Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

SANDAG

DOWNTOWN LAYOVER/OFFICE BUILDING ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT

APRIL 2015

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction and Study Purpose ...... 1 2.0 Description of Alternatives ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Overview of the Layover Facility ...... 5 Project Alternatives ...... 5 Site Alternatives ...... 13 Site 1 ...... 13 Site 2 ...... 13 Site 3 ...... 14 Site 4 ...... 21 Site 5 ...... 21 Site Comparison ...... 26 3.0 Screening Process and Results ...... 28 3.1 Screening Criteria and Scoring Method ...... 28 Scoring Approach ...... 28 A. Location – Proximity to Route Termini ...... 28 B. Accessibility – Convenience for Buses to Reach Facility ...... 34 C. Land Use – Consistency with Community Plan ...... 35 D. Sensitive Receptors – Proximity to Sensitive Receptors ...... 37 E. Traffic – Anticipated Traffic Volumes and Impacts ...... 38 F. Noise – Noise Impacts ...... 39 G. Safety – Potential Conflicts with Pedestrians & Vehicular Movements ...... 40 H. Cultural Resources – Impacts to Known Sites/Historical Resources ...... 41 I. Utilities/Energy – Impacts to Supporting Infrastructure ...... 42 J. Visual Impacts – Impact to Visual Quality ...... 43 K. Hazardous Materials – Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials ...... 45 L. Air Quality/GHG – Impact to Air Quality ...... 47 M. Air Quality/GHG – Ability to Support Achievement of Region's GHG Goals ...... 48 N. Displacements – No. of Displacements ...... 49 O. Geologic Hazards ...... 50 P. Cost – Transit Service Operating Costs (not included in the scoring) ...... 51 3.2 Scoring Results ...... 54 4.0 Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 56 Conclusions ...... 56 Bus Operations ...... 56 Environmental Considerations ...... 56 Environmental Process and Next Steps ...... 57 Considerations for the Mixed Use Development Scenarios ...... 57 Property Ownership ...... 58 Design Considerations ...... 58 Appendix – Development Options Design Concepts ...... 60

List of Figures

Figure 1 Study Area ...... 2 Figure 2 Site Locations and Existing Land Use ...... 3 Figure 3 Site Locations and Current Zoning ...... 4 Figure 4 Route 7 Layover Front South of B Street ...... 7 Figure 5 Route 2 Layover B Street West of Front Street...... 7 Figure 6 Route 901 Layover Front North of B Street ...... 8 Figure 7 Standby Bus State North of B Street ...... 8 Figure 8 Route 215 Layover State North of A Street ...... 9 Figure 9 BRT Route 235 layover on A Street ...... 9 Figure 10 Site 1 Ground Floor Layout Concept ...... 10 Figure 11 Sites 2 & 3 Ground Floor Layout Concepts ...... 11 Figure 12 Sites 4 & 5 Ground Floor Layout Concepts ...... 12 Figure 13 Site 1 Location and Site Layout ...... 15 Figure 14 Site 1 Photos ...... 16 Figure 15 Site 2 Location and Site Layout ...... 17 Figure 16 Site 2 Photos ...... 18 Figure 17 Site 3 Location and Site Layout ...... 19 Figure 18 Site 3 Photo ...... 20 Figure 19 Site 4 Location and Site Plan ...... 22 Figure 20 Site 4 Photo ...... 23 Figure 21 Site 5 Location and Site Layout ...... 24 Figure 22 Site 5 Photo ...... 25 Figure 23 Site 1 Bus Access Routings ...... 29 Figure 24 Site 2 Bus Access Routings ...... 30 Figure 25 Site 3 Bus Access Routings ...... 31 Figure 26 Site 4 Bus Access Routings ...... 32 Figure 27 Site 5 Bus Access Routings ...... 33

List of Tables

Table 1 Site Comparison ...... 27 Table 2 Distances between Stops and Layover Sites ...... 28 Table 3 Factors Affecting Access to Layover Sites ...... 35 Table 4 Weekday Daily Mileage Between Stops and Sites ...... 53 Table 5 Screening Matrix ...... 55 Table 6 Property Ownership by Site ...... 58

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE

SANDAG is working to develop a layover facility in Downtown San Diego to facilitate operation of both local and bus rapid transit (BRT) routes that terminate in the core area. The layover facility would be for short term parking of buses as they finish their runs, before they leave to start their next run. MTS and SANDAG have worked closely in developing the sites and planning that has taken place to date. The project also has the potential to include office, commercial, and residential development. This report documents an effort to conduct a screening of five potential sites to determine which one(s) should be considered the preferred site(s) to be pursued for the project. The effort also considers issues and opportunities related to the proposed development options.

Following this introduction, this report includes the following sections:

 2.0 Description of Alternatives – descriptions of current bus operations in the study area and the five alternative sites

 3.0 Screening Process and Results – description of the screening process, the criteria used to evaluate the alternatives, the scoring approach for each criterion, and the results of the analysis, including a screening matrix

 4.0 Conclusions and Next Steps – discussion of the findings of the screening process, recommendations on the site(s) to be included in the environmental review, and considerations for the mixed use development options

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

The study area for this project is located in the Columbia and Civic-Core districts of downtown San Diego, within the Downtown Community planning area. It is bounded by Ash Street to the north, Kettner Boulevard to the west, Broadway to the south, and Front Street to the east (Figure 1). The predominant land uses in the area are office space, commercial, high-rise residential, government/civic uses and parking facilities. The five proposed layover site locations and corresponding land uses are shown in Figure 2. The sites are located within the Centre City Planned District (CCPD) zoning area, with Sites 1 and 2 in the CCPD-Core district, and Sites 3-5 in the CCPD-Public/Civic zone. (CCPD zones were created to increase the livability of downtown neighborhoods by emphasizing mixed use developments, public transit, walkability and smart design.) Figure 3 shows zoning in the area of the proposed layover sites.

The descriptions in this section expand upon the work done by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the report Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Downtown San Diego Area, Transit Layover Facility, prepared in July 2012.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 1 Study Area

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 2 Site Locations and Existing Land Use

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 3 Site Locations and Current Zoning

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

There are three existing local bus routes, Routes 2, 7, and 901, that terminate within the study area and currently use on-street parking for layover purposes. There are also two BRT routes, Rapid 215 and Rapid 235, that terminate in the study area. An additional BRT route is expected to become operational in late 2016 and will connect Downtown to Otay Mesa via Interstate 805. Figures 4 through 9 show the existing bus layover locations in the study area.

There are three development scenarios for each of the five sites for a total of 15 alternative variations. The three development scenarios frame a range of alternatives for analysis. The ultimate development project could be a combination or variation of these alternatives.

OVERVIEW OF THE LAYOVER FACILITY

A new downtown bus layover facility would enhance the efficiency of local and BRT bus operations by providing off-street parking for transit vehicles in the short turnaround time they have between runs downtown. The parking lot would provide a location for drivers to take a break and would allow time for schedule recovery. The facility would be used by buses and MTS operators, supervisors, and maintenance staff; no passenger boardings or alightings would take place there. Buses using the facility would generally spend 5-15 minutes in the lot with engines idling for no longer than 1 minute. Light maintenance such as refilling windshield fluid or changing a light bulb would be permitted. The facility would include perimeter screening.

The proposed facility would begin operating at approximately 4:00 am and end at approximately 1:00 am, with the highest use occurring in the morning and afternoon peak commute hours. The facility is expected to accommodate about 35 vehicles per hour during the top of the peak periods. Buses are not anticipated to park in the facility overnight.

A total of 14-18 bus bays would be needed to provide the required vehicle capacity to serve existing and near future local and BRT services. The facility could be developed on one-half to two-thirds of a city block (30,000-40,000 square feet) to accommodate the 14 to 18 bus bays. A full city block could accommodate up to 24 buses, but since only 18 bays are needed, the extra space could be used to provide perimeter screening and a small building for storage, driver restrooms, and possibly a dispatch supervisor.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Three alternatives for the layover facility have been developed as summarized below.

1. Layover Facility Only – In this scenario, the layover facility would be developed as a stand- alone facility for the foreseeable future. It would provide all of the functions described in the Overview and would operate as specified in the Overview. Depending on the specific site, 14 to 18 bus bays would be provided in this alternative.

2. Layover Facility with Building Option A – This mixed use development option would include the bus layover facility on the ground floor as described in the Overview. In addition to the layover facility, the site would include approximately 25,000 square feet of retail space, 160,000 square feet of office space to accommodate SANDAG offices and tenant space, as Figure 3: BRT Bus 235 layover on Ash St. well as an above-grade parking structure (with 250 spaces on three levels) and outdoor green space. Any additional available ground floor space would be devoted to bus driver services, access to parking, elevator lobbies, building entries to offices, etc. as needed.

The entire block would be required for this development option, and the number of bus bays provided would depend on the spatial requirements for the building’s structural needs and the desire for development on some street frontages. Figures 10-12 show concepts for how

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

the ground floor could be laid out to accommodate the building’s structural needs and provide development frontages. Under this alternative, 12 to 14 bus bays could be provided. Additional bays that might be required would be provided on the site’s curbsides.

