Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report

April 2013

Prepared by THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report April 2013

Prepared by: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

Table of Contents

S. SUMMARY ...... S-1 S.1 Purpose and Scope ...... S-1 S.2 Summary of Findings ...... S-2 S.3 Disposition of Data ...... S-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 2-1 2.1 Purpose of the Report ...... 2-1 2.2 Description of the Mid-Coast Corridor ...... 2-2 2.3 Alternatives under Consideration ...... 2-4 2.3.1 No-Build Alternative ...... 2-4 2.3.2 Build Alternative ...... 2-12 3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 3-1 3.1 Federal ...... 3-1 3.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ...... 3-1 3.1.2 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 3-1 3.1.3 National Register of Historic Places Criteria ...... 3-2 3.1.4 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act ...... 3-4 3.1.5 Section 106 Exemption Regarding Effects to the Interstate Highway System...... 3-4 3.2 State ...... 3-5 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 3-5 3.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria ...... 3-6 3.3 Local ...... 3-7 3.3.1 City of San Diego Municipal Code ...... 3-7 3.3.2 City of San Diego Register of Historical Resources Criteria ...... 3-7 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 4-1 4.1 Area of Potential Effects...... 4-1 4.1.1 Archaeological APE ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Architectural APE ...... 4-1 4.1.3 State Historic Preservation Officer Concurrence Regarding Area of Potential Effects ...... 4-3 4.2 Consultation with Historical Organizations ...... 4-3 4.3 Background Research...... 4-3 4.3.1 Records Search...... 4-3 4.3.2 Archival Research ...... 4-5 4.4 Field Survey ...... 4-6 4.4.1 Reconnaissance-Level Survey ...... 4-6 4.4.2 Intensive-Level Survey ...... 4-7 5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2010) AND DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY ...... 5-1 5.1 Historic Context Statement ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Spanish Period (1769 to 1822) ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Mexican Period (1822 to 1846) ...... 5-1

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 i Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

5.1.3 Early American Period (1846 to 1860s) ...... 5-2 5.1.4 American Period (1860s to present) ...... 5-2 5.1.5 Industrial Architecture, Light Industrial Architecture, and Late- Moderne Design ...... 5-24 5.2 Records Search Results ...... 5-34 5.2.1 Previous Studies within a Quarter-mile of the Architectural APE ...... 5-34 5.2.2 Previously Recorded Properties within the Architectural APE ...... 5-35 5.2.3 Previously Recorded Properties Adjacent to the Architectural APE .... 5-37 5.3 Field Survey Results ...... 5-38 5.3.1 Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR ...... 5-48 5.3.2 Properties Found Not Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR ...... 5-53 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 6-1

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS MAP ...... A-1 APPENDIX B STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS CONCURRENCE ...... B-1 APPENDIX C CONSULTATION WITH HISTORICAL ORGANIZATIONS ...... C-1 APPENDIX D HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY RESULTS MAP ...... D-1 APPENDIX E DPR 523 FORMS ...... E-1 APPENDIX F CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES STATUS CODES ...... F-1

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT ii April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Vicinity Map ...... 1-3 Figure 1-2. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Location Map ...... 1-4 Figure 2-1. Mid-Coast Corridor...... 2-3 Figure 2-2. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements ...... 2-6 Figure 2-3. No-Build Alternative Major Bus Routes ...... 2-7 Figure 2-4. No-Build Alternative Bus Route 150 ...... 2-9 Figure 2-5. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan in 2030 ...... 2-11 Figure 2-6. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ...... 2-13 Figure 2-7. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ...... 2-15 Figure 2-8. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Center Columns ...... 2-20 Figure 2-9. Genesee Avenue Design Concepts ...... 2-21 Figure 2-10. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Straddle Bents ...... 2-22 Figure 2-11. Site Concept for Tecolote Road Station ...... 2-24 Figure 2-12. Site Concept for Clairemont Drive Station ...... 2-24 Figure 2-13. Site Concept for Balboa Avenue Station ...... 2-25 Figure 2-14. Site Concept for Nobel Drive Station ...... 2-26 Figure 2-15. Site Concept for Optional VA Medical Center Station ...... 2-27 Figure 2-16. Site Concepts for UCSD West Station (Build Alternative and VA Medical Center Station Option) ...... 2-28 Figure 2-17. Site Concept for UCSD East Station ...... 2-29 Figure 2-18. Site Concepts for Executive Drive Station, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option ...... 2-31 Figure 2-19. Site Concepts for UTC Transit Center, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option ...... 2-32 Figure 2-20. Existing Traction Power Substation at Mission Valley Center Station ...... 2-33 Figure 2-21. Traction Power Substation Layout ...... 2-34 Figure 2-22. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan ...... 2-38 Figure 2-23. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 2030 Trolley Operating Plan ...... 2-39 Figure 5-1. Mission Brewery and Bottling Plant, 1927 ...... 5-3 Figure 5-2. Bay Park Village, 1946 ...... 5-7 Figure 5-3. Sentry Booth and Guardhouse, 1964 ...... 5-11 Figure 5-4. Sentry Booth, Camp Roberts, Date Unknown ...... 5-11 Figure 5-5. Sentry Booth, Camp Pendleton, Late 1940s Period ...... 5-11 Figure 5-6. Sentry Booth, Camp San Luis Obispo, Date Unknown ...... 5-12 Figure 5-7. Linda Vista Federal Housing Project, 1941 ...... 5-13 Figure 5-8. Sylvanus Martson, St. Francis Court. Pasadena, CA, 1909 ...... 5-15 Figure 5-9. Sylvanus Martson, St. Francis Court Site Plan. Pasadena, CA, 1909 ...... 5-15

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 iii Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

Figure 5-10. Minimal Traditional and Ranch House, “Minimal Ranch,” Riverside, CA. c.1950 ...... 5-17 Figure 5-11. Cliff May: Langston House, 1934, and a Post World II May-Designed Tract House ...... 5-17 Figure 5-12. Edward Fickett, Sherman Park Model “A” Home. Los Angeles, CA, 1952 ...... 5-18 Figure 5-13. 4875–4883 Naples Street Images ...... 5-18 Figure 5-14. Google Maps Aerial Image of 4875–4883 Naples Street ...... 5-18 Figure 5-15. Advertisement for Clairemont Hills, July 1957 ...... 5-20 Figure 5-16. Textile Mills, Great Britain, 1826 ...... 5-24 Figure 5-17. Plan and Section for Boulton and Watt’s Seven-Story Mill of Cast-Iron Framework, Salford, England, 1801 ...... 5-25 Figure 5-18. Typical Late-19th Century Fireproof American Industrial Complex: The Enterprise Manufacturing Co. Philadelphia, PA c. 1880 ...... 5-26 Figure 5-19. Diagram Showing the Auto-Making Process ...... 5-27 Figure 5-20. Albert Kahn with Ernest Wilby, Parkard Plant No. 10, Detroit, MI. 1905 ...... 5-27 Figure 5-21. A Stylized Reception Area, Shure Bros., Illinois. c.1956...... 5-29 Figure 5-22. Sawtooth Roof: Typical Section ...... 5-29 Figure 5-23. The Flow of Materials through the Toledo Scale Factory: All under One Roof within a Square-Plan ...... 5-30 Figure 5-24. Proper Location is Economically Vital, Spurs. Crown Co., Pennsylvania ...... 5-31 Figure 5-25. The Neyenesch Printers Building, San Diego, CA, 1958 ...... 5-32

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT iv April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table S-1. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE ...... S-3 Table 2-1. No-Build Alternative Bus Operating Plan in 2030 ...... 2-8 Table 2-2. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan ...... 2-10 Table 2-3. Traction Power Substations Locations ...... 2-35 Table 2-4. Trolley Operating Plans...... 2-36 Table 2-5. Build Alternative Bus Routes Serving Trolley Stations ...... 2-40 Table 4-1. Consulting Parties Communication Log ...... 4-4 Table 5-1. Previous Historic Architecture Studies adjacent to the Architectural APE ...... 5-35 Table 5-2. Property Information for Air Force Plant 19 ...... 5-35 Table 5-3. Roadway Bridges more than 45 Years Old within the Architectural APE ...... 5-36 Table 5-4. Previously Recorded Properties Adjacent to the Architectural APE ...... 5-37 Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE ...... 5-40 Table 5-6. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE ...... 5-48

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 v Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

Abbreviations

The following acronyms, initialisms, and short forms are used in this report.

2030 RTP 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future 2050 RTP 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APE Area of Potential Effects APN Assessor Parcel Number ATSF Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BRT bus rapid transit C&S communications and signaling Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHR California Historical Resource CRHR California Register of Historical Resources DARs direct-access ramps DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation EDR Environmental Data Resources FHA Federal Housing Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GANDA Garcia and Associates HOV high-occupancy vehicle ICF ICF International I- Interstate

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT vi April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

LOSSAN Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency LRT light rail transit LRV light rail vehicles MOA memorandum of agreement MTDB Metropolitan Transit Development Board MTS Metropolitan Transit System MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NCTD North County Transit District NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NETR Nationwide Environmental Title Research NHPA National Historic Preservation Act Nos. Numbers NRHP National Register of Historic Places OC overcrossing OCS overhead catenary system OTTC Old Town Transit Center PE preliminary engineering PRC Public Resources Code SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCIC South Coastal Information Center SDAC San Diego Archaeological Center SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company SEIS/SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SR State Route TPSSs traction power substations

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 vii Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Table of Contents

UCSD University of California, San Diego USC United States Code UTC University Towne Centre USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation VA Veterans Administration

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT viii April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Summary

S. SUMMARY

In this summary, the purpose and scope, summary of findings, and disposition of data is discussed. S.1 Purpose and Scope The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are preparing a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (the project). The project extends approximately 11 miles in length, and is located in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, California. The project would improve the region’s mobility and public transit service by extending the existing San Diego Trolley light rail transit (LRT) system from the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) north to University City, and serving major activity centers such as the University of California, San Diego and the University Towne Centre. The project also would provide more frequent Trolley service on the existing LRT tracks between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC.

Since it is the intent of SANDAG to apply for FTA federal New Starts funds for the project, this undertaking is considered a federal action and the FTA is the lead federal agency for the project. As a federally funded project, the project requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires the identification of historic properties and the evaluation of project-related effects on those properties. This report also complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and with regulations contained in 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 5) also require lead agencies to evaluate proposed projects for their potential to cause significant impacts on historical resources. The FTA is the lead agency under NEPA, and SANDAG is the lead agency under CEQA.

The FTA has been consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for determinations of eligibility of historic properties for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and for effects, as required under Section 106 of the NHPA. The SHPO has concurred with the Area of Potential Effects (APE) during ongoing consultation. This report presents the FTA’s preliminary and conservative determinations of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), based on research and surveys undertaken by SANDAG working in cooperation with the FTA to identify historic properties within the APE through the application of NRHP criteria. The determinations of eligibility are subject to review and concurrence by the SHPO, and are considered preliminary until SHPO concurrence.

This report documents the historic properties assumed to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), as well as those that have been previously listed in the NRHP or the CRHR. These properties also are considered historical resources for purposes of CEQA.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 S-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Summary

S.2 Summary of Findings A cultural resources records search was conducted through the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at San Diego State University. In addition, an intensive-level field survey was conducted of the architectural APE.

Based on the results of the records search and intensive-level field survey, the architectural APE contains a total of 163 properties that are more than 45 years old (i.e., constructed on or before 1966). Property Numbers (Nos.) 1 through 163 were assigned by Garcia and Associates (GANDA), with two property numbers voided (Property Nos. 112 and 154). In addition, ICF International (ICF) assigned Property Nos. 164 and 165 to two potential historic districts—Vista Bahia Unit No. I and the Morena Boulevard Postwar Commercial District, respectively. A map of the 163 properties is presented in Appendix D.

The records search identified seven previously documented properties within the architectural APE, including Air Force Plant 19 (Property Number [No.] 17), which was determined by the SHPO to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and City of San Diego Register of Historical Resources (City of San Diego Register) (Widell, 1996). The SHPO APE determination letter and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for Air Force Plant 19 are presented in Appendix E.

The remaining previously documented properties include six California Department of Transportation roadway bridges found ineligible for listing in the NRHP (Property Nos. 19, 32, 153, 158, 159, and 160). However, these bridges had not been previously evaluated for listing in the CRHR and had not been recorded on DPR 523 forms. As part of this survey effort, the six bridges were found to be ineligible for listing in the CRHR and were recorded on DPR 523 forms (see Appendix E).

The field survey identified 156 newly documented properties that are more than 45 years old. DPR 523 forms for these properties are provided in Appendix E. Five of the properties were found eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR (Table S-1). The remaining 151 newly documented properties were found to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under any of the significance criteria. S.3 Disposition of Data This report will be filed with SANDAG, the City of San Diego, the SCIC, and the San Diego History Center. All field notes, photographs, and project-related records will remain on file at the GANDA Lompoc, California office. All revised authorship by ICF will remain on file at the ICF Los Angeles, California office.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT S-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Summary

Table S-1. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE

Property Primary Number Number CHR (Assigned (Assigned Property Construction Status NRHP/CRHR by GANDA) by SCIC) Name/Type Property Address Date Code* Criteria 3 None light industrial 2750 Kettner Blvd ca. 1959 3S, 3CS NRHP/CRHR building Criteria C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E 30 None multifamily 4875–4883 Naples St ca. 1953 3S, 3CS NRHP/CRHR residence Criteria C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E 64 None Old Trieste 2335 Morena Blvd 1952; 1963 3S, 3CS NRHP/CRHR Restaurant Criteria A/1 and C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E 120 None single-family 3435 Morena Blvd 1904 3S, 3CS NRHP/CRHR residence Criteria A/1, City of San Diego Register Criterion E 161 None Camp University of California, ca. 1943–1944 3S, 3CS NRHP/CRHR Matthews San Diego parking lot Criteria A/1 and Sentry C/3, City of San Building Diego Register Criterion E Source: SANDAG, 2013 Notes: NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; APE = Area of Potential Effects; GANDA = Garcia and Associates; SCIC = South Coastal Information Center. *CHR Status Code: 3S = Appears eligible for NRHP as an individual property through survey evaluation; 3CS = Appears eligible for CRHR as an individual property through survey evaluation (Appendix F contains a complete list of the CHR Status Codes). Pending SHPO concurrence with FTA’s determination of NRHP eligibility, the five newly identified NRHP resources would become City of San Diego Landmarks under Criterion E. The city’s guidelines for the application of HRB designation criteria state: “resources identified as significant by the State or Federal Government with SHPO concurrence through listing or determinations of eligibility for listing on the California or National Registers are eligible for designation by the HRB under Criterion E.”

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 S-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Summary

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT S-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) conducted a survey of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (project). The project is approximately 11 miles in length, and is located in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, California (Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The purpose of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to improve transit travel times and reliability, while reducing the number of transfers, making transit a more attractive mode of travel.

On behalf of SANDAG, Parsons Brinckerhoff retained Garcia and Associates (GANDA) to conduct a survey of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed Mid- Coast Corridor Transit Project. The report was prepared by GANDA Architectural Historian Erica Schultz, who meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and history. Ms. Schultz was supported by GANDA Archaeologist/Architectural Historian Caprice (Kip) Harper, GANDA Historical Archaeologist Rachael Greenlee, and GANDA Cultural Resources Specialist Christopher Letter. GANDA Geographic Information System Specialist Karen Klinger and GANDA Graphic Illustrator Rad Smith created the maps and figures used in this report. GANDA Senior Archaeologist/Architectural Historian Carole Denardo, GANDA Senior Architectural Historian Jennifer Lang, and GANDA Senior Technical Editor Carole Garcia reviewed this report.

From February to March 2013, ICF International (ICF) conducted a peer review of this Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report. Within this report, ICF architectural historians Daniel Paul, Peter Moruzzi, and Carson Anderson authored historic contexts pertaining to “The Bungalow Court And Its Post-World War II Variant,” “Industrial Architecture, Light Industrial Architecture, and Late-Moderne,” “Camp Calvin Matthews Sentry Booth,” “Linda Vista,” “Bay Park Village,” “Morena Boulevard Postwar Commercial Strip,” “Paul Jones Avenue,” “Upscale Postwar Dining Establishments,” and the “Clairemont: McGraw Street—Vista Bahia Unit No. I Subdivision.” ICF conducted technical edits of this report and all of its attachments.

ICF architectural historians revised all of the DPR Building, Structure, and Object (BSO) forms for the 69 properties identified by GANDA as “Properties Retaining Integrity.” Specifically, ICF removed those portions of the significance statement associated with the same general historic context information as found in this report. In addition, ICF removed references to Criterion D because it is standard practice to apply this criterion to archeological resources and not to historic resources.

ICF architectural historians revised and substantially enhanced all of the BSO forms for the 87 properties identified by GANDA as “Properties Lacking Integrity.” Previously, the significance statements in the BSO forms concluded that all of these properties were ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) because of a substantial loss of physical integrity. In enhancing these significance statements, ICF performed building permit research, consulted city directories, examined Sanborn maps, reviewed historic aerial photographs, and conducted research at the San Diego History Center Library and the

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 1-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

local historical society. Using this information, ICF applied all three NRHP and CRHR significance criteria to the 87 properties in reaching a conclusion regarding eligibility.

For the property located at 2335 Morena Boulevard (Old Trieste Restaurant), ICF researched and reassessed this historic resource finding it met NRHP and CRHR eligibility requirements under Criteria A/1 and C/3, respectively.

Finally, ICF architectural historians identified, researched, assessed, and fully documented two potential historic districts: Vista Bahia Unit No. I and the Morena Boulevard Postwar Commercial District. The two districts were found not to meet NRHP criteria.

All DPR forms revised or otherwise authored by ICF are indicated in box *P8 of the Primary Records and/or *B14 of the BSO forms.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Figure 1-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Vicinity Map

Source: SANDAG, 2011

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 1-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Figure 1-2. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Location Map

Source: SANDAG, 2011

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

Figure 1-2. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Location Map (continued)

Source: SANDAG, 2011

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 1-5 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 1-6 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) have prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in San Diego, California. The SEIS/SEIR supplements the following environmental documents: the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a); the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b); and the Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact Statement (MTDB, 2001). The FTA is serving as lead agency for the SEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and SANDAG is serving as lead agency for the SEIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970.

The Draft SEIS/SEIR includes an analysis of the affected environment and potential impacts on the social, economic, cultural, and natural environment that would result from constructing and operating the alternatives under consideration within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The alternatives being considered and analyzed for potential impacts include a No-Build Alternative and a Build Alternative.

The Build Alternative is the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, or project, as it is planned to operate in 2030. The project consists of extending the existing San Diego Trolley (Trolley) Blue Line from the Santa Fe Depot north to the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC), via the existing Trolley tracks, and then north along new tracks to the University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center in University City, with eight new stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, University of California, San Diego (UCSD) West Campus, UCSD East Campus, Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center.

The Build Alternative includes two options for consideration. One option provides an additional station at the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center and the other is a design option for the aerial alignment along Genesee Avenue in University City. 2.1 Purpose of the Report This report was prepared to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and with regulations contained in 36 CFR Part 800. These regulations require federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed projects on historic properties as part of environmental assessment. This report also complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.) and was prepared to comply with requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Natural Resources Agency, 2011), as they apply to cultural resources, which include archaeological, traditional, and built environment resources.

This report was prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification of Historic Properties (48 Federal Register 44716), by personnel who meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61 [as amended and annotated]).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

This technical report is organized into the following chapters:

· Summary · Introduction · Background · Regulatory Context · Methodology · Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility · References 2.2 Description of the Mid-Coast Corridor The Mid-Coast Corridor is the area centering on Interstate (I-) 5 and extending from Downtown San Diego on the south to UCSD and University City on the north (Figure 2-1). Located entirely within the City of San Diego, the corridor is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and by I-805 and State Route (SR) 163 on the east. The Mid-Coast Corridor is topographically diverse, with terrain ranging from coastal beaches and bays to inland areas containing steep hillsides and narrow canyons.

The Mid-Coast Corridor is characterized by dense urban centers and an abundance of regional activity centers and other major trip generators. Dense population and employment centers currently anchor both the northern and southern ends of the Mid- Coast Corridor. The UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping center, and regional hospitals are clustered in the north part of the corridor and represent the second most dense land uses in the county. At the south end of the corridor is the region’s only identified Metropolitan Center—Downtown San Diego—with the region’s densest land uses and high-rise development.

Other major land uses within or immediately adjacent to the corridor (Figure 2-1) include:

· Regional hospitals: Scripps Green Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (Scripps Hospital), UCSD Thornton Hospital, VA Medical Center, UCSD Medical Center Hillcrest, and Scripps Mercy Hospital · Major colleges and universities: UCSD, University of San Diego, San Diego Mesa College, and San Diego City College · Regional shopping centers: Westfield UTC, Fashion Valley, and Westfield Horton Plaza · Major parks and visitor attractions: Mission Bay Park, San Diego Zoo, SeaWorld San Diego, Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, Balboa Park, the Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego Convention Center, Petco Park, Rose Canyon Open Space Park, and Marian Bear Memorial Park · San Diego International Airport

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-1. Mid-Coast Corridor

Source: SANDAG, 2012 Note: The Trolley lines shown represent the 2010 Trolley operating plan.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

2.3 Alternatives under Consideration This section describes the No-Build and Build Alternatives, and Build Alternative options that were selected for consideration in this report.

2.3.1 No-Build Alternative This section describes the transportation improvements assumed in the No-Build Alternative within the Mid-Coast Corridor that are evaluated in this technical report and carried forward into the Draft SEIS/SEIR, as well as 2030 horizon year conditions resulting from projected development and changes in population and employment.

2.3.1.1 Highway and Transit Facility Improvements from the 2030 RTP The No-Build Alternative is evaluated in the context of the existing transportation facilities and services in the Mid-Coast Corridor (as characterized in 2010) and other facilities and services identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007). Since the No- Build Alternative provides the background transportation network against which the Build Alternative’s impacts are identified and assessed, the No-Build Alternative excludes the Mid- Coast Corridor Transit Project but does include continued and enhanced bus service on Route 150. The No-Build Alternative that was originally developed for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and presented during the CEQA and NEPA scoping processes, was derived from the 2030 RTP. In October 2011, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a new regional transportation plan that extended the planning horizon from 2030 to 2050, the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP) (SANDAG, 2011). However, the 2030 RTP has been retained as the basis for the No-Build Alternative because, as discussed below, no substantive differences exist between the 2030 and 2050 RTPs that would alter the environmental analysis.

The 2050 RTP was reviewed to determine if it includes any additional funded projects planned for implementation in the Mid-Coast Corridor by 2030 and not included in the 2030 RTP. The only major new project in the Mid-Coast Corridor is the extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the UTC Transit Center to Mira Mesa via the Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon area. This extension is not an alternative to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project since it is dependent on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project’s implementation. The Mira Mesa/Sorrento Mesa extension has not been considered in a corridor-level alternatives analysis. Future analysis under NEPA and CEQA also would be required. Thus, this extension is not included in either the No-Build Alternative or the Build Alternative.

The 2050 RTP also was reviewed to determine if it includes any Mid-Coast Corridor projects that are assumed in the No-Build Alternative that are not in the 2030 phase of the 2050 RTP. The only major project not in the 2030 phase of the 2050 RTP is the addition of high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the segment of I-5 from I-8 to La Jolla Village Drive. The 2050 RTP defers the implementation of the HOV lanes in this segment until the decade ending in 2050. Because the 2050 RTP only defers implementation of the HOV lanes, but still includes them, they are assumed in the design and analysis of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project under the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The other Mid-Coast Corridor projects in the 2050 RTP that are not in the 2030 RTP and that are scheduled for

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

implementation by 2030 are minor projects (e.g., minor adjustments to bus routes, increased bus frequency) and are not expected to have any substantial bearing on the analysis of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

Figure 2-2 shows the location of the major projects included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP located within the Mid-Coast Corridor and assumed to exist in the No-Build Alternative. These include the following major improvements from the 2030 RTP:

· Double tracking of the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) tracks and other rail improvements, with an increase in frequency of COASTER service to every 20 minutes during peak periods and to every 60 minutes during off-peak periods in both directions. · HOV lanes on I-5 from I-8 north to Oceanside, with direct access ramps (DARs) at various locations, of which the DARs at Voigt Drive would be located within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The HOV lanes would be restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants. · Combination of HOV and Managed Lanes on I-805 from I-5 to South Bay, with DARs at Carroll Canyon Road and Nobel Drive. · Trolley low-floor system improvements to the Trolley Blue and Orange Lines, including station platform, power, and signaling improvements to allow extension of the Trolley Green Line to the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit Center and use of low-floor vehicles systemwide.

