Environmental Initial Study Parks Master Plan City of La Mesa, County of San Diego, CA

Transcription

1 Environmental Initial Study Parks Master Plan City of La Mesa, County of San Diego, CA Lead Agency: City of La Mesa 4975 Memorial Drive La Mesa, CA Contact: Mike Pacheco, Project Manager February 24, 2012

2 Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: (Address and/or general location description) Applicant s Name and Address: General Plan Land Use Designation: Zoning: Assessor Parcel Number: Project Description: La Mesa Parks Master Plan City of La Mesa Community Services Department 4975 Memorial Drive, La Mesa, CA Mike Pacheco, Project Manager, Community Services Manager in and adjacent to existing parks within the City of La Mesa, County of San Diego City of La Mesa Recreation Uses and Transportation Right of Way Various Various The City of La Mesa has developed a Parks Master Plan (Master Plan) to identify improvements to the parks system necessary to meet both current and future community needs for parks, open space, and urban respite areas. There are currently 14 parks distributed throughout the City totaling 144 acres. In support of the Community Wellness Policy adopted in 2006, the Master Plan recognizes the importance of exercise as one element of a healthy lifestyle. Thus, the Master Plan focuses on improving accessibility to parks by enhancing pedestrian connectivity through the repair and installation of missing sidewalk segments and removal of access barriers (i.e., improving unsafe street crossings, curb cuts, lighting and related safety deficiencies that deter pedestrian access). The Parks Master Plan is intended to work in tandem with the Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan adopted in January 2012, to create safe pedestrian and bicycle routes that will encourage residents to walk and bicycle to local parks. The Master Plan recommends installing a total of 1,870,164 square feet of sidewalk and removing numerous access barriers as referenced above. All improvements would occur within public parks, City right-ofway, on disturbed shoulder areas and within existing paved street corridors. The Master Plan does not recommend the removal of travel lanes, on-street parking or other improvements that would change capacity or impede traffic flow. The Master Plan provides general recommendations for a new park and the expansion of park facilities within existing park boundaries. For the most part, these recommendations focus on minor improvements/upgrades to existing park infrastructure (i.e., install benches, picnic tables, drinking fountains, play equipment and signage). Implementing these improvements would result in minimal,

3 if any, ground disturbance or related temporary environmental impacts with the exception of Collier Park that is undergoing a separate EIR for the planned grading and park improvements there. The Master Plan does not recommend the expansion of any existing park boundaries or changes in amenities that would create land disturbances during construction, expand existing uses or generate additional vehicle trips during operation. The emphasis on pedestrian access improvements could reduce vehicle trips or offset any increase in traffic or on-street parking demand that may result from improvements to park facilities and/or minor park infill projects. The Master Plan references the potential construction of a new park on the Waite Property located at the northwest corner of Waite Drive and Murray Hill Road at 7410 Waite Drive. The site is owned by the County of San Diego and was formerly used as a public works yard and vehicle service facility. The City of La Mesa has the first right of refusal for purchase. The site is approximately 2.9 acres in size and could be developed for use a as neighborhood park. specific improvements for this property are recommended in the Master Plan. However, potential impacts are evaluated herein based on the conceptual development of the site as a neighborhood park. Surrounding Land Uses: rth: South: East: West: The Parks Master Plan covers all 14 parks within the City of La Mesa and areas within a one-half mile radius surrounding each park. Most of the proposed improvements are concentrated along streets providing pedestrian access to each park from surrounding neighborhoods. Cities of El Cajon and San Diego City of Lemon Grove City of El Cajon and County of San Diego s unincorporated communities of Mount Helix, Casa De Oro and Spring Valley City of San Diego Site Features and Setting: Other Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The City of La Mesa, a suburban community located in eastern San Diego county, shares borders with the cities of San Diego, El Cajon, Lemon Grove and the unincorporated area. The City has 14 parks providing recreational opportunities for residents living within the surrounding area. Future improvements proposed in the Master Plan focus on filling sidewalk gaps and removing pedestrian access barriers. The Waite Property is currently a vacant site with ornamental trees and ruderal vegetation. Portions of the site are paved with asphalt and concrete. This material is what remains from the previous development. The site is surrounded by a chain link fence; the entrance is gated and locked. The site is bordered to the north, south and west by singlefamily residences. Murray Hill Road forms the eastern site boundary. The site is generally flat with a gradual elevation increase to the north. other Agency approval is required

