Agenda David Arambula Metropolitan Transit System Friday, December 14, 2018 John Aguilera Vice Chair, North County Transit District 9 A.M

Members Jim Desmond, Chair Mayor, City of San Marcos (Representing North County Inland) Bill Sandke, Vice Chair Councilmember, City of Coronado (Representing South County) Georgette Gomez Councilmember, City of San Diego Ron Roberts Transportation Supervisor, County of San Diego Bill Baber Councilmember, City of La Mesa Committee (Representing East County) Catherine Blakespear Mayor, City of Encinitas (Representing North County Coastal) Agenda David Arambula Metropolitan Transit System Friday, December 14, 2018 John Aguilera Vice Chair, North County Transit District 9 a.m. to 12 noon April Boling SANDAG Board Room Director, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 401 B Street, 7th Floor Garry Bonelli San Diego Vice Chair, San Diego Unified Port District

Alternates Judy Ritter Agenda Highlights Mayor, City of Vista (Representing North County Inland) Mary Salas • Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Mayor, City of Chula Vista (Representing South County) Amendment: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways Mark Kersey Councilmember, City of San Diego • North Coast Corridor Program: Status Update Bill Horn Supervisor, County of San Diego Greg Cox • Caltrans Litter Abatement Plan and Supervisor, County of San Diego Partnership Strategies Jennifer Mendoza Councilmember, City of Lemon Grove (Representing East County) Jewel Edson Deputy Mayor, City of Solana Beach Please silence all electronic devices during the meeting (Representing North County Coastal) Lorie Bragg You can listen to the Transportation Committee Metropolitan Transit System meeting by visiting our website at sandag.org Bill Horn / Mark Packard North County Transit District Johanna Schiavoni San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Mission Statement Michael Zucchet The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional Commissioner, San Diego Unified Port decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; District plans, engineers, and builds public transit; and provides information on a broad range of topics

pertinent to the region’s quality of life. Advisory Members Cory Binns / Ann Fox Caltrans District 11 San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Erica Pinto, Jamul (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ sandag.org Allen Lawson, San Pasqual Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association

Hasan Ikhrata Executive Director, SANDAG

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Transportation Committee (Committee) on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Request to Comment form located in the lobby. Members of the public may address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.

Both agenda and non-agenda comments should be sent to the Clerk of the Committee via [email protected]. Please include the meeting date, agenda item, your name, and your organization. Any comments, handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the meeting should be received by the Clerk no later than 5 p.m. two working days prior to the meeting. All public comments and materials received by the deadline become part of the official public record and will be provided to the members for their review at the meeting.

In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at sandag.org/meetings. Additionally, interested persons can sign up for email notifications at sandag.org/subscribe.

SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints, and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to the SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900 or (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request, call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión.如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.

请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求. SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or visit 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices.

2 121318 Transportation Committee Friday, December 14, 2018

Item No. Recommendation +1. Approval of Meeting Minutes Approve The Transportation Committee is asked to review and approve the minutes from its October 19, 2018, meeting.

2. Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Transportation Committee on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a Request to Comment form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to Transportation Committee members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. Transportation Committee members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

Consent

+3. Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendment: Overhead Contact Approve System Insulator and Catch Cable Replacement (Dale Neuzil) The Transportation Committee is asked to approve an amendment to the FY 2019 Program Budget, transferring $270,892 from the completed Substation Standardization [Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 1142100] and Light Rail Vehicle Car Wash (CIP Project No. 1128600) projects to the Overhead Contact System Insulator and Catch Cable Replacement (CIP Project No. 1129200) project.

+4. TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Information Grant Program: Quarterly Status Update (Sarah Pierce) This report provides an overview of progress made by TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant recipients.

+5 TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Information Transportation Grant Program: Quarterly Status Update (Tracy Ferchaw) This report provides an overview of progress made by TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program recipients.

3 Reports

+6. Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project: California Environmental Approve Quality Act Exemption (Alison Moss and Sandra Lavender-Martin) The Transportation Committee is asked to approve the California Environmental Quality Act exemption for the Border to Bayshore Bikeway project. +7. Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendment: Carlsbad Village Approve Railroad Trench Study (Linda Culp) The Transportation Committee is asked to approve an amendment to the FY 2019 Program Budget, accepting $369,440 from the City of Carlsbad to fund the Carlsbad Village Railroad Trench Study (Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1239819).

+8. Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendment: Eastern Hillcrest Recommend Bikeways (Chris Romano) The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve an amendment to the FY 2019 Program Budget, accepting $2.2 million from the City of San Diego to fund the design and construction of the Normal Street Promenade as part of the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways (Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1223083).

+9. North Coast Corridor Program: Status Update Information (Allan Kosup, Caltrans) Allan Kosup will present an update on the North Coast Corridor Program.

+10. Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Study Information (Linda Culp) Staff will present an update on the recently completed Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Study.

11. Caltrans Litter Abatement Plan and Partnership Strategies Information (Andrew Rice and Caridad Sanchez, Caltrans) Andrew Rice and Caridad Sanchez will present an update on the Caltrans Litter Abatement Plan and partnership strategies along regional highways and bikeways.

12. Continued Public Comments If the five-speaker limit for public comments was exceeded at the beginning of this agenda, other public comments will be taken at this time. Subjects of previous agenda items may not again be addressed under public comment.

13. Upcoming Meetings Information The next Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 4, 2019, at 9 a.m. 14. Adjournment

+ next to an item indicates an attachment

Transportation Committee Item: 1 December 14, 2018 October 19, 2018, Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes Action Requested: Approve Chair Jim Desmond (North County Inland) called the The Transportation Committee is asked to meeting of the Transportation Committee to order at review and approve the minutes from its 8:59 a.m. October 19, 2018, meeting.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes (Approve) Action: Upon a motion by Vice Chair Garry Bonelli (San Diego Unified Port District [SDUPD]), and a second by Vice Chair Bill Sandke (South County), the Transportation Committee approved the minutes from its October 5, 2018, meeting. Yes: Chair Desmond, Vice Chair Sandke, Councilmember Georgette Gomez (City of San Diego), Councilmember Bill Baber (East County), Councilmember Lorie Bragg (Metropolitan Transit System [MTS]), Vice Chair John Aguilera (North County Transit District [NCTD]), Director April Boling (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority [SDCRAA]), and SDUPD Vice Chair Bonelli. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: County of San Diego and North County Coastal.

2. Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments Deputy Mayor Jewel Edson (North County Coastal), expressed interested in taking a tour of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. John Wotzka, a member of the public, submitted written comments and spoke about various transportation matters.

Consent

3. Specialized Transportation Grant Program Quarterly Status Report (Information) This report provided an overview of the progress made by Specialized Transportation Grant Program recipients. Action: This item was presented for information.

Reports

4. San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan – Network Concepts (Discussion) Coleen Clementson, Principal Regional Planner; Phil Trom, Senior Regional Planner; and Rachel Kennedy, Senior Regional Planner, presented the item. Sophie Wolfram, Climate Action Campaign, spoke about concerns related to climate change, and in support of transit and active transportation. Mary Oren, a member of the public, spoke about concerns related to climate change, and in support of transit and active transportation. Maya Rosas, Circulate San Diego, submitted written comments and spoke in support of transit. Minjie Mei, City of Santee, submitted written comments and spoke about the need for improvements on SR 52. Jennifer Hunt, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, spoke in support of trolleys and buses that support on- board bike racks, multi-modal accessibility, and increased bike parking in the region. Nicole Burgess, a member of the public, spoke in support of the regional bike network. As part of the 2019 Regional Plan process, three distinct network concepts have been developed and evaluated to see how different combinations of projects, programs, and policies would perform. The Transportation Committee provided feedback on components of the network concepts most important for inclusion in the 2019 Regional Plan. Action: This item was presented for discussion.

5. Regional Transit Fare Study Update (Discussion) Brian Lane, Senior Regional Planner; Israel Maldonado, Fare Systems Administrator, MTS; and Damon Blythe, Chief Operations Officer, NCTD, presented the item. Ms. Rosas spoke in opposition of the proposed elimination of free trolley transfers and asked the Transportation Committee to consider free or reduced-price bus to bus transfers, similar to other major metropolitan areas. Ms. Hunt spoke in opposition of the proposed elimination of free trolley transfers. The Transportation Committee provided feedback on the proposed fare changes and revisions to the Regional Comprehensive Fare Ordinance and the TransNet Ordinance. Action: This item was presented for discussion.

6. Regional Bikeway Program Status Report (Information) Linda Culp, Principal Regional Planner, provided a status report on the Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program. Marty Graham, a member of the public, asked for proposed traffic circles near her property that are being built as part of the Meade Avenue bike project to be removed. Ralph Teyssier, Talmadge Community Council, spoke about the Monroe Bikeway and concerns related to the process and outreach. Brian Helmich, Talmadge Community Council, spoke about concerns related to the Monroe Bikeway. Andy Hanshaw, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, spoke in support of the item. Ms. Burgess spoke in support of the item and asked the Transportation Committee to consider prioritizing the Old Town Corridor as part of the Regional Bike Plan. Judi Tentor, Bike San Diego, spoke in support of the item and related concerns about delays to urban bikeway projects. Jeff Hamblin, a member of the public, submitted written comments about concerns related to traffic calming on Meade Avenue. Chair Desmond asked staff to meet with the public speakers. Action: This item was presented for information.

7. Continued Public Comments There were no continued public comments.

8. Upcoming Meetings The next Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 9, 2018, at 9 a.m.

9. Adjournment Chair Desmond adjourned the meeting at 11:03 a.m. 2 Meeting Start Time: 8:59 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 11:03 a.m.

Confirmed Attendance at SANDAG Transportation Committee Meeting

October 19, 2018

Member/ Jurisdiction Name Attended Alternate Jim Desmond, Chair Member Yes North County Inland Judy Ritter Alternate Yes Bill Sandke, Vice Chair Member Yes South County Mary Salas Alternate No Georgette Gomez Member Yes City of San Diego Mark Kersey Alternate No Ron Roberts Member Yes County of San Diego Bill Horn Alternate Yes Greg Cox Alternate No Bill Baber Member Yes East County Jennifer Mendoza Alternate Yes Catherine Blakespear Member No North County Coastal Jewel Edson Alternate Yes David Arambula Member No Metropolitan Transit System Lorie Bragg Alternate Yes John Aguilera Member Yes North County Transit District Bill Horn Alternate Yes Mark Packard Alternate No

San Diego County Regional April Boling Member Yes Airport Authority Vacant Alternate -- Garry Bonelli Member Yes San Diego Unified Port District Michael Zucchet Alternate No

Advisory Members

Cory Binns Member Yes Caltrans Ann Fox Alternate Yes

Southern California Tribal Erica Pinto Member Yes Chairmen’s Association Allen Lawson Member No Matt Tucker NCTD Yes Sharon Cooney MTS Yes Other Attendees SANDAG Board Vice Steve Vaus No Chair

Transportation Committee Item: 3 December 14, 2018 Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendment: Overhead Contact System Insulator and Catch Cable Replacement

Overview Action Requested: Approve The Overhead Contact System (OCS) Insulator and Catch The Transportation Committee is asked to Cable Replacement Project is a Metropolitan Transit approve an amendment to the FY 2019 Systems (MTS) funded project included in the SANDAG Program Budget, transferring $270,892 from FY 2019 Program Budget to perform catenary system the completed Substation Standardization improvements along the Trolley Orange and Green [Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Lines. Funding constraints required SANDAG to split the No. 1142100] and Light Rail Vehicle Car Wash work and award the Orange Line portion first. The (CIP Project No. 1128600) projects to the Green Line portion was an option in the contract that all Overhead Contact System Insulator and Catch or part could be awarded once funds are available. Cable Replacement (CIP Project No. 1129200) project, in substantially the same form as Key Considerations shown in Attachment 1. The Orange Line work was awarded on March 17, 2017, and is nearly complete. The work has gone smoothly, Fiscal Impact: and MTS is planning to fund a portion of the Green Line Approval of the proposed budget amendment from its FY 2020 Operating Budget. The Green Line would allow SANDAG to move $270,892 from work is estimated to cost more than $4 million and MTS closed MTS projects to help fund catenary has earmarked $1.323 million in FY 2020 to fund and system improvements along the Trolley Green start a portion of this work. Lines. In the meantime, the MTS Executive Director has Schedule/Scope Impact: authorized $270,892 available from the completed The proposed budget amendment would Substation Standardization and Light Rail Vehicle Car allow catenary system improvements along the Wash projects to be transferred to the Overhead Trolley Green Lines to begin soon after Contact System Insulator and Catch Cable Replacement construction funds are available in FY 2020. project to reduce the total that MTS needs to transfer to award the work. Next Steps The proposed budget amendment would allow SANDAG to issue a change order directing the contractor to order parts that take three to four months to procure. Another change order to begin work on catenary system improvements along the Trolley Green Line would be issued soon after construction funds are available in FY 2020.

Jim Linthicum, Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation Key Staff Contact: Dale Neuzil, (619) 595-5373, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Proposed FY 2019 Budget Amendment for Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1129200 - OCS Insulator and Catch Cable Replacement

Attachment 1 FY 2019 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1129200 Corridor Director: Chip Finch RTIP Number: SAN36 Project Manager: Dale Neuzil Project Name: OCS Insulator & Catch Cable Replacement PM Phone Number: (619) 595-5373

PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Installation of catch cables at all balance weight locations to comply with General Order Awarded construction contract in February 2017. Construction is underway. 95 and replacement of aging stick insulators on the Orange and Green Trolley lines to provide better reliability.

Installation of catch cables at all balance weight locations to comply with General Order Awarded construction contract for Orange Line in March 2017. Construction is underway. 95 and replacement of aging stick insulators on the Orange and Green Trolley lines to provide better reliability.

PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Orange Line from 12th & Imperial to Main Street in El Cajon. Green Line from County Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A Center/Little Italy to Mission San Diego and Main Street in El Cajon to Santee. Final Environmental Document MM/YY N/A Ready to Advertise MM/YY Jun-16

Begin Construction MM/YY Apr-17 Open to Public MM/YY Nov-18 Orange Line from 12th & Imperial to Main Street in El Cajon. Green Line from County Construction Complete MM/YY Jan-21 Center/Little Italy to Mission San Diego and Main Street in El Cajon to Santee.

SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 Total

Administration $447 $150 $175 $50 $100 $3 $20 $0 $4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650 $746

Environmental Document 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Design 330 26 1 5 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $361 $361

Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Construction Support 79 820 726 201 450 0 70 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,100 $1,328

Construction Capital 291 3,450 3,322 851 1,176 0 70 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4,592 $4,864

Vehicles 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3 $3

Legal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Communications 0 40 30 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $50 $50

Project Contingency 0 0 0 425 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $425 $100 Total SANDAG $1,148 $4,486 $4,254 $1,544 $1,818 $3 $220 $0 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,181 $7,452

OUTSIDE AGENCY EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 Total

Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Design 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Construction Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Construction Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total SANDAG & Caltrans $1,148 $4,486 $4,254 $1,544 $1,818 $3 $220 $0 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,181 $7,452 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 Total FEDERAL:

FTA Section 5307 $669 $2,403 $2,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,072 $3,289 70270001 FTA Section 5309 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $312 $312 LOCAL:

91000100 TransNet -TSI 0 496 496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $496 $496 91040000 TDA 167 182 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $349 $403 91200001 MTS 0 1,405 902 1,544 1,818 3 220 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $2,952 $2,952 $1,148 $4,486 $4,254 $1,544 $1,818 $3 $220 $0 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,181 $7,452 TOTAL:

Transportation Committee Item: 4 December 14, 2018 TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant Program: Quarterly Status Update

Overview Action Requested: Information The Board of Directors entered into a Memorandum of This report provides an overview of progress Agreement (MOA) with state and federal agencies on the made by TransNet Environmental Mitigation implementation of the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant recipients. Program (EMP) in 2008. A provision of the MOA allocates $4 million annually for ten years to implement regional Fiscal Impact: habitat management and monitoring efforts. The Board allocates a portion of the $4 million annually for the In the last quarter, nine TransNet TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program to assist Environmental Mitigation Program Land land managers in filling funding gaps to promote regional Management Grant projects were completed, priorities. representing an investment of more than $1.5 million throughout the San Diego region. The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Transportation Committee on the quarterly status of Schedule/Scope Impact: active land management grant projects (Attachment 1). All TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant projects are Key Considerations on schedule and no projects are on the “Watch List.” Since the program’s inception, 117 land management grants, totaling approximately $16.6 million in TransNet funding, have been awarded to land management entities. Eighty-seven of those projects have been completed and have no further billing. Between July 1 and September 30, 2018, nine projects were completed. Attachment 1 provides the status of the 11 active projects. The 19 grants awarded funding by the Board on July 27, 2018, will be added to this report after contracts for those projects have been executed. Projects under the EMP Land Management Grant Program are placed on the “Watch List” if a grantee is not making timely progress toward their milestones (which are defined in SANDAG Board Policy No. 035: Competitive Grant Program Procedures) and the grantee has not yet sought corrective action. As of the date of this quarterly report, no projects currently are on the Watch List.

Next Steps The next quarterly status report (covering October 1 to December 31, 2018) is expected to be presented in March 2018.

Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Sarah Pierce, (619) 699-7312, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period July 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period July 1 to September 30, 2018 Attachment 1

Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date

7th Cycle

Restore and enhance areas of degraded habitat along Project IS making timely progress toward Otay River Valley Cactus Otay River Valley to increase the amount of suitable 1 5004730 County of San Diego $66,840 10/20/15 10/20/18 No their milestones. Wren habitat and improve connectivity for the coastal cactus No Amendments. wren.

Protect sensitive species, including Mexican flannelbush Project IS making timely progress toward United States Fish and Mother Miguel and critical habitat on the southwestern slope of 2 5004736 $21,454 12/01/15 12/01/18 No their milestones. Wildlife Service Mountain Mother Miguel Mountain, while managing public access No Amendments. and awareness.

8th Cycle

Enhance and improve Quino butterfly habitat conditions and connectivity by closing roads to vehicle Project IS making timely progress toward Quino Habitat 3 5004942 County of San Diego activity, preventing off-road vehicle use, installing $44,000 1/27/17 1/27/19 No their milestones. Restoration fencing and signage to limit access, and controlling and One Amendment- Six Month Extension. removing non-native grasses.

Treatment of invasive purple veldtgrass throughout the Project IS making timely progress toward Chaparral Lands 4 5004947 Crest Canyon Veldt Grass Crest Canyon Preserve, achieving greater than 90% $49,991 4/5/17 4/5/19 No their milestones. Conservancy reduction. One Amendment- Six Month Extension.

Begin phase 1 of eradication of perennial veldtgrass Project IS making timely progress toward San Elijo Lagoon 5 5004949 Veldt Grass Removal from SELER, reducing cover to less than 10% (100% $49,003 2/13/17 2/13/19 No their milestones. Conservancy reduction in coastal dunes). One Amendment- Six Month Extension.

Invasive plant control in priority habitat areas within the Project IS making timely progress toward San Diego Audubon Silverwood Wildlife reserve, reducing invasive cover by 90%. Approx. 65 6 5004951 $36,301 2/15/17 2/15/19 No their milestones. Society Sanctuary acres of invasive species hotspots are to be treated with One Amendment- Six Month Extension. herbicide and 5 acres via hand management.

Seed collection, processing, and maintenance for 8 plant species within for seed banking purposes in addition to Project IS making timely progress toward 7 5004953 San Diego Zoo Global Native Seed Bank bulking and propagation efforts required to provide $492,396 3/13/17 3/13/20 No their milestones. seed for regional restoration projects; 3 of which are No Amendments. part of FY17 LMG cycle.

*Watch List Projects are those grantees not making timely progress toward their milestones (which are defined in Board Policy No. 035) and not yet sought corrective action. Delays in tasks leading up to either the award of a contract or project completion may place grantees on the watch list.

2 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period July 1 to September 30, 2018

Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date

Seed collection and bulking for two rare species and the Project IS making timely progress toward Chaparral Lands 8 5004954 Otay Mesa Rare Plants establishment of new occurrences for five MSP species $141,319 4/5/17 4/5/22 No their milestones. Conservancy through seeding, planting, and maintenance. No Amendments.

Restoration of 19 acres of vernal pool and coastal sage scrub habitat in Proctor Valley specific to the needs of Project IS making timely progress toward Chaparral Lands Proctor Valley Vernal 9 5004955 MSP species and the establishment of two high-priority $393,864 4/5/17 4/5/22 No their milestones. Conservancy Pools and Uplands MSP plant species through collection, bulking, seeding, No Amendments. and maintenance efforts.

Phase 2 of North County Dunes Restoration Project focusing on the implementation and completion of site Project IS making timely progress toward San Elijo Lagoon specific plan for Cardiff State Beach and invasive 10 5004956 North County Dunes 2 $197,799 2/13/17 5/13/20 No their milestones. Conservancy management and support for existing coastal dune and No Amendments. bluff species at South Carlsbad State Beach Campground.

Improve and expand areas occupied by San Diego Project IS making timely progress toward Mission Trails Regional San Diego Thornmint 11 5004957 thornmint in MTRP by restoring and enhancing $72,265 3/21/17 3/21/20 No their milestones. Park Foundation Restoration degraded habitat. No Amendments.

Recently Closed-Out Projects

Increase the amount of suitable habitat and improve Project IS making timely progress toward Otay River Valley and connectivity for the coastal cactus wren along Otay River 5004731 City of Chula Vista $189,863 09/17/15 09/17/18 No their milestones. Salt Creek Cactus Wren 3 Valley and Salt Creek through restoration and No Amendments. enhancement of degraded habitat areas.

Re-treatment of Arundo and maintenance of the right- San Luis Rey, Santa Project IS making timely progress toward Mission Resource of-entry (ROE) database, to allow re-treatments to occur 5004732 Margarita & San $300,000 09/28/15 09/28/18 No their milestones. Conservation District on over 350 public and private properties in these Dieguito Watersheds No Amendments. watersheds.

Project IS making timely progress toward San Diego Audubon Maintain and expand certain extant small and large 5004729 Nuttall's Lotus $110,017 09/14/15 09/14/18 No their milestones. Society populations of Nuttall’s Lotus within Mission Bay Park. No Amendments.

Implement active restoration of critical cactus wren habitat in the Lake Hodges area and developing a North Project IS making timely progress toward 5004728 San Diego Zoo Global Cactus Wren 2015 County Cactus Nursery that will supply local native cacti $230,721 09/22/15 08/28/18 No their milestones. to restoration projects throughout the region for 2 One Amendment- Six Month Extension years.

3 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period July 1 to September 30, 2018

Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date

Recently Closed-Out Projects

Increase the quality of habitat and improve connectivity Project IS making timely progress toward 5004943 City of Chula Vista Salt Creek Cactus Wren for the coastal cactus wren along Salt Creek through $49,972 2/13/17 8/13/18 No their milestones. shrub thinning within suitable wren habitat. No Amendments.

Installation and maintenance of 5,000 linear feet of Project IS making timely progress toward fencing to protect vernal pools at the Spring 5004945 City of San Diego Vernal Pool Restoration $50,000 2/15/17 8/15/18 No their milestones. Canyon/Goat Mesa complex from further off-road No Amendments. damage.

Arundo treatment and removal throughout an 11 acre Project IS making timely progress toward Lakeside's River Park Riparian Restoration parcel of "old growth" riparian forest along the San 5004948 $48,895 2/22/17 8/22/18 No their milestones. Conservancy &Arundo Removal Diego River and coordinated development of a control No Amendments. plan to prevent re-infestation.

Surveying and monitoring to determine bat species composition around the Sweetwater Marsh Unit of San Project IS making timely progress toward Living Coast Discovery 5004950 Pallid Bat Diego Bay NWR. Surveys will be used to develop a site- $15,810 2/21/17 8/21/18 No their milestones. Center specific management plan to be submitted for No Amendments. implementation by land owners.

Work with local authorities and organizations to address homeless encampments along the San Diego Project IS making timely progress toward Lakeside's River Park 5004952 San Diego River Channel River between Santee and Lakeside. Coordinate $49,530 2/22/17 8/22/18 No their milestones. Conservancy volunteer river cleanups and public education No Amendments. campaigns.

Transportation Committee Item: 5 December 14, 2018 TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program: Quarterly Status Update

Overview Action Requested: Information This report provides the status of projects funded This report provides an overview of progress through the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program made by TransNet Smart Growth Incentive (SGIP) and Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP). Program and Active Transportation Grant Program recipients. Key Considerations

During the reporting period (April 1, 2018 through Fiscal Impact: September 30, 2018), seven projects were completed. Combined, the seven completed TransNet The following SGIP projects were completed: Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program projects were • El Cajon Transit Center Transit-Supportive Land Use awarded a total of $4.3 million and leveraged and Mobility Plan approximately $500,000 in local funds, • Lemon Grove Broadway Downtown Village Specific representing a total investment of $4.8 million Plan Update throughout the San Diego region. • National City’s Westside Mobility Plan Schedule/Scope Impact: All TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program The following ATGP projects were completed: and Active Transportation Grant Program • National City Citywide Midblock Crossing Project projects are on schedule and no projects are on the “Watch List.” In addition, as of • Solana Beach Stevens/Valley Avenue Corridor – Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project September 30, 2018, 74 percent of Cycle 3 Smart Growth Incentive Program, • Santee Riverwalk Drive Crossing Project Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP), The following ATGP/Active Transportation Program (ATP) and ATGP Exchange projects have been Exchange project was completed: completed. • Chula Vista F Street Pedestrian Promenade Project All other projects are on schedule and no projects are on the “Watch List”. Attachment 1 provides the status of projects that currently are active and shows the projects that have been completed in the current cycle. Information on projects completed in previous cycles is posted at sandag.org/grants.

Next Steps TransNet grantees will continue to work on grant implementation. In addition, the Board of Directors approved the funding recommendations for the Cycle 4 SGIP Planning and ATGP projects last summer, and on October 26, 2018, the Board approved the funding recommendations for the Cycle 4 SGIP Capital grants. The next quarterly report will include information on the Cycle 4 grants, pending execution of their contracts.

Charles ”Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Tracy Ferchaw, (619) 699-1977, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Status of TransNet SGIP, ATGP, and ATGP/ATP Funds Exchange Projects: Reporting period through September 30, 2018

Attachment 1 Status of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program Projects Reporting period through September 30, 2018 Exhibit A

Status and Grant Contract Contract Watch Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amendment Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* History Project IS making PLANNING: Supports mixed-use, timely progress transit-oriented development in the toward its revised Mid-Coast Trolley station areas by milestones. Morena Boulevard preparing amendments to Linda Vista and Am 1 (RPC) — 1 San Diego Station Area Study Clairemont Mesa planning documents, $400,000 01/21/2014 01/21/2019 No 18-month extension Phase 2 processing rezones, and developing a Am 2 (RPC) — programmatic environmental document. 12-month extension Cycle 2 (FY 2011 – 2013) (This project is the only remaining Cycle 2 project) Am 3 (RPC) — 6-month extension

CAPITAL: Fills important gaps in the active transportation network immediately adjacent to the Escondido Transit Center Transit Center (ETC) where active transportation demand Project IS making Active is the highest. The project connects the timely progress 2 Escondido $1,270,000 12/03/2015 06/03/2019 No Transportation ETC to grocery, commercial, residential, toward its milestones. Connections and office centers to the west by No Amendments constructing a bridge for pedestrians and by providing bike lanes between Tulip and Quince streets. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

PLANNING: Builds upon the 2009 Master Plan taking the plans from a 30 percent Project IS making Palm Avenue level to 100 percent construction drawings timely progress Mixed-Use and for the project area (West End Sector). Imperial toward its revised 3 Commercial Project details include public right-of-way $400,000 01/11/16 11/26/18 No Beach milestones. Corridor Plan West improvements, traffic calming measures, End Sector and significant pedestrian, bicycle, and Am 1 (RPC) — transit improvements. 6-month extension Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 2 Status of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program Projects – Reporting period through September 30, 2018 Status and Grant Contract Contract Watch Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amendment Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* History CAPITAL: Enhances public infrastructure, encourages/supports future private development, contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases, and serves as a Project IS making model smart growth project for the North Spring timely progress region. Enhancements include 4 La Mesa Street Smart $992,503 11/12/2015 07/12/2019 No toward its revised ADA-compliant ramps, high-visibility cross Growth Corridor milestones. walks, lighting, safety fencing, a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings along No Amendments the corridor, a pedestrian railroad crossing, and sidewalk improvements. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

CAPITAL: Realigns and reconstructs segments of Lemon Grove Avenue (LGA) Project IS making and North Avenue, the trolley/railroad timely progress crossing, and the LGA State Route 94 toward its revised Lemon Grove entrance/exit. Upgrades existing Lemon milestones. 5 Avenue substandard improvements at the $805,000 11/20/2015 11/20/2018 No Grove Am 1 (staff) — Realignment trolley/railroad crossing; water and storm 6-month extension drains; and underground San Diego Gas & Electric, Cox, and AT&T transmission Am 2 (RPC) — and/or distribution overhead lines. 12-month extension Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

CAPITAL: Creates an approximately 30-foot Project IS making wide pedestrian promenade/linear park. timely progress Plans to link City College to Barrio Logan toward its revised 14th Street through East Village, including connecting milestones. San Diego Pedestrian several existing and future park sites. Am 1 (RPC) — 6 (Civic Promenade $1,000,000 12/08/2015 01/8/2020 No Serves to connect Downtown’s densely location change San Diego) Demonstration populated neighborhoods with enhanced Block Am 2 (staff) — landscaped corridors focused on improving 6-month extension pedestrian and other non-vehicular Am 3 (RPC) – circulation. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016) 12-month extension

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 3 Status of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program Projects – Reporting period through September 30, 2018 Status and Grant Contract Contract Watch Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amendment Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* History CAPITAL: Includes the design and Project IS making installation of wayfinding signs in the timely progress San Ysidro Port of Entry District to improve toward its revised the area's mobility and respond to changes San Ysidro milestones. 7 San Diego in the configuration of the Port of Entry. $350,000 12/04/2015 12/04/2018 No Wayfinding Signs Am 1 (staff) — Signs will help visitors easily locate public 6-month extension services, popular destinations, and transportation options. Am 2 (RPC) — Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016) 12-month extension PLANNING: Expands community open space and improves multimodal circulation by identifying new public spaces, improves mobility, supports transit, and fosters Project IS making development in an existing smart growth timely progress Pacific Beach area. The study effort will include the toward its revised 8 San Diego Greenways, Parks, creation of public open spaces, multimodal $400,000 12/04/2015 06/04/2019 No milestones. and Transit infrastructure, safety improvements for all modes of travel, expanded beach access, Am 1 (staff) — improvements to the beach boardwalk, 6-month extension and integration of arts and culture in urban design. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016) CAPITAL: This infrastructure and street scape project is located in Vista's Town Center on South Santa Fe Avenue. It is a livable streets revitalization project that includes a road diet that will reduce the street width from Project IS making Paseo Santa Fe five lanes to two lanes; install new curbs, timely progress 9 Vista $2,000,0001 11/19/2015 05/19/2019 No Phase II gutters, and enhanced sidewalks; construct toward its milestones. roundabouts at key intersections; and install No Amendments decorative elements such as landscaping, street lights, street signs, and pedestrian furniture. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

1 The Vista Paseo Santa Fe Phase II Project also received $3.7 million through the Active Transportation Grant Program-Active Transportation Program Funds Exchange awarded in October 2015 (see Exhibit C).

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 4 Status of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program Projects – Reporting period through September 30, 2018 Status and Grant Contract Contract Watch Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amendment Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* History Cycle 3 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects (Completed)

PLANNING: Comprehensively analyzes the El Cajon Transit study area surrounding the El Cajon Center Transit Center to plan a new vision for the PROJECT 10 El Cajon Transit-Supportive area to include transit-supportive land use, $400,000 COMPLETE — Land Use and improved mobility options, and an JUNE 2018 Mobility Plan enhanced public realm. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

PLANNING: Considers promoting mixed- use with increased residential densities and commercial intensities within the proposed boundaries consistent with the adopted Downtown Village Specific Plan Broadway PROJECT Lemon (DVSP). However, the proposed project 11 Downtown Village $175,000 COMPLETE — Grove also will consider a form-based code for Specific Expansion MAY 2018 the expansion as well as areas of the existing DVSP. This area falls within a walkable distance to the Lemon Grove Trolley Depot and several bus stops. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

PLANNING: Provides an overall update to the original plan adopted in 2005. Incorporates new elements related to smart growth, specifically Transportation Demand Management and parking Downtown PROJECT National policies. Revises land use zones and urban 12 Specific Plan $320,000 COMPLETE — City design standards and recommends future Update DECEMBER 2017 implementation programs/projects in a manner that will provide direction for development that will create a unique sense of place in National City’s vibrant Downtown core. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 5 Status of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program Projects – Reporting period through September 30, 2018 Status and Grant Contract Contract Watch Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amendment Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* History CAPITAL: Includes the installation of new Downtown wayfinding/gateway signs throughout the Westside Downtown and Westside Communities. PROJECT National 13 Wayfinding and The visually unified street space will attract $825,000 COMPLETE — City Community and support future development and serve MARCH 2018 Gateways as a model example for smart growth in the region. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

CAPITAL: Enhances bicycling and pedestrian connections in the Downtown and Westside Specific Plan areas and encourages smart growth development. PROJECT National Westside Mobility 14 Includes the installation of Class II bicycle $2,000,000 COMPLETE — City Improvements facilities, intersection curb bulb-outs at key MARCH 2018 intersections, and ADA-compliant curb ramps at intersections with improved crosswalks. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

PLANNING: Restores the Alvarado Creek channel to a naturalized creek with bridges and walking/cycling trails, the Grantville Trolley pedestrian and bicycle experience between Station/ PROJECT future transit-oriented developments and 15 San Diego Alvarado Creek $400,000 COMPLETE — the transit stop will be greatly enhanced. Enhancement AUGUST 2017 The station’s full potential cannot be fully Project realized without supporting amenities such as a restored creek. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

PLANNING: Will produce an updated land Kearny Mesa use and zoning strategy to expand PROJECT Smart Growth employment potential of the project area 16 San Diego $105,000 COMPLETE — Employment and allow complementary residential uses DECEMBER 2017 Area Plan in a mixed-use context. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 6 Status of TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Grant Program Projects – Reporting period through September 30, 2018 Status and Grant Contract Contract Watch Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amendment Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* History PLANNING: Will complete a Feasibility and Conceptual Design study for an enhanced pedestrian connection between Sixth Avenue Downtown and Bankers Hill/Balboa Park. San Diego PROJECT Bridge Promenade The preliminary concept for this project 17 (Civic $200,000 WITHDRAWN— Feasibility and includes an enhanced pedestrian pathway San Diego) FEBRUARY 2018 Conceptual Design or promenade from Downtown to Balboa Park with treatments such as widened sidewalks, landscaping, benches, and trellises. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

* Watch List Projects are projects not making timely progress toward their milestones (as defined in SANDAG Board Policy No. 035: Competitive Grant Program Procedures) and that have not yet sought corrective action. Delays in tasks leading up to either the award of a contract or project completion may cause a project to be placed on the watch list.