3. Layover Facility with Building Option B – This is a more intensive development concept that includes the bus layover facility on the ground floor described in the Overview and about 20,000 square feet of retail space, 120,000 square feet of office to accommodate SANDAG offices and tenant space, a residential tower of approximately 230 units, and below-grade parking. Any additional available ground floor space would be devoted to bus driver services, access to parking, elevator lobbies, building entries to offices and residential, etc. as needed.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 4 Route 7 Layover Front South of B Street

Figure 5 Route 2 Layover B Street West of Front Street

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 6 Route 901 Layover Front North of B Street

Figure 7 Standby Bus State North of B Street

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 8 Route 215 Layover State North of A Street

Figure 9 BRT Route 235 layover on A Street

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 10 Site 1 Ground Floor Layout Concept

Note – Red area depicts building footprint

Source: IBI Group

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 11 Sites 2 & 3 Ground Floor Layout Concepts

Note – Red area depicts building footprint

Source: IBI Group

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 12 Sites 4 & 5 Ground Floor Layout Concepts

Note – Red area depicts building footprint

Source: IBI Group

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

SITE ALTERNATIVES

The key attributes of the five proposed sites are described below.

Site 1

Site 1 is bounded by Ash Street, Kettner Boulevard, A Street, and India Street (Figure 13). It is anticipated that transit vehicles would enter from an ingress-only driveway on Ash Street and exit on an egress-only driveway on A Street. A Street would be converted from a three-lane, one-way eastbound road to a three-lane road with two lanes devoted to eastbound traffic and one lane dedicated to westbound exiting buses. In addition, the intersection of Kettner Boulevard and A Street would be signalized as part of the project. Additional project features include reconfiguration of Kettner Boulevard between Ash Street and A Street to allow for parking, removing parking from Ash Street between Kettner Boulevard and India Street to accommodate a transit-only lane, and curb and crosswalk improvements to aid pedestrian safety.

There are currently three buildings located on Site 1, including an auto service facility, a vacant building, and a bank building. Under the Layover Facility Only scenario, the bank building would remain, while the auto service and vacant buildings may be incorporated into the layover project. Depending on the configuration 14-18 bus bays would be provided. See Figure 13 for site layout and on-site circulation.

If the entire block of Site 1 was acquired, the bus layover facility could accommodate up to 24 buses, although a design with 18 bays would be preferred. The extra space could be used to provide perimeter screening and a small building for storage, driver restrooms, and possibly a dispatch supervisor. Under Building Options A and B, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of these buildings. See Figure 14 for site photos.

Site 2

Site 2 is bounded by Ash Street, State Street, A Street, and Columbia Street (Figure 15). It is Exhibit 2: Site 1 location anticipated that transit vehicles would enter from an ingress-only driveway on A Street and exit on an egress-only driveway on Ash Street. No lane geometry or signal modifications would be needed.

There are currently three existing buildings located on the site. One building is vacant and the other two buildings currently house a taco shop (Taco Express) and an architect services firm (Dowler Gruman Architects). Under the Layover Facility Only scenario, partial or full use of the site could be contemplated.

If partial use of the site is considered, only the southern half of the site would be utilized. This scenario would require the removal of the vacant building and the building housing the Taco Express. Under a partial take approach, 12-15 bays could be provided.

If the entire site is utilized under the Layover Facility Only scenario, all existing buildings on the site would be removed and up to 24 articulated bus bays could be provided, although a design with 18 layover spaces would be preferred. The extra space could be used to provide perimeter screening and a small building for storage, driver restrooms, and possibly a dispatch supervisor. See Figure Exhibit 6: Site 2 location 15 for a site layout and on-site circulation for the full site facility.

For purposes of the screening analysis, full development of Site 2 and removal of all buildings is analyzed for potential impacts. Consistent with that approach, under the Building Option A and Building Option B scenarios, the entire site would be utilized resulting in the removal of all existing buildings on the project site. See Figure 16 for site photos.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Site 3

Site 3 is bounded by Ash Street, Union Street, A Street, and State Street (Figure 17). Transit vehicles would enter from an ingress-only driveway on A Street and exit on an egress-only driveway on Ash Street. No lane geometry or signal modifications would be needed for this project site.

There are currently two existing vacant buildings located on Site 3. It is anticipated that the entire site would be acquired for the Bus Layover Facility only, enabling the provision of up to 24 articulated bus bays although a design with 18 layover spaces would be preferred. The extra space could be used to provide perimeter screening and a small building for storage, driver restrooms, and possibly a dispatch supervisor. See Figure 17 for site layout and on-site circulation.

For the two development scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings would be demolished. See Figure 18 for a site photo.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 13 Site 1 Location and Site Layout

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 14 Site 1 Photos

Parking lot on west side of Site 1 looking north along Kettner St

East side of Site 1, looking north along India Street

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 15 Site 2 Location and Site Layout

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 16 Site 2 Photos

East side of Site 2, looking north along State Street

Southwest. corner of Site 2, looking east across Columbia St

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 17 Site 3 Location and Site Layout

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 18 Site 3 Photo

North side of Site 3 on Ash Street

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Site 4

Site 4 is bounded by A Street, Union Street, B Street, and State Street (Figure 19). It is anticipated that transit vehicles would enter from an ingress-only driveway on A Street and exit on an egress- only driveway on B Street. No lane geometry or signal modifications would be needed for this project site.

There is currently one existing building located on the project site. The building appears to be divided into three separate sections with two of those three sections currently vacant. The other section is currently utilized by an auto service facility (“A” Street Auto).

For the Layover Facility Only option, a partial or full take of the site could take place. Under a partial take, the building would remain and a facility for up to 15 bays could be provided, 13 for articulated buses and 2 for standard buses. Under a full take, up to 24 articulated bus bays could be provided, although a design with 18 bays would be preferred. The extra space could be used to provide perimeter screening and a small building for storage, driver restrooms, and possibly a dispatch supervisor. See Figure 19 for the site layout and on-site circulation for a partial take on this site.

Under Building Options A and B, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of the building. See Figure 20 for a site photo.

Site 5

Site 5 is bounded by A Street, Front Street, B Street and Union Street (Figure 21). Transit vehicles would enter from an ingress-only driveway on A Street and exit on an egress-only driveway on B Street. No lane geometry or signal modifications would be needed with this site.

Exhibit 12 : North side of Site 4, looking south. There are currently two existing buildings located on the project site. Both are being utilized by the County of San Diego for law enforcement use and automotive services. It is anticipated that the demolition of the structures on the site would be a separate project undertaken by the County of San Diego, completed prior to construction of any of the project alternatives.

The County of San Diego has a need to replace some storage and office space being lost on site. Based on this assumption, it is expected that the site would be developed to accommodate multiple uses, including a layover facility of up to 18 bus bays. Any extra space could be used to provide perimeter screening and a small building for storage, driver restrooms, and possibly a dispatch supervisor. See Figure 21 for site layout and on-site circulation, and Figure 22 for a site photo.

Exhibit 13 : Site 5 location

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 19 Site 4 Location and Site Plan

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 20 Site 4 Photo

North side of Site 4, looking south

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 21 Site 5 Location and Site Layout

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 22 Site 5 Photo

North side of Site 5, looking south along Union Street

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

SITE COMPARISON

A summary of the attributes of each site is provided in Table 1. Site attributes vary depending on development scenarios and identify if the development scenario would result is a full or partial property acquisition, the number of exisiting buildings on site, the number of buildings to be demolished, lane and signal modifications, bus capacity, land use(s), and distance by blocks to Broadway.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Table 1 Site Comparison

No. of Expected No. of Buildings to Lane/ Site Development Acquisition - Existing be Signal Bus Current Land Blocks to No. Scenario Full or Partial Buildings Demolished Mods Capacity* Use(s) Broadway Layover Only Partial 3 0-2 Yes 14-18 Office, 1 Commercial, 3 Building Options Full 3 3 Yes 12-14 Parking A or B Full or Layover Only 3 2-3 No 12-18 Partial** Office, 2 Commercial, 3 Building Options Full 3 3 No 12-14 Parking A or B Layover Only Full 2 2 No 18-24 3 Government 3 Building Options Full 2 2 No 12-14 A or B Layover Only Full or Partial 1 0-1 No 15-18 Office, 4 Government, 2 Building Options Full 1 1 No 12-14 Parking A or B Layover Only Full 2 2*** No 18-24 5 Government 2 Building Full 2 2*** No 12-14 Options A or B * Layover Facility Only alternative ** The layover facility could be developed on the entire site, which would be preferred, or on the southern half of the site *** Demolition of structures would be a separate project undertaken by the County of San Diego (owner)

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

3.0 SCREENING PROCESS AND RESULTS

This section describes the approach to developing the criteria and scoring process for the screening of the five alternative sites. It also discusses the results of the screening effort.

3.1 SCREENING CRITERIA AND SCORING METHOD

Scoring Approach

Fifteen criteria were developed for use in screening the five alternative sites and three alternative development schemes. The scored used the following scale of +2 to -2.

2 Major improvements upon existing conditions 1 Minor improvements upon existing conditions 0 Neutral or no effects on existing conditions -1 Minor negative effects on existing conditions -2 Major negative effects on existing conditions

The scoring guidelines were refined for each criterion to ensure an effective assessment of each alternative for the specific criterion. Discussion of each criterion is provided below. All screening criteria were weighted equally.

A. Location – Proximity to Route Termini

This criterion focuses on the distances between the local and BRT route terminals and starting stops, and the alternative layover sites. The locations of the terminal and start stops for the local routes vary by site to enable them to serve the west end of Broadway as much as possible before heading to the layover facility. The BRT services terminate on India Street near America Plaza, and start on Kettner Boulevard near America Plaza and the Santa Fe Depot.