4 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY The Environmental Review Checklist below is used by staff to evaluate whether a project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. The purpose of the checklist is to assist in the determination of whether an Environmental Report (EIR) should be prepared for the project. If it is determined that no EIR is needed to identify potential environmental impacts from a project, a Negative Declaration will be adopted. A Negative Declaration does not mean that a project will have no effect; it is documentation that a project will not have the potential to cause "significant" environmental impacts that need a complete EIR to properly evaluate. Once the proper level of environmental analysis has been established utilizing the checklist below, the project itself will be evaluated based upon a separate analysis of compliance with ordinances, policies, standards, and required findings established for review of the project by the City. Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

5 Initial Study page 5 a) The Parks Master Plan includes recommendations for park improvements and pedestrian access improvements. All improvements would be confined to parks and existing street right of way. The construction of new sidewalks and related pedestrian improvements would not impact scenic vistas. Construction of a park on the Waite Property would change the appearance of the site. However, a park would be consistent with the residential context of the neighborhood; and thus, not create visual or aesthetic impacts. b) The segment of SR 125 between SR 94 and Interstate 8 is designated a scenic highway. The projects recommended for implementation by the Parks Master Plan would not occur within the SR 125 corridor or change scenic resources located in the view shed of state scenic highway. c) The projects recommended for implementation by the Parks Master Plan would be constructed within the existing street network. The improvements would be consistent with existing street infrastructure; and thus, not negatively affect visual resources within the City. Where improvements would occur, the Parks Master Plan recommends incorporating Complete Street elements to enhance aesthetics within improvement corridors. Construction of a park on the Waite Property would change the appearance of the site. A park would be more consistent with the residential context of the neighborhood than the existing vacant lot. Thus, no visual or aesthetic impacts would occur. d) The project improvements may include the installation of street lighting and/or security lighting to address safety concerns related to access and use of park facilities. All lighting installed would be consistent with the City s standard drawings and specifications to minimize spillover and potential light and glare impacts. 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) 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 the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

6 Initial Study page 6 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 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? The City of La Mesa is comprised of urbanized and suburban neighborhoods designated primarily for residential and commercial uses. There are no farmland areas or sites designated for agricultural use nor are there nearby agricultural sites that would be affected by the proposed Project. There are no forests or timber resources addressed by this section within the City of La Mesa. The Waite Property was developed as a public works yard owned by the County of San Diego. There are no structures remaining on site; however, it is partially paved and not used for agricultural or forestry purposes. III. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

7 Initial Study page 7 a) The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the agency responsible for protecting air quality in the region. Among this agency s responsibilities is the preparation and implementation of the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). These two documents outline the strategies and tactics used to improve and maintain air quality in the region to meet State and Federal air quality requirements. In addition, SDAPCD has published a guidebook, Reducing Vehicle Trips Through Land Use Design. The Parks Master Plan would not increase vehicle trips to park facilities. It is intended to improve pedestrian access to park facilities which could reduce vehicle trips. The Parks Master Plan supports the goals of these regional air quality planning documents. Development of a park on the Waite Property may generate vehicle trips; however, as stated in the Master Plan, parking areas would be minimized to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access. It is anticipated that improvements will focus on facilitating pedestrian rather than vehicle access consistent with the RAQS and SDAPCD guidelines. b) Park access improvements may increase use of alternative modes of travel. Each automobile trip avoided would reduce air pollution. It is difficult to accurately predict the number of trips that would be reduced by implementing this plan; however, it is reasonable to assume that measures to reduce vehicle trips associated with the Master Plan would not adversely affect air quality within the region. c) This plan does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, the Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County because the planned improvements will not result in any land use changes that generate additional motor vehicle trips or vehicle miles traveled. The Waite Property was used for a public works yard which was a more intensive use than a neighborhood park. Thus, a park use would not affect air quality more than what was approved for the site. For these reasons, the Parks Master Plan would not violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute air quality violations. The plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone, which is the criteria pollutant for which the San Diego region is classified non-attainment. d-e) The proposed Project would not cause additional exposure to sensitive receptors or new objectionable odors beyond those that are generated as a result of the existing street environment. IV. Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

8 Initial Study page 8 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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 wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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?

