Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact

Statement and Subsequent

Environmental Impact

Report Volume 3, Part 2

State Clearinghouse No. 2010051001

U.S. Department of

Transportation

Federal Transit Administration

and the

San Diego Association of

Governments

September 2014

Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 3 Comments and Responses

September 2014

Prepared by

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014

 Comments and Responses
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 i

INDEX OF COMMENT SUBMISSIONS

PAGE

INDIVIDUALS ......................................................................................................................... 767

Aguilar, A. - ID003 ....................................................................................................... 767

Allen, Dan - ID337 ....................................................................................................... 770

Anderson-Brustkern, Jason and Traci - ID299 ............................................................. 779

Anonymous - ID025 ..................................................................................................... 783

Anonymous - ID024 ..................................................................................................... 785

Anonymous - ID054 ..................................................................................................... 787

Anonymous - ID151 ..................................................................................................... 789

Anonymous - ID157 ..................................................................................................... 791

Anonymous - ID172 ..................................................................................................... 795

Anonymous - ID173 ..................................................................................................... 797

Anonymous - ID175 ..................................................................................................... 799

Anonymous - ID176 ..................................................................................................... 801

Anonymous - ID202 ..................................................................................................... 805

Anonymous - ID212 ..................................................................................................... 807

Ashby, George - ID245 ................................................................................................ 809

Atz, David - ID165 ....................................................................................................... 811

Bacon, Ronald - ID177 ................................................................................................ 815

Bala, Erin - ID335 ........................................................................................................ 821

Ball, Ian J. - ID259 ....................................................................................................... 830

Baxter, Rilla and Alan - ID305 ..................................................................................... 838

Beeman, Daniel - ID060 .............................................................................................. 840

Beth - ID043 ................................................................................................................ 844

Biendara, Butch - ID108 .............................................................................................. 846

Bordieri, Paul - ID169 .................................................................................................. 849

Brewer, Walt - ID301 ................................................................................................... 866

Brezic, David - ID065 ................................................................................................... 868

Brown, Karen - ID222 .................................................................................................. 870

Brown, Steve - ID306 .................................................................................................. 872

Browne, Dave - ID155 ................................................................................................. 875

Browne, Terri - ID154 .................................................................................................. 877

Buck, Alice - ID044 ...................................................................................................... 879

Burgess, Nicole - ID109 ............................................................................................... 881

Burrascano, Cindy - ID312 .......................................................................................... 883
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

ii September 2014

Calandro, JD - ID005 ................................................................................................... 885

Caldwell, Linda - ID035 ............................................................................................... 887

Caldwell, Linda - ID153 ............................................................................................... 889

Callon, Brandy - ID239 ................................................................................................ 894

Cao, Tan - ID110 ......................................................................................................... 896

Carlin, Christine - ID213 .............................................................................................. 898

Carlin, Christine - ID220 .............................................................................................. 900

Carlin, Stephen - ID313 ............................................................................................... 903

Ceveray, Brian - ID199 ................................................................................................ 907

Chernowsky, Shirley - ID006 ....................................................................................... 909

Christensen, Jon - ID338 ............................................................................................. 911

Clark, Jay A. - ID023 ................................................................................................... 925

Clark, Robert F. - ID056............................................................................................... 927

Cleveland, Mike - ID215 .............................................................................................. 929

Conklin, James and Sylvia - ID256 .............................................................................. 931

Cooke, R. - ID314 ........................................................................................................ 934

Corbin, Sylvia - ID111 .................................................................................................. 937

Corbin, Sylvia - ID112 .................................................................................................. 940

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262 .................................................................................................. 942

Cromer, Bruce - ID113 ................................................................................................ 947

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334 ................................................................................ 949

Cummings, Kelly - ID158 ............................................................................................. 954

Cummings, Kelly - ID164 ............................................................................................. 960

DeLira, Simone - ID243 ............................................................................................... 964

Deroche, Christina - ID209 .......................................................................................... 966

Dickerson, Dale - ID028............................................................................................... 968

Drummy, Pat - ID095 ................................................................................................... 970

Dube, Pat - ID026 ........................................................................................................ 972

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217 ................................................................................................ 974

Duke, Sara - ID237 ...................................................................................................... 984

Emery, Linda - ID163 ................................................................................................... 986

Enright, Phillip - ID178 ................................................................................................. 990

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235 .......................................................................................... 1008

Falletta, Joe - ID122 .................................................................................................. 1015

Farnsworth, Tiffany - ID221 ....................................................................................... 1017

Ferrero, G. - ID114 .................................................................................................... 1019

Finely, Greg - ID097 .................................................................................................. 1021
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 iii

Ford, Tom - ID115 ..................................................................................................... 1023

Forster, Stewart - ID142 ............................................................................................ 1025

Fralic, Lynn - ID210 ................................................................................................... 1027

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244 ................................................................................. 1029

Gallego, Victor - ID252 .............................................................................................. 1034

Garcia, Kristina - ID116 ............................................................................................. 1037

Garcia-Herbst, Arleen - ID007 ................................................................................... 1039

Gates, Kathleen - ID191 ............................................................................................ 1041

Gendelmen, Javi - ID200 ........................................................................................... 1043

Geral, Debbie - ID211 ................................................................................................ 1045

Gerber, Michael - ID166 ............................................................................................ 1047

Gibson, Linda - ID315 ................................................................................................ 1051

Giffen, Connie and Allen - ID045 ............................................................................... 1053

Gille, Sarah - ID036 ................................................................................................... 1055

Glynn, Marysue - ID162 ............................................................................................. 1057

Godwin-Austen, Bill - ID032 ....................................................................................... 1059

Goings, Peggy - ID008 .............................................................................................. 1061

Goodwill, Ken - ID058 ................................................................................................ 1063

Gould, Benjamin - ID037 ........................................................................................... 1065

Greg - ID198.............................................................................................................. 1068

Griggs, Karlyn - ID053 ............................................................................................... 1070

Groth, Walter - ID102 ................................................................................................ 1072

Hall, Lucia KB - ID039 ............................................................................................... 1074

