SUPER LOOP TRANSIT PROJECT Final Negative Declaration/ Environmental Initial Study

AUGUST 2007

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

PREFACE

This is a Final Negative Declaration (ND), prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), addressing potential environmental consequences of the implementation of the Super Loop in the City of San Diego. The Draft ND/Initial Study (IS) was circulated for public review from March 20March 19, 2007 to May 15, 2007 (State Clearinghouse No. 2007031104). During the pubic review period, several comments were received from public agencies, organizations and individuals. The comments, along with responses addressing the issues of concern, are provided following this preface.

In response to comments received on the Draft ND, minor revisions have been made to the IS. Specifically, Figure 2 has been revised to clarify existing land uses in the project area, and Table 10 has been revised to clarify planned roadway improvements. Revisions to the text are shown in strikeout and underline; if no strikeout or underline is indicated, information remains unchanged.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

A1. Noise complaints or operational issues associated with the Super Loop should be directed to the Metropolitan Transit System at (619) 231-1466. A1

A2 A2. All potential users of parking are subject to the same, uniform regulations. Outside users are generally prohibited from using on-site (off-street) parking within residential communities. Residential complexes are generally required to supply sufficient parking to meet the needs of residences of communities, such that conflicts regarding on-street spaces are minimized. Control of on-street parking spaces is under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego has several parking regulation options available to regulate the use of on-street parking spaces.

RTC-1 COMMENTS RESPONSES

A3. As indicated in Issue 16, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft Negative Declaration/ Initial Study (ND/IS), trash receptacles would be provided at proposed Super Loop stations. Maintenance and collection of trash at the stations will be provided either by MTS or through A3 a private contractor.

A4. SANDAG will meet with Garden Communities to coordinate station design and integration with the La Jolla Crossroads development. The concrete pad provides additional structural A4 reinforcement. The reinforcement is needed because the repetitive “stop and go” of the buses at the station increases the wear and tear on asphalt pavement.

A5. The proposed platform location north of Brooke Lane/Judicial Drive intersection is positioned A5 to avoid utility conflicts.

A6 A6. SANDAG will meet with Garden Communities to discuss station siting opportunities and constraints.

A7. SANDAG will meet with Garden Communities to coordinate the station design and A7 integration with the Costa Verde development.

RTC-2 COMMENTS RESPONSES

B1. No response required.

RTC-3 COMMENTS RESPONSES

C1. With implementation of the Super Loop, MTS route 48/49 would no longer be running south on Villa La Jolla Drive, south of Nobel Drive.

C2 C2. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Once the TNM is calibrated, the number of proposed Super Loop buses is added to the existing average daily traffic volume, and future sound levels “with” and “without” the proposed project are calculated. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

RTC-4 COMMENTS RESPONSES

D1. As stated in the Draft ND/IS, the proposed Super Loop project would not result in potentially significant noise, air quality, or traffic impacts. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft D1 ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) significance noise criteria. Thus, no significant project or cumulative noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

Issue 3, Air Quality, in the Draft ND/IS concludes that vehicular emissions associated with Super Loop buses would not violate air quality standards or expose sensitive receptors to harmful quantities of air pollution.

As discussed in Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft ND/IS, the project would not significantly impact roadways and intersections in the project area.

The Project Description in the Draft ND/IS discusses proposed operations of buses. Buses would have headways (or frequency) of 10 minutes during peak periods (Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and 15 minutes during off- peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.).

RTC-5 COMMENTS RESPONSES

E1. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular E1 traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Noise near the vicinity of each proposed station was modeled to account for the noise associated with buses accelerating from a full stop position. Near the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station, the grade of Villa La Jolla Drive and associated noise due to E2 vehicle acceleration and deceleration was factored into the model. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA E3 significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

E2. Buses within the MTS fleet are regularly maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications. Preventative maintenance is performed on the buses. Due to this regular E4 preventative maintenance, noise levels generated by buses would be relatively constant during their time in service.

E3. Proposed buses would be fueled by alternative fuels/propulsion systems like compressed natural E5 gas (CNG) or alternative hybrid propulsion technology, which burn substantially cleaner than diesel fuel. Studies conducted by the California Air Resources Board conclude that CNG and hybrid buses emit fewer air quality pollutants (e.g., nitrous oxides and particulate matter) than diesel powered buses. Issue 3, Air Quality, in the Draft ND/IS concludes that vehicular emissions associated with Super Loop buses would not violate air quality standards or expose sensitive receptors to harmful quantities of air pollution. Additionally, one of the goals of the Super Loop project is to increase transit opportunities to reduce automobile trips and their associated emissions.

RTC-6 COMMENTS RESPONSES

E4. As discussed in Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, in the Draft ND, the proposed project’s impact on surrounding roadway segments was evaluated in a project-specific traffic analysis (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006). This analysis evaluated traffic conditions under existing, near-term (year 2010), and buildout (year 2030) conditions at surrounding roadway segments and intersections, including (among others) Villa La Jolla Drive. Specifically, the following roadway segments and intersections along Villa La Jolla Drive were analyzed:

• Villa La Jolla Drive, between Nobel Drive and Via Mallorca • Villa La Jolla Drive, between Via Mallorca and Gilman Drive • Villa La Jolla Drive/Nobel Drive • Villa La Jolla Drive/La Jolla Village Square • Villa La Jolla Drive/Via Mallorca • Villa La Jolla Drive/Gilman Drive

The traffic analysis concluded that these roadway segments and intersections along Villa La Jolla Drive would operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed project. No potentially significant traffic impacts were identified.

The segment of Villa La Jolla Drive, from Nobel Drive to Gilman Drive, includes four signalized intersections (Villa La Jolla/Nobel, Villa La Jolla/La Jolla Village Square, Villa La Jolla/Via Mallorca, and Villa La Jolla/Gilman) that currently provide protected pedestrian crossing via signalized crosswalks. Upon implementation of the Super Loop project, these four intersections would continue to provide safe pedestrian crossing of Villa La Jolla Drive. No associated traffic hazard impacts would occur.

E5. Turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive would eliminate the proposed Super Loop station near the intersection of Gilman Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive. Projection of ridership at the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station shows strong demand. This station would serve residential neighborhoods south of Nobel Drive, which creates this demand.

In addition to providing service to these residential neighborhoods, operational analyses comparing the preferred alignment using Villa La Jolla Drive, south of Nobel Drive, to Gilman Drive with alternate alignments using the segment of Villa La Jolla Drive, north of Nobel Drive, show that the proposed Super Loop alignment avoids heavy traffic on Villa La Jolla Drive on the approach to La Jolla Village Drive. Measurements of travel time on the preferred alignment turning south on Villa La Jolla Drive showed a time savings of approximately 1 minute compared to turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive. This time savings benefits all passengers of the Super Loop route.

RTC-7 COMMENTS RESPONSES

F1. The Draft ND/IS did not identify any potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from Super Loop operations.

F2. As discussed in Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, in the Draft ND/IS, the proposed project’s impact on surrounding roadway segments was evaluated in a project-specific traffic analysis (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006). This analysis evaluated traffic conditions under existing, near-term (year 2010), and buildout (year 2030) conditions at surrounding roadway segments and intersections, including (among others) Villa La Jolla Drive. Specifically, the following roadway segments and intersections along Villa La Jolla Drive were analyzed:

• Villa La Jolla Drive, between Nobel Drive and Via Mallorca • Villa La Jolla Drive, between Via Mallorca and Gilman Drive • Villa La Jolla Drive/Nobel Drive • Villa La Jolla Drive/La Jolla Village Square F1 • Villa La Jolla Drive/Via Mallorca • Villa La Jolla Drive/Gilman Drive

The traffic analysis concluded that these roadway segments and intersections along Villa F2 La Jolla Drive would operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed project. No potentially significant traffic impacts were assessed.

As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or Federal Transit Administration noise significance criteria. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

The Draft ND/IS, in Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, states that the project would displace two on-street parking spaces along Villa La Jolla Drive, which would not result in significant parking impacts.

RTC-8 COMMENTS RESPONSES

G1. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of G1 San Diego or FTA noise significance criteria. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

G2 Issue 3, Air Quality, in the Draft ND/IS concludes that vehicular emissions associated with Super Loop buses would not violate air quality standards or expose sensitive receptors to harmful quantities of air pollution.

G2. The route is designed to serve many different markets in addition to UCSD students. Providing new useful service to residential communities and linking them to activity centers was a major consideration in the planning of the route.

RTC-9 COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-10 COMMENTS RESPONSES

H1. The route alignment was selected by carefully balancing access to activity centers and H1 residential communities and directness of the routing. The UCSD East Campus station was relocated to provide a closer connection to UCSD Thornton Medical Center. Additional deviation of the route to serve the La Jolla Colony area was deemed to add significant travel time that would limit the attractiveness of the route. H2 H2. Stations are being designed to include elements such as lighting for safety, comfortable and accessible seating, and variable message signs for passenger information. While fare levels have yet to be determined, scaling fares to be appropriate to the length of the trip will be a factor as the fare level is determined.

RTC-11 COMMENTS RESPONSES

I1 I1. The route is designed to serve many different markets in addition to UCSD students, faculty, and staff. Providing new useful service to residential communities and linking them to activity centers was a major consideration in the planning of the route.

RTC-12 COMMENTS RESPONSES

J1. The Super Loop route, as proposed, would extend along Gilman Drive, from Villa La Jolla J1 Drive to the UCSD campus. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA noise significance criteria. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

J2 J2. The Draft ND/IS states that proposed buses would be fueled by alternative fuels like compressed natural gas (CNG) or alternative hybrid propulsion technology, which emit lower noise levels than diesel buses previously used by UCSD in this area.

RTC-13 COMMENTS RESPONSES

K1. The Super Loop would operate seven days a week between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with K1 peak period (Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) headways of 10 minutes and off-peak headways of 15 minutes.

As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA noise significance criteria. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur K2 upon implementation of the Super Loop project according to these established criteria.

K2. On-street parking on public streets is allowed along portions of the proposed route and is available to the public. The Super Loop is not intended to provide a “park-and-ride” facility, whereby motorists park along neighboring streets and within private parking lots, and use K3 the bus service to the UCSD campus. Students, faculty and staff who utilize on-street and private parking to avoid permit parking on the UCSD campus are subject to applicable parking regulations.

K3. Turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive would eliminate the proposed Super Loop station near the intersection of Gilman Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive. Projection of ridership at the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station shows strong demand. This station would serve residential neighborhoods south of Nobel Drive, which creates this demand.

RTC-14 COMMENTS RESPONSES

K3 In addition to providing service to these residential neighborhoods, operational analyses Cont. comparing the preferred alignment using Villa La Jolla Drive, south of Nobel Drive, to Gilman Drive with alternate alignments using the segment of Villa La Jolla Drive, north of Nobel Drive, show that the proposed Super Loop alignment avoids heavy traffic on Villa La Jolla Drive on the approach to La Jolla Village Drive. Measurements of travel time on the preferred alignment turning south on Villa La Jolla Drive showed a time savings of approximately 1 minute compared to turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive. This time savings benefits all passengers of the Super Loop route.

RTC-15 COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-16 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L1. In accordance with Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) L1 Guidelines, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Negative Declaration was provided to the public and appropriate public agencies and organizations. Additionally, the NOI was published in the San Diego Union Tribune, North County Times, Asian Journal, and San Diego Voice on Monday, March 19, 2007.

L2 L2. The NOI and Draft ND/IS were distributed to the University Community Planning Group (UCPG) Chairperson. See response number 1 above. At the request of the UCPG, SANDAG made a presentation to the UCPG on May 8, 2007 to update the UCPG on the status of project. Also in response to a UCPG request, SANDAG extended the public review comment L3 period of the Draft ND/IS to allow more time for comment. The 30-day public review period was extended twice for a total of 58 days.

L3. Comment noted. Public open house meetings were conducted with appropriate advanced noticing to solicit community input. L4 L4. Comment noted and is included in the administrative record as part of the Final ND. No response is required, as the comment does not raise a specific issue regarding the potential environmental effects of the project.

L5 L5. See response number 1 above.

L6 L6. As indicated in response number 1 above, notice of the Draft ND/IS was in compliance with CEQA.

L7 L7. Figure 2 has been corrected. This graphic clarification does not affect the conclusions in the Draft ND/IS.

RTC-17 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L7 Cont.

L8. Land use information was obtained from the City of San Diego Land Use Map from April L8 2004. Although not shown as residential uses in the referenced figure, the traffic analysis accounts for this residential area.

L9 L9. The Draft ND/IS states that residential developments within the project area generally are at higher densities.

L10. Super Loop buses would include features that are not typical of standard MTS buses, such as an alternative seat layout, enhanced wheelchair access (wider aisles), distinct coloration and L10 branding. Super Loop buses would be 35 to 40 feet in length. Standard MTS buses are 40 feet long, and articulated buses are 60 feet long. Additionally, possible use of CNG/hybrid technology is a unique feature.

L11. The Super Loop project has a goal to procure 35-foot-long vehicles, shorter than standard 40-foot vehicles. L11

L12 L12. The identification of the branding and color schemes of Super Loop buses continues. Comment noted and is included in the administrative record as part of the Final ND. No response is required, as the comment does not raise a specific issue regarding the potential environmental effects of the project.

RTC-18 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L13. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard L13 practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Once the TNM is calibrated, the number of proposed Super Loop buses L14 is added to the existing average daily traffic volume, and future sound levels “with” and “without” the proposed project are calculated. Traffic volumes used in the noise analysis were obtained from the traffic study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006), which accounted for traffic when UCSD was in session. Therefore, the noise analysis reflects noise conditions when UCSD is in session. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the L15 project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

L16 L14. Traffic volumes used in the noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) were obtained from the Traffic Study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006). The traffic study took into account the extension of Judicial Drive for the near-term (year 2010) and buildout (year 2030) analyses. Therefore, associated vehicular noise was evaluated in the noise analysis.

L17 L15. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Noise near the vicinity of each proposed station was modeled to account for L18 the noise associated with buses accelerating from a full stop position under current roadway parameters along the travel route. Because acceleration is the main noise source associated with bus operation and existing road parameters that affect vehicular noise generation will not change as a result of the project, noise along the travel route would be equal to or less than that at the bus stations. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA noise significance criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria. L19 L16. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Once the TNM is calibrated, the number of proposed Super Loop buses

RTC-19 COMMENTS RESPONSES

is added to the existing average daily traffic volume, and future sound levels “with” and “without” the proposed project are calculated. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

Figure 1 in the Noise Analysis (Kimley Horn and Associates 2006) has been revised to indicate the correct location of ML12, which is a representative sensitive location along the bus route.

L17. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Noise near the vicinity of each proposed station was modeled to account for the noise associated with buses accelerating from a full stop position. Near the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station, the grade of Villa La Jolla Drive and associated noise due to vehicle acceleration and deceleration was factored into the model. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria. L18. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA noise significance criteria. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

L19. The Draft ND/IS and noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) acknowledge that existing noise levels at 9 of the 14 modeled locations along the Super Loop route currently exceed the City of San Diego guideline of 65 dBA CNEL. A significant impact is assessed if the project would add 3 dBA or more to existing levels at locations where existing noise levels already exceed City thresholds. Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS, states that the project would not increase existing noise levels at any of these locations under all modeled scenarios (existing plus project, 2010 plus project and 2030 plus project). Therefore, no significant project or cumulative noise impacts would occur.

RTC-20 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L19 Cont.

L20. The study of parking occupancy covers the time periods when parking occupancy is highest and when concerns about parking availability are correspondingly high. L20

L21. It is acknowledged that multiple user groups use parking on Gilman Drive, residents and L21 non-residents alike. Also, 32% of the parking spaces are used by vehicles parked for 10 hours or more, with most of them present before 7:30 a.m.

L22. The data support the conclusion that multiple user groups use parking on Gilman. This area, L22 however, does have a relatively low rate of “new arrivals” in the morning hours between 7:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. (6% or less within each 30 minute period). Occupancy is already high by 7:30 a.m. Nonetheless, there are vehicles that leave in the morning to leave open spaces by the afternoon. This could include a combination of both residents and non-resident users.

L23. The data support the conclusion that multiple user groups use parking on Gilman Drive. L23 The report also acknowledges the low occupancy of on-street parking spaces at 7:00 p.m. and afterward. While the extent of non-resident use could be highlighted, the solutions to parking occupancy are the same.

L24 L24. Comment noted and is included in the administrative record as part of the Final ND. No response is required, as the comment does not raise a specific issue regarding the potential L25 environmental effects of the project.

L25. It is acknowledged that a combination of UCSD students and staff are observed using parking spaces. Longer term occupancy by residents is also observed.

RTC-21 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L25 Cont.

L26. The parking study presents a balanced analysis that multiple user groups utilize parking in L26 the study area.

L27. The intersections of Gilman Drive/Morning Way and Gilman Drive/EB La Jolla Village Drive L27 were not analyzed because traffic on Gilman Drive does not stop and there are no plans to change the control at these intersections.

L28 L28. The MTS 48/49 is acknowledged as a new route since the original traffic impact report was prepared. Many of the conditions at the time of the original study are still relevant, especially since the 48/49 absorbed many route segments once part of other routes. The focus of the traffic report is on the flow of traffic on roadway segments and through intersections in L29 the study area. As such, it focuses on vehicle movements, including the bus movements documented at the time of the study.