9 Initial Study page 9 a) the exception of the Waite Property, all improvements would occur within existing parks and street right of way; thus, no habitat would be impacted. The Parks Master Plan project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species within local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As discussed, the Waite Property contains ornamental trees, ruderal vegetation and turf grass around the perimeter. The majority of the site is paved. Given the highly disturbed nature, no habitat or sensitive species are known to occur on the site. Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will visit the construction site to confirm this finding; however, for the purpose of this evaluation, no biological resource impacts associated with development of a park would occur. Consistent with Migratory Bird Treaty Act grading or removal of nesting trees should occur outside the nesting season, which is between approximately March 1 and August 15. If grading must occur within the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey of the trees to be impacted would be performed by a qualified biologist within seven days of ground breaking. If no nesting birds are observed, then no further action is required and grading would occur within one week of the survey to prevent take of individual birds that could begin nesting after the survey. If active bird nests are observed during the pre-construction survey, a disturbance-free buffer zone would be established around the nest tree(s) until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. b) riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known to occur within the street right of way where sidewalk and related improvements are recommended. wetland or riparian communities were observed on the Waite Property. Implementation of the Parks Master Plan would not affect areas proposed for preservation under the regional Multiple Species Conservation Program or the City of La Mesa Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan. Thus, proposed improvements would not conflict with areas preserved under these plans. c) The approval of the Parks Master Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Collier Park is undergoing a separate EIR to evaluate biological impacts. d) Potential improvements would occur within existing parks and disturbed City right of way and on the Waite Property. The proposed Project would not 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 wildlife nursery sites because there are no wildlife corridors or nursery sites that occur within areas potentially affected by project improvements. e) The proposed Parks Master Plan project would likely not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The provision of street trees is generally encouraged within the public right of way, as are sidewalks. Sidewalk improvement areas should be inspected prior to construction to ensure trees or their root systems would not be affected by clearing and grubbing activities. Several ornamental trees occur on the Waite Property. Park development plans would evaluate the significance of the trees and integrate them, where practicable, into the park design to avoid impacts. The proposed Project site is not located within an area proposed for preservation under these plans. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

10 Initial Study page 10 V. Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

11 Initial Study page 11 a-b) The location of the proposed improvements identified by the Parks Master Plan are within developed urban neighborhoods along established travel corridors. Land located within the City s parks and street right of way has already been disturbed during construction of the roadbed and related utilities, water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure improvements. As stated, the Waite Property was developed and used as a public works yard. historic resources are known to occur on the site. Improvements proposed in the Parks Master Plan would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains because these parks sites and the public right of way are already developed or disturbed sites. Collier Park is undergoing a separate EIR which would evaluate historical and archaeological resource impacts. c-d) Sidewalk construction, repair, and removal of access barriers could require minor grading activities within the public right of way. These would be limited to surface excavation or filling within the previously disturbed roadway. Site improvements on the Waite Property would require grading, clearing and grubbing to remove asphalt and debris. To avoid impacts to archaeological resources, prior to any related construction project, the City will contact the South Coast Information Center and San Diego State University to conduct a records search for potential cultural resources. During construction of the proposed improvements, including sidewalks and other infrastructure requiring trenching or grading, the City will implement the following best management practices with regard to cultural or paleontological resources uncovered during minor subsurface excavation activities. In the event that cultural resources are exposed during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find will stop until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, additional work such as testing or data recovery may be warranted. Specific methods would be defined in an Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) to be prepared and approved by the City of La Mesa prior to beginning any testing and/or data recovery activities. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resource Code Section The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). the permission of the landowner of his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. VI. Geology and Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

12 Initial Study page 12 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as identified in Table of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have 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?

13 Initial Study page 13 a) Parks Master Plan improvements would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects related to geology and soils as described above. construction of buildings, bridges or overpasses would occur as a result of the proposed improvements to parks and sidewalks. Although the City is located within a seismically active region, no active or potentially active faults are known to exist within City limits. In addition, the City is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located several miles west of the site, is the nearest active fault zone. b) Surface runoff potential varies in La Mesa due to the urban nature of the City s landscape. Surface drainage patterns would not be altered with implementation of the plan; thus, the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Much of the Waite Property is covered with asphalt; thus, conversion to a park might reduce the impervious area. During construction, best management practices would be included in any future construction project to avoid or reduce erosion and loss of topsoil. Because the Waite Property is greater than one acre, compliance with Construction General Permit ( DWQ) would be required. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) will include post-construction BMPs. c-e) According to the Safety Element of the City of La Mesa General Plan, large areas within the City have soils with a high shrink-swell (i.e., expansive) characteristics. s related to expansive soils can be reduced through removal, use of special construction techniques and installation of proper drainage. As part of the typical design process, improvements would be designed to avoid or reduce the potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Construction of sidewalk segments or park improvements may occur on expansive soil; however, because the scope of improvements is relatively minor and construction would occur consistent with California Uniform Building Code requirements, risk to life or property related to these improvements would not be significant. There would be no impact from septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as no such systems are proposed. Adherence to local and regional standards, including soils testing and construction guidelines would eliminate any risk posed by expansive soils. VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a-b) The proposed improvements focus on accessibility to parks and include sidewalks and park amenities. These enhancements would not directly or indirectly generate greenhouse gases, rather they support pedestrian travel choices and have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Conversion of the Waite Property into a park may generate some GHG emissions during construction. However, based on the scope of the project, combined construction and operation emissions would likely be less than what was generated by the public works yard formerly operating on the site. Thus, implementation of the Parks Master Plan would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