Hall, Miranda K. - ID041 ............................................................................................ 1076

Hamilton, Andy - ID022 ............................................................................................. 1078

Hansen, Chris - ID207 ............................................................................................... 1080

Hartman, Beth - ID107 ............................................................................................... 1082

Hartz, Keith - ID063 ................................................................................................... 1084

Healy, Charlotte - ID240 ............................................................................................ 1086

Hemmerly, Larry and Lynne - ID255 .......................................................................... 1089

Heppell, Janis - ID316 ............................................................................................... 1091

Higgins, Jacqueline - ID009 ....................................................................................... 1093

Hill, F. - ID126 ........................................................................................................... 1095

Hoffhine, Donald - ID127 ........................................................................................... 1097

Hoffman, Gary - ID055 .............................................................................................. 1099

Howard, Erin - ID236 ................................................................................................. 1101

Howell, Patrick - ID152 .............................................................................................. 1103
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

iv September 2014

Hull, Tim - ID018 ....................................................................................................... 1105

Hull, Tim - ID103 ....................................................................................................... 1107

Hurst, David - ID096 .................................................................................................. 1110

Hutton, Pamela - ID046 ............................................................................................. 1114

Innocente, Michael - ID180 ........................................................................................ 1116

Iturzaeta, Lisa - ID121 ............................................................................................... 1118

Iturzaeta, Mark - ID147 .............................................................................................. 1120

Jamason, Paul - ID128 .............................................................................................. 1123

Jan - ID010 ................................................................................................................ 1125

Jenson-Elliott, Cynthia - ID310 .................................................................................. 1127

Johnston, Eamon - ID138 .......................................................................................... 1129

Jones, Scott - ID311 .................................................................................................. 1133

Kanters, Robert - ID186 ............................................................................................. 1136

Kearney, Susan - ID106 ............................................................................................ 1138

Kearney, Susan - ID181 ............................................................................................ 1140

Keenan, David - ID216 .............................................................................................. 1142

Keetley, Reginald G. - ID192 ..................................................................................... 1144

Keeven, Karen - ID029 .............................................................................................. 1146

Kellough, Lenora - ID083 ........................................................................................... 1148

Kellough, Lenora - ID302 ........................................................................................... 1150

Kirkland, Kelly - ID263 ............................................................................................... 1153

Klima, Rob - ID317 .................................................................................................... 1155

Kruger, Janay - ID047 ............................................................................................... 1157

Kruger, Janay - ID254 ............................................................................................... 1160

Kucharski, Jeff - ID139 .............................................................................................. 1163

L - ID061 ................................................................................................................... 1165

Leary, Alex - ID204 .................................................................................................... 1169

Lebowitz, David - ID040 ............................................................................................ 1171

LeCates, Corrine - ID129 ........................................................................................... 1173

Lin, Jonathan - ID027 ................................................................................................ 1175

Link, Jenny - ID205.................................................................................................... 1179

Lockwood, Wallace - ID059 ....................................................................................... 1181

Lopez, Inge - ID011 ................................................................................................... 1183

Loveless, Rebecca - ID143 ........................................................................................ 1185

Loveless, Rebecca - ID156 ........................................................................................ 1187

Lyntock, Brian - ID208 ............................................................................................... 1189

Malone, Barbara - ID318 ........................................................................................... 1191
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 v

Manalo, Markov - ID104 ............................................................................................ 1193

Mansell, Paul - ID161 ................................................................................................ 1195

Mathy, Sarah - ID094 ................................................................................................ 1198

McGehee, Jason - ID019 ........................................................................................... 1200

McIlwain, Craig - ID321 ............................................................................................. 1202

McIlwain, Mary - ID328 .............................................................................................. 1204

McIlwain, Virginia - ID327 .......................................................................................... 1206

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID140 ....................................................................................... 1208

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID144 ....................................................................................... 1211

Mertz, June - ID012 ................................................................................................... 1214

Miller, Sally - ID137 ................................................................................................... 1216

Mills, Rodney W. - ID130 ........................................................................................... 1218

Mogilner, Geoffrey - ID086 ........................................................................................ 1220

Muczynski, Sharon - ID322 ........................................................................................ 1222

Naschak, Bruce - ID048............................................................................................. 1225

Naschak, Bruce - ID253............................................................................................. 1228

Nelson, Sharon - ID201 ............................................................................................. 1231

Nickel, Melanie - ID131 ............................................................................................. 1233

Pallazola, Carol - ID167 ............................................................................................. 1235

Parchia, Robin - ID329 .............................................................................................. 1238

Parrish, Lynn - ID020 ................................................................................................. 1240

Patel, Shila - ID064.................................................................................................... 1242

Patula, Nancy - ID149 ............................................................................................... 1244

Pedusseau, Nadine - ID013 ....................................................................................... 1246

Pho, Nisa - ID125 ...................................................................................................... 1248

Piarulli, Josephine - ID160 ......................................................................................... 1250

Pique, Michael - ID319 .............................................................................................. 1252

Pitzel, Diane - ID132 .................................................................................................. 1254

Post, Nick - ID241...................................................................................................... 1256

Post, Trey - ID242 ..................................................................................................... 1258

Quesenberry, John - ID159 ....................................................................................... 1260

Reers, Elizabeth - ID123............................................................................................ 1262

Reid, Tom and Carol - ID031 ..................................................................................... 1264

Robbins, Lou Ellen - ID049 ........................................................................................ 1266

Roberts, Dave - ID150 ............................................................................................... 1268

Rodriguez, Eric W. - ID298 ........................................................................................ 1270

Rosado, Carolyn - ID141 ........................................................................................... 1272
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

vi September 2014

Roth, Brenda - ID246 ................................................................................................. 1274

Roth, Ed - ID247 ........................................................................................................ 1276

Russakoff, Sharon - ID050 ........................................................................................ 1278

Russel, Michael - ID183............................................................................................. 1280

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333................................................................................ 1282

Sammarco, Gavin - ID323 ......................................................................................... 1288

Sauder, Ellen - ID324 ................................................................................................ 1290