2.3.1.2 Transit System Improvements The No-Build Alternative transit system within the Mid-Coast Corridor assumes services planned to be in operation in or by 2030. As with the existing transportation system, the No-Build Alternative transit system consists of Trolley services operated by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), Amtrak intercity passenger rail services, North County Transit District (NCTD)-operated COASTER commuter rail services, and MTS and NCTD bus transit services. MTS-operated bus services include local, express, limited express, and BRT services.

Under the No-Build Alternative, the 2030 Trolley operating plan would result in operation of the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico International Border through Downtown San Diego to the Santa Fe Depot; the Trolley Green Line would operate north and east from the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit Center through the OTTC and Mission Valley to Santee. The Trolley Orange Line would operate from Gillespie Field through Downtown San Diego to America Plaza.

Figure 2-3 shows the major MTS bus routes serving the Mid-Coast Corridor under the No- Build Alternative. Table 2-1 provides bus route information on fares and service frequency during both peak (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods. Service hours after 6:00 p.m. would be similar to existing operations.

In addition to existing transit services, the No-Build Alternative assumes improvements to existing bus transit and light rail transit (LRT) services operated by MTS. The following sections describe these improvements.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-5 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-2. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-6 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-3. No-Build Alternative Major Bus Routes

Source: SANDAG, 2012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-7 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Table 2-1. No-Build Alternative Bus Operating Plan in 2030

Frequency of Service Peak Off-Peak (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Route Description (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Fare 8 OTTC to Garnet and Bayard 15.0 15.0 $2.00 9 Garnet and Bayard to OTTC 15.0 15.0 $2.00 25 Clairemont Mesa to Fashion Valley Trolley Station 15.0 15.0 $2.00 27 Mission and Felspar to Clairemont Mesa 15.0 15.0 $2.00 30 UTC Transit Center to B and 9th Street 10.0 10.0 $2.25 31 Mira Mesa Transit Center to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.00 41 Fashion Valley Transit Center to UCSD West 10.0 10.0 $2.25 44 OTTC to Morena Blvd and Balboa Ave 7.5 7.5 $2.25 50 Park Blvd and Broadway to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.50 105 OTTC to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.25 120 Kearny Mesa Transit Center to 3rd and Market St 15.0 15.0 $2.25 150* 5th and Broadway to UTC Transit Center 15.0 30.0 $2.50 201/202 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 $2.25** 276 UCSD Route—Voigt Drive Loop 15.0 15.0 ** 284 UCSD Route—UCSD West to Scripps Institution of Oceanography 15.0 15.0 ** 921 Mira Mesa Transit Center to UCSD West 15.0 15.0 $2.25 960 UTC Transit Center to Euclid Avenue Trolley Station 25.0 No service $2.50 Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: * Not included in 2030 RTP ** = Free for UCSD students and faculty OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre

2.3.1.3 Bus Transit Service Improvements The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is excluded from the No-Build Alternative to represent corridor conditions without the project. Without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, more direct transit service would be needed to connect Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and University City. To meet this need, continuing service on the existing Route 150, which provides bus transit services between Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and University City, was added to the No-Build Alternative to replace the Mid- Coast Corridor Transit Project. Figure 2-4 shows the bus route and station locations for Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative.

Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing Route 150 would be modified to operate along Broadway in Downtown San Diego and along Pacific Highway from Downtown San Diego north to the OTTC. From the OTTC north, Route 150 would be modified to operate within the proposed I-5 HOV lanes north to Nobel Drive. This modification to Route 150 would improve travel times over the existing Route 150, which operates in the general-purpose lanes on I-5 north to Gilman Drive. Route 150 would operate at a frequency of 15 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes during off-peak and midday periods. The service would be operated using articulated buses. Fares are assumed to be $2.50 for a one-way trip.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-8 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-4. No-Build Alternative Bus Route 150

Source: SANDAG, 2012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-9 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

2.3.1.4 Trolley Service Improvements In addition to the bus service improvements, the No-Build Alternative assumes service frequency improvements to the existing Trolley system, as identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP and shown in Figure 2-5. Under the No-Build Alternative, the frequency of service on the Trolley Blue Line would increase from 15 to 7.5 minutes during off-peak periods. Thus, the Trolley Blue Line would operate 7.5- minute service all day, and the Trolley Orange and Green Lines would continue to operate at 15-minute service all day.

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the Trolley operating plans for existing conditions and for the No-Build Alternative. The operating plans identify the service frequency during peak (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, vehicle type, and fares for the Trolley Green, Blue, and Orange Lines. Service after 6:00 p.m. would be similar to existing operations.

Table 2-2. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan

Off-Peak Peak Frequency Frequency Fare (6:00. to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Vehicle (each Route (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Type way) 2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to OTTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to OTTC 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 12th and 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Imperial Transit Center 2030 Operating Plan (No-Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 12th and 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to Santa 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Fe Depot Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to America Plaza 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Source: SANDAG, 2012 Note: OTTC = Old Town Transit Center

2.3.1.5 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities Operation of the No-Build Alternative Trolley operating plan in 2030 would require a fleet of 142 light rail vehicles (LRVs) including reserve, spare, and special-service vehicles. This represents an increase of eight vehicles over the existing fleet of 134 LRVs.

The maintenance shops located at 1255 Imperial Avenue in San Diego provide service and maintenance to the LRV fleet. The facility has the capacity to store approximately 200 vehicles, or 66 additional vehicles. The maintenance facilities would not require expansion under the No-Build Alternative.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-10 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-5. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan in 2030

Source: SANDAG, 2012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-11 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

2.3.1.6 Regional Growth and Development The No-Build Alternative assumes regional growth and development consistent with the 2030 RTP, which uses the Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update adopted by SANDAG. This forecast is used as a basis for land use and demographic information in the transportation and traffic modeling. The Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: Process and Model Documentation (SANDAG, 2008) presents a basic description of the SANDAG forecast models used in the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update. The conditions created by the No-Build Alternative in 2030, as predicted by the Series 11 forecast (adjusted to exclude the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project), include the expected effects of development projects consistent with adopted land use plans.

2.3.2 Build Alternative The Build Alternative consists of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. This section describes the project, including minor modifications to bus services to improve access to stations and eliminate duplication of service with the extension of the Trolley Blue Line.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project provides for the extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center in University City. With the extension of the Trolley Blue Line, construction of the project would provide for continuous service on the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico International Border to University City.

Figure 2-6 shows the project alignment and station locations and the VA Medical Center Station Option and the Genesee Avenue Design Option. The project would use the existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from the Santa Fe Depot to a point just north of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The Trolley Blue Line trains would share the tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains. North of this point, the project includes construction of 10.9 miles of new double track extending to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center in University City.

In addition to the new double-track extension, the project includes eight new stations, upgrades to existing systems facilities between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, and the acquisition of new Trolley vehicles for the extended project operation. Stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, UCSD West Campus, UCSD East Campus, Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center. The project also includes an option for an additional station at the VA Medical Center.

The following sections describe the project alignment, stations, vehicles, power system and signaling, operating plan, and schedule for implementation of the project.

2.3.2.1 Alignment The project alignment would follow the LOSSAN tracks within the existing MTS and City of San Diego right-of-way from the Santa Fe Depot to approximately 3,500 feet south of the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. The alignment would then leave the LOSSAN right-of-way, enter California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right- of-way, and parallel the east side of the I-5 corridor north to the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. North of the interchange, the alignment would parallel the I-5

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-12 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-6. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-13 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

corridor, traveling partially within Caltrans right-of-way and partially on private property. At about 2,500 feet south of Nobel Drive, the alignment would transition to an aerial structure and cross over to the west side of I-5 south of Nobel Drive. From Nobel Drive, the alignment would continue north to the UCSD West Campus, then cross back over to the east side of I-5 along Voigt Drive and terminate on Genesee Avenue at the UTC Transit Center. The alignment’s total length from the south side of the San Diego River to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center is 10.9 miles.

Plan and profile drawings for the project alignment and Genesee Avenue Design Option are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a), referred to as Draft SEIS/SEIR plan set. Right-of-way plans showing existing and proposed rights-of-way and temporary construction easements for the project and Genesee Avenue Design Option alignment, stations, and supporting facilities also are contained in the Draft SEIS/SEIR plan set. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Technical Report (SANDAG, 2013b) identifies property acquisitions and structures to be demolished as part of the project. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2013c) describes the construction methods, activities, and durations.

Figure 2-7 presents a conceptual plan and profile drawing of the project alignment, stations, and supporting facilities. The alignment for the project with the Genesee Avenue Design Option is basically the same as for the project without the design option. The only difference is that the Genesee Avenue Design Option uses straddle bents1 rather than columns to support the aerial structure and stations, and has different locations of special trackwork on Genesee Avenue.

Alignment North of OTTC to UTC Transit Center North of the OTTC, the project alignment would be located primarily at grade within the existing MTS right-of-way, north to the vicinity of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive. This railroad corridor is used by the COASTER commuter rail, Amtrak intercity rail, and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe freight rail. The project alignment would be located east of the existing LOSSAN tracks, from the OTTC to south of SR 52, with at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue.

The project alignment would use bridges to cross the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek, and would be grade separated over Friars Road and Balboa Avenue. South of SR 52, the alignment would transition to an aerial structure and would cross the existing LOSSAN tracks, continuing at grade west of the existing LOSSAN tracks. To accommodate the alignment along the westerly right-of-way, the existing LOSSAN tracks would be relocated east but would still be located within the MTS right-of-way. Just south of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive, the alignment would leave the MTS right-of-way and enter the I-5 right-of-way. Along the I-5 corridor, the project alignment would be designed so as not to preclude the future widening of I-5.

1 A straddle bent refers to a type of structure used to avoid a situation where the column would cause an obstruction (such as a fly-over ramp where the column might land in the roadway below). The straddle bent, as its name implies, straddles the roadway or other obstruction. It consists of a beam supported by columns on the outside.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-14 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-7. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Source: SANDAG, 2013a

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-15 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 - Background

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-16 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-7. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project (continued)

Source: SANDAG, 2013a

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-17 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 - Background

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-18 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Upon entering the I-5 right-of-way north of SR 52, the project alignment would extend at grade along the east side of I-5, crossing under La Jolla Colony Drive in an approximately 200-foot-long cut-and-cover underpass. North of that underpass, the alignment would continue at grade along the east side of I-5, generally within or adjacent to the I-5 right-of-way, and transition to an aerial structure to cross to the west side of I-5, south of Nobel Drive. The aerial alignment would continue north along the west side of I-5 to an aerial station at La Jolla Village Square (Nobel Drive Station).

Continuing north from the Nobel Drive Station, the project alignment would remain on an aerial structure, travel for approximately 160 feet along the southeast corner of the shopping center on the north side of Nobel Drive, then enter the I-5 right-of-way and travel along the west side of I-5 within the I-5 right-of-way. It would return to grade just north of the I-5/La Jolla Village Drive interchange. North of this interchange, the alignment would run at-grade for approximately 460 feet along the west side of I-5 and the east side of the VA Medical Center. An optional at-grade station would be located at the VA Medical Center. The station would be within the I-5 right-of-way, with access provided from the VA Medical Center property.

South of Gilman Drive, the project alignment would transition back to an aerial structure and enter the UCSD West Campus, crossing Gilman Drive and the surface parking lot located north of Gilman Drive on the UCSD campus. The aerial alignment would then cross Pepper Canyon and continue to an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus.

North of the UCSD West Station, the project alignment would turn east on an aerial structure on the UCSD campus and cross to the north side of Voigt Drive. It would continue east on the UCSD campus, crossing over I-5 and the corner of the Scripps Hospital surface parking lot located on the east side of I-5 and the north side of Voigt Drive. Column supports would be required along the west side of Warren Field and along the parking lots on the north side of Voigt Drive, both on the UCSD West Campus and at Scripps Hospital. The alignment would be located north of the existing northerly curb line of Voigt Drive to allow for future widening of Voigt Drive, which is proposed as part of the Caltrans I-5 North Coast Corridor Project currently under environmental review. The I-5 North Coast Corridor Project proposes to construct HOV DARs that connect to the north side of Voigt Drive. Construction of the DARs is scheduled for completion by 2020. To provide the required vertical clearance between the LRT alignment and the future DARs at Voigt Drive, the project alignment crossing I-5 would be located at an elevation higher than Voigt Drive.

On the east side of I-5, the project alignment would continue on aerial structure and cross to the south side of Voigt Drive in the vicinity of the Scripps Hospital driveway entrance, located north of the UCSD baseball field. The aerial alignment would continue on UCSD property to Genesee Avenue, where it would enter the street right-of-way.

Caltrans is proposing to realign Voigt Drive to connect to Genesee Avenue and realign Campus Point Drive to connect to Voigt Drive. Voigt Drive is located on UCSD property. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project’s columns would be placed so as not to preclude the realignment of Voigt Drive and Campus Point Drive. Localized widening of Voigt Drive would be required to minimize use of straddle bents to support the aerial structure along Voigt Drive within the UCSD East Campus.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-19 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

The aerial alignment would cross the southbound lanes of Genesee Avenue just west of Regents Road and continue south on an aerial structure in the median of Genesee Avenue, following the existing alignment of Genesee Avenue to a station at Executive Drive and a terminal station at the UTC Transit Center. The project’s Genesee Avenue Design Option is located in the segment between Regents Road and the project’s terminus. This design option would use straddle bents rather than some center columns along Genesee Avenue to reduce right-of-way acquisition from adjacent properties.

Figure 2-9 presents a conceptual plan view of the project alignment and Genesee Avenue Design Option showing the location of the center columns and straddle bents under each design concept. The plan set contains cross sections and plans with more detailed information on the location of the columns and straddle bents, including structure dimensions.

Project with Center Column Design on Genesee Avenue Under the project, the support columns generally would be located in the center of the Genesee Avenue median, as shown in the visual simulation in Figure 2-8. The project would require two straddle bents along Genesee Avenue, as shown in Figure 2-9.

Figure 2-8. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Center Columns

The first straddle bent would be located west of Regents Road where the alignment would enter Genesee Avenue at an angle. The second one would be located on Genesee Avenue at the Executive Square intersection. The straddle bents would have support columns either in the median of Genesee Avenue, along the south side of Genesee Avenue, or in the median of Executive Square. The remaining support columns would be spaced at approximately 125 to 210 feet apart. Localized widening of Genesee Avenue would be required to accommodate the support columns with necessary clearances and to maintain the number of existing traffic lanes.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-20 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-9. Genesee Avenue Design Concepts

Source: SANDAG, 2012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-21 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Project with Straddle Bent Design Option on Genesee Avenue The Genesee Avenue Figure 2-10. Visual Simulation of Genesee Avenue with Design Option, which is Straddle Bents visually simulated in Figure 2-10, would use some straddle bents in place of median support columns on Genesee Avenue, thereby reducing the amount of right-of-way acquisitions required by the project. The use of straddle bents along Genesee Avenue is the only change provided by this design option.

The straddle bents would be located on each side of the right-of-way or in the median of Genesee Avenue to support cross beams that would span the roadway. Approximately 16 straddle bents would be required for this design option (Figure 2-9). The straddle bents would include one at Regents Road, four in the vicinity of Eastgate Mall, six in the vicinity of Executive Square and Executive Drive, and five in the vicinity of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway and the UTC Transit Center. The guideway and stations would rest on the cross beams with the roadway underneath. Right-of-way acquisitions under this design option would be confined primarily to column locations along the right-of-way edge and where the columns cannot fit within the existing right-of-way. The straddle bents would be spaced at approximately the same distances as the project’s center columns without the design option, as shown in Figure 2-9.

2.3.2.2 Stations The project includes eight new stations for passenger access, plus an optional station at the VA Medical Center. All new stations would be side-platform stations with 360-foot- long platforms designed to accommodate up to four-car trains. All platforms would be fully accessible and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Canopies would be provided at each station and would cover portions of the platforms and fare collection areas. Fare collection equipment, consisting of ticket/smart card vending machines and Compass Card validators, would be provided at each station. These amenities would be placed as appropriate on the platform where boarding occurs or at station entrances. Other station amenities would include benches, information kiosks, and security features according to SANDAG Design Criteria. Bicycle lockers would be provided at all stations except at the UTC Transit Center. Bicycle lockers at this station would be provided during the planned reconstruction of the bus transit center in the future, which is a separate project from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Parking and bus transfer facilities would be provided at five stations, as described later in this section. Lighting would be provided at all station platforms and parking areas.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-22 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

For the at-grade stations south of Balboa Avenue where the southbound platform would be adjacent to the LOSSAN tracks, a screen wall would be constructed at the back of the platforms to shield passengers from the wind induced by a fast-moving Amtrak or COASTER train. On aerial platforms, a 10-foot-high safety fence or screen would be provided at the back of both platforms.

The new project stations include both at-grade and aerial stations. The project segment along the MTS right-of-way between the San Diego River crossing and Gilman Drive would include three at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue. The site concept plans developed for these stations are described below. More detailed station site plans for each of the stations are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a).

· Tecolote Road Station—This at-grade station would be located south of the existing Tecolote Road overcrossing (Figure 2-11). Primary access to the station for northbound traffic would be provided via the existing signalized intersection at West Morena Boulevard and Vega Street. A driveway for right turns in and out would be provided on West Morena Boulevard for southbound traffic. A traction power substation (TPSS) would be located immediately north of the station driveway on West Morena Boulevard. The station site would include 280 surface parking spaces, with 180 spaces adjacent to the west side of West Morena Boulevard and another 100 spaces to the south of Vega Street. Short-term parking spaces would be provided for pick up and drop off of passengers (referred to as kiss-and-ride). Bus stops and turnouts for transferring passengers would be provided on both sides of West Morena Boulevard by widening the roadway and removing approximately 15 existing on-street parking spaces along the east side of West Morena Boulevard. In the vicinity of the bus stops, a fence would be provided in the median of West Morena Boulevard to prevent passengers from crossing at mid-block. Pedestrian ramps and stairs would be constructed on the east side of West Morena Boulevard for access to the north and south sides of Tecolote Road. Additionally, a new sidewalk would be constructed along the east side of West Morena Boulevard to Knoxville Street. · Clairemont Drive Station—This at-grade station would be located south of the existing Clairemont Drive overcrossing adjacent to Morena Boulevard (Figure 2-12). The station platforms would be located along the west side of Morena Boulevard and a 150-space surface parking lot would be located across the street on the east side. The station parking lot would include a site for a TPSS. Access to the station parking lot would be provided via driveways on Ingulf Street and Clairemont Drive. Pedestrian access from Clairemont Drive to the station would be provided by new stairs and ADA- compliant access ramps located on both sides of Clairemont Drive. A new bus turnout would be provided on the south side of Clairemont Drive. New sidewalks would be constructed along the east side of Morena Boulevard from Ingulf Street to north of Clairemont Drive and along the west side of Morena Boulevard from the north side of the station platform to Gesner Street. Pedestrian crossings between the east and west sides of Morena Boulevard and the station parking lot would be provided by existing crosswalks at the signalized intersections at Morena Boulevard/Ingulf Street and Morena Boulevard/Gesner Street.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-23 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-11. Site Concept for Tecolote Road Station

Source: SANDAG, 2013

Figure 2-12. Site Concept for Clairemont Drive Station

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-24 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

· Balboa Avenue Station—This at-grade station would be located in the southwest quadrant of the Balboa Avenue/Morena Boulevard interchange (Figure 2-13). The station site would include a surface parking lot with approximately 220 spaces, five bus bays, and short-term parking for pick up and drop off of passengers. An additional on-street bus turnout would be provided on the west side of Morena Boulevard. To provide for bus and vehicular access to the station, the existing on ramp from eastbound Balboa Avenue to southbound Morena Boulevard would be removed and traffic would be diverted to the loop ramp connecting eastbound Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard. The loop ramp would be widened and its intersection with Morena Boulevard would be signalized, allowing traffic to turn south on Morena Boulevard. The westerly leg of this intersection would serve as the entrance to the station for buses and as an entrance and exit for vehicular traffic. Buses would exit the station via a new signalized intersection constructed at the southern end of the station site. Pedestrian access to the station from Morena Boulevard would be provided via new sidewalks on both sides of Morena Boulevard within the station area. Access from Balboa Avenue would be via ramps and stairs on both sides of the street. A pedestrian bridge would be provided across Balboa Avenue for access to the station from the north side of Balboa Avenue.

Figure 2-13. Site Concept for Balboa Avenue Station

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-25 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

The project segment along the I-5 corridor between Gilman Drive and the alignment crossing of I-5 at Voigt Drive would include an aerial station at Nobel Drive, an optional at-grade station at the VA Medical Center, and an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus. The UCSD West Station includes two different station concepts depending on whether the VA Medical Center Station is included in the project. The site concept plans developed for these stations are described below.

· Nobel Drive Station—This aerial station would be located within an existing parking area on the west side of I-5 and south of Nobel Drive at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center (Figure 2-14). The station would include a joint-use parking structure with 260 transit parking spaces as well as replacement parking for the surface parking spaces lost as a result of constructing the station and parking structure at the shopping center. Access to the station platform would be provided by stairs and elevators. No bus stops would be constructed at this station as part of the project. Nobel Drive currently has bus stops on both sides of the street in the vicinity of the station. Figure 2-14. Site Concept for Nobel Drive Station

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-26 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

· VA Medical Center Station—This optional at-grade station would be located at the VA Medical Center on the west side of I-5 and north of La Jolla Village Drive (Figure 2-15). The horizontal and vertical track alignment has been designed so as not to preclude this optional station under the Build Alternative. The station would be at approximately the same elevation as the surface parking lot of the VA Medical Center. No new parking or bus stops would be provided at this station. A connection to the hospital would be provided by improvements to the pedestrian paths between the station and the main hospital entrance. A TPSS would be located in Caltrans right-of-way, south of the station. Figure 2-15. Site Concept for Optional VA Medical Center Station

Source: SANDAG, 2013

· UCSD West Station—This aerial station would be located at the north end of Pepper Canyon and west of the UCSD student housing complex (Figure 2-16). The station would be located just east of the campus center and the Price Center. No parking would be provided at the station. Because the alignment would have to clear the existing parking lot at the south end of the canyon and Lyman Drive at the north end of the canyon, this station would be constructed at an elevation higher than the elevation of the canyon rim. North of the station, two to three shuttle bus stops and a bus turnaround area would be provided for the UCSD shuttle bus service. The shuttle bus area would be located at grade below the north end of the elevated station platforms. Stairs and an elevator would provide access to the north end of the station platform.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-27 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-16. Site Concepts for UCSD West Station (Build Alternative and VA Medical Center Station Option)

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-28 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Without the Optional VA Medical Center Station, access to the VA Medical Center would be provided by stairs and an elevator at the south end of the station platform (as shown in the top inset in Figure 2-16). These stairs and elevators would descend to the elevation of the westerly canyon rim. A walkway would be constructed to connect to the existing pedestrian walkways on the UCSD West Campus. With the Optional VA Medical Center Station (shown in the bottom inset in Figure 2-16), only stairs for emergency use would be provided at the south end of the platform because access to the VA Medical Center would be provided by the additional station.

The project segment east of I-5, along Voigt Drive, would include an aerial station on the UCSD East Campus west of Campus Point Drive, serving both the UCSD East Campus and Scripps Hospital. The site concept plan for the UCSD East Station is described below.

· UCSD East Station—This aerial station would be located along the south side of Voigt Drive, west of Campus Point Drive and the Preuss School, near Scripps Hospital (Figure 2-17). Station access would be provided by stairs and elevators. A pedestrian bridge would be provided across Voigt Drive for access to the north side of Voigt Drive. New sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of Voigt Drive to connect with the western end of the station. No station parking or new bus stops would be provided. A TPSS would be located to the west of the station platforms.

Figure 2-17. Site Concept for UCSD East Station

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-29 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

East of I-5 along Genesee Avenue, the project would include aerial stations at Executive Drive and at the UTC Transit Center. The site concept plans for these two stations, both with and without the Genesee Avenue Design Option, are described below.