14 Initial Study page 14 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

15 Initial Study page 15 a-b) Improvements proposed by the Parks Master Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as best management practices to minimize risk will be implemented during construction. c) The proposed improvements would require construction or repair to sidewalks and install a parking area and basic improvements on the Waite Property. The emission of hazardous materials are not reasonably foreseeable during the construction of these improvements. d-f) Existing public parks and public right of way are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section The Waite Property located at 7410 Waite Drive is listed in the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database as a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup case (RB #9UT2686) (San Diego County Environmental Health Case #H ).Two Underground Storage Tanks (UST s) used to store gasoline were removed from the site in 1994 and subsequent monitoring and remediation occurred. The case was closed December 1, Four monitoring wells remain on-site. The nearest airport is Gillespie Field, located north/northwest of the City. ne of the City parks or the Waite Property are located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport. g-h) The proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan because existing street locations and through-street access would not change. Project-related improvements would not increase the risk of wild land fires. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

16 Initial Study page 16 e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) The City of La Mesa is subject to a Municipal Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). This permit requires implementation of a program addressing urban runoff pollution in public and private projects. The primary objectives of the urban runoff program are to ensure that discharges do not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards, prohibit non-storm water discharges in urban runoff, and reduce the discharge of pollutants from urban runoff conveyance systems to the maximum extent practicable. To comply with the conditions of the Municipal Permit, the City of La Mesa adopted a Watercourse Protection, Storm Water Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance codified in Chapter 7.18 of the La Mesa Municipal Code. To conform to the NPDES permit, any construction project would be subject to the City of La Mesa Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated into the project to address pollutants and conditions of concern. b-d) The proposed improvements would not have any effect on natural hydrologic processes such as groundwater recharge, wetlands and riparian environments. e-f) Installation of park amenities as proposed in the Parks Master Plan would not create additional run-off. Construction of sidewalks where no sidewalk currently exists could create additional runoff, but it would be conveyed into the existing storm water collection systems. Disturbances greater than one-acre would require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in accordance with the Construction General Permit ( DWQ). The SWPPP will include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater/erosion control, and a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), which will include post-construction BMPs. As discussed, conversion of the Waite Property to a park would likely reduce the amount of impervious surface on the site. Improvements would be subject to the same NPDES requirements noted above. To the extent possible, the City would favor drainage systems that incorporate green infrastructure to limit storm water runoff. The proposed Project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. g-j) The proposed Plan would not subject people to flooding or water related hazardous conditions, because the proposed improvements are not located in a floodplain, dam or levee failure inundation area, or seiche, tsunami or mudflow area.

17 Initial Study page 17 X. Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? a) The Parks Master Plan recommends improvements on already established parks and streets, as well as new sidewalk segments and the removal of access barriers. These enhancements will improve pedestrian; thus, the proposed Project will not divide an established community. The Waite Property is designated County Engineering Department on the City s zoning map. The City may elect to rezone the site if construction of a park is proposed. Construction of a park would not divide an established community. b) The Parks Master Plan improvements would support the policies of the City of La Mesa General Plan. The enhancements made to the streets and sidewalks will not change the current configuration or circulation patterns. Improvements to park facilities support the goals of the Conservation and Open Space element. Access improvements support the Health and Wellness element in the draft General Plan Update. As noted, the City may elect to rezone the Waite Property if the site is selected for park development. c) The proposed Project would not conflict with the City s applicable habitat conservation plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no land use or planning impact. XI. Mineral Resources 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? b) 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? a-b) The City of La Mesa General Plan has not identified any important mineral resources within the City s jurisdiction. The proposed improvements would occur on substantially developed land or within existing street corridors; thus, the proposed Project would not result in any increased loss of availability of mineral resources.

