Land Use Impacts Technical Report
Land Use Impacts Technical Report
August 2014
Prepared by
Land Use Impacts Technical Report August 2014
Prepared by: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
Table of Contents
PREFACE ...... P-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Report ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Organization ...... 1-1 1.1.2 Impact Evaluation ...... 1-2 1.2 Description of the Mid-Coast Corridor ...... 1-3 1.3 Alternatives under Consideration ...... 1-5 1.3.1 No-Build Alternative ...... 1-5 1.3.2 Build Alternative ...... 1-13 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 2-1 2.1 Federal ...... 2-1 2.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ...... 2-1 2.1.2 U.S. Department of Transportation Act ...... 2-2 2.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Act ...... 2-2 2.2 State ...... 2-3 2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 2-3 2.2.2 California Coastal Commission ...... 2-4 2.2.3 University of California, San Diego ...... 2-6 2.2.4 California Department of Parks and Recreation—Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Resource Management Plan and General Development Plan...... 2-9 2.2.5 San Diego Unified Port District ...... 2-9 2.3 Regional ...... 2-13 2.3.1 San Diego Association of Governments ...... 2-13 2.3.2 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ...... 2-18 2.4 Local ...... 2-19 2.4.1 Land Use Plans ...... 2-19 2.4.2 Other Plans ...... 2-32 2.4.3 Land Development Guidelines and Regulations ...... 2-37 3.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 3-1 3.1 Study Area ...... 3-1 3.2 Data Sources ...... 3-1 3.3 Impacts Assessment ...... 3-1 3.4 Impact Determination ...... 3-3 3.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Guidance ...... 3-3 3.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Guidance ...... 3-4 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 4-1 4.1 Existing Land Uses and Zoning ...... 4-1 4.2 Key Activity Centers and High-Trip Generators ...... 4-18 4.2.1 University City ...... 4-18 4.2.2 University of California, San Diego ...... 4-18 4.2.3 Westfield UTC Shopping Center ...... 4-18 4.2.4 Regional Hospitals ...... 4-19
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 i Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
4.2.5 University of San Diego ...... 4-19 4.2.6 Mission Bay Regional Park ...... 4-19 4.2.7 Old Town San Diego State Historic Park ...... 4-19 4.2.8 Other Major Activity Centers ...... 4-19 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...... 5-1 5.1.1 No-Build Alternative ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Build Alternative ...... 5-3 5.2 Cumulative Impacts ...... 5-36 5.2.1 No-Build Alternative ...... 5-36 5.2.2 Build Alternative ...... 5-37 5.3 Construction Impacts ...... 5-37 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 6-1 7.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION ...... 7-1 7.1 Significance Criteria and Application ...... 7-1 7.1.1 No-Build Alternative ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Build Alternative ...... 7-1 7.2 Significance after Mitigation ...... 7-3 7.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 7-3 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8-1
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT ii August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Mid-Coast Corridor...... 1-4 Figure 1-2. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements ...... 1-7 Figure 1-3. No-Build Alternative Major Bus Routes ...... 1-9 Figure 1-4. No-Build Alternative Bus Route 150 ...... 1-11 Figure 1-5. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan in 2030 ...... 1-12 Figure 1-6. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ...... 1-14 Figure 1-7. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ...... 1-17 Figure 1-8. Genesee Avenue Design Concepts ...... 1-22 Figure 1-9. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Center Columns ...... 1-23 Figure 1-10. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Straddle Bents ...... 1-23 Figure 1-11. Site Concept for Tecolote Road Station ...... 1-25 Figure 1-12. Site Concept for Clairemont Drive Station ...... 1-26 Figure 1-13. Site Concept for Balboa Avenue Station ...... 1-27 Figure 1-14. Site Concept for Nobel Drive Station ...... 1-28 Figure 1-15. Site Concept for Optional VA Medical Center Station ...... 1-29 Figure 1-16. Site Concepts for UCSD West Station (Build Alternative and VA Medical Center Station Option) ...... 1-30 Figure 1-17. Site Concept for UCSD East Station ...... 1-31 Figure 1-18. Site Concepts for Executive Drive Station, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option ...... 1-32 Figure 1-19. Site Concepts for UTC Transit Center, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option ...... 1-34 Figure 1-20. Existing Traction Power Substation at Mission Valley Center Station ...... 1-35 Figure 1-21. Traction Power Substation Layout ...... 1-35 Figure 1-22. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan ...... 1-39 Figure 1-23. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 2030 Trolley Operating Plan ...... 1-40 Figure 2-1. City of San Diego Coastal Overlay Zone ...... 2-5 Figure 2-2. UCSD Neighborhoods Near the Project ...... 2-7 Figure 2-3. University Center/Sixth College Neighborhood ...... 2-8 Figure 2-4. San Diego Unified Port District Planning Districts...... 2-11 Figure 2-5. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ...... 2-14 Figure 2-6. Smart Growth Concept Map ...... 2-16 Figure 2-7. City of San Diego Community Plan Areas ...... 2-21 Figure 2-8. City of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Area...... 2-33 Figure 2-9. City of San Diego North Bay Redevelopment Area ...... 2-36 Figure 2-10. Transit Overlay Zone ...... 2-40 Figure 3-1. Study Area ...... 3-2 Figure 4-1. 2009 Land Use—Corridor Areas ...... 4-7
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 iii Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
Figure 4-2. 2009 Land Use—Existing Station Areas ...... 4-8 Figure 4-3. 2009 Land Use—Tecolote Road Station Area...... 4-9 Figure 4-4. 2009 Land Use—Clairemont Drive Station Area ...... 4-10 Figure 4-5. 2009 Land Use—Balboa Avenue Station Area ...... 4-11 Figure 4-6. 2009 Land Use—Nobel Drive Station Area ...... 4-12 Figure 4-7. 2009 Land Use—UCSD West Station Area...... 4-13 Figure 4-8. 2009 Land Use—UCSD East Station Area...... 4-14 Figure 4-9. 2009 Land Use—Executive Drive Station Area ...... 4-15 Figure 4-10. 2009 Land Use—UTC Transit Center Station Area ...... 4-16 Figure 4-11. Zoning for Proposed Station Areas ...... 4-17
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT iv August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1. No-Build Alternative Bus Operating Plan in 2030 ...... 1-8 Table 1-2. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan ...... 1-13 Table 1-3. Traction Power Substations Locations ...... 1-36 Table 1-4. Trolley Operating Plans...... 1-38 Table 1-5. Build Alternative Bus Routes Serving Trolley Stations ...... 1-42 Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations ...... 4-1 Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations ...... 5-4 Table 5-2. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Regional Goals and Policies ...... 5-20 Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations ...... 5-24
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 v Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
Abbreviations
The following acronyms, initialisms, and short forms are used in this report.
2030 RTP 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future 2050 RTP 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan BRT bus rapid transit C&S communications and signaling Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCC California Coastal Commission CCDC Centre City Development Corporation CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act Coastal Act California Coastal Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DARs direct access ramps du/ac dwelling units per acre FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GDP general development plan GIS geographic information system HOV high-occupancy vehicle I- Interstate LCP local coastal program LOSSAN Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency LRT light rail transit LRV light rail vehicles MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MTDB Metropolitan Transit Development Board MTS Metropolitan Transit System NCTD North County Transit District
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT vi August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OCS overhead catenary system OTSD-SHP Old Town San Diego State Historic Park OTTC Old Town Transit Center PE preliminary engineering PMP Port Master Plan PRC Public Resources Code RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region RMP Resource Management Plan SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SanGIS San Diego Geographic Information Source SDCRAA San Diego County Regional Airport Authority SDIA San Diego International Airport SDUPD San Diego Unified Port District SEIS/SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SR State Route TOD transit-oriented development TPSSs traction power substations USC United States Code UCSD University of California, San Diego USD University of San Diego UTC University Towne Centre VA Veterans Administration
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 vii Land Use Impacts Technical Report Table of Contents
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT viii August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Preface
PREFACE
Refined Build Alternative The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) and supporting technical reports were circulated for a 60-day public review and comment period between May 17, 2013 and July 17, 2013. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative for evaluation in the Final SEIS/SEIR on November 15, 2013, and amended the Refined Build Alternative on May 9, 2014, as documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build Alternative Report (SANDAG, 2014h). The Refined Build Alternative generally reflects the Build Alternative with the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center Station Option evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR; however, it also includes some additional refinements.
Section 2.4 in Chapter 2.0 of the Final SEIS/SEIR provides a detailed description of the Refined Build Alternative. The process of developing the refinements is discussed in Section 2.3 of Chapter 2.0 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. Validation of Technical Analysis SANDAG evaluated whether the refinements incorporated into the Refined Build Alternative would change the impacts or mitigation described for the Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center Station Option in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Specifically, SANDAG considered whether the following changes would materially affect the analysis and conclusions in this technical report:
· Changing the locations of the traction power substations · Modifying the layout of the Clairemont Drive, Nobel Drive, and UCSD East Stations · Adjusting the alignment near Voigt Drive · Removing the straddle bents at the Interstate 5 crossing near Nobel Drive · Modifying the location and configuration of several retaining walls · Adding two segments of aerial structure north of La Jolla Colony in place of a retaining wall · Adding one and removing four construction staging and laydown areas
SANDAG has determined that the refinements listed above would not materially affect the analysis and conclusions in this technical report. The study area, methodology, cumulative impacts, and mitigation presented in this technical report would be the same for the Refined Build Alternative as for the Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center Station Option. However, some of the details of the analysis have changed as a result of the refinements, and text and figures in this technical report have been revised accordingly as described in the following paragraphs.
Following the Draft SEIS/SEIR review period, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) provided a formal Coastal Zone boundary determination. The Coastal Zone boundary differed from the boundary presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR in the area between the San Diego River and Balboa Avenue. As a result, this technical report addresses the additional portion of the
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 P-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Preface
project that is within the Coastal Zone and includes an updated evaluation of consistency with the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act). The project is consistent with policies of the Coastal Act that provide for preservation and enhancement of visual resources, water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in vehicle miles traveled, public access and public transit. However, because a small portion of project development would involve fill of wetlands and impacts to an ephemeral basin that could potentially be considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area, the project creates a potential conflict between the allowable use tests of the wetland and environmentally sensitive habitat area policies (Section 30233(a)(c) and 30240(a)) on the one hand, and water quality, air quality, energy conservation, vehicle miles traveled reduction, public access, and public transit policies (Sections 30231, 30232, 30253(a)(c) and (d), 30254, 30210, 30212.5, and 30252) on the other hand. The Coastal Act requires CCC to resolve such conflicts in a manner that on balance is most protective of coastal resources (Section 30007.5). The project has been designed to satisfy this requirement by minimizing wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and including off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement activities that mitigate impacts and result in an overall increase in wetland habitat. These measures in combination with the improvements to water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in vehicle miles traveled, public access, and public transit that would result from implementation of the project, support a finding that proceeding with the project would be most protective of coastal resources. The final determination of the project’s consistency with all Coastal Act policies will be made by the CCC as part of the Coastal Development Permit process. Section 5.1.2.1 under the heading State Land Use and Development, Table 5-3, Section 5.2.2, Chapter 6.0, and Sections 7.1.2 and 7.2 were revised based on the change in the Coastal Zone boundary and updated Coastal Act consistency analysis.
Revisions have been made to Chapter 4.0 to reflect the change in the project alignment under the Refined Build Alternative. The description of adjacent land uses and zoning for segments and stations north of the Balboa Avenue Station was updated in Table 4-1. Figures 4-7 and Figure 4-8 have been updated to show the Refined Build Alternative alignment within the UCSD West and UCSD East Station areas. The overall character of adjacent land uses and zoning, however, has not changed.
The analysis of environmental impacts in Chapter 5.0 also was modified. Some of the analyses rely on environmental impact assessments in other technical reports, including those for property acquisitions (SANDAG, 2014g), visual resources (SANDAG, 2014e), noise and vibration (SANDAG, 2014f), and construction (SANDAG, 2014a). Each of these technical reports has also been revised to address the Refined Build Alternative. However, the conclusions for the Refined Build Alternative are the same as those presented for the Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center Station Option. Text and table revisions were made in Section 5.1.2.1 and 5.1.2.2 regarding impacts within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Specifically, the text revisions reflect the updated types and quantities of impacts from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b). The conclusion reiterates that the Refined Build Alternative would be consistent with the MSCP and that impacts to the Multi-Habitat Planning Area would be minimal. This information also was incorporated into the discussion of mitigation measures in Chapter 6.0. In addition, discussion of project impacts and mitigation to address displaced parking at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center previously addressed in this technical report has been
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT P-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Preface
removed to avoid duplication with the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014c).
In conclusion, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in new or increased land use impacts when compared to the Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center Station Option. The assessment of existing and proposed land use compatibility and consistency with land use plans and policies and environmental goals presented for the Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center Station Option remains unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative—no adverse impacts to land use would occur and mitigation would not be required.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 P-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Preface
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT P-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in San Diego, California. The SEIS/SEIR supplements the following environmental documents: the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a); the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b); and the Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact Statement (MTDB, 2001). The FTA is serving as lead agency for the SEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and SANDAG is serving as lead agency for the SEIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970.
The Draft SEIS/SEIR includes an analysis of the affected environment and potential impacts on the social, economic, cultural, and natural environment that would result from constructing and operating the alternatives under consideration within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The alternatives being considered and analyzed for potential impacts include a No-Build Alternative and a Build Alternative.
The Build Alternative is the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, or project, as it is planned to operate in 2030. The project consists of extending the existing San Diego Trolley (Trolley) Blue Line from the Santa Fe Depot north to the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC), via the existing Trolley tracks, and then north along new tracks to the University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center in University City, with eight new stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, University of California, San Diego (UCSD) West Campus, UCSD East Campus, Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center.
The Build Alternative includes two options for consideration. One option provides an additional station at the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center and the other is a design option for the aerial alignment along Genesee Avenue in University City. 1.1 Purpose of the Report This technical report describes the affected environment and evaluates the potential impacts of the Build and No-Build Alternatives. It also describes the regulatory framework and methodologies used for the impact analysis. The analysis evaluates short term, long term, and cumulative effects, both direct and indirect. If the project would result in adverse effects, this technical report identifies measures to reduce or eliminate the impacts, which are additionally carried forward and included in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
1.1.1 Organization This technical report contains the following chapters:
· Introduction · Regulatory Context
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
· Methodology · Existing Conditions · Environmental Impacts · Mitigation Measures · CEQA Determination · References
1.1.2 Impact Evaluation Projects can result in either beneficial or adverse impacts to the environment. Both NEPA and CEQA require an evaluation of the project impacts. This report uses the Mid- Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a) in describing the project. The analysis uses several different approaches to identify the potential impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Together, these approaches provide an accurate disclosure of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project impacts in compliance with NEPA and CEQA requirements.
1.1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act Pursuant to NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), project impacts are evaluated based on the criteria of context and intensity. Context means the affected environment in which a proposed project occurs. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, which is examined in terms of the type, quality, and sensitivity of the resource involved, location and extent of the effect, duration of the effect (short- or long-term), and other consideration of context. Beneficial effects are also identified and described. Impacts are described in terms of beneficial, not adverse, or adverse. This report characterizes the project’s short term, long term, and cumulative effects, both direct and indirect, in accordance with the requirements of NEPA in Chapter 5.0.
The No-Build Alternative serves as the NEPA “No Action” alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The No-Build Alternative represents what the Mid-Coast Corridor would be like in 2030 without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. For NEPA purposes, the No- Build Alternative identifies the anticipated conditions for the analysis of impacts under 2030 conditions.
Impacts created by the Build Alternative are compared to the conditions described in the No-Build Alternative to determine the direct and indirect long-term impacts. Impacts are described as they relate to the affected environment. The affected environment can be used to refer to existing conditions as well as future conditions, or both, depending on the environmental topical area that is being analyzed. Generally, the affected environment represents existing conditions and those future conditions described in the No-Build Alternative.
The cumulative analysis considers the incremental impact of the Build Alternative when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that affect the resource being evaluated. It identifies the aggregate or total impact that results when the impacts of other actions are combined with the direct and indirect impacts of the Build Alternative.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
1.1.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires that determinations of significance be made for environmental impacts by measuring project impacts and comparing the project-related impacts to identified topic-specific significance thresholds. This report’s CEQA Determination chapter provides the results of this analysis. Conditions created by the Build Alternative are compared to existing conditions to determine direct and indirect short-term and long- term impacts with project implementation. Existing conditions generally refers to conditions in 2010 when the Notice of Preparation for CEQA was issued.
The No-Build Alternative serves as the CEQA “No Project” alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The No-Build Alternative represents what the Mid-Coast Corridor would be like in 2030 without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The CEQA analysis of the No-Build Alternative focuses on which impacts would be different without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. One change that is evaluated under CEQA is the continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150.
For CEQA impacts assessment, the level of impact is expressed in terms of whether it is not significant, less than significant, or potentially significant. This determination is based on analysis comparing the impact to the thresholds of significance for each topic. Following identification of appropriate mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts can then be further classified as either less than significant with mitigation incorporated or significant and unavoidable.
Similar to NEPA, the CEQA cumulative analysis identifies the aggregate or total impact that results when the impacts of other actions are combined with the direct and indirect impacts of the Build Alternative. If a cumulatively significant condition is identified, CEQA requires the analysis to determine if the project’s contribution to the significant condition is “cumulatively considerable” and thus, significant. 1.2 Description of the Mid-Coast Corridor The Mid-Coast Corridor is the area centering on Interstate (I-) 5 and extending from Downtown San Diego on the south to UCSD and University City on the north (Figure 1-1). Located entirely within the City of San Diego, the corridor is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and by I-805 and State Route (SR) 163 on the east. The Mid-Coast Corridor is topographically diverse, with terrain ranging from coastal beaches and bays to inland areas containing steep hillsides and narrow canyons.
The Mid-Coast Corridor is characterized by dense urban centers and an abundance of regional activity centers and other major trip generators. Dense population and employment centers currently anchor both the northern and southern ends of the Mid- Coast Corridor. The UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping center, and regional hospitals are clustered in the north part of the corridor and represent the second most dense land uses in the county. At the south end of the corridor is the region’s only identified Metropolitan Center—Downtown San Diego—with the region’s densest land uses and high-rise development.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-1. Mid-Coast Corridor
Source: SANDAG, 2012 Note: The Trolley lines shown represent the 2010 Trolley operating plan.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Other major land uses within or immediately adjacent to the corridor (Figure 1-1) include:
· Regional hospitals: Scripps Green Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (Scripps Hospital), UCSD Thornton Hospital, VA Medical Center, UCSD Medical Center Hillcrest, and Scripps Mercy Hospital · Major colleges and universities: UCSD, University of San Diego, San Diego Mesa College, and San Diego City College · Regional shopping centers: Westfield UTC, Fashion Valley, and Westfield Horton Plaza · Major parks and visitor attractions: Mission Bay Park, San Diego Zoo, SeaWorld San Diego, Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, Balboa Park, the Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego Convention Center, Petco Park, Rose Canyon Open Space Park, and Marian Bear Memorial Park · San Diego International Airport 1.3 Alternatives under Consideration This section describes the No-Build and Build Alternatives, and Build Alternative options that were selected for consideration in this report.
1.3.1 No-Build Alternative This section describes the transportation improvements assumed in the No-Build Alternative within the Mid-Coast Corridor that are evaluated in this technical report and carried forward into the Draft SEIS/SEIR, as well as 2030 horizon year conditions resulting from projected development and changes in population and employment.
1.3.1.1 Highway and Transit Facility Improvements from the 2030 RTP The No-Build Alternative is evaluated in the context of the existing transportation facilities and services in the Mid-Coast Corridor (as characterized in 2010) and other facilities and services identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007). Since the No- Build Alternative provides the background transportation network against which the Build Alternative’s impacts are identified and assessed, the No-Build Alternative excludes the Mid- Coast Corridor Transit Project but does include continued and enhanced bus service on Route 150. The No-Build Alternative that was originally developed for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and presented during the CEQA and NEPA scoping processes, was derived from the 2030 RTP. In October 2011, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a new regional transportation plan that extended the planning horizon from 2030 to 2050, the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP) (SANDAG, 2011). However, the 2030 RTP has been retained as the basis for the No-Build Alternative because, as discussed below, no substantive differences exist between the 2030 and 2050 RTPs that would alter the environmental analysis.
The 2050 RTP was reviewed to determine if it includes any additional funded projects planned for implementation in the Mid-Coast Corridor by 2030 and not included in the 2030 RTP. The only major new project in the Mid-Coast Corridor is the extension of the
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-5 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Trolley Blue Line from the UTC Transit Center to Mira Mesa via the Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon area. This extension is not an alternative to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project since it is dependent on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project’s implementation. The Mira Mesa/Sorrento Mesa extension has not been considered in a corridor-level alternatives analysis. Future analysis under NEPA and CEQA also would be required. Thus, this extension is not included in either the No-Build Alternative or the Build Alternative.
The 2050 RTP also was reviewed to determine if it includes any Mid-Coast Corridor projects that are assumed in the No-Build Alternative that are not in the 2030 phase of the 2050 RTP. The only major project not in the 2030 phase of the 2050 RTP is the addition of high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the segment of I-5 from I-8 to La Jolla Village Drive. The 2050 RTP defers the implementation of the HOV lanes in this segment until the decade ending in 2050. Because the 2050 RTP only defers implementation of the HOV lanes, but still includes them, they are assumed in the design and analysis of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project under the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The other Mid-Coast Corridor projects in the 2050 RTP that are not in the 2030 RTP and that are scheduled for implementation by 2030 are minor projects (e.g., minor adjustments to bus routes, increased bus frequency) and are not expected to have any substantial bearing on the analysis of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.
Figure 1-2 shows the location of the major projects included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP located within the Mid-Coast Corridor and assumed to exist in the No-Build Alternative. These include the following major improvements from the 2030 RTP:
· Double tracking of the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) tracks and other rail improvements, with an increase in frequency of COASTER service to every 20 minutes during peak periods and to every 60 minutes during off-peak periods in both directions. · HOV lanes on I-5 from I-8 north to Oceanside, with direct access ramps (DARs) at various locations, of which the DARs at Voigt Drive would be located within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The HOV lanes would be restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants. · Combination of HOV and Managed Lanes on I-805 from I-5 to South Bay, with DARs at Carroll Canyon Road and Nobel Drive. · Trolley low-floor system improvements to the Trolley Blue and Orange Lines, including station platform, power, and signaling improvements to allow extension of the Trolley Green Line to the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit Center and use of low-floor vehicles systemwide.
1.3.1.2 Transit System Improvements The No-Build Alternative transit system within the Mid-Coast Corridor assumes services planned to be in operation in or by 2030. As with the existing transportation system, the No-Build Alternative transit system consists of Trolley services operated by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), Amtrak intercity passenger rail services, North County Transit District (NCTD)-operated COASTER commuter rail services, and MTS and NCTD bus transit services. MTS-operated bus services include local, express, limited express, and BRT services.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-6 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-2. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements
Source: SANDAG, 2013
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-7 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Under the No-Build Alternative, the 2030 Trolley operating plan would result in operation of the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico International Border through Downtown San Diego to the Santa Fe Depot; the Trolley Green Line would operate north and east from the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit Center through the OTTC and Mission Valley to Santee. The Trolley Orange Line would operate from Gillespie Field through Downtown San Diego to America Plaza.
Figure 1-3 shows the major MTS bus routes serving the Mid-Coast Corridor under the No- Build Alternative. Table 1-1 provides bus route information on fares and service frequency during both peak (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods. Service hours after 6:00 p.m. would be similar to existing operations.
Table 1-1. No-Build Alternative Bus Operating Plan in 2030
Frequency of Service Peak Off-Peak (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Route Description (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Fare 8 OTTC to Garnet and Bayard 15.0 15.0 $2.00 9 Garnet and Bayard to OTTC 15.0 15.0 $2.00 25 Clairemont Mesa to Fashion Valley Trolley Station 15.0 15.0 $2.00 27 Mission and Felspar to Clairemont Mesa 15.0 15.0 $2.00 30 UTC Transit Center to B and 9th Street 10.0 10.0 $2.25 31 Mira Mesa Transit Center to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.00 41 Fashion Valley Transit Center to UCSD West 10.0 10.0 $2.25 44 OTTC to Morena Blvd and Balboa Ave 7.5 7.5 $2.25 50 Park Blvd and Broadway to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.50 105 OTTC to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.25 120 Kearny Mesa Transit Center to 3rd and Market St 15.0 15.0 $2.25 150* 5th and Broadway to UTC Transit Center 15.0 30.0 $2.50 201/202 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 $2.25** 276 UCSD Route—Voigt Drive Loop 15.0 15.0 ** 284 UCSD Route—UCSD West to Scripps Institution of Oceanography 15.0 15.0 ** 921 Mira Mesa Transit Center to UCSD West 15.0 15.0 $2.25 960 UTC Transit Center to Euclid Avenue Trolley Station 25.0 No service $2.50 Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: * Not included in 2030 RTP ** = Free for UCSD students and faculty OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre
In addition to existing transit services, the No-Build Alternative assumes improvements to existing bus transit and light rail transit (LRT) services operated by MTS. The following sections describe these improvements.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-8 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-3. No-Build Alternative Major Bus Routes
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-9 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
1.3.1.3 Bus Transit Service Improvements The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is excluded from the No-Build Alternative to represent corridor conditions without the project. Without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, more direct transit service would be needed to connect Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and University City. To meet this need, continuing service on the existing Route 150, which provides bus transit services between Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and University City, was added to the No-Build Alternative to replace the Mid- Coast Corridor Transit Project. Figure 1-4 shows the bus route and station locations for Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative.
Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing Route 150 would be modified to operate along Broadway in Downtown San Diego and along Pacific Highway from Downtown San Diego north to the OTTC. From the OTTC north, Route 150 would be modified to operate within the proposed I-5 HOV lanes north to Nobel Drive. This modification to Route 150 would improve travel times over the existing Route 150, which operates in the general-purpose lanes on I-5 north to Gilman Drive. Route 150 would operate at a frequency of 15 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes during off-peak and midday periods. The service would be operated using articulated buses. Fares are assumed to be $2.50 for a one-way trip.
1.3.1.4 Trolley Service Improvements In addition to the bus service improvements, the No-Build Alternative assumes service frequency improvements to the existing Trolley system, as identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP and shown in Figure 1-5. Under the No-Build Alternative, the frequency of service on the Trolley Blue Line would increase from 15 to 7.5 minutes during off-peak periods. Thus, the Trolley Blue Line would operate 7.5- minute service all day, and the Trolley Orange and Green Lines would continue to operate at 15-minute service all day.
Table 1-2 presents a summary of the Trolley operating plans for existing conditions and for the No-Build Alternative. The operating plans identify the service frequency during peak (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, vehicle type, and fares for the Trolley Green, Blue, and Orange Lines. Service after 6:00 p.m. would be similar to existing operations.
1.3.1.5 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities Operation of the No-Build Alternative Trolley operating plan in 2030 would require a fleet of 142 light rail vehicles (LRVs) including reserve, spare, and special-service vehicles. This represents an increase of eight vehicles over the existing fleet of 134 LRVs.
The maintenance shops located at 1255 Imperial Avenue in San Diego provide service and maintenance to the LRV fleet. The facility has the capacity to store approximately 200 vehicles, or 66 additional vehicles. The maintenance facilities would not require expansion under the No-Build Alternative.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-10 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-4. No-Build Alternative Bus Route 150
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-11 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-5. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan in 2030
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-12 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Table 1-2. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan
Off-Peak Peak Frequency Frequency Fare (6:00. to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Vehicle (each Route (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Type way) 2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to OTTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to OTTC 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 12th and 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Imperial Transit Center 2030 Operating Plan (No-Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 12th and 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to Santa 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Fe Depot Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to America Plaza 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Source: SANDAG, 2012 Note: OTTC = Old Town Transit Center
1.3.1.6 Regional Growth and Development The No-Build Alternative assumes regional growth and development consistent with the 2030 RTP, which uses the Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update adopted by SANDAG. This forecast is used as a basis for land use and demographic information in the transportation and traffic modeling. The Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: Process and Model Documentation (SANDAG, 2008) presents a basic description of the SANDAG forecast models used in the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update. The conditions created by the No-Build Alternative in 2030, as predicted by the Series 11 forecast (adjusted to exclude the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project), include the expected effects of development projects consistent with adopted land use plans.
1.3.2 Build Alternative The Build Alternative consists of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. This section describes the project, including minor modifications to bus services to improve access to stations and eliminate duplication of service with the extension of the Trolley Blue Line.
The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project provides for the extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center in University City. With the extension of the Trolley Blue Line, construction of the project would provide for continuous service on the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico International Border to University City.
Figure 1-6 shows the project alignment and station locations and the VA Medical Center Station Option and the Genesee Avenue Design Option. The project would use the existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from the Santa Fe Depot to a point just north of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The Trolley Blue Line trains would share the tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains. North of this point, the project
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-13 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-6. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
Source: SANDAG, 2013
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-14 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
includes construction of 10.9 miles of new double track extending to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center in University City.