L29. The route is designed to serve many different markets in addition to UCSD students, faculty, and staff. L30 L30. It is still anticipated that MTS routes 48/49 will be modified before the implementation of the Super Loop route. The plan for the Super Loop did precede planning for the MTS 48/49 and coordination between MTS and SANDAG are ongoing.

L31. The traffic impact study accounted for the size of the buses in analyzing traffic volumes on L31 roadway sections and through intersections. Traffic priority treatments are incorporated into the project to improve traffic flows.

RTC-22 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L31 Cont.

L32 L32. Providing safe turning movements of buses were accounted for in the planning for the alignment and the locations of stops and stations.

L33. While fare levels have yet to be determined, scaling fares to be appropriate to the length of the trip will be a factor as the fare level is determined. Special fare programs are also still under consideration and will be planned to be open to participation by residential communities.

L33

RTC-23 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L34. The Super Loop project would serve local residents, employees and visitors by providing transit service to major activity centers in the area. Residents would be afforded the same L34 opportunities to utilize the Super Loop as other intended users. The Draft ND/IS concluded that no significant traffic, noise or parking impacts would occur as a result of the project (see Issue 11, Noise, and Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, in the Draft ND/IS).

On-street parking on public streets is allowed along portions of the proposed route and is available to the public. The Super Loop is not intended to provide a “park-and-ride” facility, whereby motorists park along neighboring streets and within private parking lots, and use the bus service to the UCSD campus or local businesses. Students, faculty and staff who utilize L35 on-street and private parking to avoid permit parking on the UCSD campus are subject to applicable parking regulations.

The parking analysis does acknowledge that there are both resident and non-resident users of curb (on-street) parking spaces. Several strategies are recommended as ways to address high on-street parking occupancy. L36 L35. See response numbers 13 through 32 above.

L36. See response number 1 above.

L37 L37. See response number 33 above.

L38. Comment noted and is included in the administrative record as part of the Final ND. No response is required, as the comment does not raise a specific issue regarding the potential L38 environmental effects of the project.

L39. Coordination between MTS and SANDAG is ongoing. L39 L40. Improvements associated with the Super Loop can indeed benefit other routes in the area. L40

L41. Comment noted and is included in the administrative record as part of the Final ND. No L41 response is required, as the comment does not raise a specific issue regarding the potential environmental effects of the project.

RTC-24 COMMENTS RESPONSES

L41 Cont.

RTC-25 COMMENTS RESPONSES

M1. The Draft ND/IS concluded that no significant traffic, noise or parking impacts would occur as a result of the project (see Issue 11, Noise, and Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic in the Draft ND/IS). As indicated in Issue 16, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft ND/IS, trash receptacles would be provided at proposed Super Loop stations. Maintenance and collection of trash at the stations will be provided either by MTS or through a private contractor. M1 M2. The recommended noise attenuation retrofits are not required as mitigation because no significant noise impacts to residents within the Villa Mallorca complex would occur as a result of the proposed project. See Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS.

M3. Figure 2 of the Draft ND/IS has been revised to clearly identify this neighborhood as multi- M2 family residential.

M4. Turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive would eliminate the proposed Super Loop station near the intersection of Gilman Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive. Projection of ridership at M3 the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station shows strong demand. This station would serve residential neighborhoods south of Nobel Drive, which creates this demand.

In addition to providing service to these residential neighborhoods, operational analyses comparing the preferred alignment using Villa La Jolla Drive, south of Nobel Drive, to Gilman Drive with alternate alignments using the segment of Villa La Jolla Drive, north M4 of Nobel Drive, show that the proposed Super Loop alignment avoids heavy traffic on Villa La Jolla Drive on the approach to La Jolla Village Drive. Measurements of travel time on the preferred alignment turning south on Villa La Jolla Drive showed a time savings of approximately 1 minute compared to turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive. This time savings benefits all passengers of the Super Loop route.

Evaluation of project alternatives is not required in the ND, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Analysis of project alternatives is required when preparing an Environmental Impact Report with the purpose of identifying a reasonable range of alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines). The project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and thus a ND was prepared.

RTC-26 COMMENTS RESPONSES

M4 Cont.

RTC-27 COMMENTS RESPONSES

N1. The traffic study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006) included both the Regents Road bridge improvement and Genesee Avenue widening under the 2030 conditions. The intersection in question is Genesee Avenue and Nobel Drive and specifically the intersection N1 geometrics on the south leg (the leg that would be affected by widening). Currently, the existing northbound leg widens at the intersection and includes dual left turn lanes, two through lanes and one right turn lane. This lane configuration is the same that is assumed in the analysis of 2010 and 2030 conditions. Therefore, whether or not Genesee Road, south of Nobel Drive, is widened, the intersection lane geometrics will not change. Without road widening, the geometrics remain the same as the existing condition. With road widening, N2 the third northbound lane would end at Nobel Drive and would become the right-turn lane, which would be the same as the existing geometrics.

N3 N2. Table 10 in the Draft ND/IS has been revised accordingly.

N3. See response number 1 above.

N4 N4. Text will be revised in the final traffic report.

N5 N5. Text will be revised in the final traffic report.

RTC-28 COMMENTS RESPONSES

N6. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. N6 N7. Volumes shown for this intersection in Figure 2.13 are incorrect. Correct volumes were used N7 in the analysis and the results of the analysis are reported correctly in Table 2.2. N8. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. N8 N9. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. N9 N10. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. We understand that the Regents Road Bridge N10 improvements have been combined into NUC-18. N11. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. We understand that the Regents Road Bridge N11 improvements have been combined into NUC-18.

N12. See response number 1 above. N12 N13. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. We understand that the Regents Road Bridge N13 improvements have been combined into NUC-18. N14. The location of the transit center at Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive is not N14 finalized.

N15. Text will be revised in the final traffic report. N15 N16. The additional time necessary for the bus to move forward and get ahead of traffic is generally N16 3 – 5 seconds. A conservative time of 6 seconds was used in the traffic analysis. Per discussions with City of San Diego, queue jump cycles were modeled with 7 seconds of green time instead of 6 seconds. The results, which are summarized in a memo immediately following this letter, show no significant impacts during any of the near-term or long-term conditions at N17 the intersections of Nobel Drive at Genesee Avenue, Nobel Drive at Costa Verde Boulevard, Nobel Drive at Regents Road, and Nobel Drive at La Jolla Village Square.

N17. Text will be revised in the final traffic report.

RTC-29 COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-30 RESPONSES RESPONSES

Nobel Dr. and Genesee Ave. Without Project With With Weighted Average Change No Q-J Cycle Q-J Cycle In Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay (sec) Condition LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) Sig? 2010 AM F 89.8 F 90.1 F 93.8 F 91.0 1.2 No MEMORANDUM 2010 PM F83.8F84.6F87.1F85.2 1.4 No 2030 AM F101.6F101.9F106.9F103.1 1.5 No 2030 PM E 65.1 E 65.8 E 69.1 E 66.6 1.5 No Date: July 13, 2007 To: Christine Rychel, SANDAG From: Joe De La Garza, P.E., KOA Corporation Table 5.2 Nobel Dr. and Costa Verda Blvd. Re: Super Loop Transit Project - Responses to Comments (Queue Jump Analysis) Without Project With With Weighted Average Change No Q-J Cycle Q-J Cycle In Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay (sec) As part of the review of the Draft Negative Declaration, the City of San Diego commented on Condition LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) Sig? 2010 AM D47.1D44.5D47.8D45.7 -1.4 No the traffic analysis. The comment addressed by this memo is the following: “Page 83, 5.31 2010 PM D 50.9 D 46.1 D 48.8 D 47.5 -3.5 No Nobel Drive at Genesee Avenue, it is more realistic to model the queue jump cycle phase using 2030 AM D44.3D40.5D 44D41.8 -2.5 No 2030 PM D 48.4 D 43 D 46.7 D 44.9 -3.6 No an additional eight-seconds rather than six-seconds.” Table 5.3 The traffic analysis utilized 6 seconds for the cycle for the queue jump phase at all of the Nobel Dr. and Regents Rd. proposed queue jump locations. The traffic operations analysis resulted in no significant impacts Without Project With With Weighted Average Change No Q-J Cycle Q-J Cycle In Delay at the intersections with the queue jump. In response to the City’s comments, and through Delay Delay Delay Delay (sec) follow-up discussions with the City, a queue jump cycle of 7 seconds was agreed to be analyzed. Condition LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) Sig? 2010 AM C32.6C32.7D36.1C33.3 0.7 No Based on the City’s current experience with existing queue jump locations, the 7 seconds is a 2010 PM E 67.7 E 66.5 E 68.6 E 67.0 -0.7 No more realistic time for the phase. 2030 AM C32.2C31.7D35.9C32.7 0.5 No 2030 PM E73.2E70.3E74.3E71.3 -1.9 No The new queue jump cycle time was modeled for the four queue jump locations of Nobel Drive Table 5.4 at Genesee Avenue; Nobel Drive at Costa Verde Boulevard; Nobel Drive at Regents Road; and Nobel Dr. and La Jolla Village Sq. Nobel Drive at La Jolla Village Square. The attached tables show the results of the analysis for Without Project With With Weighted Average Change No Q-J Cycle Q-J Cycle In Delay each intersection under the near-term (2010) and long-term (2030) conditions. The attached Delay Delay Delay Delay (sec) tables correspond to the tables in the traffic study. As shown in the tables, with the increase in Condition LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) LOS (sec) Sig? the queue jump cycle time, there are no significant impacts. 2010 AM B 19.1 B 17.2 B 17.8 B 17.4 -1.7 No 2010 PM D40.8D35.6D36.1D35.9 -5.0 No 2030 AM C21.5B19.3C20.1C19.6 -1.9 No 2030 PM D45.6D38.3D42.7D40.5 -5.1 No

Queue Jump Analysis (7 sec) Memo 7-12-07

RTC-31 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O1. The comment provides background information for the subsequent comments. No response is required, as the comment does not raise a specific issue regarding potential environmental effects of the project. O1

RTC-32 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O1 Cont.

RTC-33 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O2. Evaluation of project alternatives is not required in the ND, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Analysis of project alternatives is required when preparing an Environmental O2 Impact Report with the purpose of identifying a reasonable range of alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts (Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines). The project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, and thus a ND was prepared.

O3. Turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive would eliminate the proposed Super Loop station near the intersection of Gilman Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive. Projection of ridership at the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station shows strong demand. This station would serve residential neighborhoods south of Nobel Drive, which creates this demand.

In addition to providing service to these residential neighborhoods, operational analyses comparing the preferred alignment using Villa La Jolla Drive, south of Nobel Drive, to Gilman Drive with alternate alignments using the segment of Villa La Jolla Drive, north of Nobel Drive, show that the proposed Super Loop alignment avoids heavy traffic on Villa La Jolla Drive on the approach to La Jolla Village Drive. Measurements of travel time on the preferred alignment turning south on Villa La Jolla Drive showed a time savings of O3 approximately 1 minute compared to turning north on Villa La Jolla Drive. This time savings benefits all passengers of the Super Loop route.

RTC-34 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O4. Cumulative traffic impacts were analyzed in the traffic report (STV/Katz Okitsu and O4 Associates 2006) and the Draft ND/IS. The traffic analysis accounted for existing and future vehicular trips, including buses. The analysis concluded that no cumulatively considerable traffic impacts would occur. See Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic in the Draft ND/IS.

O5. Cumulative traffic impacts were analyzed in the traffic report (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006) and the Draft ND/IS. The traffic analysis evaluated near-term (year 2010) and buildout (year 2030) traffic conditions in the project area that accounted for other planned and/or approved projects in the project area. The analysis concluded that no cumulatively considerable traffic impacts would occur. See Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic in the Draft ND/IS.

The Draft ND also addresses cumulative noise impacts resulting from the project. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would O5 increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noise significance criteria. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) and Draft ND/IS state that 9 of the modeled 14 noise measurement locations currently exceed the City of San Diego’s threshold of 65 dBA CNEL. In accordance with City thresholds, a significant cumulative impact is assessed if the project would increase existing noise levels by at least 3 dBA at these locations. The project would not increase existing levels at any of these locations and thus, no cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project according this established criterion.

The Draft ND/IS concluded that the project would not result in any significant parking O6 impacts. See Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic in the Draft ND/IS. The project would not displace any housing or induce population growth. Thus, no cumulatively considerable population/housing impacts would occur. See Issue 12, Population and Housing, in the Draft ND/IS.

Issue 3, Air Quality, in the Draft ND/IS concludes that no cumulatively considerable air O7 quality impacts would occur based on supporting data presented in the air quality technical report (Scientific Resources Associated 2006), which is summarized in the referenced section of the Draft ND/IS.

The traffic analysis (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006) accounted for future vehicular trips, including buses and concluded that no cumulatively considerable traffic impacts would occur. See Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic in the Draft ND/IS.

RTC-35 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O6. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Once the TNM is calibrated, the number of proposed Super Loop buses is added to the existing average daily traffic volume, and future sound levels “with” and “without” the proposed project are calculated. Traffic volumes used in the noise analysis were obtained from the traffic study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006), which accounted for traffic when UCSD was in session. Therefore, the noise analysis reflects noise conditions when UCSD is in session. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

O7. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM). The TNM was calibrated using actual traffic counts taken during the peak noise vehicular traffic period, and noise measurements conducted at noise-sensitive areas adjacent to proposed Super Loop stations. Noise near the vicinity of each proposed station was modeled to account for the noise associated with buses accelerating from a full stop position. Near the proposed Gilman/Villa La Jolla station, the grade of Villa La Jolla Drive and associated noise due to vehicle acceleration and deceleration was factored into the model. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, of the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA significance noise criteria. No significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

RTC-36 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O8. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) accurately depicts the noise O8 environmental along the proposed route. Only one sound level measurement per measurement location is needed to calibrate the noise model. Once the model is calibrated, noise levels are calculated by adding the number of proposed Super Loop buses to the existing average daily traffic volume, and comparing future sound levels “with” and “without” the proposed project. Traffic volumes used in the noise study were obtained from the traffic study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006) and include all existing and future forecasted traffic volumes, which do account for traffic volumes at the two shopping centers. O9 O9. The modeled sound levels identified in Tables 5 through 8 in the noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) are representative of the roadway segments along the entire alignment. The analysis assumed that existing roadway parameters that affect vehicle noise generation will not change as a result of the project.

O10. The 65-dBA noise standard is measured in terms of the average sound level over a 24-hour period. The 80-dBA goal for buses is measured in terms of the maximum sound level at a O10 distance of 50 feet from the bus. These two noise measurements cannot be directly compared. Noise generated by the buses is factored into the 24-hour average noise level. This average sound level is used by the City of San Diego and the State of California to evaluate land use compatibility with transportation noise sources. As discussed in Issue 11, Noise, in the Draft ND/IS, noise levels in the project area would increase; however, the increase attributed to the project would not exceed applicable City of San Diego or FTA noise significance criteria. Thus, no significant noise impacts would occur according to these established criteria.

O11 O11. Noise mitigation is not required because no significant noise impacts would occur as a result of the project.

O12. The noise analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006) was conducted according to standard O12 practices of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology. The impact analysis was based on noise modeling, using the industry-accepted Transportation Noise Model (TNM), by adding the number of proposed Super Loop buses proposed to the existing average daily traffic volume and comparing future sound levels “with” and “without” the proposed project. FTA methodology and the TNM do not require evaluation of weekend conditions.

RTC-37 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O13. Section 2.5 of the traffic study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006) states that traffic O13 volumes collected when UCSD was not in session were adjusted to represent conditions when UCSD is in session.

O14. Weekday morning and afternoon peak periods experience higher amounts of traffic than weekends. The traffic study (STV/Katz Okitsu and Associates 2006) evaluates traffic O14 conditions during peak traffic periods, which include weekday mornings between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 .am., and weekday evenings between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Evaluation of weekend conditions is therefore, not necessary.

O15. On-street parking on public streets is allowed along portions of the proposed route and is available to the public. The Super Loop is not intended to provide a “park-and-ride” facility, whereby motorists park along neighboring streets and within private parking lots, and use O15 the bus service to the UCSD campus. Students, faculty and staff who utilize on-street and private parking to avoid permit parking on the UCSD campus are subject to applicable parking regulations.

O16. Parking mitigation is not required because no significant parking impacts would occur as a result of the project. See Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, in the Draft ND/IS.

O17. The parking study (STV 2006) evaluates parking conditions when parking demand is the highest, which occurs during weekdays. Consequently, the analysis represents conditions O16 when occupancy of on-street parking is highest. Evaluation of weekend conditions is not necessary.

O18. In accordance with City of San Diego CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and Caltrans Protocol, site-specific air quality measurements are only required at intersections that would be significantly impacted by the project. As discussed in Issue 15, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft ND/IS, the project would not significantly impact intersections in the project area. O17 Therefore, no site-specific air quality measurements are required.