Routings for the local and BRT buses to and from the alternative layover sites were developed (Figures 23-27). The distances between the terminal stops and the entrance to the layover sites, and the exit of the layover site and the starting stops of the routes, were then measured using Google Earth. The distances are reported in Table 2. Table 2 Distances between Stops and Layover Sites

Site BRT Stop Distance (ft) Local Stop Distance (ft) Total Distance (ft) 1 2,987 3,411 6,398 2 3,140 3,631 6,771 3 3,694 3,702 7,396 4 3,140 2,555 5,695 5 3,674 2,375 6,049

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 23 Site 1 Bus Access Routings

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 24 Site 2 Bus Access Routings

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 25 Site 3 Bus Access Routings

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 26 Site 4 Bus Access Routings

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Figure 27 Site 5 Bus Access Routings

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

When the distances for BRT and local routes are added together, Sites 1, 2, and 3 are farther away than Sites 4 and 5. However, Site 1 offers the ability to extend the service provided by the local routes further west on Broadway. The routes could then serve existing stops at Columbia Street (westbound) and India Street (eastbound), enabling easier connections to the trolley stop at America Plaza, and the trolley and rail services at Santa Fe Depot. As a result, the scoring for this criterion was applied as follows.

2 Not used 1 The layover facility is a relatively short distance (in the range of 6,000 feet) from the local and BRT terminals 0 The layover facility is a modest distance (in the range of 6,500 feet) from the local and BRT terminals -1 The layover facility is a moderate distance (more than 7,000 feet) from the local and BRT terminals -2 Not used

Based on the differences in distance, Sites 4 and 5 received scores of 1, Site 2 received a score of 0, and Site 3 received a score of -1. Based on the distances, Site 1 would have received a 0, but the advantage of enhanced connections to America Plaza and Santa Fe Depot helped to offset the added distance and resulted in a score of +1.

B. Accessibility – Convenience for Buses to Reach Facility

This criterion addresses the routing required for the buses to reach the layover facility. It includes consideration of the streets and intersections that have to be navigated by local and BRT buses to reach the facility, the number of turns required, the number of left turns required, the number of intersections traveled through, and the relative traffic volumes on the street segments, based on the routings shown in Figures 20-24. The scoring was applied as follows:

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 The routing travels on several low volume streets, is relatively direct, and/or the number of left turns is relatively low, and/or the number of intersections is low -1 The routing travels on several high volume streets, has a larger number of left turns, and/or crosses through several intersections -2 Not used

The factors for each site for local and BRT routes are summarized in Table 3.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Table 3 Factors Affecting Access to Layover Sites BRT Traffic Local Traffic No. of Left Volumes Volumes No. of Site No. of Turns Turns (H, M, L)* (H, M, L)* Intersections India – M B’way – H Ash – M-H India – M BRT – 4 BRT – 3 A – L Ash – M-H BRT – 6 1 Local – 6 Local – 4 Kettner - M A – L Local – 9 Kettner – M B’way – H India – M B’way – H A – M India – M BRT – 4 BRT – 3 Ash – M-H A – M BRT – 8 2 Local – 6 Local – 4 Kettner - M Ash – M-H Local – 11 Columbia – L B’way – H India – M B’way – H A – M-H State – M BRT – 4 BRT – 3 Ash – M-H A – M-H BRT – 11 3 Local – 6 Local – 4 Kettner - M Ash – M-H Local – 11 Columbia – L B’way – H India – M B’way – H A – M-H State – M BRT – 4 BRT – 2 B – L A – M-H BRT – 9 4 Local – 6 Local – 2 Kettner - M B – L Local – 8 Union – L B’way – H India – M B’way – H A – M-H Union – L BRT – 4 BRT – 2 B – L A – M-H BRT – 11 5 Local – 6 Local – 2 Kettner - M B – L Local – 7 Union – L B’way – H * H – High, M – Medium, L – Light

Based on the data in Table 3, the primary differentiators between the alternatives are the number of required left turns and the number of intersections traveled through. Sites 1-3 require more left turns and intersections than Sites 4-5. As a result, Sites 1-3 were assigned -1 for this criterion, while Sites 4-5 received 0s.

C. Land Use – Consistency with Community Plan

The scoring utilized for this topic is based on consistency with applicable land use planning documents for the area. A review of the San Diego Downtown Community Plan1 and associated land use objectives and development criteria was conducted for each of the project sites. In addition, a list of current and future projects was reviewed for the Columbia Neighborhood.2

Scoring methodology for land use is based on the following scoring criteria:

1 San Diego Downtown Community Plan, Centre City Development Corporation, adopted April 2006. 2 Columbia Neighborhood Project Listing, http://civicsd.com/projects/major-downtown-projects/projects-landing- page/columbia.html, website accessed February 4, 2015.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

2 Achieves all goals and objectives related to land use 1 Achieves most of the plan’s goals and objectives 0 Achieves some of the plan’s goals and objectives -1 Hinders the achievement of some of the plan’s goals and objectives -2 Hinders the achievement of most or all of the plan’s goals and objectives

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. Site 1 is designated with a “Core” land use designation in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan. This classification is primarily intended to encourage, support, and enhance the Core as a high-intensity office and employment center. Areas with this designation include Civic/Core and most of the Columbia Neighborhood District. The San Diego Downtown Community Plan supports the Core’s role as a center of regional importance and as a primary hub for business, communications, office, and hotels, with fewer restrictions on building bulk and tower separation than in other districts. The Core accommodates mixed-use (office combined with hotel, residential, and other uses) projects as important components of the area’s vitality. Retail, cultural, educational, civic and governmental, and entertainment uses are also permitted. All development is required to be pedestrian-oriented.

A score of -1 was assigned to the bus layover facility only scenario and a +1 for Building Option A and +2 for Building Option B since these development scenarios achieve the general goals of the Core designation (high intensity office and employment center).

Site 2. Site 2 is designated with a “Core” land use designation in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan. As stated above for Site 1, this classification is primarily intended to encourage, support, and enhance the Core as a high-intensity office and employment center. A score of -1 was assigned to the bus layover facility only scenario and a +1 for Building Option A and +2 for Building Option B. Similar to Site 1, these development scenarios achieve the goals of the Core designation (high intensity office and employment center).

Site 3. Site 3 is designated with a “Public/Civic” land use designation in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan. The classification provides a center for government, civic, cultural, educational, and other public uses.. A score of -1 was assigned to the bus layover facility only, and Building Option B scenarios on Site 3 since the proposed bus layover facility and residential uses would not be consistent with the land use goals. A score of +1 was assigned to Building Option A since the proposed office and quasi-government uses would be generally compatible with the Public/Civic land use designation.

Site 4. Site 4 is designated with a “Public/Civic” land use designation in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan. As stated above, the classification provides a center for government, civic, cultural, educational, and other public uses. Similar to Site 3, a score of -1 was assigned to the bus layover facility only and Building Option B scenarios on Site 4. Building Option A was assigned a +1 since it generally achieves the goals of the Public/Civic designation.

Site 5. Site 5 is designated with a “Public/Civic” land use designation in the San Diego Downtown Community Plan. As stated above for Site 4, the “Public/Civic” land use classification is primarily intended to provide a center for government, civic, cultural, educational, and other public uses. A score of -1 was assigned to the bus layover facility only and the Building Option B scenarios on Site 5. Building Option B was assigned a +1.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

D. Sensitive Receptors – Proximity to Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors are defined by the City of San Diego as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. Sensitive receptors are considered to include: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities.3 A review of aerial mapping of each of the project sites was conducted and adjacent land uses and sensitive land uses (if any) identified.

2 Not used 1 No sensitive receptors adjacent to project site 0 Not used -1 1-2 frontage roads with adjacent sensitive receptors -2 3-4 frontage roads with adjacent sensitive receptors

Scoring Summary

Site 1. Site 1 is bounded by Ash Street, Kettner Boulevard, A Street, and India Street. The following table identifies existing adjacent land uses to Site 1. As identified in the table below, Site 1 is adjacent to residential uses on three sides of the site. Adjacent sensitive receptors may be impacted by development of any of the scenarios identified on Site 1. Therefore, a score of -2 was assigned for all development scenarios (layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Direction Land Use North (north side of Ash Street) High rise office building, mixed use development with commercial uses on first floor, residential uses on upper six floors South (south of A Street) High rise residential (all floors) East (east of India Street) Mixed use, commercial on first floor, residential on upper levels, parking structure, parking lots West (west of Kettner Boulevard) Parking lot, commercial uses

Site 2. Site 2 is bounded by Ash Street, State Street, A Street, and Columbia Street. The following table identifies existing adjacent land uses to Site 2. As identified in the table below, Site 2 is adjacent to residential uses on two sides of the site. Adjacent sensitive receptors may be impacted by development of any of the scenarios identified on Site 2. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios (layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Direction Land Use North (north side of Ash Street) High rise residential (all floors) South (south of A Street) High rise office East (east of State Street) Commercial uses (vacant), parking lot West (west of Columbia Street) Office, mixed use (commercial first floor, residential upper floors), hotel

Site 3. Site 3 is bounded by Ash Street, Union Street, A Street, and State Street. The following table identifies existing adjacent land uses to Site 3. As identified in the table below, Site 3 is adjacent to residential uses on one side of the site. Adjacent sensitive receptors may be impacted by development of any of the scenarios identified on Site 3. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios (layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

3 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Determination Thresholds, City of San Diego Development Services Department, January 2011.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Direction Land Use North (north side of Ash Street) Mixed use – commercial and residential South (south of A Street) Commercial uses and parking lot East (east of Union Street) Office uses West (west of State Street) Commercial uses and parking lot

Site 4. Site 4 is bounded by A Street, Union Street, B Street, and State Street. The following table identifies existing adjacent land uses to Site 4. As identified in the table below, Site 4 is not adjacent to any residential uses. A score of +1 was assigned for all development scenarios (layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Direction Land Use North (north side of A Street) Commercial uses and parking lot South (south of B Street) Vacant East (east of Union Street) Government facilities and parking lot West (west of State Street) High rise office

Site 5. Site 5 is bounded by A Street, Front Street, B Street, and Union Street. The following table identifies existing adjacent land uses to Site 5. As identified in the table below, Site 5 is not adjacent to any residential uses. A score of +1 was assigned for all development scenarios (layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Direction Land Use North (north side of A Street) Office uses South (south of B Street) Government facilities East (east of Front Street) Government facilities West (west of Union Street) Commercial and parking lot

E. Traffic – Anticipated Traffic Volumes and Impacts

The scoring methodology for this criteria included consideration of potential traffic impacts in traveling between the transit service stops and the layover sites. A review of the traffic report4 prepared for Sites 1 through 4 was conducted and pertinent information incorporated as part of this analysis. The traffic impacts for Site 5 are expected to be similar to Site 4 based on their proximity and similarity in the bus access routings. The scoring was based on the following considerations.