In addition to the new double-track extension, the project includes eight new stations, upgrades to existing systems facilities between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, and the acquisition of new Trolley vehicles for the extended project operation. Stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, UCSD West Campus, UCSD East Campus, Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center. The project also includes an option for an additional station at the VA Medical Center.
The following sections describe the project alignment, stations, vehicles, power system and signaling, operating plan, and schedule for implementation of the project.
1.3.2.1 Alignment The project alignment would follow the LOSSAN tracks within the existing MTS and City of San Diego right-of-way from the Santa Fe Depot to approximately 3,500 feet south of the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. The alignment would then leave the LOSSAN right-of-way, enter California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right- of-way, and parallel the east side of the I-5 corridor north to the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. North of the interchange, the alignment would parallel the I-5 corridor, traveling partially within Caltrans right-of-way and partially on private property. At about 2,500 feet south of Nobel Drive, the alignment would transition to an aerial structure and cross over to the west side of I-5 south of Nobel Drive. From Nobel Drive, the alignment would continue north to the UCSD West Campus, then cross back over to the east side of I-5 along Voigt Drive and terminate on Genesee Avenue at the UTC Transit Center. The alignment’s total length from the south side of the San Diego River to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center is 10.9 miles.
Plan and profile drawings for the project alignment and Genesee Avenue Design Option are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a), referred to as Draft SEIS/SEIR plan set. Right-of-way plans showing existing and proposed rights-of-way and temporary construction easements for the project and Genesee Avenue Design Option alignment, stations, and supporting facilities also are contained in the Draft SEIS/SEIR plan set. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Technical Report (SANDAG, 2013b) identifies property acquisitions and structures to be demolished as part of the project. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2013c) describes the construction methods, activities, and durations.
Figure 1-7 presents a conceptual plan and profile drawing of the project alignment, stations, and supporting facilities. The alignment for the project with the Genesee Avenue Design Option is basically the same as for the project without the design option. The only difference is that the Genesee Avenue Design Option uses straddle bents1 rather than columns to
1 A straddle bent refers to a type of structure used to avoid a situation where the column would cause an obstruction (such as a fly-over ramp where the column might land in the roadway below). The straddle bent, as its name implies, straddles the roadway or other obstruction. It consists of a beam supported by columns on the outside.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-15 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
support the aerial structure and stations, and has different locations of special trackwork on Genesee Avenue.
Alignment North of OTTC to UTC Transit Center North of the OTTC, the project alignment would be located primarily at grade within the existing MTS right-of-way, north to the vicinity of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive. This railroad corridor is used by the COASTER commuter rail, Amtrak intercity rail, and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe freight rail. The project alignment would be located east of the existing LOSSAN tracks, from the OTTC to south of SR 52, with at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue.
The project alignment would use bridges to cross the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek, and would be grade separated over Friars Road and Balboa Avenue. South of SR 52, the alignment would transition to an aerial structure and would cross the existing LOSSAN tracks, continuing at grade west of the existing LOSSAN tracks. To accommodate the alignment along the westerly right-of-way, the existing LOSSAN tracks would be relocated east but would still be located within the MTS right-of-way. Just south of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive, the alignment would leave the MTS right-of-way and enter the I-5 right-of-way. Along the I-5 corridor, the project alignment would be designed so as not to preclude the future widening of I-5.
Upon entering the I-5 right-of-way north of SR 52, the project alignment would extend at grade along the east side of I-5, crossing under La Jolla Colony Drive in an approximately 200-foot-long cut-and-cover underpass. North of that underpass, the alignment would continue at grade along the east side of I-5, generally within or adjacent to the I-5 right-of-way, and transition to an aerial structure to cross to the west side of I-5, south of Nobel Drive. The aerial alignment would continue north along the west side of I-5 to an aerial station at La Jolla Village Square (Nobel Drive Station).
Continuing north from the Nobel Drive Station, the project alignment would remain on an aerial structure, travel for approximately 160 feet along the southeast corner of the shopping center on the north side of Nobel Drive, then enter the I-5 right-of-way and travel along the west side of I-5 within the I-5 right-of-way. It would return to grade just north of the I-5/La Jolla Village Drive interchange. North of this interchange, the alignment would run at-grade for approximately 460 feet along the west side of I-5 and the east side of the VA Medical Center. An optional at-grade station would be located at the VA Medical Center. The station would be within the I-5 right-of-way, with access provided from the VA Medical Center property.
South of Gilman Drive, the project alignment would transition back to an aerial structure and enter the UCSD West Campus, crossing Gilman Drive and the surface parking lot located north of Gilman Drive on the UCSD campus. The aerial alignment would then cross Pepper Canyon and continue to an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus.
North of the UCSD West Station, the project alignment would turn east on an aerial structure on the UCSD campus and cross to the north side of Voigt Drive. It would continue east on the UCSD campus, crossing over I-5 and the corner of the Scripps Hospital surface parking lot located on the east side of I-5 and the north side of Voigt
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-16 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-7. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project
Source: SANDAG, 2013a
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-17 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 - Introduction
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-18 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-7. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (continued)
Source: SANDAG, 2013a
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-19 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 - Introduction
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-20 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Drive. Column supports would be required along the west side of Warren Field and along the parking lots on the north side of Voigt Drive, both on the UCSD West Campus and at Scripps Hospital. The alignment would be located north of the existing northerly curb line of Voigt Drive to allow for future widening of Voigt Drive, which is proposed as part of the Caltrans I-5 North Coast Corridor Project currently under environmental review. The I-5 North Coast Corridor Project proposes to construct HOV DARs that connect to the north side of Voigt Drive. Construction of the DARs is scheduled for completion by 2020. To provide the required vertical clearance between the LRT alignment and the future DARs at Voigt Drive, the project alignment crossing I-5 would be located at an elevation higher than Voigt Drive.
On the east side of I-5, the project alignment would continue on aerial structure and cross to the south side of Voigt Drive in the vicinity of the Scripps Hospital driveway entrance, located north of the UCSD baseball field. The aerial alignment would continue on UCSD property to Genesee Avenue, where it would enter the street right- of-way.
Caltrans is proposing to realign Voigt Drive to connect to Genesee Avenue and realign Campus Point Drive to connect to Voigt Drive. Voigt Drive is located on UCSD property. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project’s columns would be placed so as not to preclude the realignment of Voigt Drive and Campus Point Drive. Localized widening of Voigt Drive would be required to minimize use of straddle bents to support the aerial structure along Voigt Drive within the UCSD East Campus.
The aerial alignment would cross the southbound lanes of Genesee Avenue just west of Regents Road and continue south on an aerial structure in the median of Genesee Avenue, following the existing alignment of Genesee Avenue to a station at Executive Drive and a terminal station at the UTC Transit Center. The project’s Genesee Avenue Design Option is located in the segment between Regents Road and the project’s terminus. This design option would use straddle bents rather than some center columns along Genesee Avenue to reduce right-of-way acquisition from adjacent properties.
Figure 1-8 presents a conceptual plan view of the project alignment and Genesee Avenue Design Option showing the location of the center columns and straddle bents under each design concept. The plan set contains cross sections and plans with more detailed information on the location of the columns and straddle bents, including structure dimensions.
Project with Center Column Design on Genesee Avenue Under the project, the support columns generally would be located in the center of the Genesee Avenue median, as shown in the visual simulation in Figure 1-9. The project would require two straddle bents along Genesee Avenue, as shown in Figure 1-8.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-21 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-8. Genesee Avenue Design Concepts
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-22 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
The first straddle bent would be Figure 1-9. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with located west of Center Columns Regents Road where the alignment would enter Genesee Avenue at an angle. The second one would be located on Genesee Avenue at the Executive Square intersection. The straddle bents would have support columns either in the median of Genesee Avenue, along the south side of Genesee Avenue, or in the median of Executive Square. The remaining support columns would be spaced at approximately 125 to 210 feet apart. Localized widening of Genesee Avenue would be required to accommodate the support columns with necessary clearances and to maintain the number of existing traffic lanes.
Project with Straddle Bent Design Option on Genesee Avenue The Genesee Avenue Design Option, which is visually simulated in Figure 1-10, would use some straddle bents in place of median support columns on Genesee Avenue, thereby reducing the amount of right-of-way acquisitions required by the project. The use of straddle bents along Genesee Avenue is the only change provided by this design option. Figure 1-10. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Straddle Bents The straddle bents would be located on each side of the right- of-way or in the median of Genesee Avenue to support cross beams that would span the roadway. Approximately 16 straddle bents would be required for this design option (Figure 1-8). The straddle bents would include one at Regents Road, four in the vicinity of Eastgate Mall, six in the vicinity of Executive Square and Executive Drive, and five in the vicinity of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway and the UTC Transit Center. The guideway and stations would rest on the cross beams with the roadway underneath. Right-of-way acquisitions under this design option would be confined primarily to column locations along the right-of-way edge and
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-23 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
where the columns cannot fit within the existing right-of-way. The straddle bents would be spaced at approximately the same distances as the project’s center columns without the design option, as shown in Figure 1-8.
1.3.2.2 Stations The project includes eight new stations for passenger access, plus an optional station at the VA Medical Center. All new stations would be side-platform stations with 360-foot- long platforms designed to accommodate up to four-car trains. All platforms would be fully accessible and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Canopies would be provided at each station and would cover portions of the platforms and fare collection areas. Fare collection equipment, consisting of ticket/smart card vending machines and Compass Card validators, would be provided at each station. These amenities would be placed as appropriate on the platform where boarding occurs or at station entrances. Other station amenities would include benches, information kiosks, and security features according to SANDAG Design Criteria. Bicycle lockers would be provided at all stations except at the UTC Transit Center. Bicycle lockers at this station would be provided during the planned reconstruction of the bus transit center in the future, which is a separate project from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Parking and bus transfer facilities would be provided at five stations, as described later in this section. Lighting would be provided at all station platforms and parking areas.
For the at-grade stations south of Balboa Avenue where the southbound platform would be adjacent to the LOSSAN tracks, a screen wall would be constructed at the back of the platforms to shield passengers from the wind induced by a fast-moving Amtrak or COASTER train. On aerial platforms, a 10-foot-high safety fence or screen would be provided at the back of both platforms.
The new project stations include both at-grade and aerial stations. The project segment along the MTS right-of-way between the San Diego River crossing and Gilman Drive would include three at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue. The site concept plans developed for these stations are described below. More detailed station site plans for each of the stations are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a).
· Tecolote Road Station—This at-grade station would be located south of the existing Tecolote Road overcrossing (Figure 1-11). Primary access to the station for northbound traffic would be provided via the existing signalized intersection at West Morena Boulevard and Vega Street. A driveway for right turns in and out would be provided on West Morena Boulevard for southbound traffic. A traction power substation (TPSS) would be located immediately north of the station driveway on West Morena Boulevard. The station site would include 280 surface parking spaces, with 180 spaces adjacent to the west side of West Morena Boulevard and another 100 spaces to the south of Vega Street. Short-term parking spaces would be provided for pick up and drop off of passengers (referred to as kiss-and-ride). Bus stops and turnouts for transferring passengers would be provided on both sides of West Morena Boulevard by widening the roadway and removing approximately
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-24 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-11. Site Concept for Tecolote Road Station
Source: SANDAG, 2013
15 existing on-street parking spaces along the east side of West Morena Boulevard. In the vicinity of the bus stops, a fence would be provided in the median of West Morena Boulevard to prevent passengers from crossing at mid-block. Pedestrian ramps and stairs would be constructed on the east side of West Morena Boulevard for access to the north and south sides of Tecolote Road. Additionally, a new sidewalk would be constructed along the east side of West Morena Boulevard to Knoxville Street. · Clairemont Drive Station—This at-grade station would be located south of the existing Clairemont Drive overcrossing adjacent to Morena Boulevard (Figure 1-12). The station platforms would be located along the west side of Morena Boulevard and a 150-space surface parking lot would be located across the street on the east side. The station parking lot would include a site for a TPSS. Access to the station parking lot would be provided via driveways on Ingulf Street and Clairemont Drive. Pedestrian access from Clairemont Drive to the station would be provided by new stairs and ADA- compliant access ramps located on both sides of Clairemont Drive. A new bus turnout would be provided on the south side of Clairemont Drive. New sidewalks would be constructed along the east side of Morena Boulevard from Ingulf Street to north of Clairemont Drive and along the west side of Morena Boulevard from the north side of the station platform to Gesner Street. Pedestrian crossings between the east and west sides of Morena Boulevard and the station parking lot would be provided by existing crosswalks at the signalized intersections at Morena Boulevard/Ingulf Street and Morena Boulevard/Gesner Street.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-25 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-12. Site Concept for Clairemont Drive Station
Source: SANDAG, 2013
· Balboa Avenue Station—This at-grade station would be located in the southwest quadrant of the Balboa Avenue/Morena Boulevard interchange (Figure 1-13). The station site would include a surface parking lot with approximately 220 spaces, five bus bays, and short-term parking for pick up and drop off of passengers. An additional on-street bus turnout would be provided on the west side of Morena Boulevard. To provide for bus and vehicular access to the station, the existing on ramp from eastbound Balboa Avenue to southbound Morena Boulevard would be removed and traffic would be diverted to the loop ramp connecting eastbound Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard. The loop ramp would be widened and its intersection with Morena Boulevard would be signalized, allowing traffic to turn south on Morena Boulevard. The westerly leg of this intersection would serve as the entrance to the station for buses and as an entrance and exit for vehicular traffic. Buses would exit the station via a new signalized intersection constructed at the southern end of the station site. Pedestrian access to the station from Morena Boulevard would be provided via new sidewalks on both sides of Morena Boulevard within the station area. Access from Balboa Avenue would be via ramps and stairs on both sides of the street. A pedestrian bridge would be provided across Balboa Avenue for access to the station from the north side of Balboa Avenue.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-26 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-13. Site Concept for Balboa Avenue Station
Source: SANDAG, 2013
The project segment along the I-5 corridor between Gilman Drive and the alignment crossing of I-5 at Voigt Drive would include an aerial station at Nobel Drive, an optional at-grade station at the VA Medical Center, and an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus. The UCSD West Station includes two different station concepts depending on whether the VA Medical Center Station is included in the project. The site concept plans developed for these stations are described below.
· Nobel Drive Station—This aerial station would be located within an existing parking area on the west side of I-5 and south of Nobel Drive at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center (Figure 1-14). The station would include a joint-use parking structure with 260 transit parking spaces as well as replacement parking for the surface parking spaces lost as a result of constructing the station and parking structure at the shopping center. Access to the station platform would be provided by stairs and elevators. No bus stops would be constructed at this station as part of the project. Nobel Drive currently has bus stops on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the station.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-27 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-14. Site Concept for Nobel Drive Station
Source: SANDAG, 2013
· VA Medical Center Station—This optional at-grade station would be located at the VA Medical Center on the west side of I-5 and north of La Jolla Village Drive (Figure 1-15). The horizontal and vertical track alignment has been designed so as not to preclude this optional station under the Build Alternative. The station would be at approximately the same elevation as the surface parking lot of the VA Medical Center. No new parking or bus stops would be provided at this station. A connection to the hospital would be provided by improvements to the pedestrian paths between the station and the main hospital entrance. A TPSS would be located in Caltrans right-of-way, south of the station. · UCSD West Station—This aerial station would be located at the north end of Pepper Canyon and west of the UCSD student housing complex (Figure 1-16). The station would be located just east of the campus center and the Price Center. No parking would be provided at the station. Because the alignment would have to clear the existing parking lot at the south end of the canyon and Lyman Drive at the north end of the canyon, this station would be constructed at an elevation higher than the elevation of the canyon rim. North of the station, two to three shuttle bus stops and a bus turnaround area would be provided for the UCSD shuttle bus service. The shuttle bus area would be located at grade below the north end of the elevated station platforms. Stairs and an elevator would provide access to the north end of the station platform.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-28 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-15. Site Concept for Optional VA Medical Center Station
Source: SANDAG, 2013
Without the Optional VA Medical Center Station, access to the VA Medical Center would be provided by stairs and an elevator at the south end of the station platform (as shown in the top inset in Figure 1-16). These stairs and elevators would descend to the elevation of the westerly canyon rim. A walkway would be constructed to connect to the existing pedestrian walkways on the UCSD West Campus. With the Optional VA Medical Center Station (shown in the bottom inset in Figure 1-16), only stairs for emergency use would be provided at the south end of the platform because access to the VA Medical Center would be provided by the additional station.
The project segment east of I-5, along Voigt Drive, would include an aerial station on the UCSD East Campus west of Campus Point Drive, serving both the UCSD East Campus and Scripps Hospital. The site concept plan for the UCSD East Station is described below.
· UCSD East Station—This aerial station would be located along the south side of Voigt Drive, west of Campus Point Drive and the Preuss School, near Scripps Hospital (Figure 1-17). Station access would be provided by stairs and elevators. A pedestrian bridge would be provided across Voigt Drive for access to the north side of Voigt Drive. New sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of Voigt Drive to connect with the western end of the station. No station parking or new bus stops would be provided. A TPSS would be located to the west of the station platforms.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-29 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-16. Site Concepts for UCSD West Station (Build Alternative and VA Medical Center Station Option)
Source: SANDAG, 2013
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-30 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-17. Site Concept for UCSD East Station
Source: SANDAG, 2013
East of I-5 along Genesee Avenue, the project would include aerial stations at Executive Drive and at the UTC Transit Center. The site concept plans for these two stations, both with and without the Genesee Avenue Design Option, are described below.
· Executive Drive Station—This aerial station would be located in the center of Genesee Avenue, south of Executive Drive, and would span Executive Square (Figure 1-18). Station construction would require removal of the existing pedestrian bridge crossing Genesee Avenue. Pedestrian grade-separated access across Genesee Avenue at this location would be provided through the aerial station platform at Executive Drive via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities connecting to the existing pedestrian facilities to the west and east sides of Genesee Avenue. Shuttle bus pullouts and passenger drop-off and pick-up areas would be constructed on both sides of Genesee Avenue. No parking would be provided at the station. A TPSS would be located near the southern end of the station site. The station layout and features under the Genesee Avenue Design Option (as shown in the bottom inset in Figure 1-18) would generally be the same as those under the Build Alternative (as shown in the top inset in Figure 1-18). However, under the Genesee Avenue Design Option, there would be no conflict between the existing pedestrian bridge and the proposed LRT guideway allowing the existing pedestrian bridge to remain in place. Minor modifications to the pedestrian bridge would be required to provide pedestrian access to the aerial LRT station.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-31 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-18. Site Concepts for Executive Drive Station, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option
Source: SANDAG, 2013
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-32 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
· UTC Transit Center—This aerial station would be located in the center of Genesee Avenue, south of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway, with pedestrian bridges to the Westfield UTC shopping center on the east and the Costa Verde shopping center on the west (Figure 1-19). The station would provide 260 transit parking spaces in a joint-use parking facility at the Westfield UTC shopping center. Access to the station parking facility would be via the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. The station also would include a connection to the new bus transit center, which would be built as part of the expansion of the Westfield UTC shopping center. The Westfield UTC shopping center expansion is scheduled for completion before revenue service begins on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. A TPSS would be located near the southern end of the station site. Construction of the Build Alternative would require the removal of the pedestrian bridge across Genesee Avenue located mid-block between La Jolla Village Drive and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue would be provided approximately 500 feet to the south of the existing bridge at the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Grade-separated pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue would also be accommodated through the aerial station platform at the UTC Transit Center to be located just south of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities connecting the LRT station to the parkway area along the west side of Genesee Avenue and the UTC Transit Center to the east of the LRT station. The station layout and features under the Genesee Avenue Design Option (as shown in the bottom inset in Figure 1-19) would generally be the same as those under the Build Alternative (as shown in the top inset in Figure 1-19). If the Genesee Avenue Design Option is constructed, the pedestrian bridge would be retained as there would be no conflict between the existing bridge and proposed LRT guideway.
1.3.2.3 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities The Trolley Blue Line extension would require 36 new LRVs to cover peak-period service with spares in 2030. In the opening year of revenue service, 25 of the 36 new LRVs would be required. Fare collection would be the same as the existing proof-of- payment system currently in use on the Trolley. No fare collection equipment would be provided on the vehicle.
The MTS maintenance plan for LRVs, including those for the project, centralizes all functions at the existing maintenance facilities located at 1255 Imperial Avenue in Downtown San Diego. No expansion of existing maintenance facilities would be required for the project.
1.3.2.4 Power System and Signaling The LRVs would receive electrical power from overhead contact wires. Catenary support poles, approximately 25 feet high, would be located at approximately 150- to 180-foot intervals. The catenary poles generally would be located in the center of the project alignment. In some locations, the poles would be located on both sides of the Trolley tracks. The overhead electrical power lines would be suspended above the Trolley tracks.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-33 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-19. Site Concepts for UTC Transit Center, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option
Source: SANDAG, 2013
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-34 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Electricity to power the LRVs would be provided by TPSSs. The TPSSs would be of similar size and design to the existing substations used on the Trolley Green Line. Typical TPSS dimensions would be a 40-foot by 15-foot unmanned equipment enclosure within a 45-foot by 75-foot fenced site. Figure 1-20 shows an example of an existing TPSS.
Figure 1-20. Existing Traction Power Substation at Mission Valley Center Station
Source: SANDAG, 2012
Operation of the project would require 18 TPSSs, including four upgraded substations on three existing sites between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC and 14 new substations. The TPSS locations and layouts are shown in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a). Figure 1-21 illustrates the layout of a typical TPSS.
Figure 1-21. Traction Power Substation Layout
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-35 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
The project includes improvements and upgrades to three existing TPSS locations between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC on Olive Street, on Bean Street, and at the OTTC. The site at Olive Street may require two substations. The extension of Trolley Blue Line service proposed on existing tracks between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC also would require a new substation within the existing MTS Wright Street Yard. The other 13 new substations would be located north of the OTTC. Table 1-3 identifies the location of the existing substations and the proposed substation upgrades between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, and the proposed new substations north of the OTTC.
Table 1-3. Traction Power Substations Locations
No. Stationing Location 1, 2 64+00 Olive St, upgrade to an existing substation located along the east side of the right-of-way and addition of a second substation within the same site 3 101+50 Bean St, in City of San Diego right-of-way, may require modification to existing cul-de-sac 4 133+00 Wright Street Yard, within existing MTS property 5 171+00 OTTC, upgrade to an existing substation located along the west side of the right-of-way 6 199+30 South of the San Diego River and north of I-8, in City of San Diego right-of way 7 210+00 North of San Diego River, east of the tracks along Anna Ave 8 240+60 At Tecolote Rd Station, along the east side of the tracks and south of Tecolote Creek 9 312+00 At Clairemont Dr Station, along the east side of Morena Blvd, full acquisition from a shopping center 10 349+50 South of Baker St, in Caltrans right-of-way, along the west side of existing tracks 11 400+00 North of Balboa Ave and south of Jutland Dr, partial take from graded land east of MTS right-of-way 12 456+00 Just north of Jutland Dr, undeveloped parcel east of MTS right-of-way 13 550+50 Just south of La Jolla Colony Dr, in Caltrans right-of-way, along east side of tracks 14 600+50 Undeveloped parcel next to Charmant Dr and east of the alignment, just before the alignment crosses the freeway south of Nobel Dr 15 645+00 In Caltrans right-of-way along the west side of the alignment next to the VA Medical Center. Access would be from the parking lot at the VA Medical Center 16 694+00 Along the south side of Voigt Dr on the UCSD East Campus, next to the baseball field 17 752+50 Along the east side of Genesee Ave, just north of La Jolla Village Dr, partial acquisition of the landscape area in front of a high-rise office building 18 771+00 On Genesee Ave on partially acquired Westfield UTC shopping center property, near the south end of the UTC Transit Center platform Source: SANDAG, 2013a Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration
Communications and signaling (C&S) buildings centralize train control and communications for Trolley operations at each station. Each facility is an enclosure located within the station site area, typically adjacent to a station platform. Positioning of a C&S building must be selected to provide clearances for maintaining and servicing equipment and to maintain sight lines for LRT operations. Upgrades to the existing C&S system between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC would be required as part of the project; however, this would not require additional C&S buildings.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-36 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Other proposed physical improvements to the Trolley system south of the OTTC and north of Santa Fe Depot would include upgrades to existing systems, including the signaling system and the overhead catenary system (OCS) to accommodate all-day 7.5-minute Trolley Blue Line service. These potential improvements would be located within the existing railroad and MTS right-of-way, as described below:
· LRT signaling system improvements would include additional track circuit relays at County Center/Little Italy, Middletown, and Washington Street Stations; upgrades to the block signaling system to accommodate the reduced headways between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC; and adjustments to the crossing gate controllers to ensure an efficient gate operation also meeting requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F). · OCS improvements would include the addition of a double messenger wire instead of the existing single messenger wire. · LOSSAN track improvements would provide for the relocation of an existing control point signal from the north side of Taylor Street to the south side of Taylor Street, just north of the existing station platform. The improvements would reduce railroad gate down time for northbound COASTER and Amtrak trains stopping at the OTTC.
1.3.2.5 Operating Plan Operating plans were developed using ridership forecasts. These operating plans were then used to develop the capital and operating cost estimates and to provide the basis for the analysis of potential project impacts.
Table 1-4 presents the existing 2010 Trolley operating plan and the Trolley operating plans developed for the opening year and 2030 revenue service. The 2030 operating plan for the No-Build Alternative (also provided in Table 1-2) is included for comparative purposes.
The 2010 operating plan (existing conditions) does not include the Build Alternative. Therefore, to evaluate project impacts compared to existing conditions, the Build Alternative was added into the 2010 operating plan to provide a basis for comparing project impacts to existing conditions.
At the startup of revenue operations, the project is expected to require 15-minute service during peak and off-peak periods. Figure 1-22 shows the operating plan for the opening year of service.
The proposed Trolley operating plan for the Build Alternative in 2030 presented in Table 1-4 includes the extension of the Trolley Blue Line to the UTC Transit Center. As shown in Figure 1-23, the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 would be operated as a single line with three-car trains from the existing San Ysidro Transit Center in the south to the UTC Transit Center in University City, with stops at all 29 intermediate stations. The Trolley Green and Orange Lines would operate the same as under the No-Build Alternative in 2030. Weekday Trolley Blue Line service in 2030 would operate every 7.5 minutes during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and during the off-peak midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). The fare structure would be the same as previously described for the No-Build Alternative.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-37 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Table 1-4. Trolley Operating Plans
Peak Frequency Off-Peak Frequency (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Vehicle Fare Route (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Type (each way) 2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 to OTTC Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Center to OTTC Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center 2010 Operating Plan (Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 to OTTC Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Center to UTC Transit Center Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Opening Year Operating Plan* Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Center to America Plaza Trolley Blue Line America Plaza to UTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Transit Center Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Santa Fe Depot 2030 Operating Plan (Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro to UTC 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Transit Center Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 America Plaza 2030 Operating Plan (No-Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Center to Santa Fe Depot Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 America Plaza Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: * The Trolley Blue Line would operate as a continuous run from the San Ysidro Transit Center to the UTC Transit Center. During peak periods in the opening year, alternating trains would turn back at America Plaza, resulting in 15-minute headways north of America Plaza and 7.5-minute headways south of America Plaza. OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-38 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-22. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-39 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Figure 1-23. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 2030 Trolley Operating Plan
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-40 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
The Trolley operating plan in 2010 that includes the Build Alternative is the same as the 2010 operating plan except for extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the OTTC to the UTC Transit Center and an increase in service frequency to 7.5 minutes during the off- peak period. Thus, under the Build Alternative in 2010, the Trolley Blue Line would operate at 7.5-minute intervals during both peak and off-peak periods.
With extension of Trolley Blue Line service to the UTC Transit Center, the service provided by bus Route 150 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City would duplicate the new Trolley services and therefore would be eliminated with implementation of the project, consistent with the 2030 RTP. In addition to this modification, minor changes would be made to several bus routes to improve access to the new Trolley stations proposed under the Build Alternative. These modifications consist of rerouting of bus routes to connect to stations. The service frequency of the routes serving the stations would not change. Table 1-5 identifies routes serving the Trolley stations under the Build Alternative and shows which routes would be modified to serve the stations. No changes to other bus routes or the COASTER would be required.