All projects that are subject to permitting requirements under the San Diego APCD and O18 Environmental Protection Agency’s rules and regulations rely on background ambient air quality data collected at the monitoring stations operated by the San Diego APCD. It is not standard practice, nor is it required, to collect monitoring data at each project location. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) operates monitoring stations throughout San Diego County that provide information on background ambient levels of pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin. It is standard practice to identify the monitoring station that is closest to the project site as representative of conditions at the site. The San Diego APCD considers these data representative of air quality conditions in the region, and does not require monitoring data to be collected on a project-specific basis.

RTC-38 COMMENTS RESPONSES

O18 Cont.

O19. Conservative assumptions regarding the construction schedule were used for the purpose of calculating emissions during project construction, and represent worst-case conditions. O19 Using these assumptions, project construction would not result in any significant air quality impacts. The actual construction schedule has not been determined, but SANDAG and their contractors will work to implement a schedule to further reduce construction emissions.

O20. The Super Loop would include 3 stops within the UCSD campus, as shown on Figure 3 in the O20 Draft ND/IS.

O21. This comment is noted and is included in the administrative record as part of the Final ND. The comment makes a conclusion with no supporting analysis or substantial evidence. Data O21 collected and utilized in the analysis of project effects was conducted in accordance with industry-accepted methodology and practices. No further response is required.

O22. Maintenance of the stations will be provided either by MTS or through a private contractor. While fare levels have yet to be determined, scaling fares to be appropriate to the length of O22 the trip will be a factor as the fare level is determined.

RTC-39 COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-40 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-41 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-42 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-43 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-44 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-45 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-46 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-47 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-48 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-49 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-50 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-51 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-52 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-53 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-54 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-55 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-56 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-57 COMMENTS - APPENDIX A COMMENTS - APPENDIX A

RTC-58 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-59 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-60 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-61 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-62 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-63 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-64 COMMENTS - APPENDIX B COMMENTS - APPENDIX B

RTC-65 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-66 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-67 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-68 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-69 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-70 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-71 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-72 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-73 COMMENTS - APPENDIX C COMMENTS - APPENDIX C

RTC-74 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-75 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-76 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-77 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-78 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-79 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-80 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-81 COMMENTS - APPENDIX D COMMENTS - APPENDIX D

RTC-82 COMMENTS - APPENDIX E COMMENTS - APPENDIX E

RTC-83 COMMENTS - APPENDIX E COMMENTS - APPENDIX E

RTC-84 COMMENTS - APPENDIX E COMMENTS - APPENDIX E

RTC-85

San Diego Association of Governments

FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

PROJECT TITLE: Super Loop Transit Project

LEAD AGENCY: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)

PROJECT SPONSOR: SANDAG

PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located in the University City Community of San Diego, extending along segments of Nobel Drive, Judicial Drive, Executive Drive, Regents Road, Health Sciences Drive, Medical Center Drive, Campus Point Drive, Voigt Drive, Gilman Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive, connecting the major activity centers in the University Town Center/University of California San Diego (UTC/UCSD) area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SANDAG proposes the implementation of the Super Loop Transit Project in the University City community within the City of San Diego. The project entails the implementation of an 8.0-mile bus route that would include up to 15 new bus stations, transit priority features, improvements at select intersections, and deployment of specialized buses. The proposed Super Loop route would extend along Nobel Drive between Judicial Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive between Nobel Drive and Gilman Drive, Gilman Drive between Villa La Jolla Drive and Voigt Drive, Voigt Drive between Gilman Drive and Campus Point Drive, Campus Point Drive between Voigt Drive and Medical Center Drive, Medical Center Drive between Campus Point Drive and Health Sciences Drive, Health Sciences Drive between Medical Center Drive and Regents Road, Regents Road between Health Sciences Drive and Executive Drive, Executive Drive between Regents Road and Judicial Drive, and Judicial Drive between Executive Drive and Nobel Drive. The proposed route would traverse a portion of the UCSD campus.

A total of up to 15 Super Loop stations would be constructed along the proposed route largely within existing road rights-of-way and accessible via the main travel lanes. Stations have been designed to efficiently load and unload transit riders through innovative station treatments, such as raised curbs, extended station platforms and designated running ways. Seating, shelters, planters, lighting and other transit furnishings also would be provided at the proposed stations.

Specialized buses would be procured and utilized for the Super Loop route that would provide swift loading of passengers while accommodating the ridership capacity expected for the route. Super Loop buses would be approximately 35 to 40 feet long with two doors that would allow multiple streams of passenger loading, enhanced wheelchair access, and an alternative seat layout to facilitate passenger movement. The vehicles would have Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or CNG- Hybrid propulsion technology and would emit low levels of air pollutants and noise.

In order for the proposed Super Loop to operate effectively and safely, several traffic control improvements are proposed along the route within the City of San Diego and the UCSD campus. These proposed improvements would consist of signal prioritization, installation of new traffic signals, installation of pedestrian crossings, removal of existing stop signs, lane re-striping and the addition of new travel and queue jumper lanes.

o o o o San Diego Association of Governments o O FINDIItIGS o SANDAG finds that Super Loop Transit Project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the o environment for the following reasons: o a. The proposed project would be consistent with existing land uses and applicable land use o plans, policies and regulations. o o b. The proposed project will not violate any air quality standard, or substantially contribute to O an existing or projected air quality violation. o c. The proposed project will have no effect on fish and wildlife including endangered and/or o sensitive species, sensitive vegetation communitiet wetlands and riparian habitat. o d. The proposed project will not generate significant noise levels in the project area during o either the construction or operational phases of the project. o e. The proposed project would comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System o (NPDES) guidelines for municipal storm water runoff in accordance with the San Diego o RegionalWater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. 2001-01. O t. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agriculture o resources, air quality, biological resourcet cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and o hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resourcet o noise, population and housing, public servicet recreation, transportationltraffig and utilities o and service systems. o g. The proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with light and glarg o air quality, water quality, and noise. None of these.potential impactt however, would be o considered significant due to their incremental and/or short-term nature. o THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS ATTACHED. o o Form Prepared By: o Rob Rundle, Principal Regional Planner SANDAG o 401 B Street o San Diego, CA 92101 o Phone: (519) 699-6949; E-mail: [email protected] o o O o o O o O a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 1

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 1 Environmental Setting ...... 1 Construction Schedule...... 32 Project Approval...... 32

III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 33

IV. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the lead agency) ...... 33

V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 34

1. Aesthetics...... 34 2. Agricultural Resources ...... 36 3. Air Quality...... 37 4. Biological Resources ...... 41 5. Cultural Resources ...... 43 6. Geology And Soils ...... 44 7. Hazards And Hazardous Materials...... 46 8. Hydrology And Water Quality...... 49 9. Land Use And Planning...... 52 10. Mineral Resources ...... 53 11. Noise...... 54 12. Population And Housing...... 58 13. Public Services...... 59 14. Recreation...... 60 15. Transportation/Traffic...... 61 16. Utilities And Service Systems ...... 73 17. Mandatory Findings Of Significance ...... 75

VI. ND DISTRIBUTION LIST ...... 77

VII. REFERENCES ...... 79

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Regional Location Map ...... 3 2. Project Route Map ...... 4 3. Proposed Super Loop Features ...... 5 4. Typical Conceptual Station Design ...... 6 5. Conceptual Island Station Design ...... 7 6. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Lombard Place...... 10 7. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Genesee ...... 11 8. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Costa Verde Boulevard/Cargill Avenue...... 12 9. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Regents Road...... 13 10. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Lebon Drive ...... 14 11. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at La Jolla Village Square Driveway ...... 15 12. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Villa La Jolla...... 16 13. Proposed Improvements – Gilman Drive at Villa La Jolla Drive...... 17 14. Proposed Improvements – Gilman Drive at UCSD Transit Hub...... 18 15. Proposed Improvements – Voigt Drive at Scripps Hospital...... 19 16. Proposed Improvements – Health Sciences Drive ...... 20 17. Proposed Improvements – Executive Drive at Regents Park Row...... 21 18. Proposed Improvements – Executive Drive and Executive Way...... 22 19. Proposed Improvements – Judicial Drive at Executive Drive ...... 23 20. Proposed Improvements – Judicial Drive at Golden Haven Drive/Brooke Lane...... 24 21. Proposed Improvements – Judicial Drive at Research Place...... 25 22. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Future Nobel Drive Coaster Station ...... 26 23. Proposed Improvements – Nobel Drive at Towne Center Drive ...... 27

LIST OF TABLES

1. Proposed Super Loop Stations and Locations ...... 8 2. Proposed Queue Jumper Lanes and Locations ...... 28 3. Proposed New Lane Locations ...... 29 4. Summary of Proposed Super Loop Improvements ...... 30 5. Estimated Construction Emissions ...... 38 6. Estimated Operational Emissions...... 40 7. LUFT and UST Sites in the Project Vicinity...... 48 8. Summary of Noise Impacts Based on City of San Diego Criteria ...... 55 9. Summary of Noise Impacts Based on FTA Criteria...... 57 10. 2010 Roadway Improvements...... 64 11. Summary of Near-term Intersection Operations ...... 66 12. 2030 Roadway Improvements...... 69 13. Summary of Buildout Intersection Operations ...... 71

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

I. PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Super Loop Transit Project

2. Lead Agency Name/Address: San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231

3. Contact Person/Phone Number: Rob Rundle Principal Regional Planner (619) 699-6949

4. Project Location: In the University City Community of San Diego, extending along segments of Nobel Drive, Judicial Drive, Executive Drive, Regents Road, Health Sciences Drive, Medical Center Drive, Campus Point Drive, Voigt Drive, Gilman Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive, connecting the major activity centers in the University Town Center/University of California (UTC/UCSD) area

5. Project Sponsor’s Name/Address: The same as lead agency

6. General Plan Designation: Residential-1, -3, -4, and –5 Commercial: Community, and Regional Industrial: Scientific Research Public/Semi-Public: Neighborhood Park, Sports Complex, Open Space, Institutional, School, Fire/Police

7. Zoning: Route passes through residential (RM-3-7, RM-2-5, RM-3-9, RM-4-10, and RS-1-14) and commercial (CC-1-3, CN-1-2, CV-1-1, CO-1-2) zones

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Environmental Setting

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) proposes the implementation of the Super Loop Transit Project in the University City community within the City of San Diego. The project entails the implementation of an 8.0-mile bus route that would include up to 15 new bus stations, transit priority features, improvements at select intersections, and deployment of specialized buses. The proposed Super Loop route would extend along Nobel Drive between Judicial Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive between Nobel Drive and Gilman Drive, Gilman Drive between Villa La Jolla Drive and Voigt Drive, Voigt Drive between Gilman Drive and Campus Point Drive, Campus Point Drive between Voigt Drive and Medical Center Drive, Medical Center Drive between Campus Point Drive and Health Sciences Drive, Health Sciences Drive between Medical Center Drive and

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 1

Regents Road, Regents Road between Health Sciences Drive and Executive Drive, Executive Drive between Regents Road and Judicial Drive, and Judicial Drive between Executive Drive and Nobel Drive (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed route would traverse a portion of the University of California San Diego (UCSD) campus.

The University community is characterized by high intensity mixed-use development anchored by the UCSD campus and the University Towne Centre regional shopping center. Research/corporate offices, medical centers and urban residential development also characterize the community. Land uses adjacent to the proposed Super Loop route include a mixture of higher density residential developments, neighborhood and regional shopping centers, high-rise hotels, high technology commercial office and industrial campuses, schools, hospitals and park areas. Interstates 5 and 805 also are located in the immediate project vicinity (Figure 2).

Project Characteristics

The Super Loop project would increase mobility for local residents, employees and visitors by providing connectivity between activity centers within the University community. Connections also would be provided to regional transit facilities, including regional bus routes, the future proposed Nobel Drive Coaster Station and the Mid-Coast Light Rail Extension. Proposed stations would be spaced approximately 0.5 mile apart within existing road rights-of-way to provide frequent, efficient transit service. With specialized vehicles, stations, and priority treatments (as described below), the Super Loop project would provide opportunities to increase transit ridership and reduce automobile trips within the area. Figure 3 illustrates the Super Loop and proposed project features.

The Super Loop would operate seven days a week between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with peak period (Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) headways of 10 minutes and off-peak headways of 15 minutes. A fleet of 10 buses would be required upon initial operation, with 8 (4 each direction) in service during peak periods and 6 (3 each direction) during off-peak periods. The total travel time to complete one non-stop loop would be approximately 30 minutes and 36 minutes with a layover at one of the stations. The average travel time for passengers is projected to be approximately 10 minutes.

Super Loop Stations

A total of up to 15 Super Loop stations would be constructed along the proposed route. Stations would be constructed largely within existing road rights-of-way and would be accessible via the main travel lanes. Most stations would consist of a 10-foot-wide parkway that would include a 6- foot-wide raised platform and a 4-foot-wide throughway area. Several stations would have a wider platform (two at 9 feet and one at 11 feet) while one station would consist of an 8-foot-wide island platform within Nobel Drive (westbound at its intersection with Regents Road). The stations would include seating, shelters, planters, lighting and other transit furnishings. Conceptual station designs are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. Proposed stations and their locations are listed below in Table 1.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE SAN DIEGO Vail Lake COUNTY COUNTY

Fallbrook A¨

O'Neill Lake Aª

Warner Springs

Camp Pendleton Lake Henshaw WÛ Oceanside !"^$ A©Vista Lake Wohlford

San Marcos Escondido Carlsbad Sutherland Lake San Marcos Reservoir !"a$ A©

A© Julian Encinitas Lake WÛ Hodges Lake Ramona Ramona Lake Poway ?z Solana Beach Poway Del Mar WÙ ?z56 San Vicente Reservoir San Diego Miramar Reservoir Project Site ?z El Capitan Reservoir

! Santee Lake Jennings %&s( Santee !"_$ ?h Lakes La Jolla Aª Pacific !"^$ AÒ Alpine El Cajon Ocean Aù Lake Murray A× !"_$ Loveland Reservoir La Mesa ?j A£ Lemon AÀ Grove !"a$ AÀ Coronado Sweetwater Barrett Lake Reservoir S a National n D City ?j i e g Otay Reservoir o Dulzura San Diego B a y Chula Vista %&s( Imperial !"^$ Otay Beach AÛ ES µ UNITED STAT MEXICO 8 4 0 8 Miles Tijuana I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Fig1_Regional.mxd -EV Regional Location Map SUPER LOOP Figure 1 Page 3 LEGEND University of California, San Diego

Campus Point Drive

Scripps Memorial %&s( Hospital

Voigt Drive

Medical Center Proposed Super Loop Route Drive La Jolla UCSD Medical Country Center Health Sciences Day School Drive Commercial Commercial Eastgate Mall

!"^$ Executive Drive Executive Way

Commercial Commercial

Regents Road La Jolla Village Drive

Genesee Avenue ve Villa La Jolla Drive ri Judicial Drive D en Industrial av H d n r University de a l v o e G l Multi Family u o Towne Center B

Residential e

d r

Nobel Drive e V

o C Multi Family La Jolla Park Residential Village Lebon Drive Cargill Avenue Multi Family Square Multi Family Towne Centre Drive Residential Residential Single Multi Family Family Residential Doyle Residential Multi Family Elementary School Residential

Gilman Drive

µ 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 Feet Job No: MTD-05.01 Date: 07/16/07 I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Fig2_Location(2).mxd -AI Project Route Map SUPER LOOP Figure 2

Page 4 1

1 This station may be relocated to the intersection of Costa Verde Blvd. and Nobel Drive.

Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\3 -EV Proposed Super Loop Features SUPER LOOP Figure 3 Page 5

Figure 1: 10-foot Parkway Six (6) foot raised platform with four (4) foot

Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures4&5.pmd\1 -EV Typical Conceptual Station Design SUPER LOOP Figure 4 Page 6 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures4&5.pmd\1 -EV Conceptual Island Station Design SUPER LOOP Figure 5 Page 7

Table 1 PROPOSED SUPER LOOP STATIONS AND LOCATIONS

Station Name Location University Towne Centre University Towne Centre Transit Center Nobel/Regents1 Nobel Drive @ Regents Road Nobel/Lebon Nobel Drive @ Lebon Drive La Jolla Village Square Nobel Drive @ La Jolla Village Square Driveway Gilman/Via La Jolla Gilman Drive @ Villa La Jolla Drive (south) UCSD/VA Medical Center Gilman Drive @ Russell Lane (future Gilman Transit Hub) Scripps Hospital Voigt Drive @ Scripps Hospital UCSD East Campus Medical Center Drive @ Health Sciences Drive Executive/Genesee Executive Drive @ Regents Park Row Executive Way Executive Drive @ Executive Way La Jolla Commons2 Judicial Drive @ Executive Drive Judicial/Golden Haven Judicial Drive @ Golden Haven Drive Nobel Park Judicial Drive @ Research Place Nobel Drive Coaster Station3 Nobel Drive between Shoreline Drive and Towne Centre Drive Nobel/Towne Centre Nobel Drive @ Towne Centre Drive 1 This station may be relocated to the intersection of Costa Verde Boulevard and Nobel Drive. 2 Station may potentially be built pending completion of the La Jolla Commons project. 3 Proposed station depending on the timeline for implementation of the Coaster Station at this site.

These specialized stations have been designed to efficiently load and unload transit riders through innovative station treatments, such as raised curbs, extended station platforms and designated running ways, as described below.

