry Kusiak
Cc: Mark Arapostathis; Bill Baber; Colin Parent; Laura Lothian; Jack Shu; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Alvarado Specific Plan comments
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 12:46:00 PM
Given interest rates are rising and we're probably heading into a recession will the project proceed now? If the project won't proceed why approve it now? How can the project have no significant environmental impacts when it will be blocking uphill neighborhood views to north and east? I suggest the project be reduced to one level of parking and three floors of apartments matching other major projects around town and SETA apartments across I-8 to resolve this problem. Approving an eight story building also sets a bad precedent for the future. It's too dense.
The architect of the project named is actually a landscape architect. Is this legal? The exterior design seems amateurish.
John Suhr
7260 Saranac St.
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO.
EI N
G
N E E R I N
G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com
DRAWN BY:
SHEET
of 4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1 ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
DECEMBER 2019
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO.
EI N G N E E R I N G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com
DRAWN BY:
SHEET
of 4
CONSTRAINTS MAP
WEST PARCELS
EXISTING EASEMENTS:
EAST PARCELS
2 EXISTING
EXISTING
PROPOSED
A
B
C
LEGEND
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO.
EI N G N E E R I N G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com
DRAWN BY:
SHEET
of 4
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
3 TYPICAL PRIVATE/EMERGENCY ACCESS
SOUTH BANK NORTH BANK
CHANNEL SECTION ALVARADO ROAD
LEGEND
ALVARADO SPECIFIC PLAN
JOB NO.
EI N
G
N E E R I N
G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com
DRAWN BY:
SHEET
of 4
CONCEPTUAL UTILITIES
4
SITE SECTIONS
SHEET 1 OF 2 EI N
G
N E E R I N
G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170, San Diego, California 92122tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335 www.fuscoe.com
EI N
G
N E E R I N
G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170, San Diego, California 92122tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335 www.fuscoe.com
SITE SECTIONS
SHEET 2 OF 2
REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: May 9, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting an Amendment to the 2023
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects
ISSUING DEPARTMENT:
SUMMARY:
Issues:
Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the 2023 RTIP TransNet Local Street Improvement Program?
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution approving an amendment to the 2023 RTIP TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact. No commitment of General Funds will be made with this action.
City’s Strategic Goals:
Effective and efficient traffic circulation and transportation BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to federal and state law, and the TransNet Ordinance, local agencies are required to submit a five-year capital program of transportation-related projects to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) every two years. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) is the transportation capital improvement program. The 2023 RTIP was adopted by La Mesa City Council on May 24, 2022.
Following adoption by each local jurisdiction, a regional program is compiled and adopted by the SANDAG Board. RTIP projects are also included within La Mesa’s Capital
Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: May 9, 2023
Page: 2 of 2
Improvement Program. The RTIP is required to be presented at a public hearing, and a resolution of the program is approved by the City Council and submitted to SANDAG.
The RTIP covers five fiscal years and is funded in biennial cycles opposite of the City’s biennial budget cycle. If a programming change is necessary prior to an update, an amendment may be processed by a local jurisdiction and forwarded to SANDAG.
Amendments are required to be approved by a local jurisdiction’s governing body and are typically due to a change in projects.
DISCUSSION:
In this case, the change is due to a necessary re-programming of funds for an inactive project. SANDAG has requested the City re-program $2,928, which was originally programmed in Project LAM17-Street Construction. There has been no activity over a period of two audits, and the project is considered inactive. However, the City can access these funds and use them on a street project. If the Council approves the staff recommendation, the funds will be programmed into the 2023 RTIP, Project LAM40-Street Reconstruction, and benefit the City with approximately 150 square feet of additional construction this year.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving an amendment to the 2023 RTIP TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects.
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Michael Throne, PE
City Manager Director of Public Works
Attachments: A. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023 THROUGH 2027
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance);
WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, shall approve on a biennial basis a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (TransNet) funds;
WHEREAS, the City/County of La Mesa was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for fiscal years 2023 through 2027; WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa approved its 2023 TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects (POP) on May 24, 2022, and the City of La Mesa desires to adjust its Program of Projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa has held a noticed public hearing with an agenda item that clearly identified the proposed amendment prior to approval of the projects by its authorized legislative body in accordance with Section 5(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Rule 7 of SANDAG Board Policy No. 31.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that City of La Mesa requests that SANDAG make the following changes to its 2023 Program of Projects (the “Amendment”) as programmed in the 2023 RTIP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of La Mesa certifies that no more than 30 percent of its annual revenues shall be spent on local street and road maintenance-related projects as a result of the Amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of La Mesa certifies that all new or changed projects, or major reconstruction projects included in the Amendment and funded by TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed was clearly noticed as part of the City’s public hearing process for the Amendment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of La Mesa does hereby certify that all applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been met.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of La Mesa continues to agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SANDAG, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to City of La Mesa’s TransNet funded projects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, funds totaling $2,928, originally programmed 2014 RTIP, Project LAM17-Street Construction shall be re-programmed to the 2023 RTIP, Project LAM40-Street Reconstruction.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 9
th day of May 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.
MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)