· Executive Drive Station—This aerial station would be located in the center of Genesee Avenue, south of Executive Drive, and would span Executive Square (Figure 2-18). Station construction would require removal of the existing pedestrian bridge crossing Genesee Avenue. Pedestrian grade-separated access across Genesee Avenue at this location would be provided through the aerial station platform at Executive Drive via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities connecting to the existing pedestrian facilities to the west and east sides of Genesee Avenue. Shuttle bus pullouts and passenger drop-off and pick-up areas would be constructed on both sides of Genesee Avenue. No parking would be provided at the station. A TPSS would be located near the southern end of the station site. The station layout and features under the Genesee Avenue Design Option (as shown in the bottom inset in Figure 2-18) would generally be the same as those under the Build Alternative (as shown in the top inset in Figure 2-18). However, under the Genesee Avenue Design Option, there would be no conflict between the existing pedestrian bridge and the proposed LRT guideway allowing the existing pedestrian bridge to remain in place. Minor modifications to the pedestrian bridge would be required to provide pedestrian access to the aerial LRT station. · UTC Transit Center—This aerial station would be located in the center of Genesee Avenue, south of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway, with pedestrian bridges to the Westfield UTC shopping center on the east and the Costa Verde shopping center on the west (Figure 2-19). The station would provide 260 transit parking spaces in a joint-use parking facility at the Westfield UTC shopping center. Access to the station parking facility would be via the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. The station also would include a connection to the new bus transit center, which would be built as part of the expansion of the Westfield UTC shopping center. The Westfield UTC shopping center expansion is scheduled for completion before revenue service begins on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. A TPSS would be located near the southern end of the station site. Construction of the Build Alternative would require the removal of the pedestrian bridge across Genesee Avenue located mid-block between La Jolla Village Drive and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue would be provided approximately 500 feet to the south of the existing bridge at the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Grade-separated pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue would also be accommodated through the aerial station platform at the UTC Transit Center to be located just south of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities connecting the LRT station to the parkway area along the west side of Genesee Avenue and the UTC Transit Center to the east of the LRT station. The station layout and features under the Genesee Avenue Design Option (as shown in the bottom inset in Figure 2-19) would generally be the same as those under the Build Alternative (as shown in the top inset in Figure 2-19). If the Genesee Avenue Design Option is constructed, the pedestrian bridge would be retained as there would be no conflict between the existing bridge and proposed LRT guideway.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-30 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-18. Site Concepts for Executive Drive Station, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-31 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-19. Site Concepts for UTC Transit Center, with and without Genesee Avenue Design Option

Source: SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-32 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

2.3.2.3 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities The Trolley Blue Line extension would require 36 new LRVs to cover peak-period service with spares in 2030. In the opening year of revenue service, 25 of the 36 new LRVs would be required. Fare collection would be the same as the existing proof-of- payment system currently in use on the Trolley. No fare collection equipment would be provided on the vehicle.

The MTS maintenance plan for LRVs, including those for the project, centralizes all functions at the existing maintenance facilities located at 1255 Imperial Avenue in Downtown San Diego. No expansion of existing maintenance facilities would be required for the project.

2.3.2.4 Power System and Signaling The LRVs would receive electrical power from overhead contact wires. Catenary support poles, approximately 25 feet high, would be located at approximately 150- to 180-foot intervals. The catenary poles generally would be located in the center of the project alignment. In some locations, the poles would be located on both sides of the Trolley tracks. The overhead electrical power lines would be suspended above the Trolley tracks.

Electricity to power the LRVs would be provided by TPSSs. The TPSSs would be of similar size and design to the existing substations used on the Trolley Green Line. Typical TPSS dimensions would be a 40-foot by 15-foot unmanned equipment enclosure within a 45-foot by 75-foot fenced site. Figure 2-20 shows an example of an existing TPSS.

Figure 2-20. Existing Traction Power Substation at Mission Valley Center Station

Source: SANDAG, 2012

Operation of the project would require 18 TPSSs, including four upgraded substations on three existing sites between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC and 14 new substations. The TPSS locations and layouts are shown in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-33 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (SANDAG, 2013a). Figure 2-21 illustrates the layout of a typical TPSS.

Figure 2-21. Traction Power Substation Layout

Source: SANDAG, 2012

The project includes improvements and upgrades to three existing TPSS locations between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC on Olive Street, on Bean Street, and at the OTTC. The site at Olive Street may require two substations. The extension of Trolley Blue Line service proposed on existing tracks between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC also would require a new substation within the existing MTS Wright Street Yard. The other 13 new substations would be located north of the OTTC. Table 2-3 identifies the location of the existing substations and the proposed substation upgrades between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, and the proposed new substations north of the OTTC.

Communications and signaling (C&S) buildings centralize train control and communications for Trolley operations at each station. Each facility is an enclosure located within the station site area, typically adjacent to a station platform. Positioning of a C&S building must be selected to provide clearances for maintaining and servicing equipment and to maintain sight lines for LRT operations. Upgrades to the existing C&S system between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC would be required as part of the project; however, this would not require additional C&S buildings.

Other proposed physical improvements to the Trolley system south of the OTTC and north of Santa Fe Depot would include upgrades to existing systems, including the signaling system and the overhead catenary system (OCS) to accommodate all-day 7.5-minute Trolley Blue Line service. These potential improvements would be located within the existing railroad and MTS right-of-way, as described below:

· LRT signaling system improvements would include additional track circuit relays at County Center/Little Italy, Middletown, and Washington Street Stations; upgrades to

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-34 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Table 2-3. Traction Power Substations Locations

No. Stationing Location 1, 2 64+00 Olive St, upgrade to an existing substation located along the east side of the right-of-way and addition of a second substation within the same site 3 101+50 Bean St, in City of San Diego right-of-way, may require modification to existing cul-de-sac 4 133+00 Wright Street Yard, within existing MTS property 5 171+00 OTTC, upgrade to an existing substation located along the west side of the right-of-way 6 199+30 South of the San Diego River and north of I-8, in City of San Diego right-of way 7 210+00 North of San Diego River, east of the tracks along Anna Ave 8 240+60 At Tecolote Rd Station, along the east side of the tracks and south of Tecolote Creek 9 312+00 At Clairemont Dr Station, along the east side of Morena Blvd, full acquisition from a shopping center 10 349+50 South of Baker St, in Caltrans right-of-way, along the west side of existing tracks 11 400+00 North of Balboa Ave and south of Jutland Dr, partial take from graded land east of MTS right-of-way 12 456+00 Just north of Jutland Dr, undeveloped parcel east of MTS right-of-way 13 550+50 Just south of La Jolla Colony Dr, in Caltrans right-of-way, along east side of tracks 14 600+50 Undeveloped parcel next to Charmant Dr and east of the alignment, just before the alignment crosses the freeway south of Nobel Dr 15 645+00 In Caltrans right-of-way along the west side of the alignment next to the VA Medical Center. Access would be from the parking lot at the VA Medical Center 16 694+00 Along the south side of Voigt Dr on the UCSD East Campus, next to the baseball field 17 752+50 Along the east side of Genesee Ave, just north of La Jolla Village Dr, partial acquisition of the landscape area in front of a high-rise office building 18 771+00 On Genesee Ave on partially acquired Westfield UTC shopping center property, near the south end of the UTC Transit Center platform Source: SANDAG, 2013a Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration

the block signaling system to accommodate the reduced headways between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC; and adjustments to the crossing gate controllers to ensure an efficient gate operation also meeting requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F). · OCS improvements would include the addition of a double messenger wire instead of the existing single messenger wire. · LOSSAN track improvements would provide for the relocation of an existing control point signal from the north side of Taylor Street to the south side of Taylor Street, just north of the existing station platform. The improvements would reduce railroad gate down time for northbound COASTER and Amtrak trains stopping at the OTTC.

2.3.2.5 Operating Plan Operating plans were developed using ridership forecasts. These operating plans were then used to develop the capital and operating cost estimates and to provide the basis for the analysis of potential project impacts.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-35 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Table 2-4 presents the existing 2010 Trolley operating plan and the Trolley operating plans developed for the opening year and 2030 revenue service. The 2030 operating plan for the No-Build Alternative (also provided in Table 2-2) is included for comparative purposes.

Table 2-4. Trolley Operating Plans

Peak Frequency Off-Peak Frequency (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Vehicle Fare Route (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Type (each way) 2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 to OTTC Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Center to OTTC Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center 2010 Operating Plan (Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 to OTTC Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Center to UTC Transit Center Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Opening Year Operating Plan* Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Center to America Plaza Trolley Blue Line America Plaza to UTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Transit Center Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 Santa Fe Depot 2030 Operating Plan (Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro to UTC 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Transit Center Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 America Plaza 2030 Operating Plan (No-Build Alternative) Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 12th and Imperial Transit Center Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 Center to Santa Fe Depot Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 America Plaza Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: *The Trolley Blue Line would operate as a continuous run from the San Ysidro Transit Center to the UTC Transit Center. During peak periods in the opening year, alternating trains would turn back at America Plaza, resulting in 15-minute headways north of America Plaza and 7.5-minute headways south of America Plaza. OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-36 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

The 2010 operating plan (existing conditions) does not include the Build Alternative. Therefore, to evaluate project impacts compared to existing conditions, the Build Alternative was added into the 2010 operating plan to provide a basis for comparing project impacts to existing conditions.

At the startup of revenue operations, the project is expected to require 15-minute service during peak and off-peak periods. Figure 2-22 shows the operating plan for the opening year of service.

The proposed Trolley operating plan for the Build Alternative in 2030 presented in Table 2-4 includes the extension of the Trolley Blue Line to the UTC Transit Center. As shown in Figure 2-23, the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 would be operated as a single line with three-car trains from the existing San Ysidro Transit Center in the south to the UTC Transit Center in University City, with stops at all 29 intermediate stations. The Trolley Green and Orange Lines would operate the same as under the No-Build Alternative in 2030. Weekday Trolley Blue Line service in 2030 would operate every 7.5 minutes during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and during the off-peak midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). The fare structure would be the same as previously described for the No-Build Alternative.

The Trolley operating plan in 2010 that includes the Build Alternative is the same as the 2010 operating plan except for extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the OTTC to the UTC Transit Center and an increase in service frequency to 7.5 minutes during the off- peak period. Thus, under the Build Alternative in 2010, the Trolley Blue Line would operate at 7.5-minute intervals during both peak and off-peak periods.

With extension of Trolley Blue Line service to the UTC Transit Center, the service provided by bus Route 150 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City would duplicate the new Trolley services and therefore would be eliminated with implementation of the project, consistent with the 2030 RTP. In addition to this modification, minor changes would be made to several bus routes to improve access to the new Trolley stations proposed under the Build Alternative. These modifications consist of rerouting of bus routes to connect to stations. The service frequency of the routes serving the stations would not change. Table 2-5 identifies routes serving the Trolley stations under the Build Alternative and shows which routes would be modified to serve the stations. No changes to other bus routes or the COASTER would be required.

2.3.2.6 Schedule The project is currently in the Project Development phase of the New Starts process, which includes the completion of the NEPA and CEQA processes. Completion of the environmental review process is anticipated in mid-2014, following which SANDAG will seek FTA approval to advance the project to the Engineering phase pursuant to MAP- 21. During the Engineering phase, SANDAG and FTA will negotiate a Full Funding Grant Agreement, which is anticipated in early 2015. Construction is assumed to begin in 2015, and revenue service is expected to start by the end of 2018.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-37 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-22. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan

Source: SANDAG, 2012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-38 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Figure 2-23. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 2030 Trolley Operating Plan

Source: SANDAG, 2012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 2-39 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 2.0 – Background

Table 2-5. Build Alternative Bus Routes Serving Trolley Stations

Frequency of Service Peak Off-Peak (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) (9:00 a.m. to Build Alternative Modified under Route Description (3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 3:00 p.m.) Stations Served Build Alternative 8 OTTC to Garnet and 15 15 OTTC, Balboa Ave Yes Bayard 9 Garnet and Bayard to 15 15 OTTC, Balboa Ave Yes OTTC 27 Mission and Felspar to 15 15 Balboa Ave Yes Clairemont Mesa 30 UTC Transit Center to B 10 10 Washington St, OTTC, No and 9th Nobel Dr, UCSD West, UTC Transit Center 31 Mira Mesa Transit Center 15 15 Executive Dr, UTC No to UTC Transit Center Transit Center 41 Fashion Valley Trolley 10 10 UCSD West, Executive No Station to UCSD West Dr, UTC Transit Center 44 OTTC to Morena and 7.5 7.5 OTTC, Balboa Ave No Balboa 50 Park and Broadway to 15 15 Clairemont Dr, UTC No UTC Transit Center Transit Center 105 OTTC to UTC Transit 15 15 OTTC, Tecolote Rd, No Center UTC Transit Center 150* 5th and Broadway to * * Yes—Deleted UTC Transit Center 201 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 Nobel Dr, VA Medical No Center, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Dr, UTC Transit Center 202 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 Nobel Dr, VA Medical No Center, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Dr, UTC Transit Center 276 UCSD Route–Voigt Drive 15 15 VA Medical Center, Yes Loop UCSD West 284 UCSD Route–UCSD 15 15 UCSD West Yes West to Scripps Institution of Oceanography 921 Mira Mesa Transit Center 15 15 UCSD West, Executive No to UCSD West Dr, UTC Transit Center 960 UTC Transit Center to 30 0 Executive Dr, UTC No Euclid Avenue Trolley Transit Center Station Source: SANDAG, 2012 Notes: * Route 150 does not operate under the Build Alternative. OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 2-40 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT

This chapter describes the federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, policies, and laws pertinent to the protection of cultural resources. These laws must be considered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) during the planning process for projects that have the potential to affect significant cultural resources. 3.1 Federal 3.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.), establishes the federal policy of protecting important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage during federal project planning. NEPA also obligates federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences and costs of their projects and programs as part of the planning process. All federal or federally assisted projects requiring action pursuant to Section 102 of NEPA must take into account the effects on cultural resources.

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508), in considering whether an action may "significantly affect the quality of the human environment," an agency must consider, among other things, the context and intensity of the impact, including “unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR §1508.27(b)(3))” and “the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (40 CFR §1508.27(b)(8)).”

Section 1502.25(a) of the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA also requires the following:

To the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by…the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 661 et seq.), and other environmental review laws and executive orders.

Since it is the intent of SANDAG to apply for FTA federal New Starts funds for the project, this undertaking is considered a federal action and the FTA is the lead federal agency for the project. As a federally funded project, the project requires compliance with NEPA.

3.1.2 National Historic Preservation Act In addition to compliance with NEPA, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is subject to conformance requirement with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 requires federal agencies with either direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed action to take into account the effect of their actions on historic properties. Section 110 requires federal agencies to

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 3-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

assume the responsibility for the preservation of historic properties under their jurisdiction or control.

Regulations revised in 1997 (36 CFR Part 800 et. seq.) set forth procedures to be followed for determining eligibility of properties for the NRHP. The eligibility criteria and process are used by federal, state, and local agencies in the evaluation of the significance of cultural resources. Very similar criteria and procedures are used by California to identify cultural resources eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Recent revisions to Section 106 in 1999 emphasized the importance of Native American consultation.

36 CFR §800.16(l)(1) states:

Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that meet the NRHP criteria.

Section 106 of the NHPA also requires federal agencies, and those they fund or have approval authority over, to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the opportunity to comment on undertakings on historic properties, following 36 CFR Part 800. To determine whether an undertaking could affect NRHP-eligible properties, cultural resources (including archaeological, historical, and architectural properties) must be inventoried and evaluated for listing in the NRHP. Although compliance with Section 106 is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, others can undertake the work necessary to comply with Section 106. The Section 106 process entails six primary steps:

1. Initiate consultation and public involvement 2. Identify and evaluate historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) 3. Assess effects of the project on historic properties 4. Consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding adverse effects on historic properties, resulting in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) 5. Submit the MOA to the ACHP 6. Proceed in accordance with the MOA

3.1.3 National Register of Historic Places Criteria To be considered for inclusion in the NRHP, a property must meet one of the NRHP criteria for evaluation, as set forth in 36 CFR §60.4:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 3-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

(a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

36 CFR §60.4 also specifies criteria considerations as:

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria, or if they fall within the following categories:

(a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or (b) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or (c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life. (d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or (e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or (f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or (g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

In addition to meeting one of the NRHP criteria for evaluation, a historic property also must retain a sufficient level of historic integrity. The seven aspects of integrity include design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, feeling, and association.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 3-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

If a property is determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and, therefore, is a historic property, then it is automatically eligible for the CRHR. If a property does not have the level of integrity necessitated by the NRHP, it may still be eligible for the CRHR, which allows a lower level of integrity.

3.1.4 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) (23 CFR Part 774) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 1653(f)), defines effects or impacts of USDOT agency projects to be the “use” of certain types of resources, including “historical sites.”

It stipulates that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other USDOT agencies, including the FTA, cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and historical sites (defined as listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP) unless the following conditions apply:

· There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land · The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use

3.1.5 Section 106 Exemption Regarding Effects to the Interstate Highway System The FHWA exempts most of the Interstate Highway System from Section 106, as explained in the following:

As the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (Interstate Highway System) approached its fifty-year anniversary on June 29, 2006, large sections of the Interstate Highway System would have achieved the mark at which resources are often evaluated for historic significance. In order to address the volume of administrative work this could foster, the ACHP adopted the Section 106 Exemption Regarding Effects to the Interstate Highway System on March 10, 2005…

This exemption effectively excludes the majority of the 46,700-mile Interstate Highway System from consideration as a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA. In addition, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005) includes a provision (Section 6007) that exempts the bulk of the Interstate Highway System from consideration as a historic resource under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. With these two exemptions in place, Federal agencies are no longer required to consider the vast majority of the Interstate Highway System as historic property under Section 106 and Section 4(f) requirements. Excluded from these respective exemptions are elements of the Interstate Highway System that are exceptional in some way or meet a national level of significance under the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. (FHWA, 2011a).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 3-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

The architectural APE is crossed by both Interstate (I-) 5 and I-8. However, review of the FHWA-prepared “Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System” revealed that no excluded elements of I-5 and I-8 cross the architectural APE (FHWA, 2011b). Therefore, these highways are exempt from further survey or evaluation in this report. 3.2 State 3.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifies that both public and private projects with financing or approval from a public agency must assess the effects of the project on cultural resources (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21083.2 and §21084.1, and California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15064.5). Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, humanly-modified landscapes, and Traditional Cultural Properties, which are structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance.

According to CEQA (PRC §21084.1), historical resources include any resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR. Properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, such as those identified during the Section 106 process, automatically are listed in the CRHR. Therefore, all “historic properties” under federal preservation law automatically are “historical resources” under California preservation law. Historical resources are presumed to be significant if they are included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a qualified historical resources survey. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15000–15387) sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining significant historical resources and the potential effects of a project on such resources.

Under CEQA, it is necessary for a lead agency to evaluate proposed projects for the potential to cause significant impacts on historical resources. A proposed project that may affect historical resources is submitted to the SHPO for review and comment before project approval by the lead agency and before any project-related clearance, demolition, or construction activities may begin. If a proposed project could be expected to cause substantial adverse change to a historical resource, environmental clearance for the project would require the evaluation of alternatives or implementation of mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. If a project is expected to result in an impact on historical resources, the CEQA Guidelines require an analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or evaluation of alternatives to its location that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts on the historical resource.

The CEQA statute and the CEQA Guidelines include procedures for identifying, analyzing, and disclosing potential adverse impacts on historical resources, which include all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or local registers.

Historic buildings, structures, objects, and landscapes are generally not significant if they are less than 45 years old. By definition, a non-significant property does not contribute to a historic district and is not considered individually eligible for listing in the NRHP or

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 3-5 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

the CRHR, and is not considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. Resources found to be non-significant as the result of a survey and assessment will require no further work beyond documentation of the resources (including DPR 523 forms) and inclusion in the survey and eligibility determination report.

3.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria Any property listed in or determined eligible for the NRHP automatically is listed in the CRHR and, therefore, is an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the term “historical resources” shall include the following:

(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 3-6 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

CRHR criteria are similar to the NRHP criteria and are tied to CEQA, as any resource that meets the above criteria is considered an historical resource under CEQA. If a property does not qualify for listing in the CRHR, it may still be considered historically significant at the local level. 3.3 Local 3.3.1 City of San Diego Municipal Code Chapters 11, 12, and 14 of the San Diego Municipal Code establish the following in regard to the San Diego Historical Resources Board:

· Authority, appointment and terms, meeting conduct, and powers and duties · The designation process, including the nomination process, noticing and report requirements, appeals, recordation, amendments or rescission, and nomination of historical resources to state and national registers · Development regulations for historical resources

The purpose of these regulations is to protect, preserve, and, if damaged, restore the historical resources of the City of San Diego. The regulations require that designated historical resources, important archeological sites, and traditional cultural properties be preserved unless deviation findings can be made by the decision-maker as part of a discretionary permit. Minor alterations consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are exempt from the requirement to obtain a separate permit but must comply with the regulations and associated historical resources guidelines. Limited development may encroach into important archaeological sites if adequate mitigation measures are provided as a condition of approval.

The historical resources guidelines in the city’s Land Development Code (City of San Diego, 2004) provide property owners, the development community, consultants, and the general public explicit guidance for the management of historical resources located within the city's jurisdiction. These guidelines are designed to implement the historical resources regulations and to guide the development review process. The guidelines also address the need for a survey and how impacts are to be assessed, available mitigation strategies, and report requirements.

3.3.2 City of San Diego Register of Historical Resources Criteria Significance criteria, as outlined in the Guidelines for the Application of Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria (City of San Diego, 2011d), reflect a broad definition of historical, architectural, and cultural importance; a perspective of local, rather than state or national significance; and the belief that all aspects of history are potentially of equal importance.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 3-7 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 3.0 – Regulatory Context

The Guidelines for the Application of Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria state that:

…any improvement, building, structure, sign, interior element and fixture, site, place, district, area, or object may be designated a historical resource by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

A. exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s, a community’s, or a neighborhood‘s, historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, landscaping or architectural development; B. identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; C. embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; D. is representative of the notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, landscape architect, interior designer, artist or craftsman; E. is listed or has been determined eligible by the National Park Service for listing on the NRHP or is listed or has been determined eligible by the State Historical Preservation Office for listing on the State Register of Historical Resources; or F. is a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or is a geographically definable area or neighborhood containing improvements which have a special character, historical interest or aesthetic value or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles in the history and development of the City.

Pending SHPO concurrence with FTA’s preliminary and conservative determination of NRHP eligibility, the five newly identified NRHP resources would become City of San Diego Landmarks under Criterion E. The city’s guidelines for the application of HRB designation criteria state: “resources identified as significant by the State or Federal Government with SHPO concurrence through listing or determinations of eligibility for listing on the California or National Registers are eligible for designation by the HRB under Criterion E.”

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 3-8 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

4.0 METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology used and the standards applied to identify historic properties located within the architectural Area of Potential Effects (APE). The methodology used includes the identification of the APE, consultation with historical organizations, background research, and a field survey. 4.1 Area of Potential Effects The APE was established through consultation between the lead federal agency, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); the lead California Environmental Quality Act agency, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); and other consulting parties, in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §800.16(d).

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act defines an APE as the following:

…the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.

The APE considers and encompasses all areas potentially affected by the project. The boundaries of the APE for the project have been delineated on aerial photographs showing the project-related features and parcel boundaries (see Appendix A).

As described below, the APE is specific to the types of resources potentially affected.