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 7 Status of TransNet/Transportation Development Act Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Reporting Period through September 30, 2018 Exhibit B

Grant Contract Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* Amendment History Project IS making Multimodal PLANNING: Develops plans to promote and timely progress Chula Pedestrian/ upgrade interconnected pedestrian and 1 $250,000 07/17/2017 03/16/2020 No towards its Vista Bikeway Master bicycle transportation facilities within the milestones. Plan City of Chula Vista. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016) No Amendments

PLANNING: Provides a complete multimodal transportation network in Coronado that accommodates the needs of Coronado all users and modes. Specifically, the Project IS making Comprehensive Comprehensive Active Transportation timely progress 2 Coronado Active Strategy will include a pedestrian master $90,000 02/01/2015 11/01/2018 No towards its Transportation plan component, an updated bicycle milestones. Strategy master plan component, and the No Amendments development of Safe Routes to School and traffic calming recommendations for the City of Coronado. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

CAPITAL: Provides active transportation Escondido Creek connectivity for the Escondido Creek Trail Trail Signalized in accordance with the Escondido Creek Project IS making Bike/Pedestrian Trail Master Plan. The project also includes timely progress 3 Escondido $335,000 12/03/2015 06/03/2019 No Crossing at a bridge that will provide a sidewalk, toward its milestones. El Norte Parkway decorative fencing, a safety barrier, bike No Amendments Project lanes, and buffers across the Escondido Creek. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

PLANNING: Develops plans for updating Project IS making Lemon ADA Transition ADA compliance to existing facilities timely progress 4 $50,000 07/21/2017 07/20/2019 No Grove Plan within the City of Lemon Grove. toward its milestones. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016) No Amendments

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 8 Status of TransNet/ Transportation Development Act Active Transportation Grant Program Projects – Reporting Period through September 30, 2018

Grant Contract Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* Amendment History

Cycle 3 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects (Completed)

CAPITAL: Provides enhanced facilities for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists. Carlsbad The proposed project will establish a new ATGP CONTRACT Boulevard and standard for a pedestrian scramble, provide COMPLETE – PROJECT Tamarack Avenue and demand actuated “No Turn on Red” 5 Carlsbad $270,0002 PROGRESSING UNDER Pedestrian blank out signs, modify traffic detection to EXCHANGE Improvement count cyclists, and provide unique clearance CONTRACT Project times. Bicyclists will be provided with northbound and southbound bike boxes. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

EDUCATION: Creates a positive multimedia Walk + Bike campaign and coordinates and promotes Chula Vista new walking and biking infrastructure PROJECT Chula Education projects to increase awareness on bicycle 6 $100,000 COMPLETE — Vista Encouragement and pedestrian access, educate businesses JANUARY 2017 Awareness and residents, and promote alternative Campaign transportation choices and improved safety in Chula Vista.

SUPPORT: Circulate San Diego and the City of El Cajon will initiate a multimedia, PROJECT multilingual, multimodal, and multifaceted 7 El Cajon Be Safe, El Cajon $50,000 COMPLETE — education, encouragement, and awareness DECEMBER 2016 campaign to encourage active transportation and pedestrian safety for residents.

BIKE PARKING: Installs bicycle racks National City throughout National City's bicycle network. PROJECT National Bicycle Parking The bicycle racks will provide cyclists with 8 $50,000 COMPLETE — City Enhancements safe, secure, and convenient parking for end- JUNE 2017 (Bike Parking) of-trip storage and enhance regional and local bicycle networks.

2 The Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project received both Cycle 3 Active Transportation Grant Program Funds and 2015 Active Transportation Grant Program-Active Transportation Program Exchange Funds (see Exhibit C). The ATGP contract has been completed, and work continues under the Funds Exchange program. Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee 9 Status of TransNet/ Transportation Development Act Active Transportation Grant Program Projects – Reporting Period through September 30, 2018

Grant Contract Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* Amendment History CAPITAL: Provides additional pedestrian lighting enhancements at 14 existing mid-block pedestrian crossing locations throughout the city, creates a safe environment for pedestrians through Citywide complete street design principles, and PROJECT National Midblock Crossing 9 encourages the development for a $625,000 COMPLETE — City Enhancements well-connected pedestrian network. JUNE 2018 Project Improvements include new solar-powered lights and curb bulb-outs, enhanced crosswalk striping, and upgrades to the curb ramp to be ADA compliant. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

CAPITAL: Provides for bike lanes along Fanita Parkway from Mast Boulevard to Carlton Oaks Boulevard, Cuyamaca Street from Riverpark Drive to Mast Boulevard, El Nopal from Magnolia Avenue to eastern PROJECT Citywide Bike city limits, Fanita Drive from Prospect 10 Santee $156,000 COMPLETE — Lanes Project Avenue to southern city limits, AUGUST 2017 Riverview Parkway from Mission Gorge Road to Town Center Boulevard, and Woodside Avenue North from SR 67 off-ramp to eastern city limits. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

CAPITAL: Installs new concrete bulb-outs, pedestrian ramps, pedestrian warning signage, a new ladder crosswalk, and PROJECT Riverwalk Drive 11 Santee enhanced area lighting. It also will add $216,900 COMPLETE — Crossing Project parking lanes to narrow the lanes and add APRIL 2018 sharrows down the length of the project. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee 10 Status of TransNet/ Transportation Development Act Active Transportation Grant Program Projects – Reporting Period through September 30, 2018

Grant Contract Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Amount Execution Date Expiration Date List* Amendment History CAPITAL: Reduces the number of lanes on Stevens/ Stevens/Valley Avenue in order to provide Valley Avenue for bike lanes along all of Stevens/ Corridor — Valley Avenue to construct sidewalks in PROJECT Solana 12 Bicycle and missing locations, provide enhanced $500,000 COMPLETE — Beach Pedestrian crosswalks, construct curb ramps consistent MAY 2018 Improvement with current standards, and provide traffic Project calming features to slow down traffic. Cycle 3 (FY 2014 – 2016)

* Watch List Projects are projects not making timely progress toward their milestones (as defined in Board Policy No. 035) and that have not yet sought corrective action. Delays in tasks leading up to either the award of a contract or project completion may cause a project to be placed on the watch list.

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee 11 Status of TransNet Active Transportation Grant Program/Active Transportation Program Funds Exchange Projects Reporting Period through September 30, 2018 Exhibit C

Contract Grant Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Expiration Amount Execution Date List* Amendment History Date CAPITAL: Provides enhanced facilities for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists. The Carlsbad proposed project will establish a new Boulevard and standard for a pedestrian scramble, provide Project IS making Tamarack Avenue a demand actuated “No Turn on Red” blank timely progress 1 Carlsbad $1,054,0003 05/09/2016 05/09/2019 No Pedestrian out signs, modify traffic detection to count toward its milestones. Improvement cyclists and provide unique clearance times. No Amendments Project Bicyclists will be provided with northbound and southbound bike boxes. Awarded October 2015.

PLANNING: Prepares a comprehensive Project IS making master plan and policy document for the Active timely progress County of unincorporated area to guide the 2 Transportation $500,000 06/12/2015 12/12/2018 No toward its revised San Diego development and maintenance of active Plan milestones. transportation infrastructure and supportive programs. Awarded November 2014 No Amendments

Project IS making Escondido Creek CAPITAL: Constructs Class I and Class II bike facilities that connect the timely progress 3 Escondido Bikeway Missing $1,092,000 09/03/2015 03/03/2019 No Link Escondido Creek Trail and Inland Rail Trail. toward its milestones. Awarded November 2014 No Amendments

3 The Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project also received $270,000 in Cycle 3 of the Active Transportation Grant Program (see Exhibit B).

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee 12 Status of TransNet Active Transportation Grant Program/Actiev Transportation Program Funds Exchange Projects – Reporting Period through September 30, 2018

Contract Grant Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Expiration Amount Execution Date List* Amendment History Date CAPITAL: This infrastructure and streetscape project is located in Vista's Town Center on South Santa Fe Avenue. It is a complete and livable streets revitalization project that includes a road diet that will reduce the Project IS making Paseo Santa Fe street width from five lanes to two lanes; timely progress 4 Vista $3,700,0004 04/12/2016 10/12/2019 No Phase II install new curbs, gutters, and enhanced toward its milestones. sidewalks; construct roundabouts at key No Amendments intersections; and install decorative elements such as landscaping, street lights, street signs, and pedestrian furniture. Awarded October 2015

4 The Vista Paseo Santa Fe Phase II Project also received $2,000,000 in Cycle 3 of the Smart Growth Incentive Program (see Exhibit A).

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 13 Status of TransNet Active Transportation Grant Program/Actiev Transportation Program Funds Exchange Projects – Reporting Period through September 30, 2018

Contract Grant Contract Watch Status and Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Expiration Amount Execution Date List* Amendment History Date

Cycle 3 Active Transportation Grant Program Exchange Projects (Completed)

PLANNING: Provides a plan using Complete F Street Street principles, improves access to nearby PROJECT Chula Promenade 5 recreational facilities, and promotes water $491,000 COMPLETE — Vista Streetscape conservation through improved landscaping AUGUST 2018 Master Plan features. Awarded November 2014

CAPITAL: Constructs streetscape Bikeway Village improvements and a Class II bike facility Bayshore Bikeway along 13th Street. Improvements will be PROJECT Imperial 6 Access implemented in conjunction with the $1,800,000 COMPLETE — Beach Enhancement adaptive reuse of two commercial APRIL 2017 Project warehouse structures into a commercial/retail-serving "Bikeway Village."

CAPITAL: Implements a road diet and Euclid Avenue provides approximately 1.7 miles of a PROJECT National Bicycle and 7 Class II buffered bike lane along $425,000 COMPLETE — City Pedestrian Euclid Avenue between Cervantes Avenue MAY 2017 Enhancements and East 24th Street.

CAPITAL: Implements pedestrian improvements and installs approximately PROJECT National Division Street 8 one mile of Class II buffered bike lanes $875,000 COMPLETE — City Road Diet along Division Street. NOVEMBER 2017 Awarded November 2014

Am = Amendment RPC = Regional Planning Committee approval Staff = Administrative staff approval 14 Transportation Committee Item: 6 December 14, 2018 Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project: California Environmental Quality Act Exemption

Overview Action Requested: Approve The proposed Border to Bayshore Bikeway is a 6.5-mile The Transportation Committee is asked to route that will provide safe biking connections within approve the California Environmental Quality and between the City of Imperial Beach, the San Ysidro Act exemption for the Border to Bayshore community of San Diego, and the world’s busiest land Bikeway project (Attachment 1). border crossing at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. It also will make it safer and easier for people of all ages and Fiscal Impact: comfort levels to bike to local shops, parks, schools, The $12.2 million Border to Bayshore Bikeway transit stations, and other community destinations project primarily is funded with Active within the San Ysidro and Imperial Beach communities, Transportation Program grant funds including the Imperial Beach Pier and the administered by the State of California, and Bayshore Bikeway. TransNet funds through the Regional Bike Plan Proposed project features include separated bike lanes, Early Action Program. buffered bike lanes, high visibility treatments, Schedule/Scope Impact: roundabouts and neighborhood traffic circles, and protected intersections designed to make the streets Adoption of the California Environmental more pleasant for everyone. Quality Act exemption for the Border to Bayshore Bikeway would allow final design of Key Considerations the project to be completed in 2020, with construction expected to begin in 2021, and Both the project’s route and conceptual design were the bikeway scheduled to open to the public directly shaped by community input received from three in 2022. community workshops, numerous stakeholder meetings, and several meetings with the Otay Mesa-Nestor and San Ysidro Community Planning Groups. As a requirement of the environmental review process, SANDAG completed a Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment of the Project (Attachment 2). The assessment finds no adverse impacts to bicycle and pedestrian safety, concluding the proposed project would provide unambiguous, net safety benefits to all roadway users, including cyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and motorists. Additionally, the assessment concludes the project may result in two vehicular impacts, both in the Horizon Year (2040): an impact to a 900-foot segment of Beyer Boulevard from Smythe Avenue to Caminito De Los Niños, and an impact at the intersection of Beyer Boulevard and Caminito De Los Niños. These potential Horizon Year impacts are the result of projected future growth combined with the removal of two travel lanes on Beyer Boulevard to provide bicycle facilities as envisioned in the San Ysidro Community Plan. The mitigation measures identified for the vehicular impacts were determined infeasible. SANDAG hosted an open house and public hearing for the project on November 13, 2018, where attendees were invited to learn more about the project and provide written and verbal comments. As part of the project’s environmental review process, SANDAG staff has composed written responses to comments received (Attachment 3). Next Steps Pending approval of the California Environmental Quality Act exemption, staff would move forward with final design and construction of the project, which is expected to be ready to advertise for construction in 2020, with construction expected to begin in 2021, and the bikeway open to the public in 2022.

Charles “Muggs” , Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contacts: Alison Moss, (619) 595-5354, [email protected] Sandra Lavender-Martin, (619) 699-6938, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Notice of Exemption for the Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project 2. Border to Bayshore Bikeway Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment Report 3. Responses to Comments on the Border to Bayshore Bikeway

2 Attachment 1 Notice of Exemption

To: From:

Office of Planning and Research San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 401 B Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 San Diego, CA 92101

County Clerk Project Applicant: Keith Greer County of San Diego San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101

Project Title: Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project (“proposed project”).

Project Location: City of Imperial Beach, and City of San Diego, San Diego County.

Description of Specific Location, Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: The proposed Border to Bayshore Bikeway is an approximately 6.5-mile route that will provide safe biking connections within and between Imperial Beach, the San Ysidro community of San Diego, and the world’s busiest land border crossing at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. It also will make it safer and easier for people of all ages and comfort levels to bike to local shops, parks, schools, transit stations, and other community destinations within the San Ysidro and Imperial Beach communities. Proposed project features include separated bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, high visibility treatments, roundabouts and neighborhood traffic circles, protected intersections designed to make the streets more pleasant for everyone – people who walk, bike, work, and live there.

The proposed project would help fulfill the vision laid out in Riding to 2050: the San Diego Regional Bike Plan (May 2010) (Bike Plan) to make riding a bike a more convenient and safer choice for everyday travel. The proposed project is part of the SANDAG Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (Bike EAP), a 10-year effort to expand the regional bike network and complete high-priority bikeway projects approved in The Bike Plan. The Bike Plan and Bike EAP are part of the region’s efforts to make riding a bike a viable, attractive choice for everyday trips.

The proposed project is also consistent with the mobility and safety goals outlined in multiple local plans.

The purpose of the proposed project is to make it more convenient, attractive, and safe for people to ride bikes for everyday trips. In addition to benefitting people on bikes, the traffic calming elements in the proposed project will also benefit people who walk and drive by making roadways safer for all users. By supporting bike riding as a viable choice for everyday trips, the proposed project would support local, regional, and state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions through reductions in vehicle miles traveled. In addition to enhancing mobility for people riding bikes, some of the improved locations will include enhancements for people who walk, as well as new opportunities for landscaped areas, resulting in multi-modal benefits to the overall circulation network. A description of the proposed project is provided below.

13TH STREET The City of Imperial Beach has already installed Class II buffered bike lanes on most of the project route along 13th Street. The project’s additional improvements and safety features include the completion of buffered bike lanes and associated road diet (from four lanes to two lanes plus two-way left-turn lane) through the approaches to the intersections at Palm Avenue and Imperial Beach Boulevard, protected intersection treatments at Palm Avenue and Imperial Beach Boulevard including bend outs, bike boxes and supporting signal phasing, and the installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at multiple cross streets.

3 Notice of Exemption

GROVE AVENUE/HALO STREET/INGRID AVENUE The enhanced Class III bike route—or bike boulevard—along the Grove Avenue/Halo Street/Ingrid Avenue corridor augments the existing traffic-calming already installed on this corridor, which is adjacent to several schools and parks. Additional safety features include: neighborhood traffic circles at 14th Street, 15th Street, Atwater Street/Triton Avenue and Green Bay Street; Intersection reconfiguration, including signal modification to prioritize bicycle through-travel and bike boxes, at Hollister Street; New and augmented speed humps, curb extensions, new curb ramps and continental crosswalks at multiple locations.

ORO VISTA ROAD The project facility on Oro Vista Road is an enhanced Class III bike route or bike boulevard with the following safety features: A series of six chicanes, reverse-angle parking on alternate sides of the street, integrated with the chicanes, one new speed hump, a roundabout at Iris Avenue, and new sidewalks, curb ramps and continental crosswalks accompanying the roundabout.

IRIS AVENUE On Iris Avenue, between Oro Vista Road and 25th Street, the project will add Class II buffered bike lanes to provide a separated bicycle route across I-5. Additional safety features include the extension of the Class II buffered bike lane in the eastbound direction through 27th Street, new curb extension and ramps on the north side of the intersection at 25th Street/27th Street, and the installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at 25th Street/27th Street.

On Iris Avenue between 27th Street and Beyer Boulevard, the project facility is an enhanced Class III bike route, with three new speed humps, two new raised crosswalks at Southwest Middle School and the Iris Ave Trolley Station, respectively, and the installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at Monterey Pine Drive, Howard Avenue and 30th Street. These features will increase safety of all users.

BEYER BOULEVARD The project facility along Beyer Boulevard is a two-way Class IV cycle track, physically separated from motorized traffic via a raised curb. This provides maximum separation between cyclists and motor vehicles within the roadway environment. Additional safety benefits include: the reduction in traffic lanes from four to two (plus two-way left turn lane) between Dairy Mart Road and Caminito De Los Niños, in accordance with the San Ysidro Community Plan (2016); Protected intersection treatments at Iris Avenue and Dairy Mart Road including curb extensions, ramps and supporting signal phasing; Signal modifications at Del Sur Boulevard, Smythe Avenue and West Park Avenue; New pedestrian-activated crossing signal (HAWK) at Precision Park Lane; Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks and curb ramps at multiple locations; and three new bus islands providing separation between cyclists and transit buses at Dairy Mart Road, Precision Park Lane, and Del Sur Boulevard.

WEST PARK AVENUE, EAST PARK AVENUE & EAST SEAWARD AVENUE On West Park Avenue (north of East Seaward Avenue) and on East Seaward Avenue, the project facility is an enhanced Class III bike route or bike boulevard. Additional safety features include: one new speed hump, a neighborhood traffic circle at West Park Avenue and Seaward Avenue, curb extensions at East Park Avenue and Seaward Avenue, and new curb ramps & continental crosswalk at both locations.

South of Seaward Avenue, the project splits into a “couplet” of one-way routes on West Park Avenue (southbound) and East Park Avenue (northbound). The planned facilities are a combination of one-way Class IV cycle tracks and Class II buffered bike lanes. Additional safety features include: a large curb extension at Hall Avenue including new curb ramps and sidewalks, and the installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at both intersections with Hall Avenue.

4 Notice of Exemption

HALL AVENUE On Hall Avenue, the project facility is an enhanced Class III bike route. Additional safety features include: bike pavement markings at Olive Drive, providing wayfinding and increased visibility between Hall Avenue and the I- 805 pedestrian bridge, and an adjacent speed hump on Olive Drive approaching the marked bike crossing.

EAST BEYER BOULEVARD On East Beyer Boulevard between the I-805 pedestrian bridge and Center Street/Hill Street, the project is a two- way Class IV cycle track, physically separated from motorized traffic via a raised curb. This provides maximum separation between cyclists and motor vehicles within the roadway environment. Additional safety features include: improved all-way stop at Center Street/Hill Street with bikeway markings, an enhanced Class III bike route from Center Street/Hill Street to approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road, and two new speed humps. From approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road to East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza, the project facility is Class II bike buffered lanes. Additional safety benefits include protected intersection treatments, curb extensions, cyclist and pedestrian refuge areas and supporting signal phasing at East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza. Continental – and potentially raised – crosswalks will also be installed/improved at East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza.

Other Potential Improvements: In addition to the improvements described in the preceding paragraphs, the project proposes several other treatments to facilitate the safe and comfortable movement of people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving along the corridor. Other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include the following: new painted crossings at intersections or at mid-block, protected bike phases, bike-specific signal heads, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing and shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and/or similar minor physical improvements.

Name of Public Agency Approving and Carrying out Project: San Diego Association of Governments

Exempt Status:

☒ Statutory Exemption. State code number: 21080.20.5 ☒ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15301(c); 15304(h)

Reasons why project is exempt:

The attached table explains the reasons why the proposed project is exempt from CEQA.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Keith Greer Area Code/Telephone: 619-699-7390

Signature: ______Date: ______Title: ______

☒ Signed by Lead Agency

5 Notice of Exemption

Border to Bayshore Bikeway

Reasons Why Exempt from CEQA

The table below explains the reasons why the proposed project qualifies for a Statutory Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.20.5, and Categorical Exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(c) and 15304(h).

CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption

Statutory Exemption, Section 21080.20.5 Restriping for Bicycle Lanes in Urbanized Areas (a) This division does not apply to a project that consists of As explained below, the proposed project is consistent with the City of San Diego’s the restriping of streets and highways for bicycle lanes Bicycle Master Plan (“City’s Bike Plan”) (City of San Diego 2013), and the City of in an urbanized area that is consistent with a bicycle Imperial Beach Bicycle Transportation Plan (City of Imperial Beach 2008), which transportation plan prepared pursuant to Sec. 891.2 of meets the requirements of a bicycle transportation plan set forth in Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code. the Streets and Highways Code. The proposed project would provide separated bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, high visibility treatments, and protected intersections from 13th Street in Imperial Beach to the San Ysidro Transit Center in San Diego. These improvements are consistent with and enhance the proposed bicycle networks in the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan (Figure 6.2, page 98) and City of Imperial Beach Bicycle Transportation Plan (Figure 7.1, page 7-19).

While some of the facility types proposed by the project are not identical to those identified in each of the cities’ Bike Plans, the proposed project is consistent because it proposes bikeways and improvements that provide equal or enhanced levels of perceived and actual safety, comfort, connectivity, and attractiveness to people on bikes than the facility types identified in each of the cities’ bike plans. (b) Prior to determining that a project is exempt pursuant Please see the following cells for explanation of how the proposed project meets to this section, the lead agency shall do both of the both of the following requirements. following: (1) (A) Prepare an assessment of any traffic and safety SANDAG published an assessment of the proposed project’s traffic and safety impacts of the project and include measures in impacts on October 29, 2018. The assessment finds no adverse impacts to bicycle the project to mitigate potential vehicular and pedestrian safety, concluding the proposed project would provide traffic impacts and bicycle and pedestrian unambiguous, net safety benefits to all roadway users, including cyclists, safety impacts. pedestrians, transit users and motorists. Additionally, the assessment of vehicular

6 Notice of Exemption

CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption

traffic impacts—employing significance thresholds from the City of San Diego’s Traffic Impact Study Manual—concludes the project would result in two significant vehicular traffic impacts across its 6.5-mile alignment: an impact to a 900-foot segment of Beyer Boulevard from Smythe Avenue to Caminito De Los Niños, and an impact at the intersection of Beyer Boulevard and Caminito De Los Niños. Both are cumulative impacts occurring in the Horizon Year (2040), and are the result of projected future growth combined with the removal of two travel lanes on Beyer Boulevard—as envisioned in the San Ysidro Community Plan—to provide bicycle facilities. Mitigating these Horizon Year impacts would require an additional vehicle lane from Smythe Avenue to Caminito de los Niños. This would require either acquisition of additional right-of-way or the elimination of existing on-street parking, both of which are considered infeasible. (B) The requirement to prepare an assessment Subparagraphs (B)(i) and (ii) do not apply to the proposed project and therefore pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall not apply if SANDAG has prepared an assessment as required by subparagraph (1)(A). either of the following conditions is met: (i) Measures to mitigate these impacts are identified in an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration prepared pursuant to this division for the bicycle transportation plan, certified or approved no more than five years prior to making the determination, the measures are included in the plan, and those measures are incorporated into the project. (ii) An assessment was prepared pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Sec. 21080.20 no more than five years prior to making the determination, the measures to mitigate these impacts are included in the plan, and those measures are incorporated into the project.

7 Notice of Exemption

CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption

(2) Hold noticed public hearings in areas affected by SANDAG held a noticed public hearing at the San Ysidro Civic Center in San the project to hear and respond to public comments. Diego, CA on November 13, 2018. SANDAG received public comments at the Publication of the notice shall be no fewer times public hearing and has prepared written responses to public comments. Notice of than required by Sec. 6061 of the Government the public hearing was published in both English and Spanish. Code, by the public agency in a newspaper of SANDAG held a noticed public hearing at the San Ysidro Civic Center in the San general circulation in the area affected by the Diego community of San Ysidro on November 13, 2018. SANDAG received public proposed project. If more than one area will be comments at the public hearing and has prepared written responses to public affected, the notice shall be published in the comments. Notice of the public hearing was published in both English and Spanish. newspaper of largest circulation from among the The English and Spanish versions were published on October 29, 2018 and newspapers of general circulation in those areas. November 2, 2018, in the San Diego Union Tribune and El Latino, respectively.

(c) (1) If a state agency determines that a project is not This subparagraph does not apply to the proposed project because SANDAG is not subject to this division pursuant to this section, and a state agency. it determines to approve or carry out that project, the notice shall be filed with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Sec. 21108. (2) If a local agency determines that a project is not If the SANDAG Board of Directors approves the use of this exemption for the subject to this division pursuant to this section, and proposed project, then SANDAG shall file notices with the Office of Planning and it determines to approve or carry out that project, Research and the Clerk of San Diego County as specified in subdivisions (b) and the notice shall be filed with the OPR, and filed (c) of Section 21152. with the county clerk in the county in which the project is located in the manner specified in subdivisions (b) and (c) of Sec. 21152. (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, The SANDAG Transportation Committee will be asked to consider approving this 2021, and as of that date is repealed. exemption on December 14, 2018. The SANDAG Board of Directors will then ratify the Transportation Committee’s decision at its December 21, 2018 meeting. Categorical Exemption, Section 15301(c)

8 Notice of Exemption

CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption

15301. Existing Facilities The proposed project qualifies for this exemption because it consists of minor Class I consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, alterations to existing City streets, including vehicle lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of curbs, gutters, crosswalks, parking stalls, and similar facilities. The proposed existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical project would make improvements to and repurpose space within existing City equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible streets, and there would be negligible or no expansion of existing streets. The types or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of of minor alterations to existing City streets proposed by the project that fall under the lead agency’s determination. The types of “existing this exemption include but are not limited to: facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all- • inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class IV separated bikeways that are separated from vehicle traffic by a Class I. The key consideration is whether the project physical barrier. involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. • Buffered bike lanes that are separated from vehicle traffic by a striped buffer. • Class II bike lanes that are separated from vehicle traffic with a painted stripe. (c) Existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, • Class III shared lane markings consisting of signage and painted shared lane bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities markings (i.e., sharrows) indicating that lanes are to be shared by vehicles and people on bikes. • Other minor alterations of existing City streets such as other physical improvements that may be installed as part of the proposed project could include new painted crossings at intersections or at mid-block, flashing beacons, advanced signal phases for people walking and biking, protected bike signal phases, bike-specific signal heads, new raised medians, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing (or “conflict”) markings, shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and similar minor alterations that involve negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Categorical Exemption, Section 15304(h) 15304. Minor Alterations to Land The proposed project qualifies for this exemption because it involves the creation Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way, including buffered bike lanes, Class II condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not bike lanes, and Class III shared lane markings. The proposed project may involve involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for the removal of existing trees, but it does not involve removal of any trees that are

9 Notice of Exemption

CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption

forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are considered scenic resources, part of scenic views or vistas, or otherwise considered not limited to: scenic by any adopted plan, policy, or regulation. (h) The creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Exceptions to Use of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15300.2 (a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by The proposed project does not meet any of these criteria that would preclude use of consideration of where the project is to be located -- a the above-listed categorical exemptions from CEQA (i.e., Sec. 15301(c) and project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the 15304(h). The proposed project and its environmental effects would be typical of environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be other projects within Class 1 and Class 4. The types of construction equipment and significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply duration of construction activity required to construct the proposed project, the all instances, except where the project may impact on an operation of the proposed project, and the resulting environmental effects (e.g., environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern temporary increases in noise levels, air emissions) would be typical of other projects where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted in Class 1 involving minor alterations to existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. and pedestrian trails, and other facilities, and other projects in Class 4 involving the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Similar to the proposed project, (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are other projects in Class 1 and Class 4 involve removal of existing travel lanes. The inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive proposed project would: projects of the same type in the same place, over time is • Not result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, significant. historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources within a scenic (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be highway. used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility • Not be located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Government that the activity will have a significant effect on the Code Section 65962.5 or otherwise have an impact on an environmental environment due to unusual circumstances. resource of hazardous or critical concern. • Not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be resource. used for a project which may result in damage to scenic • resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic Not have a reasonable possibility of causing a significant effect on the buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a environment due to unusual circumstances, or contribute to cumulative impacts highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, including This does not apply to improvements which are required as effects related to:

mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified scenic vistas, visual character, and light or glare; EIR. o o natural resources including agricultural, archaeological, biological, forestry, mineral, paleontological, and water supply resources;

10 Notice of Exemption

CEQA Exemption Reasons Why Proposed Project Qualifies for Exemption

(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall o air and water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, noise, and not be used for a project located on a site which is included vibration; on any list compiled pursuant to Sec. 65962.5 of the o earthquakes, soil erosion, or other geologic conditions; Government Code. o transport, use, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials; hazards related to airports, wildfires, or flooding; (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not o adopted land use plan, policy, or regulatory conflicts be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse o growth inducement, housing displacement, or physically dividing a change in the significance of a historical resource. o community; o public services, facilities, or utilities including parks, stormwater, water supply, wastewater, landfills, schools, libraries, police and fire protection o performance or safety of the transportation system, including for vehicles, public transit, people walking and on bikes, and emergency access.

11 Border to Bayshore Bikeway

Project Description

The Border to Bayshore Bikeway project (the Project) would improve east-west and north-south connectivity for people who bike and walk within San Diego’s south county communities, and it would connect the Imperial Beach, Otay Mesa-Nestor and San Ysidro communities. It would help implement the vision laid out in the San Diego Regional Bike Plan to make riding a bike a more convenient and safer choice for everyday travel and is consistent with the goals and networks proposed by the City of Imperial Beach’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and the City of San Diego’s Bicycle Master Plan. The Project will begin in Imperial Beach at the intersection of the Bayshore Bikeway and 13th Street and will extend south/eastward on several streets in the communities of Imperial Beach, Otay Mesa-Nestor (City of San Diego) and San Ysidro (City of San Diego), before ultimately connecting to the Ped East Crossing at the San Ysidro Port of Entry (US/Mexico Border).

Proposed project features include Class I Bikeways/Multi-use Paths, Class IV Bikeways/Cycle Tracks, Class II Buffered Bike Lanes, Enhanced Class III Bike Routes/Bike Boulevards, Protected Intersections, Roundabouts and Neighborhood Traffic Circles, Curb Extensions, Speed Humps, Raised Crosswalks, Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings, Chicanes, Bike Boxes, Reverse Angle Parking, Bus Islands, and Lane Narrowing and Repurposing, all of which will create safer biking and walking conditions for people of all ages and abilities. A more detailed description of the proposed project – from north/west to south/east – is provided below and the project alignment is illustrated on Figure 1. The description is based on the proposed project’s current level of design and would be finalized during the final engineering design phase before the start of construction.

13th Street

The City of Imperial Beach has already installed Class II buffered bike lanes on most of the project route along 13th Street. The project’s additional improvements and safety features include the completion of buffered bike lanes and associated road diet (from four lanes to two lanes plus two-way left-turn lane) through the approaches to the intersections at Palm Avenue and Imperial Beach Boulevard; protected intersection treatments at Palm Avenue and Imperial Beach Boulevard including bend outs, bike boxes and supporting signal phasing; and the installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at multiple cross streets.

Grove Avenue/Halo Street/Ingrid Avenue

The enhanced Class III bike route (bike boulevard) along the Grove Avenue/Halo Street/Ingrid Avenue corridor augments the existing traffic-calming already installed on this corridor, which is adjacent to several schools and parks. Additional safety features include neighborhood traffic circles at 14th Street, 15th Street, Atwater Street/Triton Avenue, and Green Bay Street; intersection reconfiguration, including signal modification to prioritize bicycle through-travel and bike boxes, at Hollister Street; and new and augmented speed humps, curb extensions, new curb ramps, and continental crosswalks at multiple locations.

12 Oro Vista Road

The project facility on Oro Vista Road is a bike boulevard with a series of six chicanes; reverse-angle parking on alternate sides of the street, integrated with the chicanes; one new speed hump; a roundabout at Iris Avenue; and new sidewalks, curb ramps and continental crosswalks accompanying the roundabout.

Iris Avenue

On Iris Avenue, between Oro Vista Road and 25th Street, the project will add Class II buffered bike lanes to provide a separated bicycle route across I-5. Additional safety features include the extension of the Class II buffered bike lane in the eastbound direction through 27th Street; new curb extension and ramps on the north side of the intersection at 25th Street/27th Street; and the installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at 25th Street/27th Street.