Raised Curbs

To allow for convenient and efficient boarding of passengers on and off transit vehicles, 10-inch- high raised curbs would be provided at Super Loop stations. Standard curbs have a height of six inches, which requires vehicles to be mechanically equipped to “kneel” to bring the door closer to the curb, or passengers must bridge the gap themselves. Not only is this inconvenient for transit passengers, especially those with mobility issues, it is very time consuming.

Extended Station Platforms

Extended station platforms would be constructed at Super Loop stations that would accommodate two or more transit vehicles simultaneously without compromising vehicle movements. These 70- foot-long extended platforms would serve Super Loop vehicles, as well as other area transit operators such as Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD) and UCSD shuttles.

Designated Running Ways

Concrete pads would be constructed at grade in the running ways at Super Loop stations and painted a distinctive color to designate them solely for transit vehicular use.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 8

Super Loop Transit Vehicles

Specialized vehicles (buses) would be procured and utilized for the Super Loop route. These buses would provide swift loading of passengers while accommodating the ridership capacity expected for the route. Super Loop vehicles would be approximately 35 to 40 feet long with two doors that would allow multiple streams of passenger loading, enhanced wheelchair access, and an alternative seat layout to facilitate passenger movement. The vehicles would emit low levels of air pollutants and noise. Vehicles are anticipated to have Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or CNG-Hybrid propulsion technology, as they are consistent with the existing MTS fleet and yard infrastructure. Vehicles would also be designed to reduce external noise with a goal of maximum external noise of 80 decibels (dBA) under full power acceleration.

Traffic Control Improvements

In order for the proposed Super Loop to operate effectively and safely, several traffic control improvements are proposed along the route within the City of San Diego and the UCSD campus. These improvements consist of signal prioritization, installation of new traffic signals, installation of pedestrian crossings, removal of existing stop signs, lane re-striping and the addition of new travel and queue jumper lanes (Figures 6 through 23). The following section describes the proposed traffic control improvements.

Signal Priority Treatments

Transit signal prioritization modifies the normal traffic signal operation process to improve transit reliability and schedule adherence, as well as increases transit operating speeds. Existing and proposed traffic signals along the Super Loop route would be coordinated and timed to ensure that transit vehicles would generally encounter the green light phase when running on schedule. Super Loop vehicles would also be equipped with transponders and receivers to give them priority at intersections when running behind schedule. This technology, known as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), allows the real-time collection and use of operational data to speed vehicles. For example, signals could be sent from Super Loop buses approaching traffic signals nearing the end of the green phase that would extend the phase until the bus travels through the intersection. Super Loop buses could also send signals that would shorten cross street phases to reduce delays at intersections.

New Traffic Signals

New traffic signals are proposed to be installed at key intersections along the proposed Super Loop route, including:

Nobel Drive/Lombard Place* Gilman Drive/Scholars Drive/Osler Lane (UCSD)* Gilman Drive/Myers Drive (UCSD) Gilman Drive/Russell Lane (UCSD) Voigt Drive/Scripps Hospital Bus Turnaround (UCSD) Executive Drive/Regents Park Row Executive Drive/Judicial Drive* Nobel Drive/Nobel Coaster Station* *Traffic signals are planned (by others) at these intersections regardless of the Super Loop project.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 9 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\3 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Lombard Place SUPER LOOP Figure 6 Page 10 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\7 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Genesee SUPER LOOP Figure 7 Page 11 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\8 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Costa Verde Boulevard/Cargill Avenue SUPER LOOP Figure 8 Page 12 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\9 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Regents Road SUPER LOOP Figure 9 Page 13 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\10 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Lebon Drive SUPER LOOP Figure 10 Page 14 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\11 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at La Jolla Village Square Driveway SUPER LOOP Figure 11 Page 15 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\12 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Villa La Jolla Drive SUPER LOOP Figure 12 Page 16 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\13 -EV Proposed Improvements - Gilman Drive at Villa La Jolla Drive SUPER LOOP Figure 13 Page 17 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\14 -EV Proposed Improvements - Gilman Drive at UCSD Gilman Transit Hub SUPER LOOP Figure 14 Page 18 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\10 -EV Proposed Improvements - Voigt Drive at Scripps Hospital SUPER LOOP Figure 15 Page 19 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\16 -EV Proposed Improvements - Health Sciences Drive SUPER LOOP Figure 16 Page 20 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\17 -EV Proposed Improvements - Executive Drive at Regents Park Row SUPER LOOP Figure 17 Page 21 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\18 -EV Proposed Improvements - Executive Drive and Executive Way SUPER LOOP Figure 18 Page 22 gp

Executive Drive @ Judicial Drive

• After completion of Judicial Drive north to Executive Drive, existing stop sign will be replace with stop light • La Jolla Commons Station will potentially be built south of intersection pending completion of La Jolla Commons project and negotiations with developer

Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\19 -EV Proposed Improvements - Judicial Drive at Executive Drive SUPER LOOP Figure 19 Page 23 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\10 -EV Proposed Improvements - Judicial Drive at Golden Haven Drive/Brooke Lane SUPER LOOP Figure 20 Page 24 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\21 -EV Proposed Improvements - Judicial Drive at Research Place SUPER LOOP Figure 21 Page 25 Nobel Drive @ Nobel Drive Coaster Station

• New signal to allow access to parking lot and to protect pedestrian crossings • Nobel Drive Coaster Station on N and S side of Nobel east of new signal • Station design and location tentative, will depend on timeline for implementation of Coaster Station at this site

Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\22 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Future Nobel Drive Coaster Station SUPER LOOP Figure 22 Page 26 Source: SANDAG (January, 2006) I:\ArcGIS\M\MTD-05.01 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\MND\Figures3-23.pmd\23 -EV Proposed Improvements - Nobel Drive at Towne Center Drive SUPER LOOP Figure 23 Page 27

Pedestrian Crossings

Protected pedestrian crossings are proposed at two locations within the UCSD campus to protect the large volume of pedestrian traffic, including:

Gilman Drive/ Library Walk (UCSD) Gilman Drive/Gilman Transit Hub (UCSD)

Stop Sign Removals

Several existing stop signs at intersections along the proposed route would be removed in conjunction with the proposed traffic control improvements (i.e., replaced with traffic signals or pedestrian crossings). Reducing the number of stop-controlled intersections along the Super Loop route would decrease overall transit travel time. The following stop signs are proposed for removal:

Gilman Drive/Scholars Drive/Osler Lane (UCSD) Gilman Drive/Eucalyptus Grove Lane (UCSD) Gilman Drive/Mandeville Lane (UCSD) Gilman Drive/Myers Drive (UCSD) Gilman Drive/Russell Lane (UCSD) Executive Drive/Judicial Drive

Queue Jumper Lanes

Queue jumper lanes allow buses to bypass long vehicular queues at congested intersections by utilizing an exclusive or shared bus/vehicle lane. These bypass lanes substantially reduce delays at signals, as buses are given priority at the green phase. Queue jumper lanes are proposed along the most heavily congested segments of the Super Loop route, specifically along Nobel Drive between Towne Centre Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive. The queue jumper lanes would be shared by transit vehicles, bicycles and vehicles making right-turns and would be marked to clearly delineate their purpose. Proposed queue jumper lane locations are summarized in Table 2 (see Figure 3).

Table 2 PROPOSED QUEUE JUMPER LANE LOCATIONS

Intersection Direction Lane Configuration Nobel Drive at Eastbound Shared bus through and Genesee Avenue automobile right-turn only Nobel Drive at Eastbound and Westbound Shared bus through and Costa Verde Boulevard automobile right-turn only Nobel Drive at Westbound Exclusive bus through Regents Road Nobel Drive at Eastbound and Westbound Shared bus through and La Jolla Village Square Driveway automobile right-turn only

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 28

New Lanes

New lanes are proposed at various intersections and roadway segments along the Super Loop route to increase capacity and reduce overall delays at intersections. All new turn lanes are within existing roadways and are accomplished with re-striping and shifting of median curbs and striping. Specific locations and proposed lanes are summarized below in Table 3 (see Figure 3).

Table 3 PROPOSED NEW LANE LOCATIONS

Intersection/Road Segment Lane Type Nobel Drive at Two additional turn lanes on southbound Lombard Place. Lombard Place New right-turn lane on westbound Nobel Drive. Nobel Drive at Right-turn lane on northbound Villa La Jolla Drive Villa La Jolla Drive Gilman Drive at Extend left-turn lane on southbound Gilman Drive Villa La Jolla Drive (south) Health Sciences Drive Second westbound lane between Regents Road and Medical Center Drive Health Sciences Drive at Provision for bus only left-turns on the shared through/right- Medical Center Drive turn lane on Medical Center Drive southbound Health Sciences Drive at New right and left-turn lanes on westbound Health Sciences Voigt Drive Drive. Second through lane on eastbound Health Sciences Drive. Nobel Drive at Re-striping to allow easier through movements on Towne Centre Drive eastbound Nobel Drive. Third westbound lane between Towne Centre Drive and Lombard Place.

The proposed traffic control improvements and stations would be located largely within existing road rights-of-way, but would require the acquisition of an additional 5-foot width of right-of-way over a 145-foot portion of the east-bound segment of Nobel Drive at La Jolla Village Driveway; an additional 2-foot width of right-of-way over a 110-foot portion of the north-bound segment of Gilman Drive at La Jolla Village Drive; and an additional 5-foot width of right-of-way over a 100-foot portion of the west-bound segment of Voigt Drive at Scripps Hospital.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 29

Table 4 provides a summary of proposed improvements along the Super Loop route (see Figure 3).

Table 4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SUPER LOOP IMPROVEMENTS

Major Street Cross Street Signal Priority New Traffic Signal New Pedestrian Crossing Remove Stop Sign Super Loop Station Queue Jumper Lanes New Lanes UTC Transit X Center Nobel Drive Lombard Place X X X Nobel Drive Genesee X X Avenue Nobel Drive Costa Verde X X1 X Blvd./ Cargill Avenue Nobel Drive Regents Road X X2 X Nobel Drive Lebon Drive X X Nobel Drive Caminito Plaza X Centro Nobel Drive I-5 Off-ramp/ X University Center Lane Nobel Drive I-5 SB On-ramp X Nobel Drive La Jolla Village X X X Square Driveway Nobel Drive Villa La Jolla X X Drive Villa La Jolla Villa La Jolla X Driveway Villa La Jolla Via Mallorca X Gilman Drive Villa La Jolla X X X Drive (south) Gilman Drive La Jolla Village X Drive WB ramps Gilman Drive Scholars X X X Drive/Osler Lane Gilman Drive Eucalyptus X Grove Lane Gilman Drive Mandeville Lane X Gilman Drive Library Walk X Gilman Drive Myers Drive X X X Gilman Drive Gilman Transit X X Hub 1 The proposed Nobel Drive/Regents Road station may be located to this location. 2 This station may be relocated to the intersection of Costa Verde Boulevard and Nobel Drive.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 30

Table 4 (cont.)

Major Street Cross Street Signal Priority New Traffic Signal New Pedestrian Crossing Remove Stop Sign Super Loop Station Queue Jumper Lanes New Lanes Gilman Drive Russell Lane X Gilman Drive Villa La Jolla X Drive (north) Voigt Drive Scripps Hospital X X X Bus Turnaround Voigt Drive Campus Point X Drive Health Sciences Medical Center X X Drive Drive Health Sciences Voigt X Drive Drive/Athena Circle Regents Road Health Sciences X X Drive Regents Road Eastgate Mall X Executive Drive Regents Road X Executive Drive Regents Park X X X Row Executive Drive Genesee X Avenue Executive Drive Executive Way X X Executive Drive Towne Centre X Drive Executive Drive Judicial Drive X X X X Judicial Drive Golden Haven X X Drive/ Brooke Lane Judicial Drive Sydney Court X Judicial Drive Research Place X X Nobel Drive Judicial Drive X Nobel Drive Shoreline Drive X Nobel Drive Nobel Drive X X X Coaster Station Nobel Drive Towne Centre X X X Drive Source: STV Inc. 2006.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 31

Construction Schedule

Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 12 months to complete.

Project Approval

SANDAG is the Lead agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and approving this Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Other discretionary actions required for the proposed project will be included in a Memorandum of Understanding currently under development with the City of San Diego (as a responsible agency), and will include conformance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Permit (CAS000002, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ) from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a Memorandum of Understanding (to be developed) with UCSD (as a responsible agency).

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 32 o o o O O III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED o The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at o least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant lmpact" as indicated by the checklist on the o following pages. O Air o tr Aesthetics tl Agriculture Resources n Quality ) O ;1 Biological Resources ;1 Cultural Resources n Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials g HydrologyM/ater Quality I Land Use/Planning O fl n Mineral Resources X Noise I Population/Housing o tl Public Services n Recreation n Transportationffraffic o tl Utilities/Service Systems tl Mandatory Findings of O 5ig n if ica nce o o (To by lead agency) o lV. DETERMINATION: be completed the o On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows: o tr The proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the general exemption (CEQA Guidelines, o 15051 (bX3)), a statutory exemption, and/or a categorical exemption, and that if a categorical o exemption, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply. A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION will be o prepared. I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environmeht, and a o NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there o will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or o agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. tr | find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o 1 | find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because o all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standardt and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to O that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are o imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental document is required. FINDINGS o consistent with this determination will be prepared. o o ? *16--o+ o si nature Date o Rundle, Principal Regional Planner For: 5an Diego Association of Governments O O O o o Super Loop Ttansit Proiect January 2007 33 o Envi ro nmenta I I nitia I Study Page o

V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed project using the environmental checklist from the State CEQA Guidelines as amended. The definitions of the response column headings include:

A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

B. “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).

C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less than Significant impacts.

D. “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

1. Aesthetics

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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 that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 34

Discussion

a. No designated scenic views, vistas or resources are located along the project route. The project is located on relatively level topography in a highly urbanized area consisting of institutional, commercial and residential uses within the community of University City. Due to the level topography and surrounding development, no views of the ocean are provided along roadways of the proposed route. Additionally, the proposed project would not involve construction of any new structures at a bulk or scale that could obstruct any views. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would occur.

b. No designated state scenic highways are located in the vicinity of the project. No historic structures, landmarks, or rock outcroppings would be removed as a result of project development. Because the project is located along roadways in developed areas, on-site vegetation consists entirely of ornamental street-side landscaping, which is not considered a significant scenic resource. It is anticipated that project implementation would not substantially affect existing landscaping. Landscaping, however, would be installed where necessary, to offset any removal of landscaping occurring with project implementation. No impacts to scenic resources would occur.

c. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a change in the visual character or land use of the project site, since all improvements would be made largely within existing publicly- owned rights-of-way. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning designations and would be compatible with existing surrounding land uses (see Item 9, Land Use and Planning). Hardscape improvements would include passenger platforms and associated transit-related furniture, such as benches and shelters, and traffic lanes and signals. Implementation of the proposed project would have an overall positive effect on the visual character of the site, as the new bus stations, intersection improvements and deployment of specialized buses would be consistent with and integrate with surrounding land uses (e.g., multi-family residential, commercial, institutional, etc.). The project would not, therefore, result in visual impacts related to visual character or quality.

d. The project site is located in the University City community, traversing a portion of the UCSD campus. The project is surrounded by urban development that currently includes streetlights along roadways, and adjacent institutional/commercial/residential uses. Project lighting would consist of new traffic signals and lighting at stations. The addition of project lighting would contribute incrementally to urban light sources, but would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Proposed lighting would be directional and/or shielded to minimize spillover into surrounding land uses.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 35

2. Agricultural Resources

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

Discussion a. The proposed project route is located in a highly urbanized, developed, mixed-use area. No agricultural resources exist on site. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that the only farmland categories mapped on the project route are Urban and Built-up Land and a small segment on the eastern end of the route classified as Other Land (vacant and non-agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development). No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is mapped in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts related to loss of farmland would occur. b. The proposed project route does not contain agricultural resources, is not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. No impacts to agricultural resources would occur. c. Because no Farmland is present in the project vicinity, no project-related changes to the existing environment would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 36

3. Air Quality

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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. Would the project: 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion

A project-specific air quality analysis was prepared by Scientific Resources Associated on October 17, 2006 (Air Quality Technical Report for the Super Loop Transit Project) and is contained in Appendix A. The air quality analysis addressed the potential for air emissions during the construction and operational phases of the project, including an assessment of the potential for carbon monoxide (CO) “hot spots” formation due to project-generated traffic. The air quality analysis is based on construction and operation information for the proposed project provided by SANDAG, and on the Super Loop Transit Project Traffic Impact Study (STV Incorporated 2006). The results and conclusions are summarized herein.

a. Air quality plans applicable to the SDAB include the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The RAQS and SIP outline the APCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain state and federal air quality standards for

O3, respectively. The RAQS and SIP rely on information from the ARB and the SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The ARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends and land use plans developed by jurisdictions (i.e, cities and County). Projects that propose development consistent with the growth anticipated by the applicable general plan(s) would be consistent with the RAQS and applicable portions of the SIP. The proposed project would not be inconsistent with the University Community

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 37

Plan, or the San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan (refer to Issue 9, Land Use). Additionally, as discussed below, project emissions (construction and operational) would not exceed applicable significance criteria. The project, therefore, would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the RAQS or applicable portions of the SIP.

b. Under the federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and its subsequent amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the protection of human health and public welfare for several criteria pollutants, including CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulates with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) and lead (Pb). Ozone is not emitted directly, but is formed from a complex set of reactions involving ozone precursors, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic compounds (ROC). Regulations

relating to O3 therefore address emissions of NOx and ROC.