4.1.1 Archaeological APE The archaeological APE is limited to areas that could be affected by the maximum extent of project-related ground disturbance. The types of ground disturbance activities include the following:

· Construction of new tracks, new stations, and new traction power substations (TPSSs) · Modification of existing public or private facilities, including existing TPSSs proposed for expansion · Use of temporary construction easements and construction staging areas · Grading · Trenching for utilities

4.1.2 Architectural APE The architectural APE encompasses the archaeological APE and all additional areas that could be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the project. Direct effects include physical changes to architectural resources. Indirect effects include visual effects or effects caused by noise or vibration.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 4-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

The architectural APE has been defined based on the following assumptions:

· Existing tracks, stations, and TPSSs are located between the Santa Fe Depot and the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC). The existing tracks and stations would not be modified. The only modifications would be to existing TPSSs. Where an existing TPSS would be modified, the architectural APE includes the area where modifications would occur and adjacent parcels (i.e., the first parcel north, south, east, and west of the TPSS, including across the existing tracks). · New tracks, new stations, and new TPSSs would be constructed north of the OTTC to the University Towne Centre Transit Center. Where new at-grade tracks are proposed, the architectural APE includes the proposed alignment and adjacent parcels (i.e., one parcel deep). Where new aerial tracks or bridges, new stations, or new TPSSs are proposed, the architectural APE is broader and includes an area two parcels deep around these features. South of the OTTC, a new TPSS within the existing MTS Wright Street Yard also would be required. · Existing public facilities that would be modified, shown as “other project features,” and adjacent parcels are included in the architectural APE.

When defining the architectural APE, the following exceptions were made to account for existing building footprints and heights, parking lots, open space, and topography:

· In areas with large, multi-acre parcels containing multiple buildings, the architectural APE in these areas does not extend more than 500 feet from new tracks, new stations, new or modified TPSSs, or other project features. · Slight modifications to the architectural APE were made to encompass existing buildings at locations where the 500-foot buffer extends through a building footprint. At certain locations, the architectural APE was extended beyond 500 feet to capture building footprints in view of new aerial tracks or bridges, new stations, or new or modified TPSSs. At certain locations, the architectural APE also was extended beyond parcel limits to capture the full setting of properties. However, the architectural APE was not extended to encompass parking lots or open space associated with the buildings on the same parcel. At other locations, the architectural APE was reduced to less than 500 feet (e.g., if a building is blocked from view by topography or a taller building is situated between it and the new aerial tracks or bridges, stations, or TPSSs). · Along existing tracks, new at-grade tracks, or new bridges, parcels separated by highways were excluded. Highways serve as existing barriers, limiting potential visual effects. However, new aerial tracks that run parallel to a highway may be visible across the highway. At such locations (e.g., along Interstate 5 from south of Nobel Drive to Gilman Drive where new aerial tracks would be 340 to 350 feet high), highways do not serve as existing visual barriers and separated parcels (up to 500 feet) were included.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

4.1.3 State Historic Preservation Officer Concurrence Regarding Area of Potential Effects On October 28, 2011, the SHPO reviewed the archaeological and architectural APEs and concurred that they are sufficient pursuant to 36 CFR §800.4(1)(a). A copy of the concurrence letter is provided in Appendix B. 4.2 Consultation with Historical Organizations Garcia and Associates (GANDA) sent letters via the U.S. mail to 11 local historical organizations on April 20, 2011, as part of the Section 106 consultation process. Each organization was invited to be a consulting party and asked to provide pertinent information regarding properties located within the architectural APE or to express any concerns about the proposed project. Follow-up telephone calls were made to each organization on April 27, 2011. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the consultation with historical organizations to date. Supporting documentation is presented in Appendix C.

In February 2013, ICF International (ICF) initiated email correspondence with additional interested parties and local history experts, which are listed in Table 4-1. 4.3 Background Research To identify historic properties within the architectural APE, background research was conducted, as described in this section.

4.3.1 Records Search A cultural resources records search was requested from the South Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at San Diego State University on November 19, 2008. The records search compiled data regarding previous surveys and recorded cultural resources within a quarter-mile of the project alternatives as part of the Screening Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives prepared for this project (GANDA, 2009). Subsequent records searches were made on April 4, 2011, and September 9, 2011.

The following sources of information were reviewed as part of the records search:

· National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (updated to present) · California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (2006) and review of minutes of State Historic Resources Commission meetings thereafter · California State Historical Landmarks (1996 and updates) · California Points of Historical Interest (1992 and updates) · California Office of Historic Preservation: Historic Property Directory and Determinations of Eligibility (2008 and 2011)

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 4-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

Table 4-1. Consulting Parties Communication Log Letter Communication Telephone Communication Contact Organization Initial Letter Follow-up Letter Initial Telephone Call Follow-up Telephone Call David M. Kahn San Diego History Center Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. Cindy Stankowski San Diego Archaeological Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Spoke with Ms. Stankowski on April 27, 2011. Follow-up telephone call not Center (SDAC) April 20, 2011. to be mailed. SDAC does not comment on projects, but required. would curate any archaeological artifacts. David Muscat North Park Main Street Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. N/A Boosters of Old Town San Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to Diego State Historic Park April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. Deborah Knight Friends of Rose Canyon Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. Bruce D. Coons Save Our Heritage Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to Organisation April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. Marco Li Mandri Little Italy Association of Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a message with a secretary on April 27, Follow-up telephone call to San Diego April 20, 2011. to be mailed. 2011. No return phone call has been be made. received to date. Rose Galliher Pacific Beach Town Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to Council April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. N/A La Playa Trail Association Letter mailed on Follow-up letter No telephone number available. Follow-up telephone call to April 20, 2011. to be mailed. be made. Constance La Jolla Historical Society Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to Branscomb April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. Michael Kelly The Committee of One Letter mailed on Follow-up letter Left a voicemail on April 27, 2011. No return Follow-up telephone call to Hundred April 20, 2011. to be mailed. phone call has been received to date. be made. Contact Organization Email Communication Notes Keith York Modern San Diego February 24, 2013 Subject: Toler Elementary School Diane Kane Caltrans District 7 (retired) February 24, 2013 Subject: Eucalyptus Trees Michael Singleton KTU+A February 24, 2013 Correspondence was a reply to an email forwarded by Ms. Kane to Mr. Singleton. Von Marie May Von Marie May, Cultural February 25, 2013 Correspondence was a reply to an email forwarded by Ms. Kane to Ms. Landscape Specialist May. Sources: GANDA, 2011; ICF International, 2013; SANDAG, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

· California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): State and Local Bridge Survey (Caltrans, 2011a and 2011b) · City Historical Landmarks designated by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board (City of San Diego, 2011c) · Previous cultural resources studies that evaluated properties according to NRHP, CRHR, or City of San Diego Register criteria

4.3.2 Archival Research GANDA conducted extensive archival research at the following repositories or organizations to obtain information on individual properties:

· San Diego History Center: reviewed San Diego city directories; vertical files on owners/occupants, businesses, architects, and keyword topics; historic aerial photographs; and historic maps · San Diego Public Library, Central Library California Room: reviewed San Diego city directories; vertical files on owners/occupants, businesses, architects, and keyword topics; historic maps; and the San Diego Union Tribune index · University of San Diego, Copley Library Archives: reviewed master’s theses on the history of the Santa Fe Railroad (Lorey-McAtee, 1984), Clairemont’s Bay Park subdivision (Warner, 1992), the Linda Vista neighborhood (Handy, 1993), post-World War II housing in San Diego (Schlei, 1996), and the San Diego River (Marovich, 1998) · City of San Diego Development Services Department: reviewed building permits, which are available only from around 1955 to the present · City of San Diego Water Department and Public Utilities Department: requested copies of the original sewer and water permits for property located at 3435 Morena Boulevard (Property Number [No.] 120) · County of San Diego Assessor's Office: obtained data on construction dates of parcels within the architectural APE. The assessor’s records were limited in the following ways: - Not all parcels include construction dates (i.e., some have “0” as the construction date) - The assessor’s records use an “assessed effective year,” which averages the years between the original construction date and the date of a major addition or remodeling of a structure (e.g., a building constructed in 1915 and remodeled in 2011 may show a 1985 effective year) - The assessor’s records may show either one date or no date if there are multiple structures on one parcel - In-person access to the assessor’s records to check for additional information on file requires permission from the individual property owner

· County of San Diego Recorder/Clerk Office: reviewed grantor/grantee indices and deeds on file for 3435 Morena Boulevard (Property No. 120)

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 4-5 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

· San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E): requested the construction date and any drawings on file for SDG&E’s Genesee Substation (Property No. 162) · State Board of Equalization, State Assessed Properties Division: based on a referral by SDG&E, requested the construction date of SDG&E’s Genesee Substation (Property No. 162) · Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest: requested information on file for 4477 Pacific Highway (Property No. 18) · California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR): requested information on file for property located at 4477 Pacific Highway (Property No. 18) · Online databases of archival information: reviewed databases, including ancestry.com and historiaerials.com, which collate archival information, such as newspapers, U.S. Census records, death and marriage certificates, and historic aerial photographs

· As part of the peer review for this report, ICF architectural historians Daniel Paul, Andrew Bursan, and Timothy Yates conducted historic research at the following: University of San Diego, the California History Room of the San Diego Public Library, the San Diego History Center, the County of San Diego Assessor’s Office, and the City of San Diego Department of City Planning to gather available building permits. 4.4 Field Survey A field survey of the architectural APE was undertaken to verify previously recorded information and to identify potentially significant properties that may be affected by the proposed undertaking. The field survey was initiated with a reconnaissance-level survey (or “windshield survey”) conducted via automobile, with a subsequent intensive-level survey (or “pedestrian survey”) of specific properties.

4.4.1 Reconnaissance-Level Survey GANDA Archaeologist/Architectural Historian K. Harper and GANDA Historical Archaeologist R. Greenlee conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the architectural APE on March 3–4, 2011, using available construction data from the County of San Diego Assessor’s Office to identify properties more than 45 years old (i.e., constructed on or before 1966) within the architectural APE. When construction data were missing, GANDA consulted City of San Diego building permits and historic aerial photographs of the architectural APE, which are generally available for 1953, 1963–1964, 1972, 1974, 1981, 1990, 1994, 2002–2003, and 2005 (Environmental Data Resources, 2011 and Nationwide Environmental Title Research, 2011).

On February 20-21, 2013, ICF architectural historians Daniel Paul and Peter Moruzzi conducted an additional reconnaissance-level survey of all buildings within the previously defined APE. During the reconnaissance survey, ICF identified the Old Trieste Restaurant, located at 2335 Morena Boulevard, as an NRHP-eligible property.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-6 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

4.4.2 Intensive-Level Survey On March 8–11, 2011, and March 15–18, 2011, K. Harper and R. Greenlee conducted an intensive-level survey of the properties in the architectural APE that are more than 45 years old (i.e., constructed on or before 1966). GANDA Architectural Historian E. Schultz and K. Harper conducted a subsequent intensive-level survey from October 24, 2011 to November 2, 2011. The survey was conducted from the public right-of-way; no building interiors were inspected as part of the survey effort.

During the intensive-level survey, each property more than 45 years old was documented using field notes and digital photography. Additionally, the condition and appearance of each property were assessed to determine if the property retained a sufficient level of integrity to warrant evaluation for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Archival research was conducted to confirm the construction date, architect or builder, and other information, such as owners, occupants, and tenants, required for the evaluations.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 4-7 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 4.0 – Methodology

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 4-8 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2010) AND DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY

This chapter presents the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) preliminary and conservative determinations of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), based on research and surveys undertaken to identify historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) through the application of NRHP criteria. The determinations of eligibility are undergoing review by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and are considered preliminary until the SHPO has concurred. 5.1 Historic Context Statement The following historic context statement presents an overview of development within the project corridor and a framework for evaluating the historic significance of properties more than 45 years old (i.e., constructed on or before 1966) within the architectural APE. It focuses primarily on the development of four communities—Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor, Linda Vista, Clairemont Mesa, and University City—which together contain the majority of the properties evaluated for listing in the NRHP and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

5.1.1 Spanish Period (1769 to 1822) Descendants of the Kumeyaay, Diegueño, and Luiseño nations inhabited the San Diego area prior to 1769. The beginning of California’s historic period is marked by Spanish colonization and Captain Gaspar de Portolá’s overland expedition. Portolá’s expedition occurred after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California. On July 16, 1769, while Portolá continued his exploration of southern California, Franciscan Friar Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that the Spanish would establish in Alta California between 1769 and 1823 (Smythe, 1908). During the Spanish period, most of San Diego was placed under the jurisdiction of Mission San Diego de Alcalá (Neuerberg, 1986). A major emphasis during the Spanish period in California was the construction of missions and associated presidios to convert the Native American population to Christianity.

5.1.2 Mexican Period (1822 to 1846) After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California Territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants. The subsequent secularization of the Mission system in 1833 and the distribution of its holdings dramatically shifted the character of land ownership in San Diego and much of California. The secularization of the missions resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands, the establishment of many additional ranchos, and the beginning of highly profitable private trade in cattle hide and tallow exports, which resulted in larger, commercially driven farms

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

(Smythe, 1908; Robinson, 1948). Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. During this period, most of the area’s inhabitants lived in the Old Town San Diego area (roughly located just southeast of the present-day Interstate (I-) 5 and I-8 interchange and immediately east of the architectural APE).

5.1.3 Early American Period (1846 to 1860s) War between Mexico and the United States in 1846 precipitated the Battle of Chino, a clash between resident Californios and Americans in the San Bernardino area. American military forces occupied San Diego by July of 1846. The Mexican-American War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ushering California into the American Period. California was annexed to the United States, and subsequently gained statehood in 1850. On March 27, 1850, San Diego became the third incorporated California city (City of San Diego, 2007:17; City of San Diego, 2011a).

5.1.4 American Period (1860s to present) Development of New Town (1860s to 1880s) San Diego’s development shifted from its initial location in Old Town San Diego to approximately 3 miles south along San Diego Bay. Land speculator William Heath Davis and military surveyor Andrew Gray had platted a new 160-acre subdivision. Their development ultimately failed to take off and in 1867 Alonzo Horton purchased it as part of an 800-acre acquisition along the waterfront in 1867. Two years later, Horton acquired an additional 160 acres and filed a new downtown plan known as Horton’s Addition (later called New Town). Horton installed a 500-foot pier at the end of 5th Street, thereby creating a major shipping connection. His infrastructure improvements set off a development boom as new lumberyards, warehouses, commercial businesses, and residences were quickly established in New Town, lending San Diego a sense of permanency as a port city (Heritage Architecture and Planning, 2005:3–6).

Transportation Improvements and Early Industrial Development (1880s to 1920s) Despite new development in New Town, the area encompassed by the architectural APE was not settled until several decades later. The architectural APE’s southern portion (now in the present-day Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor community) contained unfavorable swamp-like conditions. The San Diego River also conveyed a great deal of silt from the delta that blocked channels and created sizable sand bars. The lack of early residential and commercial development along this corridor allowed it to transform instead into a major transportation artery in San Diego. The transportation corridor began with the completion in 1882 of the California Southern Railroad, a subsidiary of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad (later known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway), running from National City north through San Diego to Oceanside. Santa Fe Railroad acquired this early railway in 1885 as an addition to its transcontinental railroad. Electric streetcars soon followed when the Electric Rapid Transit Company constructed the first electric street railway system in the Western United States. The line, known as the San Diego & Old Town Railway, traveled from D Street (now Broadway) in New Town, through the Pacific Highway Corridor along Arctic Street (now Kettner Boulevard) and ended in Old Town San Diego.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

People traveling along this electric streetcar line remember the area as being largely comprised of undeveloped salt marshes and meadows (City of San Diego, 2011e:13–16).

Following the rise of the automobile in the early 20th century, paved roads began to supplant railroad and streetcar lines as San Diego’s primary transportation routes. The City of San Diego paved its first streets around 1909. By the early 1920s, the city’s population had increased rapidly to approximately 75,000 residents (up from 16,000 residents in 1890), along with an increase in the number of automobiles and paved streets. During this era, Pacific Highway became one of the first major paved roads through the architectural APE. Designated in 1925 as part of Highway 101, it became the most prominent north-south artery through the city. This section of Highway 101 would later be decommissioned in the 1960s and replaced by I-5 (City of San Diego, 2011e:16–17; Heritage Architecture and Planning, 2005:9–12).

Despite enhanced accessibility following the construction of Pacific Highway, the architectural APE saw minimal development in the early 20th century. Most people passed through the area on their way north and south, and only scattered industrial properties were constructed in the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor community. Among the most significant developments was German immigrant August Lang’s Mission Brewery (located at 1751 Hancock Street adjacent to the architectural APE between Property Numbers [Nos.] 5 and 7) (Figure 5-1). Designed by Richard Griesser and featuring prominent arched parapets and windows, the complex is a significant example of large-scale industrial, Mission Revival style architecture in San Diego. The brewery is currently listed in the NRHP and the CRHR and as San Diego Historical Landmark #232.

Figure 5-1. Mission Brewery and Bottling Plant, 1927

Source: San Diego History Center, 1927

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

In comparison to the ornate Mission Brewery, most other industrial buildings of this era are not architect-designed. These multi-use warehouses and light manufacturing buildings are typically reinforced concrete or steel frame structures with a steel truss roof that forms a large interior space to store or manufacture goods. With flat or gabled roofs and box-like shapes, the buildings also largely feature a utilitarian design. If present, exterior ornamentation is relegated to the façade or entrances to offices (City of San Diego, 20113:22–23).

Early Residential Development (1880s to 1910) One of the first residential developments in the architectural APE occurred in the Morena Subdivision following the completion of the ATSF Railroad. A conglomerate of businessmen formed the Morena Company around 1877 and laid out a new 760-acre suburb called Morena on the east side of the railroad tracks spanning the length of Mission Bay (roughly between Balboa Avenue and Tecolote Road). An additional 440 acres comprised of larger 1- and 5-acre tracts located around the perimeter of the core subdivision completed the development, which the company envisioned as an exclusive residential enclave. The Morena Company put lots up for sale in 1887 and advertised the development in the San Diego Union as the “most charming of San Diego’s suburbs.” It highlighted the subdivision’s sweeping views of Coronado Beach and the Pacific Ocean and the construction of a new depot providing easy railway access to Downtown San Diego. Morena Company sold several lots during a well-attended auction in December 1887 at the height of a citywide real estate boom that crashed the following year. Promised amenities, including a hotel and public park (now developed as Bay Park Elementary School at 2433 Denver Street), were never completed, and only around 16 houses were erected, mostly near the intersection of what became Kane and Denver Streets. One of these early residences is the Stough-Beckett Cottage (located at 2203 Denver Street, northeast of the architectural APE, near Property No. 58). Constructed in 1888, the residence is listed in the NRHP and the CRHR and as San Diego Historical Landmark #146 (Warner, 1992:9–15).

Immediately north of the Morena Subdivision, another late-19th century subdivision known as Eureka Lemon was laid out. It was likely developed in a similar manner as the Morena Subdivision with a scattering of wood-frame, single-family residences constructed in the 1880s before the city’s building boom ended around 1888. One example of an early dwelling in the Eureka Lemon subdivision is the house at 3435 Morena Boulevard, which appears to have been constructed in 1904 according to San Diego County Assessor records. The parcel is located on what was originally Pueblo Lot 1208, which was subdivided into the Eureka Lemon Tract in 1893 by San Diego businessman A.G. Gassen. San Diego City Directories list Mr. Gassen’s occupation as a “capitalist” in 1899 and “real estate” by 1901. After construction of the house in 1904, the area surrounding the property was further subdivided in 1907 into Pfahler’s Subdivision by San Diego resident Samuel L. Wood. During the late 1800s, it was widely believed the area encompassing the Eureka Lemon tract was ideal for the cultivation of fruit, especially lemons, which is likely how the tract derived its name. Due to the relative isolation of the house and lack of substantial development in the surrounding area, it appears that it was constructed as a farm dwelling for the purpose of citrus agriculture.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Early Architectural Styles (1909 to 1940s) In 1909, in an effort to promote San Diego as a tourist destination, Chamber of Commerce President G. Aubrey Davidson recommended that the city sponsor an exposition to celebrate the 1915 opening of the Panama Canal. This resulted in the formation of the Panama-California Exposition Company, which was funded by private subscription and a $2,000,000 city bond (Engstrand, 2005:116). In 1911, the company hired Bertram G. Goodhue to be the exposition architect, and Carleton Winslow as his assistant. Goodhue was influenced heavily by Spanish Colonial architecture and designed buildings reminiscent of the missions and churches in southern California and Mexico, and of palaces in Mexico, Spain, and Italy. The new Spanish Eclectic architectural style (also known as Spanish Colonial Revival) contributed to the exposition’s success:

…the romanticized Spanish architecture, which referenced San Diego’s history as a Spanish colony (if not its more simple, mission adobe physical history), captured the hearts and imaginations of visitors. Simplified expressions of Exposition architecture in the form of Spanish Colonial Revival and Spanish ‘Eclectic’ architecture quickly took hold in San Diego. (City of San Diego, 2007:21)

Key characteristics of the Spanish Eclectic style included low-pitched roofs clad with clay tile, eaves with little or no overhang, smooth stucco cladding, arched doorways and windows, and asymmetrically arranged façades. The style was popular throughout southern California and influenced residential and institutional architecture during the 1920s and 1930s (Starr, 1990:114).

Following the 1915 Exposition, other revival styles increased in popularity, including Colonial, Tudor, Dutch, French, and Italian Renaissance. These styles are still present in the communities surrounding Balboa Park, as well as in the communities of La Jolla and Point Loma, which continued to develop during this time. However, the Spanish Colonial Revival style flourished and significantly influenced San Diego’s architectural landscape for the next 25 years. Constructed around 1938, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 11 Maintenance Building just east of the architectural APE (slightly north of Property No. 17) is a prominent example of this architectural style (City of San Diego, 2007:22).

While not as pervasive as Spanish Colonial Revival in the city, Art Deco rose to prominence as a popular architectural style. The style was first revealed at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs et Industriels Modernes in Paris in 1925. The structural form associated with this style remained simple, with an emphasis on vertical massing, but the ornamentation included details of elaborate geometric or floral motifs. Many of the stylized patterns were influenced by ancient Greece, Egypt, the Far East, Africa, India, and the Mayan and Aztec cultures. The Art Deco style is most often encountered in civic buildings, commercial structures, and apartment buildings. In San Diego, the County Administration Center stands as a significant example of this style. Located just west of the architectural APE’s southern end, the complex was designed by four prominent San Diego architects, William Templeton Johnson, Richard S. Requa, Louis J. Gill, and Samuel Hamill, and was completed in 1938 (City of San Diego,

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-5 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

2007:23). Within the architectural APE, only the industrial building constructed ca. 1949 at 1411–1415 W. Palm Street (Property No. 2) features minimal Art Deco style detailing, including two raised, stepped parapets and coping at the roofline on the façade.

Residential Development during the 1930s to 1940s Although the Pacific Highway was completed in the 1920s, significant residential development within the architectural APE did not occur until the mid-1930s and 1940s. Beginning in 1936, a portion of the defunct Morena Subdivision was developed into tracts of smaller, modest residences known as Bay Park Village. Prominent Los Angeles real estate developer W.I. Hollingsworth purchased the land and promised to install paved streets and water and sewer lines in exchange for the quick approval of his subdivision plan by the city. Originally bounded approximately by Milton Street to the north, Illion Street to the east, Littlefield Street to the south, and Morena Boulevard to the west, this community marked the first major suburban expansion north of San Diego. (Warner, 1992:138–144).

Hollingsworth and other San Diego developers were required to meet the newly formed Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA’s) specifications for smaller homes featuring more traditional architectural designs. The federal government established the FHA in 1934 to reform home financing practices, to improve the quality of small homes for low- to middle-income families, and to stimulate the building industry during the Great Depression. Following its establishment, the FHA regulated home building practices by approving properties for mortgage insurance and publishing standards for housing and subdivision design. It promoted small, Minimal Traditional style homes through its publications, such as Planning Small Houses, which was first released in 1936 and updated in 1940. The simplest residential design featured a 500- to 600-square-foot house with a kitchen, living room, two bedrooms, and one bathroom designed to house three adults or two adults and two children. Later designs from the 1940s emphasized standardization and expandability to meet the needs of individual tastes and growing families. The homes typically featured traditional detailing, such as hipped or gabled roofs with minimal eave overhangs, wood or stucco cladding, wood-sash windows with wood shutters, and chimneys. An example of this style within the architectural APE is located at 3301 McGraw Street (Property No. 108). The residence, erected in 1951, features a smooth stucco finish, minimal exterior ornamentation, and a low-pitched, hipped roof with a shallow eave overhang (Warner, 1992:138–144; City of San Diego, 2007:26–27).