1.3.2.6 Schedule The project is currently in the Project Development phase of the New Starts process, which includes the completion of the NEPA and CEQA processes. Completion of the environmental review process is anticipated in mid-2014, following which SANDAG will seek FTA approval to advance the project to the Engineering phase pursuant to MAP- 21. During the Engineering phase, SANDAG and FTA will negotiate a Full Funding Grant Agreement, which is anticipated in early 2015. Construction is assumed to begin in 2015, and revenue service is expected to start by the end of 2018.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 1-41 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction
Table 1-5. Build Alternative Bus Routes Serving Trolley Stations
Frequency of Service Peak Off-Peak (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Build Alternative Modified under Route Description (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Stations Served Build Alternative 8 OTTC to Garnet and 15 15 OTTC, Balboa Ave Yes Bayard 9 Garnet and Bayard to 15 15 OTTC, Balboa Ave Yes OTTC 27 Mission and Felspar to 15 15 Balboa Ave Yes Clairemont Mesa 30 UTC Transit Center to B 10 10 Washington St, OTTC, No and 9th Nobel Dr, UCSD West, UTC Transit Center 31 Mira Mesa Transit Center 15 15 Executive Dr, UTC No to UTC Transit Center Transit Center 41 Fashion Valley Trolley 10 10 UCSD West, Executive No Station to UCSD West Dr, UTC Transit Center 44 OTTC to Morena and 7.5 7.5 OTTC, Balboa Ave No Balboa 50 Park and Broadway to 15 15 Clairemont Dr, UTC No UTC Transit Center Transit Center 105 OTTC to UTC Transit 15 15 OTTC, Tecolote Rd, No Center UTC Transit Center 150* 5th and Broadway to * * Yes—Deleted UTC Transit Center 201 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 Nobel Dr, VA Medical No Center, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Dr, UTC Transit Center 202 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 Nobel Dr, VA Medical No Center, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Dr, UTC Transit Center 276 UCSD Route–Voigt Drive 15 15 VA Medical Center, Yes Loop UCSD West 284 UCSD Route–UCSD 15 15 UCSD West Yes West to Scripps Institution of Oceanography 921 Mira Mesa Transit Center 15 15 UCSD West, Executive No to UCSD West Dr, UTC Transit Center 960 UTC Transit Center to 30 0 Executive Dr, UTC No Euclid Avenue Trolley Transit Center Station Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: * Route 150 does not operate under the Build Alternative. OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-42 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal, state, regional, and local regulations provide guidance for conducting land use impact analyses. Specific federal land use regulations apply to federally owned, federally controlled, or federally protected lands, areas, or parcels. Because there are minimal federal lands, areas, or parcels within the immediate vicinity of the project, the following discussion focuses primarily on state, regional, and local plans that are applicable and relevant to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.
Land use is regulated primarily at regional and local levels in accordance with state planning and zoning laws, Government Code Section 65000 et seq. For the Mid-Coast Corridor, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) defines the regional vision and planning principles (such as integrating land use and transportation), but does not have land use approval authority. The City of San Diego defines and regulates local land uses through its general plan, community plans, and zoning. The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) has provisions for its own campus-wide land use decisions, which are ultimately approved by the University of California Regents. However, other agencies at the federal and state levels also play a role in land use decisions, as discussed further in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. These agencies’ plans and policies regulate the types of uses allowed and the intensity of development permitted on public and private property.
Major transit projects, such as the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, can influence the timing, layout, demographics, and intensity of local land uses in communities and neighborhoods over time, although these changes must be approved by the local land use authority (i.e., the City of San Diego). These changes often occur near stations, and result in beneficial or adverse physical and indirect effects. Such projects, however, rarely cause substantial changes in land use character of the region.
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review processes, SANDAG has coordinated with the City of San Diego and other local planning agencies and conducted public outreach to determine the scope of potential effects the project may have on land uses within the project corridor and on the land use plans and policies that are applicable and relevant to the project. 2.1 Federal 2.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 established a national policy for protection of the environment. The purposes of this act are: “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 United States Code [USC] § 4321).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
To assist federal agencies in fulfilling the goals and effectively implementing the requirements of NEPA, in 1978 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued regulations for implementing the procedural aspects of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1500–1508). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) responded to the NEPA and CEQ regulations by issuing its own implementing environmental regulations and guidance (23 CFR 771) that relate to the NEPA process in more specific terms.
Through NEPA, Congress directed all federal agencies to:
“include in every … report on proposals for … major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on —
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.” (42 USC § 4332(C))
The FTA is the lead agency under NEPA and is responsible for review of the environmental impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. In that capacity, the FTA must assess the potential for adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the environment that may result from approval and implementation of the project.
2.1.2 U.S. Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 protects publicly owned parks and recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and/or public or private historical sites of national, state, or local significance unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land, or the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use.
2.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Act Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1451 et seq.) states the following:
Each federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state management programs.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Section 1452 of the CZMA states:
…it is the national policy—(1) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.
To ensure that the national interest is adequately addressed in state coastal management programs, the CZMA requires adequate consideration of the national interest in planning for, and in the siting of, facilities (including energy facilities in, or which significantly affect, state coastal zones). The CZMA also requires state coastal management programs to ensure that local land and water use regulation within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit.
The consideration of the national interest is required to be incorporated into the development of local coastal programs (LCPs), which, when certified, form one basis for the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC’s) consistency determination. The CCC is responsible for determining whether a project is consistent with the CZMA as the primary agency evaluating projects and activities subject to the federal consistency determination.
Because the project involves federal support, it will be subject to the CZMA. The CCC implements the CZMA via the federal consistency review process. Under Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA, 16 USC Section 1456(c)(1), federal activities that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone are required to be consistent with the California Coastal Management Program and affected state’s coastal management program “to the maximum extent practicable,” which is defined as “fully consistent with the enforceable policies of management programs unless full consistency is prohibited by existing law applicable to the Federal agency” (15 CFR part 930.32). The enforceable policies are in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Consistency with the Coastal Act generally satisfies the requirement for consistency review.
A Coastal Development Permit issued by the CCC may, in some instances, satisfy the requirement for consistency review. Further discussion of the CCC is provided in Section 2.2.2 of this report. 2.2 State 2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 requires state, local, and other agencies to evaluate the environmental implications of their decisions and to avoid or reduce, when feasible, either through alternatives or mitigation, the significant environmental impacts of their decisions (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq). CEQA requires agencies to prepare a written statement of overriding considerations when they decide to approve a project that will cause one or more significant effects on the environment, unless the significant effect can be avoided or minimized (PRC §21002; the CEQA Guidelines [CCR §15021(a)]). As required by CEQA, the California Resources Agency has adopted regulations known as the State CEQA Guidelines, which provide detailed procedures that agencies must follow to implement the law (California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15000 et seq.).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
CEQA policy encourages environmental protection by establishing that state, local, and other agencies maintain the general welfare of the people and ensure the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment. CEQA requires that governmental agencies at all levels consider qualitative factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs (PRC §21000(c, g), §21001(g)).
SANDAG is the lead agency under CEQA and is responsible for review of the environmental impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. In that capacity, SANDAG must assess the potential for significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the environment that may result from approval and implementation of the project.
2.2.2 California Coastal Commission The California Coastal Commission (CCC) was established by voter initiative in 1972 and was made permanent by the California Legislature through the adoption of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (PRC §30000 et seq). The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) includes specific policies (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, protection of visual resources, landform alteration, water quality, promoting public transportation and development design, among others. The policies of the Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the Commission and by local governments, pursuant to the Coastal Act.
The CCC, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the Coastal Zone. Under the Coastal Act, cities and counties are responsible for preparing LCPs in order to obtain the authority to issue coastal development permits (CDP) for the use of coastal lands within their jurisdiction. LCPs consist of land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other implementing actions that conform to the policies of the Coastal Act.
As shown in Figure 2-1 (see inset 1), a small portion of the project alignment located within the Coastal Zone is along Voigt Drive, just west of Interstate (I-) 5, within the UCSD area. In May 2014, the CCC provided a formal Coastal Zone boundary determination. Based on this determination, the Coastal Zone boundary also extends to the eastern edge of the Metropolitan Transit System right-of-way from the San Diego River to Balboa Avenue.
A CDP will be required for project development within these areas of retained CCC permit jurisdiction within the Coastal Zone.
The City of San Diego LCP is composed of certified community plans, which contain policies and recommendations for addressing coastal issues of physical and visual access to the Pacific Ocean and Mission Bay. Within the Mid-Coast Corridor study area, various City of San Diego communities include LCP areas, as shown in Figure 2-1. However, no project feature would be located within the Coastal Zone outside of the two noted CCC areas of retained permit jurisdiction within the UCSD area and from the San Diego River to Balboa Avenue.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-1. City of San Diego Coastal Overlay Zone
Source: SANDAG, 2014
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-5 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
2.2.3 University of California, San Diego 2.2.3.1 University of California, San Diego Master Plan and Long Range Development Plan The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Master Plan (UCSD, 1989) links the campus’s physical setting to its identity and strength, and suggests ways to enhance and preserve important attributes as the campus grows. The plan proposes ways to organize UCSD development to meet goals of “quantity and quality.” The plan has guiding principles
for five types of future development: neighborhoods, academic corridors, University Center, the Park, and connections. The plan identifies neighborhoods as clusters of development, with buildings grouped compactly in relation to a clear center (consisting of a mix of uses and services) to ensure the preservation of open space areas outside of neighborhood boundaries. The plan also identifies University Center as the focus of the campus and the center of student life—a compact mixed-use area that provides various functions: an academic center, a hub of the instructional core, a town center (campus “downtown”) with commercial services and other social and cultural attractions, a student service center, an administrative center, and special housing. Specific to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, the plan strongly encourages the use of mass transit systems and envisions a light rail line that extends north to the campus from Old Town within a dedicated right-of-way.
Similarly, the UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan (UCSD, 2004a) provides a general land use plan to enable UCSD to achieve its academic, research, and public service goals, to realize the best possible balance between aesthetics and functionality, to guide stewardship over the development of the campus, and to attain appropriate integration with the surrounding off-campus community.
As applicable to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, the UCSD 2004 Long-Range Development Plan presents the principles that will guide planning for future development and the revised land use plan for the campus. More specifically, according to its Long- Range Development Plan, UCSD will continue to emphasize the importance of using alternative transportation, including campus-operated shuttles, public mass transit systems (light rail and bus rapid transit), carpools, vanpools, and bicycle networks to accomplish its long-standing goals of easing access to the campus and minimizing the impacts of growth on the surrounding community.
2.2.3.2 UCSD Neighborhood Plans Each neighborhood follows the UCSD Master Plan (UCSD, 1989), which emphasizes clustering together buildings of similar academic or campus functions with a mix of uses and services and linking them with pedestrian paths. This pattern supports a connection to a regional transportation system.
Neighborhood planning studies have been prepared for the three neighborhoods near the project, which are shown in Figure 2-2. Key elements of these planning studies are described below.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-6 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-2. UCSD Neighborhoods Near the Project
Source: SANDAG, 2011
University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study The University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study (UCSD, 2004b) defines development in the University Center and Sixth College neighborhoods as illustrated in Figure 2-3. The University Center neighborhood contains the general services, commerce, and activity space for the entire UCSD community, including retail spaces, the Price Center (for the performing arts, campus events, and other gatherings), and student services. The Sixth College neighborhood is one of several colleges within UCSD that function as smaller
living-and-learning communities focused around a specific academic discipline. Relevant to the project, key recommendations of the study are as follows:
· Extension of the Central Pedestrian Core from Library Walk (the western edge of the University Center neighborhood) eastward toward Sixth College and a future light rail transit (LRT) station · Significant infill development on both sides of Pepper Canyon, filling gaps between the Sixth College and University Center neighborhoods · Removal of most existing buildings at the edge between the neighborhoods and replacement with new buildings that face and emphasize the pedestrian network
· Incorporation of access to a regional bus terminal (transit hub) and an underground LRT system and station leading to an open space and pedestrian facility system · A major pedestrian axis (Transit Walk) linking the proposed transit hub (located west of Villa La Jolla Drive) to activity centers within the University Center Neighborhood, such as Matthews Quad and Town Square
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-7 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-3. University Center/Sixth College Neighborhood
Source: UCSD, University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study, 2004
The study calls for an increase in and/or concentration of future development supported by an LRT station.
UCSD East Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study The East Campus Health Sciences neighborhood is separated from the main UCSD campus by I-5. This is the only neighborhood planning area for the UCSD East Campus that is adjacent to the Mid-Coast Corridor Project; additionally, this neighborhood is the closest neighborhood to the UCSD East Station. This neighborhood intends to grow as a major clinical facility of the health science program and requires efficient public access. The UCSD East Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study (UCSD, 2000) recognizes the role of an LRT station in this neighborhood’s future development.
The study states that successful implementation of key neighborhood use concepts requires an understanding of the surrounding roadway improvements and the proposed San Diego Trolley (Trolley) system. The UCSD East Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study anticipates LRT to support future growth, and illustrates a station on the UCSD East Campus south of Thornton Hospital and north of Mesa housing.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-8 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Other campus land uses in proximity to this neighborhood include the following:
· UCSD Student Recreational Open Space—Recreational uses include a baseball field and a proposed playing field complex to include three soccer fields. Future facilities include an Events Center building · UCSD Academic Reserve Neighborhood—Specific uses have not yet been determined; the UCSD Master Plan identifies academic uses and potential parking structures · UCSD Academic Space—The Preuss School, a middle and high school complex · UCSD Campus Parking—Surface parking facilities · Science Research Park Neighborhood—Research and development facilities with a potential build-out of 550,000 gross square feet of building space · UCSD Mesa Housing Neighborhood—600 units of apartments with approximately 900 parking spaces · UCSD Park lands
2.2.4 California Department of Parks and Recreation—Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Resource Management Plan and General Development Plan The Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Resource Management Plan (RMP) and General Development Plan (GDP) (State of California, 1977) provides the overall development framework of the Old Town San Diego State Historic Park (OTSD-SHP). The overall purpose of these plans is to create a historically authentic environment, to preserve the park’s historical resources, and to encourage public enjoyment and educational interpretation of the OTSD-SHP. The RMP establishes the policy framework for management of the park’s services and facilities with respect to the preservation, restoration, and reconstruction of the historic community. The GDP presents the major proposals for the re-creation of the historic environment within the framework of the management policies in the RMP.
The GDP addresses the following park elements: historic buildings, archaeology, landscaping and visual aspects, circulation, and concessions. The improvements proposed in the GDP include new parking lots, utility relocations, street improvements, and development of a plaza.
Circulation and parking are discussed in the GDP and reflect future parking improvements and restrictions on the types of motorized vehicles that may use the OTSD-SHP. The GDP proposed a major parking lot improvement, which is now the current parking lot at the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC). Phasing of the improvements proposed in the 1977 GDP is based on an approximately 25-year period.
2.2.5 San Diego Unified Port District The San Diego Unified Port District maintains planning jurisdiction over the San Diego Bay tidelands, including San Diego International Airport (SDIA), Harbor Island, and the
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-9 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Embarcadero of San Diego. The planning districts within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District are shown in Figure 2-4.
2.2.5.1 Port Master Plan On January 21, 1981, the CCC voted to certify the 1980 Port Master Plan (PMP) (San Diego Unified Port District, 1980). Amendments to the plan have been incorporated, most recently in February 2009. The purpose of the PMP is as follows:
…to provide the official planning policies, consistent with a general statewide purpose, for the physical development of the tide and submerged lands conveyed and granted in trust to the San Diego Unified Port District.
The PMP guides policy changes and decisions related to protecting existing development, addressing new development opportunities, and programming capital improvements, and is used as a source of San Diego Unified Port District information.
Although the PMP study area covers the San Diego Bay and its immediate surroundings, the actual plan area addresses only the 5,480 acres of the San Diego Unified Port District tidelands. The planning goals of the PMP reflect the key issues and responsibilities of the San Diego Unified Port District, including the administrative and decision-making guiding principles of the Port Authority. Other goals are encouragement of comprehensive benefits to the bay and tidelands, as well as public use; considerations of safety, security, and access; integration of the tidelands as part of a functional regional transportation network; and development and conservation of the bay, tidelands, and natural resources within the planning jurisdiction. Land and water use classifications of the San Diego Unified Port District’s planning jurisdiction are commercial, industrial, public recreation, conservation, public facilities, and military uses. Portions of the project alignment are located adjacent to or within the eastern edge of the Port Master Plan.
2.2.5.2 San Diego Unified Port District Precise Plans The PMP consists of individual precise plans for each port planning district. The purpose of the precise plans is as follows:
…provide planning policies, consistent with a general statewide purpose, for holding in trust and for the preservation and physical development of the tide and submerged lands conveyed or granted to the San Diego Unified Port District.
Compared to the PMP, these plans are more detailed and are intended for implementation activities that need flexible, short-term, and precise budgeting and scheduling.
The two precise plans relevant to the Mid Coast Corridor Transit Project are those for District 2 and District 3 as these are adjacent to or in close proximity to the existing stations south of the OTTC. These two precise plans are discussed below.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-10 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-4. San Diego Unified Port District Planning Districts
Source: San Diego Unified Port District, Port Master Plan, 1980
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-11 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Planning District 2 Planning District 2, which is in close proximity to the existing Middletown and the Washington Street Stations, includes the SDIA and Harbor Island. This district contains approximately 996 acres, of which 816 acres are tidelands and 180 acres are submerged tidelands. Note that, as of 2008, the SDIA has its own master plan, which is discussed in Section 2.3.2.1. Most of the district area has been developed and is under long-term lease commitments. Planning District 2 has nine subareas; of these, three subareas are in or near the project: Airport Runway, Pacific Highway Industrial, and Airport Related Commercial.
The current plans for the subareas are to continue aviation and industrial-related uses, including maintain the aviation runway. The Port District is committed to the continued use of SDIA as the region’s primary airport. Commercial uses associated with the airport have been identified on the precise plan and include a cluster of uses along Pacific Highway near Laurel Street. The plan proposes to continue these existing uses in airport-related commercial uses.
Planning District 3 The Centre City Embarcadero area, located west of the Santa Fe Depot, is part of Planning District 3 and covers the Port District waterfront from the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. Planning District 3 has six subareas: Laurel Street Corridor, Crescent Zone, Civic Zone, Tuna Harbor, Marina Zone, and Convention Way Basin. Planning for this district focuses on renovation and redevelopment because most of it is already developed. The Planning District 3 Precise Plan (San Diego Unified Port District, 1980) evenly distributes the commercial, industrial, public recreation, and public facility uses in the planning area. The objective of redevelopment of the Embarcadero is to create a unified waterfront, both in its visual and structural landscape that results in a sense of place.
For the Crescent Zone, the Port Master Plan (San Diego Unified Port District, 1980) proposes to establish a grand pedestrian-oriented esplanade and a major entryway into the Centre City district from Grape Street to Broadway. For the Civic Zone, substantial redevelopment is suggested, including improvements along the landscaped esplanade and streetscape, and passive green spaces between plazas on the esplanade.
2.2.5.3 North Embarcadero Alliance—Visionary Plan As part of redevelopment in the San Diego Unified Port District’s Planning District 3, the North Embarcadero Alliance was formed and comprised the following agencies: San Diego Unified Port District, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), and the U.S. Navy. In December 1998, the Alliance created the Visionary Plan (North Embarcadero Alliance, 1998) to guide development in the contiguous properties in the planning area. The Visionary Plan aims to revitalize the Downtown San Diego waterfront:
…through a concept for public improvements and by guiding development to optimize property values, public access opportunities, and priority waterfront and water-dependent uses.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-12 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Goals of the Visionary Plan are as follows:
· Establish North Embarcadero as an attractive, accessible, socially vibrant, and economically viable public place · Preserve its local history · Provide amenities, uses, and enhancements that improve its environment · Establish its connectivity with local neighborhoods and the region
The plan’s policies for land use and urban form focus on quality mixed-use and high- density development, enhancement of the physical and visual access to the bay, placement of parking lots and structures, and consideration of developing the area’s landmark features. Policy C1-7, for Circulation and Public Access, envisions integrating the public access system and establishing strong pedestrian connections to light rail (Trolley) and heavy rail lines, and to water-based transit through pedestrian and roadway signage.
The Visionary Plan supports the linkage between the Santa Fe Depot as a transit hub and the San Diego bay front. The Visionary Plan area falls within the study area (i.e., the existing Santa Fe Depot and County Center/Little Italy station areas) and has relevant policies and goals regarding connectivity and transit-oriented development (TOD).
2.2.5.4 California Department of Conservation—Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Figure 2-5 displays the land classifications according to the FMMP. As shown in the map, urban and built-up land comprise the majority of the Mid-Coast Corridor. Grazing land is located within the corridor in University City, west of I-805. Other land includes brush, timber, wetlands, and riparian areas not suitable for farmland; low-density rural development; and vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres. 2.3 Regional 2.3.1 San Diego Association of Governments SANDAG has developed a strategy and long-term vision for growth based on the principles of “smart growth.” These policies concentrate growth within existing communities and integrate land use policies and decisions with the regional transportation system. These policies were developed in cooperation with the cities and the county that have land use authority over the region.
2.3.1.1 Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region Through the Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (RCP) (SANDAG, 2004b), the San Diego region has established an incentivized planning framework for coordinated regional housing, land use, transportation, and sustainability planning. The
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-13 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-5. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Source: State of California, California Department of Conservation FMMP Shapefile, 2008
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-14 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
RCP is the foundation of integrating land use, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies in a regional smart growth framework. It provides a regional vision and a broad context in which local and regional decisions can be made to foster a healthy environment and economy, and a high quality of life for all San Diegans. The RCP is based on three goals and objectives:
· Improving connections between land use and transportation plans using smart growth principles · Using land use and transportation plans to guide other decisions regarding environmental and public facility investments · Focusing on collaboration and through the use of incentives to achieve regional goals and objectives
The Urban Form and Transportation section of the RCP outlines four regional goals:
· Focus future population and job growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities to preserve open space and to use existing urban infrastructure more efficiently · Create safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant communities that are designed and built to be accessible to people of all abilities · Integrate the development of land use and transportation, recognizing their interdependence · Develop a flexible, sustainable, and well-integrated transportation system that focuses on moving people and goods—not just vehicles
A key implementation tool for local jurisdictions of the RCP is the Smart Growth Concept Map (SANDAG, 2012). In January 2012, the SANDAG Board accepted a technical update to the map. This map, shown in Figure 2-6, illustrates approximately 200 existing, planned, and potential smart growth locations within SANDAG’s jurisdiction, identified by the 18 cities, along with the County of San Diego, as Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. Smart Growth Opportunity Areas are locations in the region that have been identified by SANDAG as potential locations for future growth that is tied to existing transit facilities or proposed transportation investments.
All eight of the project stations are located in areas designated as “Existing/Planned” Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. These stations would be in areas where densities already meet or will meet the target development intensities, as noted in the Smart Growth Concept Map. The designated opportunity types for these eight stations are described below:
· Town Center. Suburban downtowns within the region. Provides low- and mid-rise residential, office, and commercial buildings. Draws from the immediate area and is served by corridor/regional transit lines and local services or shuttle services. - Tecolote Road Station - Nobel Drive Station
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-15 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-6. Smart Growth Concept Map
Source: SANDAG, 2012
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-16 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Community Center. Areas with housing within walking/biking distance of transit stations. Provides low to mid-rise residential, office, and commercial buildings. Draws from the immediate area and is served by local high -frequency transit. - Clairemont Drive Station - Balboa Avenue Station · Special Use Center. An employment area consisting primarily of medical or educational facilities. The site has a variety of low, medium, and high- rise buildings. The site is dominated by one non-residential land use, such as medical or educational, and draws from throughout the region or the immediate subregion. - UCSD West Station - UCSD East Station · Urban Center. Subregional business, civic, commercial, and cultural centers. The site has a variety of mid- and high-rise residential, office, and commercial buildings with medium-to-high levels of employment. The area draws from throughout the region, with many from the immediate area, and is served by transit lines and local bus services. - Executive Drive Station - University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center
The VA Medical Center Station Option also is located within the existing/planned Special Use Center. In addition, the corridor along Morena Boulevard, between the proposed Tecolote Road and Clairemont Drive Stations is identified as an existing/planned “Mixed Use Transit Corridor.” The Smart Growth Concept Map also provides the framework for such programs as the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program, which funds planning and infrastructure to implement these targeted smart growth areas.
2.3.1.2 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future As the regional planning agency for transportation, SANDAG allocates millions of dollars each year in local, state, and federal funds for the region’s transportation network. The 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007) implements a long-range vision for buses, the Trolley, rail, highways, major streets, bicycle travel, walking, goods movement, and airport services. A significant component of the 2030 RTP is how best to support the smart growth policies that rely on the integration of transit and land use. The seven policy goals outlined in the 2030 RTP are as follows:
· Improve the mobility of people and freight · Improve accessibility to major employment and other regional activity centers · Improve the reliability and safety of the transportation system · Maximize the efficiency of the existing and future transportation system · Promote livable communities
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-17 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Minimize the effects on the environment · Ensure an equitable distribution of benefits among various demographics and user groups
The 2030 RTP identifies the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in the approved 2030 Revenue Constrained Regional Transportation Plan: 2006 Update (SANDAG, 2006b), to be implemented by 2020 with 15-minute peak and off-peak headways. The project also is included as one of 11 major capital improvement projects for transit facilities.
The recently adopted 2050 RTP was also reviewed, and it was determined that it does not identify additional projects that would influence the land use review for this project. For further description of the 2050 RTP, refer to Chapter 1.0.2
2.3.2 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2.3.2.1 San Diego International Airport, Airport Master Plan The San Diego International Airport, Airport Master Plan (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA], 2008) directs development and land uses for more than 660 acres of this facility. The SDIA is adjacent to two existing Trolley stations—the Washington Street and Middletown Stations—west of I-5. The master plan acknowledges the existing transit corridor on the eastern edge of the airport and identifies three land uses adjacent to these two stations: airfield, airport support, and ground transportation.
2.3.2.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (SDCRAA, 1992) was originally adopted in 1992 by SANDAG and amended in 2004 by the SDCRAA, acting in the capacity of the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission.
The purpose of the ALUCP is to provide for the operation of the airport and the use of the areas surrounding the airport, as well as to safeguard the welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. As the ALUCP is implemented, it should result in the following:
· Reduce aircraft noise · Limit the increase in the number of people exposed to airport hazards · Ensure that no structures are erected that are deemed by the Federal Aviation Administration to be hazards
A number of goals have been made in preparing the ALUCP, and two apply to the project:
· The City of San Diego will adopt and implement an Airport Environs Overlay Zone encompassing the ALUCP’s Airport Influence Area to ensure that proposed land uses
2 The Our Region, Our Future, 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Final Environmental Impact Report (SANDAG, 2011b), which is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge, was also consulted for informational purposes, but its analysis was not relied upon in this report.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-18 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
are reviewed; compliance with ALUCP will ensure compatibility with the operation of the airport. · The City of San Diego, through its community planning process and zoning ordinance, retains land use controls of the Airport Influence Area.
2.3.2.3 Destination Lindbergh In March 2009, the SDCRAA issued a planning document, Destination Lindbergh (SDCRAA, 2009) to define the ultimate build-out, configuration, and capacity of the SDIA. The document addresses the airport facilities and the improved intermodal transportation connectivity between the airport and the greater San Diego region. This includes the vision of an intermodal facility to encourage transit ridership to reduce automobile traffic by providing a single location for all future transit modes. As currently proposed, the intermodal center would be located between Washington and Sassafras Streets, east of Pacific Highway, and would span the existing rail lines.
The intermodal center would provide a rail station for service by the North County Transit District COASTER, the Trolley, Amtrak, and future high-speed rail. The station would connect to a passenger-processing facility and directly connect to the terminals via an automated people-mover system. The primary objectives outlined for the intermodal center are as follows:
· Increase transit ridership by providing a single location for currently available and future transit modes to access airport terminals and facilitate mode transfers by non- airport users · Provide a facility to accommodate the parking requirements of passengers and employees of the airport, non-airport transit users, and other local demand centers · Provide the land envelope necessary to accommodate an intermodal center 2.4 Local 2.4.1 Land Use Plans The City of San Diego has adopted various long-range planning guidelines and policies, at both the city and community plan area levels. The city has demonstrated support of mixed-use, transit-supportive development through the approval of the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Design Guidelines (City of San Diego, 1992). The City of San Diego General Plan contains citywide land use policies, whereas community plans provide location-based policies. The City of San Diego General Plan and applicable community plans are discussed below. The project alignment would traverse or run alongside 10 community plan areas within the project corridor, as follows:
· Centre City (San Diego Downtown) · Uptown · Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor · Old Town
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-19 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Mission Valley · Linda Vista · Pacific Beach · Clairemont Mesa · La Jolla · University
The City of San Diego General Plan and 10 community plans (Figure 2-7) are discussed below.
2.4.1.1 City of San Diego General Plan—Strategic Framework Element The City of San Diego adopted a Strategic Framework Element (City of San Diego, 2002) in 2002 and a comprehensive general plan update in 2008. The updated City of San Diego General Plan represents a reinvestment in existing communities. This plan has a strong sustainability focus—it shifts the focus from how to develop vacant land to how to design infill development. The document outlines policies addressing transit and land use coordination; climate change; healthy, walkable communities; green buildings; clean-technology industries; water and energy conservation and management; and urban forestry. In addition, the City of San Diego General Plan features protections for employment lands; strategies for providing urban parks; “toolboxes” to implement mobility strategies; and policies designed to further the preservation of San Diego’s historical and cultural resources.
The City of San Diego General Plan incorporates the Strategic Framework Element “City of Villages” smart growth strategy to focus growth into mixed-use villages that are pedestrian-friendly districts of different scales and linked to the transit system or corridors. The City of San Diego General Plan provides guidance as to how each village can be unique to the community in which it is located, yet all villages will be pedestrian- friendly and characterized by inviting, accessible, and attractive streets and public spaces. Individual villages will offer a variety of housing types and affordability levels. The City of San Diego General Plan draws upon the character and strengths of San Diego’s natural environment, distinctive neighborhoods, and activity centers that together form the city as a whole.
