La Mesa City Council
November 26, 2024

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
common and here lattice featuring the characteristic alternating of wider and narrow bands of wood is seen at both ends of the large cross-gable. Each of the front-facing gables has exposed beam ends with chamfered edges, while the side eaves of the gables feature exposed wood rafter tails, both of which are characteristic. Smaller roof elements within the larger gable elements were also common and seen on this house at the small front entry porch gable. Using decorative brackets to carry gables as seen at the entry porch gable of this house is very common for the style, however the specific brackets used here are more of a unique feature in that they are oversized and feature more of a decorative Queen Anne inspired styling. All walls are clad in clapboard siding, which overall is the most common wall material for Craftsman Bungalow homes. The windows this house features a characteristic colonial inspired muntin pattern found on many Craftsman Bungalow style homes.

Kit Houses - Kit houses were popular in the United States, Canada and elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. They were available in a wide range of architectural styles from bungalows to Colonials.

Early misconceptions of exactly what a kit house is lead to a manager of the Sears & Roebuck lumber department presenting to the United States Senate:
“A ready-cut house should not be confused with a sectional-portable house, which can be taken down and moved by being unbolted. A ready-cut house is a permanent house and the method of its construction is not different form any other frame house where the lumber is framed (or cut to its proper length, notched, etc.), by hand by carpenters.”
The concept of Kit Houses allowed for efficiency in building material, cost, labor and quality. The manufacturers had skilled labor and special equipment in an all weather production facility. Mass purchasing of building materials provided lower cost and constant supply. The typical Kit House consisted of 10,000 to 30,000 pieces of lumber and other building materials. All of these materials would be packed into a boxcar in a sequence. The boxcar would be transported to the town of the purchaser, where it would be parked on a side spur. Upon opening the doors of the boxcar, the first items encountered would be the items needed for the layout of the site and foundation. The furthest corner of the boxcar would contain the roofing materials.

The prospective homeowner was encouraged to personalize their order. Most of the Kit Houses were also available in a reversed plan layout. Many designs had variations of the basic floor plan. Exterior finishes could be clapboards, shingles, and stucco or framed for a brick veneer. Doors and windows could be moved (to a certain extent) or eliminated. Porches, sunrooms, flower boxes, trellis, built-in cabinets and a variety of door and sash patterns were available for an additional charge.

This cost efficiency, pre-cut / packaging, and variety of customizations made the Kit House very appealing to the early 1900s public. The second and third decades of the 1900s were the heyday of the Kit House. The emerging middle class of the Teens needed affordable housing and the finical flurry of the Roaring Twenties provided the money. The Kit House market lasted into the 1950s, where it was a big part of suburbia. Another appeal of the Kit House was its ease of construction. If you were not handy with a hammer, you could hire a carpenter to build it. But if you could “swing a hammer” you could put it together yourself. A great example of the “do it yourself” group was Walt and Roy Disney, who in 1928 built two Kit Houses in Los Angeles.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion C (continued)
The architecturally defining features of the Colonial Influence Craftsman Bungaloid style seen at 4679 Date Avenue that are supportive of historic landmarking are:

1. The extending cantilevered front porch supported by decorative wooden brackets;

2. The red brick chimney on the side eave wall;

3. The original L shaped plan with raised open front porch.

4. The bands of matching rectangular 10 light windows;

5. The decorative slat attic vent on the front gable and side gable ends;

6. The low-pitched cross gabled roof;

7. The extending decorative triangular knee braces supporting the front porch gable end;

8. The open widely overhanging roof eaves with exposed rafters;

9. The narrow horizontal wood clapboard exterior surfacing;

10. The original matching Colonial/Craftsman style ten-light windows on the front façade;

11. The original fixed and one-over-one rectangular double hung windows;

12. The original extending purlins and king post seen on the gable ends;

13. The Craftsman style home's small bungalow size and typology;

14. The wide plank style window and door surrounds;
The following are architectural changes that cause integrity loss:

1. The replacement of the front door with a wooden replacement.

2. The removal of the front brick stoops found near the front entryway.

3. The circa 2015 rear addition.

Architectural Integrity Analysis. The following is an analysis of the architecture.

Location. Location is the place where the property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

Research shows the resource has not changed location at 4679 Date Avenue since it was completed in 1922. The house has excellent integrity of Location.

Design. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

This house is an excellent example of Colonial-influenced Craftsman Bungalow style architecture. The home after the recent restoration and rehabilitation is remarkably intact, displaying original features of the Craftsman style including the cantilevered front porch, gabled roof with decorative front verge board and dentil cornice and triangular supporting brackets. The bands of almost floor to ceiling ten light wooden windows on the home are original and intact. The horizontal clapboard wood surfacing is also intact. The sides of the home display original one-over-one side wooden windows. A single replacement front door and removal of two brick stoops at the front entryway are the only visible alteration seen on the home.

This is an excellent example of a modest "bungalow" type Craftsman Home. The Design element of this home is excellent.

Setting. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. The setting is the larger area or environment in which a historic property is located. It may be an urban, suburban, or rural neighborhood, or a natural landscape in which buildings have been constructed. The relationship of buildings to each

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
other, setbacks, fence patterns, views, driveways and walkways, and street trees together create the character of a district or neighborhood.

The setting is that of the early date Ave area of Le Mase. The early street and side setback of the houses match the other homes of this historic neighborhood. The development and streets in the neighborhood are designed for pedestrians with protected sidewalk and landscaping. The front porches connect to the sidewalk through the open front lawn and walkway. The home closely matches the configuration seen in historic and transitional photos. The home continue to convey the 1910-1920’s era and setting of when the home was originally built as well as the 1920-195 era when Levy owned and lived in the home. The home has excellent integrity of Setting.

Materials. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The Standards state that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

The primary materials of this front gable Craftsman style house are the narrow horizontal clapboard exterior surfacing, bands of divided light wooden windows and red brick chimney. These elements are all original and intact, although the two small red brick stoops have been removed from the open front porch. The open exposed eaves, composition shingle roof, wooden rafters, wide wood framed windows and doors also reflect the original Craftsman wooden materials. The inset wooden porch support brackets, low pitched composition roof with extending perlin roof beams and slat style attic vents are extant and match the historic and traditional photos (see Attachment D.1). The homes original door appears to have been replaced but the wooden replacement door matches the homes colonial influenced Craftsman style.

Historic photos confirm the home is highly original and intact. Horizontal wood clapboard surfacing, and any visible wooden windows or doors on both houses are all original or have been replaced in kind. The cantilevered wooden front porch brackets, divided light wooden front windows and brick chimney maintain the original materials. There are no significant changes to the materials within the public view. As noted throughout this analysis, both homes are well preserved, and the overall Materials aspect of Integrity of the homes is excellent.

Workmanship. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during a given period of history or prehistory.

The craftsmanship exhibited on these houses represents skilled construction techniques. The wooden brackets with decorative inset panels porch cornices and narrow clapboard siding and horizontal wood gable vents all display excellent skill and wood workmanship. Some of the fine workmanship exhibited is seen in the original wooden ten light divided light bands of large casement windows. Original wood skirting along the corners and the decorative extending perlins also exhibit fine workmanship. The exposed red brick end chimney displays quality masonry techniques with inset mortar joints. Excellent examples of fine work is also reflected in some of the original wooden built in that match the homes craftsman style. The workmanship is seen on all visible elevations with narrow clapboard above the foundation. As noted, the wood and carpentry skill seen throughout the home on exterior surfaces and corners shows quality carpentry and workmanship skills. The Workmanship aspect of Integrity is excellent.

Feeling. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time The 1922 Craftsman style house continues to represent the felling of original Craftsman style home. In the present restored excellent original condition, the Craftsman residence is well preserved and imparts the

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
visitor with a realistic sense and feeling of the original historical home and historical La Mesa neighborhood.

The historical sense and feel of a 1920's residential neighborhood is still experienced. The overall streetscape of lawn strips, landscapes, house setback and in relation to one another creates a visual feeling of the past. The home blends in well with older neighboring properties. The feeling of an early Craftsman home in the 1920's era is well retained. The Feeling aspect of Integrity is excellent.

Association. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Built in 1922, the house at 4679 Date Avenue is an excellent example of the Craftsman Architectural style. The home is additionally significant for its association with Reuben M Levy, a historically significant individual who owned and lived in the home from 1925-1952.

In conclusion, The Reuben M. Levy House at 4679 Date Ave. meets the Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, and Feeling aspects of Integrity. The house maintains six out of six aspects of Integrity that apply and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Integrity.

Therefore, Wallace Historic Preservation recommends the house for historical designation under Criterion C.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion D
Criterion D: Is representative of a notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman.

Architect of 4679 Date Avenue
The architect / designer of The Reuben M. Levy House at 4679 Date Ave. is undetermined. The home was a kit house and during the 1910s-1920s, plans for it appeared in catalogs for the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles, California and Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. of Los Angeles. Pacific Portable changed its name to Pacific Ready-Cut in the early 1920s.

Kit house companies typically employed teams of architects and designers to create the homes featured in their catalogs. Thus, the original architect / designer of the subject resource could not be determined.

Additionally, kits and blueprints for home designs that appear in such catalogs were often available for several years, and the companies did not feature all new home designs each year.

During the course of research for this property, nearly identical renderings were found in the following catalogs:

Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles, California (precursor to Pacific ReadyCut Homes, Inc.). A rendering nearly identical to 4679 Date Ave. was published in their 1918 catalog. It is listed as “Ready-Cut” Style #385. This company sold full kits for building a home. The kits were shipped by rail to the depot nearest to a buyer’s location and then transferred to the job site by truck.

Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. of Los Angeles, California. In the early 1920s, the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. changed its name to Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. A rendering nearly identical to 4679 Date Ave. was published in Pacific Ready-Cut’s 1923 catalog. It is listed as “Ready-Cut” Style #385.

Radford Architectural Company of Chicago, Illinois. A rendering nearly identical to 4679 Date Ave. was published in the company’s 1924 catalog, Radford’s Blue Ribbon Homes. It is listed as Design No. 11140 B.R. This company, headed by William A. Radford, sold blueprints and typewritten specifications for the house styles in their catalogs, but did not sell full kits containing the building materials.

Conclusion: Although The Reuben M. Levy House at 4679 Date Ave. is proposed under Criterion D for its association with established Master Builders David C. Marker and Henry L. Russell of the firm Marker & Russell, the home is not proposed under Criterion D for its association with a recognized Master Architect. The home was built from a kit or from blueprints sold by several different companies that employed teams of architects and designers, and thus the original architect or designer of the kit / blueprints used to construct the subject resource is undetermined. Therefore, Wallace Historic Preservation does not recommend The Reuben M. Levy House for historical designation under Criterion D for its association with a recognized Master Architect.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion D (continued)
Criterion D: Is representative of a notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman.

The Firm of Marker & Russell
David C. Marker and Henry L. Russell
Builders of 4679 Date Avenue, 1922
David C. Marker
Birth: 1857 (Frederick County, Virginia)
Death: 1952, aged 94 (La Mesa, San Diego, California)
Address: 4670 Date Street, La Mesa
Occupation: Building Contractor, Bungalow Specialist
Partnership: Marker & Russell (1920–1924)
Key Projects: Numerous homes, churches, and public buildings in La Mesa and nearby areas.

Early Life and Career
David C. Marker was born in Frederick County, Virginia, in 1857. By the time he arrived in La Mesa around 1908, he was already an established carpenter and building contractor. He settled at 4670 Date Street, La Mesa, a home he owned for decades, where he lived with his wife Nellie. Marker was known for his specialization in bungalows, a popular style in early 20th-century California.

Professional Career and Contributions
David Marker quickly became one of the key figures in the construction industry in La Mesa. His reputation as "The Bungalow Builder" was solidified through an advertisement published in the La Mesa Scout on January 21, 1916, where he emphasized his careful attention to detail and custom designs tailored to his clients' needs. His work extended beyond residential properties, contributing to the development of key local landmarks.

By 1920, Marker entered into a notable partnership with fellow builder Henry L. Russell, under the name Marker & Russell. The duo specialized in residential construction, often focusing on bungalows, which were popular during that era. A significant project during this time was the construction of a $2,500 bungalow for Sterling Smith on El Cajon Boulevard in October 1920.

A directory from 1922 shows David C. Marker listed as a building contractor, with his son William M. Marker working as a civil engineer. This underscores the family’s ongoing contributions to La Mesa’s architectural development.

Retirement and Later Life
As Marker aged, he transitioned out of active work, but he remained in La Mesa, where he lived for 45 years. His contributions to the town were long-lasting, with homes and public structures bearing his craftsmanship. He continued to reside at 4670 Date Street until his death in 1952 at the age of 94. He was buried at San Diego’s Glen Abbey Memorial Park.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion D (continued)
Criterion D: Is representative of a notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman.

The Firm of Marker & Russell
David C. Marker and Henry L. Russell
Builders of 4679 Date Avenue, 1922
Henry L. Russell
Birth: January 5, 1869 (Crouseville, Maine)
Death: May 21, 1945 (San Diego, California)
Address: 240 E. Lemon Avenue, La Mesa
Occupation: Contractor, Businessman
Partnership: Marker & Russell (1920–1924)
Key Projects: Residential homes, commercial buildings, public structures, and community involvement.

Early Life and Career
Henry L. Russell was born in Crouseville, Maine, in 1869. He arrived in La Mesa around 1909 and quickly became a prominent figure in the local construction industry. By the time of the 1910 U.S.

Census, he was noted as a contractor in Mission, San Diego, where he was involved in building houses. Russell's early career was multifaceted, including owning a butcher business that he sold in July 1910, to fully focus on his career in construction.

Professional Career and Contributions
In 1911, Russell was already engaged in building homes, such as a project on Date Avenue. His reputation for constructing quality homes and public buildings made him a valuable contributor to La Mesa's early development. He was involved in the construction of the Lemon Grove Church in August 1912, highlighting his contribution to both residential and civic architecture.

One of Russell's most significant partnerships was with David C. Marker from 1920 to 1924, forming the firm Marker & Russell. Together, they were responsible for numerous prominent homes and buildings in La Mesa during their four-year business partnership. Their work on residences, bungalows, and commercial properties solidified their status as master builders in the city.

Russell was also a community leader. He was elected junior steward at the formation of the La Mesa Masonic Lodge No. 407 F&AM in December 1909, and by 1910, he was already active in the town's civic matters.

Later Life and Community Impact
Russell continued to be deeply involved in the La Mesa community. The 1920 Census lists him as living on Date Avenue with his wife, Emma, and son, Lawrence. He remained active in the building industry throughout the 1920s, including constructing homes and contributing to the La Mesa Women’s Club building in October 1912.

By the 1940s, Russell had largely transitioned into retirement, living in El Cajon. Russell passed away in May 1945, and he was cremated and interred at Greenwood Memorial Park in San Diego.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion D (continued)
Criterion D: Is representative of a notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman.

The Firm of Marker & Russell
David C. Marker and Henry L. Russell
Builders of 4679 Date Avenue, 1922
Joint Efforts: Marker & Russell (1920-1924)
David Marker and Henry Russell formed their construction firm around 1920, during a pivotal time for La Mesa’s growth. They worked together on residential and commercial projects, establishing a reputation for quality craftsmanship. Their joint efforts focused heavily on bungalow construction, which was highly sought after during the era. Some notable collaborations include:
• Sterling Smith Bungalow on El Cajon Boulevard (1920)
• Various homes and bungalows as per building permits issued in April 1923 and published in the La Mesa Scout.
• Various commercial buildings
The firm of Marker & Russell left a lasting imprint on the La Mesa area, with homes and buildings that remain part of the town's architectural landscape. Both men were highly regarded for their craftsmanship and commitment to the La Mesa community, cementing their legacy as master builders who contributed to La Mesa's early 20th-century development.

Conclusion: The Reuben M. Levy House at 4679 Date Ave. is proposed for designation under Criterion D for its association with established Master Builders David C. Marker and Henry L.

Russell of the firm Marker & Russell. The firm shaped much of La Mesa’s residential architecture, contributing to the town's early growth. Marker’s bungalows and Russell’s leadership in community development reflect their lasting legacy in the region. Their contributions, both individually and as partners, are embedded in La Mesa’s historical fabric, as seen in the homes and public buildings that still stand today.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion E
Criterion E: National Register of Historic Places listing or eligibility.

Criterion E does not apply to 4679 Date Avenue. It is not proposed for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

4679 Date Avenue – The Reuben M. Levy House
Criterion F
Criterion F: Contributing resource to a Historical District. 4679 Date Avenue falls within the existing Date Avenue Historic District and is listed as a potential landmark in the Historic Resources Inventory and Landmarks survey updated December 2023. The home will continue to be a contributing resource for this district.

No new historic district is proposed as part of this designation.

Attachment A
A.1 – Assessor’s Building Record
A.2 – Notice of Completion
A.3 – Water / Sewer Permits
A.4 – Building / Construction Permits
• Architectural Plans
A.5 – Site Plan with Footprint
A.6 – County Lot and Block Book Page
A.7 – Previous Survey Form

A.1 – Assessor’s Building Record
Build Date Shown 1922

A.1 – Assessor’s Building Record (Continued)

A.2 – Notice of Completion
A Notice of Completion was not found for 4679 Date Ave.

A.3 – Water Permit
Original Water Permit Not Located

A.3 – Sewer Permit
Original Sewer Permit Not Located

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #3340, October 6th 1955
Re-roof Dwelling and Garage
Owner: Alice S. Browne

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #20744, September 13th 1965
Electrical Permit Application
Joseph Dragonetti

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit # 04-104 April 1st 2004
Conversion of an existing residence to a travel agency
Owner: Jim Wieboldt
l

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #04-104 Page 2

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #04-104 Page 3

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #04-104 Page 4

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #04-104 Page 5

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #04-104 Page 6

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #EP04-090, April 1st 2004
Remove and Replace Existing Sidewalk
Owner: Jim Wieboldt

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permti #B05-724 October 31st 2005
Demo of Garage
Owner: Jim Wieboldt

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #2024-0384, June 6th 2024
TI for Bougie’s Cheese Shop
Owner: Melanie Estes

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #2024-1196
TI for Harvest Wine Shop
Owner: Melanie Estes

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #2024-1321
Non-illuminated Freestanding Sign
Owner: Melanie Estes

A.4 – Building / Construction Permits (Continued)
Permit #2024-1368
Reroof Only
Owner: Melanie Estes

A.4 – Architectural Plans
Plan Set for Restoration and Remodel of 4679 Date Ave
Site Plan, Notes, and Details

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Demolition Plan

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Demolition Plan Detail

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Interior Elevations

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Floorplan Detail

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Restroom Enlargement

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Roof & Foundation Plan

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Mechanical Floorplan

A.4 – Architectural Plans (Continued)
Mechanical Floorplan Detail

A.5 – Site Plan with Footprint
Taken from the residential building record.