Through the California Clean Air Act of 1988, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) subsequently established more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for these pollutants, as well as for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS or the CAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be “non- attainment areas” for that pollutant. The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is currently classified as a non-

attainment area under the NAAQS for O3 (one-hour and eight-hour) and under the CAAQS for O3,

PM10 and PM2.5.

Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of the ARB’s OFFROAD emission factors (California ARB 2004), using equipment horsepower and load factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) for construction equipment. A summary of estimated emissions associated with the construction phase of the project is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emission Source CO ROG NOx SOx PM10 lbs/day Concrete, Medians and Curbs Heavy Equipment Exhaust 3.28 0.83 9.93 0.01 0.46 Worker Travel – Vehicle Emissions 5.60 0.30 0.56 0.00 0.03 Construction Truck Travel 0.56 0.15 2.20 0.03 0.07 TOTAL 9.44 1.28 13.97 0.04 0.56 Significance Criteria 550 75 250 250 100 Significant? No No No No No Pavement Construction Heavy Equipment Exhaust 3.28 0.83 9.93 0.01 0.46 Worker Travel – Vehicle Emissions 5.60 0.30 0.56 0.00 0.03 Construction Truck Travel 0.56 0.15 2.20 0.03 0.07 TOTAL 9.44 1.28 13.97 0.04 0.56 Significance Criteria 550 75 250 250 100 Significant? No No No No No

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 38

Table 5 (cont.) ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emission Source CO ROG NOx SOx PM10 lbs/day Shelter Construction Heavy Equipment Exhaust 13.48 3.39 40.79 0.02 1.90 Worker Travel – Vehicle Emissions 5.60 0.30 0.56 0.00 0.03 Construction Truck Travel 0.56 0.15 2.20 0.03 0.07 TOTAL 19.64 3.84 43.55 0.05 2.00 Significance Criteria 550 75 250 250 100 Significant? No No No No No Traffic Signal Construction Heavy Equipment Exhaust 13.48 3.39 40.79 0.02 1.90 Worker Travel – Vehicle Emissions 5.60 0.30 0.56 0.00 0.03 Construction Truck Travel 0.56 0.15 2.20 0.03 0.07 TOTAL 19.64 3.84 43.55 0.05 2.00 Significance Criteria 550 75 250 250 100 Significant? No No No No No Source: SRA 2006.

As shown in Table 5, project construction would not result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor

would it result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 or exceed quantitative thresholds

for ozone precursors (NOx and ROCs).

The Air Quality Technical Report analyzed operational emissions as well as the construction emissions discussed above. Operational impacts associated with the Super Loop Transit Project primarily would be associated with emissions from project-generated vehicular traffic. Emissions from maintenance activities would be negligible. The Super Loop Transit Project Traffic Impact Study (STV Incorporated 2006) evaluated project impacts to traffic in the project vicinity. Because the project is a transit project, it would not result in additional average daily trips, but is designed to increase mass transit ridership, which has the potential to decrease roadway traffic. The only new source of emissions associated with the Super Loop Transit Project would be attributable to operation of the Super Loop Transit buses. Proposed buses would be equipped with compressed natural gas (CNG) or CNG-hybrid propulsion technologies and would therefore be low-emitting vehicles. Operational emissions generated by the project are presented in Table 6 below.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 39

Table 6 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

CO NOx ROC SOx PM10 Maximum Lbs/day Idling emissions (CNG buses) 29.22 0.38 0.26 Negligible 0.02 Vehicular Emissions 228.42 2.95 2.06 Negligible 0.15 TOTAL 257.64 3.33 2.32 0.00 0.17 Significance Criteria 550 250 137 250 100 Significant? No No No No No Tons/year Idling emissions (CNG buses) 5.33 0.05 0.07 Negligible 0.00 Vehicular Emissions 36.57 0.47 0.33 Negligible 0.02 TOTAL 41.90 0.52 0.40 0.00 0.02 Significance Criteria 100 40 15 40 15 Significant? No No No No No Source: SRA 2006.

Based on the estimates of the emissions associated with Super Loop operations as shown in Table 6, projected emissions are below the significance criteria and would, therefore, not cause or contribute to a violation of an air quality standard.

Projects involving traffic impacts may result in the formation of locally high concentrations of CO, known as CO “hot spots.” A screening evaluation, pursuant to the Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans 1998), was conducted to determine the project’s potential to result in the formation of CO “hot spots” and was based on the results of the project traffic analysis. CO “hot spots” are typically evaluated when: (a) the level of service (LOS) of an intersection or roadway decreases to LOS E or worse; (b) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and (c) sensitive receptors such as residences, commercial developments, schools, hospitals are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment. The project proposes roadway and intersection improvements to facilitate transit operations such as new traffic signals, queue jumper lanes and new turn lanes. The traffic study evaluated the potential impact of proposed improvements and concluded that the project would not cause a degradation of LOS at study intersections (STV, Inc. 2006). Since the LOS would not be degraded to E or worse at any roadways or intersections in the project vicinity, the project would not result in the formation of CO “hot spots.”

c. The referenced traffic study accounted for traffic associated with future growth in the area in the near-term and future. Cumulative traffic was evaluated and determined not to be significant. As discussed above, cumulative traffic would not cause a degradation of LOS to E or worse at surrounding intersections and therefore, CO “hot spots” are not likely to form due to cumulative traffic impacts. The proposed project therefore would not contribute any associated cumulative considerable air quality impacts.

In addition, PM10 emissions associated with construction generally result in near-field impacts.

However, Project-related emissions of PM10 are below the significance levels. Because of the

localized nature of PM10 impacts, and because all of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not be undergoing construction at the same time as the proposed project, the

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 40

PM10 impacts associated with construction would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, because the project’s operational emissions of PM10 are less than one percent of the daily and annual significance threshold, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net

increase of PM10. With regard to cumulative impacts associated with ozone precursors, the project is consistent with the community and general plans (see Issue 9, Land Use) and thus has been accounted for in the ozone attainment demonstration, which indicates that, provided the project follows the strategies contained in the RAQS and is not modified from the community/general plan, it will not result in a cumulatively considerable air quality impacts.

d. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single- and multi-family residences, parks and schools. As discussed above, the project would not emit substantial concentrations of criteria pollutants, and traffic at surrounding roadways and intersections would not generate CO “hot spots.” Diesel exhaust particulate matter would, however, be emitted during project construction from heavy equipment used in the construction process. Diesel exhaust particulate matter is known in the state of California to contain carcinogenic compounds. The risks associated with carcinogenic effects are typically evaluated based on a lifetime of chronic exposure (i.e., 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year for 70 years). Because emissions of diesel exhaust would be temporary and short-term and heavy equipment exhaust emissions are not significant (as discussed above), the construction phase of the project would not result in long-term chronic lifetime exposure to diesel exhaust from construction equipment. Therefore, air quality impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.

e. The project involves the use of either CNG or CNG/Hybrid buses along the Super Loop route, which do not generate nuisance odors. Thus, the potential for odor impacts associated with the project is less than significant.

4. Biological Resources

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 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?

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 41

4. Biological Resources (cont.)

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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? 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?

Discussion

a. The proposed project is located entirely within existing developed roadway rights-of-way within a highly urbanized area. As a result, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are expected to occur on the project site. Thus, no impacts to sensitive species would occur.

b. Development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

c. No federal or state jurisdictional areas occur within the limits of construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) would occur.

d. The project site is located in an urban area within the University City community of San Diego that is designated in applicable land use plans for institutional, commercial, residential and industrial uses. The site is not within a designated preserve area, nor is it contiguous with a wildlife corridor. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. e. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources. The UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP; UCSD 2004) designates the proposed project transit route as part of its campus entry/loop road system and does not identify any biological resources along the route. The University Community Plan also does not identify any biological resources along the route. The proposed project would not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources. f. The project site is located within the limits of the regional City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) study area. Most of the proposed route is subject to the MSCP, except

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 42

for the portion that traverses the UCSD campus. UCSD is not included in the City’s MSCP, nor is it an enrolled agency in the NCCP. Regardless, the project site does not contain sensitive habitat or species. As a result, the project does not conflict with the conservation goals of the NCCP and no impacts resulting from a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan would occur.

5. Cultural Resources

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 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?

Discussion a. No structures are located within the area of potential effect, since the project site is fully developed with roadways surrounded by institutional/commercial/residential uses. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. b. The project site is completely contained within developed road rights-of-way that have been previously disturbed and graded. Consequently, there is an extremely low to non-existent potential to unearth significant archaeological resources during construction. No impacts to archaeological resources would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. c. The project site is underlain primarily by the Lindavista Formation, and to a lesser extent, the Scripps Formation, Ardath Shale, and Stadium Conglomerate. These formations typically exhibit a moderate to high sensitivity rating paleontological resources (City of San Diego 2002). Paleontological resources are typically impacted when earthwork activities cut into geological deposits (formations) within which fossils are buried. These impacts would be in the form of physical destruction of fossil remains. However, because construction would occur within existing developed areas and limited earthwork would be required, no impacts related to paleontological resources are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. d. As indicated above, the project site has been disturbed by previous grading activities associated with construction of roadways and surrounding urban development. The potential to uncover human remains during construction would be extremely low to nonexistent. No impacts related to disturbance of human remains would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 43

6. Geology And Soils

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to 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 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 defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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?

Discussion a.i. — No active faults traverse the project area, as mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG 1999). The nearest known active fault zone is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. Additional mapped active faults in the region include the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones. While the potential for on-site rupture cannot be completely discounted (e.g., unmapped faults could conceivably underlie the site), the likelihood for such an occurrence is considered low due to the absence of known faulting within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 44

a.ii. — The project site is located in seismically active southern California and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region, including the Rose Canyon, Elsinore, and San Jacinto fault zones. Faulting in the region generally comprises a number of northwest-trending, predominantly right-lateral strike-slip faults at the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. An earthquake along any of these known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and consequently cause injury and/or property damage along the project route. The proposed project does not include construction of any major structures (limited to transit furniture, platforms and shelters). The project would be designed to accommodate applicable seismic loading parameters through conformance with applicable regulatory guidelines (e.g., International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], Uniform Building Code [UBC; 1997] and the Greenbook Committee Standard Specifications for Public Works Projects [Greenbook] 2003). Based on the incorporation of required design specifications, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a.iii. — Liquefaction is the phenomenon whereby soils lose shear strength and exhibit fluid-like flow behavior. Severe or extended liquefaction can result in significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or foundation integrity. Loose, granular soils are most susceptible to these effects, with liquefaction generally restricted to saturated or near-saturated soils at depths of less than 100 feet. According to the California Department of Mines and Geology, the project route is underlain primarily by the Lindavista Formation, and to a lesser extent, the Scripps Formation, Ardath Shale, and Stadium Conglomerate. Due to the dense nature of the underlying formational materials and the low potential for near surface groundwater, the potential for liquefaction occurring at the site of the proposed project is considered very low. No impacts related to seismic-related liquefaction are anticipated from project implementation.

a.iv. — The project site occurs within developed roadways in a developed area. The roadways have been graded and are level. No landslide-prone areas along or adjacent to the proposed route are identified in applicable land use plans (i.e. University Community Plan, UCSD LRDP). Given the absence of active faults and the relatively level topography in the project area, the potential for seismically induced landslides is very low to nonexistent. No impacts related to landslides would occur.

b. — Erosion potential within the project site is considered low, due to the level nature of existing and proposed on-site topography. Improvements would occur on level topography within existing ROW. Areas proposed for development would be paved and landscaped and therefore, would not be susceptible to significant long-term erosion and sedimentation. No other significant long-term erosion impacts would occur.

Short-term grading and construction activities would not result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil due to the level site topography. Conformance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit would be required, including the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which incorporates Best Available Technology (BAT) and/or best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) through the use of best management practices (BMPs). Implementation of a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan – SWPPP) would avoid or reduce potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts.

c. — Surface and underlying materials along the project route include the Lindavista Formation, the Scripps Formation, Ardath Shale, Stadium Conglomerate and topsoils. As discussed in Items 6.a.iii and 6.a.iv above, no potential impacts associated with liquefaction and landsliding would occur.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 45

Moreover, the project area is considered to exhibit nominal/low/variable risk for geologic hazards, including subsidence (City of San Diego 1989). Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant. d. — Expansive soils are generally high in clays or silts that shrink or swell with variation in moisture. The project route traverses a number of different soil types, including Chesterton series, Huerhuero series, Carlsbad series and Altamont clay soils. Although some of these are considered expansive soils, the proposed project is located in existing developed road rights-of-way, which were designed and built in compliance with the California Building Code, taking into account potential impacts due to expansive soils. In addition, the project would not build any large structures that would be subject to damage by expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be considered less than significant. e. — No wastewater disposal systems involving the use of septic tanks, leach fields, or alternative sewage disposal systems that depend upon appropriate soil regimes are currently in use at the project site. No associated impacts would occur.

7. Hazards And Hazardous Materials

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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 compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it 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?

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 46

7. Hazards And Hazardous Materials (cont.)

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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?

Discussion

a. Operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine use, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project would consist of bus loading, unloading and transit areas only. Therefore, no long-term operational impacts would result from project implementation.

b. Construction of the proposed project would not 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. Construction-related hazardous materials (fuels, etc.) would be used that could potentially result in adverse environmental impacts through accidental discharges associated with storage, vehicle operation (e.g., refueling), or maintenance. Potential impacts associated with the use of hazardous materials for project construction would be avoided, however, through implementation of best management practices (BMPs).

Significant project-related impacts would be avoided or adequately minimized with implementation of regulatory requirements, industry standards and BMPs. Construction activities would be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements related to hazardous waste disposal and water quality, including applicable elements of the NPDES Storm Water Permit and SWMP, NPDES Municipal Permit, City Storm Water Standards and SUSMP guidelines, and the RWQCB Basin Plan. As stated above, the project would not result in any long-term operational impacts. As a result, no adverse substantial impacts to worker and/or public health and safety or project schedule would occur.

c. Schools within 0.25 mile of the project route include: UCSD (project traverses the campus); Preuss School (on the UCSD campus); Explorer Elementary Charter School; San Diego Jewish Academy; La Jolla Country Day School, Torah High School; and University High School. Other nearby schools include: Doyle Elementary School (0.4 mile from the project route) and Torrey Pines Elementary School (0.6 mile from the project route). Potential releases of hazardous emissions are discussed in Items 7.a. and 7.b. above. Any potential impact would be avoided through implementation of regulatory requirements, industry standards and BMPs. Therefore, no significant hazardous materials impacts to schools would result from project implementation.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 47

d. According to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health GeoTracker system, several Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) and Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites are located adjacent to or near the project route, as summarized in Table 7 below. While most of these cases are closed, cases at Mayer Hall on the UCSD main campus, Scripps Memorial Hospital, and San Diego City Fire Station No. 35/San Diego City Police Station North remain open. These sites consist of gasoline or other fuel leaks.

Table 7 LUFT AND UST SITES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY

Name of Site Type of Site Active vs. Approximate Closed Distance from Project Route UCSD Mayer Hall LUFT Active Adjacent Veterans LUFT Closed 1,500 feet Administration Medical Center UCSD Thornton UST Closed 250 feet Hospital The Aventine UST Closed 650 feet Office Building Costa Verde Car UST Closed Adjacent Wash Marriott Hotel UST Closed 1,000 feet La Jolla Executive UST Closed 350 feet Tower San Diego City LUFT/ UST LUFT: Active Police Northern UST: Closed 650 feet Station San Diego City LUFT Active 650 feet Fire Station No. 35 Scripps Memorial LUFT Active 650 feet Hospital Aramonte UST Closed 2,000 feet Uniform Company Penhall Company UST Closed 2,500 feet San Diego City UST Closed 2,800 feet Fire Station No. 41

In addition, California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database lists several active hazardous materials sites approximately 2 to 10 miles from the project site. The project construction disturbance area would not encroach into these identified hazardous materials sites. Additionally, due to the minimal grading required, no potential to encounter any contaminated soil and/or groundwater exists. Project-related impacts associated with identified sites

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 48

would be avoided or adequately minimized with implementation of regulatory requirements, industry standards and BMPs. Therefore, no impacts associated with listed hazardous materials sites would occur. e. The project site is approximately 0.5 mile west of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar and is within the airport’s Influence Area as identified in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for MCAS Miramar (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2004). The project, however, is not located within the designated Accident Potential Zones. Construction and operation of a bus transit route in this area would not expose people to safety risks associated with operations of MCAS Miramar. f. The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrips. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. g. The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Proposed improvements would enhance rather than hinder or block traffic flows, and primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. h. The proposed project is located in a developed, institutional/commercial/residential area. No wildlands are located in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts related to wildland fires would occur.

8. Hydrology And Water Quality

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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 off site? 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?

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 49

8. Hydrology And Water Quality (cont.)

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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?