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 Impacts to traffic are minimal, with few key intersections impacted -1 Impacts to traffic are moderate, with some key intersections impacted -2 Not used

Scoring Summary:

As noted in the previous traffic report, Site 1 would require the introduction of a short westbound segment on A Street east of Kettner Boulevard to enable buses to turn left on Kettner Boulevard to reach Broadway. In addition, a new traffic signal at Kettner Boulevard and A Street would be required to protect turn moves from southbound Kettner to eastbound A Street, and westbound A

4 Draft Traffic Impact Analysis – Transit Layover Facility, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., July 2012.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Street to southbound Kettner Boulevard. As a result of these modifications, there would be a minor negative impact that resulted in a score of -1 for all development scenarios.

Sites 2-5 would be able to use existing intersections and street segments with minimal impact from the buses. As a result, these sites received a score of 0.

F. Noise – Noise Impacts

The scoring utilized for noise impacts is based on scoring methodology developed for proximity to noise receptors. A review of aerials of each of the project sites was conducted and adjacent land uses and sensitive noise land uses (if any) identified. In addition, the Noise Analysis Report5 previously prepared for the bus layover facility was reviewed and applicable information included as part of the analysis.

2 Not used 1 Reduction in noise levels to sensitive receptors 0 Little or no change expected in noise environment for sensitive receptors -1 Moderate noise increases to adjacent sensitive receptors -2 Moderate noise increase to large number of adjacent sensitive receptors

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. Site 1 is generally level and located in an urban setting, surrounded by two and three lane surface streets. Existing noise sources include traffic operating on adjacent streets and trolley/train operation on tracks west of Kettner Boulevard. Site 1 is adjacent to residential uses on three sides of the site. Development of any of the scenarios could result in noise increases to adjacent sensitive receptors. Site design may not be possible to avoid or reduce noise increases to these adjacent sensitive receptors.

The bus layover facility as planned would generate noise levels up to approximately 62 dBA Ldn at the closest noise-sensitive residential building façades. This would add up to approximately 1 dBA Ldn to existing ambient noise levels. Project-generated noise consists of transit vehicle movements along project roadways and turning on bus engines while in the facility. Upon entering the site, transit vehicles would be moving at speeds below 10 mph, directly to parking stalls, where the engines would be shut off. The site would be surrounded by an 8-foot-high solid CMU or masonry wall. Bus noise levels would be as high as approximately 52 dBA at 100 feet during startup. As such, noise generated by project operations on the parking site is considered negligible and would be less than significant.

A typical day of construction activity would be centered on the site, approximately 90 feet from the closest noise-sensitive land use. Using standard point source attenuation characteristics of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the construction noise level would exceed 80 dBA at distances less than 120 feet from the center of the site. The construction noise level could be as high as 82 dBA at noise-sensitive land uses. The construction and operation noise level anticipated would be the same on all 5 sites. A score of -2 was assigned for all development scenarios due the number of sensitive receptors adjacent to the site.

Site 2. Site 2 is adjacent to residential uses on two sides of the site. Similar to Site 1, Site 2 is located in an urban setting with existing noise sources including traffic operating on adjacent streets. While development of any of the scenarios could result in noise increases to adjacent sensitive receptors, such sensitive receptors would only occur on two of the frontage roads. Site design may

5 Draft Noise Analysis Report, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., August 2012

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report be possible to avoid or reduce noise increases to these adjacent sensitive receptors. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios due the number of sensitive receptors adjacent to the site.

Site 3. Site 3 is adjacent to residential uses on one side of the site. Similar to Site 1, Site 3 is located in an urban setting with existing noise sources including traffic operating on adjacent streets. While development of any of the scenarios could result in noise increases to adjacent sensitive receptors, such sensitive receptors would only occur on one of the frontage roads. Site design may be possible to avoid or reduce noise increases to these adjacent sensitive receptors. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios due the number of sensitive receptors adjacent to the site.

Site 4. There are no noise sensitive land uses adjacent to Site 4. Development of any of the scenarios is anticipated to result in little to no change in the existing noise environment for sensitive receptors. Therefore, a score of 0 was assigned to all development scenarios for Site 4.

Site 5. There are no noise sensitive land uses adjacent to Site 5. Similar to Site 4, development of any of the scenarios is anticipated to result in little to no change in the existing noise environment for sensitive receptors. Therefore, a score of 0 was assigned to all development scenarios for Site 5.

G. Safety – Potential Conflicts with Pedestrians & Vehicular Movements

The effect of the interaction between buses, pedestrians, and bicycles is assessed in this criterion. Since buses would enter and exit the facility using driveways that cross sidewalks for all of the sites, the difference in impacts would depend on the level of development on the site and the level of activity near the site. The layover only options would generate less activity than the development options. The scoring was based on the following considerations.

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 The number of potential conflicts is minimal due to the alternative development level and/or development intensity in the vicinity -1 Not used -2 The number of potential conflicts is substantial due to the alternative development level and/or development intensity in the vicinity

Scoring Summary:

The bus layover only alternatives would result in a low number of conflicts since there would be a low level of activity on the site that would generate pedestrian and vehicular travel. Vehicles would be primarily buses or support vehicles. As a result, the bus layover only scenario for Sites 1-5 received a 0.

Development Options A and B would include the activity of the bus layover facilities plus the pedestrian and vehicular travel generated by the office/retail/residential development. As a result, there would be more pedestrians on the sidewalks and vehicles parking on the sites. Conflict at the driveways could be substantial, resulting in the development options receiving scores of -2 for each site.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

H. Cultural Resources – Impacts to Known Sites/Historical Resources

Historic and cultural resources are known to occur within the study area. To determine if one or more of these resources occur within the study area for each of the alternative scenarios, HDR reviewed the cultural resource report previously conducted for Sites 1 through 4 for the layover facility only6, a cultural resource report conducted for the New San Diego Central Courthouse Project,7 and a review of the City of San Diego General Plan8 and supporting Environmental Impact Report (EIR)9. In addition, the National Park Service’s, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Program Spatial Data10 was reviewed to determine if any NRHP-listed sites occurred within or in close proximity of the study area for each alternative scenario.

Scoring methodology for this topic utilized a pass/fail criterion that assessed the potential for impacts to known sites/historical resources on each of the sites.

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 No effect or impact to known cultural/historical resources -1 Potential for impacts to cultural/historical resources (e.g., removal of building) -2 Not used

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. There are currently three existing buildings located on the project site consisting of an auto service facility, a vacant building, and a bank building (San Diego Private Bank). Under the layover facility only scenario, these buildings would remain. Based on the cultural resources work conducted for the layover facility only scenario, no historic resources were located on Site 1 and none would be affected by the development of the layover facility only scenario. Therefore, a score of 0 was assigned for the layover facility only scenario.

Under the Building Option A and Building Option B scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of these three buildings. Of these three buildings, two buildings (auto service building and vacant building) appear to be of older construction (e.g., brickwork) that would require further assessment under CEQA if demolition is to occur. A score of -1 was assigned for both the Building Option A scenario and Building Option B scenario.

Site 2. There are currently three existing buildings located on the project site. One building is vacant and the other two buildings currently house a taco shop (Taco Express) and an architect services firm (Dowler Gruman Architects). The cultural resources report assumed that the entire site would be utilized by the project and identified that no historic resources were located on Site 2. Under any of the three scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings demolished. Development of the layover facility only, Building Option A, or Building Option B is not anticipated to result in impacts to a known historical/cultural resource. A score of 0 was assigned for both all three development scenarios.

Site 3. There are currently two existing buildings located on the project site. The State of California garage building located at 350 West Ash Street is listed in the South Coastal Information Center

6 Site 1-4 Cultural Resource Report 7 Historic Structure Assessment and Archaeological Review for the New San Diego Central Courthouse Project, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., December 1, 2010. 8 City of San Diego General Plan, City of San Diego, March 2008. 9 City of San Diego General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of San Diego, March 2008. 10 National Register of Historic Places Program – Spatial Data, National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.htm, website accessed February 1, 2015.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

(SCIC) database of historical addresses. The State of California garage is not an officially designated local, state, or federal historic resource pursuant to the historic buildings/structures survey performed within the Downtown Community Planning area shown (Downtown Community Plan Final EIR, page 5.3-1). However, the Cultural Report has not been finalized and final historic determination of the building will require additional work under CEQA. Under any of the three scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings demolished. A score of -1 was assigned for all three development scenarios.