Black Lines – Original Structure
Red Lines – Rear Addition Circa 2018
Blue Dash Lines – Original Detached Garage – Non-extant Purple Dash Lines – Covered Patio Circa 1983 – Non-extant Original Detached Garage
Non-extant
Covered Patio Circa 1983
Non-extant
Rear Addition Circa 2018
Front Elevation

A.6 – County Lot and Block Book Page
4679 Date Avenue Improvements were first assessed to Elmer Burdick in 1922

A.7 – Previous Survey Form
4679 Date Ave. is listed as a potential landmark in the La Mesa Historic Resources Inventory and Landmarks Table, May 2017.

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)
April 1982

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)
April 1982

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)

A.7 – Previous Survey Form (Continued)

Attachment B
B.1 – Chain of Title
B.2 – Directory Search of Occupants
B.3 – Deed from the Date of Construction

B.1 – Chain of Title
4679 Date Ave, La Mesa, CA 91941
APN: 470-593-11-00

GRANT DEED
Dated: 11/02/1921
Date Recorded: 11/02/1921
Book/Page: 855/461
Grantor(s): John F. Walter
Grantee(s): Elmer F. Burdick and Aleda S. Burdick

GRANT DEED
Dated: 12/29/1924
Date Recorded: 12/29/1924
Book/Page: 1079/201
Grantor(s): Aleda S. Burdick, a Widow
Grantee(s): Veterans Welfare Board of the State of California

GRANT DEED
Dated: Circa 1931
Date Recorded: Circa 1931
Book/Page: Unknown
Grantor(s): Veterans Welfare Board of the State of California Grantee(s): Reuben M. Levy

GRANT DEED
Dated: 06/18/1951
Date Recorded: 06/18/1951
Book/Page: 4138/173
Grantor(s): Reuben M. Levy
Grantee(s): Ellen Eben and Alice Browne

TRUST DEED
Dated: 06/18/1951
Date Recorded: 06/18/1951
Book/Page: 4138/175
Trustees: Ellen Eben, Alice Browne, Le Roy Bailey
Beneficiary: R.M. Levy
ORDER
Dated: 06/13/1974
Date Recorded: 06/13/1974
Doc#: 74-156995
Deceased: Alice Sarah Browne
Executrix: Gertrude A. Gray

B.1 – Chain of Title (Continued)

GRANT DEED
Dated: 06/13/1974
Date Recorded: 06/13/1974
Doc#: 74-156996
Grantor(s): Gertrude A. Gray, Executrix
Grantee(s): Warren J. Wieboldt and Tula Wieboldt

QUIT CLAIM DEED
Dated: 06/08/2000
Date Recorded: 06/08/2000
Doc#: 2000-0301483
Grantor(s): Warren J. Wieboldt and Tula Wieboldt
Grantee(s): The Wieboldt Family Trust dated May 31, 2000

QUIT CLAIM DEED
Dated: 06/29/2012
Date Recorded: 06/29/2012
Doc#: 2012-0380995
Grantor(s): James W. Wieboldt, Trustee of the Wieboldt Family Trust dated May 31, 2000 Grantee(s): James W. Wieboldt, a married man

QUIT CLAIM DEED
Dated: 06/29/2012
Date Recorded: 06/29/2012
Doc#: 2012-0380998
Grantor(s): James W. Wieboldt, a married man
Grantee(s): James W. Wieboldt and Kelly L. Wieboldt, trustees of the Wieboldt Family Trust dated June 26, 2012

GRANT DEED
Dated: 03/18/2016
Date Recorded: 03/18/2016
Doc#: 2016-0121740
Grantor(s): James W. Wieboldt and Kelly L. Wieboldt, trustees of the Wieboldt Family Trust dated June 26, 2012
Grantee(s): Kelly M. Robinson

INTERSPOUSAL GRANT DEED
Dated: 03/18/2016
Date Recorded: 03/18/2016
Doc#: 2016-0121741
Grantor(s): Bradley Robinson
Grantee(s): Kelly W. Robinson

B.1 – Chain of Title (Continued)

QUIT CLAIM DEED
Dated: 10/21/2022
Date Recorded: 10/21/2022
Doc#: 2022-0407261
Grantor(s): Kelly M. Robinson
Grantee(s): Triple Gem Wellness Collective LLC

GRANT DEED
Dated: 11/09/2022
Date Recorded: 11/09/2022
Doc#: 2022-0432187
Grantor(s): Kelly M. Robinson
Grantee(s): Triple Gem Wellness Collective LLC

GRANT DEED
Dated: 10/27/2023
Date Recorded: 10/27/2023
Doc#: 2023-0296933
Grantor(s): Triple Gem Wellness Collective LLC
Grantee(s): Blanche&Bernice, LLC

B.2 – Directory Search of Occupants
Note: The home was originally addressed as 241 S. Date Ave.

It was readdressed as 4679 Date Ave. around 1931.

Year Directory Listing
1922 Home not listed in this year’s directory. There is also no listing for the Burdicks (the original owners) in the La Mesa portion of the directory. 1923 Home not listed in this year’s directory. There is also no listing for the Burdicks (the original owners) in the La Mesa portion of the directory. 1924 Grace Burdick r 241 S. Date Ave.

Mrs. Lena Burdick h 241 S. Date Ave.
1925 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 241 S Date Ave. 1926 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 241 S Date Ave. 1927 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 241 S Date Ave. 1928 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 241 S Date Ave. 1929 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 241 S Date Ave. 1930 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 241 S Date Ave. 1931 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president-manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 4679 Date Ave. 1932 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 4679 Date Ave. 1933 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 4679 Date Ave. 1934 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) manager La Mesa Hardware Co h 4679 Date Ave. 1935 Reuben M. Levy (Maude) (La Mesa Hardware Co) h 4679 Date Ave. 1936 Reuben M. Levy (Maude) hardware 8261 Lookout Ave. h 4679 Date Ave. 1937 Reuben M. Levy (Maude) hardware 8261 Lookout Ave. h 4679 Date Ave. 1938 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) hardware 8261 Lookout Ave., director La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District h 4679 Date Ave.
1939 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) hardware 8261 Lookout Ave., president board of directors La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District h 4679 Date Ave. 1940 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) hardware 8261 La Mesa Blvd., president board of directors La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District h 4679 Date Ave. 1941 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president board of directors La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District and hardware 8261 La Mesa Blvd., h 4679 Date Ave. 1942 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) president board of directors La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District and hardware 8261 La Mesa Blvd., h 4679 Date Ave. 1943 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) hardware 8261 La Mesa Blvd. h 4679 Date Ave. 1944-1945 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) h 4679 Date Ave.
1946 Directory not published this year.
1947-1948 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) h 4679 Date Ave.
1949 Directory not published this year.
1950 Reuben M. Levy (Maude E.) h 4679 Date Ave.
1951 Directory not published this year.
1952 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1953-1954 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1955 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1956 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1957 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1958 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1959 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

B.2 – Directory Search of Occupants
1960 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1961-1962 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.
1963 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1964 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1965 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1966 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1967 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1968 Alice S. Browne h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1969 Alice S. Browne retired h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1970 Alice S. Browne retired h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1971 Alice S. Browne retired h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1972 Alice S. Browne retired h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1973 Alice S. Browne retired h 4679 Date Ave.

Mina Loken maid 4679 Date Ave.
1974-2002 Warren J. Wieboldt and Tula Wieboldt
2003-2006 Warren J. Wieboldt
2007-2016 James W. Wieboldt and Kelly L. Wieboldt
2017-2023 Kelly M. Robinson
2023-present Jackie Bougie and Melanie Estes

B.3 – Deed from the Date of Construction
John F. Walter to Elmer F. Burdick and Aleda S. Burdick Recorded: November 10th 1921 – Book 855 Page 461-462

B.3 – Deed from the Date of Construction (Continued)

Attachment C
Maps
C.1 – Current and Historical USGS Maps
C.2 – Original Subdivision Map
C.3 – Sanborn Maps
• 1911
• 1929
• 1949
C.4 – Tax Assessor’s Parcel Map

C.1 – Current USGS Map
La Mesa quadrangle 7.5 minute series, 2021

C.1 – Historical USGS Map
La Mesa quadrangle 7.5 minute series, 1942

C.2 – Original Subdivision Map
La Mesa Springs subdivision map #786 filed on September 6, 1894. .

C.3 – Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
October 1911
Resource not yet constructed. The small structure shown on the lot was moved or demolished prior to construction of the subject resource.

C.3 – Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Continued)
June 1929
This map reflects the subject resource’s original address, 241 S. Date Ave.

It was readdressed to 4679 Date Ave. around 1931.

C.3 – Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Continued)
July 1949

C.4 – Tax Assessor’s Parcel Map

Attachment D
Photographs
D.1 – Historical / Transitional Photographs
D.2 – Current Photographs

D.1 Historical Photographs
See enlargement on the next page

D.1 Historical Photographs
4679 Date Ave. pictured in the San Diego Union, August 9, 1925.

D.1 Historical Photographs
Historic Photo Circa 1928
Courtesy La Mesa History Center – Photo ID# 2014.39.6

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
Historic Photo Circa 1948
Courtesy La Mesa History Center – Photo ID# 76.4.25

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
Historic Photo Circa 1959
Courtesy La Mesa History Center – Photo ID# 76.6.44

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
Historic Aerials Establishing Footprint and Roofline Changes through time 1953
1964
1966
1968

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
1971
1978
1980
1981

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
Between 1982 and 1983 a roofed area appears off the rear of the original home. 1982
1983
1984
2003

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
Between 2016 and 2019 the small roofed area at the rear of the original home becomes a full-width extended roof line, which is still present today.
2016
2019
2020

D.1 – Historical Photographs (Continued)
Footprint of the home today with full-width rear addition

D.1 Transitional Photographs
March 2009
November 2020 – Courtesy Google Maps

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
West (front) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
West (front) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
West (front) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
West (front) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Southeast (side) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Northwest (side) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Northwest (side) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Northwest (side) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Northwest (side) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Northwest (side) elevation

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Interior Brick Fireplace

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition Interior Original Built-In Millwork

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition Original Wood Casement Window – Right

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition Original Wood Casement Window - Left

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition Original Wood Windows
Southeast Exterior Wall

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Front Facing Original Wood Casement Windows

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Front Facing Original Wood Casement Windows

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
View into 2018 Addition

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Site of original car port and shed as seen in Sanborn Maps and historical photos

D.1 – Transitional Photographs (Continued)
Original Northeast Exterior Wall – Now Enclosed by 2018 Addition

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation
Current photos by Benjamin Segebartt, September 2024

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation
Window Set 1

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation
Front Door

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation
Window Set 2

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation
Window Set 3

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – West (Front) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Northwest Corner

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Window 4

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
End-Chimney Detail
Restored Ash Cover

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Window 5

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Restored Perlin
Window 6

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Window 7

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Seam Between Original Structure (Right) and Rear Addition (circa 2018) (Left)

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation
Window 8

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – North (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
Rear Addition Circa 2018
Northeast Corner

D.2 – Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
Rear Addition Circa 2018
Rear Door

D.2 – Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
Rear Addition Circa 2018
Window 9
Window 10

D.2 – Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
Rear Addition Circa 2018

D.2 – Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
Rear Addition Circa 2018
Looking North

D.2 – Current Photographs – East (Rear) Elevation
Rear Addition Circa 2018
Looking South

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation
Southwest Corner – Rear Addition
Window 11

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation
Seam between original structure (left) and the rear addition (circa 2018) (right)

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation
Window Set 12

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation
Window 13

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation
Window Set 14

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

D.2 – Current Photographs – South (Side) Elevation

Attachment E
HRB Criteria
Supplemental Documentation
E.1 – Criterion A – Community History
E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person
E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
E.4 – Criterion D – Master Architect / Master Builder

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History
4679 Date Ave. is located in the La Mesa Springs subdivision, which was created in 1894.

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History
Continued on the next page.

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History
Continued from previous page.

Continued on the next page.

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History
Continued from previous page.

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History

E.1 – Criterion A – Community History

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person
Elmer F. Burdick and Aleda “Lena” S. Burdick
Owner and Occupant, 1922 only (Elmer)
Owner and Occupant, 1922 to 1924 (Aleda)
Shortly before his death, Elmer signed ownership of 4679 Date Ave. over to his wife Aleda.

The transaction was published in the San Diego Union a few days after he passed away.

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Elmer F. Burdick and Aleda “Lena” S. Burdick
Owner and Occupant, 1922 only (Elmer)
Owner and Occupant, 1922 to 1924 (Aleda)
Aleda S. Burdick hired the Murray Brothers contracting firm to construct this four-unit apartment at 1615 Myrtle Ave. in San Diego’s Marston Hills neighborhood. She moved in upon its completion in early 1927, as did her two adult daughters Grace and Myrtle. Aleda lived the remainder of her life there, and passed away at age 93 in 1971.

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)
Placerville Republican
November 16, 1918
San Diego Union, November 10, 1920

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)
Note that Maude’s brother, Albert Frey,
was not the famous architect of the
same name.

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)
Levy circa 1958.

Courtesy of the La Mesa Historical Society

E.2 – Criterion B – Historically Significant Person (Continued) Reuben “Rube” Martin Levy and Maude E. Levy
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1950 (Maude)
Owner and Occupant, 1925 to 1951 (Reuben)

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
4679 Date Ave. is a kit home from Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. of Los Angeles.

Kit Homes. During the first half of the 20th Century, kit homes were common and there were numerous companies across the U.S. which designed kit homes and sold the pre-cut pieces and hardware through catalogs and plan books.

After a buyer ordered their desired kit home, the pieces were typically shipped via train to the buyer’s city and then transported by truck to the lot where the home would be built.

Kit homes were marketed as an economical option for working-class Americans to afford home ownership, as well as being simple enough for the average person to assemble and build on-site. However, many kit home companies contracted with various contractors and construction firms across the U.S. to build the kits for buyers should a buyer not want to build it themselves. In San Diego, Pacific-Ready-Cut Homes typically utilized the A.M. Southard Company, a recognized Master Builder in the City of San Diego, to build their kit homes for buyers. However, if a buyer chose to assemble the home themselves or found another building contractor to assemble the home, they could do so. Elmer F. Burdick and his wife Aleda, the original owners of 4679 Date Ave., hired the firm of Marker and Russell (David C.

Marker and Henry L. Russell) to construct the home for them, as evidenced by a brief article published in the La Mesa Scout on November 4, 1921. Marker & Russell are recognized Master Builders in the City of La Mesa.

Pacific Ready-Cut Homes was the third largest kit home company after Aladdin and Sears. A wealth of information about the company can be found in Carolyn Patricia Flynn’s 1986 UCLA master’s thesis titled Pacific Ready-Cut Homes: Mass-Produced Bungalows in Los Angeles, 1908-1942.

Located in Los Angeles, Pacific Ready Cut Homes, Inc. was originally incorporated in 1909 as Pacific Portable Construction Company by William Butte and Francis Barker. In 1907, William Butte moved from Steubenville, Ohio to Los Angeles. He had worked in Steubenville as manager of a roofing company for eight years, and in Los Angeles he continued in the same line of work. He often spent his lunch breaks studying the workings of a small nearby factory which produced portable bungalows (Flynn 1986:8). Butte was convinced that pre-cut kit homes could be widely marketed due to the rapidly growing population and need for affordable housing in Southern California, and within two years of moving to Los Angeles he partnered with Francis Barker, who had owned the factory for only a year or two prior to partnering with Butte.

A native New Englander, Butte had worked in lumber manufacturing and milling since the 1880s and was undoubtedly aware of companies such as E.F. Hodgson, which began building and selling portable houses in the 1890s in Dover, Massachusetts, as well as Sears Roebuck & Co. with its entrance into the home building market by selling plans and materials.

In Pacific Ready-Cut Homes’ early years, it was incorporated as the Pacific Portable Construction Company. Francis Barker became President, and Butte served as Secretary/Treasurer. Their factory originally had six employees and was able to produce one house a week, essentially prebuilt and ready to assemble, but still portable enough to be shipped by railroad anywhere in the U.S. and even to Mexico (Flynn 1986:9). All built-in furniture was shipped completely assembled, with the wood already sanded and stained, and ready to be set in place and nailed in.

Their advertising claimed that their portable houses could be completely “assembled” in two days. Barker and Butte’s use of the word “assemble” instead of “construct” in advertisements was deliberate. The buyer of a kit home had the option of assembling it themselves, hiring a carpenter to assemble it for them, or hiring a foreman to oversee their own assembly of the home free of charge so long as the buyer paid the foreman’s “carfare, room and board.” (Ibid). In San Diego, Pacific-Ready-Cut Homes contracted with the A.M. Southard Company, a recognized Master Builder in the City of San Diego, to assemble their kit homes for buyers should the buyer choose not to assemble it themselves or to hire an independent carpenter.

Pacific Ready-Cut Homes were a popular option in rural areas with few skilled tradespeople to build traditional homes, and also sold well in boom towns to provide temporary housing for workers who were building the infrastructure of the region, such as in the railroad and oil companies. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power bought Pacific factory-built structures to house the workers building the city's famous aqueduct beginning in 1913 (Ibid). Once work on a particular project was completed, the ready-cut homes could be disassembled, shipped to the next job location and reassembled.

By 1925, Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, had "24 acres of manufacturing facilities, 1000 skilled employees, and a staff of expert architects" and claimed to have sold almost 25,000 structures throughout the West. Their 1925 catalog boasts, "The great Pacific plant is virtually an industrial city within itself — a beehive of activity, capable of producing all the materials for a complete home every 20 minutes during the working day." The company’s catalogs from the 1920s

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
showcase a variety of home options in architectural styles popular during that period, such as Craftsman, Spanish Revival, Cape Cod, and Tudor Revival. Pacific Ready-Cut also sold kits for duplexes, bungalow courts and small apartment buildings.

Like countless other companies, Pacific Ready-Cut was hit hard by the Great Depression. It was also affected by the growing popularity of planned communities of tract housing which emerged around that same time period. During the Great Depression, William Butte drastically reduced the number of Pacific Ready-Cut Homes’ employees to about 30.

He sold the Exhibition Grounds and moved the main office building, a large, two-story bungalow, to the plant in Vernon.

The company continued to sell ready-cut homes throughout the 1930s, but homebuilding did not really recover until after World War II, and William Butte died in 1936. His eldest son became president of the firm, and by 1940, the company had closed out its house manufacturing business and transitioned to producing surfboards, for which it became fairly well-known. The business was sold in 1942.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Image of nearly identical home to 4679 Date Ave. featured in a 1918 catalog for the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles. By 1921, this company changed its name to Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. and this home was featured in its catalogs through at least 1923.

See comparison photos on the next page.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Comparison of current photo of 4679 Date Ave. to nearly identical home featured in a 1918 catalog for the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. (later named Pacific Ready-Cut Homes) of Los Angeles.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Nearly identical home to 4679 Date Ave.
featured on the cover of a Pacific Homes
(precursor to Pacific Ready-Cut Homes) catalog
from 1919.

Source: https://last1onthebus.com/californiabungalows-in-the-mail-when-pacific-ready-cuthomesruled-the-l-a-burbs/ Nearly identical home to 4679 Date Ave.
featured on the cover of a Pacific Ready-Cut
Homes catalog from 1921.