Beyer Boulevard

The project facility along Beyer Boulevard is a two-way Class IV cycle track, physically separated from motorized traffic via a raised curb. This provides maximum separation between cyclists and motor vehicles within the roadway environment. Additional safety benefits include the reduction in traffic lanes from four to two (plus two-way left turn lane) between Dairy Mart Road and Caminito De Los Niños, in accordance with the San Ysidro Community Plan (2016); protected intersection treatments at Iris Avenue and Dairy Mart Road including curb extensions, ramps and supporting signal phasing; signal modifications at Del Sur Boulevard, Smythe Avenue, and West Park Avenue; new pedestrian-activated crossing signal (HAWK) at Precision Park Lane; installation/improvement of continental crosswalks and curb ramps at multiple locations; and three new bus islands providing separation between cyclists and transit buses at Dairy Mart Road, Precision Park Lane, and Del Sur Boulevard.

West Park Avenue, East Park Avenue & East Seward Avenue

On West Park Avenue (north of East Seaward Avenue) and on East Seaward Avenue, the project will add a bike boulevard. Additional safety features include one new speed hump; a neighborhood traffic circle at West Park Avenue and Seaward Avenue; curb extensions at East Park Avenue and Seaward Avenue; and new curb ramps and continental crosswalk at both locations.

Hall Avenue

On Hall Avenue, the project will add a bike boulevard. Additional safety features include bike pavement markings at Olive Drive; providing wayfinding and increased visibility between Hall Avenue and the I-805 pedestrian bridge; and an adjacent speed hump on Olive Drive approaching the marked bike crossing.

13 East Beyer Boulevard

On East Beyer Boulevard between the I-805 pedestrian bridge and Center Street/Hill Street, the project is a two-way Class IV cycle track, physically separated from motorized traffic via a raised curb. This provides maximum separation between cyclists and motor vehicles within the roadway environment. Additional safety features include improved all-way stop at Center Street/Hill Street with bikeway markings; an enhanced Class III bike route from Center Street/Hill Street to approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road; and two new speed humps. From approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road to East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza, the project will add Class II bike buffered lanes. Additional safety benefits include protected intersection treatments, curb extensions, cyclist and pedestrian refuge areas and supporting signal phasing at East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza. Continental – and potentially raised – crosswalks will also be installed/improved at East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza.

Other Improvements

In addition to the improvements described in the preceding paragraphs, the project proposes several other treatments to facilitate the safe and comfortable movement of people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving along the corridor. Other physical improvements could include new painted crossings at intersections or at mid-block, protected bike phases, bike-specific signal heads, curb extensions, accessible curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian refuge islands, bus stop enhancements, modifications to existing curbs, gutters and drainage inlets, colored concrete and/or colored pavement, intersection crossing and shared lane markings, new signage, re-striping of travel lanes, new trees, landscaping or other measures to treat storm water, relocating existing underground utilities, new bikeway lighting at priority locations, and/or similar minor physical improvements.

14 Figure 1. Border to Bayshore Bikeway

*The improvements on this map are not final and may be subject to change. 15 Attachment 2

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY TRAFFIC & SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FINAL OCTOBER 29, 2018

16 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY TRAFFIC & SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

FINAL

OCTOBER 2018

WSP WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING 401 B STREET, SUITE 1650 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4245

TEL.: +1 619 338-9376 FAX: +1 619 338-8123 WSP.COM

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page iii 17 TABLE OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 CONTENTS 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2 1.1 Facilities & Features ...... 2 1.2 Consistency with Plans & Projects ...... 7

2 METHODOLOGY ...... 8

2.1 Safety Assessment Methodology ...... 8 2.2 Traffic Analysis Scenarios & Measures ...... 8 2.3 Traffic Volume Methodology ...... 8 2.4 Traffic Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ...... 9 2.5 Traffic Intersection Delay Analysis ...... 11 2.6 Traffic Analysis Significance Thresholds ...... 17

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 18

3.1 Roadway Segments ...... 18 3.2 Intersections ...... 20

4 OPENING DAY CONDITIONS ...... 22

4.1 Roadway Segments ...... 22 4.2 Intersections ...... 24

5 HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS ...... 27

5.1 Roadway Segments ...... 27 5.2 Intersections ...... 29

6 PROJECT SAFETY ASSESSMENT ...... 32

6.1 Safety Benefits by Bikeway Type ...... 32 6.2 Safety & Traffic Calming Features ...... 34 6.3 Safety Assessment by Segment ...... 36

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page v 18 TABLES TABLE 1.1 PROJECT ROUTE & FACILITY TYPES ...... 2 TABLE 1.2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS ...... 6 TABLE 1.3 SUMMARY OF PLAN CONSISTENCY ...... 7 TABLE 2.1 STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS ...... 9 TABLE 2.2 SANTEC/ITE LOS THRESHOLDS FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS ...... 10 TABLE 2.3 CITY OF SAN DIEGO LOS THRESHOLDS FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS ...... 10 TABLE 2.4 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ...... 14 TABLE 2.5 LOS CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ...... 15 TABLE 2.6 LOS CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ...... 15 TABLE 2.7 SANTEC/ITE MEASURES OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS ...... 17 TABLE 2.8 CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEASURES OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS ...... 17 TABLE 3.1 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS, EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 19 TABLE 3.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS, EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 21 TABLE 4.1 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS, OPENING DAY ...... 23 TABLE 4.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS, OPENING DAY, AM PEAK HOUR ...... 25 TABLE 4.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS, OPENING DAY, PM PEAK HOUR ...... 26 TABLE 5.1 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS, HORIZON YEAR ...... 28 TABLE 5.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS, HORIZON YEAR, AM PEAK HOUR ...... 30 TABLE 5.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS, HORIZON YEAR, PM PEAK HOUR ...... 31

FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 REGIONAL MAP ...... 3 FIGURE 1.2 PROJECT FEATURES, NORTH ...... 4 FIGURE 1.3 PROJECT FEATURES, SOUTH ...... 5 FIGURE 2.1 STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS & INTERSECTIONS, NORTH ...... 12 FIGURE 2.2 STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS & INTERSECTIONS, SOUTH ...... 13 FIGURE 2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITH ROUNDABOUT CONTROL ...... 16 FIGURE 6.1 CLASS I BIKEWAY/MULTI-USE PATH ON BRIDGE ...... 32

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page vi SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 19 FIGURE 6.2 CLASS IV BIKEWAY/CYCLE TRACK ...... 33 FIGURE 6.3 CLASS II BUFFERED BIKE LANES ...... 33 FIGURE 6.4 CLASS III BIKE ROUTE/BIKE BOULEVARD...... 33 FIGURE 6.5 PROTECTED INTERSECTION ...... 34 FIGURE 6.6 ROUNDABOUT ...... 34 FIGURE 6.7 CURB EXTENSION ...... 34 FIGURE 6.8 RAISED CROSSWALK ...... 35 FIGURE 6.9 PEDESTRIAN-ACTIVATED CROSSING SIGNAL ...... 35 FIGURE 6.10 CHICANE ...... 35 FIGURE 6.11 BIKE BOX ...... 35 FIGURE 6.12 REVERSE-ANGLE PARKING ...... 36 FIGURE 6.13 BUS ISLAND ...... 36

APPENDICES A DRAFT CONCEPT PLANS B EXISTING LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS C TRAFFIC COUNTS D FUTURE-YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES E SIGNAL TIMING PLANS F ROADWAY NETWORK DESCRIPTION G INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page vii 20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment analyzes the traffic and safety impacts of the proposed Border to Bayshore Bikeway (“project”). The project’s 6.5-mile route consists of a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the cities of Imperial Beach and San Diego. The project is consistent with the mobility and safety goals of all applicable plans, policies and programs, and will help to implement—and provide connections to—many planned networks and projects.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

The traffic analysis examines 20 roadway segments and 29 intersections under the following scenarios: — Existing Conditions: Without project — Opening Day: Without and with project — Horizon Year: Without and with project The evaluation of direct and cumulative significant impacts is based on the governing standards of each local jurisdiction. On Opening Day, the analysis estimates the project will have the following direct impacts: — Roadways: No significant direct impacts. — Intersections: No significant direct impacts. In the Horizon Year, the analysis estimates the project will have the following cumulative impacts: — Roadways: One segment experiences a significant cumulative impact: — 11. Beyer Boulevard from Smythe Avenue to Caminito de los Niños — Intersections: One intersection experiences a significant cumulative impact: — 20. Beyer Boulevard & Caminito de los Niños (PM peak hour only)

SAFETY IMPACTS

The project safety assessment evaluates the safety benefits of each proposed bikeway type, reviews the additional safety and traffic calming features that accompany the bikeways and describes how these safety features are integrated into each project segment. The primary finding is that the project is expected to provide unambiguous, net safety benefits to all roadway users, including cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. All project features are designed in accordance with best practices to maximize roadway safety. Taken together, the suite of proposed improvements will improve safety in the project area by: — Protecting cyclists by increasing separation from motorized traffic. — Providing new and enhanced crossings for pedestrians. — Upgrading intersections for safer operations through dedicated or advanced signal phasing for cyclists and pedestrians. — Installing high-visibility striping and signage. — Reducing conflicts with transit vehicles. — Promoting safer vehicle speeds through a variety of traffic-calming features.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 1 21 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed 6.5-mile Border to Bayshore Bikeway (“project”) consists of a variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the cities of Imperial Beach and San Diego. All bikeway features are aimed at achieving the project’s primary goal to provide a bicycle facility suitable for people of all ages and abilities. Section 6 contains a more detailed analysis of the project’s safety benefits.

1.1 FACILITIES & FEATURES

The project footprint is within existing street rights-of-way. As summarized in Table 1.1, the proposed facilities vary across the project route based on the context of existing conditions. Appendix A contains a full set of concept plans showing project limits and features.

Table 1.1 Project Route & Facility Types

Street Facility 13th Street Buffered Class II bike lanes Grove Avenue/Halo Street/Ingrid Enhanced Class III bike route/bike boulevard Avenue Oro Vista Road Enhanced Class III bike route/bike boulevard Iris Avenue Enhanced Class III bike route Beyer Boulevard Class IV two-way cycle track on the west side of the street West Park Avenue, East Park Combination of Class IV cycle tracks, Class II buffered bike lanes Avenue, East Seaward Avenue, and enhanced Class III bike routes East Hall Avenue I-805 Pedestrian Bridge Existing facility I-805 pedestrian bridge to Center Street/Hill Street: Class IV two- way cycle track on the west side of the street Center Street/Hill Street to approximately 350 feet north of Bolton East Beyer Boulevard Hall Road: Enhanced Class III bike route Approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road to Camino de la Plaza/East San Ysidro Boulevard: Buffered Class II bike lanes East San Ysidro Boulevard Enhanced Class III bike route

Figure 1.1 is a regional map showing the project location in southwest San Diego County. Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 are detail maps showing the proposed bikeway route and accompanying intersection treatments, roadway modifications and safety improvements.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 2 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 22 Figure 1.1 Regional Map

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 3 23 Figure 1.2 Project Features, North

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 4 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 24 Figure 1.3 Project Features, South

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 5 25 Table 1.2 summarizes the project’s proposed signal modifications at intersections.

Table 1.2 Traffic Signal Modifications Physical Improvements Leading New Vehicular Signing (New Poles Pedestrian Phasing to and and/or Signal Indicator Accommodate Main Roadway Side Roadway Control Striping Heads) (LPI) Cyclists 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue TS X X X 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard TS X X X Grove Avenue / Ingrid 11 Hollister Street TS X X Avenue 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street / 27th Street TS X X 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue TS X 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps TS X X Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB 16 Beyer Boulevard TS X X X Ramps 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard TS X X 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue East TS X X X 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños TS X X X West Park Avenue/Alaquinas 21 Beyer Boulevard TS X X Drive East San Ysidro East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de 35 TS X X Boulevard la Plaza East San Ysidro 36 Rail Court/I-5 NB Ramps TS X Boulevard

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 6 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 26 1.2 CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS & PROJECTS

The project is consistent with the mobility and safety goals of all applicable plans, policies and programs, including: — San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG, 2015) — Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan (SANDAG, 2010) — City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008) — Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan & Local Coastal Program (City of San Diego, 1997) — San Ysidro Community Plan & Local Coastal Program (City of San Diego, 1990 & 2016) — San Ysidro Historic Village Specific Plan (City of San Diego, 2016) — City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan (City of San Diego, 2013) — City of Imperial Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Plan (City of Imperial Beach, 2015) — City of Imperial Beach Bicycle Transportation Plan (City of Imperial Beach, 2008) — Palm Avenue Master Plan (City of Imperial Beach, 2014 Draft)

Table 1.3 summarizes the project’s key consistencies with applicable plans, showing the locations where the project will help to implement—or provide connections to—planned networks and projects.

Table 1.3 Summary of Plan Consistency

Project Roadway Applicable Plans — City of Imperial Beach General Plan — City of Imperial Beach Bicycle Transportation Plan 13th Street — Planned connecting projects on Palm Avenue and Imperial Beach Boulevard — City of San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan Iris Avenue — City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan — City of San Diego San Ysidro Community Plan Beyer Boulevard, East Beyer — City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Boulevard, East San Ysidro Boulevard — SANDAG Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bike Plan West Park Avenue, East Park Avenue, — City of San Diego San Ysidro Community Plan East Seaward Avenue, East Hall — City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Avenue, I-805 Pedestrian Bridge

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 7 27 2 METHODOLOGY

The statutory exemption pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.20.5 requires “an assessment of any traffic and safety impacts of the project.” This section describes the methods used to conduct that assessment.

2.1 SAFETY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The project safety assessment (Section 0) employed four steps: — Confirmation that project features are consistent, and do not conflict, with any previously adopted plans or projects (summarized in Section 1.2). — Evaluation of the safety benefits of each proposed bikeway type. — Review of additional safety and traffic calming features that accompany the bikeways. — Description of how these safety features are integrated into each segment of the project. During initial planning, the project team also assessed the existing roadway network in terms of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), a quantitative measure of cyclist comfort. The results of this analysis are in Appendix B. The potential to improve LTS conditions—and the accompanying safety benefits—helped inform the selection of the project route and the design of all features.

2.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SCENARIOS & MEASURES

The project is anticipated to open between years 2020-2022. Due to the availability of data from the regional transportation model, the traffic analysis used 2020 model runs for Opening Day and 2040 model runs for Horizon Year. The following scenarios were analyzed: — Existing Conditions: Without project — Opening Day: Without and with project — Horizon Year: Without and with project The analysis results include several key measures, including: — Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Mean volume of two-way traffic in a 24-hour period. — Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (V/C): Degree of traffic saturation per lane, expressed as a ratio of volume (typically ADT) divided by capacity. — Level of Service (LOS): Qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, defined by national and local standards detailed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5.

2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUME METHODOLOGY

Developing volumes for roadway and intersection analysis involves different procedures depending on the study scenario being analyzed.

EXISTING CONDITIONS VOLUMES

For roadway segment volumes, pneumatic tubes were laid across predetermined study roadway segments to count the number vehicles crossing in each direction over a 24-hour period. For intersection turning movements, video detection cameras were set up to count the number of vehicles entering or exiting an intersection by movement (turning or through) during the morning

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 8 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 28 and evening peak periods: 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. In addition to vehicular movements, the project team collected existing pedestrian and cyclist volumes during the peak periods. All roadway and intersection counts were collected on Tuesday, May 8, 2018. Appendix C contains the individual counts for all intersections and roadway segments.

FUTURE-YEAR CONDITIONS VOLUMES

To determine the future roadway and intersection volumes in the Opening Day and Horizon Year scenarios involved the development of growth factors to grow existing volumes from 2018. To develop these growth factors, the project team compared unadjusted volumes along key roadway segments from SANDAG’s Activity Based Model (ABM) for Year 2012 and Year 2040. The resulting growth factors were then applied to the 2018 volumes, growing them in a linear fashion to Opening Day and Horizon Year. The final growth factors, resulting volumes and maps from the ABM are in Appendix D.

2.4 TRAFFIC ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The analysis includes 20 roadway segments covering the entire project route, listed in Table 2.1 and shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2.

Table 2.1 Study Roadway Segments Level of Service Main Roadway From To Jurisdiction Standards 1 13th Street Cypress Avenue Palm Avenue Imperial Beach SANTEC/ITE 2 13th Street Palm Avenue Imperial Beach Boulevard Imperial Beach SANTEC/ITE 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard Grove Avenue Imperial Beach SANTEC/ITE Imperial Beach/ 4 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 13th Street 19th Street San Diego San Diego Hollister Street/Oro Vista 5 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue 19th Street San Diego San Diego Road Grove Avenue/Ingrid 6 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue San Diego San Diego Avenue Beyer Boulevard/SR-905 WB 7 Iris Avenue Oro Vista Road San Diego San Diego Ramps Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB 8 Beyer Boulevard San Diego San Diego Ramps Ramps Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 9 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard San Diego San Diego EB Ramps 10 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard Smythe Avenue San Diego San Diego 11 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue Caminito de los Niños San Diego San Diego 12 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños West Park Avenue San Diego San Diego 13 West Park Avenue Beyer Boulevard East Seaward Avenue San Diego San Diego 14 East Seaward Avenue West Park Avenue East Park Avenue San Diego San Diego 15 West Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue East Hall Avenue San Diego San Diego 16 East Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue East Hall Avenue San Diego San Diego 17 East Hall Avenue West Park Avenue Olive Drive San Diego San Diego 18 East Beyer Boulevard Filoi Avenue Center Street San Diego San Diego East San Ysidro Boulevard/ 19 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street San Diego San Diego Camino de la Plaza East Beyer Boulevard/ 20 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps San Diego San Diego Camino de la Plaza

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 9 29 Roadway segment analysis is based on classifications and capacity thresholds defined by the governing jurisdiction. Within the study area, two standards apply depending on location: — City of Imperial Beach: SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (2000), published by the regional San Diego Traffic Engineers’ Council (SANTEC) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) California Border Section. — City of San Diego: Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998), published by the City of San Diego. Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 provide the daily LOS thresholds for roadway segments in each project jurisdiction.

Table 2.2 SANTEC/ITE LOS Thresholds for Roadway Segments

Classification/Lanes LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Prime Arterial/6 < 25,000 < 35,000 < 50,000 < 55,000 < 60,000 Major Arterial/5 < 18,000 < 25,000 < 35,000 < 40,000 < 45,000 Multi-Way Boulevard/4 < 16,800 < 25,200 < 31,500 < 37,800 < 42,000 Major Arterial/4 < 15,000 < 21,000 < 30,000 < 35,000 < 40,000 Secondary Arterial/5 < 12,500 < 17,500 < 25,000 < 31,300 < 37,500 Secondary Arterial/4 < 10,000 < 14,000 < 20,000 < 25,000 < 30,000 Collector/2 + Two Way Left Turn Lane (TWLTL) < 5,000 < 7000 < 10,000 < 13,000 < 15,000 Collector/2 (with fronting commercial or residential property) < 2,500 < 3000 < 5,000 < 6,500 < 8,000 Source: SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (2000)

Table 2.3 City of San Diego LOS Thresholds for Roadway Segments # of Cross Classification/Lanes LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Lanes Sections1 Expressway 6 < 30,000 < 42,000 < 60,000 < 70,000 < 80,000 Primary Arterial 6 102/122 < 25,000 < 35,000 < 50,000 < 55,000 < 60,000 Major Arterial 6 102/122 < 20,000 < 28,000 < 40,000 < 45,000 < 50,000 Major Arterial 4 78/98 < 15,000 < 21,000 < 30,000 < 35,000 < 40,000 Collector 4 72/92 < 10,000 < 14,000 < 20,000 < 25,000 < 30,000 Collector (No Center Lane) 4 64/84 < 5,000 < 7,000 < 10,000 < 13,000 < 15,000 Collector (Continuous Left Turn Lane) 2 50/70 Collector (No Fronting Property) 2 40/60 < 4,000 < 5,500 < 7,500 < 9,000 < 10,000 Collector (Commercial-Industrial Fronting) 2 50/70 < 2,500 < 3,500 < 5,000 < 6,500 < 8,000 Collector (Multi Family Residential Fronting) 2 40/60 < 2,500 < 3,500 < 5,000 < 6,500 < 8,000 Sub-Collector (Single Family Residential 2 36/56 - - < 2,200 - - Fronting)) (1) Curb to Curb Width (feet)/Right of Way Width (feet): Based on City of San Diego Street Design Manual Note: The volumes and the average daily level of service listed above are only intended as general planning and do not contain all potential cross-sections within the City of San Diego. Source: City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998)

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 10 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 30 2.5 TRAFFIC INTERSECTION DELAY ANALYSIS

Twenty-nine intersections were selected for analysis based on the project’s route and proposed intersection treatments. Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 show the studied intersections, which are further detailed in Table 2.4. To analyze the average delay and LOS of individual intersections, procedures presented in the 2010 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) were utilized. Due to limitations in the HCM 2010 methodology for unique intersection configurations and overlap-phasing conditions, the HCM 2000 methodology was applied to the following two intersections: — 13. Iris Avenue & 25th Street/27th Street — 16. Beyer Boulevard & Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps The assumptions used to analyze intersection LOS are included in Appendix C and Appendix E. Within the study area, both the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines and the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual use the same LOS criteria.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 11 31 Figure 2.1 Study Roadway Segments & Intersections, North

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 12 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 32 Figure 2.2 Study Roadway Segments & Intersections, South

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 13 33

Table 2.4 Study Intersections Significance Main Roadway Side Roadway Jurisdiction Threshold Criteria 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue Imperial Beach/Caltrans SANTEC 2 13th Street Elm Avenue Imperial Beach SANTEC 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard Imperial Beach SANTEC 4 13th Street Grove Avenue Imperial Beach SANTEC 5 Grove Avenue 14th Street Imperial Beach SANTEC 6 Grove Avenue 15th Street Imperial Beach SANTEC 7 Grove Avenue/Halo Street Atwater Street San Diego City of San Diego 8 Halo Street Thermal Street/17th Street San Diego City of San Diego 9 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 19th Street San Diego City of San Diego 10 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Green Bay Street San Diego City of San Diego 11 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Hollister Street San Diego City of San Diego 12 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street/27th Street San Diego City of San Diego 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps San Diego/Caltrans City of San Diego 16 Beyer Boulevard Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps San Diego/Caltrans City of San Diego 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard San Diego City of San Diego 18 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Crossing San Diego City of San Diego 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños San Diego City of San Diego 21 Beyer Boulevard West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive San Diego City of San Diego 22 West Park Avenue Seaward Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 23 East Park Avenue Seaward Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 24 West Park Avenue Hall Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 25 East Park Avenue Hall Avenue San Diego City of San Diego 26 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street San Diego City of San Diego 27 East Beyer Boulevard Bolton Hall Road San Diego City of San Diego East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de 28 East Beyer Boulevard San Diego City of San Diego la Plaza 29 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps San Diego/Caltrans City of San Diego

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 14 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

34 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

The HCM 2010 and HCM 2000 methodologies for signalized intersections calculate the average control delay per vehicle at the intersection, with LOS criteria used by both cities described in Table 2.5. The computerized analysis of intersection operations was performed utilizing the Synchro 9.0 (HCM 2010 and 2000 methodology) traffic analysis software (by Trafficware, 2011).

Table 2.5 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics Vehicle LOS A occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally <10.0 favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. LOS B occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable 10.1 – 20.0 or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. LOS C occurs when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. The number of 20.1 – 35.0 vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or 35.1 – 55.0 the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the 55.1 – 80.0 cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. LOS F occurs when the volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the >80.0 cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (2010)

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Average control delay for unsignalized intersections also uses 2010 HCM methodology and is based on the geometric design of the intersection and vehicular demand by movement. Table 2.6 displays the LOS criteria.

Table 2.6 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics Vehicle <10.0 LOS A occurs when there is little or no delay. 10.1 – 15.0 LOS B occurs when there is short traffic delay. 15.1 – 25.0 LOS C occurs when there is average traffic delay. 25.1 – 35.0 LOS D occurs when there is long traffic delay. 35.1 – 50.0 LOS E occurs when there is longer traffic delay. >50.0 LOS F occurs when traffic delay is longest and intersection capacity is exceeded. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (2010)

ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL For all-way stop controlled intersections, conflicting vehicular volumes at the intersection are the primary variable in calculating the approach delay in HCM 2010 methodology. The average control delay is then calculated by weighting the average delays by volume distributed across all motor vehicles entering the intersection.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 15 35 The computerized analysis of all-way stop control intersections was performed with the Synchro 9.0 (HCM 2010 methodology) traffic analysis software (by Trafficware, 2011).

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL (SIDE-STREET STOP CONTROL) For two-way stop controlled (side-street stop controlled) intersections, the primary principle in HCM 2010 methodology is gap acceptance and the presence of conflicting traffic for motor vehicles stopped at the minor street approach. The greatest approach delay is reported instead of the average approach delay. The computerized analysis of all-way stop control intersections was performed with the Synchro 9.0 (HCM 2010 methodology) traffic analysis software (by Trafficware, 2011).

ROUNDABOUT CONTROL & NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLES For roundabout-controlled intersections, the HCM 2010 LOS methodology calculates the average control delay which includes geometric delay and V/C. The average control delay is then calculated by weighting the average delays by volume distributed across all motor vehicles entering the intersection. The computerized analysis of roundabout-control intersections was performed with the SIDRA Intersection 7.0 (HCM 2010 methodology) traffic analysis software (by Akcelik and Associates, 2017). The project also includes several smaller neighborhood traffic circles (NTCs) that feature all-yield roundabout control (depicted in Figure 2.3): — 5. Grove Avenue & 14th Street — 6. Grove Avenue & 15th Street — 7. Grove Avenue & Atwater Street — 10. Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue & Green Bay Street — 22. West Park Avenue & Seaward Avenue To ensure the traffic analysis accounts for the maximum potential impact across all proposed NTCs, the project team selected the location with the highest volumes based on turning- movement counts—Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue and Green Bay Street—as a representative sample.

Figure 2.3 Neighborhood Traffic Circle with Roundabout Control

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 16 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 36 2.6 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

The evaluation of direct and cumulative significant impacts is based on the governing standards of each local jurisdiction.

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH

In the City of Imperial Beach, the assessment of significant impacts is based on SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (2000), with significance thresholds shown in Table 2.7. In general, a significant impact is identified when the addition of project traffic results in LOS dropping from LOS D or better to a substandard LOS E or F; or if the thresholds for an already substandard facility per its LOS exceed what is allowed per the threshold guidelines.

Table 2.7 SANTEC/ITE Measures of Significant Project Traffic Impacts

Allowable Change Due to Impact Ramp Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections LOS with Metering Project V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec) Delay (min)

E and F 0.01 1.0 0.02 1.0 2.0 2.0 Source: SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (2000)

CITY OF SAN DIEGO

In the City of San Diego, the assessment of significant impacts is based on the City’s Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998) and Significance Determination Thresholds (2011), with significance thresholds shown in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8 City of San Diego Measures of Significant Project Traffic Impacts

Allowable Change Due to Impact Ramp Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections LOS with Metering Project V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec) Delay (min)

E 0.01 1.0 0.02 1.0 2.0 2.0

F 0.005 0.5 0.01 0.5 1.0 1.0 Sources: City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998) and Significance Determination Thresholds (2011)

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 17 37 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section analyzes the study roadway segments and intersections under existing conditions, without the bikeway project.

3.1 ROADWAY SEGMENTS

The analysis of roadway segments included counts as discussed in Section 2.3 and LOS calculations per standards and methodologies discussed in Section 2.4. The study roadways along the proposed project alignment are described briefly in Appendix F. Table 3.1 contains the analysis results in terms of existing LOS and V/C for all project roadway segments.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 18 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 38 Table 3.1 Roadway Segment Analysis Results, Existing Conditions Lanes/ LOS E Roadway Segment Functional Maximum ADT V/C LOS Class1 Capacity 13TH STREET 1. Cypress Avenue to Palm Avenue 2C CL 15,000 6,919 0.461 B 2. Palm Avenue to Imperial Beach Boulevard 2C CL 15,000 9,197 0.613 C 3. Imperial Beach Boulevard to Grove Avenue 2C CL 15,000 10,329 0.689 D GROVE AVENUE 4. 13th Street to 19th Street 2C MFF 8,000 2,765 0.346 B 5. 19th Street to Hollister Street/Oro Vista Road 2C MFF 8,000 3,578 0.447 C ORO VISTA ROAD 6. Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue to Iris Avenue 2C MFF 8,000 5,032 0.629 D IRIS AVENUE 7. Oro Vista Road to Beyer Boulevard/SR-905 WB Ramps 2C MFF 8,000 5,933 0.742 D BEYER BOULEVARD 8. Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps to Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 4MA 40,000 18,694 0.467 B 9. Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps to Del Sur Boulevard 4C NCL 15,000 7,946 0.530 C 10. Del Sur Boulevard to Smythe Avenue 4C NCL 15,000 7,983 0.532 C 11. Smythe Avenue to Caminito de los Niños 4C NCL* 20,000 9,977 0.499 B 12. Caminito de los Niños to West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive 4C 30,000 9,977 0.333 B WEST PARK AVENUE 13. Beyer Boulevard to East Seaward Avenue 2C MFF 8,000 4,073 0.509 C EAST SEAWARD AVENUE 14. West Park Avenue to East Park Avenue 2C MFF 8,000 2,090 0.261 A WEST PARK AVENUE 15. East Seaward Avenue to East Hall Avenue 1C MFF 4,000 2,163 0.541 C EAST PARK AVENUE 16.East Seaward Avenue to East Hall Avenue 1C MFF 4,000 1,910 0.478 C EAST HALL AVENUE 17. West Park Avenue to Olive Drive 2C MFF 8,000 2,197 0.275 A EAST BEYER BOULEVARD 18. Filoi Avenue to Center Street/Hill Street 2C MFF 8,000 6,083 0.760 D 19. Center Street/Hill Street to East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza 2C NF 10,000 2,768 0.277 A EAST SAN YSIDRO BOULEVARD 20. East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza to Rail Court/I-5 Ramps 2-1MA 30,000 14,712 0.490 B

(1) Functional Class Abbreviations: 1C MFF is a 1 lane Collector with multi-family residential fronting property. 2-1MA is a 2-lane in one direction, 1 lane in the other direction Major Arterial. 2C MFF: 2 lane Collector with multi-family residential fronting property; 2C NF: 2 lane Collector with no fronting property; 2C CL: 2 lane Collector with a continuous left-turn lane; 4C is a 4 lane Collector with a continuous left-turn lane. 4C NCL: 4 lane Collector with no center lane. 4C NCL* is a 4 lane Collector with no continuous left-turn lane and minimal direct access. 4MA is a 4 lane Major Arterial.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 19 39 3.2 INTERSECTIONS

The analysis of intersections was consistent with the traffic volume methodology in Section 2.3 and included LOS calculations per standards and methodologies discussed in Section 2.4. Table 3.2 contains the analysis results in terms of existing LOS and delay for all studied intersections.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 20 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 40

Table 3.2 Intersection Analysis Results, Existing Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Main Roadway Side Roadway Control1 Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue TS 38.6 D 38.0 D 2 13th Street Elm Avenue TWSC 22.3 C 37.5 E 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard TS 34.0 C 31.1 C 4 13th Street Grove Avenue TWSC 21.4 C 17.5 C 5 Grove Avenue 14th Street TWSC 10.9 B 10.2 B 6 Grove Avenue 15th Street AWS 8.7 A 7.7 A 7 Grove Avenue/Halo Street Atwater Street AWS 8.2 A 7.5 A 8 Halo Street Thermal Street/17th Street AWS 11.2 B 8.6 A 9 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 19th Street AWS 41.1 E 14.0 B 10 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Green Bay Street AWS 17.4 C 8.7 A 11 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Hollister Street TS 14.1 B 8.0 A 12 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue TWSC 145.9 F 27.6 D 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street/27th Street TS 39.3 D 15.1 B 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue TS 25.0 C 22.6 C 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps TS 63.6 E 73.3 E 16 Beyer Boulevard Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps TS 32.6 C 27.0 C 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard TS 8.4 A 7.8 A 18 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Crossing TWSC 32.3 D 33.5 D 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue TS 18.1 B 12.7 B 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños TS 11.8 B 10.3 B 21 Beyer Boulevard West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive TS 17.8 B 12.7 B 22 West Park Avenue Seaward Avenue AWS 12.8 B 8.5 A 23 East Park Avenue Seaward Avenue AWS 10.6 B 7.9 A 24 West Park Avenue Hall Avenue AWS 8.6 A 8.3 A 25 East Park Avenue Hall Avenue AWS 9.4 A 7.9 A 26 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street AWS 12.3 B 10.0 A 27 East Beyer Boulevard Bolton Hall Road TWSC 9.3 A 10.3 B East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de 28 East Beyer Boulevard TS 37.4 D 43.4 D la Plaza 29 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps TS 63.5 E 256.0 F

(1) Control Abbreviations: TS: traffic signal; TWSC: two-way stop control; AWS: all-way stop.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 21

41 4 OPENING DAY CONDITIONS

This section provides an analysis of the study roadway segments and intersections under Opening Day conditions, both without and with the bikeway project. As shown in Appendix F, the San Ysidro Community Plan & Local Coastal Program (2016) envisions a road diet on Beyer Boulevard between Dairy Mart Road and Caminito de los Niños, which would reduce the number of lanes on Beyer Boulevard from four to two (plus two-way left turn lane). Intersection lane configurations also would also be modified to accommodate the road diet. To be conservative, this modification is assumed to be implemented in the Opening Day “With Project” scenario.

4.1 ROADWAY SEGMENTS

The analysis of roadway segments included model-grown volume counts as discussed in Section 2.3 and LOS calculations per standards and methodologies discussed in Section 2.4.