Schindler, Kristine - ID133 ......................................................................................... 1292

Schmidt, Margaret - ID014 ......................................................................................... 1294

Schwartz, Matt - ID331 .............................................................................................. 1296

Shulds, Andrea - ID190 ............................................................................................. 1309

Sinclair, Ken - ID134 .................................................................................................. 1311

Sinclair, Ken - ID148 .................................................................................................. 1313

Sopher, Jan - ID146 .................................................................................................. 1315

Sopher, Jan - ID251 .................................................................................................. 1317

Sopher, Joseph - ID248 ............................................................................................. 1319

Spagarino, Lea - ID105 ............................................................................................. 1321

Spagarino, Lea - ID145 ............................................................................................. 1323

St Gillian, Billy - ID297 ............................................................................................... 1326

Steinbach, Joseph - ID303 ........................................................................................ 1328

Stender, Leah - ID135 ............................................................................................... 1330

Stewart, Kay - ID296 ................................................................................................. 1332

Sullivan, Michael - ID170 ........................................................................................... 1334

Sullivan, Michael - ID304 ........................................................................................... 1338

Syverson, Kort - ID066 .............................................................................................. 1340

Taylor, Sharon - ID307 .............................................................................................. 1342

Terwilliger, Troy and Jeannie - ID118 ........................................................................ 1344

Thomason, Stephen - ID188 ...................................................................................... 1346

Toledo, Alex - ID206 .................................................................................................. 1348

Triglia, Cory - ID168 .................................................................................................. 1350

Varonfakis, Joyce - ID249.......................................................................................... 1353

Varonfakis, James - ID250 ........................................................................................ 1355

Vasquez, Tim - ID193 ................................................................................................ 1357

Voss, Dave - ID051 ................................................................................................... 1359

W., Mark - ID171 ....................................................................................................... 1361

Wainscott, Joanne - ID332 ........................................................................................ 1364

Wasserman, Larry - ID015 ......................................................................................... 1367
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 vii

Wasserman, Larry - ID084 ......................................................................................... 1369

Watson, Elizabeth - ID042 ......................................................................................... 1371

Watters, Eric - ID308 ................................................................................................. 1373

Wellhouse, Ann - ID325 ............................................................................................. 1377

Wiese, Andy - ID052 .................................................................................................. 1379

Will, Amber - ID238 ................................................................................................... 1382

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330 ......................................................................................... 1384

Wiszowaty, Walter - ID057 ........................................................................................ 1392

Yates, Susan - ID320 ................................................................................................ 1394

Zakeri, Vahid - ID016 ................................................................................................. 1397

Ziegler, Carole - ID067 .............................................................................................. 1401

PUBLIC HEARING – JUNE 21, 2013 ................................................................................... 1403

La Jolla Square Village Square - Blick, C. Samual, Esquire - ID275 .......................... 1403

United Veterans Council of San Diego County - Harkins, Jack, Chairman - ID276 .... 1406

Friends of Rose Canyon - Knight, Debbie, President - ID277 .................................... 1410

Friends of Rose Canyon - DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278 .................................... 1417

Clairemont Community Planning Group - Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279 ....................... 1422

Howell, Debra - ID280 ............................................................................................... 1428

Armstrong Garden Centers - Hydoski, Ian - ID281..................................................... 1432

Lightner, Sherri S. City Council President Pro Tem - ID282 ...................................... 1436

Christensen, Jon - ID283 ........................................................................................... 1443

Armstrong Garden Centers - Jones, Gary, Vice President of Marketing - ID284 ........ 1449

Armstrong Garden Centers - Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr -

ID285......................................................................................................................... 1453

Armstrong Garden Centers - Bollard, Will, Attorney - ID286 ...................................... 1458

Department of Veteran Affairs - VA San Diego Healthcare System - Butler,

Cindy - ID287 ............................................................................................................ 1460

Bike San Diego - Cummings, Kelly - ID288................................................................ 1463

Paul, Billy - ID289 ...................................................................................................... 1466

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) - Heidelberg, Evelyn -

ID290......................................................................................................................... 1471

Heisman, Charles - ID291 ......................................................................................... 1477

Thompson, Richard - ID292 ....................................................................................... 1479

Enright, Phillip - ID293 ............................................................................................... 1481

Allen, Dan - ID294 ..................................................................................................... 1487
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Index of Comment Submissions

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

viii September 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014

Individuals
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Aguilar, A. - ID003

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 767

INDIVIDUALS

Aguilar, A. - ID003
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Aguilar, A. - ID003

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

768 September 2014

Submission ID003 Aguilar A.

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Multi-modal connections, including transit, walk, and bicycle access, will be provided

to each station constructed as part of the project. Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR lists the bus routes that are anticipated to serve each station, along with

the frequency of service. As shown in this table, several bus routes will be modified

to provide connections to the new Trolley stations. Additionally, new bus stops will

be added near several Trolley stations with five off-street bus bays provided at the

Balboa Avenue Station.

All new station facilities will be designed to provide adequate access for pedestrians

and bicyclists, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities directly adjacent to new stations

will be upgraded where they are missing or do not provide safe and adequate

access.

The pedestrian improvements constructed as part of the project are shown in the

conceptual site plans in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, Figures

2-12 through 2-20.

Transit patrons who will walk from Moraga Avenue to the Balboa Avenue Station

could use the existing sidewalk on the east side of Moraga Avenue, cross Balboa

Avenue at the existing signalized crosswalk, and then use the new sidewalk along

the south side of Balboa Avenue that will be constructed as part of the project. A

sidewalk will also be added to the reconfigured loop ramp that will provide a

connection from Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard and the Trolley station via

crosswalks across Morena Boulevard.

3 The traffic analysis for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project included consideration

of streets within the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station, including Moraga Avenue,

and concluded that the project would not contribute enough traffic to Moraga Avenue

to warrant additional study.

Traffic conditions on roadways and at intersections are typically evaluated in terms of

level of service, which is based on several factors, including travel time and speed.