Site 4. There is currently one existing building located on the project site. The one building appears to be split into three separate sections with two of those three sections currently vacant. The other section is currently utilized as an auto service facility (“A” Street Auto). Under the layover facility only scenario, the building would remain and no impacts to a known historical/cultural resource are anticipated. Therefore, a score of 0 was assigned for the layover facility only scenario. Under the Building Option A and Building Option B, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of the buildings. The building appears to be of older constructed (e.g., brickwork) and would require further assessment under CEQA if demolition is to occur. A score of -1 was assigned for both the Building Option A scenario and Building Option B scenario.

Site 5. There are currently two existing buildings located on the project site. Both buildings are currently being utilized by the County of San Diego for law enforcement use and automotive services. Based on a review of NRHP and City of San Diego General Plan, no designated local, state, or federal historic resources were identified within Site 5. Construction of the County Courthouse and Detention Center occurred in 1961.

Modifications and expansions over the past 49 years to the core structures have affected the integrity of the County Courthouse and Detention Center. The San Diego County Courthouse and Detention Center Complex can be characterized as structures with a plain utilitarian form, which lack historical or architectural significance, and do not exhibit character-defining exterior architectural devices. Lacking any distinctive architectural features or other historically noteworthy characteristics, the Complex is determined not to be a significant historic resource under CEQA (which incorporates the provisions for the California Register of Historic Resources.

In addition the same lack of historic and architectural significance falls short of meeting the criteria needed to qualify for listing on the National Register. Therefore, the demolition of the standing structures will not represent a significant to any buildings that qualify as significant under CEQA or which may be considered eligible for the National Register. Under all development scenarios, a portion of the site would be utilized and would require the demolition of the existing buildings.11 Development of the layover facility only, Building Option A, or Building Option B would not result impacts to known historical/cultural resources. Therefore, a score of 0 was assigned for all development scenarios.

I. Utilities/Energy – Impacts to Supporting Infrastructure

This criterion considers the expected demand of the alternatives for energy, water, sewer, communications, etc. The bus layover only alternatives would place substantially less demand for these items than the development options. The scoring was based on the following considerations.

11 As part of the condition of development for the San Diego County Courthouse Site, the developer would be required to demolish and remove the entire County Courthouse building (including that portion north of B Street on Site 5) and the Old Jail Building.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 Little impact expected due to low development intensity -1 Modest impact expected due to development intensity -2 Not used

Scoring Summary:

The layover only development option would require very little in the way of utilities or other supporting infrastructure. As a result, this option received a 0 for all of the five sites.

Development Options A and B would require various elements of infrastructure including electrical service, water, sewer, internet, etc. Downtown’s infrastructure has been developed to serve a high level of development and it is anticipated that the requirements of the new office, residential, and commercial developments will be able to be accommodated with limited additions to the area’s infrastructure. While there is a difference in the development intensity of A and B, the anticipated difference in impact would be minimal. As a result, Development Options A and B received -1 for all of the sites.

J. Visual Impacts – Impact to Visual Quality

The project sites are located in a highly developed, urban area. Developed land uses (industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, public, and institutional) are located throughout the area. Informational sources used for this analysis included the Draft Visual Impact Assessment conducted for the bus layover facility12, Caltrans – California Scenic Highway Mapping System13, City of San Diego General Plan14, and San Diego Downtown Community Plan.15

2 Not used 1 Consistent with adjacent existing urban viewshed, building mass and scale 0 Not used -1 Minor impact associated with mass and scale changes along designated view corridor -2 Not used

Sites 1, 2, and 3 are within a viewshed corridor (Ash Street from Kettner Boulevard to 6th Street). There are setback and height restrictions for development occurring on south side of Ash Street. No viewshed corridors affecting Sites 4 and 5. Development adjacent to India Street is required to include commercial development along frontage street which would affect development of Site 1.

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. Site 1 would be required to adhere to policies governed by view corridor setbacks identified for Ash Street (west of Kettner Boulevard and from Kettner Boulevard to 6th Avenue (south side only)). As identified in the Visual Impact Assessment prepared for the layover facility, views into each site are predicted to change moderately which is anticipated to stimulate a moderate response from viewer groups. The viewer group most sensitive to this change are those who work or reside within or adjacent to the site(s). This finding does not mean the proposed Project would create either a beneficial or adverse visual impact but rather that it would change the existing visual environment.

12 Draft Visual Impact Assessment – Downtown Bus Parking Lot Project (Layover Facility)¸ July 2012. 13 California Scenic Highway Program, California Department of Transportation, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm, website accessed February 4, 2015. 14 City of San Diego General Plan, City of San Diego, March 2008. 15 San Diego Downtown Community Plan, Centre City Development Corporation, adopted April 2006.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

As noted herein, there are no scenic views from within Sites 1 through 4, nor do any of the four sites contain scenic views that would be adversely affected by the implementation of layover facility.

Implementation of design features including screening walls and landscaping would soften views of the proposed facility. However, because the screening walls would be limited to 8-feet in height, they would only benefit viewers at street level. For those living or working in upper floor units adjacent to and facing the sites, views would change from existing parking lots used primarily for personal vehicles to a parking lot used to park transit vehicles for short periods of time.

Therefore, development of the layover facility only scenario would replace the existing parking lot with a similar transportation use and is not anticipated to change the mass and scale along frontages since existing buildings would remain. A score of +1 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. Development of Building Option A and Building Option B would require the entire development of the site and is likely to change building mass and scale from what currently exists on the site. However, the change in building mass and scale would be consistent with adjacent development and urban visual environment. Therefore, a score of -1 was assigned for Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

Site 2. Similar to Site 1, Site 2 would be required to adhere to policies governed by view corridor setbacks identified for Ash Street (west of Kettner Boulevard and from Kettner Boulevard to 6th Avenue (south side only)). Similar to Site 1, development of the layover facility only scenario would replace the existing parking lot with a similar transportation use and is not anticipated to significantly change the building mass and scale along street frontages. A score of +1 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. Development of Building Option A and Building Option B would require the entire development of the site and is likely to change building mass and scale from what currently exists on the site. However, the change in building mass and scale would be consistent with adjacent development and urban visual environment. Therefore, a score of -1 was assigned for Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

Site 3. Similar to Site 1, Site 3 would be required to adhere to policies governed by view corridor setbacks identified for Ash Street (west of Kettner Boulevard and from Kettner Boulevard to 6th Avenue (south side only)). Development of the layover facility only scenario would result in the removal of all buildings on site and would replace the existing parking lot with a similar transportation use. Overall, the layover facility only scenario is not anticipated to significantly change the mass and scale along frontages. A score of +1 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. Development of Building Option A and Building Option B would require the entire development of the site and is likely to change building mass and scale from what currently exists on the site. However, the change in building mass and scale would be consistent with adjacent development and urban visual environment. Therefore, a score of -1 was assigned for Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

Site 4. Development of the layover facility only scenario would replace the existing parking lot with a similar transportation use and is not anticipated to change the building mass and scale along the street frontages since existing buildings would remain. A score of +1 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. Development of Building Option A and Building Option B would require the entire development of the site and is likely to change building mass and scale from what currently exists on the site but would be adjacent to and consistent with other similarly massed and scaled developments. Therefore, a score of +1 was assigned for Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

Site 5. Development of the layover facility only scenario would replace a portion of the site with a transportation use and is not anticipated to significantly change the visual mass and scale of the area. A score of +1 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. Development of Building

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Option A and Building Option B may require the entire development of the site and is likely to change building mass and scale from what currently exists on the site. However, the development of Building Option A and Building Option B would be adjacent to and consistent with other similarly massed and scaled developments. Therefore, a score of +1 was assigned for Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

K. Hazardous Materials – Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials

The alternative scenarios were assessed for their potential to encounter documented hazardous materials sites or known hazardous materials. The limited hazardous materials assessment previously conducted for Sites 1 through 4 was reviewed16 and information included in the assignment of scoring ranking. In addition, a review of the New San Diego Central Courthouse Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment17 and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database18 was conducted to identify sites of concern located within and adjacent to Site 5.

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 No or low potential presence of hazardous materials anticipated to be encountered -1 Some hazardous materials (e.g., removal of old building materials from demolition activities) may be encountered -2 Site cleanup may be required above and beyond regulations identified for demolition activities (e.g., underground storage tank, soil remediation on site)

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. There are currently three existing buildings located on the project site. One building is vacant and the other two are utilized as an auto service facility and a bank building (San Diego Private Bank). Under the layover facility only scenario, these buildings would remain and the layover facility would be constructed within the existing parking lot. A score of 0 was assigned to the layover facility only scenario. Under the Building Option A and Building Option B, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of these three buildings. No known hazardous materials sites were identified within Site 1.

However, the demolition of the buildings may result in the removal of potential hazardous materials which may include asbestos and lead based paint. In addition, because the site has been occupied by automobile sales and service facilities, there is potential for subsurface impacts because these facilities were present at Site 1. Typically automobile sales and service facilities use and store hazardous materials and petroleum products, generate hazardous waste, and have features of concern (e.g., USTs, in ground hydraulic lifts, waste clarifiers, solvent parts cleaning units, paint booths, etc.). A score of -2 was assigned to Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

Site 2. Site 2 currently has three buildings consisting of an office building occupied by DGA Architects (located at 445 West Ash Street), a Taco Express restaurant (located at 1330 State Street), an abandoned automotive station – formerly Woodie’s Place (located at 1300 State St.), and a paved parking lot.