Bay Park Village Advertised as a planned community composed of modern, affordable homes, Bay Park Village was laid out with a central public plaza (bounded by Napier Street to the north, Chicago Street to the east, Ashton Street to the south, and Morena Boulevard to the west) with an adjacent business district lining Napier and Chicago Streets. The surrounding 800-square foot, single-family homes ranged in price from $2,500 to $4,000. Hollingsworth assured the homes were affordable for the city’s burgeoning number of middle-class residents largely employed by the military and aerospace industries. He also organized the Bay Park Model Homes Exposition that featured 20 Minimal Traditional style cottages constructed by the city’s most prominent builders, where attendees were encouraged to vote on their favorite home. Properties sold quickly, with

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-6 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

residents attracted to the development’s convenient location, new, modern Bay Park Elementary School and grocery market, and affordable FHA loans (Warner, 1992:138-144). Residential development in the Bay Park Village subdivision continued though the 1940s, making it the largest residential community in the northern part of the architectural APE (Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-2. Bay Park Village, 1946 (Highway 101/Morena Boulevard in the foreground, Ashton Street on the left, and Littlefield Street on the right)

Source: San Diego History Center, 1946

The Military and Aerospace Industries in San Diego (1900s to 1940s) The military’s presence in San Diego began at the turn of the century when the United States Navy installed a coaling station at Point Loma, southwest of the subject property in San Diego Bay. It expanded in the 1920s as a result of the earlier efforts of local businessman William Kettner. In 1908, Kettner headed a program to welcome the “Great White Fleet,” an American naval battle fleet circumventing the globe from 1907 to 1909, to San Diego’s harbor. Kettner was then elected to Congress in 1912 and he persuaded the Navy that San Diego Bay should be dredged to allow entry for large ships. Kettner persuasively argued that a dredged harbor would be advantageous to both the Navy and the city because commerce and employment would increase. Kettner proved successful, and the massive dredging project, along with construction of a new Naval Training Center and Marine Corps Recruit Depot, were completed along the waterfront in the 1920s (City of San Diego, 2011e:18-19).

Around this time, the U.S. Marines also established a camp in 1915 at Balboa Park in San Diego, and shortly thereafter, developed a rifle practice site in a separate area north

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-7 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

of the city near La Jolla. The U.S. government negotiated a lease with the city for the use of 363-acre site, which was designated Marine Rifle Range La Jolla in 1918 (Hanna, 1980). The range first consisted of eight targets constructed with picks and shovels. A permanent detachment was stationed at the range in 1923, and five more ranges were added in 1925 (Denger, 1998). A permanent headquarters building was erected in 1927, followed by the first detachment barracks in 1928 (Ruhge, 1994; Denger, 1998). By the 1930s, the range had become the base for training Marine recruits from the Marine Corps Recruit Depot. In 1937, the U.S. government terminated the original lease and the Navy Department acquired around 575 acres from the City of San Diego (Davis, 1955). The range was bounded by present-day Regents Road to the east, Voigt Drive (formerly Miramar Road) to the north, Gilman Drive (formerly Coast Highway) to the west, and mostly present-day La Jolla Village Drive to the south, with a small “panhandle” that extended past present-day Nobel Drive. With the exception of a few ranch homes, the land was undeveloped at the time of acquisition (Denger, 1998).

Concurrent with this military development, the burgeoning aerospace industry saw potential in the waterfront area. In 1922, T. Claude Ryan opened an aviation school and manufacturing plant for Ryan Airlines, which produced early influential plane designs, including Charles Lindbergh’s plane Spirit of St. Louis (Lindbergh captured the world’s attention when he flew the plane non-stop from New York to Paris in 1927). In 1925, Ryan’s airfield also became home to the country’s first regularly scheduled airline—San Diego-Los Angeles Airline. Building off Ryan’s development, the city passed bonds to construct a municipal airport, which was completed in 1928 and named the San Diego Municipal Airport—Lindbergh Field (now San Diego International Airport [Lindbergh Field]). Additionally, Reuben H. Fleet moved his company Consolidated Aircraft (later Consolidated Vultee Aircraft or Convair) from Buffalo, New York, to San Diego in 1935 due to its more favorable weather for test flights. Consolidated Aircraft’s first large-scale plant (Plant No. 1) was located just west of the railroad tracks between Washington Street south to just north of Sassafras Street (City of San Diego, 2011e:18-19).

Development during World War II (1940s) In May 1940, President Roosevelt initiated the first stages of what would be known as his “Arsenal of Democracy” by announcing that he wanted the military to build 50,000 war planes within the next calendar year. This led to a dramatic increase in industrial construction in the architectural APE, along the Pacific Highway corridor.

In 1942, the Army Air Corps took over Lindbergh Field and improved its infrastructure to handle heavy bomber and jet airplanes. During its heyday, workers at Consolidated Aircraft’s Plant No. 1 churned out an impressive number of planes, including more than 6,700 B-24 Liberator planes and more than 3,000 Catalina flying boats, which proved to be critical to the war effort. The company soon employed more than 9,000 employees, prompting Consolidated Aircraft to construct another plant (bounded by the railroad tracks, Witherby Street, Pacific Highway, and present-day Old Town Transit Center) and an adjacent annex just to the north (bounded by the railroad tracks, Taylor Street, Pacific Highway, and a present-day I-5/I-8 junction ramp) in 1943. (The second plant is known historically as Air Force Plant 19 and houses the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command). Convair’s massive industrial plants accelerated the aerospace industry development in the city, as smaller firms developed to produce aircraft tools and

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-8 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

parts for larger manufacturing and design firms (City of San Diego, 2011e:18–21; Van Wormer, 1996).

During World War II, military personnel and defense workers poured into the city to work at its major military installations and defense factories. The population of the County of San Diego increased from around 289,000 in 1940 to 400,000 in 1945. These new residents placed a strain on the available housing stock, even as San Diego sought ways to alleviate the demand, including the organization of a Defense Housing Commission and the allowance of rooming houses in residential areas in the early 1940s. In 1940, the federal government passed the Lanham Act, which appropriated $150 million to the Federal Works Agency to construct large-scale tracts of workers’ housing in defense industry centers, including San Diego. The Frontier Housing Project, which consisted of 3,500 temporary homes centered at the intersection of Midway Drive and Rosecrans Street, was one of the largest federally funded residential developments in the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor community during this time (City of San Diego, 2011e:18-21).

At Marine Rifle Range La Jolla, activity also continued to increase at the onset of World War II. Construction in the 1930s and 1940s included more administrative buildings, barracks, and firing ranges. On March 23, 1942, the base was officially named Camp Calvin B. Matthews, after a distinguished Marine marksman of the 1930s. The camp reached a peak population of 100,000 marines by 1943 (Hanna, 1980; Denger, 1998). By this time, the camp contained seven barracks for personnel, administration buildings, quartermaster storerooms, magazines, an armory, maintenance shops, a dispensary, a service station, and a main post exchange. The recruits who trained at Camp Matthews stayed in approximately 270 tents, which also had washhouses and toilet facilities. The camp’s 12 ranges consisted of five rifle ranges, a 300-yard range for carbine firing, a 25- yard shotgun range, a hand grenade training range, three pistol ranges, and a skeet range. There also were three sentry booths, one wood and two concrete, on the perimeter of the camp. The buildings served to shelter and protect men guarding entrances to the camp. Since the camp’s closure, the wood booth and one of the concrete booths have been demolished. However, the second concrete booth—the Camp Matthews Sentry Booth—still remains.

Camp Calvin Matthews Sentry Booth The sentry booth, built as a feature of the former Camp Calvin B. Matthews Marine Corps marksmanship and munitions training facility, is a potentially significant design expression of the World War II mobilization that occurred between 1939 and the spring of 1945. Built during the 1943–1944 period, it is a direct manifestation of the heightened construction program and troop training activities that occurred at Camp Calvin B. Matthews as a result of the mobilization. Located near the intersection of Voigt Drive and Campus Pointe Drive at the University of California, San Diego, the subject building, with its small 8-foot, 10-inch by 6-foot footprint, is of unusual fortified construction and exhibits the following noteworthy design characteristics: 1-foot-thick poured concrete walls; a 1-foot-thick slab concrete roof that protrudes only 2 inches beyond the building walls; a deeply inset and narrow doorway; and small telescoping windows that provide highly constrained views to the outside and that are 2 feet by 1 foot at the exterior wall plane, narrowing from that dimension to 6 by 8 inch openings at the interior wall plane.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-9 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Scholars who have written historic context statements that document design characteristics, building patterns, and the chronology of World War II military building development have emphasized the often temporary design nature of much of the construction that occurred during the mobilization under the direction of the Army Quartermaster Corps, Corps of Civil Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks (Garner, 1993; Rushing, 1997). Military construction programs addressed a vast array of facilities needs, and included military posts, camps, stations, training and maneuvering areas, artillery ranges and other ranges for ground forces, airfields, air bases and stations, bombing and gunnery ranges, storage facilities, military police camps, relocation centers and prisoner of war camps, laboratories, proving and testing grounds, and harbor and other defenses in hundreds of diverse locations across the United States. Much of the work also was completed under tight timelines and budgets.

Ease and speed of construction were generally the key design criteria. Framing remained simple, and the assumption that unskilled labor would be used to build a majority of the buildings and structures because of the wartime manpower shortage dictated that construction techniques be intentionally uncomplicated (Garner, 1993).

The subject sentry booth at the former Camp Matthews is associated with the peak of World War II mobilization activities during the 1943–1944-period. During 1944, for example, approximately 9,000 Marine recruits received marksmanship and munitions training at the camp, using some 15 different shooting/training ranges. Acceleration of mobilization efforts during the same period would logically suggest an accelerated construction program to meet the increased troop training activities and manpower needs, using prevalent, inexpensive, and relatively easy-to-construct wood-frame techniques. Based upon the available photographic evidence (University of California, San Diego Mandeville Special Collections), while the overwhelming majority of the buildings built at Camp Matthews during the mobilization appear to use typical frame and stucco or frame-on-frame construction, the subject sentry booth uses time-consuming, heavy, poured concrete construction for a very small building on the rear periphery of the camp—a type of material often reserved for the construction of batteries, coastline signaling stations, munitions storage buildings, and/or other structures where explosive or highly flammable compounds would be stored, or where enemy shelling might occur. The sentry booth design also diverges from at least one of the other two, more representative, and now demolished Camp Matthews sentry booths (Figure 5-3).

A sampling of sentry booths at other California facilities, including Fort Cronkhite (Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco), Camp San Luis Obispo, Camp Roberts (Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties), and the Camp Pendleton Marine Base are more representative of this building typology (Daniel Sebby, Curator, California State Military Historical Museum). Although they have fairly small footprints, like the subject sentry booth, they differ in having frame construction and far larger windows (including large door windows) that permit expansive views of approaching traffic (Figure 5-4 through Figure 5-6).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-10 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-3. Sentry Booth and Guardhouse, 1964 (Building 256, Camp Matthews)

Source: University of California San Diego Mandeville Special Collections Library

Figure 5-4. Sentry Booth, Figure 5-5. Sentry Booth, Camp Pendleton, Camp Roberts, Date Unknown Late 1940s Period

Source: Courtesy of Daniel Sebby, California State Source: Daniel Sebby, California State Military Historical Military History Museum Museum

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-11 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-6. Sentry Booth, Camp San Luis Obispo, Date Unknown

Source: Daniel Sebby, California State Military Historical Museum

The architectural characteristics of the subject sentry booth at Camp Matthews appear to have been an unusual design response to the military security concerns of the time and place in which it was built. Preliminary research evidence, based in part on the timing of its construction and the location of the camp near the ocean, suggests that the subject sentry booth and its distinctive fortified concrete construction and design attributes may well have been a response to the Japanese submarine shelling of the Ellwood Oil Field near Goleta, California, that occurred on February 23, 1942. The incident triggered a large wave of public fear that a Japanese attack on the United States mainland was imminent, and it directly led to the United States military digging a series of trenches, and establishing field fortifications along the California coastline to repel such an invasion. The location of Camp Matthews near the Pacific Ocean coastline, and placement of the subject sentry booth within approximately 1.5 miles of the ocean, may have prompted the design at this military installation of one sentry station that could withstand enemy shelling and/or an enemy ground invasion of some kind.

As La Jolla expanded, local residents became concerned about the proximity of a military rifle range to the civilian neighborhoods. The La Jolla Town Council tried to convince the military to close the camp in 1956, but met with resistance. Congressman Bob Wilson introduced a bill that would transfer Camp Matthews to the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus in 1959 (Denger, 1998). Prior to vacating Camp Matthews, the range facility was duplicated at Camp Pendleton north of Oceanside (Hanna, 1980). In 1962, Camp Matthews was determined to be a surplus property by the Marine Corps, and the base finally closed on August 21, 1964 (Denger, 1998). The few original buildings that remain on the UCSD campus are located along Myers Drive in the central part of the campus and have been used for administrative buildings and the campus bookstore. Camp Matthews Sentry Booth still stands in a UCSD parking lot, and the historic graffiti is preserved under Plexiglas.

Linda Vista The city’s largest wartime residential development was located in Linda Vista specifically to house Consolidated-Vultee/Convair workers. The housing project consisted of more than 4,000 mass-produced residences erected between 1941 and 1942 for a cost of $9,070,000 (Figure 5-7). The Linda Vista housing project, a planned development, also

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-12 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-7. Linda Vista Federal Housing Project, 1941

Source: San Diego History Center, 1941

included water and sewer systems, landscaping, schools, libraries, and businesses. In 1942, first lady Eleanor Roosevelt presided over the dedication of the Linda Vista Shopping Center (San Diego History Center, 2011; City of San Diego, 2011e:21; City of San Diego, 1989:18).

The Linda Vista housing project, with its well-designed amenities, was an early example of the planned residential and commercial development that largely shaped San Diego in the post-war period. Historian Kevin Starr (2002:152) described Linda Vista as follows:

The Linda Vista Housing Project in San Diego, for example, built by the National Housing Agency for the workers at Consolidated-Vultee, was featured in design critic John Entenza’s Arts and Architecture magazine in November 1944 as a prime example of how wartime housing, properly designed, could anticipate the amenities of the post-war era. The 4,846 dwelling units of Linda Vista encircled a thirteen-acre Commercial Center, carefully designed by Whitney Smith and Earl Giberson, which featured the layout and conveniences of the post-war shopping center. Traffic, parking, pedestrian, freight, and shipping access and other retail conveniences were carefully planned. Linda Vista anticipated, almost on the level of utopian statement, what could be achieved in urban and suburban neighborhoods and shopping centers following the war.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-13 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

During World War II, the Minimal Traditional style prevailed as the primary residential style. Residences featuring this style were constructed as infill projects within existing subdivisions and were later mass-produced in federally funded tract-home programs (City of San Diego, 2007:22). Privately financed new construction (such as in Bay Park Village) slowed during this time, largely due to a lack of building materials as a result of World War II (Warner, 1992: 144-147).

As it relates to the architectural APE, the heart of the Linda Vista development with its residences, shopping center, and commercial buildings is located several miles east of Pacific Highway. Within the architectural APE, the triangular-shaped commercial and light-industrial area bounded by Lovelock Street to the east, Friars Road to the south, and Pacific Highway to the west is situated on the far southwestern corner of what is defined as Linda Vista. Because of this distance, these commercial and industrial buildings possess no contextual relation to the Linda Vista residential tract and, therefore, do not constitute contributors to a potential Linda Vista historic district.

Post-War Development (1945 to 1970) Following the end of World War II, development continued in the already established pattern in the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor. Vacant lots were improved with other light industrial buildings, warehouses, smaller commercial buildings, shopping centers, and residences from single-family homes to large apartment buildings. Streets were improved and widened, and I-5 and I-8 were constructed in the late 1950s and 1960s. Among the more prominent developments during the post-war era was construction of the International Sports Arena, completed in 1966 on land formerly belonging to the Frontier Housing Project and used largely for hockey and basketball games (City of San Diego, 2011e:21-24).

The Bungalow Court and Its Post-World War II Variant 4875–4883 Naples Avenue is somewhat unusual as a post-World War II era bungalow court. The property is significant for how intact its buildings and landscape are from its early 1950s construction period. Its design system, which loosely may be called Ranch, is actually an amalgamation of Minimal Traditional and Ranch styles, both of which are discussed below.

Architect Sylvanus B. Marston’s St. Francis Court (Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9), constructed on East Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, California, is considered to be the first bungalow court.2 Completed in 1909, St. Francis Court featured 11 separate gabled bungalows in the Craftsman style placed around a landscaped central garden that served as a communal space. Marston’s intended clientele was the well-off Mid- Western vacationer that may have desired a home-like setting rather than a hotel room.3

The lesser known genesis of the bungalow court evolved out of the turn-of-the-century “house court” as identified by Los Angeles city workers. Much less romantic than St. Francis Court, the house court consisted of homemade shanties akin to those of New York tenements, except horizontal rather than vertical, and with a shared outdoor

2 Robert Winter, Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997) 170. 3 Ibid.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-14 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-8. Sylvanus Martson, St. Francis Court. Pasadena, CA, 1909

Source: Robert Winter, Ed. Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997) 170-171

Figure 5-9. Sylvanus Martson, St. Francis Court Site Plan. Pasadena, CA, 1909

Source: Robert Winter, Ed. Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997) 172.

communal space.4 Many of those who lived in house courts were lower-income families who had recently immigrated to Los Angeles. The 1906 establishment of the City of Los Angeles Housing Commission was in large part a result of so many house courts.5 In context to both St. Francis Court and the Los Angeles’ shanty version, the popularized bungalow court has been written as both a top-down and bottom-up approach to similar, earlier dwelling units. It is unknown if Marston was aware of the City Housing Commission and its reports that supported the idea of multiple dwellings upon a parcel.6

Bungalow Courts are constructed with either detached or connected units: as a “half court” commonly on one lot, or a full bungalow court if two side-by-side lots are

4 Todd Douglas Gish, “Building Los Angeles: Urban Housing in the Suburban Metropolis, 1900—1936,” Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2007: 94. 5 Ibid. 6 Gish, “Building Los Angeles,” 96-97.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-15 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

available. Key to the building type is a communal, landscaped green space centered within the arrangement. The level of landscaping varies, and occasionally the space would be used as a driveway. In early 1920s-era courts, if a driveway was incorporated it was often a “Hollywood Driveway” of two concrete strips set within the landscape. The bungalow court had its zenith in the interwar years.

Aside from contexts of population explosion and attractive climate that encouraged outdoor living, such courts reflected the social and cultural openness offered by early twentieth century Southern California. Particularly as demonstrated in Los Angeles—a city with more such courts than anywhere else in the world—at that time numerous singles, single-parent families, or non-married working folk took full advantage of both the city’s open social climate and of the bungalow court. The court provided instant community that may have been attractive to those newly immigrated to the city. Of the new California population types that seemed to have taken the most advantage of the bungalow court, the property appears to have been particularly attractive to young single women. The unit provided the ideal combination of privacy, a house-like setting, but also a sense of safety in being a single unit yet on a shared property.7 Next to Los Angeles, San Diego appears to have had the second-most amount of constructed bungalow courts. A 1986 study identified 278 pre-World War II bungalow courts constructed in Central San Diego alone.8 By the post-World War II era, the Bungalow Court was more often perceived as inexpensive housing, and was often built for workers. Various examples were located near industrial areas with a large workforce.

As previously mentioned, 4875-4883 Naples Avenue features a mix of Minimal Traditional and Ranch-style design motifs. The Minimal Traditional design system originally developed out of guidance provided by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was created in 1934 to encourage the construction and sale of affordable houses to the masses. Houses qualifying for an FHA construction loan were to meet agency standards for low-cost, easy to replicate designs. Many of their design features were first articulated as a design called the “Minimum” house in the FHA’s 1940 edition of Planning Small Homes. To keep costs low, the FHA encouraged certain simple-to-build features. These included a compact, box-like massing and pyramidal roofs with small eaves: these were features seen upon the Naples Street property. With this, the FHA encouraged some—but not an excessive use of—revivalist design motifs to make the house more marketable; hence, the “Traditional” of Minimal Traditional. Instead of incorporating revivalist design motifs, the Naples Street bungalow court adopts Ranch- styled ornamentation (Figure 5-10). The mix of Minimal Traditional and Ranch is not uncommon, and Alan Hess, in his book Ranch House, even applied the term “Minimal Ranch” to identify the variation.9

7 James Curtis and Larry L. Ford, “Bungalow Courts in San Diego: Monitoring a Sense of Place,” in Thomas L. Scharf, Ed., The Journal of San Diego History (San Diego Historical Society Quarterly) Spring 1988, v. 34, No.2. Viewed at: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/88spring/bungalow.htm 8 Ibid. 9 Alan Hess, The Ranch House (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004) 97.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-16 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-10. Minimal Traditional and Ranch House, “Minimal Ranch,” Riverside, CA. c.1950

Source: Photo: ICF International, 2010

The Ranch style itself is native to California, with which it is intimately associated. Taking from earlier regional vernaculars, from Craftsman bungalows the style appropriated rustic, natural materials and a strong integration with the outdoors; from California Ranchos it took the use of cross ventilation, extended eaves over porches, and a readiness to include outdoor amenities such as patios and pools. In general the style, which often featured irregular plan, horizontally acclimated houses, was associated with casual, relaxed, “Western Living” as marketed by Sunset Magazine with its frequent collaborator Cliff May (1900-1960) (Figure 5-11), the San Diego native who is often credited as inventing the Ranch house design.10 May was strongly influenced by local Californio Rancho architecture in developing the first designs in the “Ranch” style in the 1930s (Figure 5-12). The Ranch style would be used upon hundreds of thousands of houses in thousands of tracts across the United States during the post-World War II years.

Figure 5-11. Cliff May: Langston House, 1934, and a Post World II May-Designed Tract House

Source: Robert Winter, Ed. Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997) 286; and Alan Hess, The Ranch House (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004) 53.

10 See: Cliff May and Paul C. Johnson, Western Ranch Houses (Santa Monica, CA: Hennessey + Ingalls, 1997).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-17 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-12. Edward Fickett, Sherman Park Model “A” Home. Los Angeles, CA, 1952 (The Ranch style with contemporary design elements)

Source: Alan Hess, The Ranch House (New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004) 52

Upon 4875–4883 Naples Street (Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14), Ranch-styled applied motifs include the board-and-batten siding seen at the front elevation, large window bays to view outside, and an extended overhang supported by prominent diagonal wood post braces. These elements, along with the small-scale of each unit and the presence of lush and intact original landscaping, together lend this court a casual and intimate design quality, virtually unchanged from its early 1950s construction date.

Figure 5-13. 4875–4883 Naples Street Images

Source: GANDA, 2011

Figure 5-14. Google Maps Aerial Image of 4875–4883 Naples Street

Source: Google Maps, 2013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-18 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Morena Boulevard Postwar Commercial Strip An extensive mixed residential and commercial strip along the east side of Morena Boulevard exists within the architectural APE. It is located between Tecolote Road to the south and Clairemont Drive on the north. The south end of the strip consists of warehouses and commercial buildings erected from the mid-1950s through the late 1960s with a few built within the last two decades. Further north is the Coastal Villa Trailer Park that opened in 1947 containing—amongst dozens of newer trailers—a handful that appear to have been manufactured in the 1950s and 1960s. Several commercial buildings and a townhouse development that all date from the 1970s occupy the block to Asher Street. Between Asher and Ashton Streets, construction dates for commercial buildings range from the late 1940s through the 1980s. However, mixed amongst these are three Minimal Traditional style apartment courts from the late 1940s and early 1950s exhibiting varying levels of integrity. They are located at 1849-1867, 1929-1937, and 1939-1949 Morena Boulevard. Another cluster of three Minimal Traditional style apartment courts (2043-2047, 2051-2057, 2059-2065 Morena Boulevard) from the same time period appear between a large two-story apartment building from 1958 and a commercial building erected in 1961. Because of window replacements along primary elevations, the three apartment courts exhibit a moderate level of integrity.

The remainder of the commercial strip from Milton Street to Clairemont Drive contains a wide mix of commercial properties such as a contemporary automobile sales lot (4135 Milton Street), the Silver Spigot cocktail bar (originally a restaurant) from 1955 (2221 Morena Boulevard), a 1970s paint store (2229 Morena Boulevard), a coffee shop from 1995 (2253 Morena Boulevard), a three-story office building from 1987 (2437 Morena Boulevard), a liquor store built circa 1960 (2521 Morena Boulevard), and various retail/office buildings from the 1960s to 1990s. Amidst this heterogeneous collection of buildings is a surprising find: the Old Trieste, a Continental-style fine dining restaurant that opened its doors in 1963 (discussed separately below).