18 Initial Study page 18 XII. ise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a-f) The scope of proposed improvements would not increase noise levels or expose people to noise in excess of standards established in the City of La Mesa General Plan ise Element and noise ordinance (Chapter of the Municipal Code). The proposed Project would not result in groundborne vibration or a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Post construction activities within existing parks would not result in a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Conversion of the Waite Property to a park may generate noise during construction. During operation, noise from park use may be audible at neighboring properties; however, it would be within the context of the adjacent residential neighborhoods and likely less than what occurred during operation of the public works yard. As referenced, the subject properties are not located within an airport land use plan, are not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and are not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XIII Population and Housing a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

19 Initial Study page 19 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a-c) housing units exist in the parks, streets, or sidewalks that would be improved as part of the Parks Master Plan. The Waite Property is currently vacant. Thus, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth, displace existing housing, or displace people. The proposed improvements would improve pedestrian access to and from parks within the community by enhancing circulation. XIV. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? a-e) The Parks Master Plan would improve pedestrian access to park facilities utilizing existing streets and sidewalks. The proposed improvements would not increase demand for park facilities nor would implementation create substantial adverse physical impacts. The proposed Project would not generate population growth or otherwise create a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives related to fire and police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities. Existing public services are in place to provide fire, police and emergency medical services. Three school districts, the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Lemon Grove School District and the Grossmont Union High School District, already serve the City as do 14 local parks and other governmental facilities. Implementation of the Parks Master Plan would improve public services through the installation of park amenities as well as enhance access and overall pedestrian safety. XV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

20 Initial Study page 20 a) The park improvements recommended in the Parks Master Plan focus on minor improvements/upgrades to existing park infrastructure. The intent is that more residents would use the park facilities; however, increased use is not projected to degrade the infrastructure. b) The proposed construction of park amenities is primarily focused on minor improvements such as the installation of benches, picnic tables, drinking fountains, play equipment, and signage. These upgrades would result in minimal, if any ground disturbance or related temporary environmental impacts. expansion of existing parks would occur as part of Parks Master Plan implementation. Conversion of the Waite Property into a park would expand park resources. These improvements would not be necessary in response to increased demand for park services but rather would increase recreational opportunities throughout the City. XVI. Transportation/Traffic a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such features?

21 Initial Study page 21 a) The Parks Master Plan does not conflict with the City s transportation related planning programs, such as the neighborhood traffic calming program, safe routes to transit and safe routes to school. The increased pedestrian connectivity and safer routes that would result from the proposed Project support the existing goals and policies of these programs. b) The proposed Plan supports implementation of the San Diego Congestion Management Program (CMP) by providing infrastructure that accommodates alternatives to motor vehicle travel. c) There is no air travel associated with the Parks Master Plan nor would improvements effect air traffic patterns. d) Future improvements recommended by this Plan will be carefully evaluated to ensure that bicycle, pedestrian, transit passengers and disabled travelers are provided safe and efficient access to transportation resources. new design features would be added that could create hazardous conditions. e) To the degree that designated facilities are provided for pedestrian use outside the existing street right of way, there will be no impact on the ability of emergency service vehicles to negotiate access. f) The proposed Parks Master Plan is focused on improving access to park facilities which support policies and goals within the draft Health and Wellness Element of the General Plan Update. The proposed Project is compatible with goals and policies within the City of La Mesa Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Plan (2012). XVII. Utilities and Service Systems a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments?

22 Initial Study page 22 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a-f) The proposed Project is located within developed areas currently served by existing utilities and utility infrastructure. Implementation of the Parks Master Plan would not impact existing wastewater treatment facilities, storm water drainage facilities, water supplies or landfill capacity. Specific construction projects proposed subsequent to plan approval will take into consideration existing storm water drainage facilities and utilities. The City of La Mesa s wastewater is treated at the City of San Diego s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plan. An increase in existing wastewater volumes would occur as a result of the Waite Property conversion to a park. However, because restrooms would be the only generator on-site, quantities would likely be similar to or less than what was generated by public works yard operation. significant increase in wastewater volumes would result from implementation of the proposed Plan. The proposed Project does not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The Helix Water District provides domestic water service to the City of La Mesa. The proposed Project would not increase water consumption or result in a need to require access to new water supplies or the construction of new water treatment or water storage facilities. Operation of restrooms and drinking fountains on the Waite Property would increase existing demand for potable water. However, water demand would be comparable to or less than what was generated by the public works yard. It is assumed for planning purposes that reclaimed water would be used to irrigate the park; thus, no net increase in potable water demand would occur. Solid waste disposal and recycling services in the City of La Mesa are contracted through EDCO Disposal Corporation, which operates a transfer and processing facility in the City. Solid waste is processed at this facility and then hauled to regional landfills. Implementation of the Parks Master Plan overall may negligibly increase the amount of solid waste generated within the City. The conversion of the Waite Property would require asphalt and debris removal during site preparation. Much of this material could be recycled rather than disposed of in a landfill. Any increase in solid waste generated from park use would not create a significant impact. XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?