Source: https://biblio.com.au/book/pacifichomes-ready-cut-factory-built/d/1437899579Page 336 of 594 E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Image of nearly identical home to 4679 Date Ave. featured in a 1923 catalog for Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. of Los Angeles. The company was originally named the Pacific Portable Construction Company.

See comparison photos on the next page.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Comparison of current photo of 4679 Date Ave. to nearly identical home featured in a 1923 catalog for Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc. of Los Angeles.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Image of nearly identical home to 4679 Date Ave. featured in a 1924 catalog titled Radford’s Blue Ribbon Homes, published by the Radford Architectural Company of Chicago.

This company did not sell full kits to build homes, but instead sold blueprints and specifications.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Comparison of current photo of 4679 Date Ave. to nearly identical home featured in a 1924 catalog titled Radford’s Blue Ribbon Homes, published by the Radford Architectural Company of Chicago.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
The same home again featured on the cover Pacific Ready-Cut Homes’ catalog from 1925.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
The same home again featured inside the Pacific Ready-Cut Homes’ catalog from 1925.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Excerpts from a 1918 catalog from the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles.

By 1921, this company was renamed Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Excerpt from a 1918 catalog from the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles.

By 1921, this company was renamed Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Excerpt from a 1918 catalog from the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles.

By 1921, this company was renamed Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc.

E.3 – Criterion C – Architecture
Excerpt from a 1918 catalog from the Pacific Portable Construction Company, Inc. of Los Angeles.

By 1921, this company was renamed Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, Inc.

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: November 26, 2024
SUBJECT: 1) RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE
2018 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP) PURSUANT TO

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT (SEIR) FOR THE CAP UPDATE AND
2) RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CAP UPDATE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUMMARY:

Issues:

1. Should the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution (Attachment A) approving the attached draft Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update (Attachment B)?

2. Should the City Council adopt the attached draft resolution (Attachment C) approving the attached draft CAP Update (Attachment D)? Recommendation:

1. Adopt the attached draft resolution approving the attached draft Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update.

2. Adopt the attached draft resolution approving the attached draft CAP Update.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact and no changes to the General Fund associated with the adoption of the CAP Update for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The CAP Update

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 2 of 10
Implementation Cost Analysis (ICA) (Attachment E), estimates the City’s future costs to implement the CAP Update through FY 2029.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Promote a high quality of life that current and future generations can afford to call home.

Environmental Review:

The City approved the SEIR for the CAP in March 2018. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an addendum is appropriate where a previously certified EIR has been prepared and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15168. Staff worked with the consultant to develop the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update. The Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update does not require circulation for public review, however staff posted it on the City’s website at www.cityoflamesa.us/capupdate in relation to the draft CAP Update for informational purposes. The CAP Update would require Council to adopt the following: 1) the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP update and 2) the CAP Update.

Climate Action Plan Reduction Strategy:

This item supports all measures within the Climate Action Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In March 2018, the City Council approved the CAP, which provides the City with a roadmap to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Development of the CAP was identified as a mitigation measure in the 2012 General Plan Update and established targets consistent with state goals and guidelines. The CAP commits the City to amend the plan every 5 years to reflect inventory and projection updates, measure revisions or additions, and identified pathways towards achievement of future targets.

The purpose of the CAP Update is intended to ensure that City plans and policies are up to date with the latest GHG emission reduction targets and measures, and that they reflect the most recent and best available data, policies, programs and technologies.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 3 of 10
To emphasize the importance of the CAP, the Council established a Council CAP subcommittee, comprised of former Councilmember Baber and Councilmember Shu. In late 2021, the subcommittee identified steps to commence the CAP Update process. In January 2022, the Council adopted recommendations to revise the CAP, and requested proposals from qualified firms. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for the CAP Update was prepared and posted on the City’s PlanetBids website on March 31, 2022. A total of one proposal was received. Following the review and interview by the consultant selection panel, University of San Diego Energy Policy Initiative Center (EPIC), was determined to be highly qualified. In May 2022, the Council approved an award and professional services agreement for $100,000 to EPIC and subconsultant, Ascent Environmental, Inc. (herein referred to as “consultants”) for the CAP Update and began work with staff on community engagement and CAP revisions. In June 2023, Council approved an additional budget appropriation of $160,000 and scope of services with EPIC’s subconsultant, CR Associates, which included a transportation mode share analysis, ongoing mobility metrics and GHG emission data for annual reporting for the next 5 years.

Staff worked with the consultants on the CAP Update process that included community engagement, GHG inventory and targets, CAP strategies, measures and actions, implementation and monitoring, ICA, Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update, drafting the CAP Update documents, public review and finalizing the CAP Update documents.

Staff continued to meet with the Council CAP subcommittee throughout the CAP Update process, which starting in 2022 was comprised of Councilmember Dillard and Councilmember Shu.

Community Engagement
Community outreach and engagement are essential elements of the CAP Update planning and development process. Therefore, staff conducted a series of community outreach events, workshops and surveys to inform stakeholders and the public and gather meaningful feedback regarding the CAP Update; these activities included:
● Public Workshop #1 in May 2023: presentation and interactive activity for attendees to provide feedback on existing and preliminary measures; ● Online Survey #1 from May-June 2023: 72 responses about existing and preliminary measures;
● Staff Workshop in May 2023: interactive activity for staff to provide feedback on the implementation progress of existing CAP measures;

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 4 of 10
● Public Workshop #2 in October 2023: presentation and interactive group discussions focused on equity, best practices and participation barriers of CAP measures and actions at Helix Charter High School; and
● Online Survey #2 from October-November 2023: 179 responses about best practices and participation barriers.

During the course of the CAP Update development, the Environmental Sustainability Commission (ESC) served as community advisors to staff in the development of the CAP Update framework, climate equity and environmental justice, co-benefits and measure development. The ESC established the CAP Update and Equity subcommittee which met monthly. The CAP Update introduces the City’s approach to highlighting co-benefits and incorporating climate equity and environmental justice. While CAP Update measures and actions are geared towards reducing GHG emissions, co-benefits provide additional shared community value. Through discussions with the CAP Update and Equity subcommittee, 6 co-benefits were identified and described as follows:
● Air Quality: Reduces air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds leading to cleaner and healthier indoor and outdoor environments;
● Public Health and Safety: Promotes healthier lifestyles and reduces exposure to environmental pollutants and other risks to life and property; ● Jobs and Economy: Increases economic activity in the City and makes economic activity more environmentally sustainable;
● Resilience: Makes the City more prepared and able to quickly recover from climate hazards (e.g., extreme heat, flooding, wildfire, and drought); ● Livability: Improves the quality of life experienced by residents and the overall desirability of living in the City; and
● Reduced Cost of Living: Improves the affordability and resource efficiency of necessary goods and services, such as energy and water.

The Livability co-benefit was created for the CAP Update because CAP measures and actions are part of the Livability Goal in the City’s Strategic Plan.

The ESC was integral in discussing incorporating environmental justice and climate equity. It was determined to examine and use existing definitions and tools as guideposts for prioritizing climate equity and environmental justice. Therefore, CAP Update measures

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 5 of 10
and actions were developed with equitable outcomes in mind, and as such, plan implementation will prioritize and be rooted in the principles of climate equity and environmental justice.

DISCUSSION:

The CAP Update is the first comprehensive amendment to the CAP. Revisions were made from the CAP and address changes in federal and state regulations, GHG targets, regional programs and advancements in technology. Additionally, the CAP Update addresses co-benefits, climate equity and environmental justice, adaptation strategies, and the Addendum to the 2018 SEIR for the CAP Update.

Methodology: Greenhouse Gas (GHG Emissions)
To account for changes in federal, state, and City policies and programs, the City’s GHG inventory required updating to reflect the best available data. The starting point used for measuring emissions over time in the CAP Update is known as the “baseline year.” The City previously received GHG emission inventories from San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to monitor progress. For the CAP Update, 2016 is the baseline year because 2016 represents the best available data from previous GHG emission inventories.

GHG emissions are measured by metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, noted as MTCO2e. Based on the 2016 data, the baseline year, the City’s total emissions were 398,300 MTCO2e. The largest emissions category in the City comes from on-road transportation, generating 62% of community-wide emissions, followed by electricity generating 19% and natural gas generating 16%.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 6 of 10
Using the 2016 GHG emissions inventory and estimates for population, housing and job growth, the amount of GHG emissions that would be produced by these categories was projected into the future. This is called the “business-as-usual” projection, which shows the anticipated growth in emissions from these sources in the absence of any new policies and programs. Emissions reductions that are expected to result from federal and state policies and programs are applied to a second set of projections, creating a “legislatively adjusted business-as-usual projection.” Using these projections, GHG emissions were projected for the target years 2035 and 2045. The CAP Update target years of 2035 and 2045 were used to align with Statewide targets established by Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 1279. The chart below indicates:
 The business-as-usual projection in dark grey, which shows GHG emissions if the City took no action;
 The legislatively adjusted business-as-usual projection in light grey, which accounts for GHG emissions reductions from federal and state laws; and  The GHG emissions reductions from CAP Update measures in the turquoise, yellow, purple, blue, and peach.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 7 of 10
The CAP Update aims to create measures that are feasible with the City's existing resources and are cost-effective for community members. The quantified reductions from these measures are designed to support substantial near-term implementation efforts. According to the recommended measures, the City is projected to meet the 2035 target by reducing GHG emissions to 60% below 2016 levels. However, the 2045 target is unlikely to be achieved by 9% with the proposed quantified measure reductions. While the 2045 GHG emissions reductions quantified in the CAP Update are not sufficient to meet the 2045 target, future CAP updates can incorporate rebate and incentive programs, advancements in technology, funding opportunities and changes to federal and state legislation to achieve this goal.

Strategies, Measures and Actions
Throughout the CAP Update process, measures and actions underwent careful evaluation; some were retained, while others were combined, simplified, expanded, added or renamed to enhance clarity and effectiveness. The CAP Update contains 21 measures, 30 main actions, and 123 implementation and supporting actions, in the following six categories:
● Building Energy Efficiency;
● Clean and Renewable Energy;
● Clean and Efficient Transportation;
● Water Efficiency;
● Waste Reduction; and
● Urban Natural Environment.

Within each strategy, the measures are accompanied by a detailed list of actions that include programs, projects, policies, education or outreach, and result in a specific amount of GHG reductions. The summary of GHG reduction strategies and measures is listed in Chapter 3, Table 3.2, of the CAP Update. Each of the 21 measures in the CAP Update include a measure description, co-benefits, GHG emission reductions, table of action descriptions (main actions, implementation actions, supporting actions), action status (existing, expanded, new), and the lead City department or division responsible for implementation.

The CAP Update introduces adaptation strategies to reduce risk and build resilience.

These strategies are intended to assist in preparing the community for extreme heat,

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 8 of 10
flooding, wildfire and prolonged drought. The City will continue to utilize interdisciplinary approaches and collaborate with existing regional efforts.

Implementation and Monitoring
Once the CAP Update is adopted, staff will begin implementing strategies, measures and actions, and additionally, will begin collecting any necessary data needed for monitoring. The City has published and presented to the Council CAP Annual Progress Reports since 2019, and staff will continue to report on implementation activities annually. The annual reports will include the most recently available GHG emission data, implementation highlights, and progress towards reaching the GHG emission reduction targets. As technologies, programs, and policies change and data becomes more available, these reports will continue to be used to track progress and identify actions that need to be improved, adjusted, or removed in future CAP updates.

Implementation planning will be aligned with the City’s budget cycle, which occurs every two years beginning with the FY2026-27 cycle in 2025. A work plan will be developed to identify the near-term activities the City will pursue, considering existing staff capacity, City resources, grants and other potential funding sources. Upon implementation, staff will need to evaluate and monitor the performance of the CAP Update in light of the 2035 and 2045 targets.

Implementation Cost Analysis (ICA)
The purpose of preparing the ICA is to estimate the total cost and level of effort in staff time to implement the CAP Update over the first five fiscal years, or through FY 2029.

The ICA is intended to aid the preparation of future budgets, so that departments are aware of their estimated costs and level of effort and be able to plan accordingly.

Actual funding for CAP Update implementation will be done through the City budget approval process. Attachment E contains a summary of cost estimates.

Public Review and Comment
Upon finalizing the draft CAP Update, the following actions were taken for the public review and comment process:
● October 3, 2024: Draft CAP Update presented to Council CAP Subcommittee; ● October 9-November 6, 2024: Draft CAP Update presented to 11 City Board and Commission Meetings as follows:
o October 9: Community Services Commission;
o October 14: Design Review Board and Youth Commission;

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 9 of 10
o October 15: Parking Commission;
o October 16: Arts and Culture Commission and Community Police Oversight Board;
o October 21: Environmental Sustainability Commission;
o October 23: Community and Veterans Relations Commission; and o November 6: Mobility Commission and Planning Commission. ● October 21, 2024: Draft CAP Update public review and comment period became available on City website at www.cityoflamesa.us/capupdate; ● October 28, 2024: CAP Update Community Event, hosted in partnership with Murray Manor Elementary School. 45 participants engaged with San Diego Community Power, City of La Mesa Parks Division, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, SANDAG, EDCO, Helix Water District, and I Love A Clean San Diego.

Community members also learned about current CAP programs and projects including interactive CAP-themed kids activities;
● November 11, 2024: Draft CAP Update public review and comment period closed.

Public comments that were submitted online during the public review period between October 21-November 11, 2024 are included in Attachment F; and ● November 18, 2024: After review and receiving public input, the ESC voted unanimously to recommend to Council adoption of the Draft Addendum to the CAP SEIR for the CAP Update and the CAP Update.

Additionally, on November 18, 2024 the ESC recommended the following in conjunction with recommending the adoption of the CAP Update: through budgeting cycles, that CAP measures are prioritized and indicated for all departments, and to incorporate into the implementation work plan the process and schedule for CAP Update measures associated with changes in municipal codes, plans, and policies.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt the attached draft resolution approving the attached draft Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update; and

2. Adopt the attached draft resolution approving the CAP Update.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: November 26, 2024
Page: 10 of 10
Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Amanda Lee
City Manager Assistant City Manager
____________________________
Michael Throne, PE
Director of Public Works
____________________________
Hilary Ego
Environmental Sustainability Manager
Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution approving the Addendum to the CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Attachment B: Addendum to the CAP SEIR for the CAP Update Attachment C: Resolution approving the CAP Update
Attachment D: CAP Update
Attachment E: ICA
Attachment F: Public comment on draft CAP Update

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE 2018 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP) PURSUANT TO

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) FOR THE CAP UPDATE
WHEREAS, the City of La Mesa (City) prepared a CAP to implement California Code of Regulations Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15183.5, Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, which provides that a lead agency may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level; WHEREAS, the CAP implements the City General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Measure GHG-1, to develop and adopt a CAP. The referenced mitigation measure that states the City shall prepare and adopt a plan to reduce GHG emissions (i.e. CAP) that complies with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5; WHEREAS, the City prepared the SEIR for the CAP in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to fully evaluate the impacts of the CAP; WHEREAS, on March 13, 2018, the City Council certified the Final SEIR for the CAP and adopted the CAP;
WHEREAS, the CAP commits the City to amend the plan every 5 years to reflect inventory and projection updates, measure revisions or additions, and identified pathways towards achievement of future targets;
WHEREAS, on in 2021, Council established the CAP subcommittee to guide implementation and the development of the CAP Update;
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2022, Council approved an award and professional services agreement with the University of San Diego Energy Policy Initiatives Center and Ascent Environmental, Inc. for the CAP Update, which included a comprehensive review of existing measures, identification of new strategies, community engagement to inform the CAP revisions, and the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update;
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an addendum is appropriate where a previously certified EIR has been prepared and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with California Public Resource Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15168;
WHEREAS, the City, in compliance with CEQA, prepared an SEIR Addendum to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adopting and implementing the proposed CAP Update. The environmental review process under CEQA commenced and was undertaken in conjunction with the preparation and consideration of the CAP Update; and

WHEREAS, the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update does not require circulation for public review, however posted it on the City’s website at www.cityoflamesa.us/capupdate in relation to the draft CAP Update for informational purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the City Council is authorized to approve as follows:

1. Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, as the decision-making body for the City of La Mesa as Lead Agency, makes and adopts the following findings and certifications in compliance with the requirements of CEQA:
a. Council has independently reviewed and considered the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update;
b. The mitigation measures from the original SEIR for the CAP remain applicable to the CAP Update, and no new mitigation measures are required; c. None of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or SEIR are present; d. The CAP Update does not result in new significant environmental impacts, and therefore, no new EIR or SEIR is required;
e. Council finds that the CAP Update is consistent with the City’s General Plan, existing policies, and applicable state climate change goals. f. Council does hereby find and certify that the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA; g. Council does hereby find and certify that the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update reflects the Council’s independent judgment and analysis; and h. Council confirms that no new or additional environmental analysis is required for the CAP Update, as the Addendum to the SEIR for the CAP Update adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the CAP Update, consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of November 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WEIGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2024- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WEIGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

CITY OF LA MESA
Addendum to the 2018 Climate Action Plan Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the
Climate Action Plan Update
Public Draft
Prepared for:

City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
November 2024

CITY OF LA MESA
Addendum to the 2018 Climate Action Plan Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the
Climate Action Plan Update

PUBLIC DRAFT
Prepared for:

City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Contact:

Community Development Department
City of La Mesa
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.667.1177
Prepared by:

Ascent
1230 Columbia St, Suite 440
San Diego, CA 92101
November 2024
20220053.01

City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of an EIR Addendum....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Overview of the CAP Update .....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Discretionary Action.....................................................................................................................................................1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background......................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Project Location...........................................................................................................................................................2-10 3 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................................3-12

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................3-15

3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................................3-18

3.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................3-19

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................................................................3-22

3.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................3-24

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................ 3-27

3.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................................3-30

3.12 Mineral Resources......................................................................................................................................................3-32

3.13 Noise..............................................................................................................................................................................3-33

3.14 Population and Housing..........................................................................................................................................3-37

3.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................................................................3-38

3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................................................3-40

3.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................3-42

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................................................3-44

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................................................3-46

3.20 Wildfire..........................................................................................................................................................................3-49 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-11 Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of CAP Update Measures and Actions............................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2 CAP Update Adaptation Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 2-9

City of La Mesa
ii Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
C&D Construction and Demolition
CAP Update City of La Mesa Climate Action Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
City City of La Mesa
CO carbon monoxide
EIR environmental impact report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ESCO Energy Services Company
EV electric vehicle
General Plan EIR City of La Mesa 2012 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report General Plan La Mesa Centennial General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
I-8 Interstate 8
MLD most likely descendant
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAHC Native American Heritage Center
NOX oxides of nitrogen
PM10 respirable particular matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less PRC Public Resources Code
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
ROG reactive organic gas
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SEIR supplemental environmental impact report
SR State Route
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
VMT vehicle miles traveled

City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
The project evaluated in this Addendum is an update to the City of La Mesa Climate Action Plan (CAP Update). The CAP Update outlines strategies, measures, and actions for reducing emissions in response to climate change. The current CAP, adopted in March 2018, establishes a long-range roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the categories of energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and green infrastructure.