To summarize these findings, it does not appear that a cohesive commercial strip from the postwar period exhibiting a sufficient level of integrity to meet the NRHP or CRHR criteria exists. There have been too many contemporary intrusions of large commercial buildings amidst the entirety of the strip to impart the feeling of the early postwar era in this part of San Diego.

Clairemont Beginning in the 1950s, development of the Clairemont neighborhood began pushing the city’s limit farther north (Figure 5-15). In 1950, influential San Diego developers Louis Burgener and Carlos Tavares took advantage of federal government subsidies and began constructing the subdivision, Clairemont. It was named after Tavares’ wife, Claire, and at the time was only second in size to Long Island’s Levittown. Clairemont’s designers rejected the traditional street grid system and instead used curvilinear streets to take advantage of scenic views from Moreno Mesa. The subdivision also included commercial spaces, retail shopping, schools, libraries, and other amenities for suburban living. Twenty model floor plans designed by local architects (including Harold Abrams, Benson Eschenbach, and Richard Wheeler) were available for the first phase of construction of 500 homes, which ranged from $13,000 to $20,000. The homes were typically Minimal Traditional or Ranch style.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-19 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Figure 5-15. Advertisement for Clairemont Hills, July 1957

Source: San Diego Magazine, July, 1957

In residential construction, the Ranch style became prominent in the 1950s and 1960s, and features low horizontal profiles, side-gabled or hipped roofs with wide overhanging eaves, large picture windows, integrated garages, and spacious floor plans. Typical examples of this style within the architectural APE are located in the Vista Bahia Unit No. I subdivision on the west side of McGraw Street, as described above (Davis et al., 2003:66; Eddy, 1995; City of San Diego, 2007:40).

The Clairemont subdivision ultimately expanded and overshadowed Bay Park Village, which became just 1 of 12 subset neighborhoods in the larger Clairemont community. By this time, Bay Park Village’s boundaries had expanded to Clairemont Drive to the north, Illion Street to the east, Tecolote Road to the south, and Morena Boulevard to the west. Clairemont Mesa’s other neighborhoods located within the architectural APE include (from south to north) Eureka Lemon from Clairemont Drive to Balboa Avenue, Bay Ho from Balboa Avenue to Jutland Drive, and Alcott Estates from Jutland Drive to State Route (SR) 52. As with Bay Park Village, the Eureka Lemon subdivision began in the late 19th century but was slow to develop until it was in-filled largely with 1950s and 1960s tract homes. Within the architectural APE, streets such as McGraw Street and Paul Jones Avenue were cut and lined with single-family homes during this era. In comparison, the Bay Ho and Alcott Estate areas to the north were developed with large-scale commercial or light industrial properties along Santa Fe Street and Morena Boulevard and residential properties to the east (Warner, 1992:198-200).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-20 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Clairemont: McGraw Street– Vista Bahia Unit No. I Subdivision The Vista Bahia Unit No. I subdivision is a 59-parcel tract located off the east and west shoulders of McGraw Street in the Clairemont neighborhood. The 29 properties off the west shoulder of McGraw Street are located in the APE. Louis Burgener, one of the original developers of Clairemont, constructed Vista Bahia Unit No. I between 1957 and 1959. Clairemont, as previously discussed, was one of the largest planned communities of its kind when its construction first began in 1950. Similar to the early Bay Park Village No. 1 tract immediately north of it, the houses of Vista Bahia Unit No. I were designed to take full advantage of Mission Bay views. Many of the houses have large picture windows and viewing decks. Their rear, bay-facing portions of the west shoulder houses are prominent and visible over the bluff looking from Morena Boulevard or the I-5 freeway below them. The houses of Vista Bahia Unit No. I follow a pre-established pattern of Clairemont design that acknowledged rather than denies the natural terrain. Houses off the east shoulder of McGraw Street, which also have bay views, are built into an elevated slope that could have easily been leveled during the construction phase.

As originally designed, the houses of Vista Bahia Unit No. I consist of Ranch, Custom Ranch, or Contemporary design. All three variants are evolved versions over the common post-war Ranch tract variation. The latter two design systems were specifically marketed as sophisticated single-family house design for those of discerning taste that may have found the typical Ranch house too rustic or quaint.11 Inspired by the International style and specifically the Case Study House program, the Contemporary style house is abstract, stripping away many of the applied ornamental and features associated with the Ranch style. Some cladding or other textural details on the elevation would be retained, but they are not part of any theming.12 Contemporary-styled roofs tend to be flat, and if they are gabled, the gable is one of a long, low pitch. Like the Ranch style, the Contemporary style may have asymmetrical massing or composition, a pronounced horizontality, and retain a strong integration with nature by means of atriums, patios, viewing decks, and pools. Contemporary-styled houses also tended to be larger scale, which may have appealed not only to post-war families of increasing means, but also post-war families that were growing. Perhaps the best known proponent of the Contemporary-style house was the developer Joseph Eichler, who hired the architects Robert Anshen, Jones & Emmons, and later Raphael Soriano to design various models for 12 separate subdivisions located across California—primarily in coastal regions.

For the houses that have retained integrity within Vista Bahia Unit No. I, other common features include: low-pitched side-gabled or hipped roofs; elongated facades; recessed entry porches; aluminum- framed fixed and casement windows; T-111, board-and-batten, horizontal board, or stucco cladding; and two-car garages facing the street. A few boast such Ranch- style decorative features as wood shutters, carved window planters, dovecotes, and garage doors with diamond-patterned wood strips. Of houses retaining integrity, the west shoulder of Vista Bahia Unit No. I appears to have more Contemporary-

11 The City of San Diego, San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement report. (San Diego, CA: City of San Diego, October 17, 2007) 39. 12 Jeffrey Howe, ed. The Houses We Live In: An Identification Guide to the History and Style of American Domestic Architecture (San Diego, CA: Thunder Bay Press, 2002) 375.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-21 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

style houses, and the east shoulder houses have comparatively casual, Ranch-style design elements of a Mid-Century design commonly seen along the Southern California coast.

Unfortunately, at the present time, Vista Bahia Unit No. I now contains a considerable amount of altered houses. These alterations range from the addition of vinyl windows and stucco recladding to more severe alterations such as second-story additions and full-on restylings. These restylings are common in upper Mid-Century-era middle class neighborhoods that may not have seen a severe economic downturn over the course of their existence. As versions of the Modern style waned beginning in the late 1960s, aging families often “softened” their Modern-styled homes. From the early 1980s onward, such restylings are of versions or elements of the Mediterranean revival that had become increasingly popular in Southern California.

Paul Jones Avenue Unlike the McGraw Street neighborhood that was apparently built by a single developer where the dwellings share a similar style and dates of construction, the houses that line both sides of Paul Jones Avenue from Morena Boulevard to Brandywine Street within the architectural APE are much more heterogeneous. Construction dates range from 1943 through 1980 with several examples from 1959 and 1960, and a cluster from 1970. Styles include Minimal Traditional, vernacular Modern, Ranch, Mediterranean Revival, and Contemporary. Because of numerous modifications, including second-story additions, window replacements, and changes to cladding, the overall level of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship in the neighborhood is low. As a result, this mix of dates, styles, and levels of integrity leads to the conclusion that a NRHP- or CRHR-eligible historic district does not exist along Paul Jones Avenue.

Upscale Postwar Dining Establishments Fine dining is associated with the upscale dinner houses that were popular in American cities from the 1940s through the 1970s. Classic fine dining establishments served “continental cuisine”—an eclectic melding of French and American dishes. Character- defining interior features of a classic fine dining restaurant include white tablecloths; leather or vinyl semicircular booths of red, brown, or black; indirect lighting in often windowless rooms; tuxedoed captains and waiters; and tableside service. Many feature dark wood paneling reminiscent of Old World European restaurants. Flaming dishes prepared tableside offer the patron a theatrical experience markedly different from typical restaurants, which helps justify the cost of fine dining and attracts special event celebrations where elegant service and high prices are part of the appeal. Typical exterior elements include a prominent, formal entrance often sheltered by a projecting canopy or canvas awning; stone veneer cladding; minimal or nonexistent fenestration; unobtrusive lighting; and formal landscaping. Often the restaurant’s backlit name appears in large formal type affixed to the primary elevation and/or raised atop large steel signposts in blazing neon.

After World War II and paralleling national trends, Southern California restaurateurs opened new modern freestanding restaurants along the auto-dominated commercial corridors of newly established suburban communities such as San Diego’s Morena Boulevard in Bay Park Village. Here they could draw from a growing mobile customer base that was buoyed by steady well-paying jobs in San Diego’s aerospace industry.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-22 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Indeed, postwar suburban communities fostered the development of many food service businesses including coffee shops, drive-in restaurants, and fast-food franchises; however, because of the high cost of operations that translated into higher food prices, fine dining establishments were more rare.

Several circumstances led to the disappearance of most of Southern California’s and San Diego’s great fine dining restaurants. First, many of the original restaurateurs whose establishments were named after them either died or sold their businesses to others (who were unable to maintain the restaurant’s quality and reputation). Secondly, tastes changed, particularly in the 1980s when rich “Continental”-style offerings served in formal settings were considered passé. Suddenly, white tablecloths and tuxedoed waiters were now stuffy and formal, ushering in a new era of noisy hard surfaces and more casual dining. In addition, changes to the economy during the 1970s and the eventual downsizing and closing of industrial plants during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as demographic shifts in suburban residential populations and other distractions, spelled the end for most fine dining restaurants in Southern California. Perhaps the most representative example of a classic continental style fine dining restaurant in San Diego is the Imperial House at 505 Kalmia Street in the city’s Uptown neighborhood.

In the greater Clairemont Mesa area of San Diego, one of the few remaining locations where traditional mid-century Continental-style fine dining can be found is the Old Trieste Restaurant at 2335 Morena Boulevard. Situated within the boundaries of the architectural APE, the Old Trieste, which opened in 1963, possesses an interior and exterior with the key character-defining features entirely representative of its type and time period. Its interior is dark and indirectly lit with curved vinyl booths, wood-paneled walls, and starched white tablecloths. Service by tuxedoed captains is tableside and the menu is Continental style. On the exterior, flagstone veneer frames a main entrance marked by a projecting curved canvas awning. A manicured shrub surrounds a tall steel signpost topped by the restaurant’s name (previously lit in neon) that leans toward the street. Its presence is an important reminder of the postwar suburban development of Clairemont Mesa during a period of rapid population growth and employment in the area’s high paying aerospace industry.

University of California, San Diego At the northern end of the architectural APE, the smaller, master-planned community of University City, also known as “the Golden Triangle,” was constructed beginning in 1960, just east of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) campus. The development was conceived following the University of California’s decision in 1956 to create a full university campus around the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Collins, 1991). University City was designed to be a “city within a city” that would provide housing and amenities for employees and students of the UCSD campus. When completed, the planned development would include roads, residences, shopping centers, schools, churches, and parks. San Diego developer Irvin J. Kahn, under Penasquitos, Inc., was its major developer (Stewart, 1970). The first roads in the area were Genesee Avenue (completed in 1966) and San Clemente Canyon Road (completed in 1967). The La Jolla Eastgate Building at Genesee Avenue and Eastgate Mall, the first commercial office building in the development, and the University Towne Centre, the first mixed-use project in the development, were both completed in 1977 (Golden Triangle Metropolitan, 1989). University Towne Centre, developed by Ernest Hahn under the Hahn Company,

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-23 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

was created in the area formerly occupied by a tent city associated with Camp Matthews (Collins, 1991; Stewart, 1970). Today, University City encompasses more than 8,500 acres bounded by Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and Sorrento Valley to the north; the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency railroad tracks and I-805 to the east; SR 52 to the south; and I-5, Gilman Drive, North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Farms, and the Pacific Ocean to the west (City of San Diego, 1986:9).

5.1.5 Industrial Architecture, Light Industrial Architecture, and Late-Moderne Design Early Industrial Architecture The roots of Modern industrial architecture begin approximately 1730 to 1733 at Coalbrookdale—a foundry with the small company town centered around it—in Shropshire, England. It was here that Abraham Darby first used coal (coke) rather than wood charcoal for smelting purposes. Able to burn at a higher temperature and thus make a stronger metal, this change of ingredient led to the production of the first cast iron (pig iron) that would be used in limited construction activities and also for the making of machine parts.

Refining Darby’s process, in the 1740s Benjamin Huntsman first developed cast steel (crucible steel): an even stronger metal readily applicable to any construction activity. It is with the development of cast iron and cast steel, combined with an increased use of power and the gathering of labor into mill buildings, that the industrial revolution begins in earnest at this time.13 The first larger-scale factories made of this construction were English textile industry mills (Figure 5-16). The term “mill” comes from the “water mill” used for motive energy of early factories, but became a vernacular for any variety of steam-age factories.14

Figure 5-16. Textile Mills, Great Britain, 1826

Source: James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An Analysis of International Building Practice (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) 5.

13 James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An analysis of International Building Practice (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) 2. 14 Ibid.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-24 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

The London Albion Works of 1784 featured the first large-scale use of iron in machinery—designed and laid out by James Watt. More importantly, it was for the Albion Works that Watt first refined the Newtonian steam engine that powered this mill (Figure 5-17). It is the same basic steam engine that would ultimately power thousands of mills and factories across Europe and the United States. Watt’s steam engine first made possible the system and scale of manufacturing in the modern sense, as this use of steam freed up the need for manual power alone. The typical early steam-age factory was made of a cast-iron framework with a masonry enclosure and small window openings often located off a waterway in a rural setting.15

Figure 5-17. Plan and Section for Boulton and Watt’s Seven-Story Mill of Cast-Iron Framework, Salford, England, 1801 (Matthew Boulton and James Watt would later invent the steam-powered locomotive)

Source: James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An Analysis of International Building Practice (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) 3.

That early industrial buildings could now be made with iron or steel framing rather than wood timbering was key, as many timber-frame buildings—because of the heat generated by the machinery and steam engines within them—would often burn within 50 years of their construction. “Slow burning” factories, of fireproof materials and a layout such that the seat of the fire may be easily reached, were a common design of mid-19th century industrial architecture (Figure 5-18. Typical Late-19th Century Fireproof American Industrial Complex: The Enterprise Manufacturing Co. Philadelphia, PA c. 1880).16 Early on, fireproofing became a significant goal of industrial architecture. As early as the 18th century, insurance companies encouraged a lack of interior wall coverings, attics, and exterior ornament upon such buildings to aid in fire resistance. To the present day, industrial architecture tends to avoid ornament or other unnecessary design components in part because of these early fireproofing precedents.

15 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 2. 16 Betsy Hunter Bradley, The Works: The Industrial Architecture of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) 127-131.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-25 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

The earliest industrial architecture in the United Figure 5-18. Typical Late-19th Century Fireproof States consisted of New American Industrial Complex: The Enterprise England textile mills that Manufacturing Co. Philadelphia, PA c. 1880 first appeared between 1810 and 1820. These buildings were often called “works” or the “iron works” for the material of which they were constructed.17

Compared to England, the 19th century U.S. had raw materials in abundance, but a smaller pool of skilled labor. Resultantly, there was a stronger need for mechanization.18 This Source: Betsy Hunter Bradley, The Works: The Industrial Architecture of need would lead to the the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) 71. development of increasingly productive and efficient machines being invented in the U.S. during the 19th century. By 1865, the flat, unadorned brick wall would become a familiar feature of American industrial architecture, and masonry construction, particularly on smaller-scale light industrial buildings, would be a common feature through the Post World War II era, when it was replaced after 1965 with the tilt-up concrete wall.

In 1854, inventor and architect James Bogardus designed the earliest skeleton-frame structures in the U.S., featuring cast iron columns and flanged, wrought iron beams. The separation of manufacturing and ancillary areas, which still occurs to this day, first occurred with his 1848 design scheme for a New York factory at Centre and Duane Streets.19 Toward the end of the 19th century, Ernest Ransome, an English ex-pat practicing in the United States, would develop an inexpensive and simple to build use of reinforced concrete based off earlier European developments. Although builders and owners were at first wary of reinforced concrete construction, the survival of Ransome’s works through fire (Pacific Coast Borax, Bayonne, New Jersey, 1902) and earthquake (two experimental buildings at Stanford University, 1906 San Francisco earthquake) changed this opinion. As a result, in the early 20th century, this material became ubiquitous in factory construction.

Taking reinforced concrete architecture to a revelatory new scale was Detroit’s Albert Kahn: the first significant American architect of 20th century industrial architecture. The advent and vision of Albert Kahn correlated with the advent of the automobile itself: a

17 Ibid., 5-6. 18 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 39. 19 Ibid.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-26 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

sophisticated machine of multiple facets and parts in demand by the millions (Figure 5-19).

Figure 5-19. Diagram Showing the Auto-Making Process

Source: “Design for Mass Production” in Kenneth Reid, A.I.A. (ed.), Industrial Buildings: The Architectural Record of a Decade (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1951) 2.

Kahn’s 3.5-million-square-foot 1903 Packard Plant #10 (Figure Figure 5-20. Albert Kahn with Ernest Wilby, 5-20), designed in conjunction Parkard Plant No. 10, Detroit, MI. 1905 with Ernest Wilby, was the first (Watercolor rendering by Jules Guerin) reinforced concrete automobile factory building.20 In its scale, materials, and hyper-functionality, the building became a bellwether for Modernism itself. Kahn mastered a pre-existing approach wherein buildings were designed in conjunction with engineers and special consultants knowledgeable of the specific function.21 Kahn’s factory buildings, which he would construct across numerous developed countries, were among the largest buildings in the world. Source: Frederico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991) 32.

20 Frederico Bucci, Albert Kahn: Architect of Ford (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1991) 29-36. 21 Bradley, The Works, 15-24.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-27 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Light Industrial Design Features The “light industrial,” or “light manufacturing,” property type is a version of industrial architecture focused upon the production process of smaller-scale items often directly consumer and business oriented, or “manufacturing activity that uses moderate amounts of partially processed materials to produce items of relatively high value per unit weight.”22 The term “light industrial” gains usage during the post-war era as city planners increasingly zoned for this property type.

Post-World War II U.S. light industrial architecture shares a consistent set of pragmatic needs and corresponding design features. Good industrial design of all types was to have a combination of features that included speed of erection, enclosure free of obstructions, adequate daylight, low maintenance, provision for heavy fixtures, flexibility in use, ease of future expansion, and specialized production.23

So that a building may be erected quickly, American light industrial architecture of all types is often designed in a uniform system with a redundant, repeating kit of mass- produced and easily fabricated, easily erected parts and components. In the U.S., elements of this process were refined after World War II, which demanded large new factories to be constructed in an instant to build weapons for the war effort.24 Compared to other countries, foreign writers discussing American industrial architecture perceived it as hyper-functional.25 Regardless, the American architectural press perceived this same functionality as “really very wholesome.”26

North American light industrial architecture is commonly single story with a large, rectangular plan. For proximities sake, many of the processes as possible occur under one roof, and this concept develops from the earlier “consolidated works.”27 The single story is necessitated by the fact that the most evolved materials handling and transport technologies are horizontal rather than vertically acclimated. The square plan, of vast and open square bays, offered the most flexibility regarding potential alterations related to changing machines, layouts, and even building uses over time. To keep the floor space open, locker rooms, restrooms, and other secondary amenities are often located in lofts, roof trusses, penthouses, or a mezzanine level.28 The mezzanine is a common feature of industrial and light industrial architecture—not only for the above-mentioned spatial and adaptability concerns, but such spaces were used to supervise workers or for members of the public to view the production process at a remove from the workers themselves. Along with the mezzanine, platforms and elevated walkways are other common features.

22 Ajay Kumar Ghosh, Dictionary of Geology (New Delhi : Isha Books, 2005) 170. 23 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 88. 24 “War Requirements Accelerate Progress in Design,” in Kenneth Reid, A.I.A. (Ed.), Industrial Buildings: The Architectural Record of a Decade (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1951) 46-48. 25 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 47. 26 “Factory Design Offers a Challenge to Every Architect.” in Kenneth Reid, A.I.A. (Ed.), Industrial Buildings: The Architectural Record of a Decade (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1951) 28. 27 Bradley, The Works, 74-76. 28 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 39; Bradley, The Works, 29.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-28 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

The reception and office areas (Figure 5-21) are just off the main entrance and Figure 5-21. A Stylized Reception Area, are often separated from the production Shure Bros., Illinois. c.1956 area. The main entrance is often articulated and stylized in a manner that the factory portion itself is not.

Such stylization at the main entrance, along with stylized reception and office areas, were designed to impress potential clients and visitors . In addition, main entrance and lobby stylization was proposed as a morale booster for workers that would need to enter through it en route to the production area. Additionally it was hoped this feature may keep the workers tidy, as at any moment they could be sharing the space with visitors.29 Source: James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An Analysis of International Building Practice (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) 40. Many light industrial buildings have rhythmically spaced, periodic window bays. In many of the smaller-scale post-war variants, these windows Figure 5-22. Sawtooth Roof: Typical Section were commonly multi- light metal frame with an operable awning or hopper window set within it to allow for ventilation. Often such natural lighting at exterior walls alone would not be enough to disperse across the span of a large floor and top lighting would be used. In instances Source: James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An Analysis of International Building Practice (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) where top lighting is 89. natural, industrial buildings would commonly incorporate a “sawtooth” roof (Figure 5-22).

The term comes from the exterior profile of such roofs of repeating, jagged points akin to the teeth of a saw. The long, repeating angled banks of windows contain north-facing glazing so as to allow in light but never the penetrating sun that would occur with south- facing glazing. Early fire insurance specialists first advocated the use of such roofs in

29 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 39

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-29 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

America about 1879.30 By 1890, such roofs were in widespread use, primarily in textile industry buildings, and would become prevalent in any variety of industrial architecture until World War II.31 Sawtooth roofs are typically supported by columns at their valleys but may also be supported by any variety of truss systems that alleviate the need for columns.32 It is unknown if columns or trusses support this portion of the Neyenesch Printers building, which, constructed in 1958, is a fairly late example of using such a roof. After 1952, only 15 percent of American factories/ manufacturing buildings of any type had top lighting.33 For its consistency of illumination, artificial lighting became increasingly desirable, although a degree of natural light is presumably still desired.

Pre-Planning Arguably more than any other building type, the time and thought of planning industrial architecture is front-loaded compared to the rapidity with which the building was to be completed; lost time was lost productivity and profit. The approach mastered by Albert Kahn of assembling a consortium of engineering and factory design experts became common in the mass production era of the 1920s and gained even more momentum after World War II, when architectural firms hired these experts as in-house staff. This is seen as a distinctly North American approach, and such firms designed numerous if not most post-war American factories and other industrial buildings.34 Such firms, which often featured a civil engineering component, would later become responsible for designing the major infrastructure and other institutional Figure 5-23. The Flow of Materials buildings of emerging cities, including through the Toledo Scale Factory: All post-war Los Angeles. under One Roof within a Square-Plan

The flow of materials and employees, along with order of production within a space called “process engineering,” were among pre-planned elements (Figure 5-23). Mid-Century factory design dictated that machines rather than human handling should be used whenever possible to transform raw materials into a finished product.

Many factories and light industrial buildings are parsed into three parts: process line, production area, and ancillary storage areas. In early factories Source: James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An and light industrial buildings the conveyor Analysis of International Building Practice (New would connect the three separate portions York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) 43.

30 Bradley, The Works, 192. 31 Ibid., 193. 32 Bradley, The Works, 192. 33 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 50; “Factory Design Offers a Challenge to Every Architect.” Reid, Industrial Buildings, 28-29. 34 Munce, Industrial Architecture, 55.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-30 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

in the most efficient manner possible. Rollers, forklifts, and for larger scale buildings— gantry and other cranes—were also used to efficiently transport materials.35

Efficient movement of materials was not just an issue taken up within factory walls, but the building’s location became equally vital (Figure 5-24). The earliest industrial architecture was located near waterways, and later roads. With the advent of the locomotive, the property type would be constructed near railways, and this continues to be the case. The rear portion of the Neyenesh Printers building abuts an Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe rail right-of-way and is part of a sizeable San Diego industrial district centered about the railway and located near an international airport.

Figure 5-24. Proper Location is Economically Vital, Spurs. Crown Co., Pennsylvania (This industrial facility is immediately off rail)

Source: James F. Munce, Industrial Architecture: An Analysis of International Building Practice (New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation, 1960) 43.