Although the City of San Diego General Plan relies upon the individual community plans to provide land use designations and location-specific guidelines, it does identify broad land use patterns in or near the project. The City of San Diego General Plan identifies several village types and development areas, including subregional employment areas and urban village centers, located in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The University Community Plan area and the Morena corridor are identified as existing subregional employment areas. University and surrounding high-density developments are defined as an urban village center. The policies associated with this “City of Villages” strategy include encouraging additional employment intensification in subregional employment areas, such as the University Community Plan area and the Morena corridor. These areas, which the project would serve, could further promote medium- to high-density residential
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-20 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-7. City of San Diego Community Plan Areas
Source: SANDAG, City Community Planning Areas Shapefile, 2004a
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-21 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
uses along with other mixed uses in urban village centers, maximizing walkability and transit use. The City of San Diego General Plan also defines the “downtown” village type, to recognize the unique role that Downtown San Diego has in the development of the San Diego region. Downtown San Diego is noted as being the administrative, legal, cultural, and entertainment center of the region, with convenient and extensive transit connections and an exciting pedestrian environment.
Implementation of the city’s smart growth strategy depends on closely coordinating land use and transportation planning. This strategy calls for new growth to be targeted into compact, mixed-use villages that connect to regional transit systems. The main goals and polices in the General Plan Mobility Element that are relevant and applicable to the project and are reflected in each of the community plans described below are as follows:
· Develop an improved mass transit system · Support the provision of higher-frequency transit service and capital investment to benefit higher-density residential or mixed-use areas, higher-intensity employment areas, and activity centers · Design and locate transit stops and stations to provide convenient access to high- activity, high-density areas · Integrate the regional transit system with the intercity rail network
2.4.1.2 Community Plans and Local Coastal Programs The City of San Diego is comprised of various community plan areas that have strong identities and unique character. The communities within the Mid-Coast Corridor are shown in Figure 2-7. In concert with the general plan, these community plans outline various policies to improve neighborhood quality of life and to ensure that development within each community is compatible. In general, these community plans share the following primary goals and objectives as they relate to the project:
· To facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation in the form of light rail transit · To provide an efficient and high level of public transportation to the community in the form of light rail transit · To provide a comprehensive access network of transit stations and supportive uses that enhance regional accessibility to high-activity and high-density areas
The discussions below highlight the land use goals and policies from the plans established for the communities that could be affected by the project. A description of existing land uses within each of these community plan areas located along the project corridor and proposed transit station areas is presented in Section 4.1.
San Diego Downtown Community Plan The San Diego Downtown Community Plan (CCDC, 2006) guides the redevelopment and growth of Downtown San Diego. CCDC is the public, non-profit corporation created by the City of San Diego to staff and implement redevelopment projects and programs in
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-22 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Downtown San Diego. CCDC was formed in 1975 and has served on behalf of the San Diego Redevelopment Agency as the catalyst for public-private partnerships to facilitate redevelopment projects adopted pursuant to redevelopment law. With the adoption of Assembly Bill 1X 26 in December 2011, redevelopment agencies, including the CCDC, were eliminated. The CCDC’s existing projects or plans have been transferred to the City of San Diego and would remain in effect unless the City terminates existing agreements.
Two existing transit stations, the Santa Fe Depot and the County Center/Little Italy Station, fall within the San Diego Downtown Community Plan area. Downtown is envisioned as a major regional employment center, with numerous residential neighborhoods that have unique mixed-use centers. The plan establishes policies regarding land use, housing development, transportation, and provision of infrastructure and public services in downtown. These policies tie land use and transit together to support future growth. As population and employment increase in the community, many more trips are anticipated to begin and end in downtown. It will become even more important for the success of downtown that transit be fully integrated into the land use patterns of its neighborhoods.
The Santa Fe Depot and the County Center/Little Italy Station serve the Downtown San Diego, Columbia, and Little Italy neighborhoods, respectively. These neighborhoods have grown significantly in the past decade and are expected to continue growing, as outlined in the plan.
The goals of the community and neighborhoods (Little Italy and Columbia) relevant to the project are as follows:
· Provide land uses to support a flexible, fast, frequent, and safe transit system that connects within downtown and beyond · Locate the highest intensity of development in or near the Trolley corridor to maximize adjacency of people, activity, and transit accessibility · Enhance streetscapes within the transit corridor to increase attractiveness for users and promote shared transit, pedestrian, and cyclist use · Cooperate with the transit agency on public programs and campaigns to increase transit use for various types of trips—work, shopping, entertainment, etc. · Develop Columbia as a mixed-use district, with an energetic waterfront that serves local needs and has a regional draw, relating to the San Diego Bay and the Civic/Core district · Facilitate Little Italy’s continued evolution as a cohesive, mixed-use waterfront neighborhood
Uptown Community Plan The Uptown Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1987b) guides development and land use in this community, which is located within the Mid-Coast Corridor. Although the Uptown community is separated from the project by I-5, the community is close to two existing Trolley stations (Washington Street and Middletown). The primary transportation-related goals and objectives of the plan include the following:
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-23 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Provide for safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the community · Establish a fully integrated system of vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to meet current and future needs · Provide a high level of transit service and promote usage, establishing a focal point for transit services within the community · Facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation to alleviate existing or potential transportation problems resulting from development in the community
Although located outside of the Uptown community, Presidio Park borders the Uptown Community Plan area and has strong historical and cultural significance as well as recreational value. The plan states: “adjacent development should be reviewed to ensure that the project's density and design enhances the special character of the park.”
Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan The Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of San Diego, 1991) was adopted in 1991 and updated in 2006. The community encompasses approximately 800 acres and is situated north of downtown and west of Old Town and Uptown. The central Midway area, which is close to the OTTC, consists of an older urbanized commercial core containing numerous shopping centers, institutional facilities, and scattered multifamily housing.
The Pacific Highway Corridor, which includes two existing Trolley stations (Washington Street and Middletown), is located along the eastern boundary of the community. The community plan recommends that a light rail transit line and related transit station facilities—to be generally situated along the present rail alignment—should be pursued and totally incorporated into the Pacific Highway access corridor. In addition, pedestrian-oriented amenities around trolley stations and bus stops should be provided. More specifically, the plan policies related to transportation promote the following:
· Trolley-supported commercial uses adjacent to the Washington Street and Middletown light rail stations · Mixed residential and commercial development in commercial areas that are not in conflict with the City of San Diego General Plan and SANDAG noise compatibility standards3
It should be noted that this community plan is currently in the process of being updated. However, only existing “adopted” plans and policies can be used for environmental review purposes.
Old Town San Diego Community Plan The Old Town San Diego Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1987a), amended in 2001, has guided development in the community for the past 24 years. Old Town is home to three well-known parks: the Old Town Historic State Park, the city’s Presidio
3 The SDCRAA is now the designated Airport Land Use Commission that is the authority for the ALUCP.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-24 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Park, and the county’s Heritage Park. Because of these parks, Old Town is a major tourist destination with many regional visitor-oriented facilities.
There is one existing Trolley station within the community, which is the OTTC. It is located in the northwestern portion of the community plan area and also would be a station stop for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. This station is a major regional transit hub and currently serves the, Amtrak, COASTER, Trolley Blue and Trolley Green Lines, a transfer station for numerous bus services, and a park-and-ride facility. The land use goals and policies in the plan identify a balance between the uses oriented to regional visitors and those meant for a residential community. The primary transportation-related goals and objectives of the plan are as follows:
· Provide a greater sense of place with a link between the historical center to the major gateway into the community · Provide a comprehensive access network of transit stations and supportive uses that enhances regional accessibility to the historical visitor center
This community plan is currently in the process of being updated. However, only existing “adopted” plans and policies can be used for review purposes.
Mission Valley Community Plan The Mission Valley Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1985), last amended in 2008, provides a plan for Mission Valley that allows for its continued development as a quality regional urban center in the City of San Diego while recognizing and respecting environmental constraints and traffic needs, and encouraging the valley's development as a community.
The project alignment would be situated on the westernmost edge of the Mission Valley Community Plan area, extending approximately 1,200 feet through the planning area near the I-5/I-8 interchange and the San Diego River. The project alignment in the Mission Valley Community Plan area is designated for open space in the land use map but provides a zoning designation of M1 (Industrial/Manufacturing). However, within this community, the project alignment would be located within the existing Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) railroad right-of-way.
Public Transit To become a major regional employment and residential community, the plan recognizes the importance of providing public transit corridors and stations. The plan states the following:
…use of public transit (alternative transportation systems), especially an LRT [Trolley] line, could go a long way in preserving the vitality of Mission Valley. With proper studies and the determination of the transportation impacts the LRT and other transit systems will have on the surface street system, it may be possible to grant some limited development intensity increase.
The plan also describes the importance of extending the regional Trolley system. The objective of the transportation system in Mission Valley is to “facilitate transportation
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-25 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
through and within the valley while establishing and maintaining an adequate transportation network.”
Open Space The open space section of the Mission Valley Community Plan recognizes the San Diego River as an important aesthetic and economic asset to the community and includes an objective to “enhance and maintain the aesthetic and recreational qualities of the river corridor as part of an open space system.” The project alignment would is within the existing MTS right-of-way that crosses the San Diego River.
Urban Design The urban design section of the plan shows that the project alignment lies within the Wetlands Review Area and Urban Design Sensitive Area. The urban design section states that transportation corridors, including LRT, require special design considerations. Although design guidelines were developed for the then-proposed LRT system, design criteria also are applicable to the proposed project alignment. Two design guidelines specifically address transit encroachment into the wetland buffer area to minimize encroachment and to ensure consistency with wetland replacement or enhancement that should be consistent with the conceptual requirements of the responsible environmental agencies and the San Diego River Wetlands Management Plan of the Mission Valley Community Plan.
Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of San Diego, 1998b) was adopted in 1998 and was most recently amended in 2008. The plan identifies “transit-supportive” mixed-use development at the Trolley Green Line Morena/Linda Vista Station. The plan states that the Trolley site should be “pedestrian- and transit-friendly” and developed with “landmark development.” In addition, new development near the Trolley Green Line Morena/Linda Vista Station and the proposed Tecolote Road Station are to incorporate pedestrian- and transit-oriented features into their design. The Tecolote Road Station would be located on the northwestern corner of the community plan area between West Morena Boulevard and I-5 and immediately south of Tecolote Road.
The plan identifies the future extension of Trolley services north from the OTTC. The Transportation Element envisions a future Trolley service that follows the MTS right-of- way from Old Town to Balboa Avenue and beyond, with a planned station at Tecolote Road and West Morena Boulevard. Relating to the project, the plan outlines the following goals and policies:
· Enhance circulation service by initiating light rail service in the Mid-Coast Corridor to La Jolla · Retain the existing industrial area west of Morena Boulevard as a diverse employment base for the community and the city · Encourage more utilization of existing rail facilities
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-26 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Designate portions of the Morena area for light industrial uses. Apply zoning that permits commercial as well as light industrial uses, but not residential development · Promote the use of transit and shuttle service · Design the Tecolote Station to maximize pedestrian and bus access to Mission Bay and the Morena Shopping Quarter · Adequately landscape the Mid-Coast Trolley–COASTER rail corridor · Maintain a wide mix of uses and job bases · Develop a trolley site that is pedestrian- and transit-friendly with “landmark development” · Incorporate pedestrian- and transit-oriented features into the design of new development near new transit stations
In addition, the Linda Vista Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan identifies policies and recommendations to address the coastal issues of physical and visual access to the Pacific Ocean and Mission Bay.
Clairemont Mesa Community Plan The Clairemont Mesa Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1989) was amended five times through 2011 to strengthen the relationship between transit and land use in anticipation of the project. Both the proposed Balboa Avenue and Clairemont Drive Stations are located within this community plan area. Consistent with the city zoning regulation, a Height Limitation Overlay Zone is located along the western boundary of the Clairemont Mesa community, which has view corridors to Mission Bay and the Pacific Ocean. To retain unobstructed view corridors, the overlay zone prohibits the construction of new buildings higher than 30 feet.
The primary transportation goal identified by the plan is to provide an efficient and high level of public transportation to the community, while designing and planning for land uses that would support and make use of the future LRT service. The plan also identifies the following goals and policies:
· Development adjacent to the Clairemont Drive Station should be pedestrian-friendly, with building entrances and windows oriented to the street · Development or redevelopment should occur near the LRT stations · Land uses at or near the LRT stations should be more intensive, per the Residential Element
The transit service plan of the community’s transportation section identifies a future LRT alignment in the MTS right-of-way.
Additionally, the plan identifies the following:
· Bus service and bikeways should be routed to serve LRT stations and should be incorporated into the site and station design
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-27 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Shuttle service should be used to provide a direct link to LRT stations · A direct pedestrian connection to LRT stations should be provided · LRT stations should provide a full range of facilities, including shelters, benches, bike racks and lockers, landscaping, signage, and route schedules · A landscape improvement program should be established to buffer adjacent land uses from the freeway and railroad tracks · Landscaping should link the shopping center to the transit station
Pacific Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The Pacific Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of San Diego, 1993) guides development and land use in the community. Although the project alignment would not travel through Pacific Beach, a station (Balboa Avenue Station) is proposed immediately east of I-5 to serve the Pacific Beach community. The plan identifies a need to connect the community to the planned Trolley system along the I-5 corridor with bus connections to the stations. It states that the community should pursue linkages with the LRT station at Balboa Avenue and identify additional transit corridors to support TOD policies.
The plan also encourages mixed-use development in conjunction with transit corridors. It supports TOD projects and reviewing these projects on a case-by-case basis. The plan includes a description of “TOD standards” and identifies key areas as TOD opportunity areas. It identifies additional transit corridors, which should be limited to routes served by mass transit to support TOD policies. Additionally, the plan encourages the establishment of park-and-ride facilities on or near East Mission Bay Drive, particularly in proximity to the proposed Trolley stations.
The Mission Bay Drive commercial area, which includes both sides of Garnet Avenue from Mission Bay Drive to I-5, is designated for regional commercial use and identified as a transit corridor in the plan. This area is adjacent to the project’s proposed Balboa Avenue Station and is identified as an existing community center in the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map.
The Pacific Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan has incorporated the coastal issues that have been identified for the community and has developed policies and recommendations in the various elements of the community plan to address those issues. In particular, the plan identifies one of the community issues as the impact of community build-out on coastal access. Accordingly, the Circulation Element of the plan focuses on transit improvements designed to facilitate visitor access to the coastline.
La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The La Jolla community is located in the northwestern area of the Mid-Coast Corridor. The La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of San Diego, 2001), and amended in 2004, addresses growth and development in the community, and potential effects on natural resources, traffic circulation, parking, local land uses, public facilities, and heritage resources.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-28 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
The project alignment would not pass through the community of La Jolla, although a transit station is proposed at La Jolla Village Square (i.e., Nobel Drive Station) within a few hundred feet of the eastern boundary of the community.
Relating to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, the plan identifies the following policies and action plans:
· Develop a shuttle or feeder transit service to link with the LRT · Require projects processed under discretionary permits to design for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use · Consider reduction in parking requirements for projects employing TOD programs · Evaluate a shuttle bus system that would provide service to central La Jolla from the peripheral parking areas and the proposed Trolley line with the I-5 corridor · Locate higher-density housing principally along transit corridors and in proximity to emerging lower-income employment opportunities · Provide an adequate circulation system to serve the La Jolla community that promotes the use of bicycles, public transit, and shuttle service as alternative forms of transportation for residents and visitors to La Jolla
University Community Plan The University Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1986) has been amended four times through 2011 and guides development in this high-density, innovative, and mixed-use community. The community has a high level of urban development and is considered by the City of San Diego General Plan as a subregional employment area and a major urban node. Three proposed project stations are located in the community: the Nobel Drive Station, the Executive Drive Station, and the UTC Transit Center, as well as the VA Medical Center Station Option.
Development Intensity and Transportation Elements The plan identifies an LRT corridor to connect the area’s major activity centers to the greater San Diego region. The Development Intensity Element and the Transportation Element seek to establish well-defined multimodal systems for the community. The primary goals that are relevant and applicable to the project include the following:
· To serve the level of development in the community, transit should be improved, including regional bus, shuttle loop, and LRT service · To serve internal trips and to feed the regional bus routes and future LRT line, a transit loop should be developed (this is now provided as the SuperLoop service) · To serve the community, the development of a high-speed LRT system should be encouraged
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-29 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Additionally, related to the LRT, the plan states the following:
· Dedication or reservation for LRT may be included in net acreage · For properties within one-quarter mile of the adopted LRT station sites, development intensity bonuses could be granted if the developer has contributed to the LRT · The LRT system should serve UCSD to limit vehicular traffic impacts · Executive Drive is designated as a four-lane collector with an LRT line · LRT stations should be designed with two basic concepts: integrated and detached · The LRT corridor should offer a variety of interesting views and amenities to transit riders · Develop a transportation system designed to move people and goods safely and efficiently within the community, including linkages with other communities, and with due consideration for energy conservation · Encourage the adequate provision of public transit between major activity areas, such as University Towne Centre and La Jolla Village Square · Encourage alternative modes of transportation by requiring developer participation in transit facility improvements, the Intra-Community Shuttle Loop (this is now provided as the SuperLoop service), and the LRT system · Ensure that all public improvements, such as roads, drainage channels, and utility services and all private lessee developments are compatible with the natural environment
Open Space Element The Open Space Element of the University Community Plan addresses two specific regional resource-based open space attractions, as discussed below.
Rose Canyon Open Space Preserve. Located adjacent to the project alignment, Rose Canyon is considered a regional and resource-based open space resource in the community plan that allows for limited or low-intensity recreational uses and respects the natural characteristics of the canyon. Rose Canyon consists of approximately 278 acres of open space (owned by the city) and is a well-defined valley floor bordered on the south by steep slopes. Vegetation in the canyon includes mature sycamores, oak trees, and other riparian vegetation in the valley bottom. The canyon is a scenic asset to the community and defines the neighborhoods to the north and south of the canyon. The recreational uses allowed in the canyon are passive uses, such as hiking and biking trails, and resource conservation. The community plan goals for Rose Canyon that pertain to this project are as follows:
· Future uses of Rose Canyon should consider the topography, vegetation, and scenic value of the canyon · Passive recreational uses are recommended rather than active uses requiring major grading and construction
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-30 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Pedestrian and bicycle paths should be constructed as illustrated in the Transportation Element and in the Urban Design Element · An open space easement with access permitted should be granted along the north side of the MTS right-of-way between I-5 and I-805 · An existing partial bike lane should be continued to connect the UCSD campus to the Rose Canyon bikeway via Gilman Drive · Preserve the natural environment, including wildlife, vegetation, and terrain · Permit uses within canyons that are strictly compatible with the open space concept
San Clemente Canyon Open Space Preserve/Marian Bear Memorial Park. San Clemente Canyon also is considered a regional resource-based open space resource in the University City and Clairemont Mesa communities. The preserve is approximately 467 acres (owned by the city) and consists of a broad floodplain and steep slopes. There are dense stands of mature oak and sycamore trees, and distinct riparian vegetation in the valley floor. The preserve consists of the partially developed Marian R. Bear Memorial Park, which allows limited or low-intensity recreational uses, and respects the natural characteristics of the canyon. Certain areas of San Clemente Canyon, such as “finger canyons,” are preserved as open space through easements. Although an update of the Clairemont Mesa Community Plan shifted the northern boundary of the Clairemont Mesa community to State Route 52 to include the park and the canyon, San Clemente Canyon continues to be a major open space resource for the communities of San Diego.
The University Community Plan goal for San Clemente Canyon is to preserve and maintain Marian R. Bear Memorial Park as a regional resource-based park in its existing natural state. The Clairemont Mesa Community Plan goal for San Clemente Canyon is to preserve and enhance the canyon, and to protect the resource value of the canyon areas, plants, and animal wildlife in the community.
North City Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan The North City Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan (City of San Diego, 1981) has been amended four times through 1996 and covers a small area associated with the northern section of the University community. Relating to the Build Alternative, the plan outlines several community goals:
· A balanced transportation system linking the entire community to all activity areas and to the San Diego metropolitan area must be achieved · Physical, social, and economic environments must be created befitting the dignity of UCSD and the magnificence of the physical setting of the community · The pace of development in the community should parallel the general growth of UCSD and other related employment centers within the area. Neither economic consideration nor generalized citywide housing needs should be elevated to a position that would permit premature development of housing or commercial facilities in the University community
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-31 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
2.4.2 Other Plans 2.4.2.1 Multiple Species Conservation Program The City of San Diego adopted the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (City of San Diego, 1997) to preserve and manage sensitive species at the ecosystem level through habitat protection.
As described in the Final MSCP Plan (County of San Diego, 1998), the MSCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation plan for southwestern San Diego County. The MSCP covers approximately 900 square miles (582,243 acres), of which 49,000 acres lie within the City of San Diego’s Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). Local government agencies and special districts, in partnership with wildlife agencies, property owners, and development and environmental representatives, developed the MSCP. The goals of the MSCP include the following:
· Preserve a network of habitat and open space to protect biodiversity · Reduce constraints on development outside of the habitat preserves · Reduce the cost of compliance with federal and state laws protecting biological resources · Function as an “urban growth boundary” in the outer reaches of the region · Provide recreational and visual relief and community definition through the smaller preserve areas in the MHPA · Restore native vegetation as a condition of future development proposals along the portion of the San Diego River corridor that would be traversed by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project · To avoid development of roads in canyon bottoms whenever feasible; if avoidance is not feasible, then development must be designed to cross the shortest length possible of the MHPA to minimize impacts and fragmentation of sensitive species and habitat
In the Mid-Coast Corridor, the proposed alignment is within portions of the city’s designated MHPA, as illustrated in Figure 2-8. The alignment is parallel to portions of the Rose Canyon and San Clemente Canyon Open Space Preserves and also crosses the San Diego River, all of which are designated MHPAs. These open space areas allow passive recreational uses such as bird watching, as well as hiking and picnicking. Rose Creek and San Clemente Creek at the bottom of the canyon do not flow year- round, and therefore do not provide for boating or fishing activities. A portion of the Mission Valley Preserve, also a designated MHPA, is located where the alignment crosses the San Diego River, which is further described below in the Draft San Diego River Park Master Plan.
2.4.2.2 Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update Mission Bay Park encompasses more than 4,000 acres of land and water, and is located entirely within the Coastal Zone. Although the project alignment would not travel through the park, the Tecolote Road Station and Clairemont Drive Station would be located nearby (less than one-quarter mile from the eastern edge of the park).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-32 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-8. City of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Area
Source: SanGIS, City of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Areas Shapefile, 2003
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-33 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
The park is a regionally significant destination that attracts more than 16 million annual visitors to a wide variety of tourist-oriented activities, including SeaWorld. The Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update (City of San Diego, 1994) was adopted in 1994 and amended several times, with the last amendment occurring in 2002. The plan provides goals and management for the park and also is a LCP Land Use Plan.
As stated in the plan, “In Mission Bay Park, maximum sustainable benefit means ensuring that the greatest possible number of users continues to enjoy the park without compromising its ability to meet the recreational choices and needs of the future. To achieve this goal, every square foot of the park's land and water should be planned to yield the most benefit for as many functions as possible.” The Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update provides the appropriate guidance for this planning effort.
Land Use and Water Use The primary land uses and typical activities in the eastern portion of the park consist of regional parkland uses such as sandy beaches, ornamental turf areas, picnicking, kite flying, Frisbee tossing, informal sports, walking, jogging, bicycling, and support parking. Additionally, there are water uses, such as boating, water skiing, and use of other personal watercraft.
Access and Circulation This section of the plan outlines opportunities to provide commuter use of overflow parking areas to serve regional Trolley stations. This would occur during off-peak parking periods for the park, typically such as working hours on weekdays. This section also describes a possible tram system connecting the park and linking the park’s bikeways and pedestrian paths to the Trolley stations at Clairemont Drive and Tecolote Road.
2.4.2.3 Draft San Diego River Park Master Plan The Draft San Diego River Park Master Plan (City of San Diego, 2010), proposes steps to reconnect the San Diego region with a major waterway that travels from the Pacific Ocean to the edge of the City of Santee. The goal of the plan is to create a string of parks linked by open space, pathways, and green corridors. The river park will establish a multilayered system that will serve a variety of needs, offering recreational, environmental, and habitat benefits. The project alignment crosses the San Diego River just north of the OTTC and bisects the “Estuary” and “Lower Valley” reaches of the river park’s master plan. At the very west end of the Lower Valley is the Mission Valley Preserve, which extends from I-5 to Sefton Field and the Mission Valley YMCA. The preserve is entirely within the floodplain of the San Diego River, which is dedicated park open space. The following sections list the general goals and specific recommendations pertaining to these two reaches.
General Goals · Reorient development toward the river; encourage mixed-use development and encourage development to face the river · Separate pedestrians and wildlife from vehicular river crossings
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-34 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
· Create “green gateways” as key landscape elements located at the entries along the corridor through the San Diego River’s domain; these gateways would consist of large-scale plantings within the public rights-of-way · Create a string of parks linked by open space, pathways, and green corridors
Recommendations for Estuary Reach · Improve pathway and trail connections to Mission Bay Park and the Mission Valley Preserve · Coordinate with the California Department of Transportation to establish a green gateway at the intersection of I-5 and the river valley by revegetating the I-5 rights-of-way with native vegetation
Recommendation for Lower Valley Reach · Support the goals of the Mission Valley Preserve and provide additional interpretive signs on the role of the San Diego River in the preserve
2.4.2.4 North Bay Redevelopment Plan The City of San Diego adopted the North Bay Redevelopment Plan (City of San Diego, 1998a) on May 18, 1998 (Ordinance O-185 16) and has been amended four times through 2007. Figure 2-9 illustrates the boundaries of the redevelopment area. This plan is a tool to revitalize a 1,360-acre area north of San Diego Bay that was affected by the closure of the San Diego Naval Training Center in 1997. The plan’s goals include developing attractive commercial mixed uses adjacent to existing and proposed Trolley stations. Additionally, the plan calls for creating a pedestrian- and business-friendly environment in the community’s commercial areas and around transit stations. It is the intent of the plan for all new development to incorporate pedestrian- and transit-oriented features into project designs. The objectives of the plan relevant and applicable to the project include the following:
· To enhance the quality of pedestrian and vehicular mobility, and improve transportation facilities, which support the vitality, safety, and viability of the North Bay · Improve the quality of non-vehicular transportation alternatives through the creation and expansion of non-vehicular routes throughout the project area
In June 2011, Assembly Bill 26 (AB 26) was enacted, which provided for the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California. Consequently, in July 2011, the California Redevelopment Association, the League of California Cities, and other entities challenged its constitutionality. In December 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld AB 26 and issued a revised timeline of February 1, 2012, for redevelopment agencies to be dissolved. Accordingly, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Diego was abolished and the City Council designated the city to serve as the successor agency.
The North Bay Redevelopment Plan incorporates the goals and policies of the relevant community plans, including Uptown, Old Town, Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor, Mission Valley, Linda Vista, and Clairemont Mesa, and shares the same visions as these community
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-35 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-9. City of San Diego North Bay Redevelopment Area
Source: SanGIS, County of San Diego Redevelopment Districts Shapefile, 2010
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-36 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
plans for land use development. Although the agency has been dissolved, the vision and policies for the area could be carried forward by the city in the applicable plans and projects.
2.4.3 Land Development Guidelines and Regulations 2.4.3.1 Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines In the City of San Diego, policies supporting transit–land use coordination have been in place since the mid-1980s, and the City of San Diego adopted the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Design Guidelines (City of San Diego, 1992) in 1992. Since that time, these policies have guided numerous community plan amendments and/or updates to give better support to regional transit plans. The guidelines outline higher-density development near transit stations, include transit- and pedestrian-friendly design requirements, and preserve transit rights-of-way.
The following are the key elements of the TOD Design Guidelines regarding increasing station area development:
· Permit higher-density residential development and encourage a higher percentage of job-generating uses · Clarify the ultimate mix of land uses and appropriate densities and intensities in a site-specific planning process · Reduce land devoted to surface parking lots through redevelopment with more intensive uses · Regard uses that rely extensively upon automobiles or trucks for their business as not appropriate for TOD uses · Maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infrastructure-sensitive infill and redevelopment · Reduce the consumption of nonurban areas by efficiently designing the urban area · Employ land use strategies to reinforce transit · Reduce the number of auto trips and regional vehicle miles traveled by creating opportunities to walk and bike
2.4.3.2 City of San Diego Land Development Code Zoning regulations, in combination with the City of San Diego General Plan land use designations, are an effective way to achieve transit-supportive development over time. The zoning regulations implement the policy recommendations of the City of San Diego General Plan and the community plans. The City of San Diego is currently updating its community plans and designating transit station areas for higher densities than other areas not directly supported by transit facilities. With these updates, comparable zoning regulations will be applied.