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 4.1 contains the analysis results in terms of Opening Day LOS and V/C for all project roadway segments. As shown in the table, the project is estimated to have the following effects on the operations of the 20 study roadway segments: — 19 experience no change in operations — 1 experiences an increase in congestion

DIRECT IMPACTS

Based on the thresholds of significance defined in Section 2.6, no roadway segments experience increases in V/C that constitute significant direct impacts on Opening Day.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 22 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 42 Table 4.1 Roadway Segment Analysis Results, Opening Day Opening Day Without Project Opening Day With Project Sig. Roadway Segment Lanes/ Lanes/ Δ V/C Function ADT V/C LOS Function ADT V/C LOS Impact Class1 Class1 13TH STREET 1. Cypress Avenue to Palm Avenue 2C CL 7,200 0.480 C 2C CL 7,200 0.480 C 0.000 No 2. Palm Avenue to Imperial Beach 2C CL 9,220 0.615 C 2C CL 9,220 0.615 C 0.000 No Boulevard 3. Imperial Beach Boulevard to Grove 2C CL 10,350 0.690 D 2C CL 10,350 0.690 D 0.000 No Avenue GROVE AVENUE 4. 13th Street to 19th Street 2C MFF 2,830 0.354 B 2C MFF 2,830 0.354 B 0.000 No 5. 19th Street to Hollister Street/Oro 2C MFF 3,640 0.455 C 2C MFF 3,640 0.455 C 0.000 No Vista Road ORO VISTA ROAD 6. Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue to Iris 2C MFF 5,130 0.641 D 2C MFF 5,130 0.641 D 0.000 No Avenue IRIS AVENUE 7. Oro Vista Road to Beyer Boulevard/ 2C MFF 6,050 0.756 D 2C MFF 6,050 0.756 D 0.000 No SR-905 WB Ramps BEYER BOULEVARD 8. Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps to 4MA 19,180 0.480 B 4MA 19,180 0.480 B 0.000 No Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 9. Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 4C NCL 8,140 0.543 C 2C CL 8,140 0.543 C 0.000 No to Del Sur Boulevard 10. Del Sur Boulevard to Smythe 4C NCL 8,210 0.547 C 2C CL 8,210 0.547 C 0.000 No Avenue 11. Smythe Avenue to Caminito de los 4C NCL* 10,880 0.544 C 3C NCL* 10,880 0.725 D 0.181 No Niños 12. Caminito de los Niños to West Park 4C 10,880 0.363 C 4C 10,880 0.363 C 0.000 No Avenue/Alaquinas Drive WEST PARK AVENUE 13. Beyer Boulevard to East Seaward 2C MFF 4,330 0.541 C 2C MFF 4,330 0.541 C 0.000 No Avenue EAST SEAWARD AVENUE 14. West Park Avenue to East Park 2C MFF 2,210 0.276 A 2C MFF 2,210 0.276 A 0.000 No Avenue WEST PARK AVENUE 15. East Seaward Avenue to East Hall 1C MFF 2,300 0.575 C 1C MFF 2,300 0.575 C 0.000 No Avenue EAST PARK AVENUE 16. East Seaward Avenue to East Hall 1C MFF 2,030 0.508 C 1C MFF 2,030 0.508 C 0.000 No Avenue EAST HALL AVENUE 17. West Park Avenue to Olive Drive 2C MFF 2,340 0.293 A 2C MFF 2,340 0.293 A 0.000 No EAST BEYER BOULEVARD 18. Filoi Avenue to Center Street/Hill 2C MFF 6,870 0.859 E 2C MFF 6,870 0.859 E 0.000 No Street 19. Center Street/Hill Street to East San 2C NF 3,120 0.312 A 2C NF 3,120 0.312 A 0.000 No Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza EAST SAN YSIDRO BOULEVARD 20. East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de la 2-1MA 15,710 0.524 B 2-1MA 15,710 0.524 B 0.000 No Plaza to Rail Court/I-5 Ramps (1) Functional Class Abbreviations: 1C MFF is a 1 lane Collector with multi-family residential fronting property. 2-1MA is a 2-lane in one direction, 1 lane in the other direction Major Arterial. 2C MFF: 2 lane Collector with multi-family residential fronting property; 2C NF: 2 lane Collector with no fronting property; 2C CL: 2 lane Collector with a continuous left-turn lane; 3C NCL* is a 3 lane Collector with no continuous left-turn lane and minimal direct access. 4C is a 4 lane Collector with a continuous left-turn lane. 4C NCL: 4 lane Collector with no center lane. 4C NCL* is a 4 lane Collector with no continuous left-turn lane and minimal direct access. 4MA is a 4 lane Major Arterial.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 23 43 4.2 INTERSECTIONS

The analysis of intersections included model-grown volume counts as discussed in Section 2.3 and LOS calculations per standards and methodologies discussed in Section 2.4.

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 contain the analysis results in terms of Opening Day LOS and V/C for all studied intersections. Among the 29 studied intersections, in the AM peak hour (Table 4.2): — 12 experience no change in average control delay — 8 experience an increase in average control delay — 9 experience a decrease in average control delay Among the 29 studied intersections, in the PM peak hour (Table 4.3): — 12 experience no change in average control delay — 9 experience an increase in average control delay — 8 experience a decrease in average control delay

DIRECT IMPACTS

Based on the thresholds of significance defined in Section 2.6, no intersections experience increases in control delay that constitute significant direct impacts on Opening Day.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 24 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 44 Table 4.2 Intersection Analysis Results, Opening Day, AM Peak Hour Opening Day Opening Day Without Project With Project Δ Sig Delay Impact Main Roadway Side Roadway Delay LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue 38.6 D 37.9 D -0.7 No 2 13th Street Elm Avenue 23.3 C 23.3 C 0.0 No 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard 34.7 C 38.8 D 4.1 No 4 13th Street Grove Avenue 21.7 C 21.7 C 0.0 No 5 Grove Avenue 14th Street1 17.7 C 4.4 A -13.3 No 6 Grove Avenue 15th Street1 17.7 C 4.4 A -13.3 No 7 Grove Avenue/Halo Street Atwater Street1 17.7 C 4.4 A -13.3 No 8 Halo Street Thermal Street/17th Street 11.5 B 11.5 B 0.0 No 9 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 19th Street 44.6 E 44.6 E 0.0 No 10 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Green Bay Street1 17.7 C 4.4 A -13.3 No 11 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Hollister Street 13.8 B 35.9 D 22.1 No 12 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue2 158 F 7.3 A -151 No 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street/27th Street 41.8 D 41.8 D 0.0 No 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue 25.8 C 25.8 C 0.0 No 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps 72.2 E 72.2 E 0.0 No 16 Beyer Boulevard Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 32.7 C 36.8 D 4.1 No 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard 8.4 A 9.3 A 0.9 No 18 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Crossing 50.3 F 16.4 C -33.9 No 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue 21.7 C 16.8 B -4.9 No 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños 12.9 B 19.5 B 6.6 No 21 Beyer Boulevard West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive 18.1 B 18.1 B 0.0 No 22 West Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue1 17.7 C 4.4 A -13.3 No 23 East Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue 11.1 B 11.9 B 0.8 No 24 West Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 8.8 A 12.8 B 4.0 No 25 East Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 9.8 A 12.7 B 2.9 No 26 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street 14.6 B 14.6 B 0.0 No 27 East Beyer Boulevard Bolton Hall Road 9.4 A 9.4 A 0.0 No East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de 28 East Beyer Boulevard 40.3 D 40.3 D 0.0 No la Plaza 29 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps 60.0 E 60.0 E 0.0 No

(1) These five intersections are planned as neighborhood traffic circles (NTCs) with roundabout control. The project team selected the NTC at Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue & Green Bay Street (#10) as representative of all five NTCs, as it has the highest volume of turning movements (see Appendix C). (2) Roundabout

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 25 45 Table 4.3 Intersection Analysis Results, Opening Day, PM Peak Hour Opening Day Opening Day Without Project With Project Δ Sig Delay Impact Main Roadway Side Roadway Delay LOS Delay LOS PM Peak Hour 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue 36.8 D 39.5 D 2.7 No 2 13th Street Elm Avenue 41.1 E 41.1 E 0.0 No 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard 31.5 C 36.6 D 5.1 No 4 13th Street Grove Avenue 17.6 C 17.6 C 0.0 No 5 Grove Avenue 14th Street1 8.7 A 2.7 A -6.0 No 6 Grove Avenue 15th Street1 8.7 A 2.7 A -6.0 No 7 Grove Avenue/Halo Street Atwater Street1 8.7 A 2.7 A -6.0 No 8 Halo Street Thermal Street/17th Street 8.6 A 8.6 A 0.0 No 9 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 19th Street 14.1 B 14.1 B 0.0 No 10 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Green Bay Street1 8.7 A 2.7 A -6.0 No 11 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Hollister Street 8.0 A 14.6 B 6.6 No 12 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue2 28.2 D 6.2 A -22.0 No 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street/27th Street 14.5 B 14.5 B 0.0 No 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue 23.1 C 23.1 C 0.0 No 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps 75.7 E 75.7 E 0.0 No 16 Beyer Boulevard Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 26.9 C 44.7 D 17.8 No 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard 7.9 A 8.7 A 0.8 No 18 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Crossing 49.2 E 14.0 B -35.2 No 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue 14.1 B 12.3 B -1.8 No 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños 10.7 B 18.4 B 7.7 No 21 Beyer Boulevard West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive 12.8 B 12.8 B 0.0 No 22 West Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue1 8.7 A 2.7 A -6.0 No 23 East Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue 8.0 A 9.6 A 1.6 No 24 West Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 8.5 A 13.0 B 4.5 No 25 East Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 8.0 A 10.3 B 2.3 No 26 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street 10.8 B 10.8 B 0.0 No 27 East Beyer Boulevard Bolton Hall Road 10.6 B 10.6 B 0.0 No East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de 28 East Beyer Boulevard 67.6 E 67.6 E 0.0 No la Plaza 29 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps > 180 F > 180 F 0.0 No

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 26 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 46 5 HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS

This section provides an analysis of the study roadway segments and intersections under Horizon Year conditions, both without and with the bikeway project. As shown in Appendix F, the San Ysidro Community Plan & Local Coastal Program (2016) envisions a road diet on Beyer Boulevard between Dairy Mart Road and Caminito de los Niños, which would reduce the number of lanes on Beyer Boulevard from four to two (plus two-way left turn lane). Intersection lane configurations also would also be modified to accommodate the road diet. To be conservative, this modification is assumed to be implemented in the Horizon Year “With Project” scenario.

5.1 ROADWAY SEGMENTS

The analysis of roadway segments included model-grown volume counts as discussed in Section 2.3 and LOS calculations per standards and methodologies discussed in Section 2.4.

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 5.1 contains the analysis results in terms of Horizon Year LOS and V/C for all project roadway segments. As shown in the table, the project is estimated to have the following effects on the operations of the 20 study roadway segments: — 19 experience no change in operations — 1 experiences an increase in congestion

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Based on the thresholds of significance defined in Section 2.6, one roadway segment experiences an increase in V/C that constitutes a significant cumulative impact in the Horizon Year: — 11. Beyer Boulevard from Smythe Avenue to Caminito de los Niños

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 27 47

Table 5.1 Roadway Segment Analysis Results, Horizon Year Horizon Year Without Project Horizon Year With Project Sig. Roadway Segment Lanes/ Lanes/ Δ V/C Function ADT V/C LOS Function ADT V/C LOS Impact Class1 Class1 13TH STREET 1. Cypress Avenue to Palm Avenue 2C CL 9,960 0.664 C 2C CL 9,960 0.664 C 0.000 No 2. Palm Avenue to Imperial Beach 2C CL 9,400 0.627 C 2C CL 9,400 0.627 C 0.000 No Boulevard 3. Imperial Beach Boulevard to Grove 2C CL 10,560 0.704 D 2C CL 10,560 0.704 D 0.000 No Avenue GROVE AVENUE 4. 13th Street to 19th Street 2C MFF 3,430 0.429 B 2C MFF 3,430 0.429 B 0.000 No 5. 19th Street to Hollister Street/Oro 2C MFF 4,290 0.536 C 2C MFF 4,290 0.536 C 0.000 No Vista Road ORO VISTA ROAD 6. Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue to Iris 2C MFF 6,140 0.768 D 2C MFF 6,140 0.768 D 0.000 No Avenue IRIS AVENUE 7. Oro Vista Road to Beyer Boulevard/ 2C MFF 7,240 0.905 E 2C MFF 7,240 0.905 E 0.000 No SR-905 WB Ramps BEYER BOULEVARD 8. Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps to 4MA 24,040 0.601 C 4MA 24,040 0.601 C 0.000 No Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 9. Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 4C NCL 10,040 0.669 D 2C CL 10,040 0.669 D 0.000 No to Del Sur Boulevard 10. Del Sur Boulevard to Smythe 4C NCL 10,440 0.696 D 2C CL 10,440 0.696 D 0.000 No Avenue 11. Smythe Avenue to Caminito de los 4C NCL* 28,860 1.443 F 3C NCL* 28,860 1.924 F 0.481 Yes Niños 12. Caminito de los Niños to Park 4C 28,860 0.962 F 4C 28,860 0.962 F 0.000 No Avenue/Alaquinas Drive WEST PARK AVENUE 13. Beyer Boulevard to East Seaward 2C MFF 6,890 0.861 E 2C MFF 6,890 0.861 E 0.000 No Avenue EAST SEAWARD AVENUE 14. West Park Avenue to East Park 2C MFF 3,430 0.429 B 2C MFF 3,430 0.429 B 0.000 No Avenue WEST PARK AVENUE 15. East Seaward Avenue to East Hall 1C MFF 3,640 0.910 E 1C MFF 3,640 0.910 E 0.000 No Avenue EAST PARK AVENUE 16. East Seaward Avenue to East Hall 1C MFF 3,250 0.813 D 1C MFF 3,250 0.813 D 0.000 No Avenue EAST HALL AVENUE 17. West Park Avenue to Olive Drive 2C MFF 3,740 0.468 C 2C MFF 3,740 0.468 C 0.000 No EAST BEYER BOULEVARD 18. Filoi Avenue to Center Street/Hill 2C MFF 14,780 1.848 F 2C MFF 14,780 1.848 F 0.000 No Street 19. Center Street/Hill Street to East San 2C NF 6,670 0.667 C 2C NF 6,670 0.667 C 0.000 No Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza EAST SAN YSIDRO BOULEVARD 20. East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de la 2-1MA 25,720 0.857 D 2-1MA 25,720 0.857 D 0.000 No Plaza to Rail Court/I-5 Ramps (1) Functional Class Abbreviations: 1C MFF is a 1 lane Collector with multi-family residential fronting property. 2-1MA is a 2-lane in one direction, 1 lane in the other direction Major Arterial. 2C MFF: 2 lane Collector with multi-family residential fronting property; 2C NF: 2 lane Collector with no fronting property; 2C CL: 2 lane Collector with a continuous left-turn lane; 3C NCL* is a 3 lane Collector with no continuous left-turn lane and minimal direct access. 4C is a 4 lane Collector with a continuous left-turn lane. 4C NCL: 4 lane Collector with no center lane. 4C NCL* is a 4 lane Collector with no continuous left-turn lane and minimal direct access. 4MA is a 4 lane Major Arterial.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 28 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

48 5.2 INTERSECTIONS

The analysis of intersections included model-grown volume counts as discussed in Section 2.3 and LOS calculations per standards and methodologies discussed in Section 2.4.

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 contain the analysis results in terms of Horizon Year LOS and V/C for all studied intersections. Among the 29 studied intersections, in the AM peak hour (Table 5.2): — 12 experience no change in operations — 7 experience an increase in average control delay — 10 experience a decrease in average control delay Among the 29 studied intersections, in the PM peak hour (Table 5.3): — 11 experience no change in operations — 9 experience an increase in average control delay — 9 experience a decrease in average control delay

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Based on the thresholds of significance defined in Section 2.6, one intersection experiences an increase in control delay in the PM peak hour that constitutes significant cumulative impact in the Horizon Year: — 20. Beyer Boulevard & Caminito de los Niños (PM peak hour only)

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 29 49 Table 5.2 Intersection Analysis Results, Horizon Year, AM Peak Hour Horizon Year Horizon Year Without Project With Project Δ Sig Delay Impact Main Roadway Side Roadway Delay LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue 61.7 E 49.0 D -12.7 No 2 13th Street Elm Avenue 28.9 D 28.9 D 0.0 No 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard 36.2 D 38.1 D 1.9 No 4 13th Street Grove Avenue 18.5 C 18.5 C 0.0 No 5 Grove Avenue 14th Street1 12.4 B 4.0 A -8.4 No 6 Grove Avenue 15th Street1 12.4 B 4.0 A -8.4 No 7 Grove Avenue/Halo Street Atwater Street1 12.4 B 4.0 A -8.4 No 8 Halo Street Thermal Street/17th Street 10.9 B 10.9 B 0.0 No 9 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 19th Street 23.9 C 23.9 C 0.0 No 10 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Green Bay Street1 12.4 B 4.0 A -8.4 No 11 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Hollister Street 17.4 B 36.4 D 19.0 No 12 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue2 66.6 F 6.0 A -60.6 No 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street/27th Street 31.8 C 31.8 C 0.0 No 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue 23.7 C 23.7 C 0.0 No 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps 67.0 E 67.0 E 0.0 No 16 Beyer Boulevard Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 44.6 D 41.3 D -3.3 No 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard 9.1 A 10.3 B 1.2 No 18 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Crossing > 180 F 82.2 F < -180 No 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue 119.5 F 76.1 E -43.4 No 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños 18.8 B 43.5 D 24.7 No 21 Beyer Boulevard West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive 46.1 D 46.1 D 0.0 No 22 West Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue1 12.4 B 4.0 A -8.4 No 23 East Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue 11.7 B 12.5 B 0.8 No 24 West Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 10.1 B 15.0 B 4.9 No 25 East Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 11.1 B 16.2 C 5.1 No 26 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street 164.8 F 164.8 F 0.0 No 27 East Beyer Boulevard Bolton Hall Road 10.2 B 10.2 B 0.0 No East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de 28 East Beyer Boulevard 175.0 F 175.0 F 0.0 No la Plaza 29 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps > 180 F > 180 F 0.0 No

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 30 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 50 Table 5.3 Intersection Analysis Results, Horizon Year, PM Peak Hour Horizon Year Horizon Year Without Project With Project Δ Sig. Delay Impact Main Roadway Side Roadway Delay LOS Delay LOS PM Peak Hour 1 13th Street SR-75/Palm Avenue 47.8 D 49.8 D 2.0 No 2 13th Street Elm Avenue 65.1 F 65.1 F 0.0 No 3 13th Street Imperial Beach Boulevard 35.3 D 40.8 D 5.5 No 4 13th Street Grove Avenue 14.9 B 14.9 B 0.0 No 5 Grove Avenue 14th Street1 8.5 A 2.8 A -5.7 No 6 Grove Avenue 15th Street1 8.5 A 2.8 A -5.7 No 7 Grove Avenue/Halo Street Atwater Street1 8.5 A 2.8 A -5.7 No 8 Halo Street Thermal Street/17th Street 8.6 A 8.6 A 0.0 No 9 Grove Avenue/Halo Street 19th Street 14.0 B 14.0 B 0.0 No 10 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Green Bay Street1 8.5 A 2.8 A -5.7 No 11 Grove Avenue/Ingrid Avenue Hollister Street 9.2 A 16.8 B 7.6 No 12 Oro Vista Road Iris Avenue2 28.0 D 6.0 A -22.0 No 13 Iris Avenue 25th Street/27th Street 16.3 B 16.3 B 0.0 No 14 Iris Avenue Howard Avenue 23.5 C 23.3 C -0.2 No 15 Beyer Boulevard Iris Avenue/SR-905 WB Ramps 94.3 F 94.3 F 0.0 No 16 Beyer Boulevard Dairy Mart Road/SR-905 EB Ramps 28.7 C 53.8 D 25.1 No 17 Beyer Boulevard Del Sur Boulevard 8.9 A 10.0 A 1.1 No 18 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Crossing > 180 F 58.3 F < -180 No 19 Beyer Boulevard Smythe Avenue 57.0 E 44.3 D -12.7 No 20 Beyer Boulevard Caminito de los Niños 16.9 B 70.5 E 53.6 Yes 21 Beyer Boulevard West Park Avenue/Alaquinas Drive 20.3 C 20.3 C 0.0 No 22 West Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue1 8.5 A 2.8 A -5.7 No 23 East Park Avenue East Seaward Avenue 8.7 A 10.1 B 1.4 No 24 West Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 9.6 A 16.4 C 6.8 No 25 East Park Avenue East Hall Avenue 9.4 A 12.7 B 3.3 No 26 East Beyer Boulevard Center Street 114.8 F 114.8 F 0.0 No 27 East Beyer Boulevard Bolton Hall Road 13.1 B 13.1 B 0.0 No East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de 28 East Beyer Boulevard 154.8 F 154.8 F 0.0 No la Plaza 29 East San Ysidro Boulevard Rail Court/I-5 Ramps > 180 F > 180 F 0.0 No

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 31 51 6 PROJECT SAFETY ASSESSMENT

This section assesses the project’s safety impacts. It describes the safety benefits of each proposed bikeway type (Section 6.1), reviews the additional safety and traffic calming features that accompany the bikeways (Section 6.2) and finally describes how these features are integrated into each segment of the project (Section 6.3). The primary finding is that the project is expected to provide unambiguous, net safety benefits to all roadway users, including cyclists, pedestrians, transit users and motorists. All project features are designed in accordance with best practices to maximize roadway safety. Taken together, the suite of proposed improvements will improve safety in the project area by: — Protecting cyclists by increasing separation from motorized traffic — Providing new and enhanced crossings for pedestrians — Upgrading intersections for safer operations through dedicated or advanced signal phasing for cyclists and pedestrians — Installing high-visibility striping and signage — Reducing conflicts with transit vehicles — Promoting safer vehicle speeds through a variety of traffic-calming features During initial planning, the project team assessed the existing roadway network in terms of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), a quantitative measure of cyclist comfort. The results of this existing conditions analysis are in Appendix B. The potential to improve LTS conditions helped inform the selection of the project route and safety features. As such, the project will increase comfort for cyclists relative to existing conditions along every planned segment.

6.1 SAFETY BENEFITS BY BIKEWAY TYPE

Each of the project’s four primary types of bikeway facilities provides safety benefits compared to existing conditions.

CLASS I BIKEWAYS/MULTI-USE Figure 6.1 Class I Bikeway/Multi-Use Path on Bridge PATHS

Class I bikeways, sometimes called bike paths or multi-use paths, are located off the roadway and therefore completely separated from motorized traffic. They are generally located in separate rights-of- way apart from the street network, including bridges (Figure 6.1), boardwalks, recreational areas and repurposed rail corridors.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 32 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 52 CLASS IV BIKEWAYS/CYCLE Figure 6.2 Class IV Bikeway/Cycle Track TRACKS/PROTECTED BIKE LANES

Class IV bikeways, also called cycle tracks or protected bike lanes, are facilities located on the roadway and separated from high-speed traffic lanes with a physical barrier, such as raised curbs, flexible posts or parked cars (Figure 6.2). Class IV bikeways can be either one-way or two-way facilities. Within the roadway environment, Class IV bikeways provide the maximum amount of safety and separation from motor vehicles.

CLASS II BUFFERED BIKE LANES Figure 6.3 Class II Buffered Bike Lanes

Class II bike lanes are facilities located in the roadway right-of-way and separated from vehicle lanes with a painted stripe. When “buffered,” the bike lanes also provide a two- to three-foot painted buffer on one or both sides (Figure 6.3). These facilities lower traffic stress by providing designated space for cyclists.

ENHANCED CLASS III BIKE Figure 6.4 Class III Bike Route/Bike Boulevard ROUTES/BIKE BOULEVARDS

Enhanced Class III bike routes are facilities located in the roadway travel lanes in where cyclists and motor vehicles share a lane marked by “sharrows” and signage (Figure 6.4). Bike boulevards are streets with low car traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give people riding bikes priority. They use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures—like neighborhood traffic circles, mid-block curb extensions and raised crosswalks—to discourage through-trips by cars and create safe, convenient bike crossings of busy arterial streets.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 33 53 6.2 SAFETY & TRAFFIC CALMING FEATURES

The project also provides safety benefits through additional features including intersection improvements, pedestrian crossings, transit enhancements and traffic calming measures.

PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS Figure 6.5 Protected Intersection

A protected intersection directs one-way cycle tracks or bike lanes through large curb extensions or other treatments that make cyclists more visible to drivers (Figure 6.5). They also shorten crossing distances for pedestrians. In some cases, cyclists may cross protected intersections during a leading signal phase— which gives them a head start prior to the green phase for motorized traffic—or a dedicated, bike- only signal phase during which no other movements are allowed.

ROUNDABOUTS & NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 6.6 Roundabout TRAFFIC CIRCLES

Roundabouts—and similar, smaller facilities called neighborhood traffic circles—improve intersection safety by slowing traffic speeds and reducing conflict points, directing traffic of all modes in a steady directional flow (Figure 6.6). They also tend to include new curb ramps and crosswalks for pedestrian safety.

CURB EXTENSIONS Figure 6.7 Curb Extension

Curb extensions, also known as pop-outs or bulb- outs, are extensions of the curb line into the roadway (Figure 6.7). They improve pedestrian safety by shortening the length of crosswalks and providing higher visibility to drivers. For turning drivers, the shape of the curb extension also forces a tighter turn and therefore encourages slower speeds.

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 34 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 54 SPEED HUMPS Figure 6.8 Raised Crosswalk

Speed humps are slight elevations in the roadway surface that calm traffic in residential areas, near schools or wherever speed control is desired. They are generally 3-4 inches high and 12-14 feet long, a design that provides slower traffic speeds while remaining comfortable to cyclists.

RAISED CROSSWALKS

Raised crosswalks combine speed humps with pedestrian crossings to improve safety for multiple modes (Figure 6.8). They calm traffic, improve visibility between pedestrians and drivers and Figure 6.9 Pedestrian-Activated Crossing Signal provide new links in the pedestrian network.

ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Beyond raised crosswalks that create new pedestrian crossings, existing crossings may be enhanced through a variety of treatments including continental crosswalk striping, additional signage and intersection control. Pedestrian-activated crossing signals—sometimes called high-intensity activated crosswalks (HAWK)—stop traffic when activated at the curb by pedestrians (Figure 6.9). These provide safer Figure 6.10 Chicane crossing points for pedestrians and improve visibility for drivers.

CHICANES

A chicane is a slight bend in the roadway designed to slow traffic speeds and provide increased comfort for cyclists and pedestrians (Figure 6.10). Chicanes are generally created by offsetting curb extensions. Their installation on existing roadways typically provides additional space that can be allocated to the pedestrian/bicycle realm, landscaping or urban design elements. Figure 6.11 Bike Box BIKE BOXES

A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection (Figure 6.11). It allows cyclists to move ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase, which increases visibility and safety for all roadway users. Bike boxes are sometimes paired with a leading signal phase, which gives cyclists a head start prior to the green phase for motorized traffic.

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 35 55 REVERSE-ANGLE PARKING Figure 6.12 Reverse-Angle Parking

In reverse-angle parking, vehicles “back in” to an angled parking stall, rather than driving forward into the stall (Figure 6.12). This provides significantly more visibility for motorists exiting parking stalls to see bicyclists and other traffic. It also eliminates the risk of car doors opening into a bikeway, which can occur in parallel-parking situations.

BUS ISLANDS

Bus islands eliminate one of the most dangerous conflicts between motorized traffic and cyclists: transit buses moving across the bikeway to make stops. By routing the bikeway behind the transit stop, bus islands create separation from motorized Figure 6.13 Bus Island traffic and greatly increase roadway safety for cyclists and buses (Figure 6.13). They also increase transit safety and efficiency by reducing the distances required for pull-outs.

LANE NARROWING & REPURPOSING

Many vehicular travel lanes are wider than required for safe and efficient operation. Narrowing lanes, or implementing a “lane diet,” can make the street function more equitably and provides dual safety benefits: not only does it free additional space for infrastructure, but its effect on driver perception also reduces driving speeds. Similarly, many roadways have more lanes than are needed to accommodate vehicular demand. Repurposing lanes, or implementing a “road diet,” is also effective in reducing driving speeds and freeing up space for infrastructure or other modes of travel. Studies across the nation have shown that both lane narrowing and repurposing can help to reduce speeds and increase safety.

6.3 SAFETY ASSESSMENT BY SEGMENT

The project provides clear safety benefits to all roadway users—cyclists, pedestrians, transit users and drivers. As described below, the facilities and features are built into each project segment in a context-sensitive manner that maximizes roadway safety along the entire route.

13TH STREET

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 36 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 56 — Protected intersection treatments at Palm Avenue and Imperial Beach Boulevard including bend outs, bike boxes and supporting signal phasing — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at the following cross streets: — Palm Avenue (all crossings) — Elder Avenue (all crossings) — Ebony Avenue (northbound, southbound, and westbound crossings) — Imperial Beach Boulevard (all crossings) — Fern Avenue (all crossings) — Grove Avenue (northbound and southbound crossings)

GROVE AVENUE/HALO STREET/INGRID AVENUE

The enhanced Class III bike route—or bike boulevard—along the Grove Avenue/Halo Street/Ingrid Avenue corridor augments the existing traffic-calming already installed on this corridor, which is adjacent to several schools and parks. Additional safety features include: — Neighborhood traffic circles at 14th Street, 15th Street, Atwater Street/Triton Avenue and Green Bay Street, including new curb ramps & continental crosswalks — Intersection reconfiguration at Hollister Street with bike boxes — Signal modifications at Hollister Street to give priority to bicycle through travel. — Eight new speed humps, augmenting 10 existing humps — Curb extensions at 17th Street/Thermal Avenue, Switzerland Drive and Hollister Street, including new curb ramps and continental crosswalks in key locations — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at Georgia Street, Granger Street, Transite Avenue, Signal Avenue and 19thStreet/Saturn Boulevard

ORO VISTA ROAD

The project facility on Oro Vista Road is an enhanced Class III bike route or bike boulevard, with the following safety features: — A series of six chicanes — Reverse-angle parking on alternate sides of the street, integrated with the chicanes — One new speed hump — A roundabout at Iris Avenue — New sidewalks, curb ramps and continental crosswalks accompanying the roundabout

IRIS AVENUE

On Iris Avenue between Oro Vista Road and 25th Street, the project will add Class II buffered bike lanes to provide a separated bicycle route across I-5. Additional safety features include: — Extension of eastbound Class II buffered bike lane through the intersection to 27th Street — New curb extension and ramps on the north side of the intersection at 25th Street/27th Street — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at 25th Street/27th Street On Iris Avenue between 27th Street and Beyer Boulevard, the project facility is an enhanced Class III bike route, with several additional features to increase the safety of all users: — Three new speed humps — Two new raised crosswalks at Southwest Middle School and the Iris Ave Trolley Station

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 37 57 — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at Monterey Pine Drive, Howard Avenue and 30th Street

BEYER BOULEVARD

The project facility along Beyer Boulevard is a two-way Class IV cycle track, physically separated from motorized traffic via a raised curb. This provides maximum separation between cyclists and motor vehicles within the roadway environment. Additional safety benefits include: — Between Dairy Mart Road and Caminito De Los Niños, reduction in traffic lanes from four to two (plus two-way left turn lane) in accordance with the San Ysidro Community Plan and Local Coastal Program (2016) — Protected intersection treatments at Iris Avenue and Dairy Mart Road including curb extensions, ramps and supporting signal phasing — Signal modifications at Del Sur Boulevard, Smythe Avenue and West Park Avenue — New pedestrian-activated crossing signal (HAWK) at Precision Park Lane — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks and curb ramps at Iris Avenue, Dairy Mart Road, Precision Park Lane, Del Sur Boulevard, Smythe Crossing, Smythe Avenue, and Caminito De Los Niños — Three new bus islands providing separation between cyclists and transit buses at Dairy Mart Road, Precision Park Lane, and Del Sur Boulevard

WEST PARK AVENUE, EAST PARK AVENUE & EAST SEAWARD AVENUE

On West Park Avenue (north of East Seaward Avenue) and on East Seaward Avenue, the project facility is an enhanced Class III bike route or bike boulevard. Additional safety features include: — One new speed hump — Neighborhood traffic circle at West Park Avenue and Seaward Avenue, including new curb ramps & continental crosswalks — Curb extensions at East Park Avenue and Seaward Avenue, including new curb ramps & continental crosswalk South of Seaward Avenue, the project splits into a “couplet” of one-way routes on West Park Avenue (southbound) and East Park Avenue (northbound). The planned facilities are a combination of one-way Class IV cycle tracks and Class II buffered bike lanes. Additional safety features include: — A large curb extension at Hall Avenue including new curb ramps and sidewalks — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at both intersections with Hall Avenue

HALL AVENUE

On Hall Avenue, the project facility is an enhanced Class III bike route. Additional safety features include: — A marked bike crossing at Olive Drive, providing a pathway for eastbound cyclists to reach the I-805 pedestrian bridge — An adjacent speed hump on Olive Drive approaching the marked bike crossing

EAST BEYER BOULEVARD

On East Beyer Boulevard between the I-805 pedestrian bridge and Center Street/Hill Street, the project is a two-way Class IV cycle track, physically separated from motorized traffic via a raised

WSP October 2018 BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY Page 38 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 58 curb. This provides maximum separation between cyclists and motor vehicles within the roadway environment. Additional safety features include: — Improved all-way stop at Center Street/Hill Street with bikeway markings From Center Street/Hill Street to approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road, the project is an enhanced Class III bike route, including: — Two new speed humps From approximately 350 feet north of Bolton Hall Road East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza, the project facility is Class II bike buffered lanes. Additional safety benefits include: — Protected intersection treatments at East Beyer Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza including curb extensions, cyclist and pedestrian refuge areas and supporting signal phasing — Installation/improvement of continental crosswalks at East San Ysidro Boulevard/Camino de la Plaza

WSP BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY October 2018 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Page 39 59 Attachment 3

Responses to Comments on the Border to Bayshore Bikeway

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) held an open house and public hearing for the Border to Bayshore Bikeway (proposed project) on November 13, 2018, from 6 to 8 p.m. at the San Ysidro Civic Center. On October 29, 2018, SANDAG published a notice of the open house and public hearing and made available online the proposed project’s Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment.