The CAP Update contains strategies to reduce local GHG emissions and streamline environmental review of future development projects in the City in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) such that new development is designed and built following sustainable practices. CAP strategies address topics such as increasing energy efficiency, expanding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and achieving solid waste reduction.

The CAP Update establishes measures and actions to assist the City in reducing GHG emissions. The CAP Update includes measures organized into six strategies: building and energy efficiency; clean and renewable energy; clean and efficient transportation, water efficiency; waste reduction; and urban natural environment. These strategies serve to organize GHG reduction measures and indicate their focus areas. Within each measure there are one or more actions that define activities, programs, policies, or projects that the City government will implement or support to achieve CAP Update goals.

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the CAP Update, the City has determined that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) certified for the 2018 Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2012061053, dated March 2018) is of continuing informational value. Further, the City has determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the CAP Update are within the scope of the previously certified CEQA document, and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist. Based on the information and analysis provided herein, the City has determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified 2018 SEIR are necessary and that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

1.1 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM
Once an environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared and certified for a project, no additional environmental review is necessary unless certain conditions are met, at which point subsequent review under CEQA may be necessary. Sections 15162-15164 of the CEQA Guidelines define the standards for determining the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review and Section 15164 addresses the specific circumstances requiring the preparation of an addendum to an EIR. If new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts would result, then preparation and circulation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR for additional public review is required. However, when proposed changes to a project, changed circumstances, and new information would not result in one or more new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of one or more significant impacts identified in the certified EIR, an addendum to the EIR may be prepared. Public review of an addendum is not required under CEQA.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE CAP UPDATE
The City of La Mesa (City) aims to continue and elevate the City’s commitment to sustainability and resilience by aligning its climate action plan with recent legislation, best practices, and other advancements since the adoption of the original CAP. The CAP Update is primarily geared toward reducing GHG emissions and adapting to climate change within the city. The CAP Update is organized into the following chapters:

Introduction Ascent
City of La Mesa
1-2 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
 Chapter 1, Introduction. The introduction provides an overview of the effects of global climate change, cobenefits of the CAP Update, and describes the outreach and engagement conducted to raise awareness of climate change and the need for the CAP Update; inform stakeholders and the public about the CAP Update; gather input at various stages of plan development; and provide meaningful opportunities for feedback and to influence decision making.
 Chapter 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This chapter inventories the City’s GHG emissions to demonstrate the City’s overall contribution to climate change and the contribution of individual GHG emissions sources and forecasts how emissions are expected to change with future growth. This chapter presents the technical basis for the CAP Update, and sets City-specific GHG reduction targets for 2035 and 2045 that align with state legislation.  Chapter 3, Climate Action Strategies and Measures. This chapter presents strategies, measures, and actions to reduce GHG emissions and build resilience to climate impacts in the community (i.e., GHG reduction strategies).

The strategies are organized into six sectors: building energy and efficiency, clean and renewable energy, clean and efficient transportation, water efficiency, waste reduction, and urban natural environment.  Chapter 4, Implementation and Monitoring. This chapter outlines the process by which the City will implement CAP Update strategies, measures, and actions and how progress will be monitored over time to ensure the CAP Update is effective in reducing emissions.

1.3 DISCRETIONARY ACTION
The CAP Update would involve the following discretionary actions by the City Council:
 Approval of the Addendum to the 2018 CAP SEIR
 Adoption of the CAP Update

City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following section describes the City of La Mesa CAP Update (the proposed project). Along with a description of the proposed project, this section provides a description of the regional location and setting, background and history, project characteristics, and related plans and regulations.

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The following provides a history and timeline of the environmental documentation that has been prepared for the City of La Mesa CAP. On July 9, 2013, the City adopted the La Mesa Centennial General Plan (General Plan) and certified the City of La Mesa 2012 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2012061053) (General Plan EIR), which assessed the potential environmental impacts of implementing the General Plan, including potential impacts related to GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which called for the adoption of a CAP designed to reduce baseline GHG emissions levels by 15 percent by 2020. To implement this mitigation measure, the City adopted a CAP in 2018.

On March 13, 2018, the City of La Mesa certified a SEIR (Climate Action Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2012061053, dated March 2018). The certified SEIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) associated with the reduction targets, specific reduction strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions (City of La Mesa 2018). The City’s CAP reduction strategies and measures provide tools to meet the City’s goal of reducing GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and to 3.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per capita by 2035. The City further set a goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2050 to demonstrate the City’s commitment to California’s long-term GHG goal. The SEIR found that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with implementation of the CAP would be less than significant, except impacts on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions which would be significant and unavoidable (City of La Mesa 2018).

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the CAP Update, the City has determined that the SEIR certified for the CAP is of continuing informational value. The City also has determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the CAP Update are within the scope of the previously certified SEIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City has determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The CAP Update is an update to the City’s adopted 2018 CAP that sets forth measures and actions that aim to reduce GHG emissions from communitywide activities and City government operations to levels aligned with State GHG emissions reduction goals (Table 2-1). It establishes targets of reducing GHG emissions to 50 percent below 2016 levels by 2035 and 85 percent below 2016 levels by 2045.

The CAP Update aims to create measures that are feasible with the City's existing resources and cost effective for community members. Quantified GHG reductions from these measures are designed to support substantial nearterm implementation efforts. According to the recommended measures, the City is projected to meet the 2035 target by reducing GHG emissions to 60% below 2016 levels. However, the 2045 target is unlikely to be achieved with the proposed quantified measures.

The City did consider the impacts of requiring energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings but determined that the requirement would put a significant cost burden onto lower-income residents residing in older homes and such an effort would create inequities. The City will continue to monitor State and Federal policy changes as well as funding opportunities and will attempt to reach all relative targets in future CAP updates (2030, 2035).

Project Description Ascent
City of La Mesa
2-2 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Table 2-1 Summary of CAP Update Measures and Actions
Building Energy Efficiency
Measure BE-1: Existing Building Retrofit Program
Action BE-1.1: Work with regional energy organizations, such as Community Power and SDG&E, to encourage La Mesa residential and nonresidential energy users to participate in the existing statewide energy benchmarking program.

Action BE-1.1 IA-1: Promote online energy benchmarking tools for residential and non-residential property owners, tenants, and managers to build awareness of their energy use, GHG footprint, and options for improving energy efficiency.

Action BE-1.1 IA-2: Provide building energy performance educational workshops and information to community members through City outreach channels.

Action BE-1.1 IA-3: Analyze energy program participation data to identify focus areas for increased outreach.

Action BE-1.1 IA-4: Conduct an analysis of building and housing stock and funding gap for existing building decarbonization opportunities.

Action BE-1.2: Amend Title 14 of the La Mesa Municipal Code to require energy efficiency audits prior to building permit issuance for remodels and renovations and encourage and incentivize energy retrofits for those projects.

Action BE-1.2 IA-1: Provide home energy efficiency outreach to identified priority residential property owners, managers, and tenants to ensure energy efficiency programs are implemented equitably.

Action BE-1.2 IA-2: Increase participation of the DIY Energy Saving & Sustainability Toolkit and develop a new outreach program that identifies quick-payback or high-impact retrofit projects that would be suitable in identified priority neighborhoods; include projects supported by current rebate and incentive programs and home energy audits.

Action BE-1.2 IA-3: Continue to partner with regional energy service providers such as Community Power and SDG&E, and other regional organizations to conduct home energy upgrade and energy efficiency outreach to community members with examples of local case studies demonstrating actual energy and cost savings, simple payback calculations, challenges faced, and lessons learned.

Action BE-1.2 IA-4: Partner with organizations that provide assistance to priority populations, such as low-income and elderly households, to develop targeted outreach program that promotes federal, state, and regional weatherization programs, including development of education materials that highlight co-benefits annually.

Action BE-1.2 IA-5: Increase visibility and community familiarity with home weatherization and energy efficiency programs through City outreach channels.

Action BE-1.2 IA-6: Develop partnerships with regional energy service providers and other organizations to encourage information sharing on number and type of retrofit installations performed annually community-wide.

Action BE-1.2 IA-7: Explore possible cost-effective citywide policies to further decarbonize existing building stock.

Measure BE-2: High Energy Performance Standard for New Construction Action BE-2.1: Develop and adopt a performance-based standard for new residential construction projects.

Action BE-2.2: Explore a performance-based standard for major renovations and new non-residential construction projects.

Action BE-2.2 IA-1: Develop, or partner with an organization to, provide an electric home appliance program such as cooktops.

Action BE-2.2 IA-2: Continue to provide training and resources to Planning Division and Building Division staff regarding available sources for rebates/financing/incentives, as well as printed pamphlets or FAQ sheets for distribution to customers seeking permitting for new construction or major renovation projects.

Measure BE-3: Municipal Facility Energy Retrofit Program Action BE-3.1: Work with an Energy Services Company (ESCO) to complete a comprehensive energy program to reduce municipal energy usage.

Action BE-3.1 IA-1: Develop building energy efficiency policy that sets a LEED Platinum target for construction of new City facilities and assets.

Action BE-3.1 IA-2: Work with an ESCO to develop a financing strategy for projects (e.g., utility rebates and incentives, grants, on-bill financing, low interest loans).

Action BE-3.1 IA-3: Develop an internal strategy for retrofit projects that accounts for building/facility retrofit work, and incorporates energy efficiency components into these planned projects.

Action BE-3.1 IA-4: Revisit retrofit opportunities and municipal efficiency goal during the biennial budget and CIP processes.

Ascent Project Description
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 2-3
Building Energy Efficiency
Action BE-3.1 IA-5: Share case study on municipal efficiency projects through City's outreach channels to encourage residents and businesses to explore efficiency strategies in their buildings.

Action BE-3.1 IA-6: Work with an ESCO to develop energy-efficient lighting replacement strategy at City-owned facilities and recreation areas (e.g., parks, pathways, restroom facilities, area lighting, sports field lighting).

Action BE-3.1 IA-7: Work with an ESCO to develop a financing strategy for projects (e.g., utility rebates and incentives, grants, on-bill financing, low interest loans, etc.) to retrofit identified public lighting opportunities.

Action BE-3.1 IA-8: Continue to monitor advancements in lighting technology, rebate/financing programs, and other factors that could prompt City to pursue deeper energy savings in municipally-owned street lights.

Action BE-3.1 SA-1: Highlight additional co-benefits of projects through City outreach channels, such as improved building occupant comfort, energy security, public health, and community resilience.

Action BE-3.1 SA-2: Work with recognized energy financing providers to increase awareness and participation among residents and businesses.

Action BE-3.1 SA-3: Leverage regional collaboration efforts, including the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative (SDRCC) and SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments), to share local successes and best practices in energy retrofits.

Action BE-3.1 SA-4: Support and participate in regional efforts that identify and pursue regional funding opportunities for energy efficiency or other GHG emission reduction projects.

Clean and Renewable Energy
Measure RE-1: Increase Renewable Energy and Energy Storage at Municipal Facilities Action RE-1.1: Continue to enroll all new municipal electricity accounts into existing Community Power Power100 (100% renewable electricity program) including buildings, streetlights, and other municipal facilities.

Action RE-1.1 IA-1: Work with an ESCO to identify opportunity sites on City buildings or parking lots for municipal on-site renewable energy and battery storage installation and begin planning for construction.

Measure RE-2: Increase Citywide Renewable Energy and Energy Storage Action RE-2.1: Continue to enroll new residents and businesses into existing default Community Power PowerOn (55% renewable electricity program).

Action RE-2.1 IA-1: Design an education program for residents and businesses to encourage upgrading to Community Power Power100 (100% renewable energy program).

Action RE-2.1 IA-2: Upon completion of the discretionary review, further streamline permitting process (e.g., building, electric, plumbing) for on-site renewable energy and battery storage.

Action RE-2.1 IA-3: Train City's Building Division staff in City's solar permitting process in order to provide informational materials and assist community members through process.

Action RE-2.1 IA-4: Provide on-site renewable energy and battery storage information and La Mesa success stories on City's website and other City outreach channels.

Action RE-2.1 IA-5: Review all applicable building, zoning, and other codes and ordinances that are potential regulatory barriers to the installation of on-site renewable energy and battery storage in residential and non-residential construction.

Action RE-2.1 IA-6: Offer permit incentives for permit applicants that demonstrate meeting the building energy thresholds developed in BE 2.1 High Energy Performance Standard for New Construction by reducing costs associated with City requirements.

Action RE-2.1 IA-7: Continue to provide training to City's Building Division staff regarding available sources for on-site renewable energy and battery storage rebates and incentives for residents and businesses.

Action RE-2.1 SA-1: Identify and work with regional partners to develop comprehensive outreach campaign to increase participation in renewable energy and battery storage installation programs, including directory of existing rebates/incentive programs, explanation of simple-payback calculations for renewable energy systems, and technical assistance.

Action RE-2.1 SA-2: Leverage existing on-site renewable energy and battery storage informational materials from regional, state, and federal organizations.

Project Description Ascent
City of La Mesa
2-4 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Clean and Efficient Transportation
Measure T-1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Development Action T-1.1: Prioritize implementation of pedestrian enhancements as identified in City's Complete Streets Integrated Design Manual, Vision Zero Policy, Complete Streets Plan, Local Road Safety and Improvement Plan, Sidewalk Master Plan, Urban Trails Mobility Plan, and Parks Master Plan.

Action T-1.1 IA-1: Evaluate sidewalk infrastructure in La Mesa and identify sidewalk improvements such as extensions, corner extensions, raised intersections, raised crosswalks, pavers, and road closures.

Action T-1.1 IA-2: Identify traffic calming measures that can improve pedestrian or bicycling experience including corner extensions and bulbouts, mini-roundabouts, raised intersection, pavers, and roadway reconfigurations.

Action T-1.2: Prioritize bicycle infrastructure improvements as identified in City's Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan.

Action T-1.2 IA-1: Install new and upgrade existing bicycle facilities to be bike paths (Class 1), bike lanes (Class 2), or cycle tracks (Class 4).

Action T-1.2 IA-2: Prioritize the installation of separated bike lanes (Class 1) and cycle tracks (Class 4) where feasible.

Action T-1.2 IA-3: Evaluate streets in La Mesa that could be re-designed with designated bicycle facilities as well as support other active transportation modes.

Action T-1.2 IA-4: Encourage businesses to provide end of trip amenities for bicycle riders (e.g., showers, lockers) by supporting programs such as SANDAG's sustainable transportation services to support employees' alternative transportation options.

Action T-1.2 IA-5: Identify and install bicycle parking locations at public locations, e.g., in front of retail, restaurants, multi-family residential properties, and employment centers.

Action T-1.2 IA-6: Develop a map to visualize existing bicycle facilities in and around La Mesa and circulate to community members.

Action T-1.2 IA-7: Improve existing bicycle facilities through enhanced signage, striping, surface changes, and paint color.

Action T-1.2 IA-8: Work with SANDAG and other regional organizations to continue to increase bicycle safety and bicycle-conscious driving education activities and events throughout the community and at local schools.

Action T-1.2 IA-9: Work with community organizations to provide additional bicycle riding courses targeting youth (e.g. bike rodeos, trainings at schools).

Action T-1.2 IA-10: Solicit comments from community members and local cycling clubs/advocacy groups to identify locations in need of bicycle improvements in La Mesa, as part of regular implementation of Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan.

Measure T-2: Transportation Demand Management Program
Action T-2.1: Develop outreach campaign in partnership with SANDAG's Sustainable Transportation Services program to increase TDM program participation from businesses (e.g., large employers, hospitals) in La Mesa.

Action T-1.2 IA-1: Provide incentives for new developments to incorporate TDM strategies.

Action T-2.1 IA-2: Identify employers that would benefit from customized commuter benefits program offered through SANDAG's Sustainable Transportation Services.

Action T-2.1 IA-3: Identify local employers currently offering commuter benefits programs, and host knowledge-sharing workshops with identified local businesses, and regional agency representatives to discuss program structures and cost/benefit considerations.

Action T-2.2: Develop and adopt TDM ordinance effecting multi-family and commercial new construction for commuters as part of development review to include transportation benefits such as carpool/vanpool priority parking areas, electric vehicle charging stations, secure bicycle parking, access to locker room/shower facilities, and possibly subsidized transit passes.

Action T-2.2 IA-1: Integrate TDM practices into City's development review process with City's Community Development department.

Action T-2.2 IA-2: Provide information to residents, businesses, and building developers on the definition of TDM, strategies used, and potential benefits through City outreach channels.

Measure T-3: Municipal Transportation Demand Management Program Action 3-1: Develop employee commuter program for City staff to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips during commute to and from work, such as free or reduced public transit fares.

Action T-3.1 IA-1: Develop hybrid telecommute schedule for City staff to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Ascent Project Description
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 2-5
Clean and Efficient Transportation
Action T-3.1 IA-2: Provide flexible fleet options for City employees to use alternatives modes of transportation as fleet vehicles.

Action T-3.1 IA-3: Provide transportation marketing services and communication campaigns to City staff in partnership with SANDAG's Sustainable Transportation Services program to increase TDM program participation.

Measure T-4: Mixed-Use and Transit-Oriented Development Action T-4.1: Continue to identify areas that could support increase in population or employment within 1/4 to 1/2 mile walking distance to transit stops (e.g., trolley station areas). Support high density affordable housing in the vicinity of Amaya Trolley Station and Spring Street Trolley Station.

Action T-4.1 IA-1: Continue to work with SANDAG, MTS, and other regional jurisdictions to enhance local transit service and micro-mobility options in designated higher-density, mixed-use development areas to take advantage of proximity to new potential transit riders.

Action T-4.1 IA-2: Participate in future regional planning efforts and programs that continue to support long-term VMT reduction opportunities in La Mesa.

Action T-4.1 IA-3: Evaluate infrastructure capacity for higher-density development areas and develop prioritization and funding strategies to complete necessary infrastructure improvements, along with amenities that could be constructed to attract investment.

Action T-4.1 IA-4: Conduct parking surveys in areas with good transit access (e.g., downtown La Mesa) to determine if existing parking is adequate in quantity and location for future increased development density.

Action T-4.1 IA-5: Pending conclusions of parking analysis (i.e., if existing parking standards are found to be too high), reduce off-street parking requirements in these areas for transit-oriented and mixed-use developments, for developments providing shared parking, and/or for developments that incorporate certain travel demand management measures.

Action T-4.1 IA-6: Adopt ordinance amendments to allow parking reductions where appropriate, in conjunction with adjusting pricing of public parking spaces.

Action T-4.1 IA-7: Partner with SANDAG and regional organizations to encourage and identify opportunities to incentivize public transit.

Measure T-5: Alternative Refueling Infrastructure Development Action T-5.1: Require electric vehicle charging infrastructure installation for new multi-family and non-residential constructions per Tier 1 (or 2) CALGreen Code.

Action T-5.2: Offer incentives to encourage installation of public-use EV charging units in parking lots of new non-residential and specified multi-family property construction.