LOS A represents the least congested condition, and LOS F represents the most

congested condition (refer to Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-8 for a definition and example of

level of service at signalized intersections). The City of San Diego considers LOS A

through LOS D to be acceptable. Average daily weekday traffic volumes collected by

the city in 2009 indicate that the segment of Moraga Avenue north of Balboa Avenue

operated at LOS D. The intersection of Moraga Avenue and Balboa Avenue

operated at LOS B during both peak hours in 2010.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Aguilar, A. - ID003

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 769

Com ID Response

As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.3.2.2 under the heading "Roadway Performance"

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a roadway segment analysis is performed only if a project

adds more than 50 peak-hour trips (for both directions combined) to a roadway

segment, consistent with the City of San Diego's Traffic Impact Study Manual.

Station-area traffic will only increase traffic volumes on Moraga Avenue by up to 10

vehicles during the peak hours and, thus, this roadway was not included in the traffic

analysis documented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report. As such, the project would not

impact traffic conditions on Moraga Avenue.

The City of San Diego is responsible for posting and enforcing speed limits on city

streets.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

770 September 2014

Allen, Dan - ID337
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 771
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

772 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 773
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

774 September 2014

Submission ID337 Allen Dan

Com ID Response

1 The February 1995 AA/DEIS/DEIR included a Nobel Drive Station for the not-yetoperating COASTER Line as part of the TSM Alternative. (Note that the Nobel Drive

Station included in the 1995 AA/DEIS/DEIR was several blocks inland of the LRT

Nobel Drive Station presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.) That document concluded

that LRT was the best alternative to meet the goals and objectives for the Mid-Coast

Corridor, but it also noted that COASTER service would be implemented (COASTER

service began operation on February 28, 1995).

In October 1995 the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) took several

actions related to the Mid-Coast Project that are documented in the December 1995

Final EIR for the Mid-Coast Corridor. These actions included selecting the I-5 LRT

alignment option for planning purposes. MTDB also adopted two Coastal Rail

improvements as a separate project, including the new station at the Nobel Drive site

and the addition of parking to the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station. The proposed

station at Nobel Drive would not have had a direct transfer to an LRT station. The

LRT service that would be provided by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would

not have connected to a station at Nobel Drive because the LRT would terminate

several blocks away at University Towne Centre.

The 2001 FEIS for the LRT extension to Balboa Avenue continued to identify a

COASTER station at Nobel Drive but as a separate future construction project. The

then-current phasing for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was proposed to

terminate at Balboa Avenue.

SANDAG, MTS (MTDB at the time), and NCTD continued to pursue planning and

design for a Nobel Drive COASTER Station independently of implementation of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project LRT extension. The agencies undertook a

detailed analysis of the station site, finding difficulty in construction and access, high

cost, and limited demand. The design of the station was advanced and refined to

include additional elements, such as a grade-separated pedestrian crossing of the

tracks. In 2005, a project cost of $16.1 million for the Nobel Drive COASTER Station

was reported to the SANDAG Transportation Committee, which was $3 million more

than previously budgeted with no other funding available to cover the deficit.

Estimated ridership for the station was also reported and was considered to be low.

2 The parking supply presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Final SEIS/SEIR was

determined by the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model, which

assumes that a driver will travel up to 8 miles to access a park-and-ride facility

associated with a Trolley station. Parts of Del Mar are within 8 miles of the Nobel

Drive Station, and therefore these drivers are captured in the current parking demand

forecasts. Sufficient parking is available to meet demand at all stations except the

Balboa Avenue Station, where parking is constrained by the size of the station site

and the presence of a potentially active earthquake fault that precludes construction
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 775

Com ID Response

of a parking structure. Therefore, increasing parking at stations would not result in

any additional environmental benefits (e.g., a reduction in VMT or an improvement in

air quality or energy conservation). Transit patrons from areas north of the Nobel

Drive Station may also opt to take the COASTER to the OTTC and transfer to a

Trolley to complete their trip; this would not require additional parking at the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project stations.

3 The Nobel Drive Station will be connected to the surrounding public sidewalks. A

bus-to-Trolley transfer station will not be constructed at this station. Rerouting the

buses into the La Jolla Village Square shopping center parking lot would increase bus

travel time. Therefore, this location would not provide convenient bus access.

Additionally, moving the on-street bus stops on Nobel Drive closer to the Trolley

station is infeasible due to the location of the I-5 ramps. The project will not modify

the traffic signal timing or phasing or increase the pedestrian wait times at the Nobel

Drive and La Jolla Village Square intersection.

4 As shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will be

supported by feeder bus service to the stations from Pacific Beach, Clairemont Mesa,

University City, La Jolla, Torrey Pines, and Sorrento Mesa. The data in Chapter 3.0,

Table 3-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR regarding mode of access illustrate the importance

of this feeder service, with 62 percent of trips including a transfer to the Trolley from a

bus. Additional responses are provided in response to comments below.

5 Your comments recommending reconfiguration of existing MTS bus routes will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project is the extension of the Trolley line north to University City. Although

the project will be supported by feeder bus service and includes minor modifications

to several routes to provide connections to stations, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table

2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the wholesale reconfiguration of MTS bus service is

beyond the scope of the project.

The 2030 RTP, and thus the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model,

assumed changes in several routes between existing conditions and conditions in 2030

with implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Specifically, Routes 8 and

9 would be diverted from their current terminal point at Bayard and Garnet to the Balboa

Avenue Station; Route 44 would be extended to the Balboa Avenue Station; and Route

30 would be diverted to serve the Nobel Drive Station. Additionally, all bus routes serving

the UTC Transit Center would be moved to the more southern location of the Trolley

platform/bus transit center. SANDAG coordinated with MTS on bus route alignments and

service frequencies during development of the 2030 RTP.

There would also be changes to the frequency of service between 2010 and 2030.

For instance, Route 50 operated with 15-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak

headways in 2010 but would have 15-minute peak and off-peak headways in 2030.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

776 September 2014

Com ID Response

Route 30 would provide a connection between La Jolla and the Nobel Drive, UCSD

West, and UTC Transit Center Stations. Therefore, residents in La Jolla who wish to

take a bus to a Trolley station could do so via Route 30, which would operate with 10-

minute peak and off-peak periods.