A total of 19 individuals or organizations provided comments on the proposed project, in writing and verbally at the open house and public hearing on November 13, 2018, and via email between November 13 and November 20, 2018. Table 1 lists all comments received, including the name of each individual or organization that submitted a comment, the date of the comment, and how the comment was submitted (i.e., written, verbal, email). All written and transcribed verbal comments are included as Appendix A.

Table 1 List of Comments on the Border to Bayshore Bikeway

Public Public Individual or Organization Comment Date Hearing- Hearing- Email Written Verbal

Andy Hanshaw, San Diego County 11/13/2018 X Bicycle Coalition

Angel C, Victoria G 11/13/2018 X

Bertha Ruiz (via Spanish 11/13/2018 X X interpretation)

David Flores, Casa Familiar 11/13/2018 X X

Deborah Mosley 11/19/2018 X

Guillermo Amador 11/13/2018 X

Jason Wells, San Ysidro Chamber 11/13/2018 X X of Commerce

Keith Ridgeway 11/13/2018 X

Lorraine DeLorie 11/13/2018 X X

Miguel Aguirre 11/13/2018 X X

Miguel Corrales 11/13/2018 X X

Ricky Willian Ross 11/13/2018 X

60 Public Public Individual or Organization Comment Date Hearing- Hearing- Email Written Verbal

Ronald Cohen 11/13/2018 X

Walt Zumstein 11/13/2018 X X

Youth San Ysidro Resident 1 11/13/2018 X

Youth San Ysidro Resident 2 11/13/2018 X

Youth San Ysidro Resident 3 11/13/2018 X

Youth San Ysidro Resident 4 11/13/2018 X

Youth San Ysidro Resident 5 11/13/2018 X

The concerns and feedback expressed in the comments fall into common themes. Staff has organized the comments according to these common themes, listed below, and provided a written master response to each:

• Master Response 1: On-Street Parking • Master Response 2: Traffic Congestion • Master Response 3: Route Selected • Master Response 4: Project Features

Master Response 1: On-street Parking

Introduction

Several commenters expressed concern with removal of on-street parking as part of the proposed project. They stated that on-street parking is highly utilized in many areas along the project corridor, including Beyer Boulevard, East and West Park Avenues, and Oro Vista Road, and that any impact to that parking would present a hardship for adjacent residents.

Response

SANDAG has received comments from many community members citing parking as their number one concern and is making every practical effort to reduce the number of on-street parking spaces that will be lost. In fact, SANDAG has conducted a detailed parking analysis of the study area, including projected parking impacts and parking occupancy, and has used this information, in conjunction with input from community members, to make important design decisions and significant design refinements in the planning and preliminary engineering phases.

61 Along the 6.5-mile corridor and at this level of design, SANDAG projects a total impact of 219 parking spaces (or roughly 11 percent of all available spaces). While the exact number of spaces impacted is subject to change as the project’s design is refined, the approximate number is not likely to change substantially. This is because projected parking changes have been deemed necessary to create a safe, comfortable, and accessible environment for people walking, biking and driving. It should be noted that roughly 42 percent (92) of parking spaces impacted exist along East Beyer Boulevard, south of all residential areas, and that the community has expressed support for the removal of this parking in light of the security nuisance it creates (i.e., according to the San Diego Police Department, the corridor experiences high incidences of vehicle vandalism and opportunistic crime related to long-term parking for border-crossers and relatively low surveillance).

Elsewhere in the project, SANDAG has incorporated both community input and parking occupancy data to inform design decisions and refinements. Along Beyer Boulevard, East Park Boulevard, and West Park Boulevard, where parking occupancy is high (up to 100 percent on some segments), SANDAG has identified opportunities to modify the project design (e.g., reconfigure medians) while maintaining the integrity of the design. In response to community input and occupancy data on Oro Vista Drive, SANDAG fundamentally redesigned the project, starting from a concept of buffered bike lanes, which required the removal of nearly all on-street parking, and moving to a creative design incorporating traffic calming features and the maintenance of nearly all on-street parking.

Master Response 2: Traffic Congestion

Introduction

A few commenters expressed concerns that the project would cause an increase in traffic congestion. These comments mainly relate to a proposed “road diet” (removal of two travel lanes) along Beyer Boulevard, from Dairy Mart Road to Caminito de los Niños, needed to implement a two-way protected bikeway.

Response

Impacts to traffic along Beyer Boulevard, and all other project corridors, have been analyzed and disclosed to the public (Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment published October 29, 2018; Open House / Public Hearing held November 13, 2018).

As explained in the Traffic and Safety Impact Assessment, implementation of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway is not expected to cause any significant traffic impacts in the opening year (2020). The study does identify two areas – a segment of Beyer Boulevard, between Smythe Avenue and Caminito de los Niños, and the adjacent intersection of Beyer Boulevard and Caminito de los Niños – that may experience significant traffic impacts in the horizon year (2040). Potential congestion would be the result of the combination of the projected vehicular traffic growth caused by the future redevelopment of the area, as anticipated in the recently adopted Community Plan, and the removal of two travel lanes proposed by the Community Plan and project.

The removal of these two travel lanes on Beyer Boulevard and the installation of adjacent bicycle facilities are both included in the recently adopted San Ysidro Community Plan (2016), reflecting the community’s priorities for this corridor. The Border to Bayshore Bikeway implements the vision of the adopted Community Plan.

62 Master Response 3: Route Selected

Introduction

A few commenters expressed concerns about the project route selected. Some commenters suggested the use of other routes to avoid impacts to motor vehicle traffic and on-street parking, and to avoid any changes to already busy school corridors. In one instance, no alternate route was suggested.

Response

The preferred project route was developed to be consistent with and support existing plans and initiatives, best practices in bikeway design, as well as significant community input. The preferred route is also consistent for with the grant awarded to the project through the state-administered Active Transportation Program (ATP) by supporting active transportation and providing direct access to important destinations in the project area including schools, parks, retail centers, major transit hubs, the U.S./Mexico border and the Bayshore Bikeway.

The preferred route will enhance access by using many corridors already identified in existing bicycle transportation and community plans. By providing direct connections to important destinations, the preferred route is more likely to support bicycle use for everyday trips and improve safety for all roadway users, thereby advancing the goals of several important policy initiatives including the City of San Diego Climate Action Plan, the Vision Zero bicycle/pedestrian safety initiative, and SANDAG’s Safe Routes to School program.

Finally, the preferred route also was directly shaped by community input from three large-scale community workshops, numerous smaller stakeholder meetings, and several meetings with the Otay Mesa-Nestor and San Ysidro Community Planning Groups.

SANDAG made a concerted effort during development of the preferred route, and associated conceptual plans, to minimize impacts to traffic and on-street parking, while maintaining the integrity of the project. Constrained school corridors were not avoided due to challenges, but instead selected as opportunities to support Safe Routes to School by calming traffic and enhancing safety for students and all roadway users.

Master Response 4: Project Features

Introduction

Commenters suggested various treatments or features be included in the proposed project. Each type of treatment or feature is listed below, followed by a staff response.

Response

Wayfinding and Signage

Multiple commenters requested that the proposed project include clear wayfinding and signage. One commenter noted that, because the route jogs and the treatments vary, clear wayfinding will be needed to help users stay on the route. Another request was made to provide clear wayfinding to nearby County recreation opportunities including the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) and Tijuana River Valley Regional Park (TRVRP). A final commenter suggested that the Border to Bayshore Bikeway project collaborate with the City of San Diego on its San Ysidro Community Wayfinding project.

63 Response:

SANDAG intends to provide robust wayfinding and signage to support navigation of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway, including wayfinding signs that help users make connections to the OVRP and TRVRP. SANDAG made previous efforts to coordinate with the City’s San Ysidro Community Wayfinding project, but divergent project schedules and scopes limited opportunities to collaborate, and the City’s project is now complete. SANDAG will continue to work with the Community to complement the work already completed, as much as possible, during the implementation of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway project.

Secure and Attractive Bicycle Parking

One commenter requested that the project include secure and attractive bicycle parking.

Response:

Bicycle parking is an important component of the implementation of the Bikeway project, and the final location and type of bicycle parking will be determined during the Final Design phase of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway project.

Connection to the Ped West Crossing

One commenter requested that the proposed project include a connection to the Ped West pedestrian crossing via Camino de la Plaza.

Response:

It is beyond the scope of this project to provide connections to multiple border crossings. Several rounds of community input led to the selection of the Ped East crossing as the southern terminus of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway.

Safety and Maintenance of Pedestrian Crossing of Interstate 805

One commenter expressed concern over the use of the existing pedestrian crossing over Interstate 805 (I-805) for the following reasons: poor lighting, broken glass, and homeless encampments.

Response:

The existing pedestrian crossing over I-805 is owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). SANDAG is aware of the issues mentioned by the commenter, but nonetheless proposes the use of this feature because it provides a low-stress bicycle connection, suitable for people of all ages and abilities. SANDAG will coordinate with Caltrans in the Final Design phase of the project to address maintenance and safety issues.

Collaboration with Federal Government Project on the Pedestrian Plaza at Ped East

One commenter requested that SANDAG collaborate with the federal government’s ongoing Pedestrian Plaza project at the Ped East border crossing.

64 Response:

The southern terminus of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway is Rail Court. It is beyond the scope of this project to extend improvements beyond this point and across the border, but SANDAG will continue to coordinate with all relevant stakeholders to maximize access.

Implementation of a Horse Trail

One commenter suggested that SANDAG build a horse trail as a part of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway.

Response:

The implementation of an equestrian trail is beyond the scope of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway project.

Safe Project Design on Iris and Ingrid Avenues

A few commenters cited specific safety concerns at particular locations along the project corridor. One commenter suggested that Iris Avenue was too busy and constrained to safely add a bicycle facility, while another asked whether the roadway would be realigned to create more space. Another commenter expressed concern over potential conflicts between bicycle traffic and residents backing out of driveways on Ingrid Avenue.

Response:

SANDAG acknowledges significant constraints on Iris Avenue, but nonetheless finds Iris Avenue to be the preferred east-west connection for the project. Iris Avenue provides direct connections to the Iris Avenue Transit Center and Southwest Middle School, and it provides a straight, flat and direct connection between the north/west and south/east segments of the Border to Bayshore Bikeway. SANDAG will coordinate with the City of San Diego and Metropolitan Transit System to implement traffic calming and other design solutions to provide the best bicycle experience possible along this constrained corridor. The realignment of Iris Avenue as a component of the project is unlikely because it would require right-of-way acquisition. Impacts to right-of-way could delay project implementation, which – in turn – may jeopardize available project funding.

Lastly, regarding potential conflicts on Ingrid Avenue, the proposed project design includes safety improvements intended to mitigate conflicts, such as traffic calming features, improved sightlines and high- visibility treatments.

Education Along the Bike Route

One commenter asked whether funding would be made available for education along the bike route.

Response:

SANDAG intends to provide a suite of supportive programs, including an education component, to complement its capital bikeway program. \SANDAG offers bike education services to communities through its iCommute program, and these services will be leveraged to support the project.

65 PUBLIC HEARING: BORDER TO BAYSHORE BIKEWAY

PUBLIC HEARING

HELD AT: SAN YSIDRO CIVIC CENTER

BY: SANDAG

NOVEMBER 13, 2018

Transcribed by: Rosalie A. Kramm, CA CSR No. 5469

1 66 1 NOVEMBER 13, 2018 TUESDAY SAN YSIDRO, CALIFORNIA

2 MR. SINNOTT: Good evening, Everybody. Thank

3 you for coming tonight to the public hearing. The public

4 hearing portion of tonight's event will get started at

5 6:45, in about 25 minutes. If you would like to provide

6 spoken comments during the public hearing, please be sure

7 to fill out the speaker slip. It looks like this. And

8 they are over there. Please be sure to fill out one of

9 these slips. The slips are available at the comment

10 tables and hand them in to Brandy.

11 You may also provide one-on-one spoken comments

12 to our court reporter Rosalie who is sitting over here at

13 the table before the public hearing begins at 6:45.

14 If you would prefer to submit a written

15 comment, please visit the comment table at any point

16 throughout the night. Please continue to look at the

17 displays, which you are.

18 This is a proposed bikeway that will cost

19 approximately $6.5 million and will connect with the

20 Bayshore Bikeway, estimated 12.2 million. So you'll have

21 a chance to talk to everybody who has a name tag, and

22 we'll get started at 6:45.

23 (Discussion off the record.)

24 ______

25 (One-on-One comment.)

2 67 1 KEITH RIDGEWAY: The proposed routes from Hall

2 Street, over the footbridge, for 805, is poorly lit,

3 covered in glass, and has a homeless community there.

4 How will you keep it clean and safe for users at night?

5 The area near the trolley station has a section

6 that juts out into the road by approximately 3 feet.

7 Will you straighten this portion out for the public?

8 (End of comment.)

9 (Discussion off the record.)

10 ______

11 (One-on-One comment.)

12 RONALD COHEN: My main concern is the route

13 between Beyer going down Iris and then over the bridge

14 and Grove, that area, coming from Hollister. That

15 particular part of the route was -- in my opinion will

16 cause a lot of accidents, because just on Iris, between

17 the trolley station and the bridge, was just enough room

18 for a car on either side of the road. I travel that

19 every morning, and it's just, in my opinion, not feasible

20 to do it safely.

21 And speaking with some of the people there, I

22 guess that's sort of a set deal. So I think that should

23 be really looked into. I don't know if there is an

24 alternative to that, but I wanted to get that in.

25 I probably won't be staying for the whole

3 68 1 presentation.

2 I don't ride a bike. However, I drive a car.

3 And I -- even the way it is now is people open doors into

4 traffic. If you are going to put a bike lane there,

5 there is -- I don't know how they are going to do that,

6 unless they take the parking out, and that's really not

7 feasible either, because I think some of the people that

8 park at least on the side opposite the school, they live

9 in that area to the right all the way toward 905. There

10 is a lot of homes in there that probably don't have

11 enough parking. So that's what I think.

12 (End of statement.)

13 (Discussion off the record.)

14 MR. SINNOTT: Well, good evening, everybody.

15 Thank you for coming tonight. It is nice to see a good

16 turnout. My name is Jerry Sinnott. I'm the current

17 chair of the board of directors for SANDAG. SANDAG is

18 the organization that brings all the cities of San Diego

19 together to help plan transportation projects.

20 And we're here tonight to hear from yourselves

21 and the community as to what you like and what you may

22 not like on the proposed border to Bayshore Bikeway,

23 which you have been hopefully talking to our project team

24 and getting specifics, some of your questions answered.

25 The intent of this evening is to hold a public

4 69 1 hearing to provide community members with the opportunity

2 to comment on the project. Staff has received a lot of

3 constructive feedback in previous meetings and many

4 comments and suggestions that were incorporated into what

5 you are seeing here tonight in the project proposal.

6 Staff's review of the project indicates that it

7 may qualify as exempt from CEQA, which is your California

8 Environmental Quality Act, that every project has to go

9 through a CEQA review.

10 But based on the input so far, our staff looks

11 at it and says this is probably an exempt project.

12 Holding a public hearing and preparing the traffic and

13 safety impact assessment are required before SANDAG can

14 consider approving the project as exempt from the CEQA.

15 So we are holding the public hearing for you.

16 Our transportation meeting, which will be

17 meeting on December 14th, will be considering this

18 project and the proposal for the possible exemption. If

19 you are interested in providing spoken comments this

20 evening, and you have not yet submitted a speaker slip,

21 please do so, and I think Brandy has some more over here.

22 Speakers will be called to the microphone at the podium

23 in the order the speaker slips are received. When you

24 are called, please state your name clearly so the court

25 reporter who is here with us tonight can document your

5 70 1 comments accurately. There is an additional timer at the

2 table. I'll proceed right here and I'll be providing you

3 with three minutes of time, and we'll let you know as the

4 time gets to the end so that we can keep your comments to

5 three minutes. We really appreciate that.

6 If you prefer to submit written comments,

7 please visit our comment table to complete and drop in

8 your comments, and we will collect those. Written and

9 spoken comments collected at tonight's open house and

10 public hearing, as well as written responses to those

11 comments, will be provided to the SANDAG transportation

12 committee for its consideration before it considers

13 approving the project as exempt from the CEQA process.

14 If you have any questions as to how the public

15 hearing will work, or if you have any further questions,

16 we'll be happy to answer them.

17 Is there anybody that would like an

18 interpreter? I know we have one that has already

19 designated. Would anybody else like interpretation?

20 Okay. Seeing none, do we have any other

21 speaker slips? One more is coming up.

22 So far I have three. We'll have a fourth one.

23 I'll start out with Andy Henshaw, followed by

24 David Flores.

25 ANDY HENSHAW: Thank you, Andy Henshaw with the

6 71 1 San Diego County Bicycle Coalition here to offer our

2 support for the Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project. This

3 is a really important project, really great project, that

4 connects our border in San Ysidro to Imperial Beach and

5 the five cities on the San Diego Bay. So this is a

6 bikeway that serves all ages and abilities, and that is a

7 really important part.

8 The treatments are to make it safe, connected,

9 and protecting people who want to ride of any age or any

10 ability. So it is a very important link making

11 connections to schools, to parks, to our transit

12 stations, and to local businesses.

13 So connecting businesses and people to our

14 parks, schools, and transit is definitely a benefit of

15 this project as well. Really having a safe connection as

16 part of the region is critical to move forward. We offer

17 our full support to the project. It is a great project.

18 I would just add that I would hope to have a

19 really good signage and funding as part of this project,

20 because there is a variety of treatments for bike routes

21 to bike boulevards to traffic circles, just having really

22 good, clear signage and guidance for getting people on

23 the bikeway would be really important.

24 So other than that, we fully support this

25 project and urge your support. Thanks.

7 72 1 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much.

2 David Flores followed by Bertha Ruiz.

3 DAVID FLORES: Thank you. Good evening. My

4 name is David Flores. I'm here representing the Casa

5 Familiar, and we are in full support also of the Border

6 to Bayshore Bikeway as it is designed. We think that

7 staff has selected the correct locations for the bike

8 route. You are connecting the different neighborhoods

9 that touch San Ysidro. We really are very excited about

10 the presentation along Beyer Boulevard, because we heard

11 a lot from different community planning processes with

12 the community that Beyer is just way too wide, and it

13 seems like this inclusion of a bicycle path would be an

14 asset to the community.

15 So we are working together also with staff to

16 just make sure we can facilitate those edges or corners

17 of the project, but we are in full support of providing

18 additional choices, not just for San Ysidro, but for

19 people that try to ride the bicycle right now. We have

20 done some bike education workshops and planning. It is

21 very dangerous to ride a bike with your family.

22 So we are in full support of the project, and

23 also the connection to the border will have a positive

24 impact on both vehicles, for the amount of vehicles

25 crossing the border, and the individuals crossing the

8 73 1 border. Thank you.

2 MR. SINNOTT: Bertha Ruiz followed by Walt

3 Zumastater.

4 BERTHA RUIZ: (Via Spanish interpretation.)

5 Good evening. My name is Bertha Ruiz. My comment has to

6 do with security features when you use the bicycle. Are

7 you also going to incorporate something that will allow

8 you to store your bicycles so it is not stolen, so it is

9 safe, if you chose to leave it when you connect?

10 And are these bicycle lockers or cages going to

11 be put along the route in an attractive manner that won't

12 spoil the rest of the view?

13 Thank you so much.

14 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you. I think our project

15 team will be able to get you specific answers to those on

16 the bicycle storage.

17 Next, Walt Zumstater.

18 WALT ZUMSTATER: I'm Walt Zumstater, a

19 long-time resident of the South Bay. I'm concerned about

20 the parking on -- I think it's Abraham Street, I'm not

21 sure, along the freeway, when -- when they are going to

22 be doing the upgrades to the street and the parking.

23 Where are all those people going to park? I mean

24 that's -- that's got to be a good question.

25 And then there would be a concern that there is

9 74 1 a bike route that goes along Home Depot that hooks up by

2 Swiss Mart. If you ride 13th Street, if you are going to

3 Chula Vista, you are going to have to ride two, maybe

4 three miles back to go to Chula Vista where Saturn Street

5 already has a bike path there. And they are not really

6 utilizing it. But parking and the construction time --

7 time would be a question.

8 And we are just concerned about how it's being

9 done.

10 MR. SINNOTT: And, Walt, your concern on the --

11 is it during construction that you are primarily

12 concerned with where the parking will --

13 WALT ZUMSTATER: Not really, afterwards, when

14 they get done, when -- are the people going to be able to

15 park on that side street where they park? There is no

16 parking in the apartments for them, because they don't

17 have stickers. If they park inside there, they will get

18 towed. It is a big expense. I see a lot of people

19 having problems with this.

20 MR. SINNOTT: Good. Thank you very much.

21 I have Miguel Aguirre.

22 MIGUEL AGUIRRE: My name is Miguel Aguirre, and

23 I'm talking about the McDonald's trolley station building

24 heading east, and I too encourage the project, support

25 it. I would like to suggest or encourage that you work

10 75 1 and collaborate a little bit more closely with GSA on the

2 pedestrian plaza they are getting ready to unveil. Are

3 you familiar with it? The path right now has a very

4 defined route, but it seems to end just short of the

5 border. When I go to the border, I cross the border, and

6 it would be, I think, an opportunity to really simplify

7 crossing the border, smart growth mobility, and encourage

8 the bikes to continue on south.

9 There is a very clear path through MTS Trolley

10 Plaza, behind McDonald's, to the street, and it will all

11 funnel into the GSA Plaza. So you have my encouragement.

12 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much.

13 The last speaker I have is Jason Wells.

14 JASON WELLS: Good evening. Jason Wells,

15 Executive Director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce,

16 on behalf of our 800 businesses with a 92154 zip code.

17 We are in full support of the project. I think most of

18 your staff did a lot of hours to come up with this. I

19 wasn't going to speak. I was going to put it on paper,

20 but I really want to say the comments made by the Bicycle

21 Coalition we agree with, the size of the road along the

22 trail itself. Right now the City of San Diego has a

23 million dollar sign program for pedestrians. And I know

24 there is a site survey for bicycles. There will be lots

25 of options off of this route.

11 76 1 And then lastly, it is our understanding, well,

2 as to pedestrian crossings, going east where this is

3 going to, and also heading west, we are working with the

4 CDE to have a bicycle crossing. If and when that

5 happens, we would like to work with them.

6 My understanding the expenditures on the

7 process are less than those that were planned to be

8 expended if they were to do it on Oscar Boulevard. So I

9 would ask that we utilize those extra funds, if you will,

10 in having the path go across the bridge to also connect

11 to the crossing.

12 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much. Do we have

13 any other speakers who would like to make a comment? It

14 is very informal. Just come up here and say something.

15 Okay. I'm seeing none.

16 MIGUEL CORRALES: My name is Miguel Corrales.

17 I live on Ingrid Avenue, and my problem or my concern is

18 that that street is already very busy, especially when

19 the kids get out of school, and it is a narrow street.

20 It already has speed bumps, and we still have problems

21 with people speeding through there.

22 Now, if we add to that high schools, I think it

23 is going to be a big problem.

24 MR. SINNOTT: Specify which street?

25 MIGUEL CORRALES: Ingrid Avenue. I know there

12 77 1 is a -- around that -- once you come down Hollister, if

2 you move to Imperial Beach Boulevard, it already has

3 bicycle routes, and then Ingrid Avenue goes to Green Bay,

4 and it goes down even more, so that -- that's my concern.

5 MR. SINNOTT: Okay. Thank you very much. If

6 you can fill out one of these slips, that would be

7 helpful, too.

8 Is there anyone else that would like to make a

9 comment? Yes. Come up.

10 LORRAINE DE LORIE: Lorraine DeLorie, and I

11 actually reside on Coronado Avenue. I'm a newcomer to

12 the whole area. This is my first night in, and having

13 lived in the area more than 30 years, I don't -- did I

14 hear someone?

15 Beyer Boulevard is an extremely busy route, and

16 I don't know if it is family friendly on bike. I would

17 like to echo what this man said on Ingrid. My son lives

18 there, and that is an extremely busy area with schools

19 and the traffic. I was speaking to a gentleman before

20 the meeting started regarding that route. If I'm coming

21 from the border, and I'm going to Chula Vista, I'm going

22 to go straight at Beyer all the way to Chula Vista, and I

23 ride a bicycle, and I frequent all of these routes.

24 As to -- what this gentleman said, regarding,

25 instead of going all the way down Ingrid and riding to

13 78 1 13th Street and heading straight up 7th, I would rather

2 the money spent making all the routes safer or better,

3 whatever, to be implemented into that intersection at

4 Palm and Saturn, because I understand it is busy, but it

5 is not any busier than it is at Palm and 13th.

6 So I don't know if it's because San Ysidro has

7 already implemented it and improved Beyer Boulevard for

8 this project and that Imperial Beach has already

9 implemented and improved 13th Street, like it was all

10 preconceived, and now this is all coming into rendition

11 or --

12 MR. SINNOTT: Good comments. We'll have our

13 planners address what you are talking about after we get

14 done with the hearing. I know that there has been

15 extensive discussion in the community as to it's hard to

16 find an existing community, what's the best route, and

17 you've highlighted some of the alternatives that I'm sure

18 have been discussed. We'll have the team talk to you

19 about what the possibilities are.

20 LORRAINE DE LORIE: Thank you.

21 MR. SINNOTT: Thank you very much.

22 Unless I see any hands, we will close the

23 public hearing. There is always an opportunity, though,

24 for you to fill out any more comments you have or to talk

25 with our court reporter, and we'll document those

14 79 1 comments. The written and spoken comments collected this

2 evening and written responses to those comments will be

3 provided to our transportation committee before it

4 considers approving the project from the CEQA process on

5 December 14th. So that's when the transportation meeting

6 will be held. Our committee will be meeting on the 14th.

7 Written comments can be submitted to SANDAG and the

8 project team for next week. The printed program contains

9 contact information for submitting comments to our

10 project manager.

11 Tonight we need to end at 8:00 o'clock. So you

12 have plenty of time to eat food if there is some left

13 over -- we're getting more. But to hang out and talk to

14 our project team about some of your ideas or answer any

15 of your questions. We would love to hear your detailed

16 thoughts. We really want to thank you for coming out

17 tonight. I know you all have busy schedules, but it is

18 this kind of input and communication back and forth that

19 makes a better project.

20 So with that, I will close the public hearing,

21 and thank you all for coming this evening. But hang out

22 and talk to our project team.

23 I also want to thank specifically Allison and

24 Brandy and the whole project team. Raise your hand if

25 you are on the project.

15 80 1 (Applause.)

2 They work extremely hard, and we have learned

3 at SANDAG that these bike projects are just as

4 complicated and intricate and hard to implement as a

5 regular road project is. It impacts a lot of people, and

6 it takes time and input from everybody to make a good

7 project.

8 So thank you again for coming tonight.

9 (Discussion off the record.

10 ______

11 (One-on-One comment.)

12 KEITH RIDGEWAY: Please ensure that traffic

13 lights along the route respond to bicycles.

14 (Discussion off the record.)

15 ______.

16 (One-on-One comment.)

17 GUILLERMO AMADOR: Guillermo Amador. I have a

18 big concern. My concern is on Beyer Boulevard, they are

19 taking away two lanes which is already congested in rush

20 hour, because you have the trolley. You have Smythe

21 Elementary. You have La Mirada School. You have Mt.

22 Carmel Catholic School. You have the middle school. And

23 then you have the traffic coming down from San Ysidro

24 High School. And you are taking away two lanes and

25 making it a -- just -- what is it -- a -- a double -- a

16 81 1 one -- a one lane each way. And it's already crowded as

2 it is.

3 Whereas if you come down from Iris, and you

4 make a right on Dairy Mart Road, and then you make a left

5 on Vista Lane, and you follow it to Cottonwood, and then

6 you make a left on Seaward, and then a right on Park,

7 which, you know, there is no cars, and you don't have

8 the -- you know, you take two lanes away from Beyer

9 Boulevard. And those -- nobody goes through that. I've

10 been living here all my life.

11 To me, it's like you are going to create a lot

12 of congestion, and, you know, it is going to impact it

13 even more, because of all the schools and the trolley

14 during rush hour.

15 That's it.

16 (Discussion off the record.)

17 ______

18 (One-on-One comment.)

19 RICKY WILLIAM ROSS: My question is: Is money

20 going to be set aside for educating the public on this

21 bike route? That's it.

22 (End of public comment.)

17 82 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

3 I, Rosalie A. Kramm, Certified Shorthand

4 Reporter for the State of California, CSR No. 5469, do

5 hereby certify:

6 That the foregoing was taken before me at

7 the time and place herein set forth; that the proceedings

8 were reported stenographically by me and were transcribed

9 through computerized transcription by me; that the

10 foregoing is a true record of the proceedings taken at

11 that time; and that I am not interested in the event of

12 the action.

13 Witness my hand dated November 20, 2018.

16 ______

17 ROSALIE A. KRAMM

18 CA CSR NO. 5469

18 83 REQ T TO COMMENT

Date: ot 5 Agenda ltem #: E ln Favor ! Opposed

Name: -L Representing:

Address:

Phone: E-mail: Reguest to Speak: {Ves lllo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record

Please Submit to the Clerk of the Boa¡d @DAG 84 REQUEST TO COMMENT ,r./lt- j t. / Date: '. "-ial"t,"1 \/ t o Agenda ltem #: n ln Favor n Opposed

Name: €. J Representing:

Address:

Phone: E-mail: Reguest to Speak: No lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record:

PÍease Submit to the CÍerk of the Board @DAG 85 REQUEST TO COMMENT

Date: Agenda ltem #: n In Favor n Opposed

Name: ng: sr6

Address:

Phone: E-mail: Yes lVo any comments below you want included in the public record:

Píease Suhmit to the Clerk of the Board 86 SOLICITUD PARA EMITIR COMENTARIOS

Fecha: tA \o-^-r. 2,o tà Tema de la agenda #: ! A Favor ¡ En oposición ^t- Nombre: f1 _q;'t_\_b \( lrrn Representando a: 5 ¿-t \^-^J-^.-o ^a ò \ Dirección:

Teléfon Correo electrónico Solicitud para hablar: si W lllo Si prefiere no emitir comentarios verbalmente puede escribir a continuación los comentarios que desee que sean ìncluidos como parte del registro público: ( é 2 r

\ å

Favor de entregar a Ia secretaria de la Directiva 87 REQUEST TO COMMENT

Date: z/, -¡1 -zo,/F. Agenda ltem #: n ln Favor [f Opposed

Name: 5 Representing:

Address:

Phone: E-mail: Reguest to Speak: n Yes lUo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record:

Please Suhmit to the Clerk of the Boatd @DAG 88 REQUEST TO COMMENT oe Date: I\ Agenda ltem #: ffn Favor n Opposed

Name: Representing:

Address

Phone E-mail Reguest to Speak: W Yes lUo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record:

(sArvPAG Please Submit to the Clerk of the Boatd 89 REQUEST TO COMMENT t( Date: Agenda ltem #: (ln favor I Opposed a Name: l\ ¿ i orri ¿u'v'auts Representin S= )ñ,- %rÐa, Ck*-,ß"rL 6'f G'r-oo.n Address:

Phone: E-mail Reguest to Speak: Ñ Yes lVo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record:

Please Suhmit to the Clerk of the Boatd @DAG 90 Gb GOMMENTS byBlKE

Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.

NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL

tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above).

COMMENTS:

oI i: ì^å[\ Lv&rl 1¿ñ ødJrü ,

6 èlúL a

t^*-òQ t" s. U

For official use only: Bikeway Project: Date Received: WHraffieJ 91 cb COMENTARIOS byBlKE

Por favor, comparta sus comentarios a continuación. Tenga en cuenta que los documentos de SANDAG se consideran registros públicos y pueden hacerse del conocimiento público de ser solicitados. Gracias.

NOMBRE DIRECCIÓN TELÉFONO CORREO # | ) Ato,- LJgu-ç tr Por favor, envíeme información actualizada del proyecto en el futuro (se requ¡ere una dirección de correo electrónico arr¡ba ).

COMENTARIOS

f çoLe 6 çÞ

¡\* Ít+Ã îÍ¿= ¡çts' Aa.tD t / È''- ,a-a ln'^ur+-^ Çø¿

r,/*l( ¿ ¡Q"ag ç-*\,(,

/Lrpvut- É tV A ?rt wrr{

Solamente para uso oficial Proyecto de vía ciclista: Fecha de recepción: Wwbaffi 92 Gb COMMENTS byBlKE

Please share your comments below. Please note that SANDAG documents are public records and may be disclosed to the public upon request. Thank you.

NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL

/ül l0-r¡et nt ln- ,/ 10 tr Please email me project updates in the future (email address required above).