The zoning around transit stations promotes pedestrian orientation and promotes mixed- use development. These TOD principles are thereby implemented consistently as properties are developed or redeveloped. Incremental implementation through zoning is
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-37 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
especially important in cities that are primarily built-out and experiencing pressure for infill development.
In the City of San Diego, the standard zoning application in the current land development code has become a more effective tool in achieving the type of traditional “main street” business district and TOD because it includes similar development design standards that once could have been achieved by “tailored” zoning and discretionary review.
The Land Development Code (San Diego Municipal Code, Chapters 11–15, 6th update, effective December 13, 2008, outside the Coastal Zone, and June 11, 2009, inside the Coastal Zone) was prepared to facilitate high-quality development and to provide the measures to implement transit-supportive projects. The land development code includes numerous zones and provisions that allow and promote mixed-used development within transit corridors. Additionally, as the community plans are updated to reflect the City of San Diego General Plan, the city in turn will update and add to the land development code. Such additions will further support TOD in the community plans.
The Land Development Code Chapter 13; Article 1; Division 4; Residential Based Zones (City of San Diego, 2008b) allows for a wide range of residential density. This includes residential densities in the RM (Residential-Multiple Unit) zone ranging from approximately 15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (RM-1-1) to 217 du/ac (RM-4-11). Consequently, within this range, providing high-density residential development appropriate for transit-supportive projects is possible. Other considerations for TOD is how new projects taper back and transition to nearby lower-density neighborhoods.
The Land Development Code Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 7; Coastal Development Permit Procedures (City of San Diego, 2008b) establishes a city review process for coastal development that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program, the California Coastal Act of 1976 (PRC Section 30000, et seq.), and the CCR, Title 14, Division 5.5., Chapter 8, Subchapter 2, Article 17. Compliance with the California Coastal Act is discussed in Section 2.2.2.
The following zones address this issue and the promotion of TOD.
Residential—Small Lot Single Dwellings Zone The zoning code provides for both attached and detached single-dwelling units on smaller lots than are required in the standard single-family zones. It is intended that these zones provide an alternative to multifamily development where single-family homes could be developed at multi-unit densities. It also is used where single-family homes are desired as a transition from new multifamily to surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Minimum lot sizes of the small-lot zones are 3,000 to 4,000 square feet (11 to 14 du/ac).
Residential—Town House Zone This zone provides for attached, single-dwelling units on small lots with access to an alley. This zone is intended to provide a more urbanized, single-unit living at densities that are historically more typical of multi-units zone. This zone also provides transitional
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-38 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
opportunities between single-unit neighborhoods and higher-density multi-unit neighborhoods. The densities range from 12.5 to 20 du/ac.
Commercial Mixed Use Zone The Land Development Code Chapter 13; Article 1; Division 5; Commercial Based Zones allows for mixed uses and requires pedestrian orientation as part of the city’s base commercial zones.
Urban Village Overlay Zone To promote TOD, this zone (Chapter 13; Article 2; Division 11) allows a greater variety of uses, flexibility in site planning, development regulations, and a higher intensity of land use that is generally permitted in other citywide zones. These regulations intend to create a mix of land uses in a compact pattern that will reduce dependency on the automobile, improve air quality, and promote high-quality, interactive neighborhoods. This type of development is feasible for two of the station areas, at Tecolote Road and at Clairemont Drive, which offer the best opportunity for mixed-use TOD.
Transit Overlay Zone The Land Development Code Chapter 13; Article 2; Division 10 provides reduced parking requirements for areas receiving a high level of transit service. The overlay zone, shown in Figure 2-10, identifies areas with reduced parking demand and lowers off-street parking requirements accordingly. Both the proposed Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue Stations are identified on the Transit Overlay Zone map.
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Regulations Land Development Code Chapter 14; Article 3; Division 7 provides increased residential density to developers who guarantee that a portion of the residential development will be available to moderate-income, low-income, or senior households. The regulations are intended to give material assistance to the housing industry in providing adequate and affordable housing for all economic segments of the community. Additionally, reductions in parking ratios are granted for projects within or partially within a transit area.
2.4.3.3 Old Town Planned District Ordinance The Old Town Planned District Ordinance supports the Old Town San Diego Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1987a) with more specific land use objectives and a design review board to advise on future development in the community. The ordinance allows the board discretionary review of projects in the planned district, while specifying certain allowable or permittable uses, including the following references to the OTTC:
§1516.0101 3Diii: Public Parking C – the parking located on Taylor Street allows for future development of an expanded parking area, in conjunction with the State Historic Park, and a transit center with accessory retail.
§1516.0203 f5B: Parcel B/Transit Use (Congress/Taylor) – A transit center, with related transit support retail and offices may be permitted, provided that these support retail and office uses shall not exceed an area of 10 percent of the site, nor shall any one establishment exceed 700 square feet.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-39 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
Figure 2-10. Transit Overlay Zone
Source: City of San Diego, Land Development Code, 2008b
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-40 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
2.4.3.4 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update The City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update (City of San Diego, 2011b) guides the development of the bicycle infrastructure network in the City of San Diego. The plan states that the Coastal Rail Trail project will provide a Class I bicycle path from Gilman Drive south to Santa Fe Drive and continue with a new Class I facility south of Santa Fe Drive to Damon Avenue. The document states that a goal is to support connections to regional multi-use trails such as the Bayshore Bikeway, the Coastal Rail Trail, and the San Diego River Trail. The San Diego River Trail is an existing Class I bicycle path that begins in the community of Ocean Beach and extends east to Mission Valley following the south bank of the river. The bike path currently travels under the existing rail bridge and where a future bridge serving the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would cross the San Diego River.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 2-41 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 2.0 – Regulatory Context
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-42 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 3.0 – Methodology
3.0 METHODOLOGY
This chapter defines the study area for land use impacts and describes the data sources and methodologies used and the standards applied to assess potential land use impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 3.1 Study Area For this report, the study area includes the corridor areas and station areas, as described below:
· Corridor Areas: the 1,000-foot area around the project alignment (500 feet on each side of the alignment centerline), excluding the existing and proposed station areas · Station Areas: the half-mile area around the project stations (both existing and proposed stations)
The study area is shown in Figure 3-1. 3.2 Data Sources Land use was identified based on the status of state, regional, and local planning information available at the time of this writing. The evaluation included, but was not limited to, a review of the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a), community plans, specific plans, local coastal programs, conservation plans, and other local planning documents. Additional land use details were gathered during field visits as well as from a review of aerial photography and data from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the San Diego Geographic Information Source.
The following geographic information system (GIS) datasets were modified:
· The SANDAG 2009 Current Land Use GIS shapefile (SANDAG, 2009) was modified to include existing University of California, San Diego (UCSD) uses. · The SANDAG 2030 Planned Land Use GIS shapefile (SANDAG, 2006a) was modified to include future UCSD uses, as identified in the UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan (UCSD, 2004a).
Additionally, this report incorporates data from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Land Use and Economic Development Templates (SANDAG, 2010b), which used SANDAG Series 12: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast data (SANDAG, 2010a) and a 2008–2009 base year. Where noted, these data were supplemented with SANDAG Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update data (SANDAG, 2006c) and a 2010 base year. 3.3 Impacts Assessment Comprehensive plans and other land use regulations provide information on the types, densities, and locations of land uses that communities desire and the transportation
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 3-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 3.0 – Methodology
Figure 3-1. Study Area
Source: SANDAG, 2011
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 3-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 3.0 – Methodology
system needed to support these uses. They also identify the goals of jurisdictions and the policies they are using to achieve their goals. The assessment of land use impacts includes evaluation of consistency with land use policies, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and opportunities for intensifying transit-oriented development (TOD). The assessment evaluates the consistency of locating transit stations in areas supportive of TOD. This is in accordance with the purpose and need statement of the project, which furthers goals of increasing ridership and promoting and supporting the development of an urban form that encourages walking, biking, and transit use.
The following potential impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on land use were analyzed:
· Land Use Compatibility—Adjacent or Surrounding Land Uses: Existing (2010) land uses within the study area were reviewed to determine whether the project would be incompatible with these uses, including whether effects to surrounding development would prevent such development from supporting a high-capacity transit facility and would result in an environmental effect · Land Use Consistency—Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations: state, regional, and local plans, policies, and regulations that are currently in place and that govern land use and development in the study area were reviewed to determine whether the project would be consistent with and not conflict with these plans · Land Use Consistency—Community Plan Environmental Goals and Objectives: The environmental goals of City of San Diego community plans within the study area were reviewed to identify possible inconsistencies based on the project alignment · Land Use Consistency—General Plan and Community Plan Open Space and Farmland: The City of San Diego General Plan and community plans within the study area were reviewed to identify designated open space or farmland uses and to determine whether the project would affect the conversion of these areas to a more intensive land use · Land Use Consistency—Local, Regional, and State Habitat Conservation Plans: state, regional, and local habitat conservation plans within the study area, including the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, were reviewed for consistency and to determine whether the project would have an effect on these habitat conservation areas 3.4 Impact Determination The following sections present the impact thresholds for the assessment of impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
3.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act Guidance The following guidance was developed based on NEPA guidelines and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory T6640.8A Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, dated October 30, 1987,
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 3-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 3.0 – Methodology
which is used by the Federal Transit Administration. Technical Advisory T6640.8A directs preparers of environmental impact statements to discuss the following related to land use impacts:
· The current development trends and the state and/or local government plans and policies on land use and growth in the area that will be impacted by the proposed project · The consistency of the alternatives with the comprehensive development plans adopted for the area and (if applicable) other plans used in the development of the transportation plan required by Section 134 · The secondary social, economic, and environmental impacts of substantial, foreseeable, induced development for each alternative, including adverse effects on existing communities. (This assessment is provided in separate technical reports.) · Where possible, the distinction between planned and unplanned growth
3.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act Guidance Based on CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 2011a), SANDAG has developed the following thresholds of significance for use in evaluating the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.
· Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? · Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? · Would the project result in incompatible land uses? · Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use, or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use?
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 3-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter describes the existing conditions in the study area related to land use. The discussion addresses land use and zoning conditions for the corridor areas and station areas defined in Section 3.1. This chapter also described key activity centers within the Mid-Coast Corridor. 4.1 Existing Land Uses and Zoning Existing land uses in the Mid-Coast Corridor vary widely in character and density. Table 4-1 generally identifies the existing land uses and zoning designations within an approximate one-quarter-mile radius of the project alignment and stations; these land uses also are presented in Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-10. The zoning designations for the corridor and station areas are presented in Figure 4-11. As shown in Figure 4-11, with the exception of the north end of the study area, which is zoned predominantly low-density residential, most of the area along the project alignment permits the highest developmental intensity within the Mid-Coast Corridor.
The areas adjacent to the majority of the proposed station areas typically permit a high density of development (higher-density commercial and residential development), which transition to lower-density uses (single-family residences) extending away from the stations. Exceptions occur on the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus and at the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center Station Option, where station areas are not governed by the City of San Diego’s zoning designations because UCSD and the VA Medical Center are state and federal entities, respectively.
The existing station areas from Old Town to the Santa Fe Depot are located in overlay zones that have been established to attract transit-friendly development with higher density that is consistent with transit-oriented development.
Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations
Areas Directly Adjacent to the Areas within the Corridor Area Project Alignment or Stations or Station Area Location Existing Uses Zoning Existing Uses Zoning Santa Fe Depot Museum, multifamily CCDC- Hotels, Horton Plaza, other CCPD-Core; residences, offices, awaits- shopping centers, institutional CCPD-R; commercial uses, retail CCC-appr uses, cruise ship terminal, ferry CCPD-PC uses, restaurants, dock, other harbor uses, military surface parking lots facilities, County Courthouse, U.S. Courts Library, U.S. Courthouse, park Existing Alignment Between Hotels, multifamily CCDC- County Administration Center, CCPD-Core; Santa Fe Depot and County residences, offices, awaits- museum, school, automotive- CCPD-R; Center/Little Italy Station commercial uses, retail CCC-appr; related services, harbor uses CCPD-PC; uses, restaurants, CCPD-ER institutional uses, surface parking lots
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations (continued)
Areas Directly Adjacent to the Areas within the Corridor Area Project Alignment or Stations or Station Area Location Existing Uses Zoning Existing Uses Zoning County Center/Little Italy Hotels, offices, CCDC- Park, schools, churches, CCPD-NC; Station institutional uses, awaits- automotive-related services, CCPD-OS; surface parking lots, CCC-appr; museum, harbor uses CCPD-PC; commercial uses, retail CCPD-ER; CCPD-MC uses, restaurants CCPD-R Existing Alignment Between Multi-family residences, CCDC- San Diego International Airport, CCPD-NC; County Center/Little Italy hotels, offices, awaits- motels, aviation-related uses, CCPD-OS; Station and Middletown commercial uses, retail CCC-appr; churches, schools, motels, CCPD-PC; Station uses, storage, CCPD-R; single-family residences CCPD-ER; restaurants, surface CCPD-MC; MCCPD-MR- parking lots/parking IS-1-1; CC- 1500; garages, automotive- 4-2 MCCPD-MR- related services, light 1000; industrial uses, light MCCPD-CL- manufacturing uses, 6; RS-1-2 San Diego Gas & Electric Substation Middletown Station Port of San Diego CC-4-2; IS- San Diego International Airport, MCCPD-MR- facility, San Diego Gas 1-1 motels, aviation-related uses, 1500; & Electric Substation, Port of San Diego Administrative MCCPD-MR- automotive-related Building, offices, commercial 3000; uses, airport parking uses, retail uses, restaurants, MCCPD-CL- multifamily residences, light 6; RS-1-1; industrial and manufacturing RS-1-2 uses Existing Alignment Between Aviation-related uses, CC-4-2; IS- Restaurants, military facility, MCCPD-MR- Middletown Station and automotive-related 1-1 institutional facilities, parks, 1500; Washington Street Station services, Port of San county facilities, multifamily MCCPD-MR - Diego Administrative residences, single-family 3000; Building, offices, residences MCCPD-CL- commercial uses, retail 6; RS-1-1; uses, light industrial RS-1-2 uses, light manufacturing uses, parking lots/parking garages Washington Street Station Automotive-related CC-4-1; IS- Restaurants, military facility, RM-2-10; services, offices, 1-1 institutional facilities, parks, MCCPD-MR- commercial uses; light county facilities, multifamily 1500; industrial uses, light residences, single-family MCCPD-CL- manufacturing uses, residences 6; RS-1-7 parking lots
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations (continued)
Areas Directly Adjacent to the Areas within the Corridor Area Project Alignment or Stations or Station Area Location Existing Uses Zoning Existing Uses Zoning Existing Alignment Between Offices, commercial CC-4-1; IS- Restaurants, military facility, RM-2-10; Middletown Station and uses, retail uses, light 1-1; IP-2-1 institutional facilities, parks, MCCPD-MR- OTTC industrial uses, light county facilities, multifamily 1500; manufacturing uses, residences, single-family MCCPD-CL- parking lots/parking residences, hotels, schools, 6; RS-1-7; garages churches, shopping centers, OTSDPD- Presidio Park, storage Core; OTSDPD- Hortensia; OTSDPD- Jefferson; OTSDPD- Pub-Pro-Pkg- A; OTSDPD- Pub-Pkg-C; CC-5-4; CO- 1-2 OTTC Old Town San Diego OTSDPD- Museums, military facility, OTSDPD- State Historic Park, Pub-Pro- institutional facilities, parks, Hortensia; restaurants, surface Pkg-C; county facilities, multifamily OTSDPD- parking lots, retail and PTSDPD- residences, single-family Jefferson; commercial uses, Pub-Pro- residences, hotels/motels, OTSDPD-Pub- county facilities Pkg-B; schools, shopping centers, Pro-Pkg-A; OTSDPD- Presidio Park, automotive- OTSDPD- Core related services, golf course, Rosecrans; OTSDPD-Pub- San Diego River, open space, Pro-Pkg; CC- light industrial uses 5-4; CC-4-2; CO-1-2; IS-1-1 Proposed Alignment Motel, school, light OTSDPD- Mission Bay, Mission Bay Park, OTSDPD-Pub- Between OTTC and industrial uses, Core; open space, restaurants, Pro-Pkg; CC- Proposed Tecolote Road commercial uses, retail OTSDPD- automotive-related services, 5-4; CC-4-2; Station uses, Morena Plaza Rosecrans; church, storage CO-1-2; IS-1- Shopping Center, OTSDPD- 1; RS-1-7; RM- nursery, San Diego Pub-Pro- 4-10 River Pkg-B; IL-3- 1; CC-4-2 Proposed Tecolote Road Armstrong Nursery, IL-3-1; CC- Restaurants, light industrial RM-4-10; RS- Station storage, Morena Plaza 4-2 uses, commercial uses, Mission 1-7; RM-1-1 Shopping Center Bay, Mission Bay Park, open space, automotive-related services
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations (continued)
Areas Directly Adjacent to the Areas within the Corridor Area Project Alignment or Stations or Station Area Location Existing Uses Zoning Existing Uses Zoning Proposed Alignment I-5, mobile home park, I-3-1; RS- Schools, Mission Bay, Mission RM-4-10; RM- Between Proposed multifamily residences, 1-7; CC-4- Bay Park, nature preserve, open 2-5; RM-3-7; Tecolote Road Station and offices, commercial 5; CN-1-2; space, churches CC-4-2; CP-1- Proposed Clairemont Drive uses, light industrial CC-1-3 1 Station uses, restaurants, automotive-related uses, church Proposed Clairemont Drive I-5, vacant commercial CC-1-3; Schools, Mission Bay, Mission RM-4-10; RM- Station property, multifamily RS-1-7 Bay Park, nature preserve, open 3-7; CN-1-2; residences space, churches, single-family CC-4-2 residences Proposed Alignment I-5, school, single-family RS-1-7; Schools, Mission Bay, Mission CV-1-2 Between Proposed residences CC-4-2; Bay Park, Mission Bay Golf Clairemont Drive Station CN-1-2; Course, nature preserve, motels, and Proposed Balboa RM-4-10; commercial uses, office Avenue Station CO-1-2; CC-4-5 Proposed Balboa Avenue I-5, vacant land CC-4-5; Schools, Mission Bay, Mission CC-4-2; RS-1- Station CO-1-2; Bay Park, Mission Bay Golf 7; RS-1-1; RM-4-10 Course, nature preserve, motels, RM-3-7; IS-1- commercial uses, office, 1; IP-2-1; CC- automotive-related uses, light 4-6 industrial uses, multifamily residences, single-family residences, Rose Creek Trail, open space Proposed Alignment I-5, light industrial uses, IP-2-1; IL- Single-family residences, San CC-4-6; IS-1- Between Proposed Balboa Costco, RV resort, 3-1; RS-1- Diego Gas & Electric La 1; CC-4-2; Avenue Station and automotive-related 14; OP-1-1; Jolla/Rose Canyon Substation OF-1-1; RM- Proposed Nobel Drive services, restaurants, RM-2-5; 1-1; RS-1-7; Station Rose Canyon, Rose RM-3-7 RS-1-1; CN-1- Canyon Hiking Trail, 2; RM-3-7; Rose Canyon Bike Path, OP-2-1; open space, SR 52, San LJSPD-SF Clemente Canyon Hiking Trail and Bike Trail, Marian Bear Memorial Park, multifamily residences, La Jolla Village Square Proposed Nobel Drive I-5, La Jolla Village CC-1-3; Single-family residences, park, RM-2-5; RM- Station Square, multifamily RM-3-7 church 1-1; CO-1-2; residences, restaurants, CV-1-1; RM- commercial uses, 3-9; RS-1-14; surface parking lot LJSPD-SF
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations (continued)
Areas Directly Adjacent to the Areas within the Corridor Area Project Alignment or Stations or Station Area Location Existing Uses Zoning Existing Uses Zoning Proposed Alignment I-5, multifamily CC-1-3; UCSD Medical Hospital, church, RM-2-5; RM- Between Proposed Nobel residences, campus CV-1-1; open space 1-1; CO-1-2; Station and Proposed housing, university RS-1-14 RS-1-14 UCSD West Station uses, surface parking lots, campus sports field, VA Medical Center, open space Proposed UCSD West Campus housing, open RS-1-14 I-5, surface parking lots, campus CV-1-1; CO- Station space, campus sports sports field, VA Medical Center, 1-2 fields, university uses UCSD Medical Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla Proposed Alignment Campus housing, open RS-1-14; Scripps Memorial Hospital La IP-1-1; CV-1- Between Proposed UCSD space, campus sports CO-1-2 Jolla, La Jolla Country Day 1; RM-3-7 West Station and Proposed fields, university uses, School UCSD East Station I-5, surface parking lots, UCSD Medical Hospital Proposed UCSD East The Preuss School, RS-1-14 UCSD Medical Hospital, Scripps IP-1-1; RM-3- Station campus sports fields, Memorial Hospital La Jolla, La 7; CO 1-2 university uses, surface Jolla Country Day School, parking lots research laboratories/facilities Proposed Alignment The Preuss School, RS-1-14; Research laboratories/facilities IL-3-1; IP-1-1 Between Proposed UCSD campus sports fields, RM-3-7; East Station and Proposed university uses, surface CN-1-2; UCSD Executive Drive parking lots, La Jolla OP-1-1; Station Country Day School, CO-1-2 churches, offices, medical clinics, commercial uses, restaurants Proposed Executive Drive Institutional uses, OP-1-1; Research laboratories/facilities, RS-1-14; Station restaurants CO-1-2; shopping center, retail uses, IL-3-1; CN-1-2 hotel CR-1-1; RM- 3-7 Proposed Alignment Institutional uses, CN-1-2; Multi-family residences, IL-3-1; CC-1-3 Between Proposed medical clinics, CO-1-2; automotive-related services Executive Drive Station and restaurants, commercial RS-1-14, the Proposed UTC Transit uses, shopping center, CR-1-1 Center retail uses, hotel Proposed UTC Transit Shopping center, hotels, CR-1-1; Multi-family residences, CC-1-3; CO- Center restaurants, commercial RS-1-14 automotive-related services 1-2; CN-1-2; uses, retail uses RM-3-7
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-5 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Table 4-1. Existing City of San Diego Uses and Zoning Designations Along the Project Alignment and Stations (continued)
Areas Directly Adjacent to the Areas within the Corridor Area Project Alignment or Stations or Station Area Location Existing Uses Zoning Existing Uses Zoning Summary of Zoning Designations: Commercial-- Open Space--Park (OP) Industrial--Park (IP) Centre City Development Neighborhood (CN) OP-1-1 IP-1-1 Corporation awaits California CN-1-2 OP-2-1 IP-2-1 Coastal Commission approval Commercial--Regional Open Space--Floodplain Industrial--Light (IL) (CCDC-awaits-CCC-appr) (CR) (OF) IL-3-1 CR-1-1 OF-1-1 Industrial-_Small Lot (IS) Centre City Planned District Commercial--Office (CO) IS-1-1 (CCPD) CO-1-2 Residential--Single Unit CCPD-CORE Commercial--Visitor (CV) (RS) Mid-City Communities CCPD-ER CV-1-1 RS-1-1 Planned District (MCCPD) CCPD-MC CV-1-2 RS-1-2 MCCPD-MR-1000 CCPD-NC Commercial--Parking RS-1-7 MCCPD-MR-1500 CCPD-OS (CP) RS-1-14 MCCPD-MR-3000 CCPD-PC CP-1-1 Residential-Multiple Unit MCCPD-CL-6 CCPD-R Commercial--Community (RM) (CC) RM-1-1 La Jolla Shores Planned Old Town San Diego Planned CC-1-3 RM-2-5 District (LJSPD) District (OTSDPD) CC-4-1 RM-2-10 LJSPD-SF OTSDPD-Core CC-4-2 RM-3-7 OTSDPD-Hortensia CC-4-5 RM-3-9 OTSDPD-Jefferson CC-4-6 RM-4-10 OTSDPD-Rosecrans CC-5-4 OTSDPD-Pub-Pro-Pkg (A,B,C)
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-6 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-1. 2009 Land Use—Corridor Areas
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-7 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-2. 2009 Land Use—Existing Station Areas
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-8 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-3. 2009 Land Use—Tecolote Road Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-9 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-4. 2009 Land Use—Clairemont Drive Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-10 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-5. 2009 Land Use—Balboa Avenue Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-11 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-6. 2009 Land Use—Nobel Drive Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-12 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-7. 2009 Land Use—UCSD West Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2013 Note: This figure has been updated to reflect the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-13 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-8. 2009 Land Use—UCSD East Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2013 Note: This figure has been updated to reflect the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-14 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-9. 2009 Land Use—Executive Drive Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-15 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-10. 2009 Land Use—UTC Transit Center Station Area
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-16 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
Figure 4-11. Zoning for Proposed Station Areas
Source: SANDAG, 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile; SANDAG, 2009
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-17 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
4.2 Key Activity Centers and High-Trip Generators The Mid-Coast Corridor is a major regional destination, with trips attracted from throughout the region to a wide variety of educational, employment, medical, retail, cultural, and entertainment venues. These attractions generate a significant number of trips to the area. The key activity centers in the Mid-Coast Corridor, shown in Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1.0, are described in the following subsections.
4.2.1 University City University City4, located within the University community includes the area known regionally as the “Golden Triangle” (reflecting its role in the regional economy), and is a significant urban node comparable to Downtown San Diego. University City is a large regional employment center—second to Downtown San Diego—attracting more than 34,800 employees, which is 44 percent of employment in Downtown San Diego in 2008 (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG], 2006c). The SANDAG regional growth forecasts anticipate employment in University City to grow by 10 percent by 2030 (SANDAG, 2006c).
4.2.2 University of California, San Diego UCSD, located adjacent to the University community, is a world-renowned public research university with a current enrollment of 29,000 students (UCSD, 2011). In 2010, 65 percent of its students lived off-campus, requiring them to commute to the campus. UCSD is the third largest employer in San Diego County, with nearly 26,000 employees, of which 7,500 work on campus. The campus contains facilities that serve the community, including the Mandell Weiss Center for the Performing Arts and the La Jolla Playhouse. The combined academic, research, and community functions at UCSD result in approximately 63,800 average daily trips to the campus (SANDAG, 2006c).
4.2.3 Westfield UTC Shopping Center This shopping center (formerly the University Towne Centre [UTC]), also located within the University community, is one of the largest in the region, with more than 1 million square feet of retail space and plans for a major expansion that will include an additional 750,000 square feet of retail, up to 300 residential units, up to 5,000 square feet of office space, at least 3,000 new parking spaces, and a new transit center (Mannes, 2011).
The first phases of the improvements, which would maintain the existing square footage, are scheduled for completion by 2013 (Mannes, 2011). The Westfield UTC shopping center attracts almost 9 million annual visitors. In June 2008, it generated 38,000 average daily trips (SANDAG, 2006c).
4 The name “University City” is commonly used to refer to the entire University Community Plan area; however, University City also is a defined neighborhood within the University Community Plan area. Within this document, the term “University City neighborhood” will be used, as appropriate, to distinguish the neighborhood from the community.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-18 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
4.2.4 Regional Hospitals North of the OTTC within the University community, there are four regional hospitals (Scripps Green Hospital, the VA Medical Center, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, and UCSD Thornton Hospital), which have a combined total of nearly 900 beds and 8,500 employees (Scripps, 2012a; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012; Scripps, 2012b; UCSD, 2012).
4.2.5 University of San Diego The University of San Diego (USD), located in the Linda Vista community, is a private university with an enrollment of approximately 8,300 students in 2011 (USD, 2012). Approximately 4 percent of USD freshmen and 54 percent of upperclassmen lived off campus. The campus includes facilities that serve the community, such as the Manchester Conference Center, multiple religious facilities, and an athletic stadium. There are approximately 23,000 average daily trips to USD (SANDAG, 2006c).
4.2.6 Mission Bay Regional Park This park encompasses 4,000 acres and is a regionally significant aquatic park that attracts approximately 15 million annual visitors to a wide variety of tourist-oriented activities (City of San Diego, 2012). SeaWorld San Diego, a marine animal theme park, is located within Mission Bay Regional Park.
4.2.7 Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Located in the Old Town San Diego Community Plan area, this park is the most visited California state park, with millions of annual visitors (State of California, 2012).
4.2.8 Other Major Activity Centers Other major activity centers in the Mid-Coast Corridor (south of the Old Town Transit Center) are as follows:
· Downtown San Diego, in the Downtown community · Westfield Horton Plaza Mall, in the Downtown community · Port of San Diego · The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, which is a major employer in the Midway community · San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) · U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Depot
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 4-19 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 4.0 – Existing Conditions
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-20 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This chapter describes the impacts of the No-Build and Build Alternatives related to anticipated future (2030) land use in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The analysis of impacts addresses long-term direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the alternatives under consideration. The California Environmental Quality Act significance determinations are presented in Chapter 7.0. Short-term construction-related impacts are described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG], 2014a. 5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts This section addresses direct and indirect impacts of the No-Build and Build Alternatives (both operational and facilities impacts). Key issues are consistency with adopted land use and transportation plans as well as compatibility with existing land uses.