Action T-5.2 IA-1: As alternative fueling and recharging station options become available throughout City and region, provide links to maps showing their location on City's website and outreach channels.

Action T-5.2 IA-2: Include regularly updated information on available clean vehicle rebate and incentive programs on City's website and outreach channels.

Action T-5.3: Develop and implement the Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan to increase installations of public available EV charging infrastructure in non-residential and multi-family buildings.

Action T-5.3 IA-1: Provide resources to assist property owners to evaluate options for EV charging station locations.

Action T-5.3 IA-2: Partner with regional agencies and other jurisdictions in exploring cost-effective ways to increase alternative vehicle charging /refueling infrastructure available to public use within community, through grant-funded opportunities or partnerships with technology providers (e.g., EV charging infrastructure providers).

Action T-5.3 IA-3: Participate in regional discussions on technical aspects of alternative refueling strategies such as infrastructure development, as it relates to increased electricity demand and long-term infrastructure development strategies to support broad regional transition towards alternative fuel vehicle options.

Action T-5.3 IA-4: Install EV charging stations at City facilities available for public use.

Measure T-6: Municipal Fleet Transition
Action T-6.1: Conduct a municipal fleet assessment to support a zero-emissions municipal fleet low-carbon target.

Action T-6.1 IA-1: Develop standardized municipal fleet replacement schedule, and refer to vehicle fleet assessment when deciding which vehicles to replace with alternative-fuel vehicles.

Project Description Ascent
City of La Mesa
2-6 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Clean and Efficient Transportation
Action T-6.1 IA-2: Update fleet assessment regularly to identify opportunities for future vehicle replacement as part of the City's budget process.

Action T-6.1 IA-3: Explore joint procurement options with other area jurisdictions to leverage regional shift towards cleaner municipal fleets into lower per vehicle costs.

Action T-6.1 IA-4: Connect with professional and vendor associations to identify partnership opportunities, competitive vendor pricing, and industry best management practices.

Action T-6.1 IA-5: Pursue grant funding, vendors' promotional offers, or regional joint-procurement partnerships to install alternative fuel charging stations at City facilities for use by municipal vehicles and public.

Action T-6.1 IA-6: Include new vehicles' carbon emissions and fuel efficiency as regular procurement criteria.

Measure T-7: Develop a Flexible Fleets Program
Action T-7.1: Collaborate with regional agencies to determine the types of flexible fleet, e.g., micro-transit or neighborhood electric vehicle shuttles that connect popular destinations (downtown village) in the city.

Action T-7.1 IA-1: Identify ways for Flexible Fleets to supplement existing fixed-route transit service and how best to design transfers between modes.

Action T-7.1 IA-2: Develop a marketing and outreach plan that adequately informs community members of Flexible Fleet services.

Action T-7.1 IA-3: Identify partners within and around the City, (e.g., universities/institutions, large employers, or public agencies) to assist with marketing and coordination with public transit and other TDM efforts.

Action T-7.1 SA-1: Adopt an no-idling City policy for internal combustion engine vehicles to prevent vehicles from unnecessarily idling in municipal parking lots.

Action T-7.1 SA-2: Collaborate with the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District (LMSVSD), Helix Charter High School, Grossmont Union High School, and private schools to improve the safety and efficiency of the drop-off and pick-up process at La Mesa schools to reduce internal combustion engine vehicle idling time.

Action T-7.1 SA-3: Identify areas in La Mesa that can be transformed into pedestrian friendly, car-free zones or zero emission zones.

Action T-7.2: Connect with vendors and other potential regional partners to develop a citywide bicycle or electric bicycle share program.

Action T-7.2 IA-1: Identify space requirements within the public right-of-way and assess the location and design of docking stations and corrals.

Measure T-8: Improve Traffic Flow
Action T-8.1: Improve traffic flow by retiming traffic lights and installing roundabouts at select intersections throughout the City.

Action T-8.1 IA-1: Periodically evaluate traffic light timing and adjust timing to improve vehicular flow, as needed.

Action T-8.1 IA-2: Identify grant opportunities or other funding to install roundabouts.

Action T-8.1 IA-3: Establish and implement capital improvement project(s) to install roundabouts.

Water Efficiency
Measure W-1: Water Efficiency
Action W-1.1: Participate in and collaborate with Helix Water District outreach programs to increase community awareness and activity in water conservation and efficiency programs.

Action W-1.1 IA-1: Continue to work with Helix Water District to assist in the promotion of free water audits for residents and local businesses.

Action W-1.1 IA-2: Include information related to rebates, incentives, and financing options for water conserving retrofits on the City website and outreach channels.

Action W-1.1 IA-3: Include La Mesa success stories that used water conservation rebates, incentives, or financing options to demonstrate what types of improvements are possible.

Action W-1.1 IA-4: Develop and implement a La Mesa Rainwater Collection rebate program.

Action W-1.1 IA-5: Develop an education program to inform residents about using runoff and rainwater capture basins and swales in all planting projects.

Ascent Project Description
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 2-7
Action W-1.1 IA-6: Provide graywater education program resources and continue hosting workshops with local environmental groups, Helix Water District, and other community organizations, and enlist their help in advertising program and benefits of graywater systems.

Action W-1.1 IA-7: Prepare informational material on graywater system designs for Building Division staff to share during building design and permitting phase; provide links to graywater education program informational materials on City's website.

Action W-1.2: Establish a water reduction target for City buildings and facilities to be achieved through education, indoor plumbing and appliance retrofits, use of advanced irrigation systems, installation and use of rainwater harvesting, and installation of low-water use landscapes in medians, parks, and around City buildings and facilities.

Water Efficiency
Action W-1.2 IA-1: Establish operational framework for benchmarking, tracking, and reviewing municipal water use for City buildings and facilities at the meter level to allow identification of improper irrigation system use, leaks, or other wasteful water activities.

Action W-1.2 IA-2: Track sudden rises in water use for City buildings and facilities through smart water meters or through monthly bills.

Action W-1.2 IA-3: Educate City employees on how to identify and report leaks; post signs in restrooms and kitchens to encourage reporting of leaks.

Measure W-2: Local Water Supply Resilience
Action W-2.1: Support Pure Water San Diego Program.

Action W-2.1 IA-1: Participate in the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority Pure Water San Diego Program to convert wastewater to potable drinking water and reduce need of importing water from other regions.

Waste Reduction
Measure WR-1: Organic Waste Diversion
Action WR-1.1: Ensure compliance with Senate Bill 1383 residential and commercial organic waste recycling in conjunction with the franchise waste hauler, EDCO.

Action WR-1.1 IA-1: Provide information to residents and businesses about organic waste and organics collection service.

Action WR-1.1 IA-2: Work with franchise waste hauler, EDCO, to encourage 100% residential and commercial organic waste services participation through public outreach campaign.

Action WR-1.1 IA-3: Conduct outreach to diverse community groups (including youth, faith-based, cultural, lower income), about the importance of organic waste diversion from landfill.

Action WR-1.1 IA-4: Provide free compost and mulch made with recovered organic product to the community.

Measure WR-2: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Program Action WR-2.1: Continue to implement City's 75% Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste diversion requirement for applicable projects, as defined in City's Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance and in alignment with State C&D regulations.

Action WR-2.1 IA-1: Participate in regional waste diversion discussions and monitor participation levels from neighboring area C&D diversion ordinances.

Action WR-2.1 IA-2: Revise City's diversion requirements to address smaller renovation projects.

Measure WR-3: Increase Waste Diversion and Encourage Circular Economy Action WR-3.1: Prepare a sustainable resource management plan that identifies interim steps toward achieving a circular economy, including 75% waste diversion by 2035 in alignment with State regulations such as AB 341 and SB 1383.

Action WR-3.1 IA-1: Work with regional partners (e.g., neighboring cities, non-profit organizations, and regional waste haulers) to prepare residential and commercial waste characterization studies or route audits to identify La Mesa- or San Diego region-specific opportunities for additional waste diversion.

Action WR-3.1 IA-2: Use study results to develop outreach campaigns that increase participation in City's existing waste management programs, targeting specific waste types and/or sources.

Action WR-3.1 IA-3: Implement an internal City policy to reduce single-use disposable items, including at internal city meetings, functions, and events.

Action WR-3.1 IA-4: Conduct internal educational campaign to raise City staff awareness about existing and new internal waste reduction programs, including using reusable items at events.

Project Description Ascent
City of La Mesa
2-8 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Action WR-3.1 IA-5: Develop a robust outreach campaign to ensure community-wide understanding of materials management service offerings, drive behavior change focused on lifecycle of materials (i.e. source reduction, materials reuse, end-of-life), and facilitate access to emerging materials management support tools and programs.

Action WR-3.1 IA-6: Continue to install additional water bottle filling stations in public spaces to encourage residents to use reusable bottles instead of plastic bottles.

Action WR-3.1 IA-7: Research, develop, adopt, and implement an ordinance for citywide single-use plastic reduction measures (e.g. reduction of plastic bags and containers from retail establishments and restaurants, prohibition of polystyrene foodware, etc.) and provide educational materials and programs to businesses.

Waste Reduction
Action WR-3.1 IA-8: Ensure City and business compliance with State packaging and single-use disposable item regulations, such as AB 1276 (foodware accessories), SB 1167 (single use drinking vessels), SB 270 and SB 1053 (sing-use and recycled paper carryout bags), and AB 847 (electrically conductive balloons).

Measure WR-4: Recycled and Recovered Product Procurement Action WR-4.1: Develop internal City policy to prioritize procurement of recycled and recovered product that is made of post-consumer content (e.g. trash liners with recycled plastic content, janitorial products made from majority post-consumer fiber, etc.).

Measure WR-5: Local Food Systems & Food Recovery
Action WR-5.1: Implement citywide food recovery program in alignment with SB 1383 and as a part of regional efforts by community organizations and other jurisdictions.

Action WR-5.1 IA-1: Distribute educational resources to the community on the climate and health impacts of food systems.

Action WR-5.1 IA-2: Partner with consultants and community organizations to implement programs to reduce food waste and support food recovery efforts in the region (e.g. backyard gleaning).

Action WR-5.1 IA-3: Distribute educational resources to the community on the benefits of consuming locally-grown food.

Action WR-5.1 IA-4: Support the La Mesa Community Garden and other local food resilience efforts, including providing educational information about growing produce at home
Action WR-5.1 SA-1: Develop an educational program in partnership with the La Mesa Farmers Market to raise awareness on the benefits of supporting local farms, ways to reduce organic materials waste, and the importance of soil health.

Urban Natural Environment
Measure U-1: Increase Urban Forest Canopy Cover
Action U-1.1: Implement the Urban Forest Management Plan recommendations, which serves as a strategic, long-range guide to proactively grow, improve, and manage City's urban forest.

Action U-1.1 IA-1: Hire a certified arborist, or fund existing staff to become certified arborists, to oversee the maintenance and growth of the City's Urban Forest, ensure planting rates are outpacing removal rates, track tree health, and provide helpful planting information to the community.

Action U-1.1 IA-2: Continue to implement and support policies outlined in Tree Policy Manual and Urban Forest Management Plan, including landscaping requirements for new municipal facilities, parking lots, and public rights-of-way.

Action U-1.1 IA-3: Implement the City's design standards for parking lot shade trees; identify and implement best practices to monitor and enforce parking lot shade requirements.

Action U-1.1 IA-4: Partner with neighborhood groups, community organizations, and local business community to encourage tree planting on private property.

Action U-1.1 IA-5: Host Urban Forestry Workshops and invite representatives from SDG&E and Public Works staff to provide technical assistance regarding appropriate species selection, proper siting and safe planting practices, and strategies to avoid damage to sidewalks, driveways, and underground utilities.

Action U-1.1 IA-6: Identify partners (including jurisdictions, community organizations, residents, academic institutions) to develop and implement a regional urban forest strategy to increase percentage of tree canopy coverage. Seek and incorporate feasible input from State and Federal agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, on tree maintenance and urban forestry management strategies to avoid adverse impacts to sensitive species.

Action U-1.1 IA-7: Explore working with MTS to increase shaded space at bus stops.

Ascent Project Description
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 2-9
Action U-1.2: Develop a free tree program to implement other avenues, like free tree giveaways or tree rebates on private property.

Action U-1.2 IA-1: Partner with organizations to develop a shade tree give-away program or other incentives to encourage planting of shade trees for existing residential and non-residential sites.

Action U-1.2 IA-2: Expand existing tree planting program to include private properties.

Action U-1.2 IA-3: Add more native and non-invasive trees, shrubs, pollinator plants, and fruit trees along pathways to promote healthier outdoor environments, to make it more comfortable for residents to walk, and provide habitat for birds, butterflies, bees, and other pollinators.

Urban Natural Environment
Action U-1.2 IA-4: Develop a list of priority native plants (including trees, shrubbery, grasses, flowers) to plant in city-owned spaces such as road mediums, public rights-of-way and parks. Focus on those that support biodiversity and are drought-tolerant.

Action U-1.2 IA-5: Develop educational program for residents on benefits of growing native, non-invasive plants.

Action U-1.1 IA-6: Analyze city-owned space to establish baseline acreage of native plants and based on that, commit to a percent increase in native plants.

Action U-1.1 IA-7: Establish native planting program based on findings of native plant space analysis in the city.

Action U-1.2 IA-8: Research and implement healthy soils program to increase atmospheric carbon capture methods.

Action U-1.2 IA-9: Collect and share related informational materials on City's webpage and outreach platforms, such as shade tree planting guides, recommended tree species for San Diego with watering requirements, and current tree giveaways or rebates.

Action U-1.2 IA-10: Make shade tree program information available to the public and provide informational materials to customers during the building permit process for all new and existing construction or major retrofits.

Action U-1.2 IA-11: Develop shade tree planting program to encourage residents to plant shade trees on private property by providing educational resources, tree-planting instructions, proper tree maintenance, and rebates.

Action U-1.2 IA-12: Identify regional partners to collaborate on development of outreach campaign to highlight benefits of shade trees and provide.

Action U-1.2 SA-1: Analyze city-owned land for existing impermeable surfaces, and convert the identified locations where surfaces can be made permeable.

Action U-1.2 SA-2: Identify opportunities to capture stormwater runoff and precipitation and identify implementation feasibility.

Source: Updated by the City of La Mesa in 2024.

Table 2-2 CAP Update Adaptation Strategies
Adaptation Strategies
Promote the use of “cool” or “green” roofs on both new and existing residential and nonresidential buildings; pilot and monitor effectiveness of “cool” pavement in residential neighborhoods.

Continue to promote, expand, and establish new City programs that support the growth of its urban tree canopy in public and private spaces (consistent/supportive to actions under GHG Measure U-1).

Preserve, enhance, increase, and establish community green areas, such as parks, recreational facilities, and open space (consistent/supportive to actions under GHG Measure U-1).

Implement infrastructure upgrades in public spaces that would help mitigate the impacts of extreme heat, such as hydration/water-filling stations.

Develop and implement programs offering assistance to residents for drought-tolerant landscapes, such as a “Cash for Grass” lawn replacement program (consistent/supportive to actions under GHG Measure U-1).

Source: Updated by the City of La Mesa in 2024.

Project Description Ascent
City of La Mesa
2-10 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

2.3 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of La Mesa is located in central San Diego County, approximately 12 miles east of downtown San Diego (Figure 2-1). The City is surrounded by the cities of San Diego to the west and north; El Cajon and the unincorporated communities of Mount Helix, Casa Del Oro, and Spring Valley to the east; and Lemon Grove to the south. Transit access is provided by the Metropolitan Transit System Orange and Green light rail lines and several bus routes. There are no public or private airports in the city. La Mesa falls within the Airport Influence Areas for Gillespie Field and Montgomery Field, which are located 6 and 10 miles outside the City limits, respectively. Regional motor vehicle access is provided by Interstate 8 (I-8) and State Routes (SRs) 94 and 125. The Planning Area for the City of La Mesa is the same area as the City limits, which is approximately 9.2 square miles or 5,876 acres. The City’s Sphere of Influence is coterminous with the City limits. The city is developed with a range of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The majority of land in the city is devoted to residential development and transportation rights-of-way.

Ascent Project Description
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 2-11
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2024.

Figure 2-1 Regional Location

Project Description Ascent
City of La Mesa
2-12 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
This page is intentionally left blank.

City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-1
3 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Altered conditions, changes, or additions to the description of a project that occur after certification of an EIR may require additional analysis under CEQA. The legal principles that guide decisions regarding whether additional environmental documentation is required are provided in the State CEQA Guidelines, which establish three mechanisms to address these changes: a subsequent environmental impact report (SEIR), a supplement to a certified EIR, and an addendum to a certified EIR.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 describes the conditions under which an SEIR would be prepared. In summary, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no SEIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than an SEIR if:
(1) any of the conditions described above for Section 15162 would require the preparation of an SEIR; and (2) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an addendum is appropriate where a previously certified EIR has been prepared and some changes or revisions to the project are proposed, or the circumstances surrounding the project have changed, but none of the changes or revisions would result in significant new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, and 15168.

This addendum was prepared to evaluate the CAP Update and compare its potential environmental impacts to those identified in the certified 2018 SEIR for the City of La Mesa CAP, hereby referenced as the “2018 SEIR.” This addendum is organized as an environmental checklist and evaluates all environmental topic areas as compared to the certified 2018 SEIR and determine whether the certified SEIR continues to be relevant and adequate to address the environmental impacts of the CAP Update. The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the checklist categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a different environmental impact significance conclusion from the 2018 SEIR. The column titles of the checklist have been modified from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G presentation to address the criteria included CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163, 15164 and 15168.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-2 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.1 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
UpdateInvolve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures
in theSEIRAddress/
Resolve Impacts,
Including Impacts That
Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially
More Severe?
I. Aesthetics.

Would implementation of the CAP
Update:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
No No N/A
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
No No N/A
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.1.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified potentially significant impacts for scenic vistas and visual character that were reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1. The 2018 SEIR identified less than significant impacts for scenic resources within scenic highways and light and glare (Section 3.1, “Aesthetics”).

3.1.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
The 2018 SEIR identified the following mitigation measure for potentially significant aesthetic impacts:

AES-1: As new development and revitalization projects come forward, the City shall work with developers to preserve scenic views and vistas of natural and built landmarks that are visible from public locations and streets. For proposed buildings taller than four stories, visual simulations and shadow studies shall be required to be provided by the applicant during the development review process so that the City can effectively evaluate visual impacts. In response to City review of the simulations and studies, if significant visual impacts are identified by the City, building designs shall be modified by the applicant to reduce such impacts.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-3

3.1.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The implementation of the CAP Update measures and actions would result in short-term and long-term changes related to aesthetics as described below.

Construction activities associated with the implementation of the CAP Update, such as equipment use and staging of materials, would result in short-term, temporary changes to aesthetic conditions in the city. The types of construction activities associated with the CAP Update would vary depending on the type of CAP Update measure or action. For example, implementation of actions RE-1.1 IA-1 and RE-2.1 IA-5 under Measures RE-1 and RE-2 would result in the installation of on-site renewable energy and battery storage systems at municipal facilities and privately owned buildings in the city, such as rooftop solar panels on residential buildings and parking lot solar canopies at municipal facilities.