COMMENTS:

::t \\ NJ \

o b l,-t C(/

(-\ bi 0v^ ì,r* .0+-- ¿J

*'htR- r

7ho^t L< vôú,

For official use only Bikeway Project: Date Received: WHraffi 93 REQUEST TO COMwTENT

Date: lltt4ith Agenda ltem #: /ln F^uo, E Opposed

.' I I-- r# J-:: 'Ln\',, i Representing: l-Ãii¿¡ \f, n"ri r.l( Name: hrc,"\.u '

Address

Phone: E-mail Reguesú to Speak: Yes lllo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record: o ''...i t'r r',11r qf\ ''-"ii\, ,¡'ì' 'r ;., .'1:: \.rr',ìta. i":,-'r\i.'r' ¡ì\,'-:.. & ?rr-i\;r"l $#i' t;,\-fr:ir i"¿ c\)

Please Submit to the Clerk of the Board @DAG 94 REQUEST TO COMMENT \?--' Date: - \j Agenda ltem #: n ln Favor tr Opposed

jo'.. V:;'t'., ,'1'., r:i¡..n,."' Name: Yc¡.rr ^ Representing: Address:

Phone: E-mail Reguest to Speak: Yes lUo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record

ü"C^ ;--4,:i (--e:^çr¿r¡,,*ìl*,f[,, b-rf!*Qù d^r^4 l¿v,;L¡r;¿",.f,¿t1l Lr\^Al c^4- !cv*{-, J

lr I ' 't l'-lo"à ¿

Piease Submit to the Clerk of the Boatd @DAG 95 REQUEST TO COMMENT

Date: \\ \3 Agenda ltem #: fi ln Favor E Opposed

Name: \orl¡ ÊesiCev-Å ,"\' (¿nn 'i\t\d'io Representing , Cr^Sor l¿tmt\rc"r

Address:

Phone: E-mail: Request to Speak: Yes N ilo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record -TVl t \ r I t tv'rc.\€e -e b\ç {v--

'\rrçU"-,{-t C * .}f^€ f l.ì'\:,-.,'¡'i-'./r. i VÊf- t\ ¿n!.ri.' * e e) a-v' kt ?. âv^¿\ € v-vr-€u C1 \Ðo. vr-l o

¡:,, Ò\n€ rtu"i\\ €vreor},-s!i.¡ {'',{r:, +f tr,rþ a V'nr¡c*p,n,f¡r,.C.Þrc--J tYdc,th cr-' Please Submit to the Clerk of the Boatd 96 REQUEST TO COMMENT /13 I tf Date: l\ Agenda ltem #: ft- ln Favor E Opposed

Name: Youth Qesrc\Ònl Sc.^ Ysictvg Representing: YouJ h LA

Address:

Phone: E-mail: i\\ /A Reguest to Speak: Yes X lUo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record: tioulct ìt af{e c+ lhe lvntf ìC, j{ sc tr}ou\dn + i1 crrso o{{ecl oìr CUn lil ?

Please Submit to the Clerk of the Boatd @PAG 97 REQUEST TO COMMENT

Date: rr /r¿/ r8 Agenda ltem #: E ln Favor BOpposed

Name Yo; ti-r ¡Zericlen \ 6 P So",, Vs,'clro Representing: Cc,sq Fqrn,'lio"

Address:

Phone: Reguest to Speak: Yes No lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record: \r i L qrD\r"\O to he, har&r C"rv- rc,6,,'c\enùã +È L'^rl ho'r^Ì( ¡^í( È I e' *VôR' ü\ ["] s Ðp-ôo]a-\\ rr \hù üv¿ nåi,ni^i.J ht l¿€Ã? r f\6¡ n hve rCCu ãi. c^ "Poo- tl'"e æffi

rOthr er tl-'on rìv e"

Please Submit to the Clerk of the Boatd 98 REQUEST TO COMMENT

Date: Agenda ltem #: \u rñ havor n Opposed c

Name: Representing ìl r

Address:

Phone: E-mail: Reguest to Speak: Yes lUo lf you do not wish to speak, you may write any comments below you want included in the public record: ,.i -' -' ', t,

Please Submit to the C[erk of the Boatd @DAG 99 100 Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project

Legend

Trails Existing

Planned

Proposed Park Trails DPR Owned and Managed Lands Community Plan Area/Sponsor Grou

_ Border to Bayshore Bikeway Project Points of Connection/ . Locations for Wayfinding

1: 50,000 Notes

1.6 00.791.6 Miles This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Department of Parks and Recreation - The Upside of Outside 101 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Transportation Committee Item: 7 December 14, 2018 Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendment: Carlsbad Village Railroad Trench Study

Overview Action Requested: Approve In 2014, the City of Carlsbad requested that SANDAG The Transportation Committee is asked to and the North County Transit District (NCTD) participate approve an amendment to the FY 2019 in a feasibility study to double track the city’s downtown Program Budget, accepting $369,440 from the village area below grade in a railroad trench. This study City of Carlsbad to fund the Carlsbad Village was completed in 2017 and the next step in the Railroad Trench Study (Capital Improvement project’s development is completion of preliminary Program Project No. 1239819), in substantially engineering and alternatives analysis. the same form as Attachment 1.

Key Considerations Fiscal Impact: The Carlsbad Village Double Track – Railroad Trench Approval of the proposed budget amendment Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study would allow SANDAG to accept $369,440 identified that a trench would be feasible in the from the City of Carlsbad for the Carlsbad downtown village area and would accommodate Village Railroad Trench Study project. additional double-tracking that is necessary along the Schedule/Scope Impact: corridor included in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Two alternatives were studied at the preliminary The proposed budget amendment would level, either a short or long trench, and total costs in enable SANDAG, the City of Carlsbad, and the current year dollars ranged from a low of $215 million North County Transit District to complete for the short trench to a high of $350 million for the preliminary engineering and alternatives long trench (Attachment 2). analysis for the Carlsbad Village Railroad Trench Study project. As part of a separate but parallel effort, SANDAG has completed 30 percent Preliminary Engineering on an “at-grade” double track project through the remaining single-track section of the project area, and the federal lead agency, the Federal Railroad Administration, currently is finalizing the environmental document. On November 27, 2018, the City of Carlsbad approved the transfer of funds not to exceed $375,000 to SANDAG to complete the preliminary engineering and alternative analysis for the Carlsbad Village Railroad Trench Study project (Attachment 3)1.

Next Steps The proposed budget amendment would enable SANDAG, the City of Carlsbad, and NCTD to complete preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis for the project. Additional design work would be contingent on the identification of additional funding.

Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Linda Culp, (619) 699-6957, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Proposed FY 2019 Budget Amendment for Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1239819 - Carlsbad Village Double Track Trench 2. Carlsbad Village Railroad Trench Study Location Map 3. City Council of the City of Carlsbad Resolution No. 2018-202

1 $369,440 is the final cost for this work. Attachment 1

PROPOSED FY 2019 BUDGET Project Number: 1239819 Corridor Director: Bruce Smith RTIP Number: N/A Project Manager: Linda Culp Project Name: Carlsbad Village Double Track Trench PM Phone Number: (619) 699-6957

PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Preliminary Engineering for a future railroad trench in the City of Carlsbad. Alternatives Analysis is underway.

PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Railroad milepost (MP) 228.0 to MP 230.6 Draft Environmental Document TBD Final Environmental Document TBD Ready to Advertise N/A Begin Construction N/A Open to Public N/A Construction Complete N/A

SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 TOTAL Administration $0 $0 $7 $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18 Environmental Document 0 0 178 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 Design 000000000000 Right-of-Way Support 000000000000 Right-of-Way Capital 000000000000 Construction Support 000000000000 Construction Capital 000000000000 Vehicles 000000000000 Legal Services 000000000000 Communications 000000000000 Project Contingency 000000000000 Total SANDAG $0 $0 $185 $184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $369

CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN($000) PRIOR YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 TOTAL Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Design 000000000000 Right-of-Way Support 000000000000 Right-of-Way Capital 000000000000 Construction Support 000000000000 Construction Capital 000000000000 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Proposed SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $185 $184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $369

TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FUNDING PLAN($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 TOTAL Local 91030101 City of Carlsbad $0 $0 $185 $184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $369 TOTAL $0 $0 $185 $184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $369

2 &$5/6%$'9,//$*(5$,/52$'

75(1&+678'

(

& & 2 ^] %XHQD9LVWD /DJRRQ

&$5/6%$'%/9' (1'75(1&+

&$5/6%$'9,//$*( 67$7,21

(( 55 03 99 '' $$ (( '' & 11 $ $$ //$*//$* 5 55 ,, 5 ** 99 / '' 6 $ 6 % $ % % $ /6/6 (( $ 55 99 ' $$ $$ && . ' $.$ 5 22

99 $$ 77 88 11 77 &3&DUO 66 (( ++ 03 &&

9 $$9 .. $$&& 03 $$55 77$0$0

%(*,16+257 75(1&+$/7

%(*,1/21* 75(1&+$/7 $JXD+HGLRQGD /DJRRQ j 6DQ'LHJR,PDJHU\$FTXLVLWLRQ3DUWQHUVKLS )OLJKW'DWHV0D\-XQH

3 Attachment 3

4 5

Transportation Committee Item: 8 December 14, 2018 Proposed FY 2019 Program Budget Amendment: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways

Overview Action Requested: Recommend The Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways is part of the Uptown The Transportation Committee is asked to Bikeways approved by the Board of Directors as part of recommend that the Board of Directors the Regional Bike Plan Early Action Program (Bike EAP) approve an amendment to the FY 2019 in 2013. The 1.1-mile project runs mainly along Program Budget, accepting $2.2 million from University Avenue and Normal Street in the the City of San Diego to fund the design and City of San Diego, connecting to other regional and local construction of the Normal Street Promenade bikeways in the Hillcrest and North Park communities as part of the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways (Attachment 2). (Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1223083), in substantially the same form as In 2016, the Hillcrest Business Association, Attachment 1. Uptown Planners, and KTU+A developed a design for the Normal Street Promenade - a community-led project that proposes a pedestrian promenade along the west Fiscal Impact: side of Normal Street between University Avenue and Approval of the proposed budget amendment Washington Street. would allow SANDAG to accept $2.2 million from the City of San Diego for the design and Key Considerations construction of the Normal Street Promenade The City of San Diego has asked that SANDAG as part of the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways incorporate the design and construction of the Project. Normal Street Promenade into the Eastern Hillcrest Schedule/Scope Impact: Bikeways Project and is scheduled to consider the Incorporating the Normal Street Promenade transfer of $2.2 million to SANDAG for these purposes would add approximately three to six months 1 at its meeting on December 11, 2018. to the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways project Design on the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways is nearing schedule. completion; however, in order to complete design, a decision must be made on whether to include the Normal Street Promenade as part of final design and construction. Including the Normal Street Promenade would integrate the SANDAG and City of San Diego projects, meet city and regional goals, and bring to life the vision proposed in the Uptown Community Plan. It also would add three to six months to the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways project schedule to gather public input and finalize design plans.

1 Staff will provide a verbal confirmation of the Council’s action at the December 14, 2018, Transportation Committee meeting. Next Steps If approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors and the City of San Diego, staff will move forward with completing final design and construction of the Normal Street Promenade as part of the Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways project.

Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Chris Romano, (619) 699-6980, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Proposed FY 2019 Budget Amendment for Capital Improvement Program Project No. 1223083 - Uptown Bikeways: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways 2. Uptown Bikeways - Eastern Hillcrest Bikeway Project Map

2 Attachment 1 FY 2019 CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT IN '000'S Project Number: 1223083 Corridor Director: Linda Culp RTIP Number: SAN234 (Part of SAN228) Project Manager: Chris Romano Project Name: Uptown Bikeways: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways PM Phone Number: (619) 699-6980

PROJECT SCOPE SITE LOCATION PROGRESS TO DATE Scope: Progress to Date: Design 1.1 miles of on-street bikeway. Design is 65 percent complete.

Design is 65 percent complete.

PROJECT LIMITS MAJOR MILESTONES Approved Proposed Draft Environmental Document N/A N/A Final Environmental Document Jul-16 Jul-16 Ready to Advertise Jan-20 TBD University Avenue at SR 163 and connecting to the North Park - Mid-City Bikeways. Begin Construction TBD TBD Open to Public TBD TBD Close-Out TBD TBD

SANDAG EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL

Administration $17 $17 $30 $23 $80 $87 $60 $60 $34 $34 $10 $10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $231 $231

Environmental Document 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Design 364 364 250 $111 850 1,204 110 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,574 $1,989

Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 $0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $19 $19

Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Construction Support 0 0 0 $0 0 0 129 129 200 400 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $329 $729

Construction Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 0 40 40 0 1,000 0 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $40 $1,425

Vehicles 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Legal Services 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Communications 0 0 3 $3 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $43 $43 Project Contingency 0 0 0 $0 188 188 170 170 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $408 $408 Total SANDAG $381 $381 $283 $137 $1,157 $1,518 $529 $729 $284 $1,484 $10 $595 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,644 $4,844

CALTRANS EXPENDITURE PLAN ($000) PRIOR TASK YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL

Environmental Document $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Design 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0

Right-of-Way Support 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0

Right-of-Way Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0

Construction Support 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Construction Capital 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 Total Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total SANDAG & Caltrans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TransNet Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Caltrans RE Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TN AC Pass-Through $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FUNDING PLAN ($000) PRIOR FUNDING SOURCE YEARS FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 TOTAL LOCAL: $0 91000100 TransNet -MC 381 381 $283 $137 1,157 1,157 $529 $0 284 374 $10 $595 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $2,644 $2,644 City of San Diego 0 0 $0 $0 0 361 $0 $729 0 1,110 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $2,200 $381 $381 $283 $137 $1,157 $1,518 $529 $729 $284 $1,484 $10 $595 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,644 $4,844 TOTAL:

3 Attachment 2

UPTOWN BIKEWAYS

EASTERN HILLCREST BIKEWAYS

FASHION VALLEY CAMINO DEL RIO N FRIARS RD

CAMINO DE MISSION VALLEY LA REINA

MORENABLVD

PRESIDIO BACHMAN PL UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS PARK MEADE AVE

CONGRESS ST HOWARD AVE

LINCOLN AVE WASHINGTON ST NORMAL ST AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE TH MISSION HILLS 9 UNIVERSITY AVE SAN DIEGO AVE NORTH PARK ST ON ROBINSON AVE T LANDIS ST PACIFIC HWY G HILLCREST IN H HANCOCK ST S A W THIRD AVE THIRD RICHMOND STRICHMOND PARK BLVD FLORIDA ST TEXAS ST UTAH ST WALNUT AVE ST GEORGIA UPAS ST UPAS ST

Proposed Eastern FIFTH AVE FIFTH Hillcrest Bikeways AVE SIXTH FOURTH AVE FOURTH ST

Propuesta Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways TH

INDIA ST PERSHING DR 28 NUTMEG ST Proposed SANNormal DIEGO Street BALBOA PARK INTERNATIONAL PromenadeAIRPORT LAUREL ST Propuesta Plaza Normal Street BANKERS HILL JUNIPER ST Proposed Uptown Bikeways Propuesta Uptown Bikeways GRAPE ST FLORIDA DR Other Regional Bikeways LITTLE NAVAL MEDICAL Otras ciclovías regionales ITALY CENTER SAN DIEGO CORTEZ City of San Diego University HILL

Avenue Bikeway HARBOR DR University Avenue Bikeway de la ST B ST ST TH ciudad de San Diego DOWNTOWN TH 19 17 C ST

SANDAGregion @SANDAG SANDAGregion #GObyBIKEsd 4 **REVISED**

Transportation Committee Item: 9 December 14, 2018 North Coast Corridor Program: Status Update

Overview Action Requested: Information The North Coast Corridor (NCC) Program is a Allan Kosup will present an update on the comprehensive set of transportation, environmental, and North Coast Corridor Program. coastal access projects to reduce congestion, improve the quality of life for residents, create a stronger local Fiscal Impact: and regional economy for the future, and enhance the The project budget for construction of the coastal environment. North Coast Corridor Program currently is Projects are being built using the Construction $846 million and includes federal, state, and Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) delivery method, TransNet funds. which is a best value construction procurement method. Schedule/Scope Impact: The CM/GC contractor is a joint venture of Flatiron, The first phase of construction of the NCC Skanska and Stacy Witbeck contractors. The project Program, known as Build NCC, is on schedule budget for construction currently is $846 million and and within budget. includes federal, state, and TransNet funds. The Transportation Committee was last briefed on the status of the NCC Program in July 2018. This item provides an update on the status of the project’s progress, schedule, cost, and risk.

Key Considerations The first phase of construction of the NCC Program, known as Build NCC, will extend through the cities of Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Carlsbad (Attachment 2). Construction began in late 2016 and is scheduled to be fully open to the public in late 2022. The scope of Build NCC includes the extension of the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane from Manchester Avenue to State Route 78 (SR 78), replacement of the San Elijo Lagoon highway and rail bridges, restoration of the San Elijo Lagoon, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The project continues to be on schedule and within budget. Major accomplishments in the last six months include the groundbreaking of the HOV lane from Manchester Avenue to Palomar Airport Road, and the completion of the new rail bridge over San Elijo Lagoon.

Next Steps Complete the Coastal Rail Trail Project, San Elijo Double Track Project, and phase one (new outside bridge) of San Elijo Highway Project. Continue design of the HOV extension from Palomar Airport Road to SR 78 and study opportunities to improve operations and reduce congestion at the north end of the project. Staff will return in three months with another Build NCC update.

Jim Linthicum, Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation Key Staff Contact: Allan Kosup, (619) 688-3611, [email protected] Attachments: 1. North Coast Corridor Program Update December 2018 2. Build NCC Project Fact Sheet Attachment 1 North Coast Corridor Program Update December 2018 The first phase of construction of the North Coast Corridor (NCC) Program, known as Build NCC, will extend through the cities of Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Carlsbad (Attachment 2). Construction began in late 2016 and is scheduled to open to the public in late 2022.

Highway Improvements Caltrans will extend high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for 14 miles on Interstate 5 (I-5) from Lomas Santa Fe Drive in Solana Beach to State Route 78 (SR 78) in Oceanside. Additional highway improvements include replacing and lengthening the San Elijo highway bridge to accommodate the HOV lanes and help improve lagoon tidal flow; constructing sound walls on private property; a new Park & Ride facility at the I-5/Manchester Avenue interchange; and auxiliary lanes. The Park & Ride will provide parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and recreational access to the San Elijo Lagoon and the new North Coast Bike Trail.

Rail Improvements Improving the coastal rail line is a central component of Build NCC. The San Elijo Lagoon Double Track project is part of a larger plan to improve the coastal rail system by adding a second track. The addition of the second track will allow trains traveling in opposite directions to pass without slowing down or stopping, increasing the corridor’s efficiency and reliability. Other project features include the replacement and lengthening of the rail bridge that spans over the San Elijo lagoon. Additionally, at-grade rail crossing improvements are being made at Chesterfield Drive in Encinitas. Finally, a pedestrian undercrossing is being built on the south side of the lagoon to provide improved lagoon and coastal access.

Lagoon Restoration Build NCC includes the restoration of the San Elijo Lagoon. The restoration project is being coordinated with the San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy and resource agencies. Restoration will enhance the lagoon’s wetland and upland areas, improve tidal flushing, and facilitate beach sand replenishment. Improving coastal access is a critical component of the NCC Program. Build NCC will include new east-west and north-south bicycle and pedestrian trails in and around the San Elijo Lagoon.

Active Transportation Improvements Build NCC includes construction of 7 miles of the North Coast Bike Trail, a planned bike trail stretching approximately 27 miles between Gilman Drive in the City of San Diego and Harbor Drive in the City of Oceanside. Build NCC also includes segments of the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT), a planned continuous bike route approximately 44 miles between the City of Oceanside and Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego. The first 1.3 mile segment of the CRT in the City of Encinitas, from Chesterfield Drive to Santa Fe Drive, currently is under construction.

Overall Capital Project Budget and Schedule The capital budget for the projects currently in construction is $870 846 million. Actual expenditure through October 2018 is $178 million, or 20.5 percent of the capital budget.

Highway Improvements The San Elijo highway project, which includes the Santa Fe Drive and Encinitas Boulevard bicycle and pedestrian improvements, is 46 percent complete with an anticipated completion date of December 2021. Utilities are 80 percent complete. The foundation system for Stage One of the new bridge over the San Elijo Lagoon has been completed. Falsework and column construction for Stage One will continue over the next six months. The community improvements at Santa Fe Drive and Encinitas Boulevard are scheduled to be completed in summer 2019.

2 The extension of the HOV lanes from Manchester Avenue to Palomar Airport Road began construction in November 2018 and the entire 8 miles is expected to be open to traffic by the end of 2021. The design of the HOV lanes from Palomar Airport Road to SR 78 is underway with construction beginning in late 2020.

Rail Improvements The San Elijo Lagoon Double Track project, on the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor, is 80 percent complete with an anticipated completion in mid-2019. Construction crews recently placed in service one new track on the new rail bridge and embankment over the San Elijo Lagoon. Crews also installed rip rap on the East side of the lagoon inlet channel. At Chesterfield Drive a second track has been constructed across the roadway and along San Elijo Avenue where a new retaining wall has been completed. Crews have also built a pedestrian undercrossing on the south side of the San Elijo Lagoon to improve coastal access. In winter 2018, track crews will be laying the passing track across the lagoon and the new track will be placed into service early in the new year. Chesterfield Drive grade crossing will be closed to traffic for three weeks in early 2019 in order to reconfigure the intersection.

Lagoon Restoration Lagoon restoration team members completed dredging in the main channel of the Central Basin. The Contractor has mobilized two smaller dredges into the Central Basin to complete the widening of the smaller reaches and channels while the large dredge is mobilized into the East Basin. Mud flats in the East Basin are complete along with the large upland transitional area. The I-5 NCC team, working with the Contractor and the San Elijo Conservancy, was able to cut 157 working days from the lagoon restoration project which should result in cost savings between $3 million to $4.5 million.

Coastal Rail Trail Construction The first CRT segment in the City of Encinitas began construction in April 2018. Current construction activities include grading the project area, working on drainage, and recent installation of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge in the southern part of the project area. Although some construction delays were encountered, the CRT is expected to be completed along with the San Elijo Lagoon Double Track project, in mid-2019.

3 Attachment 2

Integrating Transportation and Environmental Enhancements

San Elijo Lagoon highway bridge San Elijo Lagoon About the Project Build NCC is the fi rst phase of construction of the North Coast Corridor (NCC) Program in the cities of Solana Beach, Encinitas, and Carlsbad. Build NCC is part of a comprehensive set of transportation, environmental, and coastal access projects to improve the quality of life for residents, create a stronger local and regional economy for the future, and enhance the coastal environment.

Highway Improvements Project Schedule Caltrans will extend carpool lanes on Interstate 5 (I-5) from and Funding Lomas Santa Fe Drive in Solana Beach to State Route 78 (SR 78) in Oceanside. Additional highway improvements Construction Start Date include replacing and lengthening the San Elijo highway 2017 bridge to accommodate the carpool lanes and help improve lagoon tidal fl ow; some sound walls on private property; a Completion Date new Park & Ride/Multi-Use Facility at the I-5/Manchester 2021 Avenue interchange; and auxiliary lanes. The multi-use facility will provide parking for carpools, bike lockers, electric vehicle charging stations, and recreational access to the San Funding Sources Elijo Lagoon and the new North Coast Bike Trail. Federal The San Elijo Lagoon highway bridge will be State replaced and lengthened to help improve tidal fl ow SANDAG (TransNet) in the lagoon. The wider bridge will accommodate an Rail Improvements additional carpool lane in each direction. In addition, a Contractor suspended bike and pedestrian bridge will be built underneath the Improving the coastal rail line is a central component of Flatiron-Skanska-Stacy and Witbeck San Elijo Lagoon highway bridge to further increase north-south and Build NCC. The San Elijo Lagoon Double Track Project is east-west connectivity, and create more travel options. The North Coast part of a larger plan to improve the coastal rail system by Total Project Cost Bike Trail bike trail will be constructed to expand the regional bike adding a second track, allowing trains traveling in opposite Approximately $1.1 billion and pedestrian network. directions to pass without slowing down or stopping, (Highway $846 million; Rail $80 million; increasing effi ciency and reliability. Other project features Environment $130 million) Preserving Community Character and include the replacement and lengthening of the rail bridge spans over the San Elijo Lagoon. Additionally, at-grade Improving Coastal Access The budgeted amounts are per the Draft FY19 rail crossing improvements will be made at Chesterfi eld budget provided to the SANDAG Board of Directors. Santa Fe Drive in Encinitas Drive in Encinitas. For more information: Lagoon/Bike/Pedestrian KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/BuildNCC Construction Hotline: (844) NCC-0050 Build NCC includes the restoration of the San Elijo Lagoon. The restoration project will be coordinated with the San Elijo Arturo Jacobo, Project Manager Lagoon Conservancy and resource agencies. Restoration (619) 688-6816 will enhance the lagoon’s wetland and upland areas, improve [email protected] tidal fl ushing, and includes beach sand replenishment. dot.ca.gov/dist11 Improving coastal access is a critical component of the NCC @BuildNCC | @SDCaltrans Program. Build NCC will include new east-west and north- Build NCC includes local bike/pedestrian path improvements in Encinitas and south bicycle and pedestrian trails in and around the San SANDAGregion | CaltransDistrict11 Carlsbad. The interchanges at Encinitas Boulevard and Santa Fe Drive will be Elijo Lagoon. SANDAGregion | CaltransDistrict11 upgraded with new bike and pedestrian paths. To help reduce freeway noise for nearby residents, Caltrans is proposing to See inside map for details. As of August 2018 construct some sound walls on private property. In areas with views, transparent sound walls will be offered to residents.

KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/BuildNCC | #BuildNCC KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/BuildNCC | #BuildNCC

4 LEGEND

Oceanside Blvd. New HOV/Carpool Lanes (one in each direction) New Auxiliary Lane Sound Walls

Street Improvements HOV/Carpool Lanes from Blvd. Carlsbad Lomas Santa Fe Dr. to SR 78 Buena Vista Lagoon Bike/Pedestrian Access Vista Way Improvements Coastal Rail Line Las Flores Dr. New Double Track Carlsbad Bike Route Rail Station Class 1 Bike Path Carlsbad Village Dr. New Pedestrian Path A A Existing Path Carlsbad Pedestrian Path/Bridge San Elijo Lagoon Double Track Tamarack Ave. Lagoon Bridge F Replacement Hallmark Site Rail Crossing Agua Hedionda Lagoon Improvements New Overpass/Underpass Point of Interest Cannon Rd.

Palomar Airport Rd. Encinitas Blvd./Santa Fe Dr. Bike/Pedestrian Enhancements Encinas Avenida E Poinsettia

Rail Station Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad

Poinsettia Ln. Batiquitos Lagoon F Avenida Encinas C

Batiquitos Bluffs San Elijo Lagoon Bridge La Costa Replacements* La Costa Ave. Property

F Piraeus St. Piraeus

Leucadia Blvd.

D D Saxony Rd. N. Vulcan Ave. C Encinitas Blvd. Sound Walls** Encinitas COASTER A

Station Westlake St.

Requeza St. Nardo Rd. Devonshire Dr. Devonshire Santa Fe Dr. Encinitas E Community Encinitas Park El Camino Real San Elijo Lagoon Restoration and Nolbey St. Environmental Enhancements B

Mackinnon Ave. Villa Cardiff Dr. Cardiff Villa Highway 101

San Elijo Ave. Birmingham Dr.

Chesterfield Dr. Playa Riviera Dr. Park & Ride F (Multi-Use Facility) Laser Manchester Ave. * Bridge replacements will help improve tidal fl ow D Property F and overall lagoon health. ** Not all proposed sound walls will be San Elijo transparent (glass). Lagoon D San Elijo Lagoon B Nature Center F

Solana Beach

F Gateway Parcel Lomas Santa Fe Dr.

5 Transportation Committee Item: 10 December 14, 2018 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Study

Overview Action Requested: Information The Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Staff will present an update on the recently Project includes modifications to five at-grade completed Middletown-Old Town San Diego highway-rail crossings at Palm, Sassafras, Washington, Quiet Zone Feasibility Study. Noell, and Taylor Streets along the Los Angeles- San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor in the Fiscal Impact: City of San Diego pursuant to regulations established by The City and County of San Diego provided the Federal Railroad Administration (Attachment 1). $70,000 to SANDAG to complete the These modifications would facilitate a quiet zone to Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone minimize the effect of train horns as long as certain Feasibility Study through the SANDAG Service conditions and criteria are met. Bureau. The City and County of San Diego provided funding and Schedule/Scope Impact: requested that SANDAG complete an initial project The Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet study on their behalf. An initial study was conducted Zone Feasibility Study has been completed; no and found that it was feasible for the City of San Diego further steps currently are identified. to implement a quiet zone in this section of the LOSSAN corridor.

Key Considerations The Middletown-Old Town section of the LOSSAN rail corridor is owned by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and, on behalf of MTS, is operated and maintained by the North County Transit District (NCTD). Commuter and intercity passenger rail services share the corridor with freight trains. Federal regulations dictate that a locomotive engineer must sound a train horn when approaching a public highway-rail grade crossing (typically a location where a roadway crosses a train track at the same grade). The rule also dictates the duration and pattern in which the horn is sounded, as well as the volume level of the horn. These regulations also provide an opportunity for cities and other localities to minimize the effects of train horn noise by establishing a quiet zone, a section of a railroad corridor in which train horns are not routinely sounded as the trains approach a grade crossing. Because train horns are not routinely sounded for a grade crossing within quiet zones, the agency with jurisdiction over the roadway —in this case, the City of San Diego—must show that the crossing(s) will be as safe under a quiet zone condition as it is currently when the horn is sounded. The City of San Diego could accomplish this through the installation of supplemental safety measures (SSMs) including additional vehicle exit and entrance gates, extended medians, and vehicle detection loops embedded in the roadway. Eliminating the routine sounding of train horns would provide noise benefits for residents who live adjacent to and farther away from the grade crossing. However, it is possible that the SSMs required for implementation of a quiet zone may result in increases in noise emanating from the crossings due to the addition of grade crossing signal assemblies or stationary horns. The City and County of San Diego provided funding and requested that SANDAG complete an initial project study through the SANDAG Service Bureau (Attachment 2). The project development team of agencies with roles and responsibilities in the LOSSAN corridor met three times to provide input on the study. The cost estimate for the proposed improvements at the five crossings totals $4.5 million. Next Steps A field visit with the project development team has been scheduled for January 2019 to review the proposed improvements. At this time, the City of San Diego has not identified funding to further design plans or construct the improvements.

Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Linda Culp, (619) 699-6957, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Analysis Project Area Map 2. Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

2 Attachment 1

3 Attachment 2

Project Study Report

Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone (MP 264.1 to MP 266.5)

San Diego Association of Governments City of San Diego County of San Diego www.sandag.org www.sandiego.gov www.sandiegocounty.gov

December 4, 2018

4 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

No. 50401 Exp. 06-30-2019

Submitted: ______Date__12/4/18_____ Christopher Poli, P.E. WSP

Revision Author Organization Date Description 0 K. Carlson, C. Poli, J. Pham, WSP 10/18/18 First draft of report V. Kanevskiy 1 L. Culp SANDAG 10/24/18 Second draft of report 2 K. Carlson, C. Poli, J. Pham, WSP 11/2/18 Third draft of report V. Kanevskiy 3 L. Culp SANDAG 11/8/18 Fourth draft of report 4 K. Carlson, C. Poli, J. Pham, WSP 11/29/18 Fifth draft of report V. Kanevskiy

5 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Project Description

The Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project comprises modifications to five at-grade crossings at Palm, Sassafras, Washington, Noell, and Taylor Streets along the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor in the City of San Diego pursuant to regulations established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This section of the rail corridor is owned by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and, on behalf of MTS, is operated and maintained by the North County Transit District (NCTD). Commuter and intercity passenger rail services share the corridor with freight trains. These improvements would facilitate a quiet zone to minimize the effect of train horns as long as certain conditions and criteria are met.

In 2012, the Civic San Diego/City of San Diego completed the Downtown San Diego Quiet Zone Project, establishing a quiet zone for the 12 crossings of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between Laurel Street and Broadway and continuing south along the portion of the rail corridor owned by BNSF Railway to Fifth Avenue. The project included installation of a number of safety measures and required extensive coordination with Amtrak, BNSF Railway, NCTD, MTS, FRA, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the City of San Diego, and adjacent property owners. Planning began in 2005; construction began in 2010, and the quiet zone became operational in 2012. Based on an FRA report dated October 16, 2018, this is one of 56 quiet zones within California. In San Diego County, the City of Oceanside is in final design for a quiet zone and the City of Encinitas has completed a conceptual study of a potential quiet zone.

In 2018, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) examined the feasibility of establishing a quiet zone in the project area at the request of the County of San Diego and City of San Diego. In support of this assessment, conceptual plans were developed that include the improvements necessary to meet FRA requirements for the establishment of a quiet zone, as well as conceptual cost estimates, and other details summarized in this Project Study Report (PSR). In addition, the appendices include details on the proposed improvements at each crossing, detailed costs, results from the quiet zone calculator described below, and minutes from the project team meetings.

Stakeholder Coordination

A project development team (PDT) was formed to guide the feasibility study from these agencies:

∂ SANDAG ∂ NCTD ∂ City of San Diego ∂ CPUC ∂ County of San Diego ∂ FRA ∂ MTS

What is a Quiet Zone?

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Part 222 dictates that a locomotive engineer must sound a train horn when approaching a public highway-rail grade crossing (typically a location where a roadway crosses a train track at the same grade). The rule also dictates the duration and pattern in which the horn is sounded, as well as the volume level of the horn. The final federal train horn rule, which is administered by FRA, took effect on June 24, 2005.

1 6 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

This regulation provides an opportunity for cities and other localities to minimize the effects of train horn noise by establishing a “quiet zone.” A quiet zone is a section of a railroad corridor in which train horns are not routinely sounded as the trains approach a grade crossing. A quiet zone must be at least one-half-mile long and contain one or more grade crossings.

Because train horns are not routinely sounded for a grade crossing within quiet zones, the agency (or agencies) with jurisdiction over the roadway—in this case the City of San Diego—must, in order to establish a quiet zone, show that the crossing(s) will be as safe under a quiet zone condition as it is (currently) when the horn is sounded. This can be accomplished through the installation of supplemental safety measures (SSMs) as defined in the FRA Train Horn Rule (CFR Title 49 Part 222). In some cases, these SSMs may already be in place, while in other situations, their installation is necessary prior to approval of the quiet zone. These measures may include, but are not limited to, four-quadrant gates that fully block vehicular traffic from entering the crossing, or gates with raised medians or other channelization devices (e.g., fencing). 49 CFR Part 222 provides an effectiveness score for each SSM, and the agency establishing the quiet zone must show that the risk resulting from not sounding locomotive horns is sufficiently mitigated with the chosen SSMs.