5.1.1 No-Build Alternative As discussed in Chapter 1.0, the No-Build Alternative assumes implementation of the existing transportation facilities and services in the Mid-Coast Corridor and other facilities and services identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007), except for the transit improvements proposed by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Service on bus Route 150, which currently operates between Downtown San Diego and the University area, would be continued and enhanced.
5.1.1.1 Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Many of the transportation land use goals and policies identified for the areas that would be traversed by the project would not be realized under the No-Build Alternative. The goals of these policies, which aim to reduce automobile usage, increase intensity of development along transit corridors, seek cooperation and joint-development opportunities, enhance regional connectivity, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize transit ridership, would not be achieved under the No-Build Alternative.
Local Land Use and Development Since the mid-1980s, the communities in the study area have been identifying the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in their plans and have been anticipating its implementation (Section 2.4.1.2). SANDAG has identified the project’s station areas as smart growth opportunity areas, and the City of San Diego’s “City of Villages” strategy focuses on integrating land use and transit to address growth. The No-Build Alternative is inconsistent with these strategies. Under the No-Build Alternative, the continuation and enhancement of existing bus services would not allow major activity centers along the project corridor to take full advantage of transit-oriented development (TOD). As a result, each of the affected community plan areas would have to find new opportunities for achieving the policies included in their plans. Therefore, an adverse impact related to the No-Build Alternative conflicting with local land use and development plans and policies could occur.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Regional Land Use and Development The No-Build Alternative would conflict with SANDAG’s regional goals and policies identified in its Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region, because the 2030 RTP includes implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. In this specific context, the No-Build Alternative would be inconsistent with regional transportation plans, and this inconsistency would be considered an adverse impact.
The continuation and enhancement of Route 150 of the No-Build Alternative to address transportation demand between Downtown San Diego and University City in place of the proposed extension of the Trolley Blue Line would not be consistent with adopted local and regional land use and transportation planning documents, which currently call for elimination of that service. The continuation of bus services would not result in new transit infrastructure nor physical impacts or changes to existing land uses along the project corridor. The transit services of the bus route may not fully support planned higher density land uses planned at designated Smart Growth Opportunity Areas, and therefore some opportunities may not be realized. Opportunities for the region to become more sustainable may not be fully realized. New development and redevelopment within the corridor would continue to occur pursuant to local land use plans and programs, but perhaps not at the same rate or intensity. The No-Build Alternative would conflict with regional and local plans, which identify new trolley service for the corridor, which would result in an adverse impact.
State Land Use and Development The No-Build Alternative would not conflict with state goals and policies, except the UCSD goals and policies that envision expanding alternative forms of transportation on the campus (i.e., light rail transit [LRT] serving the University Center, Sixth College, and Health Sciences neighborhoods). This discussion of land use impacts focuses on land uses within UCSD that are immediately adjacent to the Mid-Coast Corridor and around the Route 150 proposed stops along the Interstate (I-) 5 corridor. These bus stops would be located immediately adjacent to the I-5 on-/off-ramps, commercial development, or existing facilities and would not conflict with state land use goals and policies or result in land use incompatibility. However, the No-Build Alternative would conflict with state goals and policies that envision LRT service on campus.
The No-Build Alternative would not conflict with the California Coastal Act since no project would be constructed, the existing infrastructure would remain the same, and bus service for the region would be expanded to help meet future transit needs. As such, there would be no conflict with the goals of the Coastal Act. Impacts related to the City of San Diego’s LCP, which implements the Coastal Act, are addressed under the city’s general and community plans.
Therefore, an adverse impact related to UCSD goals and policies would occur, but no adverse effects related to conflicts of the No-Build Alternative with Coastal Act policy would result from implementation of the No-Build Alternative.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
5.1.1.2 Applicable Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans Within the corridor area, the No-Build Alternative would continue the operation of bus service on existing roadways and the service would continue to be located in existing transportation rights-of-way. As a result, no state habitat or conservation areas (as identified in the MSCP Subarea Plan [City of San Diego, 1997] or the Draft San Diego River Park Master Plan [City of San Diego, 2010]) and other associated plans would be directly or indirectly adversely affected, as these plans do not specifically include an LRT within the Mid-Coast Corridor.
5.1.1.3 Land Use Compatibility The No-Build Alternative would not result in project implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. As a result, it is expected that existing bus services within the project corridor and the region would continue to expand to meet existing and future demands for bus transit services. However, the expansion of existing bus services would not result in new fixed guideway transit infrastructure or investments in the creation of exclusive or semi-exclusive transit rights-of-way; therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not result in direct impacts or changes to existing land uses. The area would experience a continuation of current development patterns and trends, but with more limited transit options (i.e., Route 150 improvements as compared with the Build Alternative expanded Trolley services). In turn, the transportation system may not fully support planned intensive transit-oriented land uses.
With the No-Build Alternative, development and redevelopment within the project corridor would be anticipated to occur pursuant to local land use plans and programs, but perhaps at a much slower rate and/or lower intensity and with less focus on proposed station areas. Therefore, although the No-Build Alternative would have no adverse effects associated with incompatible local land use and development within the project corridor, it may result in lost opportunities for increases in development density and intensity.
5.1.1.4 Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use Based on maps from the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance within the project area. As such, the No-Build Alternative would not impact any of these state- designated farmlands and would not result in any adverse impacts.
5.1.2 Build Alternative As discussed in Chapter 1.0, the Build Alternative is the extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center in University City. This alternative includes eight new stations and a station option at the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, upgrades to existing systems facilities between the Santa Fe Depot and the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC), and the acquisition of new Trolley vehicles for operation of the extension of the Trolley Blue Line service from the Santa Fe Depot to the UTC Transit Center. The Build Alternative also includes a design option that uses straddle bents along Genesee
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Avenue instead of some columns in the center median to support the elevated track structure to minimize right-of-way acquisition.
5.1.2.1 Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Local Land Use and Development Table 5-1 describes applicable local land use goals, objectives, policies, and plan recommendations for each of the community plan areas adjacent to the project alignment and the extent to which the Build Alternative is consistent with these plans. As shown in the table, the Build Alternative would be consistent or compatible with each of the goals, objectives, policies, and plan recommendations identified because the project would reduce automobile use, provide transit stations in areas supportive of TOD, enhance regional connectivity, minimize environmental impacts, and maximize transit ridership. Opportunities for the corridor to develop in a more sustainable way would be enhanced by the project. Therefore, no adverse effects related to the consistency of the Build Alternative with applicable local land use goals, objectives, policies, and plan recommendations would result from project implementation.
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion City of San Diego General Plan Mobility Element Support the development of an improved Consistent with this The Build Alternative would extend the existing mass transit system goal Trolley system north from the OTTC, providing new transit service to University City, a major employment and activity center. Service would operate from the Santa Fe Depot to the UTC Transit Center, offering direct and frequent service to attract new riders. North of the OTTC, the project alignment would be on an exclusive guideway, ensuring fast and reliable travel time to compete with auto travel. Support the provision of higher-frequency Consistent with this University City supports a number of high activity transit service and capital investment to goal and employment centers (i.e., UCSD, the benefit higher-density residential or mixed- Westfield UTC shopping center, and medical use areas, higher-intensity employment facilities) and higher-density residential and areas, and activity centers mixed-use areas, to which the project would provide transit access. Accordingly, the Build Alternative would improve accessibility to major employment and high activity centers. Support the design and location of transit Consistent with this Five of the eight new transit stations would be stops and stations to provide convenient goal located in University City, which supports a access to high–activity, high-density areas number of high activity and employment centers. The VA Medical Center Station Option also would support a major activity and employment center. Accordingly, the Build Alternative would locate transit stations to provide convenient access to high-activity and high-density areas.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Support the integration of the regional transit Consistent with The Build Alternative would provide direct service system with the intercity rail network this goal from Santa Fe Depot to the OTTC and UTC Transit Center, providing convenient connections to other elements of the regional transit system (i.e., bus and heavy rail transit). The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems in the intercity rail network. Downtown Community Plan Provide land uses to support a flexible, fast, Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing frequent, and safe transit system that this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the connects within downtown and beyond Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC. The project would provide additional service to existing stations in areas supportive of TOD within the Downtown Community Plan area, encouraging ridership and promoting livable communities. Locate the highest intensity of development Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing in or near the Trolley corridor to maximize this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the adjacency of people, activity, and transit Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC. Within the accessibility Downtown Community Plan area, the project would provide additional service to existing stations located in high-activity and high-density areas. Enhance streetscapes within the transit Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing corridor to increase attractiveness for users this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the and promote shared transit, pedestrian, and Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and would not cyclist use substantially change this segment of the alignment, particularly in the Downtown Community Plan area. The extension of the Trolley system north to University City does enhance the transit service to those in the downtown area. Cooperate with the transit agency on public Consistent with The Build Alternative would increase transit use for programs and campaigns to increase transit this goal various types of trips by creating a viable use for various types of trips—work, alternative to auto travel. The extension of the shopping, entertainment, etc. Trolley system north to University City and increased service frequency would increase the viability of transit as a more viable alternative to auto travel in this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5). Uptown Community Plan Provide for safe and efficient movement of Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing people and goods throughout the community this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and would increase service frequency. Accordingly, the project would increase safe and efficient transit mobility for the Uptown Community Plan area. The extension of the Trolley system north to University City would increase the viability of transit as an alternative to auto travel in this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-5 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Establish a fully integrated system of Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing vehicular, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the facilities to meet current and future needs Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and extend service north to UCSD and UTC, providing convenient connections to other elements of the regional transit system (i.e., bus and heavy rail transit). The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems to increase the viability of transit as an alternative to auto travel in this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5). Support the provision of high level transit Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing service and promote usage, establishing a this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the focal point for transit services within the Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and would increase community service frequency. Outside of the Uptown Community Plan area, the Build Alternative would provide direct service to the OTTC and UTC Transit Center, providing convenient connections to other elements of the regional transit system (i.e., bus and heavy rail transit) and promoting usage by establishing a focal point for transit service. The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems to increase the viability of transit as an alternative to auto travel in this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5). Facilitate the use of alternative modes of Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing transportation to alleviate existing or this goal Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the potential transportation problems resulting Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and would increase from development in the community service frequency. Outside of the Uptown Community Plan area, the Build Alternative would provide direct service to the OTTC and UTC Transit Center, providing convenient connections to other elements of the regional transit system (i.e., bus and heavy rail transit) and facilitating the use of alternative modes of transportation. The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems to increase the viability of transit as an alternative to auto travel in this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5). Thus, the project would help alleviate transportation impacts that would otherwise occur as the Mid-Coast Corridor develops. Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Promote trolley-supported commercial uses Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing Trolley adjacent to the Washington Street and this policy system from Downtown San Diego (the Santa Fe Middletown light rail stations Depot) to the OTTC. The project would provide additional service to existing stations in areas supportive of TOD adjacent to the Washington Street and Middletown Stations, encouraging ridership and promoting livable communities.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-6 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Support an LRT line and related transit Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing station facilities along the present rail this plan Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the alignment recommendation Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and would not substantially change this segment of the alignment, particularly in the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan area. Support an LRT line in the Pacific Highway Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing access corridor this plan Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the recommendation Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC and would not substantially change this segment of the alignment, particularly in the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan area. The Build Alternative would continue to provide an LRT line adjacent to the Pacific Highway within the community plan area. Provide pedestrian-oriented amenities Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing around Trolley stations and bus stops this plan Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the recommendation Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC. The project would provide additional service to existing stations in areas supportive of TOD adjacent to the existing transit stations near the community plan area to encourage ridership and promote livable communities. Promote mixed residential and commercial Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing development in commercial areas this plan Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the recommendation Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC. Mixed-use development, if developed near transit stations, or with convenient access to transit stations, could encourage transit ridership. Conversely, the Build Alternative could promote mixed residential and commercial development. Old Town San Diego Community Plan Provide a greater sense of place with a link Consistent with The Build Alternative would provide direct service between the historical center to the major this goal to the OTTC and UTC Transit Center, providing gateway into the community convenient connections to other elements of the regional transit system (i.e., bus and heavy rail transit). The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems in the intercity rail network to provide a greater link between Old Town San Diego and other high-activity centers in the region.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-7 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Provide a comprehensive access network of Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing Trolley transit stations and supportive uses that this goal system from Downtown San Diego (the Santa Fe enhance regional accessibility to the Depot) to the OTTC. North of the OTTC, the project historical visitor center would locate new stations in areas supportive of TOD to encourage ridership and enhance regional accessibility between Old Town San Diego and other high-activity centers in the region. The Build Alternative also would provide parking at five stations (i.e., the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, and Nobel Drive Stations and the UTC Transit Center), and bus transfer facilities at many stations, which would enhance regional accessibility to Old Town San Diego via transit. Old Town Planned District Ordinance (PDO) Consistent with The Build Alternative would provide service to the §1516.0101 3Diii: Public Parking C – the this policy OTTC. Development in the Old Town San Diego parking located on Taylor Street allows for Community Plan area is regulated by the Old future development of an expanded parking Town PDO, which allows the existing public area, in conjunction with the State Historic parking lot supporting this station to add future Park, and a transit center with accessory development supporting TOD objectives. retail. Old Town PDO §1516.0203 f5B: Parcel Consistent with The Build Alternative would provide service to the B/Transit Use (Congress/Taylor) – A transit this policy OTTC. Development in the Old Town San Diego center, with related transit support retail and Community Plan area is regulated by the Old offices may be permitted, provided that these Town PDO, which allows the existing public support retail and office uses shall not parking lot supporting this station to add future exceed an area of 10 percent of the site, nor development supporting TOD objectives. shall any one establishment exceed 700 square feet. Mission Valley Community Plan Facilitate transportation through and within Consistent with The Build Alternative would create an extension to the valley while establishing and maintaining this objective an existing mass transit system through the an adequate transportation network westernmost portion of the Mission Valley Community Plan area. The project would improve an existing transit system and ensure fast and reliable transit to connect north but also to the east via the existing Trolley Green Line. Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Develop a trolley site that is pedestrian- and Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations, transit-friendly with “landmark development” this goal including the proposed Tecolote Road Station, in areas supportive of TOD, which would encourage ridership and encourage walking/bicycling and transit use. Incorporate pedestrian- and transit-oriented Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations, features into the design of new development this goal including the Tecolote Road Station, in areas near new transit stations supportive of TOD within the Linda Vista Community Plan area to encourage walking/ bicycling and transit use. The Build Alternative would facilitate this goal.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-8 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Support the enhancement of circulation Consistent with The Build Alternative would result in light rail service by initiating light rail service in the this goal service in the Mid-Coast Corridor to University Mid-Coast Corridor to La Jolla City, just east of La Jolla. Accordingly, implementation of the project would enhance circulation service along this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5). Retain the existing industrial area west of Consistent with The Build Alternative would not eliminate the Morena Boulevard as a diverse employment this goal potential for a diverse employment base for the base for the community and the city community but would enhance transit options to better serve the community, including the industrial area. Encourage more utilization of existing rail Consistent with The Build Alternative would primarily use the facilities this goal existing MTS right-of way north of the OTTC to Gilman Drive; this includes the segment through the Linda Vista Community Plan area. Design portions of the Morena area for light Consistent with The Build Alternative would not restrict the land industrial uses. Apply zoning that permits this goal uses defined for the community but would enhance commercial as well as light industrial uses, transit options to better serve the community. but not residential development Promote the use of transit and shuttle service Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to this goal integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems, including bus and shuttle services. Support the design of the Tecolote Road Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to Station to maximize pedestrian and bus this goal integrate and provide direct connections to other access to Mission Bay and the Morena transit systems, including bus services to Mission Shopping Quarter Bay and commercial centers within the Linda Vista Community Plan area. Adequately landscape the Mid-Coast Consistent with The Build Alternative would include enhanced Trolley–COASTER rail corridor this goal landscaping at the proposed Tecolote Station to create an inviting environment to encourage walking/bicycling and transit use within a safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant transit corridor. Maintain a wide mix of uses and job bases Consistent with The Build Alternative would not restrict the land this goal uses defined for the community but would enhance transit options to better serve the existing uses, including those that generate jobs. Preserve physical and visual access to the Consistent with The Build Alternative would not restrict physical or Pacific Ocean and Mission Bay this goal visual access to Mission Bay or the Pacific Ocean in the area where the project extends through the Linda Vista Community or the station serving the community. Clairemont Mesa Community Plan Support an efficient and high level of public Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations transportation to the community, while this goal in areas supportive of TOD, which would designing and planning for land uses that encourage ridership and transit. would support and make use of the future LRT service
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-9 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Develop pedestrian-friendly uses adjacent to Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations, the Clairemont Drive Station with building this goal including the Clairemont Drive Station, in areas entrances and windows oriented to the street supportive of TOD within the Clairemont Mesa Community Plan area to encourage walking/ bicycling and transit use. Encourage development or redevelopment Consistent with The Build Alternative would encourage near the LRT stations this goal development and redevelopment near LRT stations by locating transit stations, including the Clairemont Drive Station, in areas supportive of TOD within the Clairemont Mesa Community Plan area to encourage walking/ bicycling and transit use. Develop more intensive land uses at or near Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations, the LRT stations this goal including the Clairemont Drive Station, in areas supportive of TOD within the Clairemont Mesa Community Plan area to encourage walking/ bicycling and transit use. Anticipate the future LRT alignment in the Consistent with The project alignment and stations would be MTS right-of-way this goal located within the existing Los Angeles–San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) corridor, which also includes the MTS right-of-way. Support the integration of bus service and Consistent with The Build Alternative proposes to provide bikeways to serve LRT stations this plan convenient connections to other elements of the recommendation regional transit system, which includes bus service, and bikeways to provide more convenient access to the region. The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems or modes of transportation. Support the use of shuttle service to provide Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to a direct link to LRT stations this plan integrate and provide direct connections to other recommendation transit systems, including bus and shuttle services. Provide a direct pedestrian connection to Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations in LRT stations this plan areas supportive of TOD, which would encourage recommendation ridership and promote development of an urban form that encourages walking/bicycling and transit use. Support the use of a full range of facilities, Consistent with Transit stations would be designed to create an including shelters, benches, bike racks and this plan attractive environment to encourage lockers, landscaping, signage, and route recommendation walking/bicycling and transit use. schedules at LRT stations Establish a landscape improvement program Consistent with The Build Alternative would include enhanced to buffer adjacent land uses from the freeway this plan landscaping at the proposed Clairemont Drive and and railroad tracks recommendation Balboa Avenue Stations to create an inviting environment to encourage walking/bicycling and transit use within a safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant environment separate from the freeway and rail corridors.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-10 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Link shopping center to the transit station Consistent with The Build Alternative proposes a pedestrian link at with landscaping this plan the signalized intersection of Morena Blvd and recommendation Ingulf Street to connect the station to the adjacent development. Pacific Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Pursue linkages with the LRT stations at Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to Balboa Avenue and Clairemont Drive this goal integrate and provide direct bus service and connections to other transit systems at the LRT stations at Balboa Avenue and Clairemont Drive. Encourage mixed-use development in Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations conjunction with transit corridors this goal in areas supportive of TOD to encourage ridership and promote livable communities. The Build Alternative would not preclude further realization of this goal but provide a means to achieve it. Limit additional transit corridors to routes Consistent with The Build Alternative locates transit stations served by mass transit to support TOD this goal served by existing transit corridors in Pacific Beach policies and the project would not preclude future TOD within this transit corridor. Encourage the establishment of park-and- Consistent with The Build Alternative does not preclude the ride facilities on or near East Mission Bay this goal opportunity for establishing park-and-ride facilities Drive on or near Mission Bay Drive. Encourage transit improvements designed to Consistent with The Build Alternative would include new transit facilitate visitor access to the coastline this goal stations at Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue. These two stations would provide visitor access to the coastline and Mission Bay. La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Support the development of a shuttle service Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to or feeder transit service to link with the this policy integrate and provide direct connections to other Trolley system transit systems at the LRT station at Nobel Drive. The Build Alternative would not preclude further realization of this goal but would provide a means to achieve it. Require projects processed under Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to discretionary permits to design for transit, this policy integrate and provide direct connections to other bicycle, and pedestrian use transit systems and other modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Consider reduction in parking requirements Consistent with With implementation of the Build Alternative, the for projects employing TOD programs this policy opportunity to review and reduce parking requirements would be feasible as an alternate form of transportation would be in place to serve the community and TOD projects. Evaluate a shuttle bus system that would Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to provide service to central La Jolla from the this policy integrate and provide direct connections to other peripheral parking areas and the proposed transit systems, including the current bus and Trolley line with the I-5 corridor SuperLoop services in operation. Locate higher-density housing principally Consistent with With implementation of the Build Alternative, the along transit corridors and in proximity to this policy opportunity to accommodate additional affordable emerging lower-income employment housing at select stations is feasible. opportunities
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-11 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Provide an adequate circulation system to Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to serve the La Jolla community that promotes the this action plan integrate and provide direct connections to other use of bicycles and public transit and shuttle transit systems and other modes of transportation. service as alternative forms of transportation for residents and visitors to La Jolla University Community Plan Support the development of a transportation Consistent with The Build Alternative would provide reliable and system designed to move people and goods this goal direct transit connections to both the UCSD West safely and efficiently within the community, and East Campuses and the University City area including linkages with other communities, from key travel markets, which would help make and with due consideration for energy transit a viable alternative to auto travel and conservation accommodate existing and projected travel demand, while promoting energy conservation. Encourage the adequate provision of public Consistent with The five new transit stations within the University transit between major activity areas, such as this goal Community Plan area would provide connectivity the University, the Towne Centre, and La between La Jolla Village Square and the Westfield Jolla Village Square UTC shopping center. The VA Medical Center Station Option also would support this goal. Encourage alternative modes of Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to transportation by requiring developer this goal integrate and provide direct connections to other participation in transit facility improvements, transit systems and other modes of transportation. the Intra-Community Shuttle Loop (this is now provided as the Super Loop service), and the LRT system Ensure that all public improvements, such as Consistent with According to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit roads, drainage channels, and utility services this goal Project Biological Resources Technical Report and all private lessee developments are (SANDAG, 2014b), the Refined Build Alternative compatible with the natural environment (see Preface) would result in long-term losses of vegetation communities, which would potentially result in adverse impacts on riparian and wetland habitats and other sensitive natural communities. However, these impacts would be negligible after mitigation. Preserve the present amenities of San Consistent with The Build Alternative would primarily use the Clemente Canyon, Rose Canyon, and other this policy existing MTS right-of-way north of the OTTC, primary canyons within the community particularly through San Clemente and Rose Canyons, and would therefore preserve the present amenities of San Clemente Canyon, Rose Canyon, and other primary canyons within the community. Preserve the natural environment including Consistent with The Build Alternative would primarily use the wildlife, vegetation, and terrain this policy existing MTS right-of-way north of the OTTC. In addition, new transit stations would be located immediately adjacent to I-5 on-/off-ramps, commercial development, or existing facilities (including on-campus housing) at UCSD to minimize the effect on the natural environment. Impacts to the natural environment will be offset through compensatory mitigation.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-12 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Permit uses within canyons which are strictly Consistent with Transportation is an existing use within the compatible with the open space concept this policy canyons, and the Build Alternative would primarily use the existing right-of-way through the canyons. According to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b), the Build Alternative would be consistent with the Subarea Plan and MSCP. As such, the project would remain consistent with the regional conservation objectives of the MSCP and the open space concept. The LRT corridor should offer a variety of Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to interesting views and amenities to transit riders this plan minimize impacts to natural resources and include recommendation enhanced landscaping to create an inviting environment to encourage walking/ bicycling and transit use within a safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant environment. The areas traversed by the alignment, particularly as viewed from the elevated guideway sections, will provide transit riders a variety of interesting views. Support the design of LRT stations that are Consistent with The Build Alternative would include stations at integrated and detached this plan UTC Transit Center and Executive Drive that are recommendation integrated with proposed pedestrian bridges that would replace existing pedestrian bridges in the stations’ vicinities. The Nobel Drive Station would be detached but could be integrated into a project later if the site is redeveloped. North City Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan A balanced transportation system linking the Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to entire community to all activity areas and to this plan integrate and provide direct connections to major the San Diego metropolitan area must be recommendation activity centers in the San Diego metropolitan achieved area. Physical, social, and economic environments Consistent with The Build Alternative would be designed to must be created befitting the dignity of UCSD this plan minimize impacts to natural resources and include and the magnificence of the physical setting recommendation enhanced landscaping to create an inviting of the community environment to encourage walking/ bicycling and transit use within a safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant environment. The pace of development in the community Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with the should parallel the general growth of UCSD this plan University Community Plan policies and and other related employment centers within recommendation recommendations. The UCSD Master Plan, Long the area. Neither economic consideration Range Development Plan, University Center/Sixth nor generalized citywide housing needs College Neighborhoods Planning Study, and should be elevated to a position that would UCSD East Campus Health Sciences permit premature development of housing or Neighborhood Planning Study all recognize the commercial facilities in the University role of LRT in the development on campus. community Because the Build Alternative would be consistent with these aforementioned plans, and because it would not develop housing or commercial facilities, it would also be consistent with this plan recommendation.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-13 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Preserve a network of habitat and open Consistent with According to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit space to protect biodiversity this policy Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b), the majority of the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface) is located outside of the MHPA of the city’s Subarea Plan. Portions of the project cross at the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and along Rose Creek, all of which are located within or adjacent to the MHPA, including areas identified as Biological Cores and Linkages in the city’s Subarea Plan. Although the project would introduce LRT train activity and add new tracks within the existing MTS right-of-way, the project would not introduce new land uses within or adjacent to the MHPA. To the extent any portion of the project extends into an MHPA area, the project is a regional public facility anticipated in the MSCP and is a compatible land use within the subarea plan. The project would result in the permanent loss of wetland and Tier II vegetation communities within the MHPA that are located within the existing rail right-of-way (approximately 0.26 acre of long-term impacts). Pedestrian access into the MHPA would not be expanded as a result of the project. These impacts will be mitigated, as discussed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b). Because impacts within the MHPA are very limited, and because they would be offset through compensatory mitigation, they would not be adverse. In addition, the project incorporates design features, management policies and mitigation measures that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Subarea Plan. Reduce constraints on development outside Consistent with The Build Alternative would primarily use the of the habitat preserves this policy existing MTS right-of-way north of the OTTC. As the project would not preclude the reduction of constraints on development outside of the preserve, it would be consistent with this policy. Function as an “urban growth boundary” in Consistent with Implementation of the Build Alternative would not the outer reaches of the region this policy reduce the MSCP MHPA or change the “urban growth boundary.” The MSCP MHPA remains as an important open space element in the community.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-14 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Provide recreational and visual relief and Consistent with Implementation of the Refined Build Alternative community definition through the smaller this policy (see Preface) would not reduce or change the preserve areas of the MHPA. recreational or visual relief of the community by reducing the MSCP. As noted above, approximately 0.26 acre within the MHPA will be affected long term by the project, and compensatory mitigation for that loss will be provided. Restore native vegetation as a condition of Consistent with According to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit future development proposals along the this guideline Project Biological Resources Technical Report portion of the San Diego River corridor that (SANDAG, 2014b), implementation of the Refined would be traversed by the Mid-Coast Build Alternative (see Preface) would result in Corridor Transit Project long-term direct and indirect impacts and temporary (construction) impacts to Tier II–III vegetation communities and jurisdictional wetlands and waters. On-site mitigation would be provided to the extent feasible. Where mitigation requirements cannot be accommodated on site, mitigation would include off-site mitigation and mitigation credits. Replacement ratios differ depending on whether impacts and mitigation are located within the MHPA – ranging from 1:1 to 3:1. With mitigation, impacts would not be adverse. Avoid development of roads in canyon Consistent with The project is primarily within an existing bottoms whenever feasible; if avoidance is this policy transportation corridor and does not entail not feasible, then development must be extensive development of roads in canyon designed to cross the shortest length bottoms. As discussed above, the project possible of the MHPA in order to minimize minimizes natural resource impacts related to impacts and fragmentation of sensitive sensitive species and habitat to the greatest extent species and habitat feasible, and the project is consistent with the regional conservation objectives of the MSCP. North Bay Redevelopment Plan Enhance the quality of pedestrian and Consistent with The Build Alternative would use the existing vehicular mobility, and improve this objective Trolley system from Downtown San Diego (the transportation facilities, which support the Santa Fe Depot) to the OTTC, where service vitality, safety, and viability of North Bay would be increased and direct transit routes would be provided. The project would continue to provide and enhance the quality of pedestrian and vehicular mobility and transportation facilities within the North Bay Redevelopment Plan area. The extension of the Trolley system north to the UTC Transit Center would make transit a more viable alternative to auto travel in the I-5 corridor. Improve the quality of non-vehicular Consistent with In addition to the existing stations between the transportation alternatives through the this objective Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, the Build creation and expansion of non-vehicular Alternative would create two new stations within routes throughout the project area the North Bay Redevelopment Plan area. The extension of the Trolley system north to the UTC Transit Center would make transit a more increase the viability of transit as an alternative to auto travel in this major transportation corridor (i.e., I-5).