The Late-Moderne Although the Neyenesch Printers building is foremost a functionalist design, the building presents elements of an applied and decorative design system: the Late Moderne. Expressionist versions of Modernism had developed parallel to the International Style as developed and practiced by Behrens, Gropius, Mies, and pre-World War II Le Corbusier. As an increasing amount of the general public began to find Modernism alienating, architects introduced “Expressionist” concepts and design elements.

Largely a post-World War II design system, Late Moderne evolved out of the 1930s era “Streamline Moderne” design system. Modernist in spirit although subtly decorative, Streamline Moderne called for rounded corners, a lack of excessive ornament, and decorative design references to the machines whose utilitarian functionalism early modernists so emulated. These machines include ocean liners, airplanes, locomotives, and occasionally automobiles.

35 Ibid., 42.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-31 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

The post-war Late-Moderne style retains this decorative, softened modernism, sans the overt references to machines. Late-Moderne features include an emphasis on horizontality, rounded corners, horizontal window bands, bezeled window frames, block molding at edges, asymmetrical design compositions, integrated monument signs, mast- like flagpoles, and pronounced canopies over entrances. Angular, boxy compositions were also common.

Many of the above-mentioned features are present upon the Neyenesch Printers building (Figure 5-25). These include an asymmetrical entry composition with a pronounced, flat-roofed, rounded entrance canopy, block molding running atop the building’s street-facing east wall, abstracted decorative brickwork paneling at columns between window bays, a centered flagpole, and bands of multi-light metal frame windows. Constructed in 1958, Neyenesch Printers is a rather late example of the style that had largely run its course by the early 1950s. At the building’s entryway, the use of flagstone and decorative ceramic tiles are Expressionistic design flourishes of a relaxed rather than austere Modernism. Additionally, the building’s entry program of large picture window and full-height glass doors topped with a large glass transom is a common feature of vernacular Mid-Century Modernism.

Figure 5-25. The Neyenesch Printers Building, San Diego, CA, 1958 (North-facing articulated entrance with Late-Moderne design features; horizontal band windows and decorative brickwork at east elevation; sunken production area with sawtooth top lighting and large-bay multi-glazing with operable awning units)

Source: Photos courtesy GANDA, October, 2011

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-32 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

San Diego and Communities Today (1970s to present) Currently, San Diego is moving away from a military-based economy to a more diversified economy with the formation of numerous biotechnology, telecommunications, and other technology firms (Davis et al., 2003:324–325). Additionally, the urban renewal of Downtown San Diego in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the opening of Sea World in 1964, and the establishment of the Old Town San Diego State Historic Park and Presidio Park in the 1980s are just a few of the attractions that make San Diego a popular tourist destination today (Davis et al., 2003; Hof, 1990).

Development in Clairemont Mesa and Linda Vista from the 1970s to the present has followed pre-established patterns. Development continues to be composed largely of suburban, residential development, mostly from the 1950s and 1960s, with small pockets of industrial and commercial properties within the architectural APE. Located in a corner area of Clairemont Mesa, commercial properties primarily line Morena Boulevard from Tecolote Road north to Clairemont Drive, where the neighborhood transitions to a residential area comprising single-family homes from Clairemont Drive to Balboa Avenue. Two commercial/light-industrial areas remain at the southern end at Tecolote Road and at the northern end between Balboa Avenue and SR 52. The portion of the architectural APE within Linda Vista continues to contain largely industrial properties in the southern half (north of Friars Road) and largely commercial properties in the northern half (south of Tecolote Road).

San Diego’s planners have divided the city into distinct community planning areas to take into account the diverse history of each area (City of San Diego, 2011b). Seven community planning areas are located in the architectural APE (described from south to north):

Centre City (Downtown San Diego) Centre City encompasses eight different neighborhoods: Gaslamp, East Village, Columbia, Marina, Cortez, Little Italy, Horton Plaza, and Core. The architectural APE passes through the neighborhoods of Columbia and Little Italy. The Centre City community has been under redevelopment since 1975 (Centre City Development Corporation, 2006).

Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor The Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor community is located north of Centre City, between Old Town San Diego and Point Loma. This community comprises approximately 800 acres of mostly flat land and contains the central Midway area and the narrow, linear-shaped Pacific Highway Corridor. Some of the city’s oldest industrial areas are located in this community (City of San Diego, 1991).

Old Town San Diego The Old Town San Diego community encompasses 230 acres and is bounded on the north by I-8 and Mission Valley, on the west by I-5 and Midway Drive, and on the south and east by the Uptown and Mission Hills hillsides. The Old Town Planned District Ordinance regulates all development in the community in order to replicate, retain, and enhance the distinctive character of the historic area that existed here prior to 1871 (City

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-33 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

of San Diego, 1987). The Old Town San Diego National Register Historic District was listed in the NRHP in 1971 and is San Diego Historical Landmark #14 (Bisbee, 1971).

Mission Valley The Mission Valley community comprises approximately 2,418 acres and is located near the geographic center of the City of San Diego. It is bounded on the west by I-5, on the north by Friars Road west of SR 163 and by the northern slopes of the valley east of SR 163, on the east by the eastern bank of the San Diego River, and on the south by approximately the 150-foot elevation contour line. The western portion of the community, specifically, the San Diego River, lies within the architectural APE (City of San Diego, 1985).

Linda Vista The Linda Vista community comprises about 2,400 acres. The planning area is generally bounded on the south by Friars Road, on the west by I-5, on the north by Tecolote Canyon and Mesa College Drive, and on the east by SR 163. It is largely composed of low- to medium-density residential development. Many of the homes were constructing during World War II and the decades following and were largely designed in the Minimal Traditional or Ranch style (City of San Diego, 1998).

Clairemont Mesa The Clairemont Mesa community, extending over an area of 13.3 square miles, lies south of SR 52, west of I-805, north of Linda Vista, and east of I-5. The area is largely defined by its prominent topography. Developed areas of Clairemont Mesa sit primarily atop mesas, punctuated by several major canyon systems, with San Clemente Canyon to the north and Tecolote Canyon weaving through the center of the community. Several significant commercial centers serve Clairemont Mesa and are located at the intersections of major transportation corridors, such as Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, as well as Balboa Avenue and Genesee Avenue. Smaller pockets of commercial development are interspersed throughout the community and along Morena Boulevard (City of San Diego, 1989).

University City University City encompasses approximately 8,500 acres. The area is bounded by Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and the toe of the east-facing slopes of Sorrento Valley on the north; the railroad tracks, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, and I-805 on the east; SR 52 on the south; and I-5, Gilman Drive, North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Farms, and the Pacific Ocean on the west (City of San Diego, 1986). 5.2 Records Search Results This section discusses the results of the record search conducted for the project.

5.2.1 Previous Studies within a Quarter-mile of the Architectural APE San Diego has been the subject of a large number of cultural resources studies in the past three decades. The records search identified 315 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a quarter-mile of the architectural APE. Of these cultural

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-34 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

resources studies, five studies primarily address historic architecture properties adjacent to the architectural APE (Table 5-1).

Table 5-1. Previous Historic Architecture Studies adjacent to the Architectural APE

SCIC Report Proximity to Number Study Name Author and Date APE Clement 93-01 Historic Architecture Survey Report and Historic Study Report for Clement and Van Adjacent the Caltrans District 11 Office Complex, Old Town San Diego Bueren, 1993 Historic 31 Mission Brewery / American Agar Company Various Adjacent May 06-17 Uptown Historic Architectural and Cultural Landscape May, 2006 Adjacent Reconnaissance Survey Brandes 80-65 National Register of Historic Places, the McClintock Storage Brandes and Ray, Adjacent Warehouse 1980 Historic 95 General Dynamics Facilities, 3302 Pacific Highway, San Diego Various Adjacent Sources: GANDA, 2012; SCIC, 2012; Caltrans, 1993 Notes: SCIC = South Coastal Information Center; APE = Area of Potential Effects; Caltrans = California Department of Transportation

5.2.2 Previously Recorded Properties within the Architectural APE The records search revealed seven previously recorded properties more than 45 years old (i.e., constructed on or before 1966) that are located within the architectural APE. These properties include Air Force Plant 19 (Property No. 17) and six roadway bridges (Property Nos. 19, 32, 153, 158, 159, and 160).

5.2.2.1 Air Force Plant 19 Air Force Plant 19 consists of a 13-building complex constructed by Consolidated Aircraft Corporation from 1941 to the 1950s (Table 5-2). This property was determined to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and City of San Diego Register by the SHPO in 1996.

Table 5-2. Property Information for Air Force Plant 19

Property Primary Number Number CHR (Assigned (Assigned by Property Construction Status by GANDA) SCIC) Name/Type Property Address Date Code* Reference 17 None Air Force Plant 19, 4297 Pacific Highway 1941–1950s 6Y The Chambers industrial Group et al., 1994 Sources: GANDA, 2012; SCIC, 2012 Notes: GANDA = Garcia and Associates; SCIC = South Coastal Information Center; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places *CHR Status Code: 6Y = Determined ineligible for NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process (Appendix F contains a complete list of the CHR Status Codes)

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-35 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

5.2.2.2 Roadway Bridges Caltrans surveyed the six roadway bridges during a statewide historic bridge inventory completed in 1986 and updated in 2010. Each bridge was evaluated and assigned one of five categories (Caltrans, 2011a and 2011b):

1 – Listed on the National Register 2 – Eligible for National Register listing 3 – May be eligible for National Register listing 4 – Unevaluated (Generally, Category 4 bridges constructed before 1960 are associated with properties that have not been evaluated, such as railroads, canals, or potentially eligible historic roads) 5 – Ineligible for National Register listing

The six bridges within the architectural APE have been determined by Caltrans to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP and have been assigned Category 5 (Table 5-3). However, Caltrans did not evaluate the bridges for listing in the CRHR and City of San Diego Register and did not record them on DPR 523 forms.

Therefore, as part of this survey effort, the six bridges were evaluated for listing in the CRHR and were recorded on DPR 523 forms located in Appendix E.

Table 5-3. Roadway Bridges more than 45 Years Old within the Architectural APE

Property Number Caltrans Caltrans CHR (Assigned by Bridge Construction Eligibility Status GANDA) Number Bridge Name Location Date Determination Code** 19 57C0239 San Diego Spans north-south over 1933, widened 5. Bridge not 6Z River (Pacific San Diego River 0.45 mile in 1952 eligible for NRHP Highway) east of Sea World Dr 32 57C0029 Tecolote Creek Spans north-south over 1957 5. Bridge not 6Z Tecolote Creek 0.5 mile eligible for NRHP north of Morena Blvd 153 57C0171 Rose Creek Spans north-south over 1966 5. Bridge not 6Z Rose Creek 0.8 mile north eligible for NRHP of Garnet Ave 158 57 0301 Nobel Dr OC Spans east-west over I-5; 1966, widened 5. Bridge not 6Z 11-SD-005-R28.16-SD in 1990 eligible for NRHP 159 57 0525 La Jolla Village Spans east-west over I-5; 1966, widened 5. Bridge not 6Z Dr OC 11-SD-005-R28.43-SD in 1992 eligible for NRHP 160 57 0526 Voigt Dr OC Spans east-west over I-5; 1966 5. Bridge not 6Z 11-SD-005-R29.09-SD eligible for NRHP Sources: Caltrans, 2011a and 2011b Notes: APE = Area of Potential Effects; GANDA = Garcia and Associates; Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; OC = overcrossing; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places *CHR Status Code: 6Z = Found ineligible for NRHP, CRHR, or local designation through survey evaluation (Appendix F contains a complete list of the CHR Status Codes)

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-36 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

5.2.3 Previously Recorded Properties Adjacent to the Architectural APE The records search revealed 12 previously recorded properties adjacent to the architectural APE (Table 5-4). They consist of the following:

· Four properties currently listed in the NRHP, CRHR, and City of San Diego Register (Santa Fe Depot, McClintock Storage Warehouse, Mission Brewery, and Old Town San Diego Historic District) · Six properties listed in the City of San Diego Register (San Diego Grain and Milling Co./Parron Hall Co., Star Builders Company Building, San Diego Macaroni Manufacturing Co., Sidewalk Stamp—San Diego Macaroni, Dutch Flats/Ryan Field, and Stough-Beckett Cottage) · One property found eligible for the NRHP (Caltrans District 11 Maintenance Building) · One property determined ineligible for the NRHP (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad)

Table 5-4. Previously Recorded Properties Adjacent to the Architectural APE

Property Primary Number Number (Assigned by (Assigned by Property Construction CHR Status GANDA) SCIC) Property Name Address Date Code* Reference None P-37-017443 Santa Fe Depot (San 1050 Kettner 1915 1S, 5S1 Spurgeon, Diego Historical Blvd 1975 Landmark #56) None P-37-024739 Burlington Northern Segments span 1882–1883 to 6Y Tang et al., Santa Fe Railway from Ash St present 2002 south to E. 24th St None P-37-028540 McClintock Storage 1202–1210 1925 1S, 5S1 Brandes and Warehouse (San Diego Kettner Blvd Ray, 1980 Historical Landmark #145) None None San Diego Grain and 820 W. Ash St 1909 5S1 City of San Milling Co. / Parron Hall Diego, Co. (San Diego 2011c Historical Landmark #257) None None Star Builders Company 726–732 W. 1911 5S1 Lia/Brandes Building (San Diego Beech St Team, 1989 Historical Landmark #312) None None San Diego Macaroni 2308 Kettner 1924 5S1 City of San Manufacturing Co. (San Blvd Diego, Diego Historical 2011c Landmark #267) None None Sidewalk Stamp—San 2308 Kettner unknown 5S1 City of San Diego Macaroni (San Blvd Diego, Diego Historical 2011c Landmark #268)

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-37 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-4. Previously Recorded Properties Adjacent to the Architectural APE (continued)

Property Primary Number Number (Assigned by (Assigned by Construction CHR Status GANDA) SCIC) Property Name Property Address Date Code* Reference None P-37-023914 Mission Brewery 2120–2150 W. 1913 1S, 5S1 City of San (San Diego Washington St./1751 Diego, Historical Hancock St 2011c Landmark #232) None None Old Town San Bounded by Wallace ca. 1820s– 1S, 5S1 Bisbee, Diego Historic St, Juan St, Congress 1870s 1971 District (San St, and Twiggs St Diego Historical Landmark #14) None None Caltrans District 4075 Taylor St ca. 1938 3S Clement and 11 Maintenance Van Bueren, Building 1993 None None Dutch Flats/Ryan One parcel bounded 1925 5S1 Buckley, Field (San Diego by Sports Arena Blvd, 1990 Historical Enterprise St, Midway Landmark #249) Dr, and Rosecrans St and one parcel bounded by Midway Dr, Barnett Ave, Blakely Dr, and Bogley Dr None None Stough-Beckett 2203 Denver St 1888 5S1 City of San Cottage (San Diego, Diego Historical 2011c Landmark #146) Sources: GANDA, 2012; SCIC, 2012; Caltrans, 1993 Notes: APE = Area of Potential Effects; GANDA = Garcia and Associates; SCIC = South Coastal Information Center; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources *CHR Status Code: 1S = Individual property listed in the NRHP by the Keeper and listed in the CRHR; 3S = Appears eligible for NRHP as an individual property through survey evaluation; 5S1 = Individual property that is listed or designated locally; 6Y = Determined ineligible for NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process (Appendix F contains a complete list of the CHR Status Codes)

5.3 Field Survey Results Based on the results of the records search and intensive-level field survey, the architectural APE contains 163 properties, including two districts, that are more than 45 years old (i.e., constructed on or before 1966). GANDA assigned Property Nos. 1 through 163, with two property numbers eliminated (Property Nos. 112 and 154). For the two additional districts evaluated by ICF International (ICF), ICF assigned Property Nos. 164 and 165. A map of the 163 properties is presented in Appendix D. DPR 523 forms for the 163 properties are provided in Appendix E.

Seven of these properties had been previously documented, including Air Force Plant 19, which was determined to be ineligible for the NRHP, CRHR, and City of San Diego Register, and six Caltrans roadway bridges, which were found ineligible for listing in the NRHP, but were not documented on DPR 523 forms.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-38 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

The field survey identified 156 newly documented properties that are more than 45 years old. Five of these properties are assumed eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR (Table S-1). The remaining 151 newly documented properties were found to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under any of the significance criteria.

Table 5-5 presents the known information about the 162 properties evaluated for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, consisting of 156 newly documented properties and 6 previously documented properties (i.e., the six Caltrans roadway bridges), including the address, property type, construction date, and evaluation.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-39 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property CHR Status Number Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Construction Date Code* Criteria 1 N/A CA-SDI-16385H/P-37-024739, N/A Various 1882–1883 6Z N/A BNSF Railway, Segments 1-5 2 1411-1415 W. Palm St industrial 451-65-103-00 Midway/Pacific ca. 1949 6L N/A Highway Corridor 3 2750 Kettner Blvd industrial 451-65-305-00 Midway/Pacific ca. 1959 3S, 3CS C/3 Highway Corridor 4 3225 Bean St industrial (Quonset Hut) 451-69-032-00 Midway/Pacific ca. 1945 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 5 1691 Hancock St commercial 451-59-032-00 Midway/Pacific 1954 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 6 3703-3705 Pacific Coast commercial 451-59-043-00 Midway/Pacific ca. 1920-1950 6Z N/A Hwy Highway Corridor 7 1929 Hancock St industrial 450-64-112-00 Midway/Pacific 1950 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 8 2036-2038 Hancock St single-family residential 450-61-202-00 Midway/Pacific 1925 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 9 2049 Kurtz St industrial 450-60-210-00 Midway/Pacific 1964 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 10 2053-2055 Kurtz St commercial 450-60-103-00 Midway/Pacific 1961 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 11 2057 Kurtz St commercial 450-601-02-00 Midway/Pacific 1954 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 12 2061-2077 Kurtz St industrial 450-60-106-00 Midway/Pacific 1946 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 13 4025 Pacific Hwy industrial 450-60-105-00 Midway/Pacific 1947 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 14 2122 Hancock St commercial 450-583-05-00 Midway/Pacific 1963 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 15 4085 Pacific Hwy commercial 450-57-016-00 Midway/Pacific 1955 6Z N/A Highway Corridor

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-40 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 16 2163 Hancock St industrial 450-58-408-00 Midway/Pacific 1950 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 18 4477 Pacific Hwy industrial 442-45-015-00 Midway/Pacific ca. 1941 6Z N/A Highway Corridor 19 Caltrans Bridge steel stringer, multi-beam girder N/A Midway/Pacific 1933 6Z N/A #57C0239, bridge Highway Corridor San Diego River (Pacific Highway) Bridge 20 BNSF Railroad Bridge #1 single track, steel pony girder N/A Linda Vista 1914 6Z N/A railroad bridge 21 877 Sherman St commercial 436-45-106-00 Linda Vista 1951 6Z N/A 22 5280 Anna Ave industrial 436-66-026-00 Linda Vista ca. 1962 6Z N/A 23 5265 Lovelock St industrial 436-66-025-00 Linda Vista 1961 6Z N/A 24 5258–5284 Anna Ave industrial 436-66-014-00 Linda Vista 1954 6Z N/A 25 5225–5245 Lovelock St industrial 436-44-025-00 Linda Vista 1954 6Z N/A 26 4901–4909 Pacific Hwy industrial 436-44-022-00 Linda Vista 1953-1955 6Z N/A 436-44-023-00 27 5202 Lovelock St industrial 436-44-016-00 Linda Vista 1953 6Z N/A 28 4882 Naples St multifamily residential 436-03-016-00 Linda Vista 1952 6Z N/A 29 4874 Naples St multifamily residential 436-030-15-00 Linda Vista 1955 6Z N/A 30 4875–4883 Naples St multifamily residential 436-03-012-00 Linda Vista ca. 1953 3S, 3CS C/3 436-03-011-00 31 BNSF Railroad Bridge #2 double track, concrete deck, N/A Linda Vista ca. 1963 6Z N/A beam-girder railroad bridge 32 Caltrans Bridge, continuous concrete slab bridge N/A Clairemont Mesa 1957 6Z N/A #57C0029 Tecolote Creek 33 1177–1205 Knoxville St commercial 436-03-024-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961, 1970 6Z N/A 34 1245 Knoxville St multi-use warehouse 436-03-019-00 Clairemont Mesa 1963 6Z N/A

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-41 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 35 1244 Knoxville St industrial 436-02-046-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 36 1458-1468 Morena Blvd commercial 436-02-045-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 37 1540 Morena Blvd commercial 436-02-004-00 Clairemont Mesa 1956 6Z N/A 38 1579 Morena Blvd recreational vehicle park 436-02-041-00 Clairemont Mesa 1947 6Z N/A 39 1623–1645 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 436-02-040-00 Clairemont Mesa 1944–1958 6Z N/A 40 1655 Morena Blvd commercial 436-02-033-00 Clairemont Mesa 1962 6Z N/A 41 1717 Morena Blvd commercial 436-02-036-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 42 1398 Lieta Street single-family residential 430-68-009-00 Clairemont Mesa 1937 6Z N/A 43 1801 Morena Blvd commercial 430-66-025-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 44 1813–1815 Morena Blvd commercial 430-66-010-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 45 1817 Morena Blvd commercial 430-66-009-00 Clairemont Mesa 1965 6Z N/A 46 1865 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-66-005-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1950 6Z N/A 47 1901 Morena Blvd residential/commercial 430-73-105-00 Clairemont Mesa 1953 6Z N/A 48 1915–1917 Morena Blvd commercial 430-73-104-00 Clairemont Mesa 1965 6Z N/A 49 1929-1935 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-73-102-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 50 1939-1943 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-73-101-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 51 1951-1959 Morena Blvd / commercial 430-48-201-00 Clairemont Mesa 1952 6Z N/A 4101-4105 Ashton St 52 2005 Morena Blvd commercial 430-33-105-00 Clairemont Mesa 1960 6Z N/A 53 2027–2035 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-33-104-00 Clairemont Mesa 1958 6Z N/A 54 2043 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-33-120-00 Clairemont Mesa 1948 6Z N/A 55 2051-2057 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-33-119-00 Clairemont Mesa 1952 6Z N/A 56 2059-2063 Morena Blvd residential 430-33-102-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 57 2069-2075 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-33-101-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 58 2111 Morena Blvd commercial 430-840-20-00 Clairemont Mesa 1966 6Z N/A

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-42 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 59 2221 Morena Blvd commercial 430-17-205-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 60 2229–2231 Morena Blvd commercial 430-17-216-00 Clairemont Mesa 1965 6Z N/A 61 2239-2245 Morena Blvd residential 430-17-202-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 62 2311-2313 Morena Blvd residential 430-17-106-00 Clairemont Mesa 1953 6Z N/A 63 2315–2319 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 430-17-105-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1950s 6Z N/A 64 2335 Morena Blvd Old Trieste Restaurant 430-17-103-00 Clairemont Mesa 1952; 1963 3S, 3CS A/1, C/3 65 2351 Morena Blvd/4117 mixed-use 430-17-117-00 Clairemont Mesa 1957 6Z N/A Kane St (commercial/residential) 66 2405 Morena Blvd residential/commercial 430-09-205-00 Clairemont Mesa 1948 6Z N/A 67 2415 Morena Blvd commercial 430-09-204-00 Clairemont Mesa 1950 6Z N/A 68 2423 Morena Blvd commercial 430-09-203-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1950 6Z N/A 69 2505 Morena Blvd gas station 430-09-103-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 70 2525 Morena Blvd commercial 430-09-102-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 71 2525–2565 Clairemont Dr commercial 430-03-056-00 Clairemont Mesa 1958 6Z N/A 72 2827–2831 Morena Blvd multifamily residential 425-51-105-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1961 6Z N/A 73 2865 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-51-141-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1966 6Z N/A 74 2871 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-51-142-00 Clairemont Mesa 1966 6Z N/A 75 2877 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-51-140-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1966 6Z N/A 76 2885 McGraw St residential 425-51-103-00 Clairemont Mesa 1965 6Z N/A 77 2893 McGraw St residential 425-51-139-00 Clairemont Mesa 1965 6Z N/A 78 2905 McGraw St single-family residential 425-50-009-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 79 2936 McGraw St single-family residential 425-50-007-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A 80 2956 McGraw St single-family residential 425-50-005-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A 81 3004 McGraw St single-family residential 425-50-003-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A 82 3014 McGraw St single-family residential 425-50-002-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-43 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 83 3024 McGraw St single-family residential 425-50-001-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 84 3034 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-010-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 85 3040 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-009-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 86 3056 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-008-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 87 3078 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-006-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 88 3102 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-005-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 89 3112 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-004-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 90 3122 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-003-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 91 3132 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-002-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 92 3142 McGraw St single-family residential 425-39-001-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A 93 3152 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-011-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A 94 3162 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-010-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 95 3172 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-009-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 96 3182 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-008-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 97 3204 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-007-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 98 3214 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-006-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 99 3224 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-005-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 100 3234 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-004-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 101 3244 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-003-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1958 6Z N/A 102 3254 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-002-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 103 3264 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-001-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1959 6Z N/A 104 3303 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-101-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 105 3304 McGraw St Single-family residential 425-29-124-00 Clairemont Mesa 1952 6Z N/A 106 3308 McGraw St Single-family residential 425-29-123-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 107 3245 McGraw St single-family residential 425-38-020-00 Vista Bahia Unit No. I 1957 6Z N/A