Discussion

a. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would include short-term construction related erosion/sedimentation and long-term operational storm water discharge. As discussed in Item 6.b., short-term water quality impacts related to erosion/sedimentation would be less than significant based on conformance with existing regulatory requirements (i.e., acquisition of a NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit and implementation of an SWPPP).

Long-term water quality impacts associated with the project would include generation of minor quantities of urban contaminants, such as petroleum compounds, metals, and other types of contaminants that typically accumulate on roadways. Long-term water quality impacts would be addressed through compliance with NPDES guidelines for municipal storm water runoff in accordance with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. 2001-01. This order requires that pollutant discharges and runoff from development are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and that receiving water quality objectives are not violated throughout the life of project through implementation of source control and structural post-construction BMPs. Implementation of required BMPs would ensure that long-term water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b. The project does not propose the use of groundwater. The project site is currently almost entirely covered with impervious surfaces, so that absorption rates are low. The project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge due to the relatively small development area involved and the fact that the project would not substantially increase the impervious surface area.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 50

c. and d. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or vicinity. Whenever possible, on-site surface runoff would be collected in existing drainage facilities such as concrete curb, gutter and drainage inlets, and conveyed into the existing municipal storm water drainage system. Where existing curb, gutter and/or inlets would be removed to accommodate the new station platforms, similar facilities would be constructed at approximately the same location. Runoff quantities would not substantially change because there would be only an insignificant net increase in hardscape/impervious surfaces (far less than the City of San Diego’s 5,000 square feet threshold per station platform site). Furthermore, the total disturbed area at each station platform site would be be significantly less than the City’s 1.0 acre disturbance threshold. Accordingly, additional runoff quantities generated by this project at each station platform site would be insignificant, far below 0.5 cubic feet per second per site threshold established by the City of San Diego. Water quality impacts related to erosion/sedimentation, runoff rates and quantities, and/or flooding would be less than significant.

e. Since there would be no substantial net increase of impervious surfaces upon project construction, runoff volumes would not increase. Runoff volumes associated with the proposed project would not substantially increase (if at all), and thus would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain facilities. As discussed above, the project could result in polluted runoff; however, the potential for water quality impacts would be minimized through implementation of mitigation and compliance with the requirements of the San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit (RWQCB Order No. 2001-01, NPDES No. CAS0108758). Therefore, water quality impacts related to stormwater capacity and/or polluted runoff would be less than significant. f. No additional water quality impacts other than those described above in this section are anticipated. g. and h. The proposed project does not involve construction of residential units or any other substantial structures. Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, most of the route lies within “Other Areas - Zone X”, or areas determined to be outside of the 500-year floodplain (FEMA 1997). An approximately 77.5-meter (250-foot) long segment of Nobel Drive, east of its intersection with Towne Center Drive, crosses over a tributary of Rose Canyon Creek and thus falls within “Zone A” of the “Special Flood Hazard Areas Inundated by 100-Year Flood” (FEMA 1997). Areas mapped within Zone A do not have determined base flood elevations. This roadway segment is developed and protected from potential flood hazards, pursuant to City of San Diego standards. Furthermore, Nobel Drive is not prone to frequent flooding during typical storm events. No associated impacts related to flooding would occur. i. As discussed above, the project route is not subject to flooding. The project route is not located within the vicinity of any reservoir dam structures and thus, the potential for inundation due to dam failure is nonexistent. No associated flooding impacts would occur. j. The project route at its most westerly point is located approximately one mile inland and therefore, could potentially be inundated in the event of a large catastrophic tsunami. Although the likelihood of such an event is extremely low, it cannot be completely discounted given the seismically active region of southern California. However, due to topography and its inland location, the potential for seismically induced inundation of the project area is very low to nonexistent.

The project route also is not in close proximity to any large reservoirs or other surface waters. Therefore, the project route would not be subject to inundation impacts from seiches. Additionally,

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 51

the project site would not be subject to impacts related to inundation by mudflow based on the location and topography in the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to inundation by seiche or mudflow.

9. Land Use And Planning

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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 community conservation plan?

Discussion a. The project route would be located within an urbanized, high intensity mixed-use area within the University City community of San Diego. The proposed route traverses multi-family residential, group quarters (university dormitories), commercial, industrial (scientific research), institutional, park, and open space General Plan and zoning designations. A transit route would not be incompatible within all such designations/zones and associated adjacent land uses. Provision of a transit route within the project area would be a compatible and beneficial use. Moreover, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially change existing land uses. The project would be located within existing roadways that currently include bus operations. No new roads, structures or other improvements would be developed that would divide or separate neighborhoods or physically divide an established community. Therefore, no associated land use impacts would occur. b. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, including the San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan, the University Community Plan, the UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan and the Mid Coast Strategic Planning Study. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable goals and guidelines contained in the Transportation Element of the San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. One of the listed goals is to provide “a coordinated, multimodal transportation system capable of meeting increasing needs for personal mobility and goods movement at acceptable levels of service.” Consistent with this goal, the Super Loop would provide a local transit route intended to increase mobility within the University City community. Additionally, a General Plan guideline is to “encourage and support intensified efforts to greatly increase transit patronage; thereby reducing traffic congestion, parking demand, energy consumption, and air pollution.” The proposed project would provide for increased transit opportunities in an effort to alleviate dependence on the automobile, which in turn would reduce air pollution (less emissions) and energy consumption (via fuel consumption). The Transportation

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 52

Element of the University Community Plan recommends a transit loop system comparable to the proposed project, described as follows: a “…loop shuttle should be developed connecting the UCSD campus, major commercial developments, high density residential areas, hospital and scientific research facilities and the transit center.” The UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan designates the proposed transit route as part of its campus entry/loop road system. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to conflicts with adopted land use plans. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Mid Coast Strategic Planning Study, which identifies the proposed Super Loop route and certain roadway improvements. No associated land use impacts would occur.

c. The project site is located within the City of San Diego MSCP planning area, although the portion of the project that traverses the UCSD campus is not subject to the MSCP. The project site is designated for development, and is not located within or adjacent to the MHPA, which identifies lands designated for open space and habitat preservation. In addition, the project site is fully developed and does not contain sensitive habitat or species that would require mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with policies of the MSCP. In addition, the project does not conflict with the conservation goals of the CDFG’s NCCP. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan would not occur.

10. Mineral Resources

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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 locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

Discussion

a. and b. The project lies within the Aggregate Mineral Resource Classification Zone Category 3, containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data (CDMG 1996). However, the project site has not been used for mineral resource recovery and is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any land use plans; therefore, impacts to mineral resources would not occur as a result of project implementation.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 53

11. Noise

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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? Discussion A project-specific noise analysis was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates on December 22, 2006 (Noise Analysis Super Loop). The noise analysis evaluates potential noise impacts at noise sensitive receptors along the proposed transit route using both City of San Diego and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria. The results and conclusions are summarized below.

a - c. Noise sensitive land uses are associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or substantial interference from noise and often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, libraries, parks and nature/wildlife preserves. Industrial, commercial and agricultural land uses are generally considered not sensitive to noise. Sensitive land uses in the project vicinity include single and multi-family residential development, schools, hospitals and parks.

The City of San Diego’s Transportation Element of the General Plan and Progress Guide identifies sound levels from transportation noise sources compatible with various land uses. Sound levels up to 65 dBA CNEL are compatible with residential, transient housing, educational, playground and park uses. This requirement is typically applied at outdoor activity areas, such as patios, balconies, rear yards and child play areas. Sound levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are compatible with office buildings, business and professional uses. In instances where existing noise levels already exceed City thresholds, a significant impact would be assessed if the change in dBA would be three dBA or

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 54

greater as a result of the project. Sound level variations of less than three dBA are not detectable by the average human ear.

The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) has established noise impact criteria for bus transit projects. These criteria vary as a function of receiving land use category, existing ambient noise level and noise exposure from the project. The allowable increase in noise levels is based upon the existing noise level at the receiving land use category, and the impact is based on the increase to the existing noise level attributed to the project.

Sound level measurements were conducted at 14 noise-sensitive locations adjacent to the proposed transit route to quantify the existing noise environment. Noise modeling, utilizing the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 (the standard model accepted by the FHWA and the FTA), was conducted to estimate the noise level increase generated by the Super Loop buses at these noise-sensitive receptors. Traffic noise levels were estimated for existing, existing plus project, year 2010, year 2010 plus project, year 2030, and year 2030 plus project conditions. Existing noise levels were calculated at a reference distance of 75 feet from the roadway centerline utilizing City methodology, and at the closest noise-sensitive building façade utilizing FTA methodology. Table 8 presents a comparison of transportation noise levels with and without the proposed project (at a distance of 75 feet from the centerline of the applicable roadway), and summarizes potential noise impacts based on City criteria.

Table 8 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS BASED ON CITY OF SAN DIEGO CRITERIA (dBA Ldn)

Existing Conditions 2010 Conditions 2030 Conditions

Measurement Location Existing Significant 2010 2030 Existin Significant Significant No. Plus Impact? 2010 Plus 2030 Plus g Impact? Impact? Project Project Project ML1: Regents/Nobel (south) 71 71 0 No 72 72 0 No 72 72 0 No ML2: Regents/Nobel (north) 71 71 0 No 72 72 0 No 72 72 0 No ML3: Executive/Genesee 61 62 1 No 62 62 0 No 64 64 0 No ML4: Executive Dr Transit Ctr 61 62 1 No 64 64 0 No 64 64 0 No ML5: Nobel/Lebon (south) 71 71 0 No 72 72 0 No 71 71 0 No ML6: Nobel/Lebon (north) 71 71 0 No 72 72 0 No 71 71 0 No ML7: Nobel/Towne Ctr 70 70 0 No 71 71 0 No 71 71 0 No (south) ML8: Nobel/Towne Ctr 70 70 0 No 71 71 0 No 71 71 0 No (north) ML9: Judicial/Golden Haven 61 62 1 No 65 65 0 No 65 65 0 No ML10: Nobel Park 61 62 1 No 64 64 0 No 64 65 1 No ML11: UCSD/VA Medical Ctr 54 59 5 No 62 63 1 No 63 64 1 No ML12: Gilman/Villa La Jolla 68 68 0 No 69 69 0 No 70 70 0 No ML 13: Nobel/Costa Verde 71 71 0 No 72 72 0 No 72 72 0 No (north)

ML 14: Nobel/Costa Verde 71 71 0 No 72 72 0 No 72 72 0 No (south) Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 55

The noise analysis concluded that existing noise levels at 9 of the 14 locations currently exceed the City guideline of 65 dBA CNEL. The project however, would not increase existing ambient noise levels at any of these locations under existing plus project, 2010 plus project or 2030 plus project conditions. Sound levels at the other five locations would not increase to over 65 dBA CNEL as a result of the project. Although a five-dBA increase would occur at ML11 under existing plus project conditions, the noise level would not exceed the City’s 65- dBA threshold at the closest noise- sensitive receptor, a UCSD student residence building approximately four feet to the north. The proposed project, therefore, would comply with City land use compatibility noise guidelines, and a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 9 presents calculated noise levels (at the closest noise-sensitive building façade), associated noise increases and potential impacts based on FTA methodology and criteria.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 56

Table 9 SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS BASED ON FTA CRITERIA (dBA Ldn)

Existing Conditions 2010 Conditions 2030 Conditions Measurement Existing FTA 2010 FTA 2030 FTA Location No. Existing Plus Allowed Impact 2010 Plus Allowed Impact 2030 Plus Allowed Impact Project Increase Project Increase Project Increase ML1: 71 71 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No Regents/Nobel (south) ML2: 70 71 1 1 No 71 71 0 1 No 71 71 0 1 No Regents/Nobel (north) ML3: 60 62 2 2 No 61 62 1 2 No 64 64 0 1 No Executive/Genesee ML4: Executive Dr 60 60 0 2 No 62 62 0 2 No 62 62 0 2 No Transit Ctr ML5: Nobel/Lebon 72 72 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No (south) ML6: Nobel/Lebon 71 71 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No 71 71 0 1 No (north) ML7: 69 69 0 1 No 71 71 0 1 No 71 71 0 1 No Nobel/Towne Ctr (south) ML8: 69 69 0 1 No 71 71 0 1 No 71 71 0 1 No Nobel/Towne Ctr (north) ML9: 61 62 1 2 No 65 65 0 1 No 65 65 0 1 No Judicial/Golden Haven ML10: Nobel Park 62 64 2 2 No 65 66 1 1 No 65 66 1 1 No ML11: UCSD/VA 49 52 3 5 No 57 57 0 2 No 57 58 1 2 No Medical Ctr ML12: 67 67 0 1 No 69 69 0 1 No 69 69 0 1 No Gilman/Villa La Jolla ML 13: 72 72 0 1 No 73 73 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No Nobel/Costa Verde (south) ML 14: 71 71 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No 72 72 0 1 No Nobel/Costa Verde (north) Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates 2006.

As shown in Table 9, the proposed project would not increase noise levels in excess of those allowable pursuant to FTA criteria. The project, therefore, would comply with FTA noise criteria. The greatest noise increase would occur at ML11 under existing plus project conditions, where noise levels would increase by three dBA at the adjacent UCSD residence building. As stated above, sound level increases less than three dBA are not detectable to the average human ear. A three-dBA increase may be detectable to some individuals since it is right at the threshold of perceptibility;

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 57

however, it would not represent a substantial increase in existing ambient noise levels. Sound level increases at the other noise measurement locations would be less than three dBA under existing plus project, 2010 plus project and 2030 plus project conditions. These increases would not be noticeable and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts would be less than significant.

d. A temporary increase in noise may occur during project construction in areas where improvements are proposed along the Super Loop route. Construction activities would be required to comply with applicable requirements of the City of San Diego Noise Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.

e. MCAS Miramar is located approximately two miles to the east of MCAS Miramar. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for MCAS Miramar (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2004), the project route lies within the Airport Influence Area and the eastern portions of the route lie within the designated 60- and 65-dB CNEL noise contours associated with MCAS Miramar. The project therefore would not expose persons living or working in the area to excessive noise levels associated with MCAS Miramar. No private airstrips are located in the general vicinity. No associated noise impacts would occur as a result of project implementation.

12. Population And Housing

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: a. Induce substantial 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)? 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?

Discussion

a. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly induce population growth due to the fact that no housing is proposed; the project site is located in a developed, institutional/commercial/ residential area; and the proposed transit route would not provide substantial new employment that would foster in-migration. No major changes would be made to the existing circulation system; no new roads or road extensions are proposed; and the project would connect to existing utility lines. Thus, the proposed project would not indirectly induce population growth. No impacts related to population growth inducement would occur. b and c. The project would occur largely within existing road rights-of-way and would not affect existing housing or displace any residents or businesses. No associated impacts would occur.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 58

13. Public Services

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically

altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

Discussion

The project site is located in a developed, institutional/commercial/residential area currently served by existing public services, including fire and police protection, schools and parks. The proposed project would not generate population growth, and therefore would not increase demand for these public services.

The City of San Diego Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services within the City of San Diego and would provide any fire and/or emergency medical service associated with the proposed project. Fire Station No. 35 is located nearly adjacent to the north- central portion of the project transit route, on Eastgate Mall at Genesee Avenue. Response times would be well within acceptable City standards of five minutes. Police protection is provided by the San Diego Police Department, with the closest station (Northern Division headquarters) also located on Eastgate Mall at Genesee Avenue. The UCSD Campus Police also would provide police services. Implementation of the proposed transit project in an existing developed area would not result in a demand for any new or altered police or fire protection services.

The proposed project would not generate students and therefore, it would not affect schools in the area. The project route passes within approximately 200 feet of three parks: Doyle Community Park, Mandell Weiss Eastgate City Park, and the Nobel Athletic Area. The proposed project could increase access to these parks to a minimal degree, potentially increasing demand for park and recreation services, but it is unlikely that any such increase would be large enough to require facility upgrades or increased services.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 59

The proposed project would not increase the demand for public services, including fire and police protection, schools, parks or other public services and therefore, no impacts related to the provision of adequate public services would occur.

14. Recreation

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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?

Discussion

a. Existing City recreational facilities are located within the project vicinity, including the Doyle Community Park, located immediately south of the project site on Regents Road, Mandell Weiss Eastgate City Park, adjacent to the UCSD campus at Regents Road and Eastgate Mall, and the Nobel Athletic Area, located immediately adjacent to the Super Loop route at its eastern extremity. In addition, UCSD has numerous recreational facilities on campus, including the Main Gym Complex and the Canyonview/East Campus Recreation Area, both adjacent to the project route. Operation of the proposed transit route would not substantially increase the use of these existing facilities, nor would it result in an increase in the demand for any new or altered park facilities. The proposed project could provide increased opportunities for local park access and therefore a negligible increase in demand for park and recreation services at parks along the new transit route, but it is unlikely that any such increase would be large enough to require facility upgrades or increased services. Therefore, impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant. b. The proposed project does not include, nor does it require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No associated impacts to recreational facilities would occur.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 60

15. Transportation/Traffic

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 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. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion a. and b. A project-specific traffic analysis was prepared by STV Incorporated in August 2006 (Super Loop Transit Project Traffic Impact Study). Potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project are identified in the referenced report and summarized herein.