16 Proposed Metropolitan Transit System – Harborside Layover Facility Site Limited Hazardous Materials Assessment, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, November 2011. 17 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment – Properties located at 1140 Union Street, 1146 Union Street, and 1168 Union Street, ERM, August 2007, 18 EnviroStor Database, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, website accessed, February 4, 2015.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

The Taco Express restaurant is housed in a portion of the building previously used as the Maydole Auto Body Shop. The building is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator database. This facility generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulative more than 2000 kg of hazardous waste at any time. The site is not listed as a regulated facility by the State Water Resources Control Board. According to the limited hazardous materials assessment previously completed for Sites 1 through 4, there are no violations associated with this facility. The building located at 1300 State Street was previously known as Woodie’s Place. The facility is listed on the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System UST (SWEEPS UST) but is not listed as a regulated facility by the State Water Resources Control Board.

Under any of the three scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings demolished. The demolition of the buildings may result in the removal of potential hazardous materials which may include asbestos and lead based paint. In addition, because two of the buildings are listed on the RCRA and SWEEPS UST databases, further remediation of the site may be required for any of the development scenarios. A score of -2 was assigned to all development scenarios (bus layover facility only, Building Option A and Building Option B).

Site 3. Site 3 has two buildings and a paved parking lot on the project site. One building (located at 345 Ash Street) was previously used as a garage for State vehicles and the other building (located at 1301 State Street) was previously used by the California Department of Justice. Both buildings are currently vacant. The California Department of Justice building is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) nongenerator database. This facility does not currently generate hazardous waste and is not listed as a regulated facility by the State Water Resources Control Board. According to the limited hazardous materials assessment, there are no violations associated with this facility. Under any of the three development scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings demolished. The demolition of the buildings may result in the removal of potential hazardous materials which may include asbestos and lead based paint. In addition, because one of the buildings is listed on the RCRA database, further remediation of the site may be required for any of the development scenarios. A score of -2 was assigned to all development scenarios (bus layover facility only, Building Option A and Building Option B).

Site 4. Site 4 contains one building of which a portion is currently utilized by A Street Automotive (located at 1263 State Street). The remaining portion of the building is currently vacant. There is also a paved parking lot within Site 4. The A Street Automotive facility (previously known as Precision Tune) is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator database. This facility generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulative more than 2000 kg of hazardous waste at any time. The site is not listed as a regulated facility by the State Water Resources Control Board.

According to the limited hazardous materials assessment previously completed for Sites 1 through 4, there are no violations associated with this facility. Under the layover facility only scenario, the bus layover facility would be constructed within the paved parking lot and no buildings would be demolished. A score of 0 was assigned to the layover facility only scenario. Under Building Option A and Building Option B, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings demolished. The demolition of the buildings may result in the removal of potential hazardous materials which may include asbestos and lead based paint. In addition, because one of the buildings is listed on the RCRA database, further remediation of the site may be required for Building Option A and Building Option B. A score of -2 was assigned to Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Site 5. There are currently two existing buildings located on the project site. Both buildings are currently being utilized by the County of San Diego for law enforcement use and automotive services. The Union & A Street Service Station/County of San Diego Fleet Service facility (located at 1251 Union Street) is listed on the LUST database, San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation Program (San Diego County SAM) database and Historic CORTESE. According to the State Water Resources Control Board, the status of this facility is listed as an open site assessment and the potential media affected is listed as other groundwater (uses other than drinking water). The contaminant of concern is gasoline.

It is anticipated that the demolition of the portion of the County Courthouse building on Site 5 (north of B Street) would be a separate project undertaken by the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) or property successor under a contractual obligation to the County of San Diego. The remediation of the existing County of San Diego Fleet Service facility would be required prior to construction of any of the development scenarios. Since the remediation of the site would be required under any of the development scenarios, a score of -2 was assigned to the bus layover facility only, Building Option A and Building Option B scenarios.

L. Air Quality/GHG – Impact to Air Quality

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state regulatory agency with authority to enforce regulations to both achieve and maintain the NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The project sites are located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Therefore, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for administration and enforcement of air quality regulations and standards in the SDAB. The SDAPCD and SANDAG are responsible for developing and implementing goals and policies for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. Source materials reviewed as part of this evaluation included the SDAPCD’s Air Quality in San Diego 2013 Annual Report and air quality data summaries provided by the California Air Resource Board (CARB).

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 Little or no change expected with alternative scenario -1 Some increase in the level of air pollutants generated during construction and operation but likely below San Diego Air Pollution Control District thresholds -2 Increase in the level of air pollutants generated during construction and operation and likely above San Diego Air Pollution Control District thresholds

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. Construction of any of the alternative scenarios would have the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips, material delivery trips, and heavy-duty haul truck trips generated from construction activities. Similarly, operation of any of the alternative scenarios may have the potential to create operational air quality impacts through the creation of new commercial and/or residential uses.

Development of the layover facility only scenario is anticipated to generate little to no change in air quality pollutants due to the limited development and through the use of natural gas vehicles. A score of 0 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. The development of Building Option A or Building Option B is expected to generate additional vehicular traffic (increasing mobile source air emissions) and involve the establishment of new sources of stationary source emissions (e.g., electric generators or other fossil fuel burning machinery). Building Option B is anticipated to generate more operational air pollutants than Building Option A due to the residential component.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Therefore, air quality impacts under CEQA may be significant if pollutants exceed SDAPCD thresholds. Such impacts could also occur as a result of particulate matter generated during construction activities, including dust and diesel exhaust from heavy equipment. In addition, hazardous compounds such as asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint could be released by demolition of existing structures on the site. A score of -1 was assigned for the Building Option A development scenario while a score of -2 was assigned for the Building Option B development scenario. This would apply to all sites considered.

Site 2. Same as Site 1. A score of 0 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. A score of -1 was assigned for the Building Option A development scenario while a score of -2 was assigned for the Building Option B development scenario.

Site 3. Same as Site 1. A score of 0 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. A score of -1 was assigned for the Building Option A development scenario while a score of -2 was assigned for the Building Option B development scenario.

Site 4. Same as Site 1. A score of 0 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. A score of -1 was assigned for the Building Option A development scenario while a score of -2 was assigned for the Building Option B development scenario.

Site 5. Same as Site 1. A score of 0 was assigned for the bus layover facility scenario. A score of -1 was assigned for the Building Option A development scenario while a score of -2 was assigned for the Building Option B development scenario.

M. Air Quality/GHG – Ability to Support Achievement of Region's GHG Goals

Scoring methodology utilized for this topic involved a pass/fail criterion on if the scenario would be consistent with SANDAG’s Climate Action Plan Strategy19 and City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan.20

2 Not used 1 Scenario is consistent with the goals and objectives of SANDAG’s Climate Action Plan Strategy and the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan 0 Not used -1 Scenario is not consistent with the goals and objectives of SANDAG’s Climate Action Plan Strategy and the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan -2 Not used

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. Any of the development scenarios would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the SANDAG’s Climate Action Plan Strategy and City of San Diego’s Draft Climate Action Plan. The development of a bus layover facility would help promote effective land use to reduce average commute distance and would contribute to the implementation of infrastructure improvements that would facilitate alternative transportation modes for all travel trips. Building Option A and Building Option B would provide for an opportunity to implement transit-oriented development within transit priority and high density areas. Regional transportation planning under any of the development scenarios would be integrated with improved land use planning and community design to significantly lower demand for vehicle travel by making walking, bicycling, and public transportation

19 San Diego Association of Governments Climate Action Plan Strategy, SANDAG, March 2010. 20 Draft City of San Diego Climate Action Plan, City of San Diego, September 2014.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report practical choices for everyday travel. A score of +1 was assigned to all development scenarios (e.g., layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Site 2. Same as Site 1. A score of +1 was assigned to all development scenarios (e.g., layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Site 3. Same as Site 1. A score of +1 was assigned to all development scenarios (e.g., layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Site 4. Same as Site 1. A score of +1 was assigned to all development scenarios (e.g., layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

Site 5. Same as Site 1. A score of +1 was assigned to all development scenarios (e.g., layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B).

N. Displacements – No. of Displacements

Pass/fail criterion was utilized to assess anticipated displacements of residents and business resulting from property acquisitions. (Scoring 2 and 1 were not used for this topic). A review of aerial mapping of each of the project sites was conducted and existing buildings, businesses, or residences (if any) identified. Based on the review of aerial mappings, no residential uses would be displaced. For scenarios that would result in one business displacement, a score of -1 was assigned. For scenarios that would result in more than one business displacement, a score of -2 was assigned.

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 No displacements expected -1 One displacement expected -2 More than one displacement expected

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. There are currently three existing buildings located on the project site. One building is vacant and the other two are utilized as an auto service facility and a bank building (San Diego Private Bank). Under the layover facility only scenario, these buildings would remain and no displacement of existing businesses would occur. A score of 0 was assigned for the layover facility only scenario since no displacements of businesses would occur. Under the Building Option A and Building Option B, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of these three buildings. Development of Building Option A and Building Option B would result in the displacement of existing businesses. A score of -2 was assigned for Scenario Building Option A and Scenario Building Option B.

Site 2. There are currently three existing buildings located on the project site. One building is vacant and the other two buildings currently house a taco shop (Taco Express) and an architect services firm (Dowler Gruman Architects). Under any of the three scenarios, the entire site would be utilized, all existing buildings would be demolished, and displacement of existing businesses would occur. Therefore, development of the layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B were assigned a score of -2.