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-15 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines Permit higher-density residential Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with the development and encourage a higher this guideline objectives outlined in the TOD guidelines by percentage of job-generating uses providing the opportunity to link high-density development with the proposed transit investment. Clarify the ultimate mix of land uses and Consistent with The zoning for the station areas associated with appropriate densities and intensities in a site- this guideline the Build Alternative allows for a mix of land uses specific planning process at appropriate densities for sites near the station. Reduce land devoted to surface parking lots Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with the through redevelopment with more intensive this guideline objectives by introducing other high capacity uses transportation modes into existing and proposed station areas that could support higher densities with less parking requirements. The project does not propose any new development or joint use projects. Although the project includes additional surface parking lots, it would not preclude the opportunity for future redevelopment and more intensive land uses. Regard uses that rely extensively upon Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude the automobiles or trucks for their business as this guideline realization of this objective from occurring. Rather, not appropriate for TOD uses the project would provide an alternative to auto- oriented uses and encourage more transit- supportive uses. Maximize the use of existing urbanized areas Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with the accessible to transit through infrastructure- this guideline objectives by introducing other high capacity sensitive infill and redevelopment transportation modes into existing and proposed station areas that could support higher densities with less parking requirements. Reduce the consumption of nonurban areas Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with the by efficiently designing the urban area this guideline objectives by introducing high capacity transportation modes into station areas that could be “redeveloped” for new development in existing urban areas. Employ land use strategies to reinforce Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with the transit this guideline objectives by introducing high capacity transportation mode into existing urban areas. Reduce the number of auto trips and Consistent with Access by pedestrians and cyclists will be regional vehicle miles traveled by creating this guideline enhanced to encourage “first mile – last mile” opportunities to walk and bike opportunities to proposed and existing stations.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-16 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion City of San Diego Land Development Code Residential—Small Lot Single Dwellings Consistent with The Build Alternative would not conflict with the Zone this regulation City of San Diego’s Land Development Code and The zoning code provides for both attached would support many of the objectives by the and detached single-dwelling units on introduction of a high capacity transit mode into an smaller lots than are required in the standard existing urban area in a zone that allows for single-family zones. It is intended that these greater densities than standard single-family zones provide an alternative to multifamily zones. development where single-family homes could be developed at multi-unit densities. It also is used where single-family homes are desired as a transition from new multifamily to surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Minimum lot sizes of the small-lot zones are 3,000 to 4,000 square feet (11 to 14 du/ac). Residential—Town House Zone Consistent with The Build Alternative would not conflict with the This zone provides for attached, single- this regulation City of San Diego’s Land Development Code and dwelling units on small lots with access to an would support many of the objectives by the alley. This zone is intended to provide a introduction of a high capacity transit mode into an more urbanized, single-unit living at densities existing urban area in a zone that allows for that are historically more typical of multi-units greater densities than standard single-family zone. This zone also provides transitional zones. opportunities between single-unit neighborhoods and higher-density multi-unit neighborhoods. The densities range from 12.5 to 20 du/ac. Commercial Mixed Use Zone Consistent with The Build Alternative would not conflict with the The Land Development Code Chapter 13; this regulation City of San Diego’s Land Development Code and Article 1; Division 5; Commercial Based would support many of the objectives by the Zones allows for mixed uses and requires introduction of a high capacity transit mode into an pedestrian orientation as part of the city’s existing urban area in a zone that allows for mixed base commercial zones. uses and pedestrian orientation. Urban Village Overlay Zone Consistent with The Build Alternative would not conflict with the To promote TOD, this zone (Chapter 13; this regulation City of San Diego’s Land Development Code and Article 2; Division 11) allows a greater variety would support many of the objectives by the of uses, flexibility in site planning, introduction of a high capacity transit mode into an development regulations, and a higher existing urban area in a zone that allows for mixed intensity of land use that is generally uses and higher intensity of land use. permitted in other citywide zones. These regulations intend to create a mix of land uses in a compact pattern that will reduce dependency on the automobile, improve air quality, and promote high-quality, interactive neighborhoods. This type of development is feasible for two of the station areas, at Tecolote Road and at Clairemont Drive, which offer the best opportunity for mixed- use TOD.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-17 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Transit Overlay Zone Consistent with The Build Alternative would not conflict with the The Land Development Code Chapter 13; this regulation City of San Diego’s Land Development Code and Article 2; Division 10 provides reduced would support many of the objectives by the parking requirements for areas receiving a introduction of a high capacity transit mode into an high level of transit service. The overlay existing urban area in a zone that allows for zone, shown in Figure 2 9, identifies areas reduced parking demand in areas receiving a high with reduced parking demand and lowers off- level of transit service. street parking requirements accordingly. Both the proposed Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue Stations are identified on the Transit Overlay Zone map. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Consistent with The Build Alternative would not conflict with the Regulations this regulation City of San Diego’s Land Development Code and Land Development Code Chapter 14; Article would support many of the objectives by the 3; Division 7 provides increased residential introduction of a high capacity transit mode into an density to developers who guarantee that a existing urban area in a zone that allows for portion of the residential development will be reduced parking demand for projects within a available to moderate-income, low-income, transit area. or senior households. The regulations are intended to give material assistance to the housing industry in providing adequate and affordable housing for all economic segments of the community. Additionally, reductions in parking ratios are granted for projects within or partially within a transit area. Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update The plan has a goal to achieve maximum Consistent with The Build Alternative would be consistent with this sustainable benefit, which means ensuring this goal goal. In fact, it could increase the number of that the greatest possible number of users possible park users because of the park’s close continues to enjoy the park. proximity to the Tecolote Road and Clairemont Drive Stations. Draft 2010 San Diego River Park Master Plan Reorient development toward the river; Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude future encourage mixed-use development and this guideline development opportunity to orient toward the river encourage development to face the river and could encourage mixed use development as seen in other TOD communities occurring along the Trolley Green Line stations in Mission Valley (i.e., the Hazard Center and Rio Vista Stations). Separate pedestrians and wildlife from Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude the vehicular river crossings this guideline achievement of this objective. Pedestrian access to cross the San Diego River will still be provided in other locations and the project will span the river while still allowing for wild life to pass through. Create “green gateways” as key landscape Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude the elements located at the entries along the this guideline achievement of this objective. Future corridor through the San Diego River’s domain; improvements could still be implemented if the City these gateways would consist of large-scale determines these gateways are desired. plantings within the public rights-of-way
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-18 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-1. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Local Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations Conclusion Discussion Create a string of parks linked by open Consistent with The project alignment would traverse the San space, pathways, and green corridors this goal Diego River just north of the OTTC and bisects the “Estuary” and “Lower Valley” reaches of the San Diego River Park Master Plan area. The plan acknowledges that the Trolley already stops at many stations along the river corridor, including transit centers at Old Town and Morena/Linda Vista. In particular, the OTTC offers convenient access to the Trolley, the COASTER, Amtrak, and 10 bus routes. The project alignment would construct a new bridge within the existing MTS right-of-way that currently crosses the San Diego River east of the Pacific Highway and I-5. Accordingly, the project would not preclude fulfillment or realization of the goals of the plan. Improve pathway and trail connections to Consistent with According to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Mission Bay Park and the Mission Valley this goal Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report Preserve (SANDAG, 2014c) the Build Alternative would include improvements to bicycle facilities, including re-striping of a portion of a bike lane along Morena Boulevard near the Clairemont Drive Station. As this would enhance bicycle access to Mission Bay Park, the Build Alternative is consistent with this goal. Coordinate with the California Department of Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude the Transportation to establish a green gateway this guideline achievement of this objective. Future at the intersection of I-5 and the river valley improvements could still be implemented if the City by revegetating the I-5 rights-of-way with determines these gateways are desired. native vegetation Support the goals of the Mission Valley Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude the Preserve and provide additional interpretive this guideline achievement of this objective. Future interpretive signs on the role of the San Diego River in Signs could still be implemented if desired. the preserve City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Support connections to regional multi-use Consistent with The Build Alternative would not preclude the trails such as the Bayshore Bikeway, the this goal implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail and still Coastal Rail Trail, and the San Diego River accommodates the necessary right-of-way for this Trail. facility or impede the existing San Diego River Trail. Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: LOSSAN = Los Angeles–San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency; LRT = light rail transit; MHPA = Multi-Habitat Planning Area; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Plan; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; TOD = transit-oriented development; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-19 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Regional Land Use and Development As shown in Table 5-2, the Build Alternative would be consistent with SANDAG’s regional goals and policies identified in its Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region and the 2030 RTP. The discussion of land use impacts focuses on land uses immediately adjacent to the Mid-Coast Corridor and around the eight proposed stations and the Optional VA Medical Center Station. These transit stations would be located immediately adjacent to the I-5 on-/off-ramps, commercial development, or existing facilities (including on-campus housing) at UCSD and would not conflict with regional land use goals and policies or result in land use incompatibility. Therefore, no adverse effects related to consistency of the Build Alternative with regional land use and development plans and policies would result from project implementation.
Table 5-2. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Regional Goals and Policies
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (RCP) Focus future population and job growth Consistent The Build Alternative would support the smart growth away from rural areas and closer to with this goal principles of the RCP by extending the existing Trolley existing and planned job centers and system from Downtown San Diego to University City, public facilities to preserve open space serving community centers and key trip generators. and to use existing urban infrastructure Accordingly, the Build Alternative would facilitate more efficiently population and job growth close to high activity centers (i.e., Morena, Mission Bay, UCSD, and University City areas). Create safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant Consistent The Build Alternative would locate transit stations in communities that are designed and built to with this goal areas supportive of TOD, which would encourage be accessible to people of all abilities ridership and promote development of an urban form that encourages walking/bicycling and transit use to create safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant communities that would be accessible to people of all abilities. The stations will be ADA compliant and the vehicle will allow for low-floor boarding which is ADA accessible. Integrate the development of land use and Consistent The Build Alternative was developed based on an transportation, recognizing their with this goal evaluation of existing and proposed land use and interdependence existing and proposed transportation. It would provide direct service to the OTTC and UTC Transit Center, providing convenient connections to other elements of the regional transit system (e.g., bus and heavy rail transit). The project would be designed to integrate and provide direct connections to other transit systems. Develop a flexible, sustainable, and well- Consistent The Build Alternative would provide reliable and direct integrated transportation system that with this goal transit connections to both the UCSD West and East focuses on moving people and goods—not Campuses and the University City area from key travel just vehicles markets, which would help increase the viability of transit as an alternative to auto travel and accommodate existing and projected travel demand.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-20 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-2. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Regional Goals and Policies (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) Improve the mobility of people and freight Consistent with The Build Alternative would provide direct transit this goal routes with transit priority facilities and treatments that are needed to provide fast and reliable transit that can better compete with auto travel and can attract riders. Accordingly, the project would improve the mobility of people. The project would utilize dedicated MTS tracks and would not interfere with heavy rail and associated freight operations. Improve accessibility to major employment Consistent with University City supports a number of high activity and other regional activity centers this goal and employment centers (i.e., UCSD, Westfield UTC shopping center, and medical facilities), to which the project would provide transit access. Additionally, the Build Alternative would improve access to Downtown San Diego, Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, and other activity centers along the corridor. Accordingly, the Build Alternative would improve accessibility to major employment and high activity centers. Improve the reliability and safety of the Consistent with Existing transit in the corridor follows slow, transportation system this goal circuitous, and/or congested routes. As a result, transit travel times to and through the corridor are not competitive with the automobile. In addition, freeway and roadway congestion contribute to poor on-time performance for key transit routes. The Build Alternative would provide direct transit routes with transit priority facilities and treatments that are needed to provide fast and reliable transit that is safe and can better compete with auto travel and can attract riders. Maximize the efficiency of the existing and Consistent with Freeways and arterials in the corridor are generally future transportation system this goal congested, with many segments experiencing Level of Service D, E, and roadway segments operating at low or unacceptable levels of service during peak travel periods. Projected growth in the corridor would contribute to increased congestion and degradation of level of service in the future. Consequently, there is a need to increase transportation capacity in the corridor to address and accommodate existing and future travel demand. The Build Alternative would provide an extension of an existing transit system that would contribute to the maximization of the efficiency of the existing and future transportation system. Promote livable communities Consistent with The Build Alternative would locate transit stations in this goal areas supportive of TOD, which would encourage ridership and promote livable communities that encourage walking/bicycling and transit use to create a safe, healthy, walkable, and vibrant environment.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-21 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-2. Comparison of the Build Alternative to Regional Goals and Policies (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion Minimize the effect on the environment Consistent with The Build Alternative primarily would use the this goal existing MTS right-of-way north of the OTTC. In addition, new transit stations would be located immediately adjacent to the I-5 on-/off-ramps, commercial development, or existing facilities (including on-campus housing) at UCSD to minimize the physical effect on the environment. Adverse effects to the natural environment will be avoided and minimized where possible, and mitigated where unavoidable. Ensure an equitable distribution of benefits Consistent with The Build Alternative would not result in among various demographics and user this goal environmental justice issues (please refer to the groups Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Environmental Justice Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014d) and, as such, would provide equitable levels of transportation services among various demographics and user groups, including low- income, minority, elderly, and disabled persons. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) The City of San Diego will adopt and Consistent with The Build Alternative would be compatible with the implement an Airport Environs Overlay Zone this goal ALUCP and would not restrict the operations of the encompassing the ALUCP’s Airport airport. Influence Area to ensure that proposed land uses are reviewed; compliance with ALUCP will ensure compatibility with the operation of the airport. The City of San Diego, through its Consistent with The Build Alternative would not alter the City’s land community planning process and zoning this goal use control of the Airport Influence Area. ordinance, retains land use controls of the Airport Influence Area. Destination Lindbergh Increase transit ridership by providing a Consistent with The Build Alternative has the potential to increase single location for currently available and this goal future ridership to the airport by passengers using future transit modes to access airport the proposed airport station, if constructed. The terminals and facilitate mode transfers by Destination Lindbergh plan incorporates the existing non-airport users LRT line from downtown to OTTC. Provide a facility to accommodate the Consistent with The Build Alternative would not impede realization parking requirements of passengers and this goal of this goal. employees of the airport, non-airport transit users, and other local demand centers Provide the land envelope necessary to Consistent with The Build Alternative would not impede realization accommodate an intermodal center this goal of this goal. Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; TOD = transit-oriented development; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-22 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
State Land Use and Development As shown in Table 5-3, the Refined Build Alternative would be consistent with state goals and policies. The discussion of land use impacts focuses on land uses immediately adjacent to the project alignment and around the nine proposed stations. These stations would be located immediately adjacent to the I-5 on-/off-ramps, commercial development, or existing facilities (including on-campus housing) at UCSD and would not conflict with state land use goals and policies or result in land use incompatibility. The project is consistent with the polices of the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) that provide for preservation and enhancement of visual resources, water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), public access, and public transit. However, because a small portion of project development would involve fill of coastal wetlands and impacts to an ephemeral basin that could be considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), the project creates a potential conflict between the allowable use tests of the wetland and ESHA policies (Section 30233(a) and (c) and 30240(a)) on the one hand, and water quality, air quality, energy conservation, VMT reduction, public access, and public transit policies (Sections 30231, 30232, 30253(a), (c) and (d), 30254, 30210, 30212.5, and 30252) on the other hand. Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act requires the California Coastal Commission to resolve such conflicts in a manner that on balance is most protective of coastal resources.
The project has been designed to minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and would include off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement activities that mitigate the project’s impacts and result in an overall increase in wetland habitat. Further, the impacts to ESHA would be mitigated through off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement activities that would increase higher-quality habitat for the species affected. Additionally, implementation of the project would improve water and air quality, conserve energy, reduce VMT, and improve public access and public transit. These benefits of the project, combined with the minimization and mitigation measures, support a finding that proceeding with the project would be most protective of coastal resources and consistent with the conflict resolution requirements of Section 30007.5. The final determination of the project’s consistency with all Coastal Act policies will be made by the California Coastal Commission as part of the Coastal Development Permit process. Refer to Table 5-3 for additional information on consistency with the Coastal Act. No adverse effects related to consistency of the Refined Build Alternative with applicable state land use and development plans and policies would result from project implementation.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-23 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion California Coastal Act The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is The Refined Build Alternative is consistent with given authority under Section 30330 of the the California Coastal Act, as set forth below. California Coastal Act to exercise primary responsibility for implementation of the California Coastal Act. Section 30210 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would improve In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of policy (supportive) public access by reducing traffic on roads that Article X of the California Constitution, provide for coastal access and by encouraging maximum access, which shall be mass transit as an alternative means of conspicuously posted, and recreational accessing Mission Bay and coastal zone opportunities shall be provided for all the resources in San Diego. people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30212(a) Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would enhance (a) Public access from the nearest public policy (supportive) public access and recreational opportunities roadway to the shoreline and along the coast for the region by providing an alternative non- shall be provided in new development motorized transportation link to public transit projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent services that connect to coastal resources with public safety, military security needs, or such as Mission Bay, Pacific Beach, and the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) University City. The Balboa Avenue Station, adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) Nobel Drive Station, UCSD West Station, and agriculture would be adversely affected. UTC Transit Center would provide direct links Dedicated accessway shall not be required to to bus service to nearby coastal areas. be opened to public use until a public agency Parking would be provided along the extended or private association agrees to accept Trolley line at the Tecolote Road Station, responsibility for maintenance and liability of Clairemont Drive Station, Balboa Avenue the accessway. Station, Nobel Drive Station, and UTC Transit Center. Section 30212.5 Consistent with this The provision of parking and connections to Wherever appropriate and feasible, public policy (supportive) transit service to the coast would improve facilities, including parking areas or facilities, access to coastal resources at a variety of shall be distributed throughout an area so as locations, distributing new parking and access to mitigate against the impacts, social and to transit throughout the area. otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. Section 30222 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would not use The use of private lands suitable for visitor- policy (no conflict) private lands suitable for visitor-serving serving commercial recreational facilities commercial recreational facilities. No impacts designed to enhance public opportunities for to coastal recreational opportunities coastal recreation shall have priority over associated with Mission Bay would occur. The private residential, general industrial, or project would improve access to public general commercial development, but not opportunities for coastal recreation through over agriculture or coastal-dependent provision of transit connections. industry.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-24 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion Section 30231 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative minimizes The biological productivity and quality of policy (supportive) adverse effects by controlling runoff, waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and preventing substantial interference with lakes appropriate to maintain optimum surface-water flow, and minimizing alteration populations of marine organisms and for the of natural streams through the use of design protection of human health shall be and construction BMPs. The project would maintained, and where feasible, restored by also reduce automobile vehicle miles traveled, minimizing adverse effects of waste water and, consequently, pollutants from highway discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, thereby benefiting water quality. runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with In addition, mitigation for impacts to wetlands surface-water flow, encouraging waste water and riparian habitat would support many of the reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation goals in this policy. As described in more buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and minimizing alteration of natural streams. Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG 2014b), proposed mitigation includes implementing a portion of the restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian and Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012). The proposed mitigation is expected to improve the biological productivity and quality of Rose Creek, which connects to coastal resources, and would include natural vegetation buffer areas that protect the surrounding riparian habitats. Section 30232 Consistent with this LRT vehicles are much cleaner than highway Protection against the spillage of crude oil, policy (supportive) vehicles with respect to oil and grease drips, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous particularly as any drips from rail vehicles fall substances shall be provided in relation to into a ballasted right-of-way, where gravel and any development or transportation of such soil act as a filter to prevent runoff from materials. Effective contaminant and cleanup moving contaminants, and because rail facilities and procedures shall be provided transportation involves less oil, grease, and for accidental spills that do occur. other hydrocarbons than automobiles. Automobiles are a significant source of hydrocarbons, which are then flushed by runoff from the I-5 area into nearby water bodies. The improved transit service would help reduce automobile congestion and VMTs and the corresponding non-point source emissions. Section 30233(a) Inconsistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would require The diking, filling, or dredging of open policy filling coastal wetlands and waters within the coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and San Diego River and Tecolote Creek lakes shall be permitted in accordance with watersheds. Because the project increases other applicable provisions of this division, mass transit capacity, it does not qualify as an where there is no feasible less incidental public service under Section environmentally damaging alternative, and 30233(a)(4) Thus, to be consistent with the where feasible mitigation measures have Coastal Act, the project must satisfy the been provided to minimize adverse conflict resolution standards of Section environmental effects, and shall be limited to 30007.5. the following:
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-25 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion . . . (4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. Section 30240 Potentially inconsistent The Refined Build Alternative has been (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas with this policy designed to be compatible with the shall be protected against any significant continuance of the habitat and recreation disruption of habitat values, and only uses areas in the San Diego River, Rose Creek dependent on those resources shall be Open Space Park, and Marian Bear Memorial allowed within those areas. (b) Development Park areas. Specifically, in this area, the in areas adjacent to environmentally alignment has been sited within the existing sensitive habitat areas and parks and railroad corridor, which minimizes or recreation areas shall be sited and designed eliminates encroachment into the nearby to prevent impacts which would significantly recreational and sensitive habitat areas during degrade those areas, and shall be construction and operation Where impacts compatible with the continuance of those occur, the Refined Build Alternative includes habitat and recreation areas. mitigation to protect against significant disruption of habitat values. However, impacts would occur to the federally listed endangered San Diego fairy shrimp in an ephemeral basin located in the existing right-of-way adjacent to Morena Boulevard. This feature could potentially be considered an ESHA by the CCC; if so, the Refined Build Alternative would be in conflict with this policy. Thus, to be consistent with the Coastal Act, the project must satisfy the conflict resolution standards of Section 30007.5. Section 30241 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would have no The maximum amount of prime agricultural policy (no conflict) impact to coastal agricultural lands, including land shall be maintained in agricultural any prime agricultural land and/or actively production to assure the protection of the farmed land within the Coastal Zone that does areas’ agricultural economy, and conflicts not meet the definition of prime agricultural shall be minimized between agricultural and land. urban land uses…. Section 30244 Consistent with this Section 106 consultation with the State Where development would adversely impact policy (no conflict) Historic Preservation Officer has been archaeological or paleontological resources completed; no adverse effects were identified. as identified by the State Historic The Refined Build Alternative includes Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation mitigation for archaeological and measures shall be required. paleontological resources in order to avoid potential adverse effects to previously unrecorded resources. Specifically, construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources is proposed in areas of high sensitivity. Section 30250(a) Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would locate (a) New residential, commercial, or industrial policy (no conflict) new transit development in an existing right-of- development, except as otherwise provided way proximate to existing developed areas in this division, shall be located within, that are able to accommodate and support the contiguous with, or in close proximity to, new transportation link and associated parking existing developed areas able to facilities. Implementation of the project would
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-26 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion accommodate it or, where such areas are improve accessibility and connectivity as a not able to accommodate it, in other areas result of the new transit service. With with adequate public services and where it mitigation, the project would not have will not have significant adverse effects, significant adverse effects on coastal either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. Refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor resources. In addition, land divisions, other Transit Project Biological Resources Technical than leases for agricultural uses, outside Report (SANDAG 2014d) for further existing developed areas shall be permitted discussion of impacts to coastal wetlands and only where 50 percent of the usable parcels potential ESHA. in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels. Section 30251 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would provide The scenic and visual qualities of coastal policy (no conflict) riders of the Trolley Blue Line with views of areas shall be considered and protected as a scenic Mission Bay and the San Diego River. resource of public importance. The project has been designed and located to Permitted development shall be sited and avoid and minimize impacts to views to and designed to protect views to and along the from coastal areas and to be visually ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize compatible with the surrounding areas. Refer the alteration of natural land forms, to be to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project visually compatible with the character of Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to 2014e) for further discussion of the visual restore and enhance visual quality in visually impact assessment. degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. Section 30252 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative provides new The location and amount of new policy (supportive) Trolley service which enhances public access development should maintain and enhance to the coastal zone and associated coastal public access to the coast by (1) facilitating resources, assures the potential for public the provision or extension of transit service, transit for high intensity uses, and provides (2) providing commercial facilities within or additional parking facilities adjacent to coastal adjoining residential development or in other zone resources. Implementation of the project areas that will minimize the use of coastal would improve accessibility and connectivity access roads, (3) providing non automobile as a result of the new transit service. The circulation within the development, (4) benefits to transit users include increased providing adequate parking facilities or transit options, improved mobility, proximity to providing substitute means of serving the transit links, and access to employment and development with public transportation, (5) activity centers. The new stations adjacent to assuring the potential for public transit for the coastal zone would likewise provide high intensity uses such as high-rise office substantially increased opportunities to access buildings, and by (6) assuring that the the transit system for the communities and recreational needs of new residents will not neighborhoods within the study area. overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-27 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion Section 30253 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative provides new New development shall do all of the policy (supportive) Trolley service that enhances public access following: and minimizes vehicle miles traveled for the (a) Minimize risks to life and property in region, while minimizing risks to life and areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. property and not contributing to erosion, (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, geologic instability, or destruction of the and neither create nor contribute significantly surrounding area. As travelers shift from to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction automobiles to transit, the number of auto trips of the site or surrounding area or in any way would decline, which would reduce pollutant require the construction of protective devices emissions and benefit air quality. Public that would substantially alter natural transit projects have been noted to reduce landforms along bluffs and cliffs. (c) Be auto-related air emissions, thereby consistent with requirements imposed by an contributing to the improvement of regional air air pollution control district or the State Air quality, and when implemented as part of a Resources Board as to each particular regional public transportation system, development. (d) Minimize energy including bus service, light-rail and commuter consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) trains, and trolleys, increase the acceptance of Where appropriate, protect special public transit as a desirable mode of communities and neighborhoods that, transportation. Accordingly, with increased because of their unique characteristics, are acceptance and use of public transit, the popular visitor destination points for public transit system can be further improved, recreational uses. thereby resulting in corresponding reductions in traffic congestion. Section 30254 Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would meet and New or expanded public works facilities shall policy (supportive) expand on existing demand for transit service be designed and limited to accommodate within Downtown San Diego, Mission Bay, and needs generated by development or uses University City, providing an important permitted consistent with the provisions of transportation link connecting users to this division; provided, however, that it is the significant coastal resources within the Coastal intent of the Legislature that State Highway Zone. The project does not include Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone modifications to State Highway Route 1, the remain a scenic two-lane road. Special formation or expansion of special districts, or districts shall not be formed or expanded residential or commercial development. The except where assessment for, and provision project would provide and improve public of, the service would not induce new transit services between existing developed development inconsistent with this division. areas and coastal resources, and would have Where existing or planned public works capacity to serve anticipated future facilities can accommodate only a limited development. amount of new development, services to coastal dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall not be precluded by other development. Section 30007.5 Consistent with this On balance, the Refined Build Alternative is The Legislature further finds and recognizes policy the most protective of significant coastal that conflicts may occur between one or resources. more policies of the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the The Refined Build Alternative creates a conflict provisions of this division such conflicts be between the allowable use tests of the wetland resolved in a manner which on balance is the policy and a potential conflict with the most protective of significant coastal environmentally sensitive habitat area policy
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-28 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion resources. In this context, the Legislature (Section 30233(a)(c) and 30240(a)) on the one declares that broader policies which, for hand, and the water quality, air quality, energy example, serve to concentrate development conservation, and public access policies of the in close proximity to urban and employment Coastal Act (Sections 30231, 30232, centers may be more protective, overall, than 30253(d), 30210, 30212.5, and 30252) on the specific wildlife habitat and other similar other hand. resource policies. The Refined Build Alternative includes measures to protect water quality and would reduce automobile congestion, VMT, regional energy consumption, automotive air emissions, and non-point source pollutants into nearby water bodies. The proposed project would maintain and enhance public access by expanding the Trolley system, which in turn helps to reduce automobile traffic on I-5 in an area where this freeway supports public access and recreation. Inclusion of transit parking in areas adjacent to the Coastal Zone would also support adequate parking facilities and access to the Coastal Zone.