Station site concept figures were presented in Chapter 2.0, Figures 2-11 through 2-19

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Each figure indicated where bus stops will be located, and

additional text regarding bus–Trolley transfers was provided in Chapter 2.0, Section

2.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. For example, on-street bus turnouts will be provided

on both sides of West Morena Boulevard near the Tecolote Road Station (Figure 2-

11), and five off-street bus bays will be provided within the Balboa Avenue Station

park-and-ride facility (Figure 2-13). Additionally, as stated for the Nobel Drive Station,

"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."

6 Refer to the response to Comment 5 regarding the scope of the project. For the

purpose of analyzing the project, SANDAG relied on the information in the 2030 RTP,

with input from MTS. As described above, several routes will change to serve the

Trolley system. MTS reviews service times and frequencies regularly to determine

whether modifications are needed to meet regional goals, and may make adjustments

to routes.

7 As noted in response to Comment 4, the project includes feeder bus service. As

shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Route 30 will directly link La

Jolla to the Trolley system. Therefore, the project is consistent with the community

plan.

8 Wheel squeal is specifically discussed in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.1 of the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report. As stated in

the report, it is very difficult to predict when and where wheel squeal will occur. A

general guideline is that there is a potential for wheel squeal at any curve with a

radius of less than 400 feet. Wheel squeal is not expected to be a noise source for

this project because the tightest curves along the alignment are 460-foot radius

curves near the UCSD West Station. Along the I-5 crossing south of Nobel Drive, the

project alignment will have 800-foot radius curves. The existing Trolley system uses

automatic rail lubricators to control squeal noise at several locations on the existing

system. Rail lubricators or a similar technology would be used to control any squeal

noise that might occur along the project alignment.

Noise will be reduced by the sides of the elevated guideway that will shield the

undercarriage of the LRT from view. Any solid blockage of line-of-sight to a noise

source reduces the noise level. The amount of reduction is related to the increase in

the length of the path that noise would have to follow to reach a listener’s ear (i.e.,
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 777

Com ID Response

around the blockage, be it the edge of the guideway or a barrier placed on the

guideway).

9 Since the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period, the straddle bents for the I-5

crossing were eliminated and replaced with center columns. The visual simulation for

the I-5 crossing has been updated for the Final SEIS/SEIR to reflect this center

column design (refer to Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR as Key View

26). The center column presents less contrast to the surrounding setting and is

similar to and consistent with other bridges crossing the freeway. There will not be an

adverse impact from this crossing for the following reasons: (1) the structure will be

within an existing transportation corridor, (2) there are other bridges and large

structures throughout the I-5 corridor, and (3) the low sensitivity and limited duration

of exposure of viewer groups.

With respect to the suggestion that the crossing of I-5 should be mentioned in the

Historic, Archaeological, and Paleontological resources chapter, the following

information is provided. I-5 is not a historic resource. As detailed in Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.1.5 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Survey and

Eligibility Determination Report, the FHWA exempts most of the Interstate Highway

System from Section 106 due to ACHP and SAFETEA-LU exemptions. Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.1.5 of the technical report states: “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...Therefore, these highways are exempt from further survey evaluation or

evaluation in this report.”

10 As noted in the comment, the project’s capital cost estimate that was developed for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR approached $2 billion when expressed in Year of Expenditure (YOE)

dollars, which factored in expected inflation and financing. At the time, the project’s

capital cost estimate was expected to draw on a total of $179 million in TransNet

revenues between FY 2011 and FY 2024. For the same period, SANDAG was expected

to collect $4,344 million in TransNet cash revenues. The TransNet ballot measure

identified the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as one of three projects to receive

priority for funding. As such, in the event that cost overruns occur, SANDAG has the

option of using additional TransNet resources to complete the project. Chapter 6.0,

Table 6-3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR showed the cost breakdown by Standard Cost

Category. The two I-5 crossings were part of the $374 million (YOE) category that

included all guideway and track elements in the project. The cost of the two spans over I5 are not the highest cost item on the project. The capital cost estimate is not broken out

by span for bridges; however, using average bridge costs per square foot, the

approximate construction cost for each span across I-5 is in the range of $2 million. The

project includes other features, such as retaining walls, stations, LRT vehicles, etc., that

are higher in cost than the I-5 spans. For example, construction of an at-grade station

will cost between $5 million and $10 million.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Allen, Dan - ID337

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

778 September 2014

Com ID Response

SANDAG compared the project with lower-cost bus alternatives in the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report, which is

summarized in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. That study also

evaluated alternative rail alignments, including one that stayed on the east side of I-5

and one that had a single crossing of I-5. An alignment that would stay on the east

side of I-5 would not serve the Nobel Drive, VA Medical Center, or UCSD West

Stations. The UCSD West Station will have the highest daily ridership and thus is an

important station to serve.

The Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report examined an at-grade alignment

on Gilman Drive, which would transition to an aerial structure north of the UCSD

Medical School (referred to as the LRT N-8 Alignment). This alignment was

eliminated because lane reductions would be required and the alignment would

impact on-street parking. Additionally, there would be EMF impacts to the UCSD

Medical School and the VA Medical Center, as well as noise and vibration impacts to

the area.

Therefore, after considering the results of that study, including the costs and benefits

of alternative modes and alignments, SANDAG reaffirmed the LPA.

11 Labels on the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set have been revised to refer to existing

buildings and parking lots and proposed facilities (refer to drawing numbers AA501

and AF501).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anderson-Brustkern, Jason and Traci - ID299

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 779

Anderson-Brustkern, Jason and Traci - ID299
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anderson-Brustkern, Jason and Traci - ID299

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

780 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anderson-Brustkern, Jason and Traci - ID299

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 781

Submission ID299 Anderson-Brustkern Jason and Traci

Com ID Response

1 The comment stating opposition to the project through the UTC area has been noted

and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIR/SEIS.

Visual impacts were evaluated in the University City/Nobel Drive/UTC area, and

mitigation measures were identified to minimize visual impacts. Appendix A to the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report includes visual

simulations from several key locations in this area, as summarized in Table A-1.