In addition, implementation of actions T-5.2 and T-5.3 IA-4 under Measure T-5 would require the installation of public-use electric vehicle (EV) charging units and stations, which would result in minor ground disturbance from installation of the electrical conduit and/or charger; however, this would occur within existing developed areas such as paved surface parking lots, or within parking structures. Some actions, such as actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 under Measure T-1, would require limited ground disturbance associated with the construction of sidewalk improvements, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements.

Construction activities would be short-term and temporary, and would not involve equipment of substantial height, bulk, or massing that would have substantial adverse effects on existing scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Because duration of these activities would be limited to relatively short periods, their temporary effects on aesthetic resources would not be substantial.

Construction activities would also incrementally increase sources of light and glare in the city, for example from temporary outdoor lighting sources used during construction of transportation improvements and glare from construction vehicles and equipment. However, construction activities would generally occur during daytime hours and would comply with applicable lighting requirements including the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Title 24 of the California Building Code that reduce light spillover. Furthermore, construction activities would be located in developed areas with existing sources of outdoor lighting and glare, characteristic of developed urban and suburban environments. Thus, the CAP Update would not create temporary new sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the city.

Long-term changes resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would include sidewalk improvements such as extensions, corner extensions, raised intersections, raised crosswalks, pavers, and road closures (Action T-1.1 IA-1) and traffic calming measures that would improve pedestrian or bicycling experience including corner extensions and bulb-outs, mini-roundabouts, raised intersection, pavers, and roadway reconfigurations (Action T-1.1 IA-2). Other long-term changes resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would include installation of new, and upgraded existing bicycle facilities to be bike paths (Class 1), bike lanes (Class 2), or cycle tracks (Class 4) (Action T-1.2 IA-1) and installation of separated bike lanes (Class 1) and cycle tracks (Class 4) where feasible (Action T-1.2 IA-2).

Installation of EV charging infrastructure and EV charging stations (Actions T-5.3 and T-5.3 IA-4) would also result in changes to the aesthetic environment as they would be visible, however EV charging stations would be consistent with the existing urban character where they would likely be installed as they would not consist of features of substantial height, bulk, or massing that would result in substantial long-term damage to existing visual character.

Action BE-3.1 IA-6 would result in energy-efficient lighting replacement; however, lighting would be similar to existing lighting at City-owned facilities and recreation areas. The CAP Update would not result in new features of substantial height, bulk, or massing that would result in substantial long-term damage to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Additionally, planting new trees and installing new landscaping (Action U-1.2 IA-3) would offer long-term visual improvement to the local surrounding area and would not result in a substantial effect to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality, as the new trees and landscaping would comply with the city’s landscaping standards, which aim to promote an attractive visual harmony between the landscape and development.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-4 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Transportation measures and actions included in the CAP Update would include improvements to the City’s existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit network that may introduce new long term light sources, such as pedestrian-scale lighting used to illuminate sidewalks and bike paths. These types of improvements would comply with applicable lighting requirements including the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Title 24 of the California Building Code that reduce light spillover. Improvements resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would be located in developed areas with existing sources of outdoor lighting and glare, characteristic of developed urban and suburban environments.

Thus, the CAP Update would not create new long-term sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the city.

3.1.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to aesthetics. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measure AES-1 applies to the development of new buildings greater than four stories in height. Because the CAP Update would not result in any new development in the city this mitigation measure is not applicable to the aesthetics impacts of the CAP Update. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to aesthetics.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-5

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No
Impact
No No N/A
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
No
Impact
No No N/A
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No
Impact
No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
No
Impact
No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No
Impact
No No N/A

3.2.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR tiered from the City’s 2012 General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the City’s General Plan (Appendix A of the General Plan EIR) found no impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources (City of La Mesa 2012). The City of La Mesa consists of urbanized and suburban neighborhoods designated primarily for residential and commercial uses. There are no designated farmland areas, Williamson act lands, or sites designated for

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-6 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
agricultural use nor are there nearby agricultural sites within the City. Additionally, there is no forest land or timber resources within the City of La Mesa.

Therefore, the 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts for converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland); for conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); and for resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

3.2.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for agricultural or forestry resources impacts were identified.

3.2.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland or forest land to urban or other uses. Construction activities resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas could not affect land used for agricultural uses or under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2024a; DOC 2024b). There is no farmland or designated agricultural areas and no Williamson Act contracts in the city (DOC 2024b). Additionally, there are no areas in the city zoned as forest or timberland, therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning any forest land, timberland, or timber land zoned for timberland production. Therefore, the CAP Update would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

3.2.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to agriculture and forestry resources. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-7

3.3 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the
applicable air district available to rely on for
significance determinations?
Yes No
Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Significant
and
Unavoidable
No No N/A
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less than
Significant
No No Yes
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.3.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of regional air quality strategy or implementation of the State Implementation Plan. The 2018 SEIR identified a potentially significant impact related to the violation of an applicable air quality standard for reactive organic gas (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particular matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), or fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) during construction and earth-moving activities. The 2018 SEIR also identified a potentially significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant (ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5) for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard during construction and operation. The 2018 SEIR set forth Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to reduce construction emissions of criteria air pollutants, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 to reduce operational emissions that could violate any air quality standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants. However, the 2018 SEIR concluded that it would be speculative to quantify such emissions until details of the individual projects are known and concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable. The 2018 SEIR identified a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction. The 2018 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact related to CO hotspots and creating objectional odors (Section 3.2, “Air Quality”).

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-8 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.3.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
The 2018 SEIR identified the following mitigation measures for potentially significant air quality impacts:

AQ-1: Reduce Construction-Related Emissions. The City and project contractors shall implement the following measures during all construction activities:
 Comply with and implement all applicable San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) rules and regulations that pertain to construction activities (e.g., asphalt paving ROG requirements, administrative requirements, and fugitive dust management practices). Implement all construction-related requirements recommended by the SDAPCD or local government.
 Water all exposed surfaces three times a day or sufficiently to prevent visible dust emissions.  Apply water, nontoxic chemical stabilizers, or dust suppressants, or use tarps or other suitable material in all disturbed areas that will not be used for 10 days or more.  Prevent carryout and track-out of fugitive dust on construction vehicles. Methods to limit carryout and track-out include using wheel washers; sweeping any track-out on adjacent public streets at the end of each work day; and lining access points with gravel, mulch, or wood chips.  Cover or wet the filled cargo compartment of all transport trucks to limit visible dust emissions during transport, and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard space from the top of a container.  Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures on sites with a slope greater than 1 percent to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
 Maintain all construction equipment according to the manufacturers’ specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.  Minimize idling time either by shutting off equipment when it is not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 5 minutes. Provide clear signage regarding idling at site access points.  Use alternative fueled (e.g., compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane), or electric powered construction equipment where feasible.
 Use equipment with diesel oxidation catalysts, catalyzed diesel PM filters, or other applicable SDAPCD-approved emissions reduction retrofit devices where feasible.

AQ-2: Reduce Operational Emissions. The City shall work with the SDAPCD and SANDAG to implement measures in the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and meet all federal and state air quality standards for pollutants. The City shall also implement, review, and interpret the General Plan and future discretionary projects in a manner consistent with the RAQS to meet standards and reduce overall emissions from mobile and stationary sources. The City shall require each project applicant, as a condition of discretionary approval, to implement measures to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants. Example measures follow:
 Install solar, wind, or geothermal power systems and solar hot water heaters.  Install solar panels on unused roof and ground space and over carports and parking areas.  Incorporate bicycle lanes, routes, and facilities into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments.  Require amenities for non-motorized transportation, such as secure and convenient bicycle parking.  Institute teleconferencing, telecommute, and/or flexible work hour programs to reduce unnecessary employee transportation.
 Provide information on alternative transportation options for consumers, residents, tenants, and employers/employees to reduce transportation-related emissions.  Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emissions vehicles.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-9
 Create a ride sharing program. Promote existing ride sharing programs by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a website or message board for coordinating rides.  Enforce and follow limits for idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.

AQ-3: Reduce Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to TAC Emissions. The City shall require new development with sensitive uses located near mobile and stationary TACs to be designed with consideration of site and building orientation, location of trees, and incorporation of appropriate technology for improved air quality (i.e., ventilation and filtration) to lessen any potential health risks.

The City shall require every new land use that has the potential to be a source of air pollution from being located closer than the specified minimum distance from any sensitive land use, as provided in Table 1-1, “Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses,” of the Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (CARB 2005), or subsequent revisions to that document. The City shall require that land uses located closer than the recommended buffer distances must (1) implement all commercially feasible design, equipment, and control technology to reduce exposure and emissions to the maximum extent feasible, and (2) perform a health risk assessment to ensure that implementation of mitigation would reduce health risks to less-than-significant levels pursuant to the most current SDAPCD guidelines at the time of analysis before development of the proposed project.

3.3.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The implementation of the CAP Update measures and actions would result in short-term and long-term changes related to air quality as described below.

Consistent with the 2018 SEIR, implementation of the CAP Update would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan during construction or operation because it would not result in changes to the growth and development assumptions on which the regional air quality strategy and State Implementation Plan are based.

Construction activities associated with the implementation of the CAP Update, such as equipment used to install active transportation improvements, would result in construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions. The types of construction activities associated with the CAP Update would vary depending on the type of CAP Update measure or action. For example, activities that would result from CAP Update implementation include construction of new EV charging stations and associated infrastructure, improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, building water efficiency retrofits, and traffic calming measures (Actions T-1.1 IA-2, T-5.3 and T-5.3 IA-4, and W-1.2). CAP Update Adaptation Strategies would implement infrastructure upgrades in public spaces, such as hydration/water-filling stations, that would result in nominal construction-related air quality emissions. Construction activities would result in the use of construction equipment and vehicles to remove existing pavement, repave roadway surfaces, and paint or restripe pavement. These construction activities would be completed by workers located in the city and surrounding areas.

Construction activities resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with off-road equipment use (e.g., excavators, front loaders, pavers, dump trucks, cranes, and backhoes), material and equipment delivery trips, worker commute trips, and other miscellaneous activities.

Construction activities would be small in scale, occur intermittently in different locations throughout the city, last for only short periods of time, and would not require substantial relocation of construction workers from areas outside of the city and the San Diego region. In addition, the CAP Update includes measures and actions that would reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. For example, Action T-7.1 SA-1 under Measure T-7 would establish fleet regulations reducing construction vehicle idling and reducing construction related air pollutant emissions. Due to the non-intensive, sporadic, and dispersed nature of these construction activities, emissions of criteria air pollutants would not occur in concentrations which would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-10 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
The CAP Update includes actions that would reduce GHGs and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the expansion of telecommuting and flexible fleet use (Actions T-3.1 IA-1 and T-3.1 IA-2). Although there would be a temporary, nominal amount of vehicle trips related to construction worker commute and equipment delivery associated with bike and sidewalk improvements and other construction activities resulting from CAP Update implementation, the CAP Update would not result in result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 identified in the SEIR, which would implement measures to reduce constructionrelated emissions, would apply to construction activities resulting from CAP Update implementation. SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure the CAP Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard through compliance with all applicable SDAPCD rules and regulations, and activities such as erosioncontrol measures, minimizing idling time, and use of alternative fueled, or electric powered construction equipment where feasible.

The 2018 SEIR determined that because of the highly dispersive nature of diesel PM, and intermittent construction activities at various locations, construction related to CAP implementation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. The CAP Update would result in the installation of EV charging infrastructure and units (Action T-5.1 and Action T-5.2 under Measure T-5), and improved bicycle infrastructure (Action T-1.2 IA-1, Action T-1.2 IA-2, and Action T-1.2 IA-7, under Measure T-1), which would result in minor criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions during construction. CAP Update implementation would not result in activities that would be of a size, intensity, or duration to emit substantial TAC concentrations.

Action WR-2.1 under Measure WR-2 would ensure the diversion of waste from landfills which could lead to increased haul truck trips to and from composting and recycling facilities; however, it is anticipated that these trips would displace the haul truck trips that would be diverted from the landfill. A substantial net increase in the number of haul truck trips and associated criteria air pollutant emissions within the city would not be anticipated. Furthermore, these haul truck trips would likely be infrequent and would not involve the trucks idling for extended periods of time near sensitive receptors. As such, implementation of the CAP Update would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.

Construction activities that would occur under CAP Update implementation would result in temporary generation of odorous emissions. However, given the temporary and intermittent nature of the impacts, and dissipation of odor, construction-related odor impacts would be minor. Furthermore, construction activities would be required to comply with existing regulations and plans such as SDAPCD Rule 51 (Nuisance), which regulates nuisance odors.

Long-term changes resulting from implementation of CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions generated within the city by implementing numerous transportation-, water-, waste-, and energy-related measures. For example, actions T-3.1 IA-1 and T-3.1 IA-2 under Measure T-3 would reduce GHGs and VMT through the expansion of telecommuting and flexible fleet use, which would reduce overall gasoline and fuel consumption, therefore reducing air pollutant emissions related to fossil fuel combustion, including criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions. Other transportationrelated measures, such as Action T-1.1 under Measure T-1 and Action T-2.2 under Measure T-2 T-5, T-7, and T-10, would reduce VMT in the city by implementing pedestrian enhancements; providing resources and incentives for alternative commutes, such as a carpool/vanpool priority parking areas; installing electric vehicle charging stations; providing secure bicycle parking; increasing access to locker room/shower facilities, and potentially subsidizing transit passes. Reducing VMT would reduce the emission of criteria air pollutants and TACs by decreasing the consumption of fossil fuel in vehicles and reducing emissions related to tire and brake wear. While these reduction measures were formulated to reduce GHGs, they would also improve regional and localized air quality by reducing the emission of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Reducing air pollutant emissions in the city would improve air quality in the San Diego Air Basin and in localized areas in the city. Therefore, operational activities under implementation of the CAP Update would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation because operational emissions would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is nonattainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards. The implementation of the CAP Update would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-11
The CAP Update does not include the placement of any new odor-producing land uses (such as wastewater treatment facilities) adjacent to existing sensitive receptors, or the placement of new sensitive receptors near odorproducing land uses. Activities implementing the CAP Update also would not generate odors or other emissions that could adversely affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, the CAP Update would not result in new emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

3.3.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to air quality. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in minor construction activities at different times and in different locations throughout the city, which would result in nominal air pollutant emissions. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would apply to CAP Update implementation and ensure that construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2 applies to operational emissions from development projects and Mitigation Measure AQ-3 applies to exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, so they would not apply to CAP Update implementation.

The CAP Update also would not result in new emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to air quality.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-12 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
IV. Biological Resources.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.4.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR concluded no significant direct or indirect effects on special-status species, habitats, wildlife migratory corridors, or any sensitive natural communities, would occur. The determination was based on the City’s urban character where native habitats and vegetation communities are small and highly fragmented, compromising the ability of those habitats and communities to support viable populations of most species of flora and fauna. A majority

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-13
of native biological resources have been degraded or replaced through disturbances resulting from current and historic land uses. Remaining native habitat, including coastal sage scrub, is primarily limited to isolated patches on hillsides and small urban canyons scattered throughout the city and in small riparian and wetland areas that occur in stream channels or drainages. These remaining native habitat areas are discontinuous and interspersed with nonnative, disturbed (i.e., ruderal or weedy) vegetative cover (Section 1.3, “Scope and Focus of the Supplemental EIR”).

The 2018 SEIR identified less-than-significant impacts regarding substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on: any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service; any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service; and State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). Less-than-significant impacts were also identified related to interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeding the use of native wildlife nursery sites; conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

3.4.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to biological resources were identified.

3.4.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would include measures and actions that would result in construction and ground disturbing activities, including minor grading and excavation. For example, actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T1.2 IA-2 under Measure T-1 would involve limited ground disturbance associated with the construction of sidewalk improvements, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements. CAP Update implementation would result in minor improvements and building retrofits (e.g., Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6) within the city and construction activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas such as roadways and parking lots that lack natural habitat and where candidate, sensitive, or special-status species and their corridors or habitats are not present. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not cause a substantial adverse direct or indirect effect to special-status species. Because implementation of the CAP Update would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas, implementation of the CAP Update would not occur in areas where riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, wildlife corridors, and protected biological resources are present.

Long-term changes resulting from implementation of the CAP Update would include improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways, as well as minor changes to traffic intersections and walkways (through implementation of actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 under measure T-1), improvements to water and wastewater systems (Action W-1.2 and Action W-2.1 IA-1), and planting of trees (through implementation of Measure U-1).

Implementation of Measure T-1 would also result in improvements to sidewalks, new and upgraded bikeways and walkways along existing developed roadways and rights-of-way in the city, and the installation of mini roundabouts within existing developed roadways. The CAP Update would not result in physical improvements or effects that would result in substantial long-term damage to biological resources.

Implementation of the CAP Update would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other adopted local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Implementation of actions included in the CAP Update would involve construction activities, however, construction activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas (e.g., existing paved surface parking lots and paved roadway rights-of-way) and therefore would not

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-14 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
result in significant direct or indirect effects on special-status species, habitats, wildlife migratory corridors, or any sensitive natural communities.

3.4.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant impacts to biological resources. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to biological resources.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-15

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
V. Cultural Resources.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
No No Yes
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.5.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified a potentially significant impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, the impact to historical resources was concluded to be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3, the potentially significant impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource was concluded to be less than significant. The 2018 SEIR also identified a less than significant impact for disturbing any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (Section 3.3, “Cultural Resources”).

3.5.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
The 2018 SEIR identified the following mitigation measures for potentially significant cultural resources impacts:

CR-1: Prior to construction of specific development projects that would disturb a historic structure listed or eligible to be listed in the NRHP, the CRHR, or the Inventory of Historic Resources, the City shall require the development of feasible project-level mitigation measures, identified in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office when appropriate, to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to significant cultural resources. Feasible project-level mitigation measures include maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, relocation, or reconstruction of any impacted historic resource, which shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

CR-2: During construction of specific development projects, the City shall require monitoring by a qualified archeologist of grading, ground-disturbing, and other major earth-moving activities in previously undisturbed areas with known archaeological resources. The archaeologist shall observe grading, ground disturbing, and other major earth-moving activities.

CR-3: The City shall require a qualified archaeologist to evaluate and determine the significance of any cultural resources discovered during site construction activities. Should an archaeological deposit and/or feature be

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-16 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
encountered during construction, an archaeological data recovery program shall be prepared and implemented, including consultation with interested Native American tribes. The archeologist and Native American monitor shall strive for agreement on the determined significance of an artifact or cultural resource. Once in agreement, either the archeologist or Native American monitor may divert or halt ground-disturbing activities for the purposes of implementing a data recovery program. A data recovery program for archaeological sites consists of excavation of a percentage of the site, determined in consultation with the project implementer, to provide information necessary to answer significant research questions.