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-44 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 108 3301 McGraw St single-family residential 425-29-217-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 109 3309 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-102-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 110 3315 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-103-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 111 3321 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-104-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 113 3337 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-106-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 114 3345 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-107-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 115 3351 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-108-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 116 3359 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-109-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 117 3367 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-110-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 118 3375 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-29-111-00 Clairemont Mesa 1951 6Z N/A 119 3350 Baker St Toler Elementary School 425-15-005-00 Clairemont Mesa 1960 6Z N/A 120 3435 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-15-009-00 Clairemont Mesa 1904 3S, 3CS A/1 121 3441 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-15-010-00 Clairemont Mesa 1952 6Z N/A 122 3527 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-03-210-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 123 3535 Morena Blvd single-family residential 425-03-209-00 Clairemont Mesa 1943 6Z N/A 124 3543 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-03-208-00 Clairemont Mesa 1950 6Z N/A 125 3551 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-03-207-00 Clairemont Mesa 1957 6Z N/A 126 3559 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-03-206-00 Clairemont Mesa 1960 6Z N/A 127 3584 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-03-112-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 128 3606 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-223-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 129 3612 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-211-00 Clairemont Mesa 1958 6Z N/A 130 3620 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-212-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 131 3628 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-227-00 Clairemont Mesa 1920s/2000 6Z N/A 132 3660 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-217-00 Clairemont Mesa 1961 6Z N/A 133 3672 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-218-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-45 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 134 3678 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-219-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 135 3684 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-220-00 Clairemont Mesa 1957 6Z N/A 136 3690 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-221-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 137 3609 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-312-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 138 3611 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-311-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 139 3619 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-310-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 140 3627 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-309-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 141 3633 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-013-08-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 142 3641 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-307-00 Clairemont Mesa 1958 6Z N/A 143 3665 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-013-06-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 144 3675 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-304-00 Clairemont Mesa 1960 6Z N/A 145 3683 Paul Jones Ave single-family residential 425-01-303-00 Clairemont Mesa 1958 6Z N/A 146 BNSF Railroad Bridge #3 steel stringer, multi-beam N/A Clairemont Mesa 1956 6Z N/A railroad bridge 147 2974 Garnet Ave industrial 424-57-219-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1950 6Z N/A 148 4600–4760 Santa Fe St industrial 424-57-218-00 Clairemont Mesa 1954 6Z N/A 149 3809 Morena Blvd industrial 676-03-001-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1953–1964 6Z N/A 150 4848–4950 Santa Fe St industrial 424-57-111-00 Clairemont Mesa ca. 1953–1964 6Z N/A 424-57-112-00 151 5002 Santa Fe St industrial 424-57-113-00 Clairemont Mesa 1955 6Z N/A 152 5050 Santa Fe St commercial 424-57-114-00 Clairemont Mesa 1959 6Z N/A 153 Caltrans Bridge continuous concrete bridge N/A Clairemont Mesa 1966 6Z N/A #57C0171, Rose Creek Bridge 155 BNSF Railroad Bridge #5 single track, concrete deck, N/A Clairemont Mesa ca. 1950s 6Z N/A beam-girder railroad bridge

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-46 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-5. Properties Evaluated for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Location Information Historic Property Evaluation Property Number (Assigned Construction CHR Status by GANDA) Property Address Property Name/Type APN Neighborhood Date Code* Criteria 156 BNSF Railroad Bridge #6 single track, concrete deck, N/A Clairemont Mesa ca. 1950s 6Z N/A beam-girder railroad bridge 157 BNSF Railroad Bridge #7 double track, wood trestle bridge N/A University City ca. 1950s 6Z N/A 158 Caltrans Bridge #57 0301, continuous concrete bridge N/A University City 1966 6Z N/A Nobel Dr OC Bridge 159 Caltrans Bridge #57 0525, continuous concrete bridge N/A University City 1966 6Z N/A La Jolla Village Dr OC Bridge 160 Caltrans Bridge #57 0526, continuous concrete bridge N/A University City 1966 6Z N/A Voigt Dr OC Bridge 161 Camp Matthews Sentry sentry booth N/A University City ca. 1943–1944 3S, 3CS A/1, C/3 Booth 162 Genesee Substation electrical substation 343-14-009-00 University City ca. 1966–1971 6Z N/A La Jolla Country Day School; 163 9490 Genesee Ave Government/Public 345-080-12-00 University City 1961 6Z N/A 164 2905-3264 McGraw St Vista Bahia Unit No. I various Clairemont Mesa 1957-1959 6Z N/A 1500-2400 Blocks Morena Morena Boulevard Postwar 165 Blvd Commercial District various Clairemont Mesa 1937-2009 6Z N/A Sources: GANDA, 2012; ICF International, 2013; National Register of Historic Places, 2012; California Register of Historical Resources, 2012 Notes: NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; APE = Area of Potential Effects; GANDA = Garcia and Associates; APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number; BNSF = Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; OC = overcrossing *CHR Status Code: 3S = Appears eligible for NRHP as an individual property through survey evaluation; 3CS = Appears eligible for CRHR as an individual property through survey evaluation; 6Z = Found ineligible for NRHP or CRHR through survey evaluation (Appendix F contains a complete list of the CHR Status Codes)

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-47 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

5.3.1 Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR The following five newly-identified properties are assumed eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR (Table 5-6).

Table 5-6. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE

Property Location and Evaluation Photographs Property Number: 3 Address: 2750 Kettner Boulevard APN: 451-65-305-00 Construction Date: ca. 1959 CHR Status Codes: 3S (appears eligible for NRHP through a survey evaluation), 3CS (appears eligible for CRHR through a survey evaluation) Criteria: NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E Period of Significance: ca. 1959 Significance: With its distinctive entrance and industrial architectural features, the building at 2750 Kettner Boulevard represents a significant blend of mid-century Modern industrial architecture in San Diego. Its main entrance at the northeast corner forms the building’s focal point, and the lower-level portion View southwest toward the façade. Taken on October of the building to the west features characteristic saw-tooth 24, 2011 (Photo Accession #521-01-794). monitors on the roof. Bands of industrial, steel-sash industrial windows line the western portion of the façade, while additional industrial, steel-sash industrial windows separated by shallow pilasters line the east elevation. Character-defining Features: · Main entrance with a projecting, flat canopy with a rounded corner; aluminum-sash storefront windows; expanse of tiling on a sidewall, and decorative travertine floor · Flat roof on the eastern portion and saw-tooth monitors on the western portion · Split-level height with the upper portion along Kettner Boulevard and lower portion to the west · Steel-sash industrial windows along the façade and east elevation · Wide, shallow pilasters separating the windows on the east elevation · Concrete construction View southwest toward the façade. Taken on October · Stucco cladding 24, 2011 (Photo Accession #521-01-796). · Rectangular plan

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-48 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-6. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Property Location and Evaluation Photographs Property Number: 30 Address: 4875–4883 Naples Street APNs: 436-03-012-00 and 436-03-011-00 Construction Date: ca. 1953 CHR Status Codes: 3S, 3CS Criteria: NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E Period of Significance: ca. 1953 Significance: The buildings’ low-profile hipped roofs with wide eave overhangs; double-hung, wood-sash windows; wood lap siding; roof overhangs supported by wood diagonal braces sheltering the main entrances; and double-car garages oriented prominently toward the street are hallmark features of Ranch- style buildings constructed widely throughout San Diego from around 1950 to 1970. Therefore, these residential buildings, View north toward the property. Taken on October 25, which have sustained minimal, if any, exterior alterations, are 2011 (Photo Accession #521-01-1051). found to be a significant example of this architectural style in San Diego’s Linda Vista neighborhood. Character-defining Features: · Identical, mirror-image design of the two residential buildings and detached garages at each address · Location of the buildings forming a u-shape around a central courtyard · Garages oriented toward the street with wood awning doors · Square plans · Hipped roofs with wide eave overhangs · Wide wood lap siding · Board and batten siding at the main entrances · Roof hoods supported by diagonal braces at each entrance facing the courtyard · Fenestration, including four-over-four, double-hung, wood- sash windows · Landscaping, including tall, mature palm trees View north toward the front residential unit at 4883 Naples Street. Taken on October 25, 2011 (Photo Accession #521-01-1055).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-49 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-6. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Property Location and Evaluation Photographs Property Number: 120 Address: 3435 Morena Boulevard APN: 425-15-009-00 Construction Date: 1904 CHR Status Codes: 3S, 3CS Criteria: NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1, City of San Diego Register Criterion E Period of Significance: 1904 Significance: The main residence’s character-defining features, including its plan, cladding, roofing configuration, fenestration, front porch, and detailing, are hallmark features of Folk Victorian residences constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, this property is found to be a significant example of this architectural style in San Diego’s Clairemont Mesa neighborhood. View east toward the façade. Taken on March 10, Character-defining Features: 2011 (Photo Accession #521-01-319). · One-and-one-half story height · Square plan · Wood-frame construction · Wood drop siding · Corner boards with capitals and a wide frieze · Side-gable roof with prominent gabled dormer · Flared boxed eaves with eave returns · One-over-one, double-hung, wood-sash windows · Wide wood trim at the windows · Enclosed gable porch on the façade · Brick chimney

View southeast toward the façade and north elevation. Taken on October 25, 2011 (Photo Accession #521- 01-1024).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-50 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-6. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Property Location and Evaluation Photographs Property Number: 161 Address: 330 feet southeast of the intersection of Voigt Drive (formerly Miramar Road) and Campus Point Drive at UCSD APN: N/A Construction Date: ca. 1943-1944 CHR Status Codes: 3S, 3CS Criteria: NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E Period of Significance: ca. 1943-1944 Significance: With its compact size, thick concrete walls and roof, telescoping windows, and interior graffiti created by the men assigned to guard the military installation, the building stands as a significant example of a World War II-era military structure in San Diego and as an architectural monument to the marines who trained at Camp Matthews. View north toward the sentry booth. Taken on Character-defining Features: November 12, 2011 (Photo Accession #521-05-016). · Concrete construction with plain exterior walls · Rectangular plan · Thick, flat roof that protrudes slightly over the exterior walls · Pedestrian entrance on the façade · Telescoping windows on each elevation · Rounded interior corners · Interior wood desk attached to the east wall · World War II-era graffiti on the interior walls

Detail of graffiti on the building’s interior. Taken on November 12, 2011 (Photo Accession #521-05-026).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-51 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

Table 5-6. Properties Assumed Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR within the Architectural APE (continued)

Property Location and Evaluation Photographs Property Number: 64 Address: 2335 Morena Boulevard APN: 430-17-103-00 Construction Date: 1952; 1963 CHR Status Codes: 3S, 3CS Criteria: NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3, City of San Diego Register Criterion E Period of Significance: 1963 Significance: The property, erected in 1952 and known as the Old Trieste Restaurant since 1963, represents an increasingly rare example of a Continental-style fine-dining establishment along a once major highway. Therefore, the property appears eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with the broad pattern of postwar fine dining in San Diego, and under Criterion C as an excellent example of a rare View east toward the façade. Taken on February 27, property type. 2013. Character-defining Features: · Formal entrance with curved canvas awning · Rock veneer façade · Manicured landscaping · Tall signpost with restaurant name (previously neon) · Interior elements: dark interior, curved vinyl booths, wood- paneled walls, starched white tablecloths, tableside service, and Continental-style menu.

View southeast toward the façade. Taken on February 27, 2013.

Source: SANDAG, 2012; ICF International, 2013.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-52 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

5.3.2 Properties Found Not Eligible for Listing in NRHP and CRHR The remaining 151 newly-identified properties were found not eligible for listing under any of the significance criteria, as summarized in Table 5-5. DPR 523 forms for these properties are presented in Appendix E. This includes the five newly recorded segments of the BNSF (Property No. 1) and six associated railroad bridges (Property Nos. 20, 31, 146, 155, 156, and 157). A segment of the BNSF was surveyed previously and found ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or City of San Diego Register (Tang et al., 2002). The DPR 523 forms for the railway were updated to record the five BNSF segments and six BNSF railroad bridges.

In addition to the 151 newly-identified properties, the six Caltrans roadway bridges were found not eligible by the FTA for listing in the CRHR and City of San Diego Register under any of the significance criteria. Caltrans previously had found the bridges not eligible for the NRHP.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 5-53 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 5.0 – Existing Conditions (2010) and Determination of Eligibility

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 5-54 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

6.0 REFERENCES

Bisbee, Cliff M. 1971. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form: Old Town San Diego Historic District, San Diego, County of San Diego, California, NRIS (National Register Information System) No. 71000182.

Brandes, Dr. Ray, and Alvin W. Ray. 1980. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form: McClintock Storage Warehouse, 1202-1210 Kettner Boulevard, San Diego, County of San Diego, California, NRIS (National Register Information System) No. 80000845.

Buckley, Ron. 1990. City of San Diego Historical Site Board Report: Dutch Flats/Ryan Field, San Diego, County of San Diego, California, San Diego Historical Landmark #249. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011a. Structure Maintenance & Investigation: Local Agency Bridge List. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/local/localbrlist.pdf (accessed on November 10, 2011).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011b. Structure Maintenance & Investigation: Historical Significance-State Bridges. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/hs_state.pdf (accessed on November 10, 2011).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. Compiled by Association of Environmental Professionals. http://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA/CEQAHandbook2011.pdf (accessed December 3, 2011).

Centre City Development Corporation. 2006. San Diego Downtown Community Plan: Rising on the Pacific.

City of San Diego. 1985. Mission Valley Community Plan. Approved January 1985 and adopted June 1985 (last updated October 2008).

City of San Diego. 1986. University Community Plan. Approved December 1986 and adopted July 1987 (last updated April 2011).

City of San Diego. 1987. Old Town San Diego Community Plan. Approved May 1987 and adopted July 1987.

City of San Diego. 1989. Clairemont Mesa Community Plan. Approved April 1989 and adopted September 1989 (last updated May 2008).

City of San Diego. 1991. Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Adopted May 1991 (last updated March 2006).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 6-1 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

City of San Diego. 1998. Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Approved September 1998 and adopted December 1998 (last updated April 2011).

City of San Diego. 2004. San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code, Historical Resources Guidelines. http://www.sandiego.gov/development- services/industry/pdf/landdevmanual/ldmhistorical.pdf (accessed on March 24, 2011).

City of San Diego. 2007. San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/San%20Diego%20Modenism%20Context.p df (accessed on March 24, 2011).

City of San Diego, 2008. University Towne Center Revitalization Project Environmental Impact Report.

City of San Diego. 2011a. History of San Diego. http://www.sandiego.gov/city- clerk/geninfo/history.shtml (accessed on March 24, 2011).

City of San Diego. 2011b. Community Planning. http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/ (accessed on April 1, 2011).

City of San Diego. 2011c. Historical Landmarks Designated by the San Diego Historical Resources Board. http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/historical/pdf/register.pdf (accessed on April 20, 2011).

City of San Diego. 2011d. Guidelines for the Application of Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria. Adopted on August 27, 2009 and revised on February 24, 2011.

City of San Diego. 2011e. City of San Diego Midway Community Plan Area Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey: Historic Context & Survey Report. Draft February 8, 2011. Prepared by Galvin Preservation Associates Inc. Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/cpu/oldtownmidway/documents/midwa ycontext110208workshop.pdf

Clement, Doreen, and Thad M. Van Bueren. 1993. Historic Architectural Survey Report and Historic Study Report for the Caltrans District 11 Office Complex, Old Town San Diego City/County. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Collins, Arian E. 1991. “Pasture to Prosperity.” University City Light. January 24, 1991. Newspaper clipping on file at the San Diego History Center, San Diego, California.

Curtis, James and Larry L. Ford. 1988. “Bungalow Courts in San Diego: Monitoring a Sense of Place.” The Journal of San Diego History (San Diego Historical Society Quarterly) Spring 1988, v. 34, No. 2. Viewed at: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/88spring/bungalow.htm

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 6-2 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

Davis, Edward J. 1955. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps at San Diego. Pioneer Printers, San Diego.

Davis, Mike, Kelly Mayhew, and Jim Miller. 2003. Under the Perfect Sun: The San Diego Tourists Never See. The New Press, New York.

Denger, Mark. 1998. Historic Posts, Camps, Stations, and Airfields: Camp Matthews (Camp Calvin B. Matthews Marine Corps Range La Jolla). December 4, 1998. http://www.militarymuseum.org/CpMatthews.html (accessed on November 23, 2011).

Eddy, Lucinda. 1995. “Visions of Paradise: A Village in a City.” The Journal of San Diego History 41(3). http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/95summer/chapter20.htm (accessed on March 30, 2011).

Engstrand, Iris. 2005. San Diego: California’s Cornerstone. Sunbelt Publications, Inc., San Diego.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011a. Interstate Highway System. http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp (accessed on April 6, 2011).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011b. Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System. http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/final_task4ListFinal.pdf (accessed on April 27, 2011).

Garcia and Associates (GANDA). 2009. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cultural Resources Screening Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives. Prepared by Garcia and Associates, Contract 5000932, Task Order 1. Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff, San Diego, California.

Gish, Todd Douglas. 2007. Building Los Angeles: Urban Housing in the Suburban Metropolis, 1900–1936. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2007: 94.

Golden Triangle Metropolitan. 1989. “The Gilding of the Triangle.” Golden Triangle Metropolitan. May 1989. Newspaper clipping on file at the San Diego History Center, San Diego, California.

Handy, Norma H. 1993. Linda Vista: 1940-1945. Master’s Thesis, University of San Diego. Copley Library University Archives, San Diego, California.

Hanna, David C. 1980 A. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the University of California at San Diego. Prepared by RECON No. R-1043. Prepared for Turrini and Brink. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego.

Heritage Architecture and Planning. 2005. Warehouse Thematic Historic District, Draft City of San Diego Local District Nomination. Prepared for Centre City Development Corporation, San Diego, California.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 6-3 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

Hess, Alan. 2004. The Ranch House. New York: H.N. Abrams, 2004: 97.

Hof, Reiner M. 1990. “The Formative Years, 1958-1963: The Redevelopment of Downtown San Diego.” The Journal of San Diego History 36(1). http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/90winter/sdinc.htm (accessed on April 27, 2011).

Lia/Brandes Team. 1989. Historical Resources Survey Form: Star Builders Co. Building, 726-732 W. Beech Street, San Diego, County of San Diego, California, San Diego Historical Landmark #312. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Lorey-McAtee, Sheryl Anne. 1984. The Story of the Santa Fe Railroad in San Diego. Master’s Thesis, University of San Diego. Copley Library University Archives, San Diego, California.

Marovich, Mark Daniel. 1998. The Dependent Nature of Mission Valley: The Roles of the San Diego River and Economic Development of Mission Valley. Master’s Thesis, University of San Diego. Copley Library University Archives, San Diego, California.

May, Vonn Marie. 2006. Uptown Historic Architectural and Cultural Landscape Reconnaissance Survey. Prepared by IS Architecture. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

May, Cliff and Paul C. Johnson. 1997. Western Ranch Houses. Santa Monica, CA: Hennessey + Ingalls.

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), 1995a. Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 1995b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (FEIR). December 1995.

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 2001. Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). June 2001.

Neuerberg, Norman. 1986. “The Changing Face of Mission San Diego.” The Journal of San Diego History 32(1):1-26. http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/86winter/mission.htm (accessed on November 29, 2011).

Robinson, W. W. 1948. Land in California. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Ruhge, Justin. 1994. Traditions, San Diego’s Military Heritage. June 1994, Vol. 1, p. 3. La Jolla, California.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007. 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP).

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 6-4 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2008. Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: Process and Documentation. April 2008.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP).

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013a. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2013b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Technical Report.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2013c. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report.

San Diego History Center. 2001. Timeline of San Diego History. http://www.sandiegohistory.org/timeline/timeline3.htm (accessed on March 31, 2011).

Schlei, Michael Don. 1996. The ‘Good Life:’ Post-World War II Housing in San Diego. Master’s Thesis, University of San Diego. Copley Library University Archives, San Diego, California.

Smythe, William E. 1908. The History of San Diego, 1542-1908: An Account of the Rise and Progress of the Pioneer Settlement on the Pacific Coast of the United States. The History Company, San Diego.

Spurgeon, Kim. 1975. Historic American Buildings Survey, Santa Fe Railroad Station, 1050 Kettner Boulevard, San Diego, County of San Diego, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Starr, Kevin. 1990. Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920s. Oxford University Press, New York.

Starr, Kevin. 2002. Embattled Dreams: California in War and Peace, 1940-1950. Oxford University Press, New York.

Stewart, John. 1970. “University Eyes the Future.” San Diego Union. March 9, 1970. Newspaper clipping on file at the San Diego History Center, San Diego, California.

Tang, Bai, Michael Hogan, Mariam Dahdul, Teresa Woodward, and Daniel Ballester. 2002. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, CA-SDI-16385H/P- 37-024739, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, San Diego to National City, County of San Diego, California. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

The Chambers Group, Myra L. Frank and Associates, Hatheway & Associates. 1994. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, Air Force Plant 19, 4297 Pacific Highway, San Diego, County of San Diego, California. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 6-5 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

University Community Planning Group and City of San Diego Planning Department 2011. University Community Plan.

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. Interstate 5 North coast Corridor Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.

Van Wormer, Stephen R. 1996. California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms, P-37-015531, Consolidated Aircraft Plant No. 1, San Diego, California. Prepared by KEA Environmental, San Diego. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Warner, Helga Magdalena. 1992. Clairemont’s Bay Park 1887-1991. Master’s Thesis, University of San Diego. Copley Library University Archives, San Diego, California.

Widell, Cherilyn. 1996. Letter to Kirk Evans, Captain, Department of the Navy, Re: Engineering Laboratory at Hangar 19 [Air Force Plant 19], San Diego, County of San Diego, California. Dated February 27. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Winter, Robert. 1997. Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997: 170.

MAPS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Burbeck, E. M. 1907. Map of the City of San Diego, California. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2011. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Mid-Coast Corridor Project, San Diego, California, Inquiry Number: 3016399.2, March 21, 2011. Historic aerial photographs, 1953, 1963, 1974, 1990, 1994, 2002, and 2005.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR). 2011. Historic aerial photographs for 1953, 1964, 1972, 1981, 1990, 2003, and 2005. http://www.historicaerials.com (accessed in March 2011).

Rodney Stokes and Loring and Co. 1907. Map of the City of San Diego and Vicinity, California. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Stokes, Rodney. 1907. Map of a Portion of the City of San Diego. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1942a. Point Loma 15' Series Topographic Quadrangle. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 6-6 April 2013 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1942b. Point Loma 7.5' Series Topographic Quadrangle. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1943a. La Jolla 15' Series Topographic Quadrangle. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1943b. La Jolla 7.5' Series Topographic Quadrangle. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1953a. Point Loma 7.5' Series Topographic Quadrangle. Cultural and drainage revised 1950. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1953b. La Jolla 7.5' Series Topographic Quadrangle. Cultural and drainage revised 1950. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1953c. Del Mar 7.5' Series Topographic Quadrangle. Cultural and drainage revised 1950. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Wheeler, M. C. 1872. Official Map of the Western Portion of San Diego County, California. On file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT April 2013 6-7 Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report Chapter 6.0 – References

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 6-8 April 2013