Given the limited extent of impacts to coastal wetlands and potential ESHA, and the extent of local and regional benefits to coastal resources that would result from the Refined Build Alternative, impacts on coastal resources from not constructing the project would be more significant and adverse than the project’s impacts, which would be adequately mitigated. Local Coastal Plans (LCP) See below for discussion of the community plans that also have certified LCPs. However, no project features would be located within the Coastal Zone outside of the two noted CCC areas of retained permit jurisdiction, including within the UCSD area and within the MTS right-of-way between the San Diego River and Balboa Avenue. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Master Plan and Long Range Development Plan The Master Plan strongly encourages the Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would implement use of mass transit systems and envisions a planning study one of the main visions of the Long Range light rail line that extends north to the Development Plan by providing a light rail line campus from Old Town within a dedicated directly to the campus. Providing alternative right-of-way. The Long Range Development forms of transportation is a primary goal to Plan emphasizes the importance of using minimize impact of future growth on the alternative transportation, including campus- surrounding communities. Although the operated shuttles, public mass transit configuration of the LRT project is envisioned systems (light rail and bus rapid transit), differently in the Master Plan and Long Range carpools, vanpools, and bicycle networks to Development Plan, the Mid-Coast Corridor accomplish the university’s long-standing Transit Project would provide the same goals of easing access to the campus and benefits and meet the same needs identified minimizing the impacts of growth on the therein. surrounding community.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-29 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study The study includes expansion of pedestrian Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would be access to a future Trolley station; substantial planning study consistent with and not conflict with the UCSD infill close to the Pepper Canyon station (the University Center/Sixth College proposed UCSD West Station), a major Neighborhoods Planning Study, which transit hub within University Center; and identifies the LRT (Trolley) project as an increased and concentrated development important component of its study. Although supported by a Trolley station. the configuration of the LRT project is envisioned differently in the neighborhoods planning study, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would provide the same benefits and meet the same needs identified therein. UCSD East Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study The study calls for an increase in and/or Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would not concentration of future development planning study conflict with the UCSD East Campus Health supported by an LRT station, with Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study. The improvements to pedestrian facilities; infill study recognizes the role of a Trolley station in development; new buildings that face and the future development of this major clinical emphasize the pedestrian network; facility. The study identifies a Trolley station incorporation of access to a regional bus near Thornton Hospital and recognizes that terminal and an LRT station leading to an UCSD East Campus growth would be open space and pedestrian facility system; supported by such a Trolley station. and a major pedestrian axis linking transit hub to activity centers. Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Resource Management Plan and General Development Plan The overall purpose of these plans is to Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would be not create a historically authentic environment, planning document conflict with the Old Town San Diego State to preserve the park’s historical resources, Historic Park Resource Management Plan and to encourage public enjoyment and (RMP) and General Development Plan (GDP). educational interpretation of the park. The The document does not refer to either the improvements proposed in the plan include existing or proposed light rail (Trolley) service, new parking lots, utility relocations, street and has no substantial role in addressing land improvements, and development of a plaza. use issues related to the project. Instead, the document focuses primarily on historic structures, archaeology, landscaping, aesthetics, and vehicle circulation. Thus, the project is consistent with this document. San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan and Precise Plans The planning goals of the Port Master Plan Consistent with this The Refined Build Alternative would not include the encouragement of planning document conflict with the SDUPD Master Plan. The comprehensive benefits to the bay and document does not specifically refer to the tidelands, as well as public use; project, and the current light rail alignment considerations of safety, security, and already operates adjacent to the Port District access; integration of the tidelands as part of jurisdiction. The Master Plan’s land use focus a functional regional transportation network; is to develop or redevelop commercial, and development and conservation of the industrial, public recreation, and public bay, tidelands, and natural resources within facilities in Planning District 3; none of these the planning jurisdiction. The precise plan uses would be negatively affected by the for Planning District 2 outlines the goal of Refined Build Alternative. continuing existing commercial and airport- related industrial uses. The precise plan for
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-30 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Table 5-3. Comparison of the Refined Build Alternative to State Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Plan Recommendations (continued)
Goals and Policies Conclusion Discussion Planning District 3 outlines goals for redevelopment that improve pedestrian amenities. State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The goals of this program are to protect and Consistent with these The Refined Build Alternative would not impact preserve important agricultural resources. goals any important agricultural resources as identified in the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Refined Build Alternative would not convert farmland into non-agricultural use, or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use
Source: SANDAG, 2014 Note: BMPs = Best Management Practices; CCC= California Coastal Commission; ESHA = environmentally sensitive habitat area; GDP = General Development Plan; LCP = Local Coastal Plans; LRT = Light Rail Transit; RMP = Resource Management Plan; SDUPD = San Diego Unified Port District; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration; VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
5.1.2.2 Applicable Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans Within the corridor area, the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface) would be located primarily within the existing MTS right-of-way, as well as the I-5 right-of-way, the UCSD campus, and public street rights-of-way. With respect to consistency with the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), direct project impacts to biological resources would be confined to the existing rail right-of-way. There would be approximately 0.26 acre of long-term impacts to wetlands and Tier II vegetation communities within the MHPA that are located within the existing rail right-of-way. The project would not represent an introduction of a new land use within the MHPA. Although the project would introduce LRT train activity and add new tracks within the existing MTS right-of- way, the project would not introduce new land uses within or adjacent to the MHPA. To the extent any portion of the project extends into an MHPA area, the project is a regional public facility anticipated in the MSCP and is a compatible land use within the Subarea Plan. The alignment within the existing right-of-way minimizes impacts of the Refined Build Alternative to the MHPA. Impacts within the MHPA would be very limited and would not be considered adverse. As discussed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b), the Refined Build Alternative would provide mitigation for all impacts and would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the MSCP Subarea Plan.
5.1.2.3 Land Use Compatibility The compatibility of adjacent or surrounding land uses is discussed separately for corridor areas and station areas in the sections below because the effects of a station differ from the effects of the corridor.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-31 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Corridor Areas Within the study area, the Build Alternative would be located primarily within the existing Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) right-of-way from the OTTC to Gilman Drive, which is mostly parallel to I-5, as shown in Figure 4-1. North of Gilman Drive, the project is located generally within and adjacent to the I-5 right-of-way. The project alignment would be placed in close proximity of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. In particular, the alignment under the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface) would be located immediately adjacent to the La Paz Condominiums in La Jolla Colony (immediately east of I-5 and south of La Jolla Village Drive) and adjacent to the northeast corner of the Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex (immediately west of I-5 and south of La Jolla Village Drive).. At La Jolla Village Drive, the alignment would traverse the eastern edge of the parking lot for the La Jolla Village Square. North of the Nobel Drive Station, the alignment would traverse Pepper Canyon, a small canyon straddled by the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) on-campus housing (i.e., Sixth College Apartments, Sixth College Residence Halls, and Matthews Apartments). The alignment along Voigt Drive and Genesee Avenue and near the UCSD East Campus would be within local street rights-of-way adjacent to Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, the Preuss School, La Jolla Vista Townhouses, and the La Jolla Country Day School. The Genesee Avenue Design Option provides straddle bents and support columns to be located within UCSD property and along portions of Genesee Avenue, rather than a column in the center median.
No changes to these adjacent uses would be required as a result of the implementation of the Build Alternative or this design option. The project would not introduce a new land use and would continue to be located primarily in an existing transportation right-of-way. As such, the corridor area would be compatible with existing land use and zoning and would not result in adverse effects related to land use. For additional details associated with adjacent land uses, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e) and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014f).
Station Areas The station areas under the Build Alternative are discussed in two groups:
· Five Existing Station Areas: the areas of the Santa Fe Depot, County Center/Little Italy Station, Middletown Station, Washington Street Station, and the OTTC, as shown as Figure 4-2. · Eight Proposed Station Areas: the areas of the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, UCSD West, UCSD East, and Executive Drive Stations and the UTC Transit Center, as illustrated in Figure 4-3 to Figure 4-10. The area surrounding the VA Medical Center Station Option is included within the discussion of the proposed station areas (i.e., the Nobel Drive and UCSD West station areas).
Existing Station Areas: Santa Fe Depot; the County Center/Little Italy, Middletown, and Washington Street Stations; and the OTTC Land uses associated with the existing station areas have been and would continue to be compatible with a high-capacity transit system. All these stations are located
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-32 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
at-grade within the existing MTS right-of-way and have been supporting Trolley service since 1996.
Land uses in these areas already include high-density residential and office uses, especially near the County Center/Little Italy Station and Santa Fe Depot. These areas have undergone new development that has transformed the existing station areas into mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. The County Center/Little Italy Station area includes San Diego County offices and other office uses that support the Trolley service. The OTTC area includes destination-oriented land uses, such as the Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, which is a regional recreational attraction, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, a major employment center. Underutilized parcels in the Washington Street Station and the OTTC areas, typically identified as light industrial use, present opportunities for future TOD projects. Future development in these areas would continue to support Trolley service.
All existing station areas are compatible with and would support a high-capacity transit facility. Implementation of the project would not hinder or preempt potential development of these future land uses.
Proposed Station Areas Tecolote Road Station Area The Tecolote Road Station would be at grade and located within the MTS right-of-way. A proposed park-and-ride lot would be co-located at the proposed station. Surrounding land uses include commercial, industrial, and higher-density residential uses. The LRT system would provide residents with new transit access to employment in other areas of the city, and the LRT system also would provide access to employment opportunities near the station. The mix of land uses would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system. The addition of the station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility.
Clairemont Drive Station Area The Clairemont Drive Station would be at grade and located within the MTS right-of-way, just south of the Clairemont Drive overpass. The adjacent land uses consist of low-density retail commercial uses with supportive surface parking and would be compatible with this LRT system. One of the main entrances to Mission Bay Park is located west of both the station area and I-5. The land uses farther from the station generally consist of strip-retail commercial uses lining Morena Boulevard and multifamily and single-family development east of the station. The LRT system would provide residents with new transit access to employment in other areas of the city, and the LRT system would provide access to employment opportunities near the station. The mix of land uses would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system. The station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility.
Balboa Avenue Station Area The Balboa Avenue Station would be at grade and located within the MTS right-of-way and a vacant city-owned parcel. This station would provide a new transit center for the corridor, including a park-and-ride lot, a bus transfer area, and a kiss-and-ride location, which allows for passenger drop-off and pick-up. The station would not introduce a new land use and would be surrounded by other transportation-related uses.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-33 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
While this station would serve as a transit center with transfer options, opportunities exist for higher and more intensive land uses to the north (a city-owned maintenance yard) and west (in Pacific Beach) that would support the station. The LRT provides access to employment opportunities near the station. Based on the Smart Growth Concept Map, growth is anticipated in this station area, which would ultimately support the investment in transit. This station would not result in adverse effects associated with land use compatibility.
Nobel Drive Station Area The Nobel Drive Station would be located on an elevated platform, integrated within the parking lot of La Jolla Village Square (a subregional shopping center). The station would be adjacent to an existing transportation-related use (i.e., I-5). The station would be located near a mix of high-density residential, office, and hotel uses. The LRT system would provide residents with new transit access to employment in other areas of the city, and the LRT system would provide access to commercial and retail services near the station.
The opportunity for redevelopment is feasible for several of the parcels (including the subregional shopping center) by replacing surface parking with higher-intensity land uses that are currently supported by local and regional plans. The existing high-density land use and possible future higher-intensity and pedestrian-oriented uses would be compatible and supportive of the proposed transportation system. This station would not result in adverse effects associated with land use.
VA Medical Center Station Option An optional station location is being considered directly east of the VA Medical Center. This station primarily would serve the VA facility and the UCSD Medical Center to the west. The station would provide direct pedestrian access to the “front door” of the VA Medical Center and access to the UCSD campus at a signalized intersection at Villa La Jolla Drive. Because of the topographical change in elevation, enhancement of the pedestrian facilities will be necessary to access the campus.
The existing station area land use and future land uses would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system and, therefore, the station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility or zoning.
UCSD West Station Area The UCSD West Station would be located on an elevated platform within Pepper Canyon on the UCSD West Campus. This station would introduce a new campus land use. However, the UCSD Master Plan (UCSD, 1989), the 2004 Long Range Development Plan (UCSD, 2004a), and the University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study (UCSD, 2004b) anticipate this transportation facility and have proposed land uses compatible with the station. The LRT system would provide students with new transit access to employment and retail in other areas of the city, and the LRT system would provide access to employment opportunities on the UCSD campus. The station would be connected to facilities on the main campus with direct and convenient pedestrian paths and sidewalks. If the VA Medical Center Station Option is not built, then access to the VA Medical Center would be provided at this station to the south, allowing for a pedestrian connection to this facility.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-34 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
The existing station area land use and future land uses would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system and, therefore, the station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility or zoning.
UCSD East Station Area The UCSD East Station would be an elevated station located on the UCSD East Campus. The station is intended to support the educational, medical, and health care uses that dominate the area, including Thornton Hospital. This station also would serve other residential, research, biotechnology, and medical uses north of Genesee Avenue. The station would be located outside of the Voigt Drive right-of-way, near the Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla and the Preuss School. Land use intensities on the north side of the station are currently fairly high; however, numerous opportunities exist for additional development to the south and east of the station. The 2004 Long-Range Development Plan and the UCSD Master Plan both anticipate redevelopment of surface parking lots into additional medical, research, and educational facilities. All existing and future land uses would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system and, therefore, the station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility or zoning.
Executive Drive Station Area The Executive Drive Station would be an elevated station within the existing Genesee Avenue right-of way.
The station would be located in an existing high-density area with a mix of office, commercial, residential, and hotel uses. The elevated station would have strong pedestrian connectivity to surrounding uses. The LRT system would provide residents with new transit access to employment in other areas of the city, and the LRT system would provide access to employment and commercial opportunities near the station. The station area is intended to have some of the highest-density land uses in University City and is forecast to experience growth through 2030. This wide mix of land uses and high-density development would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system and, therefore, the station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility or zoning.
UTC Transit Center Area The UTC Transit Center would be elevated within the existing Genesee Avenue right-of- way. From the station platform, pedestrians would be able to access the surrounding uses via staircases and elevators. Surrounding land uses consist of a mix of high- density residential uses and a major regional retail center. Additionally, the Westfield UTC shopping center has received approval to expand its retail uses, including new residential development. The LRT system would provide access to commercial, retail, and employment opportunities near the station. This mix of land uses and the intensive residential development would be compatible with and support the proposed transportation system and, therefore, the station would not result in adverse effects related to land use compatibility or zoning.
In summary, no adverse impacts related to land use compatibility would result from the Build Alternative alignment or stations.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-35 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
5.1.2.4 Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use Based on the maps from the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there are no prime farmland, unique farmlands, or farmlands of state-wide importance that would be impacted by the project. However, at UCSD there is a “temporary urban farm” in Pepper Canyon, which was approved by the UCSD Physical Planning Department in September 2010. As stated in a letter from the department, dated September 13, 2010, the temporary use of an 8,800-square-foot area in Pepper Canyon for an urban farm would be allowed until construction of the planned Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project or for a period not to exceed three years (UCSD, 2010). This small parcel is within an area mapped as “urban and built-up land” on the state's Farmland Maps and is a temporary organic farming facility that is to cease operations once the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project begins construction. In summary, no adverse conversion of important farmland as identified by the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program would result from the Build Alternative alignment or stations. 5.2 Cumulative Impacts This section describes the long-term cumulative effects of the project (both operational and facilities impacts) of the No-Build and Build Alternatives, including the options. Cumulative impacts are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as:
…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts comprise the direct and indirect impacts of a project together with the combined impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions of other projects.
5.2.1 No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative, a number of transportation improvements are assumed to be implemented by 2030. These projects are those identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenarios of the 2030 RTP with the exception of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Route 150 is assumed to be continued and enhanced under the No- Build Alternative to provide transit service between Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and University City. As discussed in Section 5.1.1, many of the transportation land use goals and policies identified for the areas that would be traversed by the project would not be realized under the No-Build Alternative.
The other major transportation projects specifically within the Mid-Coast Corridor are described in Section 1.3.1. Together, these transportation projects would further local and regional land use and transportation goals of the City of San Diego and SANDAG to integrate transit and land use. Planning for these projects has been conducted on a regional and local scale, and the projects are consistent with local and regional plans.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-36 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
Therefore, it is assumed no cumulative land use compatibility or consistency impacts would result from implementation of these projects. These projects would help meet existing and future transportation demand, including transit demand. Each of these planned projects would undergo separate environmental reviews and mitigation, as appropriate, and would be designed to minimize land use impacts within the Mid-Coast Corridor.
Therefore, the impact of the No-Build Alternative would not contribute to any cumulatively adverse land use impact within the project corridor.
5.2.2 Build Alternative The Refined Build Alternative, including options, would result in implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in addition to the other foreseeable transportation projects assumed in the No-Build Alternative. As discussed in Section 5.1, the project would be compatible with surrounding land use designations and zoning. Moreover, the Mid-Coast Corridor Project is consistent with applicable local and regional land use and transportation plans. The final determination of the project’s consistency with the Coastal Act will be made by the California Coastal Commission as part of the Coastal Development Permit process. By itself, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not result in adverse land use effects.
The Build Alternative and its options, combined with the foreseeable highway and transit improvement projects, would not result in substantial changes to existing land uses or land use incompatibility. Current community plans and policies relevant to the project already identify the Trolley alignment and the station locations and allow more intense development at major activity centers and transit-supportive areas.
The cumulative land use impacts contributed by the Build Alternative would not be adverse. Future projects in the study area would be consistent with land use policies and visions contained in the land use plans. The Build Alternative also would be consistent with jurisdictional land use plans and policies and, therefore, no adverse impacts would occur.
Therefore, the Build Alternative combined with other foreseeable actions is not expected to contribute to adverse cumulative effects on land use. 5.3 Construction Impacts The short-term impacts associated with construction of the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface) are described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014a). That report also describes construction- related cumulative impacts.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 5-37 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-38 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 6.0 – MItigation Measures
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the Build Alternative, including options, would be compatible and consistent with existing and proposed land uses, including applicable land use plans and policies and environmental goals. With respect to consistency with the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), project impacts to biological resources are described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b). The impacts within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area would be very limited and the project would be consistent with the MSCP. The extent that any portion of the project extends into an MHPA area is very limited. The project would not introduce new land uses within or adjacent to the MHPA. Further, the project is a regional public facility anticipated in the MSCP and is a compatible land use within the Subarea Plan. For a more detailed description of these impacts, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b).
The project is consistent with policies of the Coastal Act that provide for preservation and enhancement of visual resources, water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in VMT, public access and public transit. However, because a small portion of project development would involve fill of coastal wetlands and impacts to an ephemeral basin that could be considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area, the project creates a potential conflict between the allowable use tests of the wetland and environmentally sensitive habitat area policies (Section 30233(a) and (c) and Section 30240(a)) on the one hand, and water quality, air quality, energy conservation, VMT reduction, public access, and public transit policies (Sections 30231, 30232, 30253(a), (c) and (d), 30254, 30210, 30212.5, and 30252) on the other hand. Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act requires California Coastal Commission to resolve such conflicts in a manner that on balance is most protective of coastal resources. The project has been designed to minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and includes off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement activities that mitigate impacts and result in an overall increase in wetland habitat. Further, the impacts to ESHA would be mitigated through off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement activities that would result in an increase in higher-quality habitat for the species affected. These measures are described in more detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b). These measures, in combination with the improvements to water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in VMT, public access, and public transit that would result from implementation of the project, support a finding that proceeding with the project would be most protective of coastal resources. The final determination of the project’s consistency with all Coastal Act policies will be made by the California Coastal Commission as part of the Coastal Development Permit process.
As such, no adverse impacts to land use would occur and mitigation would not be required.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 6-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 6.0 – MItigation Measures
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 6-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 7.0 – California Environmental Quality Act Determination
7.0 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state, local, and other agencies to evaluate the environmental implications of their decisions and to avoid or reduce, when feasible, the significant environmental impacts of their decisions (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the CEQA Guidelines [California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.]). 7.1 Significance Criteria and Application Based on CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 2011a), SANDAG has developed thresholds of significance for use in evaluating the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The land use impact significance criteria under CEQA are the same significance criteria discussed in Section 3.4.2.
7.1.1 No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be implemented. The absence of an extended Trolley line would be inconsistent with the land use plans and policies that envision and encourage additional public transit and transit-oriented development. Continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 would not be sufficient to provide the level of transit service defined in the local and regional land use and transportation plans. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations and would result in a significant land use impact.
7.1.2 Build Alternative Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Within the corridor and station areas, the Refined Build Alternative would be compatible with existing land use and zoning. The Refined Build Alternative would not conflict with applicable regional and local land use plans, goals, objectives, policies, or regulations, including, but not limited to, UCSD and SANDAG plans and policies (see Section 5.1.2.1). The Refined Build Alternative would be consistent with polices of the Coastal Act that provide for preservation and improvements to visual resources, water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in VMT, public access and public transit, but creates a potential conflict between the allowable use tests of the wetland and ESHA policies. On balance, proceeding with the project would be most protective of coastal resources and is consistent with the conflict resolution requirements of Section 30007.5.
The locations of the proposed transit stations would support adopted plans and policies to increase land use density and encourage transit-oriented development, particularly regional plans for Smart Growth at major activity centers.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 7-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 7.0 – California Environmental Quality Act Determination
In addition, as shown in Table 5-2, the Build Alternative would be consistent with SANDAG’s regional goals and policies identified in its Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (SANDAG, 2004b) and the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future5 (SANDAG, 2007). Therefore, under CEQA, no significant land use impacts would occur under the Build Alternative and no mitigation measures would be required.
Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
With respect to consistency with the Multiple Species Conservation Program, the Refined Build Alternative (see Preface) impacts on biological resources are largely confined to the existing rail right-of-way and other previously disturbed areas and would not represent the expansion of existing, or the introduction of new, land uses within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA). The project would not introduce new land uses within or adjacent to the MHPA. Further, the project is a regional public facility anticipated in the MSCP and is a compatible land use within the Subarea Plan. The impacts within the MHPA would be very limited and would not be considered adverse. For a more detailed description of these impacts, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014b).
Would the project result in incompatible land use?
As discussed in Section 5.1.2.3, the project generally would be located within the existing right-of-way (Metropolitan Transit System, Interstate 5, or local streets). In certain locations, the project travels outside these rights-of-way, such as the eastern parking lot for La Jolla Village Square and the UCSD campus. However, the project is located on the edge of the development (La Jolla Village Square) or in the area generally designated for the project on the UCSD campus. As described in Section 5.1.2.3, implementation of the project within the Mid-Coast Corridor would be compatible with existing land use and would not result in direct or indirect significant impacts. For additional details associated with adjacent land uses, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e) and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014f).
Direct and indirect impacts of the project, including the Veterans Administration Medical Center Station Option and the Genesee Avenue Design Option, would be similar to impacts described in Section 5.1.2. The long-term operation of the project would not substantially affect existing land use character.
The CEQA impacts associated with construction of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project are described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014a.
5 Although the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP) (SANDAG, 2011a) has recently been adopted, it does not identify additional projects that would influence the land use review for this report. For a further description of the 2050 RTP, refer to Chapter 1.0.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 7-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 7.0 – California Environmental Quality Act Determination
Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use, or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use?
Based on the maps from the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there are no prime farmland, unique farmlands, or farmlands of state wide importance that are impacted by this project and would not result in adverse effects. However, at UCSD there is a “temporary urban farm” in Pepper Canyon, which was approved by the UCSD Physical Planning Department in September 2010. As stated in a letter from the department, dated September 13, 2010, the temporary use of an 8,800 square foot area in Pepper Canyon for an urban farm would be allowed until construction of the planned Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project or for a period not to exceed three years (UCSD, 2010). This small parcel is within an area designated as “urban and built- up land” on the state's Farmland Maps and is a temporary facility that is to cease operations once the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project begins construction.
In summary, no conversion of important farmland as identified by the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program would result from the Build Alternative alignment or stations. Therefore, no impacts would result from the Build Alternative alignment or stations. 7.2 Significance after Mitigation The project would be compatible with existing land uses and consistent with applicable adopted local and regional land use plans and policies. Direct, indirect, and cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant. 7.3 Cumulative Impacts Cumulatively significant impacts are not anticipated under the No-Build or Build Alternatives. As described in Section 5.2.1, other proposed projects would reduce the adverse impact of the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not have a significant cumulative impact on local land use and planned development within the project corridor.
Under CEQA, the potential contribution to cumulative impacts of the Build Alternative must be considered in light of other past, present, and foreseeable projects. The Build Alternative assumed regional growth would occur consistent with existing planning and zoning. The Build Alternative also assumed the construction of other transportation projects in the corridor, as described in Section 5.2. These other projects are consistent with adopted regional and local land use and transportation plans. As such, they also are compatible with existing zoning and land use due to required consistency between land use plans and zoning regulations and no cumulative adverse land use impacts would occur. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 7-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 7.0 – California Environmental Quality Act Determination
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 7-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 8.0 – References
8.0 REFERENCES
Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC). 2006. San Diego Downtown Community Plan. Adopted March 2006.
City of San Diego. 1981. North City Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Approved March 31, 1981.
City of San Diego. 1985. Mission Valley Community Plan. Approved January 1985 and adopted June 1985 (last updated October 2008).
City of San Diego. 1986. University Community Plan. Approved December 1986 and adopted July 1987 (last updated April 2011).
City of San Diego. 1987a. Old Town San Diego Community Plan. Approved May 1987. Adopted July 1987.
City of San Diego. 1987b. Uptown Community Plan. Approved October 1987 and adopted February 1988 (last updated May 2002).
City of San Diego. 1989. Clairemont Mesa Community Plan. Approved April 1989 and adopted September 1989 (last updated May 2008).
City of San Diego. 1991. Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Adopted May 1991 (last updated March 2006).
City of San Diego. 1992. Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines. Approved August 1992.
City of San Diego. 1993. Pacific Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Approved December 1993 and adopted February 1995.
City of San Diego. 1994. Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update. Adopted August 1994 (last updated July 2002).
City of San Diego. 1997. City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. March 1997.
City of San Diego. 1998a. North Bay Redevelopment Plan. Adopted May 1998 (last updated June 2007).
City of San Diego. 1998b. Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Approved September 1998 and adopted December 1998 (last updated April 2011).
City of San Diego. 2001. La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Approved December 2001 and adopted November 2003 (last updated February 2004).
City of San Diego. 2002. Strategic Framework Element. Approved 2002.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 8-1 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 8.0 – References
City of San Diego. 2008a. City of San Diego General Plan. Adopted March 2008.
City of San Diego. 2008b. Land Development Code (Chapters 11—15 of the Municipal Code, 6th update). Approved October 2008 and certified June 2009.
City of San Diego. 2008c. University Towne Center Revitalization Project Final Environmental Impact Report.
City of San Diego. 2010. Draft San Diego River Park Master Plan. September 2010.
City of San Diego. 2011a. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Determination Thresholds. Last updated January 2011.
City of San Diego. 2011b. City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update. June 2011.
City of San Diego. 2012. Mission Bay Park. Accessed November 2012. http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/missionbay/
County of San Diego. 1998. Final Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan. August 1998.
Mannes, Tanya. 2011. “Westfield UTC Kicks Off $1b Renovation Project.” The San Diego Union-Tribune. September 7, 2011.
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), 1995a. Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 1995b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor. December 1995.
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 2001. Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact Statement. June 2001.
North Embarcadero Alliance. 1998. Visionary Plan. December 1998.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004a. City of San Diego Community Planning Areas Shapefile.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004b. Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (RCP). Approved July 23, 2004.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2006a. 2030 Planned Use Shapefile.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2006b. 2030 Revenue Constrained Regional Transportation Plan: 2006 Update. Approved February 2006.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2006c. Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update. Adopted September 2006 (July 2008).
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 8-2 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 8.0 – References
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007. 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP). Adopted November 30, 2007.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2008. Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: Process and Model Documentation.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2009. 2009 Current Land Use Shapefile. January 2009.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010a. Series 12: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. Adopted February 2010.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Land Use and Economic Development Templates. October 2010 (revised October 29, 2010).
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011a. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP). Adopted October 28, 2011. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011b. Our Region, Our Future, 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Final Environmental Impact Report. October 2011.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2012. Smart Growth Concept Map. Approved 2006 and last updated January 27, 2012.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013a. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013c. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014a. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014c. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014d. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Environmental Justice Impacts Technical Report.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 8-3 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 8.0 – References
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014e. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014f. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014g. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisition Impacts Technical Report.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014h. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build Alternative Report. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). 1992. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted February 1992 (last amended October 2004).
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). 2008. San Diego International Airport, Airport Master Plan. May 2008.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). 2009. Destination Lindbergh. March 2009.
San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS). 2003. City of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Areas Shapefile. October 2003.
San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS). 2007. City of San Diego Coastal Overlay Zone Shapefile. August 2007.
San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS). 2010. County of San Diego Redevelopment Districts Shapefile. July 2010.
San Diego Unified Port District. 1980. Port Master Plan. 1980 (last amended February 2009).
Scripps. 2012a. About Us – Scripps Green Hospital. Accessed April 2012. http://www.scripps.org/locations/hospitals__scripps-green-hospital/about-us
Scripps. 2012b. About Us – Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla. Accessed April 2012. http://www.scripps.org/locations/hospitals__scripps-memorial-hospital-la-jolla/about
State of California. 1977. Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Resource Management Plan and General Development Plan. Approved March 1977.
State of California. 2008. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Shapefile.
State of California. 2012. California State Parks Quick Facts. Updated February 2012.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 1989. UCSD Master Plan. July 1989.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2000. UCSD East Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study. July 2000.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 8-4 August 2014 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 8.0 – References
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2004a. UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan. September 2004.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2004b. University Center / Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study. September 2004.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2010. Letter from UCSD Physical Planning Department Regarding Site for Temporary Urban Farm. Dated September 13, 2010.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2011. Total Campus Enrollment.
University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2012. Thornton Hospital. Accessed April 2012. http://health.ucsd.edu/locations/pages/thornton.aspx
University of San Diego (USD). 2012. USD Facts. Accessed April 2012. http://www.sandiego.edu/about/facts.php
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 2012. VA San Diego Healthcare System – About This Facility. Accessed April 2012 at: http://www.sandiego.va.gov/about/
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT August 2014 8-5 Land Use Impacts Technical Report Chapter 8.0 – References
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 8-6 August 2014