Key View No. 7 was located at the dog park along Charmant Drive. A simulation of

mitigation at this key view was provided in Chapter 6.0, Figure 6-6 of the Visual

Impacts Technical Report. The project will include design and landscape mitigation

in this area, and no adverse visual impacts will occur at this location after mitigation.

As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23

units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses,

that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing

noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the

moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant

and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional

information on the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to

eliminate noise impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La

Paz condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the

light-rail tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the

project will be partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway noise.

The noise impact analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined

that there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla

Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from, or shielded

from, the project.

A continuous wall encompassing both sound walls (Mitigation Measures N2 and N3

in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR) has been incorporated into the

project to improve project aesthetics, but this wall was not necessary to provide

noise reduction to residents in Clusters 57 and 59 or any other nearby noisesensitive locations.

The UCSD bus system and the SuperLoop offer an effective circulator system

serving short trips at the north end of the corridor. The Trolley extension will provide

a complementary service for longer trips, replacing the Route 150 Express bus
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anderson-Brustkern, Jason and Traci - ID299

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

782 September 2014

Com ID Response

between Downtown San Diego and University City and connecting to the regional

transit network. A large number of students, faculty, and staff live outside the area

served by the existing circulator buses. Many live in Mission Valley and in

neighborhoods south and east of downtown, as explained in Chapter 1.0, Section

1.2.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Those who live on or near campus will use the project

to travel to other regional destinations.

Refer to Master Response 10 regarding changes in property values near transit

stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID025

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 783

Anonymous - ID025
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID025

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

784 September 2014

Submission ID025 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment supporting the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project will operate as an extension of the existing Trolley Blue Line service.

Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00

a.m. the next day. In the opening year, the Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide

15-minute service frequency between the America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center

during peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e.,

9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency

during the peak and off-peak periods noted above, with less frequent service during

the early morning and evening hours. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

operating hours will be established by MTS prior to opening of the project; hours are

anticipated to be similar to those of the existing Trolley Blue Line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID024

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 785

Anonymous - ID024
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID024

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

786 September 2014

Submission ID024 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will

operate as an extension of the existing Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the

Trolley Blue Line operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next

day. In the opening year, the Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute

service frequency between the America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during

peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00

a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency

during the peak and off-peak periods noted above, with less frequent service during

the early morning and evening hours. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

operating hours will be established by MTS prior to opening of the project; hours are

anticipated to be similar to those of the existing Trolley Blue Line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID054

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 787

Anonymous - ID054
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID054

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

788 September 2014

Submission ID054 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing interest in expanding the San Diego Trolley system into

Mexico has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID151

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 789

Anonymous - ID151
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID151

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

790 September 2014

Submission ID151 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.

The location of the requested stop light referenced in the comment is unclear. The

VA Medical Center Station will be located on the west side of I-5 and north of La Jolla

Village Drive. A park-and-ride facility will not be provided at this station. There is an

existing traffic light at the main entrance to the VA Medical Center at Villa La Jolla

Drive. No other traffic lights are required to support this station. If "stop light" refers

to a station stop, a stop will be provided at the VA Medical Center Station, which has

been included as part of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID157

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 791

Anonymous - ID157
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID157

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

792 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID157

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 793
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID157

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

794 September 2014

Submission ID157 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 1 for information regarding station design and features.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID172

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 795

Anonymous - ID172
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID172

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

796 September 2014

Submission ID172 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the feasibility of locating the

Balboa Avenue Station north of Balboa Avenue on the City Yard site.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station and Master Response 9 for general information on noise

mitigation.

Refer to Master Response 13 for information regarding project lighting impacts.

2 Catenary poles and wires were considered as part of the visual analysis conducted

for the project. Specifically, Key Views 30 and 31 in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Visual Impacts Technical Report address the visual impacts of the overhead

catenary system as seen from along Morena Boulevard facing Mission Bay. The

type and level of impact depends on who sees it, for how long, how much it contrasts

with the existing environment, and if it physically changes the current visual

environment. As documented in the technical report, visual impacts associated with

the overhead catenary system will be less than significant.

As an extension of the Trolley system, the project must use the power/propulsion

system (i.e., overhead catenaries) that operates fleet vehicles in order to allow

connectivity and continuity on the line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID173

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 797

Anonymous - ID173
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID173

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

798 September 2014

Submission ID173 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 SANDAG does not currently anticipate opening the project in separate phases,

primarily due to the additional costs and impacts that would occur if the project were

to be phased. Construction activities will occur along several segments of the

project alignment simultaneously to minimize construction duration and thus

disruptions to the surrounding communities. The Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive,

and Balboa Avenue Station sites will be needed for construction staging areas to

support construction along other segments of the project. Therefore, these stations

could not be opened for service until they are no longer needed as staging areas.

2 Your comment requesting that the Tecolote Road Station name be changed to

Morena District has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. The station names used in the Draft SEIS/SEIR represent the

street or geographic location of the station. To avoid confusion, the station names

used in the Draft SEIS/SEIR were also used in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

The names used do not necessarily reflect the station names that will be used when

the project begins operation. These names will be determined by MTS prior to the

start of operation.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID175

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 799

Anonymous - ID175
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID175

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

800 September 2014

Submission ID175 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Bus and shuttle connections are currently provided to the airport from the Santa Fe

Depot. The purpose of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to improve transit

service between Downtown, Old Town, and University City. The only improvements

included in the project south of the OTTC are upgrades to the existing systems,

including the signaling system and traction power system to accommodate the

increase in Trolley service in this segment. The future development of an Airport

Intermodal Transit Center, adjacent to the airport with direct connections to rail,

Trolley, and bus services, is included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the

2050 RTP, and this connection is programmed for implementation in 2035 (additional

details are available at: www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID176

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 801

Anonymous - ID176
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID176

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

802 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID176

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 803
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID176

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

804 September 2014

Submission ID176 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support of the improvements and modifications to the

Balboa Avenue/Morena Boulevard ramps has been noted and will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding how traffic conditions will change in the

vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station.