Site 3. There are currently two existing buildings located on the project site. Based on survey reconnaissance, both buildings are currently vacant. Under any of the three scenarios, the entire site would be utilized and all existing buildings demolished. Since both buildings are currently vacant, development of the layover facility only, Building Option A, or Building Option B would not result in

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report the displacement of existing businesses. A score of 0 was assigned for all three development scenarios.

Site 4. There is currently one existing building located on the project site. The one building appears to be split into three separate sections with two of those three sections currently vacant. The other section is currently utilized as an auto service facility (“A” Street Auto). Under the layover facility only scenario, the building would remain and no displacement of existing businesses would occur. A score of 0 was assigned for the layover facility only scenario since no displacements of businesses would occur. Under the Building Option A and Building Option B, the entire site would be utilized and would require the demolition of the buildings resulting in the displacement of an existing business. A score of -1 was assigned for Scenario Building Option A and Scenario Building Option B.

Site 5. There are currently two existing buildings located on the project site. Both buildings are currently being utilized by the County of San Diego for law enforcement use and automotive services. The portion of the County Courthouse building located on Site 5 (north of B Street) is considered to be part of the County Courthouse building. After completion of the New San Diego Central Courthouse, the Superior Court and other parties currently using the existing County Courthouse building will move operations to the new courthouse and other facilities. Once court operations are relocated, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) will close and secure the existing County Courthouse and Old Jail buildings until demolition of the structures occurs.

It is anticipated that the demolition of the portion of the County Courthouse building on Site 5 (north of B Street) would be a separate project undertaken by the AOC or property successor under a contractual obligation to the County of San Diego.21 The relocation of court operations is part of the Superior Court’s long-range planning efforts associated with the New San Diego Central Courthouse Project. Since the existing County Courthouse building will be vacated, no displacements of businesses or residents would occur as a result of project implementation under any of the development scenarios. Therefore, a score of 0 was assigned for the layover facility only, Building Option A, and Building Option B.

O. Geologic Hazards

Pass/fail criterion was utilized to assess anticipated geologic hazards associated with each of the development scenarios on each of the development sites. A review of aerial mapping of each of the project sites was conducted and existing buildings, businesses, or residences (if any) identified. HDR reviewed the Preliminary Seismic Screening previously conducted for Sites 1 through 422, supporting geologic assessments conducted for the New San Diego Central Courthouse Project,23,24 and a review of the City of San Diego General Plan25 and supporting Environmental Impact Report (EIR).26

21 Request for Information: Disposition of the San Diego County Courthouse Site (RFI#OREFM-2014-02-BR), Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts – Judicial and Court Administrative Services Division, Office of Real Estate & Facilities Management, February 2014. 22 SANDAG Downtown Bus Layover Preliminary Seismic Screening, Earth Mechanics, Inc, June 2013. 23 Report of Fault Surface Rupture Investigation San Diego County Property Between Broadway and “A” Street and Union Street and Front Street, LAWCRANDALL (Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.), September 2000. 24 Phase II Structural Seismic Assessment of Central Courthouse Complex, BFL Owen * Associates, July 2006. 25 City of San Diego General Plan, City of San Diego, March 2008. 26 City of San Diego General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report, City of San Diego, March 2008.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 No known geologic hazards or conditions (e.g., earthquake fault lines, fault rupture) on site or expected -1 Known geologic hazards or conditions on site -2 Known severe geologic hazards or conditions on site (e.g., surface rupture zone)

Scoring Summary:

Site 1. None of the sites under consideration are located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (A-P Zone). As shown on the San Diego Seismic Safety Study maps, the project sites are all located within the City of San Diego Downtown Special Fault Zone. Within this zone, the relative risk of fault rupture is considered to be moderate to high, and therefore a geologic investigation is required for all classes of building types and land uses. A fault rupture study is necessary and is required by the City of San Diego to properly evaluate the hazard for any of the properties. Without a detailed field investigation, none of the sites can be assumed to be without the potential for fault rupture. Based on review of nearby projects, it appears that Site 1 may have a slightly lower potential for surface rupture than the other 4 sites. Due to their closer proximity to the active San Diego fault, Sites 3 and 4 may have a slightly higher potential for surface rupture than Sites 1 and 2. However, all sites have a moderate or higher potential for fault rupture. None of the sites can be presumed to be without the hazard of surface fault rupture without a site-specific fault rupture study. Therefore, a score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios.

Site 2. Same as Site 1. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios.

Site 3. Same as Site 1. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios.

Site 4. Same as Site 1. A score of -1 was assigned for all development scenarios.

Site 5. The majority of Site 5 is identified as being within a possible fault rupture zone. In addition, there are two potential earthquake faults that flank the site. Areas within the potential fault rupture zone are at a higher risk of severe impact due to fault surface movement compared to those outside of the fault rupture zone. Based on the geologic studies conducted for the area, the San Diego fault should be considered as an active fault until proven otherwise. The City of San Diego requires structures be set back from a potentially active fault. A setback distance of 25 to 50 feet is commonly recommended for active faults. Alternatively, a structure can be built on a potential active fault provided that a “Notice of Geologic Conditions” is recorded on the property deed to place all legal responsibilities associated with the potentially active fault on the property owner. In addition, there may be a need for further studies and assessments to satisfy City of San Diego geologic review approval that is required for securing planning and building permits in the area of Site 5. Additional site specific exploration is recommended should the County desire possible modification or deletion of the potential fault rupture hazard zone from Site 5. Due to the level of development contemplated, a score of -1 was assigned to the bus layover facility scenario and a score of -2 was assigned to the Building Option A and Building Option B development scenarios.

P. Cost – Transit Service Operating Costs (not included in the scoring)

The expected increase in operating expense is assessed in this criterion, based on the additional miles required to access the new layover site. The scoring was based on the following considerations.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

2 Not used 1 Not used 0 Small effect on operating cost is expected -1 Modest increase in operating cost is expected -2 Not used

Scoring Summary:

The potential impact on operating cost depends on the distances traveled by the BRT and local transit route to reach the sites at the end of their run and the return to the first stop to begin the next run. To identify the differences for each site, the distances between the end and start stops were calculated for the BRT and local services, and then multiplied by the number of weekday trips for the services. The resulting mileage gives a good indication of the added operating cost for each site. The inputs and calculations are reported in Table 4. This information is based on the local routes (2, 7, and 901), and the BRT routes (215 and 235) that operate today. (Future planned additional BRT lines were not included in the calculations.) There are 455 local trips and 289 BRT trips each day.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Table 4 Weekday Daily Mileage Between Stops and Sites

Inbound Outbound Total Total No. of Distance/ Distance No. of Distance/ Distance Distance Distance Route Trips Trip (ft) (ft) Trips Trip (ft) (ft) (feet) (miles) Site 1 2 77 1,996 153,692 76 1,415 107,540 261,232 49.48 7 104 1,996 207,584 104 1,415 147,160 354,744 67.19 901 46 1,996 91,816 48 1,415 67,920 159,736 30.25 215 89 2,117 188,413 87 870 75,690 264,103 50.02 235 58 2,117 122,786 55 870 47,850 170,636 32.32 229.25 Site 2 2 77 1,887 145,299 76 1,744 132,544 277,843 52.62 7 104 1,887 196,248 104 1,744 181,376 377,624 71.52 901 46 1,887 86,802 48 1,744 83,712 170,514 32.29 215 89 1,288 114,632 87 1,852 161,124 275,756 52.23 235 58 1,288 74,704 55 1,852 101,860 176,564 33.44 242.10 Site 3 2 77 1,629 125,433 76 2,073 157,548 282,981 53.59 7 104 1,629 169,416 104 2,073 215,592 385,008 72.92 901 46 1,629 74,934 48 2,073 99,504 174,438 33.04 215 89 1,477 131,453 87 2,217 192,879 324,332 61.43 235 58 1,477 85,666 55 2,217 121,935 207,601 39.32 260.30 Site 4 2 77 1,522 117,194 76 1,033 78,508 195,702 37.06 7 104 1,522 158,288 104 1,033 107,432 265,720 50.33 901 46 1,522 70,012 48 1,033 49,584 119,596 22.65 215 89 1,607 143,023 87 1,533 133,371 276,394 52.35 235 58 1,607 93,206 55 1,533 84,315 177,521 33.62 196.01 Site 5 2 77 1,291 99,407 76 1,084 82,384 181,791 34.43 7 104 1,291 134,264 104 1,084 112,736 247,000 46.78 901 46 1,291 59,386 48 1,084 52,032 111,418 21.10 215 89 1,887 167,943 87 1,787 155,469 323,412 61.25 235 58 1,887 109,446 55 1,787 98,285 207,731 39.34 202.91

Based on the daily mileage estimates, Sites 1-3 add in the range of 250 miles per day to the mileage operated by the five routes using the layover facility. For Sites 4 and 5, the mileage is lower, in the range of 200 added miles per day. As a result, Sites 2-3 received scores of -1, while Sites 4 and 5 received scores of 0. Site 1 would have received a score of -1 based solely on the mileage increase, but it offers the advantage of enhanced connections to America Plaza and Santa Fe Depot which helped to offset the added distance. As a result, it received a score of 0.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

3.2 SCORING RESULTS

Table 5 on the following page presents the scores assigned by the consultant team for each of the five alternatives.