All Native American human remains and associated grave goods discovered shall be returned to their Most Likely Descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of artifacts not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested Native American tribes. Artifacts shall consist of material recovered from all phases of work, including initial survey, testing, indexing, data recovery, and monitoring.

The qualified archaeologist shall apply mitigation measures prior to the resuming of construction work. Local Native American tribes shall be consulted in the identification of mitigation measures to address impacts, consistent with California requirements, including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries.

3.5.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The implementation of CAP Update measures and actions would result in limited ground disturbance and other physical changes that could occur in proximity to, or involve encountering, historical resources. For example, implementation of actions RE-1.1 IA-1 and RE-2.1 IA-5 would result in installation of on-site renewable energy and battery storage systems at municipal facilities and privately owned buildings in the city, such as rooftop solar panels on residential buildings and parking lot solar canopies at municipal facilities, and actions T-5.1 and T-5.2 under measure T-5 would result in installation of EV charging stations and associated infrastructure. Energy efficiency improvements and building/facility retrofits (e.g., Action BE-3.1 IA-3, Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6) would result in minor changes to existing building exteriors (e.g., rooftop solar panels) and interiors (e.g., water heating and space heating and cooling systems), and would not otherwise involve changes to an existing structure that would cause a substantial adverse change to a historic resource.

Adherence to relevant General Plan policies such as Policy HP-3.2.1 and GP-3.2.2, in which the city provides the Mills Act Historic Preservation Property Tax Abatement Program and provides land use incentives that encourage property owners to designate their historical properties as Registered Historical Landmarks, would protect historical resources from substantial adverse changes related to CAP Update implementation. Further, SEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1 would apply to activities implementing the CAP Update and avoid substantial adverse changes to historical resources by requiring feasible project-level mitigation measures to protect historic structures listed or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or the Inventory of Historic Resources.

Implementation of the CAP Update would also result in ground disturbing activities. For example, actions RE-1.1 IA-1 and RE-2.1 IA-5 would result in the installation of on-site renewable energy and battery storage systems at municipal facilities and privately owned buildings in the city, such as rooftop solar panels on residential buildings and parking lot solar canopies at municipal facilities and implementation of actions T-5.2 and T-5.3 IA-4 under measure T-5 would require the installation public-use EV charging units and stations. Because ground disturbance associated with the implementation of CAP Update would be limited to shallow depths, comprised of artificial fill or previously disturbed soils, archaeological resources are unlikely to be encountered. In addition, construction activities associated with CAP Update implementation would occur in already disturbed developed areas such as roadways and parking lots. EV charging stations (Action T-5.3 IA-4) would be installed in new and existing developments, and roadway improvements such as traffic calming measures (Action T-1.1 IA-2) and sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure (Action T1.1 IA-1 and Action T-1.2) would occur along existing developed roadways. In addition, tree planting associated with Measure U-1 would occur within City parks and public rights-of-way. SEIR Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 would apply to implementation of the CAP Update and avoid substantial adverse changes in the significance of any archaeological resources encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. Therefore, implementation of

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-17
the CAP Update would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.

Should human remains be disturbed as a result of ground disturbing activities, the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations forbid interfering with human burial remains, and mandate protection from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and provides for the establishment of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to resolve any related disputes. Ground-disturbing activities are also subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 which states that, if human remains are unearthed, no further disturbance can occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to the PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. With adherence to these existing regulations, ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the CAP Update would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

3.5.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to cultural resources. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 are applicable to the cultural resources impacts of the CAP Update. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to cultural resources.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-18 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.6 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
VI. Energy.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.6.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation, or conflicts with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The 2018 SEIR concluded that with implementation of State and City regulations, programs, ordinances, and policies of the City General Plan, impacts related to the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy and increased energy consumption would be less than significant (Section 3.11, “Public Services, Utilities, and Energy”).

3.6.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for energy impacts were identified.

3.6.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would improve operational energy efficiency and reduce the use of fossil fuels, for example through actions that reduce VMT (Actions T-2.2, T-1.1 IA-2, and T-1.2 IA-7) and encourage EV use (Action T-5.3 IA-4), and actions that facilitate increased generation and utilization of renewable electricity (Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6, Action RE-1.1 IA-1, and Action RE-2.1 IA-5). The CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions by improving energy efficiency, increasing use of renewable electricity, and decreasing consumption of fossil fuels and nonrenewable energy sources. Therefore, the CAP Update would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted regarding renewable energy or energy efficiency.

3.6.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to energy. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to energy.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-19

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (Refer to California
Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than
Significant
No No N/A
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
iv) Landslides? Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994, as updated), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
No No Yes

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-20 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.7.1 SEIR Analysis
Impacts related to geology and soils were determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study prepared for the City’s General Plan (Appendix A of the General Plan EIR) from which the 2018 SEIR tiered (City of La Mesa 2012). As described in that Initial Study, the City is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Act designated earthquake fault zone, and the California Building Code, the City's Grading Ordinance, Chapter 14.05 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, and other Federal and State regulations would reduce impacts associated with seismic ground shaking, erosion, slope failure, and expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; and for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or landslides. The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and for on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and location on expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts for soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Section 1.3, “Scope and Focus of the Supplemental EIR”).

The 2018 SEIR identified a potentially significant impact related to directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 reduces this impact to less than significant (Section 3.9, “Paleontological Resources”).

3.7.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
The 2018 SEIR identified the following mitigation measure for potentially significant paleontological resource impacts:

PALEO-1: If it is determined during the environmental review process that projects implementing CAP reduction measures would result in ground disturbance within an area of high or moderate paleontological resource sensitivity, the City of La Mesa shall require a qualified researcher to be stationed on-site to observe during grading operations and recover scientifically valuable specimens or enforce avoidance of the paleontological feature. A certified paleontologist or qualified researcher shall be retained (or required to be retained) by the project-implementing agency prior to construction to establish procedures for surveillance and the preconstruction salvage of exposed resources if fossil-bearing rocks have the potential to be impacted. The monitor shall provide preconstruction coordination with contractors, oversee original cutting in previously undisturbed areas of sensitive geologic formations, halt or redirect construction activities as appropriate to allow recovery of newly discovered fossil remains, and oversee fossil salvage operations and reporting. This measure shall be placed as a condition on all grading plans where grading is proposed in geologic units defined as having a moderate or high potential for containing fossils

3.7.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would result in ground disturbing construction activities, including minor grading and excavation. For example, minor grading, excavation, and other ground disturbance would occur from implementing actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 under Measure T-1 regarding sidewalk improvements, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements. However, construction activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas and would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil or result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse, and location on expansive soils creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. The 2018 SEIR identified Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 for future ground disturbance, construction, building retrofits, or other actions that could potentially affect paleontological resources. SEIR Mitigation Measures PALEO-1 would apply to implementation of the CAP Update and would require assessment of potential impacts to paleontological resources prior to ground disturbance within an area of high or moderate paleontological resource sensitivity, and, under specified conditions, require construction monitors with authority to halt construction when necessary to protect unique paleontological

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-21
resources. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

3.7.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to geology and soils. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 is applicable to the CAP Update would ensure potential impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to geology and soils, including paleontological resources.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-22 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.8.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR concluded that GHG emissions impacts would be less-than-significant impact because the CAP would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (Section 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

3.8.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions impacts were identified.

3.8.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The CAP Update establishes measures and actions that aim to reduce GHG emissions in the city to levels that achieve its GHG reduction targets, which are aligned with the State’s GHG reduction goals. According to the recommended measures, the City is projected to meet the 2035 target by reducing GHG emissions to 60% below 2016 levels. While the 2045 target of reducing GHG emissions to 85 percent below 2016 levels is unlikely to be achieved with the proposed quantified measures, the proposed measures and actions would achieve meaningful progress towards the 2045 target.

In addition, implementation of the CAP Update would result in short-term physical changes to the environment that would generate nominal GHG emissions. Several measures and actions promote construction of new facilities or retrofitting of existing facilities that would generate construction-related GHG emissions, such as retrofitting of existing buildings and developments to replace natural gas consumption with electricity and renewable energy (Action RE-1.1 IA-1, Action RE-2.1 IA-5, and Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6), constructing traffic calming measures such as mini roundabouts and roadway reconfigurations (Action T-1.1 IA-2), installing EV charging stations (Action T-5.3 IA-4), constructing pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure (Actions T-1.1 and T-1.2), and planting trees (Actions U-1.1 IA-4, U-1.2 IA-2 and U-1.2 IA-3). Also, CAP Update Adaptation Strategies would promote the use of “cool” or “green” roofs on both new and existing residential and nonresidential buildings and pilot and monitor effectiveness of “cool” pavement in residential neighborhoods, which would result in constructionrelated GHG emissions.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-23
Implementation of the CAP Update would reduce overall GHG emissions generated within the city by reducing emissions to 60 percent below 2016 levels by 2035 and making meaningful progress towards the 2045 target. The CAP Update would achieve GHG emissions reductions by, for example, encouraging the use of alternative fuels in vehicles and equipment (Actions T-6.1 IA-1 and T-5.3 IA-4), reducing VMT (Action T-2.2), improving energy efficiency (Action BE-3.1 IA-3) and increasing carbon sequestration (Actions U-1.1 IA-4, U-1.2 IA-2, and U-1.2 IA-8). Traffic calming, such as mini roundabouts (Action T-1.1 IA-2), would reduce emissions by minimizing vehicle fuel use. In addition, energy efficiency and renewable electricity actions would reduce GHG emissions by reducing building enduse consumption of natural gas and electricity generated from nonrenewable sources like natural gas. Thus, temporary, nominal GHG emissions generated during construction activities implementing the CAP Update would be offset by the overall net benefit of GHG emissions reduction from implementation of the CAP Update. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, nor would implementation of the CAP Update conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

3.8.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects related to GHG emissions. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-24 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and/or accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.9.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials; emitting or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-25
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment; being located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and resulting in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; and for impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Section 3.5, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”).

3.9.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials were identified.

3.9.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The implementation of the CAP Update measures and actions would result in short-term and long-term changes related to hazards and hazardous materials as described below.

Construction activities and routine maintenance associated with implementation of the CAP Update would result in short-term, temporary changes to hazards and hazardous materials conditions in the city. Construction activities associated with the CAP Update would involve routine, transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials in the city.

For example, implementation of actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 would require limited ground disturbance associated with sidewalk improvements, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements. Construction activities would be short-term and temporary and would be required to comply with relevant Federal, State, and local regulations that require strict adherence to guidelines regarding the safe use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials as well as ensuring the reduction of the potential for humans or the environment to be affected by an accidental release of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulatory standards would ensure that implementation of the CAP Update would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that any hazardous materials used during the implementation of the CAP Update would not result in hazardous emissions within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Certain CAP Update actions would require limited ground disturbance, which could result in the release of contaminants into the environment, if they are present in the underlying soils and/or groundwater (e.g., T-1.1 IA-1, T1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2). Any residual contamination that is encountered would be remediated to allowable regulatory levels in accordance with applicable county and State regulations before any ground-disturbing activities are permitted to occur. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being located on a hazardous materials site.

As stated in the 2018 SEIR, the City is currently in conformance with Airport Land Use Commission Plan height and land use policies. The CAP Update would not result in any land development and therefore would not affect the development or function of the Montgomery Airport or Gillespie Airport. The CAP Update measures and actions would not result in new or relocated residential land uses, other types of noise-sensitive receptors, or new places of permanent employment where residents or workers could be exposed to a safety hazard or excessive noise.

Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not expose residents or workers to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels.

Long-term changes resulting from implementation of CAP Update measures and actions would include activities such as sidewalk improvements traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements (e.g., Actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 under Measure T-1). However, these types of improvements would not adversely affect the capacity of roadways during an emergency or evacuation. Implementation of Action T-1.1 IA2, which encourages identifying traffic calming measures such as through the installation of mini roundabouts, would improve the flow of vehicle traffic, thus increasing traffic flow and not impeding the ability to evacuate during an emergency. Furthermore, the CAP Update measures and actions would comply with the San Diego County

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-26 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and the California Fire Code. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not impair or interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.

3.9.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to hazards and hazardous materials. The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant hazards and hazardous material impacts and did not identify mitigation measures.

The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-27

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or
siltation;
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.10.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the violation of water quality standards, surface hydrology and drainage; and flooding and inundation hazards. The City is located in the Helix Water District, which purchases imported surface water through the County Water Authority. Groundwater is not a component of the City's

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-28 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
water supply; therefore the 2018 SEIR did not identify impacts related to groundwater supply or groundwater recharge.

The City is not located in an area where seiche or tsunami would occur (Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality).

3.10.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality impacts were identified.

3.10.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The implementation of the CAP Update measures and actions would result in short-term and long-term changes related to hydrology and water quality as described below.

Construction activities associated with the implementation of the CAP Update, such as equipment use and staging of materials, would result in short-term, temporary changes related to hydrology and water quality. The types of construction activities associated with the CAP Update would vary. For example, implementation of actions RE-1.1 IA-1 and RE-2.1 IA-5 would result in the installation of on-site renewable energy and battery storage systems at municipal facilities and privately owned buildings in the city, such as rooftop solar panels on residential buildings and parking lot solar canopies at municipal facilities and implementation of actions T-5.2 and T-5.3 IA-4 would result in installation public-use EV charging units and stations. Some actions, such as T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2, would require limited ground disturbance associated with the construction of sidewalk improvements, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements, which could, depending on their location, potentially cause soil erosion and related water quality impacts.

Implementation of the CAP Update would be required to comply with State and local water quality regulations designed to control erosion and protect water quality during construction. This includes compliance with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for any activities that disturb one acre or more of land. Erosion and sediment controls identified in the SWPPP would substantially reduce the amount of soil disturbance, erosion, and sediment transport into receiving waters, and pollutants in site runoff during construction.

The City requires compliance with the City’s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, the City of La Mesa Municipal Storm Water Management Ordinance (Chapter 7, Section 7.18 of the City Municipal Code), and the City of La Mesa Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 14, Section 14.29 of the City Municipal Code) to reduce erosion and runoff. Through compliance with all applicable regulations and permits, implementation of the CAP Update would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

The CAP Update measures and actions involving ground disturbing activities (Actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T1.2 IA-2 under Measure T-1) could also require the use of water for dust abatement as needed via a water truck.

However, the ground disturbing activities would be temporary and intermittent and would not involve the substantial use of groundwater or otherwise affect recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Groundwater is not a component of the City's water supply and therefore implementation of the CAP Update would result in no impacts related to groundwater supply or groundwater recharge.

Furthermore, implementation of the CAP Update would not involve development of residential land uses or other types of land development or induce population growth that would increase water demand. In addition, the City requires low impact development techniques. These techniques would ensure that pervious surfaces are incorporated into development that would be facilitated by the project. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-29
Long-term changes resulting from implementation of CAP Update measures would include improvements at or near grade level of existing roadways, as well as minor changes to roadways and walkways (through implementation of Actions T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 under Measure T-1), and the planting of trees (through implementation of Action U-1.1 IA-1 and Action U-1.2 IA-3 under Measure U-1). The La Mesa Municipal Code requires Best Management Practices to control the volume, rate, and potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff as a requirement of the Municipal Stormwater Ordinance. Given compliance with regulations and requirements, implementation of the CAP Update would not alter the existing drainage patterns or contribute runoff water in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding.

3.10.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to hydrology and water quality. The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant hydrology and water quality impacts and did not identify mitigation measures. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-30 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.11.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified less-than-significant impacts related to physically dividing an established community and conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation (Section 3.7, “Land Use and Planning”).

3.11.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for land use and planning were identified.

3.11.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would not result in physical improvements that could physically divide a community. For example, measures resulting in construction of mini roundabouts (Action T-1.1 IA-2) and new or upgraded bike facilities and paths (Action T-1.2 IA-1) would reduce vehicle congestion and encourage bicycle trips, which would increase community connectivity and access. Implementation of Action T-1.1 IA-1 would also increase community connectivity and access by evaluating sidewalk infrastructure in La Mesa and identifying sidewalk improvements such as extensions, corner extensions, raised intersections, raised crosswalks, pavers, and road closures and therefore increasing the connectivity of sidewalk networks. As such, the CAP Update would improve, rather than impair, community connectivity and access throughout the city. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in construction of physical barriers that would physically divide an established community.

The CAP Update would also include improvements to the City’s existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit network within developed areas (Actions T-1.1, T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-5, and T-1.2 IA-7).

Implementation of the CAP Update would not change existing land uses and would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including San Diego Association of Governments’ 2021 Regional Plan and the City’s General Plan. Therefore, implementation of CAP Update would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-31

3.11.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to land use and planning. The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant land use and planning impacts and did not identify mitigation measures. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to land use and planning.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-32 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XII. Mineral Resources.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
No
Impact
No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
No
Impact
No No N/A

3.12.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR tiered from the City’s 2012 General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the City’s General Plan (Appendix A of the General Plan EIR) found no impacts related to mineral resources (City of La Mesa 2012) because there are no known mineral resources of local, regional, or State importance within the city and no recovery sites or mineral resource sites delineated in the general plan, specific plan, or any other local land use plan (City of La Mesa 2012). Therefore, the 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts for the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or for the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

3.12.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were identified.

3.12.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The City of La Mesa does not have mineral resources of economic value or active mining sites (City of La Mesa 2012).

Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

3.12.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to mineral resources. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to mineral resources.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-33

3.13 NOISE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the
SEIR Address/
Resolve Impacts,
Including Impacts
That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XIII. Noise.

Would implementation of the CAP Update result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies, or a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in noise levels above existing ambient
levels that could result in an adverse effect on
humans?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No Yes
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
No No Yes

3.13.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified a potentially significant impact related to consistency with local and applicable noise-level standards since construction and operation of facilities associated with the CAP could generate noise. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, and N-3, the 2018 SEIR concluded impacts related to generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise in excess of standards that could result in an adverse effect on humans to be less than significant.

The 2018 SEIR also identified a potentially significant impact related to short-term, construction-related noise levels that could exceed the applicable standards at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. The 2018 SEIR identified that the CAP encouraged mixed-use and transit-oriented development through General Plan land use and zoning designation which would change development density of land uses that could lead to stationary- and area-source noise levels that exceed applicable standards of the General Plan or the City Noise Ordinance during operation. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-4 and N-5, construction and operational impacts related to ambient noise levels were concluded to be less than significant.

The 2018 SEIR identified less-than-significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and noise, aircraft noise and railroad noise, and stationary sources (Section 3.8, “Noise”).

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-34 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.13.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
The 2018 SEIR identified the following mitigation measure for potentially significant noise impacts:

N-1: The City shall require all new projects to meet acceptable exterior noise standards:
 Review all development proposals, public and private, for consistency with the policies of the Noise Element of the General Plan.
 Discourage development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or future noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL.
 Incorporate noise reduction features during site planning to ensure that areas intended for frequent outdoor use are subjected to 60 dBA CNEL or less for single-family land uses and 65 dBA CNEL or less for multi-family residential land uses and multi-family residential land uses within mixed-use developments.  Control and abate undesirable sounds through the use of the land use compatibility criteria shown in the requirements of La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 10.80.
 Provide developers and builders with noise policy guidelines. The guidelines shall provide specific design criteria, minimum standards for submittal of acoustical studies, and descriptions of acceptable noise mitigation measures.