The traffic analysis evaluated existing, near-term (2010) and buildout (2030) traffic conditions at 22 roadway segments and 40 intersections within the project area (see Figure 3 for locations). The following roadway segments were evaluated:

Nobel Drive 1. Judicial Drive to Towne Centre Drive 2. Towne Centre Drive to Genesee Avenue 3. Genesee Avenue to Costa Verde Blvd. 4. Costa Verde Blvd. to Regents Road 5. Regents Road to Lebon Drive 6. Lebon Drive to I-5 NB Ramp 7. I-5NB Ramp to Villa La Jolla Drive

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 61

Villa La Jolla Drive 8. Nobel Drive to Via Mallorca 9. Via Mallorca to Gilman Drive

Gilman Drive 10. Villa La Jolla Drive (South) to La Jolla Village Drive 11. La Jolla Village Drive to Scholars Drive 12. Scholars Dr to Villa La Jolla Drive (North) 13. Villa La Jolla Drive (North) to Voigt Drive

Judicial Drive 14. Brooke Lane to Research Place 15. Research Place to Nobel Drive

Regents Road 16. Genesee Avenue to Eastgate Mall 17. Eastgate Mall to Executive Drive

Executive Drive 18. Regents Road to Genesee Avenue 19. Genesee Avenue to Executive Way 20. Executive Way to Towne Centre Drive 21. Towne Centre Drive to Judicial Drive

Voigt Drive 22. Gilman Drive to Campus Point Drive

The following intersections were evaluated:

1. Nobel Drive/ Lombard Place 2. Nobel Drive/ Genesee Avenue 3. Nobel Drive/ Costa Verde Blvd. 4. Nobel Drive/ Regents Road 5. Nobel Drive/ Lebon Drive 6. Nobel Drive/ Caminito Plaza Centro 7. Nobel Drive/ I-5 Northbound 8. Nobel Drive/ I-5 Southbound 9. Nobel Drive/ La Jolla Village Square Driveway 10. Nobel Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive 11. Villa La Jolla Drive/ La Jolla Village Square Driveway 12. Villa La Jolla Drive/ Via Mallorca 13. Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive (South) 14. Gilman Drive/ La Jolla Village Drive Ramps 15. Gilman Drive/ Scholars Drive-Osler Lane 16. Gilman Drive/Eucalyptus Grove Lane 17. Gilman Drive/ Mandeville Road 18. Gilman Drive/ Myers Drive 19. Gilman Drive/ Russell Lane

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 62

20. Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive (North) 21. Gilman Drive/ Parking Lot 406 22. Gilman Drive/ Voigt Drive 23. Voigt Drive/ Campus Point Drive 24. Campus Point Drive/ Medical Center Drive 25. Medical Center Drive/ Health Sciences Drive 26. Voigt Drive/ Health Sciences Drive 27. Regents Road/ Health Sciences Drive 28. Regents Road/ Eastgate Mall 29. Regents Road/ Executive Drive 30. Executive Drive/ Regents Park Row 31. Executive Drive/ Genesee Avenue 32. Executive Drive/ Executive Way 33. Executive Drive/ Towne Centre Drive 34. Executive Drive/ Judicial Drive 35. Judicial Drive/ Golden Haven Drive 36. Judicial Drive/ Sydney Court 37. Judicial Drive/ Research Place 38. Nobel Drive/ Judicial Drive 39. Nobel Drive/ Shoreline Drive 40. Nobel Drive/ Towne Centre Drive

Significance thresholds were developed by the City of San Diego based on allowable increases in volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios (City of San Diego 2004). The acceptable LOS for roadway segments and intersections is D or better. If roadway segments currently, or would with the addition of project traffic, operate at LOS E or F and the v/c ratio would increase more than 0.02 (i.e., two percent of the capacity), the project would result in a significant impact. For intersections that currently, or would with the addition of project traffic, operate at LOS E or F, the project would result in a significant impact if the project’s traffic would cause an increase in delay greater than two seconds during peak hours.

All evaluated roadway segments currently operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following segments, which operate at LOS F.: • Gilman Drive from Villa La Jolla Drive (North) to Voigt Drive; • Regents Road from Genesee Avenue to Eastgate Mall, and; • Voigt Drive from Gilman Drive to Campus Point Drive.

All evaluated intersections currently operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of four intersection that operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour; these are: • Nobel Drive/ Genesee Avenue; • Nobel Drive/ Regents Road; • Gilman Drive/ Scholars Drive-Osler Lane; and • Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive (North).

Near-Term Conditions

The Traffic Impact Analysis sets the near-term timeframe at the year 2010, when the proposed project is expected to be operational. Near-term traffic volumes were developed with and without the proposed project by adding traffic associated with other planned developments in the project

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 63

area to existing volumes. Additional road improvements that were assumed to be completed by 2010 for this analysis are summarized below in Table 10.

Table 10 2010 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Location Improvement Status Opening Intersections

Gilman Drive and La Jolla Village Drive Westbound New Signal Constructed 2006 Ramp

Prior to New Signal Planned 2010 Gilman Drive and Scholars Drive/ Osler Lane New Eastbound Prior to Planned Right Turn Lane 2010 Prior to Judicial Drive and Executive Drive New Signal Planned 2010 Prior to Nobel Drive and Lombard Place New Signal Planned 2010 New Prior to La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee Avenue Northbound Planned 2010 Right Turn Lane Roadway Segments Judicial Drive extension from Executive Drive to Under New Roadway 2007 Golden Haven Drive Construction Prior to Eastgate Mall extension east west of Regents Road New Roadway Planned 2010 Source: STV, Inc. 2006b.

In addition, several public transit system improvements are planned for the near term; these were included as assumptions in the near term analysis for the proposed project. The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has proposed modifications to existing routes and new transit services that are expected to serve the study area by 2010. These changes generally involve the relocation of the terminus of certain routes in order to realign the end of the route with a different transit service point or employment center. Included among the approved transit services is the University City circulator, route number 48/49. This local circulator is expected to complement existing routes and provide direct access to residential complexes within the study area. Some overlap of the new circulator and the Super Loop route is expected. A new Coaster station has also been proposed on Nobel Drive between Judicial Drive and Towne Center Drive. The implementation schedule for the Nobel Drive Coaster Station is currently under review though it is expected to be open by 2010. The Super Loop route would provide service to the Nobel Drive Coaster Station upon completion of station construction.

Under the near term without project scenario, the three roadway segments that operate at LOS F under existing conditions would continue to do so. Three of the four intersections that currently operate at LOS E during the PM Peak Hour (Nobel Drive/Genesee Avenue, Nobel Drive/ Regents Road, and Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive - North) would experience similar or reduced levels of service. The Nobel Drive/Genesee Avenue intersection also would degrade from LOS D to LOS F in the AM Peak Hour. Although the Gilman Drive/ Scholars Drive-Osler Lane intersection would improve from LOS E to LOS B during the AM Peak Hour, four other intersections (Nobel Drive/ Costa

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 64

Verde Blvd., Voigt Drive/ Health Sciences Drive, Regents Road/ Eastgate Mall, and Executive Drive/ Towne Centre Drive) would degrade to LOS E or LOS F during one or both Peak Hours.

The project would not generate additional traffic trips, but rather a reassignment of existing trips. The analysis assumes that baseline 2010 traffic volumes would be the same with or without implementation of the proposed project. Under the near term with project scenario, operation of roadway segments would be expected to remain similar or improve, compared to the near-term without the project scenario. Near-term intersection operations are summarized in Table 11 below.

Overall, under near-term future conditions without the project, three intersections during the AM Peak Hour and six intersections during the PM Peak Hour are projected to experience LOS E or F. Under near-term future conditions with the project, all intersections are expected to remain similar or improve, compared to the near-term without the project, and fewer (two intersections during the AM Peak Hour and four intersections during the PM Peak Hour) are projected to experience LOS E or F. In no case of an intersection at LOS E or F would the change in delay exceed the two-second significance threshold. Under near-term future conditions with the project, there would be no substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., no substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections), and no level of service standard would be exceeded. In fact, proposed roadway and intersection improvements would represent LOS and delay benefits within the project area. No significant adverse traffic impacts are assessed.

Buildout Conditions

The traffic analysis sets the long-term timeframe at the year 2030, which represents buildout of the University community. Buildout traffic volumes were based on a custom model run of the SANDAG Series 1014 and the University Community Plan (2000). The analysis assumed that by 2030, the improvements listed in Table 12 would be completed.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 65

Table 11 SUMMARY OF NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ID Intersection Existing 2010 Without Project 2010 With Project No. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Improvement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type Delay LOS Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Change Significant? Average LOS Change Significant? (seconds) (seconds) (seconds) or (seconds) or (seconds) or Delay or ICU1 (%) or ICU1 (%) ICU1 (%) ICU1 (%) ICU1 (%) (seconds) or ICU1 (%) 1 Nobel Drive/ 44.9% A 50.6% A 11.2 B 30.2 C NLL 17.8 B 6.6 No 35.0 C 4.8 No Lombard Place 2 Nobel Drive/ Genesee 48.4 D 63.3 E 89.8 F 83.6 F QJ 90.9 F 1.1 No 85.2 F 1.4 No Avenue 3 Nobel Drive/ Costa 29.2 C 36.9 D 47.1 D 50.9 E QJ 45.2 D -1.9 No 47.4 D -3.5 No Verde Blvd. 4 Nobel Drive/ Regents 32.4 C 58.9 E 32.6 C 67.9 F QJ 33.3 C 0.7 No 67.0 E -0.7 No Road 5 Nobel Drive/ Lebon 24.5 C 43.6 D 24.8 C 45.4 D NC NC C NC No NC D NC No Drive 6 Nobel Drive/ 7.5 A 9.3 A 7.7 A 11.5 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No Caminito Plaza Centro 7 Nobel Drive/ I-5 24.9 C 23.9 C 24.8 C 29.2 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No Northbound 8 Nobel Drive/ I-5 8.6 A 11.1 B 10.3 B 11.7 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Southbound 9 Nobel Drive/ La Jolla 19.4 B 41.1 D 19.1 B 40.8 D QJ 17.4 B -1.7 No 35.9 D -4.9 No Village Square Driveway 10 Nobel Drive/ Villa La 34.5 C 39.2 D 35.1 D 40.5 D NLL 34.4 C -0.7 No 39.2 D -1.3 No Jolla Drive 11 Villa La Jolla Drive/ 14.7 B 19.2 B 14.4 B 19.2 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No La Jolla Village Square Driveway 12 Villa La Jolla Drive/ 11.5 B 13.5 B 12.7 B 13.4 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Via Mallorca 13 Gilman Drive/ Villa La 13.7 B 29.3 C 14.0 B 31.0 C NLL 14.0 B 0.0 No 31.0 C 0.0 No Jolla Drive (South) 14 Gilman Drive/ La 43.6% A 55.2% B 8.8 A 12.3 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No Jolla Village Drive Ramps 15 Gilman Drive/ 50.2% A 88.4% E 12.3 B 13.5 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Scholars Drive-Osler Lane 16 Gilman 33.6% A 35.8% A 38.3% A 49.0% A 2WS 1.1 A NA No 1.1 A NA No Drive/Eucalyptus Grove Lane

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 66

Table 11 (cont.) SUMMARY OF NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ID Intersection Existing 2010 Without Project 2010 With Project No. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Improvement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type 17 Gilman Drive/ 21.1% A 35.2% A 27.1% A 35.9% A 2WS 0.9 A NA No 1.0 A NA No Mandeville Road 18 Gilman Drive/ Myers 27.5% A 38.7% A 45.0% A 79.6% D NS 19.8 B NA No 36.9 D NA No Drive 19 Gilman Drive/ Russell 37.4% A 45.0% A 53.8% A 70.5% C NC NC A NC No NC C NC No Lane 20 Gilman Drive/ Villa La 24.8 C 70.0 E 26.2 C 64.6 E OS 12.8 B -13.4 No 18.2 B -46.4 No Jolla Drive (North) 21 Gilman Drive/ 8.3 A 20.3 C 9.2 A 33.9 D NC NC A NC No NC D NC No Parking Lot 406 22 Gilman Drive/ Voigt 38.2% A 70.1% C 44.7% A 78.3% D NC NC A NC No NC D NC No Drive 23 Voigt Drive/ Campus 41.3 D 42.7 D 51.4 D 48.9 D NC NC D NC No NC D NC No Point Drive 24 Campus Point Drive/ 36.8% A 39.1% A 56.8% B 59.4% B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Medical Center Drive 25 Medical Center Drive/ 8.3 A 8.2 A 10.1 B 9.3 A NLL NA3 NA3 NA3 No NA3 NA3 NA3 No Health Sciences Drive 26 Voigt Drive/ Health 32.0 D 9.9 A 62.4 F 16.3 C NLL 60.6% B NA No 52.9% A NA No Sciences Drive 27 Regents Road/ Health 26.0 C 22.6 C 31.4 C 37.5 D NC NC C NC No NC C NC No Sciences Drive 28 Regents Road/ 9.8 A 11.3 B 64.0 E 118.4 F NC NC E NC No NC E NC No Eastgate Mall 29 Regents Road/ 11.3 B 25.9 C 17.6 B 49.0 D NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Executive Drive 30 Executive Drive/ 22.5% A 22.3% A 26.2% A 23.6% A NS 6 A NA No 9.1 A NA No Regents Park Row 31 Executive Drive/ 16.7 B 28.4 C 24.0 C 42.2 D NC NC C NC No NC D NC No Genesee Avenue 32 Executive Drive/ 23.7 C 15.1 B 19.6 B 15.4 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Executive Way 33 Executive Drive/ 11.9 B 19.6 B 45.2 D 79.6 E NC NC D NC No NC E NC No Towne Centre Drive 34 Executive Drive/ 7.3 A 6.6 A 30.6 C 28.7 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No Judicial Drive 35 Judicial Drive/ 27.0 C 31.8 C 20.8 C 23.5 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No Golden Haven Drive

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 67

Table 11 (cont.) SUMMARY OF NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ID Intersection Existing 2010 Without Project 2010 With Project No. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Improvement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type 36 Judicial Drive/ Sydney 9.7 A 6.7 A 4.2 A 2.7 A NC NC A NC No NC A NC No Court 37 Judicial Drive/ 3.8 A 13.2 B 7.8 A 8.7 A NC NC A NC No NC A NC No Research Place 38 Nobel Drive/ Judicial 5.7 A 7.4 A 8.5 A 11.9 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No 39 Nobel Drive/ 51.7 D 22.8 C 31.7 C 20.8 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No Shoreline Drive 40 Nobel Drive/ Towne 27.7 C 33.1 C 28.9 C 34.2 C NLL 28.7 C -0.2 No 34.1 C -0.1 No Centre Drive 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (percent) 2WS = 2-Way Stop 2 HCM Unsignalized LOS and Delay NS = New Signal 3 Although the project would build a new lane at this intersection, the lane use designation allows southbound vehicles to make a OS = Offset Signal (Note: the stop sign at Gillman Drive/Russell Lane would be removed and replaced by an Offset Signal tied to the existing traffic left turn from the existing through/right lane. This would not affect the capacity of the intersection and would have no impact on signal at Gilman Drive/Villa La Jolla Drive.) LOS or delay. NC = No Change (no project-related improvement planned and therefore no project impact) QJ = Queue Jumper NA = Not Applicable NLL = New Lane Location Source: STV Incorporated 2006b.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 68

Table 12 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Location Improvement CIP Number Intersections Gilman Drive and Myers Drive New Signal and UCSD LRDP Widening Nobel Drive and Genesee Avenue Widening UTC Expansion Genesee Avenue and Widening NUC-G, NUC-52 Eastgate Mall Roadway Segments Regents Road between Widening and NUC-13 Executive Drive and Realignment Genesee Avenue Nobel Drive between Widening NUC-J Towne Center Drive and Danica Mae Road Genesee Avenue between Regents Widening NUC-3 Road and I-5 Ramps Genesee I-5 Overpass Widening NUC-24 Genesee Avenue south of Nobel Drive Widening NUC-A Regents Road Bridge south of study New Roadway NUC-12 area UCSD East-West bridge between New Roadway UCSD LRDP Gilman Drive and Eastgate Mall Eastgate Mall east of the study area Widening NUC-34 La Jolla Village Drive and I-805 Widening and Freeway NUC-C Ramp Conversion Source: STV Inc. 2006b.

In addition, long-term transit improvements are planned in the study area and are expected to be in place by the 2030 horizon year. The most significant improvement planned is the extension of the MTS light rail (LRT) system northward into the project area.