There will not be constrained access from Pacific Beach to the Balboa Avenue

Station. Motorists from Pacific Beach will access the Balboa Avenue Station from

eastbound Balboa Avenue by making a right turn onto the reconfigured Balboa

Avenue eastbound to Morena Boulevard loop ramp and through the Balboa

eastbound ramp, park-and-ride, and Morena Boulevard intersection. The project will

not have an adverse or significant impact on Balboa Avenue except for a short

(approximately 720-foot) segment between the I-5 southbound on-ramp and the I-5

northbound off-ramp, as indicated in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-22 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

and summarized in Master Response 8. The number of lanes on Balboa Avenue,

and thus the capacity of the roadway, will be maintained as part of the project. The

Build Alternative will increase daily traffic on Balboa Avenue by less than 1 percent,

and therefore the overall impact on Balboa Avenue will be minimal.

3 Refer to Master Response 1 regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections and

station amenities.

Although pedestrian and bicycle facilities between Pacific Beach and the Balboa

Avenue Station will not be modified or added as part of the project, three bus routes

will provide a connection between the station and Pacific Beach. As shown in

Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Routes 8, 9, and 27 will operate at

15-minute headways between the station and Pacific Beach, thereby providing a

means to access Pacific Beach via bus. Consistent with current MTS practice,

bicycles are allowed on Trolley vehicles and buses.

4 Refer to the response to Comment 3 and to Master Response 1 regarding the

provision of pedestrian and bicycle features.

5 Refer to Master Response 4 regarding the Clairemont Drive Station; construction of

the station and park-and-ride will not preclude future development on the site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID202

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 805

Anonymous - ID202
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID202

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

806 September 2014

Submission ID202 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. This station was shown as an

“optional station” in the Draft SEIS/SEIR because it was not part of the LPA that was

evaluated in the AA/DEIS/DEIR, the FEIR, or the FEIS. However, when the SANDAG

Board of Directors reconfirmed the LPA on July 23, 2010, for evaluation in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, they approved the evaluation of the station at the VA Medical Center,

thereby allowing an analysis of the benefits and impacts associated with the station as

well as the opportunity for the public to provide comments on the inclusion of the

station.

On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build

Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be

evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID212

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 807

Anonymous - ID212
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Anonymous - ID212

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

808 September 2014

Submission ID212 Anonymous

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ashby, George - ID245

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 809

Ashby, George - ID245
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ashby, George - ID245

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

810 September 2014

Submission ID245 Ashby George

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master

Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station to the

City Yard site (Rose Canyon Lot).

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the project where needed to support

the alignment and project features (e.g., stations). The visual impact of retaining

walls required for the project is described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.4 of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report. The visual

impact analysis considered wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer exposure.

Near the Balboa Avenue Station, retaining walls higher than 6 feet and longer

than 50 feet will result in “none to low” impacts; therefore, mitigation will not be

required. Relocating the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not

substantially reduce the number of retaining walls needed.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime

rates to change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa

Avenue Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding

the need for transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa

Avenue Station on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Atz, David - ID165

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 811

Atz, David - ID165
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Atz, David - ID165

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

812 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Atz, David - ID165

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 813

Submission ID165 Atz David

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the current plan for the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. Chapter 6.0, Table 6-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR presents the cost

categories that comprise the capital cost of the project. These include cost of the

guideway, sitework, right-of-way, and vehicles. These costs are representative of

construction costs in the region. The costs have been updated and are presented

in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-1 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.

As presented in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the existing

TransNet sales tax will be used to fund the local share of the project. The

TransNet sales tax was passed by the voters of San Diego County in 1988 and

was extended by voters in 2004, and the tax is currently being collected. The

ballot measure listed the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as a priority for use of

TransNet funds. It is unclear as to what the total of $150 million of personal funds

is referring to, as private funding is not a component of the overall financial plan.

2 This comment is interpreted to be recommending a variation of Alternative 3,

which was analyzed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative

Evaluation of Alternatives Report. That report, which is summarized in Chapter

2.0, Section 2.1.1 and Table 2-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, evaluated a broad range

of transit modes and alignments. LRT Alternative 3 followed the existing MTS

right-of-way north from the OTTC through Rose Canyon. At Genesee Avenue,

Alternative 3 turned north and transitioned from at grade to a tunnel configuration,

continuing below grade to the UTC Transit Center. Alternative 3 then turned west

under Executive Drive, exiting the tunnel portal just west of Regents Road. The

comment appears to be proposing a shorter version, terminating at UTC.

The Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report found that Alternative 3 would

be equally effective as the other LRT alternatives in meeting project goals and

objectives, and would have reduced visual impacts in University City. However, it

was also found to have the greatest impacts to ecosystem and biological

resources of all the LRT alternatives evaluated. A shorter version of Alternative 3

ending at UTC would have these same adverse impacts to biological resources.

Serving the University City area and UCSD by bus would adversely affect the

reliability of transit service and would increase the number of transfers required,

which is inconsistent with the project goals. Increased bus service in the area

would also contribute to traffic congestion.

In July 2010 the SANDAG Board of Directors reconfirmed the previously adopted

LPA, which was refined to include direct LRT service to UCSD and UTC for

evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Substantial public input was received

expressing opposition to Alternative 3. At that time, the Alternative 3 alignment
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Atz, David - ID165

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

814 September 2014

Com ID Response

through Rose Canyon was dropped from further consideration.

3 Your comment expressing the opinion that the project will have a negative

aesthetic effect will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The visual effects of the project, including the effects of the aerial guideway in the

University City area, have been evaluated in accordance with accepted

methodology as presented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual

Impacts Technical Report. The analysis concluded that the Build Alternative will

not adversely affect the overall aesthetics of the La Jolla and University City

areas (refer to Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR).

As described in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Genesee Avenue Design Option would

have resulted in an adverse and unmitigable visual impact along Genesee

Avenue. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the

Refined Build Alternative, which includes center columns supporting the aerial

LRT alignment on Genesee Avenue, thereby eliminating the Genesee Avenue

Design Option (i.e., straddle bents on Genesee Avenue) from consideration in the

Final SEIS/SEIR.