N-2: The City shall ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL for single-family and multifamily residential land uses:
 Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24). Title 24 requires that an acoustical analysis be performed for all new multi-family residences in areas where the exterior sound level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL. The analysis shall ensure that the building design limits the interior noise environment to 45 dBA CNEL or below.
 Ensure that an acoustical analysis be performed for all new single-family residences in areas where the exterior sound level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL. The analysis shall ensure that the building design limits the interior noise environment to 45 dBA CNEL or below.

N-3: The City shall achieve noise compatibility between industrial/commercial and surrounding land uses:
 Control excessive noise through the planning and regulatory process with emphasis on noise/land-use compatibility planning.
 Ensure that the design and construction of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed-use structures includes noise attenuation methods to comply with La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter 10.80.  Encourage commercial, industrial, office, and mixed-use developments to locate loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noisier components away from noise-sensitive land uses.
 Limit delivery hours for businesses with loading areas or docks fronting, siding, bordering, or gaining access on driveways adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.

N-4: The City shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures during construction activities through contract provisions and/or conditions of approval:
 Construction equipment shall be properly maintained per manufacturers’ specifications and fitted with the best available noise-suppression devices (e.g., mufflers, silencers, wraps).  Construction operations and related activities shall comply with the operational hours outlined in the City Noise Ordinance.
 Construction equipment shall not be idled for extended periods of time in the vicinity of noise sensitive receptors.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-35
 Fixed and/or stationary construction equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, rock crushers, cement mixers) shall be located as far as possible from noise-sensitive receptors.  All impact tools shall be shrouded or shielded, and all intake and exhaust ports on powered construction equipment shall be muffled or shielded.
 Where feasible, temporary barriers shall be placed as close to the noise source or as close to the receptor as possible to break the line of sight between the source and receptor where modeled levels exceed applicable standards. Acoustical barriers shall be constructed of material having a minimum surface weight of 2 pounds per square foot or greater, and a demonstrated Sound Transmission Class rating of 25 or greater as defined by American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method E90. Placement, orientation, size, and density of acoustical barriers shall be determined by analysis.

N-5: The City shall control undesirable or objectionable noise:
 Review traffic flow systems and synchronize signals to avoid traffic stops that produce excessive noise, wherever possible.
 Limit truck traffic in noise-sensitive areas.
 Where feasible, finish roadway surfaces with rubberized pavement to minimize noise levels at adjacent land uses.  Encourage the enforcement of state motor vehicle noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles through cooperation with the California Highway Patrol and the La Mesa Police Department.  Encourage agencies outside of the City’s jurisdiction to incorporate noise-reduction methods in new and existing roads, rail projects, and other mobile or stationary noise sources.  Coordinate with state and local agencies to maintain and enforce noise control policies and standards.  Review the Noise Element of the General Plan, and update as necessary, when major changes in the noise environment occur.
 Periodically review and update the standards found in the Noise Ordinance (La Mesa Municipal Code Chapter

10.80).

3.13.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The implementation of the CAP Update measures and actions would result in short-term changes related to noise as follows. Construction activities associated with the CAP Update, such as equipment use, construction of new facilities or retrofitting of existing facilities, would result in construction-related noise in the city. CAP Update actions that would result in construction noise include installing new EV charging stations and associated infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, building efficiency retrofits, and traffic calming measures, (Actions T-1.1 IA-2, T5.3 and T-5.3 IA-4, and W-1.2). CAP Update construction activities would also involve using construction equipment and vehicles when installing mini roundabouts (Action T-1.1 IA-2), constructing new pedestrian and bicycling routes, and enhancing existing infrastructure (e.g., adding corner extensions and bulb-outs, mini-roundabouts, raised intersection, pavers, and roadway reconfigurations (Action T-1.1 IA-2).

Construction equipment that could be used includes concrete saws for hardscape removal, backhoes or mini excavators, skip loaders, smooth drum rollers, dump trucks, and striping and paving machines, depending on the implementation activity. Construction activities associated with the CAP Update would be short-term and would not require use of large, heavy-duty equipment types used in land development or require equipment or activities, such as blasting or pile driving that would result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. In addition, implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measure N-4 would address the temporary or periodic impacts associated with ambient construction noise levels by requiring construction contractors to implement various construction noise reducing measures (e.g., use of best available noise-suppression devices and reducing idle times for construction equipment).

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-36 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update
Implementation of the CAP Update would also be subject to existing City noise policies and regulations and General Plan policies and programs, specifically those found in the Noise Element, and other local agency policies and regulations pertaining to noise at any construction site. Compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for worker safety would minimize exposure of workers to excessive noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels or produce a new permanent source of noise, and construction-related noise impacts would be reduced through implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measure N-4 and compliance with City noise policies.

Long-term changes resulting from the CAP Update would result in new stationary sources of noise through energy efficiency improvements and building/facility retrofits (Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6), which include electric-powered and/or more energy efficient building systems (e.g., heat pump HVAC systems).

However, the new stationary sources would not result in substantial increases from existing noise levels or increases in excess of existing standards as the new noise-generating equipment would replace building systems and equipment with similar operational noise levels. Long-term changes resulting from operation of the measures and actions in the CAP Update would not generate new vehicle trips that would result in transportation-related noise. The transportation-related actions, such as T-3.1 IA-1 and T-3.1 IA-2, would reduce VMT in the city through the expansion of telecommuting and electric bike use. Reducing VMT would not increase transportation-related noise. In addition, SEIR Mitigation Measure N-5 would apply to activities implementing the CAP update and ensure that undesirable or objectionable noise levels are avoided. Therefore, the CAP Update would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies or in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

The CAP Update would not result in any new sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) in the city, and therefore would not result in such receptors being adversely impacted by aircraft noise. The CAP Update would also not result in changes to operations of trolleys or buses such that substantial noise increases would occur. Thus, implementation of the CAP Update would not expose people residing or working near an airport to excessive airport/aircraft noise and railroad noise.

3.13.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to noise. Because the CAP Update would not result in any new development in the city, SEIR Mitigation Measures N-1, N-2, and N-3 are not applicable to the CAP Update. SEIR Mitigation Measures N-4 and N-5 would apply to implementation of the CAP Update and avoid a permanent increase in ambient noise levels or produce a new permanent source of noise, and construction-related noise impacts. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to noise.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-37

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XIV. Population and Housing.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.14.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified less-than-significant impacts for unplanned population growth and for substantial displacement of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (Section 3.10, “Population and Housing”).

3.14.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to population and housing were identified.

3.14.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would improve the City’s existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit network (e.g., Actions T-1.1, T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-5, and T-1.2 IA-7). The CAP Update would not induce population growth directly or indirectly because it does not propose new housing or changes to land use designations or zoning. Construction activities associated with the implementation of the CAP Update would involve construction workers to perform construction work. The types of construction projects would be small, short-term, and temporary, and construction workers would be residents of the city or surrounding region. Therefore, substantial relocation of workers to the city or region would not result from the CAP Update. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in substantial unplanned population growth.

Implementation of the CAP Update would also not displace people or housing because the measures and actions in the CAP Update would not involve removal or displacement of existing housing and would not propose new housing or changes to land use designations or zoning that could displace people or housing. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

3.14.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to population and housing. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to population and housing.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-38 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XV. Public Services.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire protection?
Less than
Significant No No N/A
Police protection?
Less than
Significant No No N/A
Schools?
Less than
Significant No No N/A
Parks?
Less than
Significant No No N/A
Other public facilities?
Less than
Significant No No N/A

3.15.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified a less-than-significant impact for the substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities (Section 3.11, “Public Services, Utilities, and Energy”).

3.15.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to public services were identified.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-39

3.15.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The CAP Update would not generate new or increased demand for fire protection services or interfere with or modify the ability of police and fire protection services because the CAP Update does not include development of new residences that would increase the population of the city and would not create substantial numbers of permanent jobs requiring increased fire or police services. The CAP Update would not induce population growth in the community that would require school services, new or expanded park facilities, other public facilities. The measures and actions from the CAP Update would not generate increased demand for public services such that construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain adequate service ratios. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.

3.15.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to public services. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to public services.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-40 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.16 RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XVI. Recreation.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.16.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR tiered from the City’s 2012 General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the City’s General Plan (Appendix A of the General Plan EIR) found that impacts related to recreation would be less than significant (City of La Mesa 2012). Developing new parks and open space was determined difficult to achieve in a built-out urban environment. Instead, the city’s goals include increasing pedestrian access to the existing neighborhood parks and adding recreational amenities within the existing fabric. Furthermore, the City’s Parks Master Plan anticipates future development of existing parks to accommodate planned growth and is incorporated in the City’s 2012 General Plan.

Therefore, the 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts for the increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and for including recreational facilities or requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

3.16.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to recreation were identified.

3.16.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update The CAP Update would not generate new or increased demand for parks and recreation facilities because it would not increase the residential or employment population of the city. The CAP Update does not include development of new residences and would not create substantial numbers of permanent jobs. Further, implementation of CAP Update Adaptation Strategies would preserve, enhance, increase, and establish community green areas, such as parks, recreational facilities, and open space (consistent/supportive to actions under Measure U-1); the physical environmental impacts of implementing these adaptation strategies are evaluated throughout this Addendum.

Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities. Implementation of the CAP Update would also not increase the use of recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration would occur or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-41

3.16.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to recreation. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to recreation.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-42 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XVII. Transportation.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.17.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR tiered from the City’s 2012 General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the City’s General Plan (Appendix A of the General Plan EIR) found that impacts related to change in air traffic patterns, emergency access, and conflicts with policies and plans supporting alternative transportation were determined to be less than significant (City of La Mesa 2012). Implementation of the CAP would not change impacts related to change in air traffic patterns, emergency access, and conflicts with policies and plans supporting alternative transportation from what has already been analyzed (Section 3.12, “Transportation and Traffic”).

Therefore, the 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; a conflict or inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b); substantial increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or inadequate emergency access.

3.17.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to transportation were identified.

3.17.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Overall, implementation of the CAP Update (e.g., Measures T-1 through T-7) would decrease annual VMT levels in the City relative to future VMT levels without implementation of the CAP Update (See CAP Update Appendix B). However, short-term construction activities associated with the CAP Update would lead to minor, temporary effects on traffic circulation patterns during the period of construction, such as constructing mini roundabouts (Action T-1.1 IA-2), and pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure (Actions T-1.1 IA-2 and T-1.2 IA-7).

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-43
The CAP Update includes actions that would increase transit ridership, walking and biking, and decrease VMT levels, such as incentivizing alternative modes of travel (Action T-2.2), constructing new pedestrian and bicycling routes, and enhancing existing infrastructure (e.g., adding corner extensions and bulb-outs, mini-roundabouts, raised intersection, pavers, and roadway reconfigurations under action T-1.1 IA-2). Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not adversely affect the performance of the circulation system and would not conflict with any applicable transportation plans, ordinances, or policies.

Implementation of the CAP Update would not induce substantial population or employment growth in the city that would in turn generate increased VMT. Construction activities associated with the CAP Update measures and actions would not require a large construction crew. Any temporary VMT increases associated with construction activities would be more than offset by the CAP Update’s overall effect of reducing the long-term rate of VMT in the city.

Therefore, CAP Update implementation would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

Implementation of the CAP Update would have the potential to affect emergency access during construction of individual projects facilitated by the CAP Update. For example, construction pertaining to improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety (Action T-1.1 IA-2 and Action T-1.2 IA-7) could temporarily alter existing roadways that serve as emergency access routes. In the long-term, the CAP Update would not result in new development or land uses that would require installation of emergency access routes. Implementation of the CAP Update would not be permitted to conflict with regulatory requirements to provide adequate accommodation of fire access to structure frontages, multiple access points to development, as well as adequate width, height, and turning radius of roadways and access points, pursuant to California Building Code and California Fire Code requirements. Implementing the CAP Update would be required to comply City standards and requirements and would undergo review by public safety officials as part of the approval process and would prevent CAP Update implementation from resulting in physical effects that impede or obstruct emergency access. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not result in inadequate emergency access.

3.17.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to transportation. The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant transportation impacts and did not identify mitigation measures. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to transportation.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-44 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Would implementation of the CAP Update cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.18.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR did not identify significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. The City contacted the NAHC, and requested a tribal consultation list. In their response dated July 25, 2017, the NAHC provided a list of Native American tribes that might have knowledge of any traditional lands or cultural resources in the city, including Tribal Cultural Resources. The following tribes were sent letters requesting input on the proposed project to ensure consideration of Tribal Cultural Resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1: Barona Group of the Capitan Grande; Campo Band of Mission Indians; Ewiiaapaayp; Inaja Band of Mission Indians; Jamul Indian Village; Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians; La Posta Band of Mission Indians; Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation; Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians; San Pasqual of Mission Indians; Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; and Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. After describing the nature of the CAP analyzed in the 2018 SEIR, Native American representatives indicated that they did not have further comment (Section 3.3, “Cultural Resources”).

3.18.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources impacts were identified. SEIR Mitigation Measures for cultural resources impacts are included in Section 3.5.2.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-45

3.18.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would result in physical changes to the environment that could occur in proximity to or involve encountering tribal cultural resources. For example, some improvements that result from the CAP Update, such as actions T-1.1 IA-1, T-1.1 IA-2, T-1.2 IA-1, T-1.2 IA-2 under measure T-1 would require limited ground disturbance associated with the construction of sidewalk improvements, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian or bicycling infrastructure improvements. During ground disturbing activities, depending on their location, a tribal cultural resource could be encountered. SEIR Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 would apply to implementation of the CAP Update and avoid substantial adverse changes in the significance of any tribal cultural resources encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. SEIR Mitigation Measure CR-2 requires construction monitoring by a qualified archeologist during grading, ground-disturbing, and other major earth-moving activities in previously undisturbed areas with known archaeological resources and SEIR Mitigation Measure CR-3 includes having a qualified archaeologist evaluate and determine the significance of any cultural resources discovered during site construction activities, and preparing and implementing an archaeological data recovery program, which would include consultation with interested Native American tribes. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

3.18.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to tribal cultural resources. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-3 from the SEIR are applicable to the cultural resources impacts of the CAP Update. Therefore, the CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-46 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
2018 SEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Does the CAP
Update Involve
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation
Measures in the SEIR
Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including
Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More
Severe?
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would implementation of the CAP Update:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand, in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less than
Significant
No No N/A

3.19.1 SEIR Analysis
The 2018 SEIR identified less than significant impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities; sufficient water supplies during normal, dry and multiple dry years; adequate wastewater treatment capacity; the generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and compliance with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Section 3.11, “Public Services, Utilities, and Energy”).

3.19.2 SEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures for utilities and service systems impacts were identified.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of La Mesa
Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update 3-47

3.19.3 Changes Resulting from Implementation of the CAP Update Implementation of the CAP Update would not increase development or induce population growth directly or indirectly, because it does not propose new housing or development or any changes to land use designations or zoning. Tree planting associated with the actions and measures of the CAP Update (Actions U-1.1 IA-1, U-1.2 IA-1, and U-1.2 IA-3 under Measure U-1) and CAP Adaptation Strategies that would continue to promote, expand, and establish new City programs that support the growth of its urban tree canopy in public and private spaces, would nominally increase demand for water used for irrigation. However, the CAP Update would support the Helix Water District in implementing outreach and community education programs related to water conservation policies and efficiency programs (Action W-1.1). The CAP Update would also encourage water efficiency. For example, Action W-1.2 under Measure W-1 would establish a water reduction target for City buildings and facilities to be achieved through education, indoor plumbing and appliance retrofits, use of advanced irrigation systems, installation and use of rainwater harvesting, and installation of low-water use landscapes in medians, parks, and around City buildings and facilities. Further, CAP Update Adaptation Strategies would develop and implement programs offering assistance to residents for drought-tolerant landscapes to reduce water demand associated with the CAP Update and implement infrastructure upgrades in public spaces that would help mitigate the impacts of extreme heat, such as hydration/water-filling stations. In addition, Action W-2.1 IA-1 under Measure W-2 would convert wastewater to potable drinking water and reduce the need of importing water from other regions.

The CAP Update also includes measures and actions that would not substantially increase the volume of stormwater generated. For example, Actions U-1.2 SA-1 and U-1.2 SA-2 under Measure U-1 would convert existing impermeable surfaces to permeable and implement stormwater runoff capture opportunities. Implementation of the CAP Update would result in the retrofitting of existing buildings and developments to replace natural gas consumption with electricity and renewable energy (Action RE-1.1 IA-1, Action RE-2.1 IA-5, Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6). Although implementation of the CAP Update would incrementally increase electricity consumption, for example through measures that increase the installation EV charging stations (Action T-5.3 IA-4), or replace natural gas consumption with electricity (Action RE-1.1 IA-1 and Action RE-2.1 IA-5), the CAP Update would also result in more efficient consumption of energy within buildings and water systems (Action BE-3.1 IA-3 and Action W-1.2) and the CAP Update’s support for fuel switching from natural gas to electricity consumption would decrease demand for natural gas infrastructure. The environmental effects of implementing these actions (e.g., installing EV charging stations and battery storage infrastructure, or replacing natural gas consumption with electricity) are evaluated throughout the addendum. Therefore, the CAP Update would not result in demand for new or expanded infrastructure, including water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, natural gas or telecommunication facilities, and therefore would not result in significant environmental effects from construction of such new or expanded facilities.

Implementation of the CAP Update would not involve residential or nonresidential development or induce population growth that would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Further, it would not involve the construction of restroom facilities. Therefore, implementation of the CAP Update would not exceed the capacity of any wastewater treatment provider. Because the CAP Update would not induce increased residential or non-residential development, or population growth directly or indirectly, it would not generate long-term increases in solid waste generation.

Although some solid waste would be generated during construction activities and through retrofitting buildings (Action BE-1.2 and implementing actions IA-1 through IA-6), the solid waste generated would be nominal due to the scale of construction activities and associated improvements, and therefore would not exceed the capacity of local facilities.

In addition, the CAP Update includes measures and actions that would divert waste from landfills. For example, Action WR-3.1 IA-6 under Measure WR-3 would result in the installation of water bottle filling stations to encourage residents to use reusable bottles instead of plastic bottles. Measure WR-1 and WR-5 include strategies to continue to increase the diversion of organic waste from landfills (Actions WR-1.1 and WR-5.1), which is consistent with and would further State solid waste statutes and goals. Therefore, solid waste generated as a result of the CAP Update would not be generated in excess of local standards or capacity of local infrastructure.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of La Mesa
3-48 Addendum to 2018 CAP SEIR for the CAP Update

3.19.4 Conclusion
There are no changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the 2018 SEIR or result in new significant effects related to utilities and service systems. The CAP Update would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.