It should be noted that despite their name, quiet zones may be more accurately described as “reduced noise zones” due to two important caveats:

∂ Quiet zones do not apply to stationary bells and horns mounted at crossing locations. ∂ Trains in quiet zones may still sound their horns in emergencies per FRA regulations or at the discretion of the train operator.

Eliminating the routine sounding of train horns would provide noise benefits for residents who live adjacent to and farther away from the grade crossing. However, it is possible that the SSMs required for implementation of a quiet zone may result in increases in noise emanating from the crossings as a result of the addition of grade crossing signal assemblies or stationary horns. Bell noise can still be an issue for those who live closer to the project area because the noise generated from bells at the crossing is continuous while the crossing gates are activated, which begins at least 20 seconds before the arrival of a train at the crossing. These stationary horns and crossing bells may not be detectable by those who live farther from the grade crossing.

The design of rail crossings must be authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission). If the interested parties are in agreement, including CPUC staff, an informal authorization process can be used (“GO 88-B”). However, if an interested party does not provide written agreement, a formal application would be required to modify the crossing. Hearings at the Commission may be held to investigate the safety of the proposed design, potentially resulting in a Commission Order establishing the requirements for each crossing.

2 7 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Project Location

The project area is in the Middletown-Old Town segment of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in the City of San Diego between Mile Posts (MP) 264.1 and 266.5, with Control Point Friar (CP Friar) located to the immediate north. The specific at-grade crossings (from south to north) are Palm Street, Sassafras Street, Washington Street, Noell Street, and Taylor Street (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project Location – MP 264.1 to MP 266.5

The project area is located in an urban corridor in the City of San Diego, which is currently occupied by single-family and multi-family residential units, commercial and office spaces, industrial zones, and the San Diego International Airport to the west (Figure 2). Multi-family residential and mixed-use developments are forecast to increase by 2035, resulting in a higher density throughout the project area (Figure 3). According to the SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast, the City of San Diego’s population is expected to increase by 35 percent, and the region’s by 29 percent between 2012 and 2050. The increase in population and housing needs will put additional demands on the city’s transportation system, including additional rail service. According to San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, adopted by SANDAG in 2015, and other corridor improvement documents, commuter service between the cities of San Diego and

3 8 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Oceanside is planned to increase from 22 trains per day currently to 54 trains per day in 2035, while the Pacific Surfliner intercity service will increase its service from 24 trains per day currently to 36 trains per day in 2030. Overall, the number of train operations is planned to nearly double.

Project Purpose and Need

The LOSSAN Rail Corridor is the second busiest corridor nationwide and is shared between commuter and intercity passenger and freight rail services. The noise resulting from routine locomotive horn sounding near grade crossings can be an annoyance. However, sounding locomotive horns when approaching and passing through public highway-rail grade crossings is an important element of railroad system safety and one regulated by FRA. Pursuant to regulations for the establishment of a quiet zone, specific measures along the project area have been identified in order to address community concerns related to noise and safety.

The latest, currently available traffic volumes for the crossings obtained from the City of San Diego are as follows:

Roadway/Crossing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Year Palm Street 3,700 2013 Sassafras Street 14,200 2018 Washington Street 14,600 2016 Noell Street 3,100 2013 Taylor Street 19,500 2014

Other characteristics of the project area that are important to keep in mind for this project include:

∂ Multiple train tracks ∂ Proximity to multiple trolley tracks ∂ Multi-lane roadway crossings ∂ Trolley stations adjacent to three of the five crossings ∂ Nearby alleyways and driveways ∂ Nearby vegetation as well as utilities, walls, and other structures ∂ Relatively heavy volumes of pedestrian and vehicular activity

4 9 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Figure 2: 2017 Land Use Map

5 10 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Figure 3: 2035 Land Use Map

6 11 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Existing Conditions

On May 3, 2018, project engineers visited each of the five grade crossings and surrounding intersections to document existing conditions, summarized below, particularly in regard to conditions relevant for the establishment of a quiet zone. For the descriptions that follow, it is assumed that at all crossings the tracks are in a north-south direction and the grade crossing is oriented in an east-west direction.

Palm Street Crossing ∂ There appears to be an alley (later determined to be California Street) that runs alongside the tracks in the southwest quadrant (Figure 4). This alley connects to Palm Street between the signal gate arm and the track. A signal gate assembly would be required at the entrance to the alley to prevent access to the crossing from the alley when a train is going through the crossing. Currently, there is nothing to stop someone traveling northbound on the alley from turning right onto the tracks while the crossing safety equipment is activated. However, California Street is a one-way street in the southerly direction at its intersection with Laurel Street (south of Palm Street), but that is not clear at Palm Street. ∂ The platforms at the Middletown Station extend, essentially, all the way to the crossing. As a result, it could be challenging to keep pedestrians disembarking from a Trolley from accessing the crossing during a crossing signal activation as there is insufficient room to provide pedestrian barriers. Additionally, at a project team meeting held on September 24, 2018, a representative of FRA stated that an existing wall between the light rail transit (LRT) platform and the LOSSAN tracks (Figure 5) can block views of oncoming trains on the LOSSAN tracks. ∂ The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need to be upgraded to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process. ∂ There are constrained right-of-way conditions at this crossing, which make installation of pedestrian gate arms at each quadrant a challenge if such features are requested by regulatory agencies during the quiet zone application process. The overall area has limited space within the existing street and/or railroad right-of-way to install both pedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gates.

7 12 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Figure 4: Alley near Palm Street

Figure 5: Wall between LRT and LOSSAN Tracks

8 13 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Sassafras Street Crossing ∂ Traffic is significant in the westbound direction. A pre-signal1 east of the tracks in the westbound direction may need to be considered to prevent vehicles from stopping on the tracks, particularly since it is a wide four-track crossing. ∂ Ramps to and from Interstate 5 are elevated in proximity to the crossing. This condition may present a challenge in regard to accommodating four-quad gates, particularly at the northwest quadrant (Figure 6). An existing non-mountable curbed median on the western side could be extended as a SSM in lieu of quad gates2. ∂ Similar to Palm Street, space is limited within the existing right-of-way. Installation of pedestrian gate arms may still be feasible; however, the overall area may not have enough room within the existing right-of-way to install both pedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gates without needing right-of-way acquisition or relocation of other existing utilities. ∂ The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need to be upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process.

Figure 6: Sassafras Street crossing and I-5 Ramps

1 Pre-Signal: a traffic signal that controls traffic approaching a highway-rail grade crossing in conjunction with a traffic signal that controls traffic approaching a highway-highway intersection beyond the tracks. Pre-signals are typically used where there is insufficient vehicle storage between a signalize intersection and a grade crossing. 2 Quad gates: the case where there is a standard flashing light signal assembly with gate arm in each quadrant of a highway-rail crossing, i.e., in both directions at both the entrance to and exit from the crossing.

9 14 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Washington Street Crossing ∂ Similar to Palm Street, it could be challenging to keep pedestrians disembarking from a trolley at the Washington Street Station from accessing the crossing during a crossing signal activation as there is insufficient room to provide pedestrian barriers. ∂ Additionally, at a project team meeting held on September 24, 2018, a representative of FRA stated that an existing wall between the LRT platform and the LOSSAN tracks can block views of oncoming trains on the LOSSAN tracks (Figure 7). ∂ There is sufficient room to accommodate four-quad gates. ∂ There is insufficient room to accommodate a pedestrian gate in the northeast quadrant. ∂ Overall, space is limited and accommodating both pedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gates may be challenging at all four quadrants. ∂ The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need to be upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process. During a September 24, 2018, project team meeting, MTS indicated the rubber mats for the LRT tracks will be replaced in October 2018.

Figure 7: Washington Street Crossing and Wall Between LOSSAN and LRT Tracks

10 15 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Noell Street Crossing ∂ A driveway/alley in the southwest quadrant runs alongside the tracks, which connects to Noell Street between the signal gate arm and the track. This driveway/alley has a signal flashing assembly but would also need to have a gate to prevent vehicles from crossing the tracks when a train is approaching. ∂ A pedestrian signal gate would not be effective in the northwest quadrant due to Kurtz Street, a one-way street that runs north from Noell Street alongside the rail right-of-way (Figure 8). Specifically, a pedestrian signal gate would need to block Noell Street and Kurtz Street. Overall, the area is tight and accommodating both pedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gates may be challenging if requested during the quiet zone application process. ∂ The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need to be upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process.

Figure 8: Kurtz Street adjacent to LOSSAN Tracks

11 16 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Taylor Street Crossing ∂ The Taylor Street crossing is an extremely wide four-track crossing (Figure 9). ∂ There may be sufficient space to accommodate pedestrian signal gates in the refuge area between the Trolley and LOSSAN tracks. ∂ There is limited space between the crossing and the intersection of Taylor Street and Congress Street, located east of the crossing. It is important that the traffic signals for this intersection be interconnected to the rail signal system for pre-emption. A queue cutter3/pre-signal west of the mainline tracks may be required. Exit gates are likely required for eastbound Taylor Street traffic. ∂ There appears to be room available for pedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gate assembly. ∂ The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need to be upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process. During a September 24, 2018, project team meeting, MTS indicated the rubber mats for the LRT tracks will be replaced in October 2018.

Figure 9: Taylor Street Grade Crossing Looking West

3 Queue cutter signal: “a traffic control signal that is intended to prevent vehicle queuing across tracks at a highway-rail grade crossing and is activated for one direction of travel by either an approaching train, actuation from downstream queue detection, or coordination with adjacent traffic control signals.”

12 17 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Current and Proposed Rail Service

San Diego Trolley Service The Green Line runs adjacent to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between Downtown San Diego and the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) and then continues to points east. The Green Line currently operates at 15-minute headways during peak and mid-day off-peak periods.

Currently in construction, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will extend the Blue Line service from Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego north to the University City community, serving major activity centers such as Old Town, the University of California San Diego, and Westfield UTC. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate with 15-minute headways during mid-day off- peak periods in the opening year. Ultimately, the project will operate with 7.5-minute headways during peak and mid-day off-peak periods. Revenue service is scheduled to begin in 2021.

The following railroad operators use the LOSSAN Rail Corridor through the project location:

COASTER Commuter Rail Service NCTD operates COASTER commuter rail service, serving eight stations located in coastal communities between Oceanside and San Diego. COASTER trains serve both the OTTC and Santa Fe Depot. The COASTER service provides 22 trains per day Monday through Friday (11 in each direction) (24 during baseball season), along with 4 additional trains on Friday nights from April through September. COASTER weekend service provides 12 trains per day on Saturday and 8 trains per day on Sunday. Cities served are Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and San Diego. The San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015) identifies 20-minute peak period headways and 120-minute off-peak headways for the COASTER by 2035.

Amtrak Amtrak operates 24 Pacific Surfliner trains daily between San Diego and Los Angeles, including some through trains serving areas north to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. Major cities served are San Diego, Solana Beach, Oceanside, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. Pacific Surfliner trains serve both the OTTC and Santa Fe Depot.

BNSF Railway The BNSF Railway operates freight rail service throughout the San Diego portion of the LOSSAN corridor, seven days per week. Typically, four to six freight trains per day are operated, with service provided during off-peak periods. The BNSF freight service is both local and national in scope, with the LOSSAN corridor connecting to the entire North American rail network.

13 18 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Other Projects Proposed within the Project Area

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will provide additional modifications near the OTTC and Washington Street Trolley Stations, specifically to streets surrounding the Taylor Street and Washington Street grade crossings. These changes are shown in blue on the conceptual plan included in Appendix A.

The San Diego Regional Airport Authority has developed final design plans for changes to Sassafras Street, in order to accommodate planned increased traffic accessing the Consolidated Rental Car Facility on Pacific Highway and additional airport traffic. These plans involve converting the single 18-foot eastbound lane into two lanes and moving the median north four feet.

SANDAG is designing a regional bikeway facility along Washington Street, connecting to the Mission Hills and Hillcrest sections of the City of San Diego and to other regional bikeway facilities over the next five years. A connection to the Washington Street Trolley Station is currently under design.

Project Benefits

The quiet zone project will provide benefits in terms of eliminating the noise associated with the routine sounding of train horns as the trains travel through the five grade crossings included in the project area. Safety at these crossings will be maintained through the installation of SSMs.

Scope of Work

Supplemental Safety Measures Identified During This Phase of Evaluation Based on the May 3, 2018 site visit and coordination with members of the project development team, SSMs were proposed at each of the five crossings. These improvements are shown in the conceptual plans included in Appendix A to this PSR. The FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator was run based on the existing conditions at each location and the proposed SSMs; the calculator results are included in Appendix B. In some locations, SSMs were already existing at the crossing; these were also factored into the FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator and are identified on the plans. Signage will also be required at all grade crossings; signage is not identified on the plans included in Appendix A. With the addition of the SSMs at each crossing, the Quiet Zone Risk Index shown in Appendix B is reduced below the Risk Index with Horns and thereby qualifies the Middletown-Old Town segment for Quiet Zone eligibility.

The SSMs and other improvements proposed for each crossing are summarized as follows:

Palm Street:

∂ Install a CPUC Standard 9E exit gate for both the eastbound and westbound directions of Palm Street ∂ Reconstruct the median west of the crossing with a non-mountable curb ∂ Install vehicle detection loops ∂ Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates

14 19 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Sassafras Street:

∂ Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the eastbound and westbound directions of Sassafras Street ∂ Install a CPUC Standard 8 flashing light signal assembly in the median just east of the grade crossing ∂ Install vehicle detection loops ∂ Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates ∂ During a PDT meeting, it was mentioned that vehicles departing the WallyPark parking structure driveway may be able to bypass gates; access control for this driveway will be further considered during the next phases of project development

Washington Street:

∂ Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the eastbound and westbound directions of Washington Street ∂ Install pedestrian gate assembly per CPUC Standard 9 gate in the southwest quadrant of the grade crossing ∂ Install pedestrian gate assembly per CPUC Standard 9 gate and emergency swing gate in both the northwest and southeast quadrants of the grade crossing ∂ Construct a sidewalk to and from the emergency swing gates ∂ Widen the existing raised median located west of the crossing ∂ Install vehicle detection loops ∂ Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gate

Noell Street ∂ Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the westbound and eastbound directions of Noell Street ∂ Remove existing CPUC Standard 8 flashing light signal assembly located at the alley in the southwest quadrant and replace with a CPUC Standard 9E exit gate ∂ Install vehicle detection loops ∂ Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates

Taylor Street

∂ Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the westbound and eastbound directions of Taylor Street ∂ Install vehicle detection loops ∂ Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates

15 20 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Additional Crossing Improvements The SSMs proposed in the prior section are those that are required to meet the necessary Risk calculator results for the crossings. Per discussions with FRA and CPUC, it is likely that additional safety enhancements may be implemented at the crossings in the project area due to heavy traffic volumes, close proximity of trolley service, and other circumstances that are unique to each crossing. These enhancements will likely consist of pedestrian gates and/or other means of channeling pedestrians near the grade crossings, extended medians, queue cutters, and/or pre- signals. These enhancements will be determined during the next phases of implementation, through further coordination with FRA and CPUC.

Next Steps A new quiet zone is feasible for the crossings between and including Palm Street and Taylor Street. The scope of work associated with a new quiet zone is described below. The project area is more industrial than the area associated with the Downtown San Diego Quiet Zone and, therefore, some of the lessons learned from that quiet zone may not be applicable to the Middletown-Old Town corridor (see Appendix D). Because of this and in consultation with the project team, it is recommended that a new quiet zone be pursued instead of amending the existing quiet zone between Park Boulevard and Laurel Street.

Additionally, three specific comments provided by the PDT will influence the next steps of the project; these comments are:

1. Consider conducting an updated traffic study including collection of more current traffic counts 2. Hold an informal PDT field visit at each of the crossings 3. Develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the project early in the planning/engineering process rather than waiting until the later stages of design or implementation.

The following steps have been adapted from The Guide to the Quiet Zone Establishment Process published by FRA (2013) and expanded to be applicable to California. These steps identify the typical process to establish a quiet zone:

1. Determine which crossings will be included in the quiet zone; the length of the quiet zone must be at least one-half mile. 2. Identify any private highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone. If they allow access to the public or provide access to active industrial or commercial sites, a diagnostic review must be conducted and the crossing(s) treated accordingly. 3. Update the U.S. Department of Transportation Crossing Inventory Form to reflect current physical and operating conditions at each public, private, and pedestrian crossing. 4. Provide a Notice of Intent to all of the railroads that operate over the crossings in the proposed quiet zone, the state agency responsible for highway safety (if applicable), and the state agency responsible for crossing safety (in the case of the Midtown-Old Town quiet zone, CPUC is the applicable state agency). The railroads and agencies have 60 days to provide comments to the public authority on the proposed plan.

16 21 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

5. If Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs)4 are going to be used to reduce risk (rather than SSMs), an application to FRA must be made. The application must be sent to all railroads operating over the crossings, the entity having jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at the grade crossings (in this case, the City of San Diego), the landowner having control over any private grade crossings, the state agency responsible for highway and road safety, the CPUC, and the Associate Administrator for a 60-day comment period. 6. Determine the SSMs and, if necessary, run the FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator for the quiet zone. 6A. Develop final plans, specifications, and estimates. 6B. Submit application for modification of a grade crossing (General Order [GO] 88-B) 7. Complete the installation of the SSMs and any alternative safety measures and other improvements determined by the diagnostic team at all crossings. 8. Ensure that signage at each crossing is installed. 9. Establish the quiet zone by providing a Notice of Quiet Zone establishment to all of the parties identified in Step 6.

Because this quiet zone is located in California and would involve installation of additional signaling devices, crossing gates, and/or other forms of crossing protection, a GO 88-B application must be submitted to CPUC.

4 Alternative Safety Measures: a safety system, other than SSMs, that aid in the prevention of highway-rail casualties; ASMs include engineered and non-engineered measures.

17 22 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Project Schedule

Pending funding for this project, the potential schedule of work is outlined below. Overall, design is scheduled to take at least 18 months and construction at least 12 months, resulting in a high- level project schedule of at least two and a half years.

Milestone Date Project Study Report (PSR) November 2018 Preliminary Engineering NTP + 9 Months Environmental Documentation Begin Documentation (assumes Categorical NTP + 3 Months Exclusion (CE)) End Environmental Documentation (CE) NTP + 6-9 Months Right-of-Way Certification (If Applicable) NTP + 21 Months Notice of Intent (NOI) NTP + 9 Months NOI Comment Period NOI + 2 Months (aka NTP + 8 Months) Quiet Zone Application (QZA) NOI + 2 Months (aka NTP + 8 Months) QZA Comment Period QZA + 2 Months (aka NTP + 10 Months) FRA QZA Processing & Approval QZA + 4 Months (aka NTP + 12 Months) Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) Begin PS&E NTP + 9 Months CPUC GO 88-B Application NTP + 10-15 Months End PS&E Phase (Ready to List for Advertising) NTP + 18 Months Construction Notice to Proceed (CNTP) NTP + 21 Months Construction Complete CNTP + 12 Months Notice of Establishment (NOE) CNTP + 12 Months Quiet Zone Activate NOE + 21 days Closeout Phase CNTP + 15 Months

18 23 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Environmental Clearance and Permits

Projects are subject to applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and guidelines. Local (TransNet) and State-funded projects are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Federally funded projects are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and/or FRA regulations. Each project is evaluated to determine the applicable environmental regulations.

Construction of projects and facilities within existing interstate railway rights-of-way already in use are generally exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21080(b) (10). Additionally, as a part of the national railroad system, maintenance and operations are generally exempt from local ordinances and state environmental regulations.

The LOSSAN Corridor is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Surface Transportation Board (STB). State and local environmental regulations have been found to be pre-empted by federal statute (49 U.S.C. 10501(b)) in those cases where the STB has licensing authority over railroad activities (i.e., LOSSAN Corridor and Sprinter Corridor). An example of STB’s ruling on the matter of pre-emption (NCTD’s Encinitas Passing Track) is provided in Appendix D (August 19, 2002), The STB Ruling is applicable for railroad projects constructed when the tracks are used for interstate freight transport and/or intercity passenger service (i.e., freight (BNSF) and Amtrak). The STB Ruling is based on the premise that projects that improve railroad reliability and capacity on tracks used for interstate commerce are not subject to regulatory compliance with state and local regulations due to the interstate commerce clause in the United States Constitution.

Project and Related Funding

Potential sources of funding for this project include local funding sources such as the local streets and roads portion of the TransNet transportation sales tax program available to the County of San Diego and the City of San Diego, developer fees, or other future sources.

While Quiet Zones are specifically not eligible, Caltrans administers the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Program (RHGCP), also known as the Section 130 Program, as provided by Title 23, United States Code, Section 130 (23 U.S.C. 130). This program provides federal funds for the elimination of hazards at existing at-grade highway-rail crossings (crossings). The program is funded at a 90% Federal contribution and 10% local matching contribution through Caltrans funds. The purpose of the RHGCP is to reduce the number, severity and potential of hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians at crossings. The RHGCP is a cooperative effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Caltrans, CPUC, railroad companies and local agencies. It is important to note that not all crossings are eligible for this program. Funding cannot be used for improvements for the sole purpose of qualifying a local agency to apply for a Quiet Zone.

19 24 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Project Cost Estimate

It is anticipated that total project cost (construction, non-construction, and design) for a quiet zone at the five crossings between and including Palm Street to Taylor Street would be approximately $4.5 million. At this stage of the project development, no property acquisitions have been determined to be necessary to implement the proposed SSMs, and therefore, no right- of-way acquisition costs were included in the estimate. The breakdown of this cost is shown below and a detailed breakdown by crossing is included in Appendix C. This estimate includes contingency in the event that additional safety enhancements are implemented through coordination with FRA and CPUC.

Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level: Project Study Report November 1, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

DESIGN Agency Design Admin. 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600 Agency Program Management x CCE $ - Agency Design Admin.(NCTD/MTS) 1.00% x CCE $ 17,200 Alternative Analysis & Environmental x CCE $ - Design - Preliminary to 30% 10.00% x CCE $ 171,900 Design - 30% to 60% and Permits 10.00% x CCE $ 171,900 Design - 60% to Final PS&E 10.00% % CCE $ 171,900 Independent Peer Reviews x CCE $ - DESIGN TOTAL $ 584,500

RIGHT OF WAY Temporary R/W, Easements Acre $25,000 $ - Slope Easements Acre $6,250 $ - Footing/Utility Easements Acre $25,000 $ - Property Acquisition Acre $100,000 $ - Appraisals & ROW Consultant 25%R.O.W Costs $ - Right-of-way Contingency (10% to 35%) 30%R.O.W Costs $ - RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL $ -

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 1,719,050

ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Agency Construction Admin. 5.00% x CCE $ 86,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. x CCE $ - Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600 Design Support During Construction 5.00% x CCE $ 86,000 Construction Management 20.00% x CCE $ 343,800 NCTD Signal & Maintenance Support & Testing 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600 Allowance for Signal House Upgrades $ 1,500,000 LS 1 $ 1,500,000 Flagging Services 500 Hr $65 $ 32,500 Busing Passengers 0 AWW $75,000 $ - ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2,151,500

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE IN 2018 DOLLARS $4,455,050

20 25 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Track Charts

21 26 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

22 27 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Appendix A: Intersection Conceptual Plans

28 ABBREVIATION: TERM:

CPUC CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LOSSAN LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR LRT LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT

m MCCTP MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT a h P SDRBDT SAN DIEGO RIVER BRIDGE DOUBLE TRACK

04 CPUC STANDARDS: : 14 2018 - NOV - 26 n e p . r l c f l a h STANDARD 9 AND STANDARD 8 STANDARD 8-A STANDARD 9-E STANDARD 9-A FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY WITH FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY WITH WITH ADDITIONAL FLASHING LIGHTS AUTOMATIC GATE ARM AUTOMATIC GATE ARM AND ADDITIONAL SIGNALS OVER THE ROADWAY ON A FLASHING LIGHT SIGNALS OVER THE CANTILEVERED ARM ROADWAY ON A CANTILEVERED ARM

DESIGNED BY DATE WSP USA Inc. SCALE dgn Poli, C. 10/18 MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO . 401 B STREET s SANDAG e SUITE 1650 DRAWN BY NO SCALE t SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS o Malinao, C. N TEL +1 619.338.9376 10/18 SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

l FAX +1 619.338.8123 CHECKED BY a SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS r PRELIMINARY e Poli, C. 10/18 n 401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900 GENERAL NOTES DRAWING NO. SHEET NO. e RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 0 1 2 SANDAG 29 G

IS IN INCHES 0 1 Palm St.dgn halfclr.pen 26-NOV-2018 14:06 Pham

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

22 .

IS IN INCHES 9

LEGEND: T

3 S 1

2 C

y Hw C I F I C A

RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN WITH NON-MOUNTABLE CURBS P PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE

U S

U P

P P

FAX +1 619.338.8123 TEL +1 619.338.9376 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 SUITE 1650 401 B STREET WSP USA Inc. P

0 U

C T

1 P

3 2 P

PRELIMINARY

U B 2 1

PER MCCTP SIGNAL HOUSE

R 7 S

7 U

LOSSAN TRACKS Typ B

AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE CPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 8 VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP

B U

3 B

A I

SANDAG N

O CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY F I L A C Poli, C. Malinao, C. Poli, C.

11 U

. 8

10/18 10/18 10/18

DATE

R R

S P

P U

U B

11 . 401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 6

MIDDLETOWN STATION

SANDAG R

D E C K B

LRT TRACKS

50 R

S 1

P P

W PALM St

EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 8A

' S U

B T P

QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO

U .

B 6

W PALM St 5

P U

vd l B R E N ETT K 8 SCALE DRAWING NO. SANDAG CONTRACT NO. 1"=20' SHEET NO.

C ON C 59 0

C O N LRT TRACKS C

LOSSAN TRACKS m a h P

U B 07

: SIGNAL HOUSE I

14 U N PER MCCTP B

K E

R TT S U B T

2018 N A -

TE E R NOV - I N 26 5 B TE

U U v O Typ R

B B d FF U S 7 B T U - B 1 A R TE U A B M U NO I P U S I 5 B N B N U OU TE U TE B R R O S V B T C T N R R H - T H S S B S B R T T OUND OUND A 10 A A

M C TE 34 C ON C TE P . ON

2 4 C 5 S A S S A F R A S S t 5 1 S A SS A F R A S S T 57 10 . 7 n e U p R B . S r l c f l a h

3U B 4 P . 5 35 . 4 P U B LEGEND: STREET IMPROVEMENTS PER MID-COAST 1 EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE 7 VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 10 CPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED 4 PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 8 AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE

DESIGNED BY DATE WSP USA Inc. MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO SCALE dgn 401 B STREET Poli, C. 10/18 . SANDAG t SUITE 1650 DRAWN BY 1"=20' S SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

s TEL +1 619.338.9376 Malinao, C. 10/18 SANDAG CONTRACT NO. a FAX +1 619.338.8123 CHECKED BY fr SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS a PRELIMINARY Poli, C. 10/18 ss 401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900 SASSAFRAS St DRAWING NO. SHEET NO. a RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 0 1 2 SANDAG 31 S

IS IN INCHES 2 3 Washington St.dgn halfclr.pen 26-NOV-2018 14:09 Pham

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES 48

LEGEND: U

B 6 5 1

5 2

B 20

EMERGENCY SWING GATE

STANDARD 9 GATE PEDESTRIAN GATE ASSEMBLY PER CPUC PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE .

20 20 B

9 5 U

FAX +1 619.338.8123 TEL +1 619.338.9376 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 SUITE 1650 401 B STREET WSP USA Inc.

0 B

A SP H N-RAMP PACIFIC Hwy O

U B 4 B

PRELIMINARY

SP A

V C

24 TAGE Rd . FRON

FRON 8

T T AGE S Rd

5 U B

U 8 B 10

LOSSAN TRACKS

U U

U B B

B 10 B 11 PER MCCTP SIGNAL HOUSE 9 8 7

S V

AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE CPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED CONSTRUCT CURB AND WIDEN RAISED MEDIAN R

EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 8 TO/FROM EMERGENCY SWING GATE CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK NEEDED FOR PATHWAY VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP S

Typ U

C B U B KURTZ St SANDAG CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY

Poli, C. Malinao, C. Poli, C. 6

11 9

29 B 28

R .

S R 5

5 U

10/18 10/18 10/18 P B

DATE P U B

N O W 29 ASHI C

NGTON St S . TATI

ON.

401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900 6

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS R

S U

6 H P S A

LRT TRACKS

P P P SANDAG P 1

U 8 B

W WASHINGTON ST

U B

W U B A

H 2. 1. NOTES:

U IS SIGNALIZED. INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON St. AND HANCOCK IS SIGNALIZED. INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON St. AND FRONTAGE Rd B

T CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT STREET IMPROVEMENTS PER MID-COAST

V S C

QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO

U B

W WASHINGTON St

. P

P 3

3 P

. B

P P

U T

B S

T S SCALE DRAWING NO. SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

HANCOCK St 1"=20'

A SP

H 45

SHEET NO. .

. 3 4 Noell St.dgn halfclr.pen 26-NOV-2018 14:10 Pham RELATIVE BORDER SCALE IS IN INCHES LEGEND: 1 2 PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE FAX +1 619.338.8123 TEL +1 619.338.9376 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 SUITE 1650 401 B STREET WSP USA Inc. 0 1 2

PRELIMINARY

V C 2

U B 10 7

VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE CPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

U LOSSAN TRACKS

B U U

B B

S B

SANDAG C

7 CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY 23

Poli, C. Malinao, C. Poli, C. . t S TZ R KU 2

Typ

10 24

U .

B 8

10/18 10/18 10/18 .

DATE 0

9 24

10 3

U .

B 1

401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

9 24

R S SANDAG PER MCCTP SIGNALS LRT TRACKS PER MCCTP SIGNAL HOUSE

ON C

QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO U

NOELL St

35 t

T U .

B 4

34 C

t S K C O C HAN C ON C

. C

ON C 7

C N O C

U B

SCALE DRAWING NO. SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

. 2

1"=20' 0 4

5 5

SHEET NO. 4

V C 5 Taylor St.dgn halfclr.pen 26-NOV-2018 14:11 Pham

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 13

IS IN INCHES

LEGEND: 10 1 7 EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE

AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE CPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP

T B FAX +1 619.338.8123 TEL +1 619.338.9376 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 SUITE 1650 401 B STREET WSP USA Inc.

1 B

T C S

PACIFIC Hwy

8 .

PRELIMINARY 7

V C

5 U

TAYLOR St

B 14

CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT STREET IMPROVEMENTS PER MID-COAST EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9 ENTRANCE GATE SANDAG CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY Poli, C. Malinao, C. Poli, C. 10/18 10/18 10/18 DATE 34 401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

A 12

ASPH

PER SDRBDT SIGNAL HOUSE

SP .

LOSSAN TRACKS

SANDAG

12 ASPH PER MCCTP SIGNAL HOUSE 10

7 TAYLOR ST TAYLOR

Typ

S 3

R 13 U

S B

NOTES:

S .

2. 1.

IS SIGNALIZED. INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR St. AND CONGRESS IS SIGNALIZED. INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR St. AND PACIFIC Hwy 5

QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO

13 14

TAYLOR St

T I

R ON

U S

E B N O

TE L

T LRT TRACKS O R W

P C

ON 10

B V

SCALE C

DRAWING NO. SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

P T

S C

V T

A U C

C Y

1"=20' B ONG L

U R

R T

S S

SHEET NO. S t B

S t Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Appendix B: FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator Results

35 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 2

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Update and Verify Crossing Information CONTINUE

Create New Zone Zone: 026852D TAYLOR STREET Manage Existing Zones Quiet Zone Type : New 24-hour Quiet Zone Gates ఔ 026852D TAYLOR STREET Present warn device: Gates Log Off 026856F NOELL STREET Number of highway 026857M WASHINGTON STREET vehicles per day: 015000 19500 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 026861C PALM STREET Total trains: 270 60 Day through trains : 97 54 Step by Step Instructions: Total Switching Trains : 6 6 Number of main tracks: 2 2 Number of other tracks: 0 0 Step 1: To add more crossings to the U.Minor zone Click the ADD CROSSING. Urban(U.)/Rural(R.): Arterial U.Minor Arterial ఔ

Step 2: To Make changes to the Highways paved: Yes Yes ఔ default information, select the crossing Maximum timetable from list. Enter the changes in the speed mph: 65 65 appropriate box, then click the UPDATE button. Number of highway lanes: 5 5 Step 3: To permanently remove a Number of years crossing from the zone, select Crossing accident data: 5 5 from list. Click the DELETE CROSSING button. Number of accidents in accident data Step 4: Verify All Crossing Information years: 0 0 Provided is correct. Then Click the Check Box, then CONTINUE button . Wayside horn: No ఔ * = Not Public At Grade Crossing No * Note: To see a list of SSMs, click on ** = Closed Crossing Pre-Existing SSM: ఔ "Pre-Existing SSM". To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATION PROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here. UPDATE Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet Zone ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING Calculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Be sure that an updated current and accurate inventory form is also submitted.