Under the buildout without project scenario, two of the three roadway segments that operate at LOS F under existing conditions would continue to do so (Gilman Drive from Villa La Jolla Drive – North to Voigt Drive, and Voigt Drive from Gilman Drive to Campus Point Drive). Under the buildout without project scenario, three of the four intersections that currently operate at LOS E during the PM Peak Hour (Nobel Drive/Genesee Avenue, Nobel Drive/ Regents Road, and Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive - North) would experience similar or reduced levels of service. The Nobel Drive/Genesee Avenue intersection also would degrade from LOS D to LOS F in the AM Peak Hour. Although the Gilman Drive/ Scholars Drive-Osler Lane intersection would improve from LOS E to LOS B during the AM Peak Hour, five other intersections (Gilman Drive/Parking Lot 406, Voigt Drive/Health Sciences Drive, Regents Road/Eastgate Mall, Regents Road/Executive Drive, and Executive Drive/Towne Centre Drive) would degrade to LOS E or LOS F during one or both Peak Hours.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 69

As previously mentioned, the project would not generate additional traffic trips, but rather a reassignment of existing trips. The buildout analysis assumes that 2030 traffic volumes would be the same with or without implementation of the proposed project. Under the buildout with project scenario, operation of roadway segments would be expected to remain similar or improve compared to the buildout without project scenario. Buildout intersection operations are summarized in Table 13 below.

Overall, under buildout conditions without the project, three intersections during the AM Peak Hour and seven intersections during the PM Peak Hour are projected to experience LOS E or F. Under buildout conditions with the project, all intersections are expected to remain similar or improve, compared to the near-term without the project, and fewer (two intersections during the AM Peak Hour and six intersections during the PM Peak Hour) are projected to experience LOS E or F. In no case of an intersection at LOS E or F would the change in delay exceed the 2-second threshold. Under buildout conditions with the project, there would be no substantial increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., no substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections), and no level of service standard would be exceeded. In fact proposed roadway and intersection improvements would represent LOS and delay benefits within the project area. No traffic impacts are assessed.

As discussed above, no significant impacts to intersections or roadway segments within the project study area would occur. LOS and delays would actually improve. The project would not individually or cumulatively exceed applicable LOS standards. c. The proposed project does not include any aviation components and, therefore, would not affect air traffic patterns. No associated traffic impacts would occur. d. The project would not increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Roadway and intersection improvements would conform to City standards. In addition, transit stations would include design measures such as signage, dedicated lanes and other features, that would clearly separate traffic flow in roadways from transit flows. Traffic conditions would improve with implementation of the proposed project, thereby decreasing traffic hazard potential. e. Temporary construction activities would not hinder access to roadways in the study area by emergency vehicles. Operation of the project would not impact emergency access. Adequate emergency access would be provided to the project site at all times. All stations are located along existing roadways and are thus accessible by emergency vehicles. Accordingly, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 70

Table 13 SUMMARY OF BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CONDITIONS Existing 2030 Without Project 2030 With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Improve-ment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ID Intersection Type No. Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS Average Delay LOS Change Signif- Average Delay LOS Change Signif- or ICU1 (%) or ICU1 (%) or ICU1 (%) or ICU1 (%) (seconds) or ICU1 (%) icant? (seconds) or ICU1 (%) icant? 1 Nobel Drive/ Lombard Place 44.9% A 50.6% A 12.3 B 26.7 C NLL 19.3 B 7.0 No 23.9 C -2.8 No 2 Nobel Drive/ Genesee Avenue 48.4 D 63.3 E 101.6 F 65.1 E QJ 102.9 F 1.3 No 66.6 E 1.5 No 3 Nobel Drive/ Costa Verde Blvd. 29.2 C 36.9 D 44.3 D 48.4 D QJ 41.5 D -2.8 No 44.9 D -3.5 No 4 Nobel Drive/ Regents Road 32.4 C 58.9 E 32.2 C 73.2 E QJ 32.4 C 0.2 No 71.3 E -1.9 No 5 Nobel Drive/ Lebon Drive 24.5 C 43.6 D 29.3 C 44.8 D NC NC C NC No NC D NC No 6 Nobel Drive/ Caminito Plaza 7.5 A 9.3 A 8.3 A 14.0 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No Centro 7 Nobel Drive/ I-5 Northbound 24.9 C 23.9 C 25.2 C 28.8 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No 8 Nobel Drive/ I-5 Southbound 8.6 A 11.1 B 9.9 A 11.6 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No 9 Nobel Drive/ La Jolla Village 19.4 B 41.1 D 21.5 C 45.6 D QJ 19.6 B -1.9 No 40.5 D -5.1 No Square Driveway 10 Nobel Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive 34.5 C 39.2 D 38.4 D 44.0 D NLL 37.6 D -0.8 No 43.7 D -0.3 No 11 Villa La Jolla Drive/ La Jolla 14.7 B 19.2 B 14.4 B 19.3 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Village Square Driveway 12 Villa La Jolla Drive/ Via Mallorca 11.5 B 13.5 B 11.0 B 13.4 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No 13 Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive 13.7 B 29.3 C 16.1 B 37.2 D NLL 16.1 B 0.0 No 37.2 D 0.0 No (South) 14 Gilman Drive/ La Jolla 43.6% A 55.2% B 8.0 A 11.6 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No Village Drive Ramps 15 Gilman Drive/ Scholars Drive- 50.2% A 88.4% E 12.8 B 13.6 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Osler Lane 16 Gilman Drive/Eucalyptus Grove 33.6% A 35.8% A 39.7% A 52.6% A 2WS 1.4 A NA No 1.6 A NA No Lane 17 Gilman Drive/ Mandeville Road 21.1% A 35.2% A 27.2% A 44.6% A 2WS 0.9 A NA No 1.2 A NA No 18 Gilman Drive/ Myers Drive 27.5% A 38.7% A 23.5 C 26.3 C NS NA3 NA3 NA3 No NA3 NA3 NA3 No 19 Gilman Drive/ Russell Lane 37.4% A 45.0% A 59.2% A 66.3% C NC NC A NC No NC C NC No 20 Gilman Drive/ Villa La Jolla Drive 24.8 C 70.0 E 28.6 C 80.2 F OS 15.1 B -13.5 No 25.0 C -55.2 No (North) 21 Gilman Drive/ Parking 8.3 A 20.3 C 10.8 B 54.6 F NC NC B NC No NC F NC No Lot 406 22 Gilman Drive/ Voigt Drive 38.2% A 70.1% C 44.2% A 76.7% D NC NC A NC No NC D NC No 23 Voigt Drive/ Campus Point Drive 41.3 D 42.7 D 48.3 D 45.4 D NC NC D NC No NC D NC No 24 Campus Point Drive/ Medical 36.8% A 39.1% A 60.5% B 57.8% B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No Center Drive 25 Medical Center Drive/ Health 8.3 A 8.2 A 10.6 B 9.2 A NLL NA3 NA3 NA3 No NA3 NA3 NA3 No Sciences Drive 26 Voigt Drive/ Health Sciences 32.0 D 9.9 A 63.8 F 16.8 C NLL 61.0% B NA No 53.3% A NA No Drive 27 Regents Road/ Health Sciences 26.0 C 22.6 C 31.3 C 35.3 D NC NC C NC No NC D NC No Drive 28 Regents Road/ Eastgate Mall 9.8 A 11.3 B 88.6 F 459.1 F NC NC F NC No NC F NC No 29 Regents Road/ Executive Drive 11.3 B 25.9 C 34.7 C 81.4 F NC NC C NC No NC F NC No 30 Executive Drive/ Regents Park 22.5% A 22.3% A 25.4% A 23.9% A NS 6.0 A NA No 6.0 A NA No Row 31 Executive Drive/ Genesee 16.7 B 28.4 C 28.3 C 45.9 D NC NC C NC No NC D NC No Avenue 32 Executive Drive/ Executive Way 23.7 C 15.1 B 19.6 B 15.1 B NC NC B NC No NC B NC No 33 Executive Drive/ Towne Centre 11.9 B 19.6 B 52.4 D 92.8 F NC NC D NC No NC F NC No Drive 34 Executive Drive/ Judicial Drive 7.3 A 6.6 A 35.9 D 30.1 C NC NC D NC No NC C NC No 35 Judicial Drive/ Golden Haven 27.0 C 31.8 C 20.5 C 24.4 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No Drive 36 Judicial Drive/ Sydney Court 9.7 A 6.7 A 4.1 A 2.7 A NC NC A NC No NC A NC No 37 Judicial Drive/ Research Place 3.8 A 13.2 B 7.8 A 8.7 A NC NC A NC No NC A NC No 38 Nobel Drive/ Judicial 5.7 A 7.4 A 8.7 A 12.2 B NC NC A NC No NC B NC No 39 Nobel Drive/ Shoreline Drive 51.7 D 22.8 C 31.7 C 21.3 C NC NC C NC No NC C NC No 40 Nobel Drive/ Towne Centre Drive 27.7 C 33.1 C 29.0 C 34.4 C NLL 28.8 C -0.2 No 34.2 C -0.2 No 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (percent) 2WS = 2-Way Stop 2 HCM Unsignalized LOS and Delay NS = New Signal 3 Although the project would build a new lane at this intersection, the lane use designation allows southbound vehicles to make a left turn from the existing OS = Offset Signal (Note: The stop sign at Gilman Drive/Russell Lane would be removed and replaced by an Offset Signal through/right lane. This will not affect the capacity of the intersection and has no impact on LOS or delay. tied to the existing traffic signal at Gilman Drive/Villa La Jolla Drive. QJ = Queue Jumper NC = No Change (no project-related improvement planned and therefore no project impact) NLL = New Lane Location NA = Not applicable Source: STV Incorporated 2006b.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 71

f. The traffic study (STV Incorporated 2006b) estimated that the proposed project would displace 47 on-street parking spaces along the proposed route, including two along Gilman Drive, two along Villa La Jolla Drive, 15 along Nobel Drive and 37 along Executive Drive. The traffic study concluded that the loss of these parking spaces would not result in adverse traffic impacts related to parking. Additionally, a parking analysis was prepared by STV Incorporated (Super Loop Transit Project On- street Parking Conditions Review 2006c), which evaluated on-street parking along segments of Gilman Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive, and Nobel Drive that would correspond with the Super Loop route. These segments were specifically evaluated due to community concerns of potential parking impacts along arterial streets bordering residential complexes. Parking demand and turnover were evaluated under weekday conditions between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. A total of 341 on-street parking spaces were available along these noted roadway segments during the study period, including 129 spaces along Gilman Drive, 74 along Villa La Jolla Drive and 138 along Nobel Drive. The results of the study show that the maximum parking occupancy along Villa La Jolla Drive is 93 percent, 95 percent along Gilman Drive and 90 percent along Nobel Drive. The loss of two spaces along Gilman Drive represents 1.6 percent of this street’s parking capacity, and eight spaces along Nobel Drive represents 5.8 percent of this street’s capacity. The loss of these spaces therefore would not cause on-street parking demands to exceed capacity along these roadways. Associated parking impacts would be less than significant. g. The proposed project would promote the use of alternative modes of transportation by increasing public transit services in the University Community area. The Transportation Element of the University Community Plan recommends a transit loop system comparable to the proposed project, described as follows: a “…loop shuttle should be developed connecting the UCSD campus, major commercial developments, high density residential areas, hospital and scientific research facilities and the transit center” (City of San Diego 1987). Operation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

16. Utilities And Service Systems

Less Than PotentiallyS ignificant With Less Than Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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?

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 72

16. Utilities And Service Systems (cont.)

Less Than PotentiallyS ignificant With Less Than Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: 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? 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?

Discussion

a. No restrooms or other facilities that would generate wastewater are proposed. No impacts associated with wastewater treatment facilities would occur.

b. The proposed project is located in a developed area served by existing utilities. Operation of the transit center would include connections to existing water lines in the project vicinity for irrigation of proposed landscaping. The demand for water service associated with the project would not, however, require any new or expanded facilities. Therefore, no impacts associated with water facilities would occur.

c. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or vicinity. Whenever possible, on-site surface runoff would be collected in existing drainage facilities such as concrete curb, gutter and drainage inlets, and conveyed into the existing municipal storm water drainage system. Where existing curb, gutter and/or inlets would be removed to accommodate the new station platforms, similar facilities would be constructed at approximately the same location. Runoff quantities would not substantially change because there would be only an insignificant net increase in hardscape/impervious surfaces (far less than the City of San Diego’s 5,000 square feet threshold per station platform site). Furthermore, the total disturbed area at each station platform site would be significantly less than the City’s 1.0 acre disturbance threshold. Accordingly, additional runoff quantities generated by this project at each station platform site would be insignificant (far below 0.5 cubic feet per second per site threshold established by the City of San Diego), and no new storm water facilities would be needed. Impacts associated with storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant.

d. The proposed project would result in a negligible increased demand for water associated with facility irrigation of proposed landscaping. This increase, however, would not be substantial and would not require construction or expansion of existing water supply facilities or entitlements. Therefore, no impacts related to water supply would occur.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 73

e. The proposed project would not generate wastewater, and therefore would not affect the applicable wastewater treatment provider. No impact related to wastewater treatment capacity would occur.

f. and g. Transit patrons would generate some trash, and trash receptacles would be provided at each station, to be collected as part of a shelter maintenance contract. The amounts of solid waste generated by the proposed project would not be substantial and thus, would not significantly impact regional landfills. The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur.

17. Mandatory Findings Of Significance

Less Than Significant Issues Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

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? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion

a. The proposed project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. No cultural resources would be disturbed by the proposed project. Development of the proposed project would not impact sensitive species or their habitat.

b. The proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts associated with light and glare, air quality, water quality, and noise. However, the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable due to its incremental and/or short-term nature. In the case of light and glare, the project would include some lighting at the stations in an already heavily lighted area, and all

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 74

lighting would be directional to minimize spillover into the night sky. As discussed in Issue 3, Air Quality, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Regarding water quality, the proposed project and other projects in the area would be required to be in compliance with applicable standards and permit conditions from appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of San Diego). Potential cumulative noise impacts would be avoided through adherence to required noise standards established by the City of San Diego or other applicable agency (i.e., Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration). c. As discussed in applicable sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not cause in any adverse environmental effects on humans. Refer to Issues 3 (Air Quality), 6 (Geology/Soils), 7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), 8 (Hydrology/Water Quality), 11 (Noise) and 15 (Transportation/Traffic).

FISH AND GAME DETERMINATION

Based on the information above, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. The presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.3(d) has been rebutted by substantial evidence.

Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption)

No (Pay fee)

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 75

VI. ND DISTRIBUTION LIST

FEDERAL AGENCIES

United States Army Corps of Engineers Marine Corps Air Bases Western Area Miramar 16885 West Bernardo Road, Suite 300A Colonel P.S. Parkhurst, Community Plans and San Diego, CA 92127 Liaison Officer P.O. Box 452001 United States Department of the Interior San Diego, CA 92145-2001 Fish and Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009

STATE AGENCIES

California Department of Fish and Game Native American Heritage Commission 4949 Viewridge Avenue 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 San Diego, CA 92123 Sacramento, CA 95814

Caltrans District 11 California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2829 Juan Street 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92110 San Diego, CA 92123

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board State of California 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 Division of Aeronautics San Diego, CA 92123 1120 “N” Street Sacramento, CA 95814 University of California, San Diego Physical Planning Cathy Presmyk, Assistant Director, Environmental Planning 10280 North Torrey Pines Road, Suite 340 La Jolla, CA 92093

LOCAL AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS

City of San Diego, Planning Department San Diego City Schools Dan Monroe Eugene Brucker Education Center 202 C Street, 4th Floor 4100 Normal Street San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92103

City of San Diego, Development Services Department SDG&E/Sempra Energy Bob Manis Planning Department 1222 First Avenue, 5th Floor 101 Ash Street San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101

City of San Diego, Council District 1 County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District 202 C Street 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92123

University Community Planning Group Linda Colley, Chair 3589 Syracuse Avenue San Diego, CA 92022

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 76

LOCAL AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS (CONT’D)

California Native Plant Society San Diego County Regional Airport Authority c/o Natural History Museum P.O. Box 82776 P.O. Box 121390 San Diego, CA 92138-2776 San Diego, CA 92112-1390

San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. Environmental Review Committee P.O. Box A-81106 San Diego, CA 92128-1106

MTS – Conan Cheung Planning and Performance Monitoring 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490

NCTD – Stephan Marks Planning Department 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054-2825

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 77

VII. REFERENCES

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1999 Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42, Revised through 1999.

1983. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production – Consumption Region. Special Report 153.

1975. Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area. Bulletin 200.

Deméré, Thomas A. and Stephen L. Walsh. 1994. Paleontological Resources: County of San Diego. Department of Paleontology, San Diego Natural History Museum.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Diego County, California and Unincorporated Areas, Panels 1338, 1601 and 1602. June 19.

Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2006. Noise Analysis Super Loop. December 22.

San Diego, City of. 2002. City of San Diego Paleontology Guidelines, Prepared by City of San Diego staff with the assistance of Thomas A. Deméré, Director of the Department of Paleontology at the San Diego Natural History Museum. July 2002.

San Diego, City of. 1990. University Community Plan, January 16.

1989. Progress Guide and General Plan. June.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2004. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for MCAS Miramar. Amended October 4.

Scientific Resources Associated. 2006. Air Quality Technical Report for the Super Loop Transit Project, San Diego, California. October 17.

STV Incorporated. 2006a. Super Loop Transit Project Priority Treatment Plan. August 24.

2006b. Super Loop Transit Project Draft Traffic Impact Analysis. August 24.

2006.c. Super Loop Transit Project On-street Parking Conditions Review. November 6.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973a. General Soils Map, Sheet Nos. 43 and 53.

1973b. Soil Survey, San Diego County, California. December.

Super Loop Transit Project January 2007 Environmental Initial Study Page 78