The scoring reveals a clear distinction between the sites with their northern edge along Ash Street and those with their northern edge along A Street. Sites 1 through 3 score lower than Sites 4 and 5. These results are due to a combination of both the attributes on the sites and the proximity of other uses nearby. Key factors related to the site locations include:

 Sites 4 and 5 are closer overall to the end and start stops of the existing bus routes so they score better for the bus operations criteria. (Site 1 offers the advantage of enhanced local service connections to America Plaza and Santa Fe Depot.)  Sites 4 and 5 are farther from existing residential uses, resulting in better scores for some of the environmental criteria such as proximity to sensitive receptors and noise impacts.  Sites 4 and 5 score better for visual quality due to the nature of the surrounding land uses.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report Table 5 Screening Matrix

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

This section summarizes the conclusions of the screening effort and provides an overview of the next steps in the project development process, including satisfying the requirements for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following review of the findings and conclusions of this report, SANDAG plans to identify those alternatives to carry forward for further development and study in the CEQA environmental process.

CONCLUSIONS

The screening analysis conducted for this effort reviewed a wide range of attributes for the five sites identified in previous planning efforts. The overall objective was to identify the site(s) that 1) provide efficient bus operation with minimal operating cost impact, and 2) minimize the impact on the built and natural environment. The key conclusions from the screening of each development scenario for each of the five alternative sites are reported below.

Bus Operations

Sites 4 and 5 scored higher for proximity and accessibility to the sites due to their closer proximity to the end and start stops of the bus routes. Also, while it wasn’t included in the total scores, the closer proximity to the stops results in lower operating costs for Sites 4 and 5. The development options on Sites 4 and 5 would result in closer proximity to existing offices and commercial uses, making them more convenient for conducting SANDAG’s business. The screening results suggest that these two sites are more favorable and should be the focus of the next steps in project development.

Environmental Considerations

 Layover Facility Only – Sites 4 and 5 are not adjacent to any sensitive receptors and are not anticipated to generate air quality or noise that could impact sensitive receptors. Sites 1 through 3 are located next to sensitive receptors and development could result in impacts to those sensitive receptors. Due to the adjacency of sensitive receptors, Sites 1 through 3 could be removed from further consideration and Sites 4 and 5 carried forward.

Under this development scenario, no buildings on Site 4 would be demolished. Therefore, no business displacements would occur and no impacts to known sites/historical resources are anticipated for Site 4. While Site 5 would have similar environmental impacts identified for Site 4, Site 5 would require the demolition of all buildings on site – of which one building is identified on a DTSC hazardous materials database. Therefore, Site 4 would have a reduced potential for encountering potentially hazardous materials and subsequent cleanup of those hazardous materials.

Based on these considerations, Site 4 was determined to have the least environmental impacts in comparison to the other sites for the Bus Layover Facility Only scenario.

 Development Option A – Sites 4 and 5 are not adjacent to any sensitive receptors and are not anticipated to generate air quality or noise that could impact sensitive receptors. Sites 1 through 3 are located next to sensitive receptors and development could result in impacts to those sensitive receptors. Development of Sites 1 through 3 may result in visual impacts to the area, while Sites 4 and 5 would have little to no visual impacts due to location of the two sites. Sites 2 and 5 were determined to have no known cultural resources (e.g., buildings of historical significance or potential). Site 3 was identified as containing one potential building that would need further evaluation for historical significance. Sites 1 and 4 have buildings that may require further evaluation for historical significance. While Site 5 would have similar

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

environmental impacts identified for Site 4, the majority of Site 5 is identified as being within a possible fault rupture zone. As previously stated, the City of San Diego requires structures to be set back from a potentially active fault or for the property owner to accept all legal responsibilities associated with the potentially active fault through a Notice of Geologic Conditions.

Based on these considerations, Site 4 was determined to have the least environmental impacts in comparison to the other sites for the Building Option A scenario.

 Development Option B – which of the five sites and key considerations that led to that conclusion Sites 4 and 5 are not adjacent to any sensitive receptors and are not anticipated to generate air quality or noise that could impact sensitive receptors. Sites 1 through 3 are located next to sensitive receptors and development could result in impacts to those sensitive receptors. Development of Sites 1 through 3 may result in visual impacts to the area, while Sites 4 and 5 would have little to no visual impacts due to location of the two sites. Sites 2 and 5 were determined to have no known cultural resources (e.g., buildings of historical significance or potential). Site 3 was identified as containing one potential building that would need further evaluation for historical significance.

Sites 1 and 4 have buildings that may require further evaluation for historical significance. While Site 5 would have similar environmental impacts identified for Site 4, the majority of Site 5 is identified as being within a possible fault rupture zone. As previously stated, the City of San Diego requires structures to be set back from a potentially active fault or for the property owner to accept all legal responsibilities associated with the potentially active fault through a Notice of Geologic Conditions.

Based on these considerations, Site 4 was determined to have the least environmental impacts in comparison to the other sites for the Building Option B scenario.

The next steps for this project are to begin the preliminary design and CEQA compliance, which will help to shape the project and help answer outstanding questions related to the project’s physical layout. Significant public outreach is expected during the process.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS AND NEXT STEPS

Based on the results of this screening effort, SANDAG is expected to move forward with the next steps in the development of a bus layover facility and potential ancillary development on one of the five alternative sites. SANDAG and the project’s participating and cooperating stakeholders will conduct CEQA compliance for the Downtown Bus Layover Facility Project in accordance with CEQA regulations. If an alternative is selected that includes one of the development options, SANDAG will consider whether the project qualifies for environmental compliance related to “infill” development.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

While initially the goal of the project was to provide an off-street bus layover facility, the mixed use development components offer a unique opportunity to blend the transportation use with smart growth principles. While working through the screening analysis, several aspects of Development Scenarios A and B were identified that should be considered in making decisions regarding these development options, as listed below.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

Property Ownership

Ownership of the property is an important element of the feasibility of the mixed use development options since the entire block of each site would be required. The current ownership, based on information from a few years ago provided by SANDAG, is summarized in Table 6. Table 6 Property Ownership by Site

Site Ownership Notes 1 Private Parties  The bank is owned by a private party  The other two buildings (auto repair shop and vacant) are owned by two separate private parties  The surface parking lots are owned by two separate private parties 2 Private Parties  The building is owned by a private party  The rest of block (the surface parking lots and the restaurant) are owned by two separate private parties.  There is a parking easement on a portion of the pay parking lot that is owned by the residential complex across the street 3 State of California 4 Private Parties  There are seven different private owners on this block and 10 separate parcels  One of the parcels is used for an auto repair shop, one has an unknown tenant, one has three separate office tenants, and the other seven parcels comprise the pay parking lot 5 County of San Diego

Design Considerations

The following observations based on an analysis of site layout options and city of San Diego requirements are offered for consideration as the mixed use development options are pursued.

 Residential uses would be more appropriate along Ash Street, taking advantage of the existing residential on the north side of the street. Likewise, retail uses would be more desirable along Ash Street, due to the proximity of a higher number of residents north of the street.

 All of the sites are either fully or partially within the Downtown Community Plan – Pedestrian Priority Zone. The Plan requires that special care be taken in this zone to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. This includes; strategic streetscape improvements (sidewalk widening, curb bulbouts, enhanced lighting and signage); longer traffic signal walk times for pedestrians; lower levels of automobile traffic level of service.

 The Downtown Community Plan – Goals: Streetscape and Building Interface also proposes that the downtown be enhanced through distinctive streetscapes and unified landscape treatments, that streets be envisioned as extensions of downtown's open space network, presenting opportunities to linger, stroll and gather. Further, the Plan requires that any development along streets offers a rich visual experience; is engaging to pedestrians; and contributes to street life, vitality, and safety.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

 Ash Street is already a pedestrian-oriented street, with some existing residential development. According to the San Diego Municipal code, the north side of the street is designated as Employment/Residential Mixed-Use (ER) and Residential Emphasis (RE) and this street will be sensitive to increased noise and traffic.

 Mixed-use retail and residential uses would be appropriate along Ash Street, taking advantage of the existing residential on the north side of the street.

 The previous bullet points indicate that the City has set high standards for the quality of the pedestrian realm in this area of downtown and care should be taken in determining the size, configuration and placement of bus entries and exits and the streets that will receive higher traffic volumes. This is especially the case with respect to Sites 1, 2 and 3.

 Sites 4 and 5, between A and B Streets, are closer to the commercial and government office buildings, making them better-suited for Development Option A.

 Because they are more removed from the ER and RE districts to the north of Ash Street, Sites 4 and 5 are also more suited to use as a transit layover facility and the resultant bus traffic associated with such an activity.

 Access to daylight should be considered, especially with respect to the new high rise courthouse building, which will cast shadows on Sites 4 and 5.

 Wide driveways should be carefully considered as they are confusing for pedestrians, difficult to cross, and result in ped-vehicle conflicts. Wide driveways also have a negative impact on the streetscape, making the placement of street lighting, street trees, benches and other important street furnishings more challenging.

 The San Diego Municipal Code requires that within the C District and the P/C District "a minimum of 40% of the ground-floor street frontage shall contain active commercial uses." This requirement, applied on a street-by-street basis, would restrict the amount of frontage dedicated to bus driveways.

 The San Diego Municipal Code requires that "At least three levels of below-grade parking shall be provided prior to the provision of any above-grade parking..." This will impact Development Option A.

Conceptual design concepts for the development options developed during the previous and current studies are provided in the Appendix.

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report

APPENDIX – DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS DESIGN CONCEPTS

Downtown Layover/Office Building Alternatives Screening Report