36 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44150 11/28/2018 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 2

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Update and Verify Crossing Information CONTINUE

Create New Zone Zone: 026856F NOELL STREET Manage Existing Zones Quiet Zone Type : New 24-hour Quiet Zone Gates ఔ 026852D TAYLOR STREET Present warn device: Gates Log Off 026856F NOELL STREET Number of highway 026857M WASHINGTON STREET vehicles per day: 001400 3100 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 026861C PALM STREET Total trains: 267 60 Day through trains : 97 54 Step by Step Instructions: Total Switching Trains : 6 6

Number of main tracks: 2 2

Number of other tracks: 0 0

Urban(U.)/Rural(R.): U.Local U.Local ఔ

Step 1: To add more crossings to the Highways paved: Yes Yes ఔ zone Click the ADD CROSSING. Maximum timetable 65 Step 2: To Make changes to the speed mph: 65 default information, select the crossing Number of highway from list. Enter the changes in the lanes: 2 2 appropriate box, then click the UPDATE button. Number of years accident data: 5 5 Step 3: To permanently remove a Number of accidents in crossing from the zone, select Crossing accident data years: 0 0 from list. Click the DELETE CROSSING button. Wayside horn: No ఔ Step 4: Verify All Crossing Information Pre-Existing SSM: No ఔ Provided is correct. Then Click the Check Box, then CONTINUE button . * = Not Public At Grade Crossing UPDATE * Note: To see a list of SSMs, click on ** = Closed Crossing "Pre-Existing SSM". Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet Zone To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATION Calculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Be PROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here. sure that an updated current and accurate inventory form is also submitted. ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING

37 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44149 11/28/2018 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 2

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Update and Verify Crossing Information CONTINUE

Create New Zone Zone: 026857M WASHINGTON STREET Manage Existing Zones Quiet Zone Type : New 24-hour Quiet Zone Gates ఔ 026852D TAYLOR STREET Present warn device: Gates Log Off 026856F NOELL STREET Number of highway 026857M WASHINGTON STREET vehicles per day: 017000 14600 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 026861C PALM STREET Total trains: 270 60 Day through trains : 97 54 Step by Step Instructions: Total Switching Trains : 6 6

Number of main tracks: 2 2

Number of other tracks: 0 0

Urban(U.)/Rural(R.): U.Local U.Local ఔ

Step 1: To add more crossings to the Highways paved: Yes Yes ఔ zone Click the ADD CROSSING. Maximum timetable 65 Step 2: To Make changes to the speed mph: 65 default information, select the crossing Number of highway from list. Enter the changes in the lanes: 4 4 appropriate box, then click the UPDATE button. Number of years accident data: 5 5 Step 3: To permanently remove a Number of accidents in crossing from the zone, select Crossing accident data years: 3 3 from list. Click the DELETE CROSSING button. Wayside horn: No ఔ Step 4: Verify All Crossing Information Pre-Existing SSM: No ఔ Provided is correct. Then Click the Check Box, then CONTINUE button . * = Not Public At Grade Crossing UPDATE * Note: To see a list of SSMs, click on ** = Closed Crossing "Pre-Existing SSM". Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet Zone To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATION Calculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Be PROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here. sure that an updated current and accurate inventory form is also submitted. ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING

38 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44149 11/28/2018 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 2

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Update and Verify Crossing Information CONTINUE

Create New Zone Zone: 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET Manage Existing Zones Quiet Zone Type : New 24-hour Quiet Zone Gates ఔ 026852D TAYLOR STREET Present warn device: Gates Log Off 026856F NOELL STREET Number of highway 026857M WASHINGTON STREET vehicles per day: 010000 14200 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 026861C PALM STREET Total trains: 270 60 Day through trains : 97 54 Step by Step Instructions: Total Switching Trains : 6 6

Number of main tracks: 2 2

Number of other tracks: 0 0

Urban(U.)/Rural(R.): U.Local U.Local ఔ

Step 1: To add more crossings to the Highways paved: Yes Yes ఔ zone Click the ADD CROSSING. Maximum timetable 50 Step 2: To Make changes to the speed mph: 50 default information, select the crossing Number of highway from list. Enter the changes in the lanes: 3 3 appropriate box, then click the UPDATE button. Number of years accident data: 5 5 Step 3: To permanently remove a Number of accidents in crossing from the zone, select Crossing accident data years: 0 0 from list. Click the DELETE CROSSING button. Wayside horn: No ఔ Step 4: Verify All Crossing Information Pre-Existing SSM: No ఔ Provided is correct. Then Click the Check Box, then CONTINUE button . * = Not Public At Grade Crossing UPDATE * Note: To see a list of SSMs, click on ** = Closed Crossing "Pre-Existing SSM". Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet Zone To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATION Calculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Be PROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here. sure that an updated current and accurate inventory form is also submitted. ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING

39 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44149 11/28/2018 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 2

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Update and Verify Crossing Information CONTINUE

Create New Zone Zone: 026861C PALM STREET Manage Existing Zones Quiet Zone Type : New 24-hour Quiet Zone Gates ఔ 026852D TAYLOR STREET Present warn device: Gates Log Off 026856F NOELL STREET Number of highway 026857M WASHINGTON STREET vehicles per day: 6000 3700 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 026861C PALM STREET Total trains: 270 60 Day through trains : 97 54 Step by Step Instructions: Total Switching Trains : 6 6

Number of main tracks: 2 2

Number of other tracks: 0 0

Urban(U.)/Rural(R.): U.Local U.Local ఔ

Step 1: To add more crossings to the Highways paved: Yes Yes ఔ zone Click the ADD CROSSING. Maximum timetable 50 Step 2: To Make changes to the speed mph: 50 default information, select the crossing Number of highway from list. Enter the changes in the lanes: 2 2 appropriate box, then click the UPDATE button. Number of years accident data: 5 5 Step 3: To permanently remove a Number of accidents in crossing from the zone, select Crossing accident data years: 3 3 from list. Click the DELETE CROSSING button. Wayside horn: No ఔ Step 4: Verify All Crossing Information Pre-Existing SSM: No ఔ Provided is correct. Then Click the Check Box, then CONTINUE button . * = Not Public At Grade Crossing UPDATE * Note: To see a list of SSMs, click on ** = Closed Crossing "Pre-Existing SSM". Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet Zone To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATION Calculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Be PROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here. sure that an updated current and accurate inventory form is also submitted. ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING

40 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44149 11/28/2018 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 1

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Cancel Change Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923 ఔ Continue

Crossing Street Traffic Warning Device Pre-SSM SSM Risk 026852D TAYLOR STREET 19500 Gates 0 0 84,221.89 Create New Zone MODIFY

026856F NOELL STREET 3100 Gates 0 0 50,633.33 MODIFY Manage Existing Zones 026857M WASHINGTON STREET 14600 Gates 0 0 344,640.08 MODIFY Log Off 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 14200 Gates 0 0 64,458.96 MODIFY

026861C PALM STREET 3700 Gates 0 0 238,984.41 MODIFY

Step by Step Instructions: * Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Summary MIDDLETOWN- Click for Supplementary Safety Measures [SSM] Proposed Quiet Zone: OLDTOWN_2TRACK Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only) Click for ASM spreadsheet: ASM * Note:The use of Type: New 24-hour QZ and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button ASMs requires an application to and approval from the FRA. Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923 Estimated Total Cost: $0.00 Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE Nationwide Significant Risk 14723 .00 button.To generate a spreadsheet of Threshold: the values on this page, click on ASM Risk Index with Horns: 93877.54 button—This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Quiet Zone Risk Index: 156587.73

Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn.

Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button

41 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44149 11/28/2018 FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator Page 1 of 1

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Cancel Change Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923 ఔ Continue

Crossing Street Traffic Warning Device Pre-SSM SSM Risk 026852D TAYLOR STREET 19500 Gates 0 6 19,371.03 Create New Zone MODIFY

026856F NOELL STREET 3100 Gates 0 6 11,645.67 MODIFY Manage Existing Zones 026857M WASHINGTON STREET 14600 Gates 0 6 79,267.22 MODIFY Log Off 026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 14200 Gates 0 6 14,825.56 MODIFY

026861C PALM STREET 3700 Gates 0 6 54,966.41 MODIFY

Step by Step Instructions: * Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. Summary MIDDLETOWN- Proposed Quiet Zone: ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has been OLDTOWN_2TRACK Step 1: To specify New Warning applied in each crossing. Device (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only) Type: New 24-hour QZ and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Click for Supplementary Safety Measures [SSM] Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923 Estimated Total Cost: $640,000.00 Step 2: Select proposed warning Click for ASM spreadsheet: ASM * Note:The use of device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE Nationwide Significant Risk 14723 .00 button.To generate a spreadsheet of ASMs requires an application to and approval from the FRA. Threshold: the values on this page, click on ASM Risk Index with Horns: 93877.54 button—This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Quiet Zone Risk Index: 36015.18

Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the Select SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn.

Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button

42 https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/scen.aspx?zoneid=44149 11/28/2018 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Appendix C: Preliminary Cost Estimate

43 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level: Project Study Report November 1, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

RIGHT OF WAY Temporary R/W, Easements Acre $25,000 $ - Slope Easements Acre $6,250 $ - Footing/Utility Easements Acre $25,000 $ - Property Acquisition Acre $100,000 $ - Appraisals & ROW Consultant 25% R.O.W Costs $ - Right-of-way Contingency (10% to 35%) 30% R.O.W Costs $ - RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL $ -

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 1,719,050

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION

Tidal Wetlands Permanent Impact Mitigation Acre $610,000 $ - Tidal Wetlands Temporary Impact Mitigation Acre $310,000 $ - Other Wetlands Permanent Impact Mitigation Acre $185,000 $ - Other Wetlands Temporary Impact Mitigation Acre $135,000 $ - Uplands Permanent Impact Mitigation Acre $125,000 $ - Uplands Temporary Impact Mitigation Acre $65,000 $ - Other Acre $ - Subtotal $0

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE IN 2018 DOLLARS $4,455,050

COST ESCALATION NOT USED Year of Expenditure Annual % Cumulative Estimated Escalation 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - 0.0% 0.0% $ - $ - TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN 2018 DOLLARS TOTAL COST ESCALATION $ - PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS Note: Project Risk Category based upon the SANDAG Design Procedures Manual is: Medium Risk

QuietZoneCost_2018-110244 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Palm Avenue Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Project Study Report Revised: November 01, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

CONSTRUCTION Site Civil Demolition and Removal of Pavement 100.00 SF $5 $ 500 Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 50.00 LF $5 $ 250 Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 $ - Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 $ - Remove Curb 50.00 LF $10 $ 500 Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Minor Concrete (Curb) 50.00 LF $35 $ 1,750 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 100.00 SF $25 $ 2,500 Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 $ 1,000 Median Striping 100.00 LF $2 $ 200

Subtotal $7,900

Signal CPUC No. 9E Warning Device 2.00 TF $47,000 $ 94,000 CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 $ - CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 $ - CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 $ - Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $35,000 $ 35,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000

Subtotal $132,000

Site Mitigation SWPPP LS $60,000.00 $ - Water Pollution Control 1 LS $2,000.00 $ 2,000 Permanent Erosion control (TYP Hydroseed) SF $1.00 $ - On-site Non-Coastal Wetlands Acre $135,000 $ - On-site Uplands Acre $65,000 $ - Monitors - Environmental/Biological hrs $150 $ - Monitors- Paleo/Archeology hrs $150 $ - Subtotal $2,000

Base Construction Estimate (BCE) $ 141,900

Contractor Mobilization 7.50% x BCE $ 10,600 Contractor Demobilization 2.50% x BCE $ 3,500 Traffic Handling 10.00% x BCE $ 14,200 Contingency 30% x BCE $ 42,600 Subtotal $70,900 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 212,800

NOTES AND EXCLUSIONS: 1. Estimates are based on conceptual design exhibits dated October 15, 2018. 2. No utility relocations were assumed to be necessary. 3. Real estate acquisition costs are not included. 4. Escalation to Year of Expenditure is not included.

QuietZoneCost_2018-110245 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Sassafras Street Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Project Study Report Revised: November 01, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

CONSTRUCTION Site Civil Demolition and Removal of Pavement 0.00 SF $5 $ - Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 0.00 LF $5 $ - Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 $ - Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 $ - Remove Curb 0.00 LF $10 $ - Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Minor Concrete (Curb) 0.00 LF $35 $ - Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 0.00 SF $25 $ - Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 $ 1,000 Median Striping 0.00 LF $2 $ -

Subtotal $2,200

Signal CPUC No. 9E Warning Device 2.00 TF $47,000 $ 94,000 CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 $ - CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 1.00 TF $28,000 $ 28,000 CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 $ - Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $30,000 $ 30,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000 Subtotal $158,000

Base Construction Estimate (BCE) $ 162,200

Contractor Mobilization 7.50% x BCE $ 12,200 Contractor Demobilization 2.50% x BCE $ 4,100 Traffic Handling 10.00% x BCE $ 16,200 Contingency 30% x BCE $ 48,700 Subtotal $81,200 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 243,400

QuietZoneCost_2018-110246 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Washington Street Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Project Study Report Revised: November 01, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

CONSTRUCTION Site Civil Demolition and Removal of Pavement 660.00 SF $5 $ 3,300 Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 215.00 LF $5 $ 1,075 Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 $ - Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 $ - Remove Curb 135.00 LF $10 $ 1,350 Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 120.00 SF $10 $ 1,200 Minor Concrete (Curb) 135.00 LF $35 $ 4,725 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 200.00 SF $25 $ 5,000 Landscaping & Irrigation 120.00 SF $10 $ 1,200 Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 $ 1,000 Median Striping 200.00 LF $2 $ 400

Subtotal $20,450

Signal CPUC No. 9E Warning Device 4.00 TF $47,000 $ 188,000 CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 3.00 TF $49,000 $ 147,000 CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 $ - CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 3.00 EA $35,000 $ 105,000 Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $50,000 $ 50,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000 Subtotal $496,000

Base Construction Estimate (BCE) $ 518,450

Contractor Mobilization 7.50% x BCE $ 38,900 Contractor Demobilization 2.50% x BCE $ 13,000 Traffic Handling 10.00% x BCE $ 51,800 Contingency 30% x BCE $ 155,500 Subtotal $259,200 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 777,650

QuietZoneCost_2018-110247 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Noell Street Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Project Study Report Revised: November 01, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

CONSTRUCTION Site Civil Demolition and Removal of Pavement 0.00 SF $5 $ - Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 0.00 LF $5 $ - Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 $ - Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 1.00 EA $5,000 $ 5,000 Remove Curb 0.00 LF $10 $ - Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Minor Concrete (Curb) 0.00 LF $35 $ - Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 0.00 SF $25 $ - Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 $ 1,000 Median Striping 0.00 LF $2 $ -

Subtotal $7,200

Signal CPUC No. 9E Warning Device 2.00 TF $47,000 $ 94,000 CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 $ - CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 $ - CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 $ - Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $18,000 $ 18,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 0.00 LS $3,000 $ -

Subtotal $112,000

Base Construction Estimate (BCE) $ 121,200

Contractor Mobilization 7.50% x BCE $ 9,100 Contractor Demobilization 2.50% x BCE $ 3,000 Traffic Handling 10.00% x BCE $ 12,100 Contingency 30% x BCE $ 36,400 Subtotal $60,600 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 181,800

QuietZoneCost_2018-110248 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Taylor Street Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Project Study Report Revised: November 01, 2018 Estimated By: Jeannie Pham Unit Item Quantity Unit Amount Subtotal Price

CONSTRUCTION Site Civil Demolition and Removal of Pavement 0.00 SF $5 $ - Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 0.00 LF $5 $ - Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 $ - Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 $ - Remove Curb 0.00 LF $10 $ - Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Minor Concrete (Curb) 0.00 LF $35 $ - Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 0.00 SF $25 $ - Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 $ - Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 $ 600 Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 4.00 EA $500 $ 2,000 Median Striping 0.00 LF $2 $ -

Subtotal $3,200

Signal CPUC No. 9E Warning Device 3.00 TF $47,000 $ 141,000 CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 $ - CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 $ - CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 $ - Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $50,000 $ 50,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Taylor St) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000 Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 $ 3,000 Subtotal $197,000

Base Construction Estimate (BCE) $ 202,200

Contractor Mobilization 7.50% x BCE $ 15,200 Contractor Demobilization 2.50% x BCE $ 5,100 Traffic Handling 10.00% x BCE $ 20,200 Contingency 30% x BCE $ 60,700 Subtotal $101,200 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (CCE) $ 303,400

QuietZoneCost_2018-110249 Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project Study Report

Appendix D: Project Development Team Meeting Summaries

50 Middletown Quiet Zone Feasibility Study Project Development Team Meeting #1 Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Project: Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Analysis

Meeting Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Meeting Location: SANDAG Date & Conference Room 8A Time: 10:00 am

Subject: PDT Meeting #1

Notes for PDT Kick Off Meeting – Tuesday, April 24, 2018

A. Introductions – attendance sheet is attached.

B. Review Scope of Work

Linda and Kristin reviewed the scope of work:

· Three meetings will be held throughout the duration of the feasibility analysis: (1) Kick off meeting (today’s meeting), (2) proposed safety measures review meeting, (3) wrap-up meeting · The study is very high level and will explore feasibility of implementing a quiet zone.

· Deliverables include: the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) quiet zone calculator results and proposed safety measures, conceptual layout plans for each of the five intersections in the project boundaries, cost estimate, draft project study report (PSR), and a final PSR. Attendees indicated that the proximity of the crossing gate bells to residences, and duration of the warning sound, created a problem along the existing quiet zone. A land use map around the project area will be added to the project study report to identify residential areas.

C. Review Project Schedule

· Begin Date: April 2018 to Expiration Date: December 2018

D. Initial Feedback – Opportunities or Constraints Moving Forward

The group discussed lessons learned from previous quiet zone efforts:

· MTS: Fred noted that bell noise is a concern to take into consideration. Quiet zones help residents who live further from the tracks; however, bell noise can be an issue for those who live closer to the project area because of the excessive noise resulting from the longer duration of gate down time. Only install the minimum number of bells required. MTS also stated they can work with SANDAG to identify locations where the bells could be installed that would minimize noise at adjacent land uses. Attendees agreed that bells should be of less concern for the study area because it is more industrial. Linda noted that a land use map would be added to the PSR to identify planned residential areas.

Page51 1 of 3 Middletown Quiet Zone Feasibility Study Project Development Team Meeting #1 Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Fred recommended that the signals and circuitry changes required as part of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project be considered.

Fred cautioned about conducting noise studies based on experience in what was required for these studies previously.

Signal houses may need to be upgraded; this should be taken into consideration during the preparation of the cost estimate.

· NCTD:

Don noted that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and FRA will need to provide input into the proposed project. Representatives from these agencies should be included in the conversation sooner, rather than later, as they may identify features that need to be considered as part of design. The group discussed the option of involving them in the second PDT meeting (proposed safety measures review meeting). The proposed safety measures would be shared with MTS, NCTD, and the City of San Diego prior to sharing the measures with FRA and CPUC.

Don noted that Washington and Sassafras may be difficult as FRA and CPUC have expressed concerns associated with these crossings. The crossings are currently compliant with requirements, but the quiet zone process will reopen the crossings to discussions with FRA and CPUC.

Don also emphasized that implementation of quite zones is governed by FRA rules establishing a boundary for the regulatory approvals.

The team involved in the prior quiet zone stated there were surprises in how pedestrian traffic needed to be handled to implement the quiet zone.

Fred noted that the visibility of flashers is a concern because they are an added safety feature along quiet zones. Periodic maintenance is needed to trim tree overgrowth. Future projects should take the quiet zone into consideration when planning landscaping in the area.

Linda asked about extending the existing quiet zone north through the project area versus establishing a new quiet zone? An extension of a quiet zone has never been done, but could be possible. New regulations have been passed since the downtown quiet zone was established. An extension could create an “open door”, which could subject previous work done on the initial quiet zone to updates.

Linda asked about any concerns regarding Positive Train Control (PTC). The group discussed that no changes are anticipated.

It was clarified that all five intersections will be evaluated, with no potential gaps left in the project area. Linda did note that there might be a question with the complexity of Taylor Street about whether a quiet zone could include that crossing, but that is at the northern end.

· City of San Diego:

Page52 2 of 3 Middletown Quiet Zone Feasibility Study Project Development Team Meeting #1 Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Steve noted that the downtown quiet zone was paid for by a source of funds that no longer exists. Grants usually do not apply towards the implementation of quiet zones. State and Federal funding is possible if other improvements are necessary, as identified by CPUC and/or FRA.

· The group also discussed current projects in the area, noting that all work is relatively minor and should not impact the study. · Kristin did not believe that traffic signal preemption was a requirement to implement a quiet zone. FRA guidance provides a list of measures that can be applied to crossings. Don agreed and stated that an average index rating is used among all of the crossings, there is not a safety factor applied for each specific crossing. · Any changes to traffic signals would require consideration of the mitigation requirements of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

E. New Action Items

· Linda will reach out to the CPUC and FRA and invite them to join the second PDT meeting with a date tentatively scheduled in August. · Jazmin will develop a land use map to be added to the PSR. · Don will send Linda contact information for the FRA’s new crossing division. · Kristin will research the requirements for advanced preemption at the crossings.

Next Team Meetings:

· Proposed safety measures review meeting - tentative date in August · Wrap-up meeting - tentative date in November

Page53 3 of 3 54 Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #2 Monday, September 24, 2018

Project: Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Analysis SANDAG Contract No 5007814

Meeting Monday, September 24, 2018 Meeting Location: SANDAG Date & Time: 1:00 pm Conference Room 8B Subject: PDT Meeting #2 Task Order #: 7

Notes for PDT Kick Off Meeting – Monday, September 24, 2018

A. Introductions (See Attached)

B. Project Review and Status

Linda gave an update on the project status stating that this high-level study will explore the feasibility of implementing a quiet zone in the project corridor. WSP has created preliminary concept plans (for review), and a draft project study report (PSR) is in progress. The project will conclude with high level concept plans and a PSR that includes scope, schedule, budget, and next steps.

C. Review and Comment on Preliminary Concept Plans

WSP staff provided an overview of measures proposed at each crossing.

FRA and CPUC staff reviewed plans and had the following comments:

General Comments (Applies to all Crossings):

• The FRA is a proponent of grade-separation. Studies should be done to measure their feasibility and state why they are or are not possible for each crossing. • As an alternative to grade separation, changing the traffic flow could be considered. One-way streets could be considered at each of the crossings. • FRA supports the measures proposed at the crossings in addition to sounding of locomotive horns. • Proposed safety improvements should be based on future projections and projects in the area, not only the existing conditions seen today. • Outlying areas should also be considered, not just the crossing itself. • The length of the medians should be identified on all of the plans. Medians need to meet the existing standard of 60 to 100 feet if they are to be used for credit for calculating the risk index. • All safety issues that would slow or impede vehicular traffic should be shown in the plans.

Page55 1 of 4 Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #2 Monday, September 24, 2018

• The system should be studied in totality. Eliminate trip hazards, vehicular hazards, etc. • CPUC has held design meetings/team review of all crossings except Noell. CPUC has documents that will be provided to SANDAG for consideration as part of this study. It was acknowledged there are constraints to implementation of some safety measures. • FRA stated that a diagnostic meeting should not be held until the team has identified what is truly feasible for each crossing. This meeting is a good first step towards identifying measures. • Safety during construction of the measures should also be considered.

Palm Street:

• Some cross street names are labelled incorrectly. • All proposed capital specific projects in the area need to be included on all plans as overlays, including SANDAG’s Palm Street project, if they will be existing at the time the quiet zone is established. • The Middletown-Old Town project area is the highest risk railroad corridor in San Diego, and accidents have occurred north of Palm Street. As a result, very thorough plans are necessary. Palm and Washington Streets were both identified as high risk. • The wall between the mainline tracks and the (trolley) station platform is suggested to be re- engineered to facilitate safe pedestrian crossing and sight distance for trolley riders. • California Street would also need treatment. • Diagnostic meetings of this crossing have been done in the past and CPUC has identified pedestrian improvements at this crossing.

Sassafras Street:

• Chris stated that I-5 is elevated in proximity to the grade crossing, but it is anticipated that a normal arm length for the gate should fit. • MTS mentioned at the Washington and Taylor Street crossings, concrete panels for LOSSAN tracks and rubber mats for LRT tracks are scheduled to be replaced during an October AWW. • Kristin noted that the blue arrows on the plans depict geometric changes that will be implemented as a result of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. • Entrances and exits to/from driveways need to be treated appropriately, including, in some cases, closed if warranted. This is true even if the driveways are not utilized. • The design team should consider changes to the traffic flow if needed. One-way streets could help improve safety. • There is a project proposed by the Airport Authority between Kettner Boulevard and Pacific Highway that includes lane and traffic flow reconfiguration for the Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC). A follow up conversation regarding the project is necessary.

Page56 2 of 4 Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #2 Monday, September 24, 2018

Washington Street:

• Diagnostic meetings of this crossing have been done in the past. • A traffic study should be completed studying the “worst-case” scenario. Major events in San Diego and in proximity to the airport affect traffic in the area. A high-level traffic study is necessary to address potential issues. This is also a thoroughfare to I-5 which creates a bottleneck. • The Department of Defense is located in proximity to this crossing; there is no control over what they do. • Encroachment into railroad right of way should be deterred. Fencing should be installed to ensure that the public cannot enter the railroad right of way. Signage should also be implemented. • Vegetation removal should be taken into consideration because of its ability to obstruct visibility. • The wall between the light and heavy rail tracks hinders the visibility of oncoming trains and may have been a factor in fatal accidents as pedestrians leave the trolley station. • Channelization may be needed at the trolley platforms due to train speed. Warnings should be added to both ends of the platform. • It was recommended that the trolley platform be shortened or shifted north. MTS indicated that shifting the platform north should be feasible. • Use prior diagnostic review documents as resources. • FRA pointed out that there was a short length for queuing onto Frontage Road and recommended consideration of queue cutting or pre-signals. The pre-signals should tie into the other side of I-5. •

Noell Street

• It may not be possible to install the gate in the southwestern quadrant of the intersection (CPUC 9E Exit Gate). Review the gate at Laurel or Hawthorne to see how a similar condition was treated. • Kurtz Street needs to be labelled as one-way on the plans to avoid confusion. Wrong way movements are likely and should be taken into consideration. • The medians should be depicted as their new proposed length in the plans as appropriate. • Installing a gate on the south side of Kurtz Street may be difficult. Delivery trucks load and back out at this location because it is not a through street. Closure of Kurtz Street may not be feasible because of emergency response issues.

Taylor Street:

Page57 3 of 4 Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #2 Monday, September 24, 2018

• Taylor Street has decreased in terms of risk due to safety improvements made at this crossing. • FRA stated there is a significant need for pedestrian treatment, including gates, at this crossing. • There is limited visibility by the building located near the light rail tracks. • There is limited space for pedestrians queuing, especially during major events, and they may step back onto the live tracks. • The engineer has the authority to sound their horn if they feel it is necessary, even in a quiet zone. • Think of the various types of people who use this station (commuters, homeless, students, tourists, etc.) A cookie-cutter design for one type of person is not sufficient. Consideration of pre-signals, queue cutters, and channelization of pedestrians is needed.

Brittany noted the number of items brought up about safety issues and concerns in the project corridor and asked who is fiscally responsible and why these problems have not been fixed. The CPUC has the authority to allocate costs to different agencies and cities if necessary; however, typically it is best to avoid a formal process of allocating costs. The quiet zone is ultimately approved by the FRA and the CPUC is consulted.

D. Review Remaining Project Schedule and Deliverables

• Linda reviewed the remaining project schedule and noted the last wrap-up meeting would be scheduled for October or November. A draft PSR will be provided to meeting participants prior to the meeting.

E. New Action Items • The design consultants will review the comments from the meeting and revise the plans accordingly. • CPUC to send documentation from prior diagnostic meetings at these crossings.

Next Team Meetings:

• Wrap-up meeting - tentative date in late October or November

Page58 4 of 4 59 60 Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #3 Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Project: Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Analysis SANDAG Contract No 5007814

Meeting Tuesday, November 13, 2018 Meeting Location: SANDAG Date & Conference Room 8A Time: 1:00 pm

Subject: PDT Meeting #3

Notes for PDT Meeting #3 – Tuesday, November 13, 2018

A. Introductions (See Attached)

B. Draft Project Study Report (PSR) Overview and Comments

Linda presented an overview of each section of the draft PSR including an added section in the PSR that suggests additional safety improvements that can be made based on FRA and CPUC’s requests. All meeting minutes also are included in an appendix. The following comments and feedback were provided by members of the PDT:

Overall:

· Fred suggested that any interactions with Mid-Coast need to be studied before any final decisions are made. Everything needs to be designed to fit with the new Mid-Coast design. For example, any available space in the existing signal houses for quiet zone equipment and the need for new signal houses should be assessed. LED lights and batteries should not be overlooked. Joe stated that all Mid-Coast designs need to be added to the plans.

· Joe noted that footing locations for new MidCoast signal houses are now in place since the last PDT meeting. These locations should be overlaid on the plans.

· Joe noted that a new traffic study is needed to update all Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data. At minimum, the report requires ADT and the percentage of trucks in the project area. Linda noted that there isn’t sufficient budget to conduct updated traffic counts in this phase but this task will be added to the next steps section of the PSR. Kevin noted that CPUC will conduct an inventory of ADT numbers, however, this data may not be available for a couple of years.

· Joe reiterated that supplemental safety measures are required at all crossings to qualify for a quiet zone. He will contact headquarters for clarification on the requirement of constant warning time with light rail transit in the vicinity of a quiet zone. Fred noted that AC track capacity is not compatible with constant warning time. Joe agreed that train detection systems are vastly different.

· Joe indicated the minimum standard for medians is 6” high and squared off.

· Joe stressed the importance of an inter-agency MOU early in the process that describes roles and responsibilities.

Page61 1 of 2 Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #3 Tuesday, November 13, 2018

· Kevin stated that pedestrians and queuing are core issues, but not entirely addressed in the supplemental safety measures. Almost all accidents along the railroad corridor are pedestrian related.

Sassafras Crossing:

· Fred noted that the Regional Airport Authority has plans for a project on Sassafras Street. While Joe asked that these plans be overlaid, Linda noted that SANDAG will inquire about whether or not that project is fully funded.

· Joe mentioned blocked visibility due to fencing and vegetation when walking southbound on Sassafras Street. Additional pedestrian treatments may be necessary.

· He also stated that Wally Park driveway does not show a median extension. Illegal right turns from the driveway need to be prohibited.

Noell Street

· Joe noted that the Noell Street crossing may be a candidate for closure. Consider grade separation where possible.

Quiet Zone Calculator

· Kevin noted a possible discrepancy in the number of total trains and day-through trains. This seemed odd because there are usually more trains in the day versus night. Kristin mentioned that WSP will check these numbers for the final version.

Cost Estimate and Funding

· Joe asked if it would be possible to look at the hard costs of the Downtown San Diego quiet zones to make sure there aren’t any elements that were missed in the cost estimate. Linda noted that the cost estimate would be old, however, we have reviewed the cost estimates for the City of Oceanside Quiet Zone currently under design to make sure elements are similar.

· Joe and Kevin suggested removing the Section 130 program from the possible funding section. Linda noted that text is included that the Section 130 program cannot be used for a quiet zone but could be used for additional safety improvements. This text will be strengthened.

C. Next Steps

· A PDT field visit of the project corridor to be scheduled in January 2019.

Page62 2 of 2 63 64 Comments regarding the Draft Project Study Report for the “Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone”

Kevin Schumacher, CPUC Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch November 9, 2018

Summary

California Public Utilities Commission staff of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) provides the following comments to SANDAG in response to the recent draft Project Study Report (PSR) for the “Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone”. The PSR discussed five crossings at Taylor Street, Noell Street, Washington Street, Sassafras Street, and Palm Street.

The PSR provides discussion and preliminary concepts for each crossing. However, the PSR does not discuss the details of many design elements that need consideration. While CPUC staff supports the installation of vehicular exit gates, additional design elements would be necessary to address the primary factors involved in past incidents at these crossings.

The PSR development process did not include field meetings, which would provide a better opportunity for input by all stakeholders. Prior to moving forward with a proposed Quiet Zone, a diagnostic team review should be held at each of the five crossings, and design issues raised by the team should be documented in greater detail.

Specific recommendations regarding the draft PSR are provided below: 1. Clearly state that CPUC authorization is required to modify a rail crossing. 2. Add a section discussing safety. 3. Discuss the need for diagnostic team reviews.

Details

1. Clearly state that CPUC authorization is required to modify a rail crossing.

2. Add a section discussing safety.

The PSR should include an additional section that discusses safety, including the following:

a. The sounding of the locomotive horn results in a higher level of pedestrian and motorist safety when compared to not sounding the locomotive horn. b. These crossings have the primary characteristics associated with higher rates of accidents, injuries and/or fatalities at rail crossings:  High train and traffic volumes (and projected increases)  Train speeds (higher than prior downtown Quiet Zone)  High number of tracks (4 tracks), multiple lanes  Nearby intersections c. Pedestrian/cyclist safety

65 CPUC comments re Middletown QZ November 9, 2018 Page 2

 The train horn currently allows most pedestrians to identify the direction of an approaching train  Pedestrians may not expect another train on a different track  Pedestrians regularly violate the activated warning devices at these crossings  There are stations near 3 of the 5 crossings  Visibility of an approaching train or warning devices may be limited by structures, walls, utility poles, other trains, etc.  Most of the fatalities and injuries at these crossings involved pedestrians d. Queuing safety issues  Queues extend onto the tracks at these crossings (particularly Taylor, Washington, and Sassafras)  The issue may occur more frequently with future increases in train and vehicle traffic.  There is additional risk on multi-lane roads. e. Alleys/driveways near the tracks  Alleys or driveways near the track may result in motorist confusion, turns onto the tracks, queuing near the crossing, warning device violations, conflicts with pedestrians or motorists moving away from the tracks, and other safety issues.

3. Discuss the need for diagnostic team reviews.

A diagnostic team review should be held at each crossing during the project development process. Design details are not fully investigated in the draft PSR. The following design elements need further consideration through a diagnostic team review involving all stakeholders:

a. closure or reconfiguration of alleys/driveways, b. median design (minimum length, non-mountable, adequate width for signs or signals where necessary) c. station elements (wall, platform, ramp, etc.), d. additional traffic signals (pre-signals, queue cutters), e. railroad preemption interconnection wiring, f. railroad preemption timing, g. pedestrian automatic gate arms, h. pedestrian swing gates, i. pedestrian channelization (fencing, barriers, delineators, etc.) j. use of additional pairs of flashing light signals (facing pedestrians, facing vehicles, facing other approaches, on median, minimum clearance, etc.) k. utility relocation (utility pole in sidewalk, etc.) l. right-of-way acquisition, m. placement of detectable warning and pedestrian warning markings (consistent configuration, placement relative to train dynamic envelope), n. slope of sidewalk near the tracks (curb ramps and curb along sidewalk should be eliminated adjacent to the track), o. maximum gaps (surface specifications and maintenance), p. bells, q. signs, r. markings, and s. street lights (overhead illumination).