4 As noted in response to Comment 2, an alignment that follows the existing tracks

into Rose Canyon and terminates at the UTC Transit Center would result in a

substantially greater impact to ecosystems and biological resources than the

proposed aerial structure.

As noted in Response 2, in July 2010 the SANDAG Board of Directors eliminated

the Alternative 3 alignment through Rose Canyon from further consideration.

5 As noted in response to Comments 2, the configuration proposed in this comment

using the existing right-of-way and a system of buses would increase impacts to

ecosystems and biological resources, would reduce the reliability of transit

service, would increase the number of transfers required, and would contribute to

traffic congestion in the area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bacon, Ronald - ID177

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 815

Bacon, Ronald - ID177
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bacon, Ronald - ID177

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

816 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bacon, Ronald - ID177

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 817
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bacon, Ronald - ID177

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

818 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bacon, Ronald - ID177

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 819

Submission ID177 Bacon Ronald

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 13 regarding project lighting impacts.

2 Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

It is not anticipated that the traffic lights at the intersections that provide access to

the Balboa Avenue Station would flash yellow/red when the Trolley is not operating,

but, as indicated by the commenter, the light will primarily remain green for vehicles

on Morena Boulevard until a vehicle approaches the side street or the signal is

activated by a pedestrian.

3 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at

the Balboa Avenue Station.

4 Any trucks operating in compliance with the California Vehicle Code will be able to

negotiate a right turn from and onto Balboa Avenue and from and onto Morena

Boulevard. The reconfigured eastbound Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard ramp

has been designed in compliance with city and state specifications and standards

(refer to Master Response 8 for a diagram of the reconfigured lanes and ramps in

the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station).

5 As indicated in Master Response 8, the station improvements will involve providing

connections from the station area and park-and-ride lot to the existing roadway

network. For the Balboa Avenue Station, roadway improvements on Morena

Boulevard immediately adjacent to the station and on the eastbound Balboa Avenue

to Morena Boulevard ramp that provide access to the station will be included as part

of the project. These improvements will involve intersection reconfiguration and new

traffic signal installations consistent with city and state requirements.

6 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at

the Balboa Avenue Station.

7 Refer to Master Response 1 for information regarding station amenities. Consistent

with current MTS practice, restrooms will not be provided at stations.

8 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at

the Balboa Avenue Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bacon, Ronald - ID177

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

820 September 2014

Com ID Response

9 The operating and maintenance cost associated with the project was presented in

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As shown in this table, the project

will increase the cost of operating and maintaining the regional transit system by

about $29.5 million in 2030 (in year 2030 dollars). The operating and maintenance

cost has been refined since publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and is presented in

Chapter 6.0, Section 6.3.1 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.

10 Implementation of the project will reduce emissions of criteria pollutants (including

ozone precursors) in the study area as a result of the projected decreases in vehicle

miles traveled associated with the project (refer to Chapter 4.0, Tables 4-8 and 4-9

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). Chapter 4.0, Section 4.12.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

states that energy use will also decrease as a result of the project. This decrease in

vehicle miles traveled and the associated reduction in fuel consumption will be

greater than the increased energy requirements of the electrically powered Trolley.

As such, the project will result in a beneficial air quality and energy impact.

11 For security reasons, lights at stations are kept on in the late evening and early

morning hours. Refer to Master Response 13 for information regarding project

lighting impacts.

As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.12.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will

decrease overall energy use in the study area and region compared to the No-Build

Alternative; therefore, the project will have a beneficial energy impact.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 821

Bala, Erin - ID335
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

822 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 823
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

824 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 825
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

826 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 827
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

828 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bala, Erin - ID335

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 829

Submission ID335 Bala Erin

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for and concerns about the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 The location of the Tecolote Road Station is the result of previous studies and was

reconfirmed by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 2010. The availability of land for

parking at this site makes it more attractive than sites farther north (such as in the

vicinity of Ashton Street), where the provision of parking next to the station would be

more challenging.

3 As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.3.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the

heading “Roadway Performance,” a roadway segment analysis is performed only if a

project adds more than 50 peak-hour trips (for both directions combined) to a

roadway segment, consistent with the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual.

Although the project will increase trips on Morena Boulevard between Vega Street

and Balboa Avenue, the volume will not increase by 50 trips or more.

No constraints related to construction have been identified in this location. The

Tecolote Road Station site will be used as a construction staging area. Any

modifications to Morena Boulevard are outside the scope of this project as they would

not avoid, minimize, or mitigate any identified impacts associated with the project.

4 SANDAG is aware of the location of the 72-inch sanitary sewer line. The design of

the project has been coordinated with the City of San Diego Utilities Department

(refer to Sheets 58 through 75 in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Volume 2 of this Final

SEIS/SEIR, available at www.sandag.org/midcoast). The track alignment will not

conflict with the 72-inch sanitary sewer. Therefore, relocation of this line is not

required by the project.

5 The southbound bus stop on West Morena Boulevard was located to provide direct

access to the Trolley platforms. Although the bus stop could conflict with right-turn

vehicles, southbound traffic seeking to enter the station could use the driveway on

West Morena Boulevard located north of the bus stop. Refer to the response to

Comment 2 regarding relocation of the station as suggested in the comment.

6 The location of the bus stop at the Clairemont Drive Station has been revised, as

reflected in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Sheet 310). The bus stops on Clairemont

Drive have been eliminated and replaced by off-street bus bays within the parking lot

of this station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

830 September 2014

Ball, Ian J. - ID259
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 831
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

832 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 833
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

834 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 835
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

836 September 2014

Submission ID259 Ball Ian J.

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the project has been noted and will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The construction schedule is described in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.6 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR.

2 SANDAG does not currently anticipate phasing the opening of the project.

Construction activities will occur along several segments of the project alignment

simultaneously to minimize construction duration and thus the disruptions to

surrounding communities. The Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa

Avenue Station sites will be needed for construction staging to support construction

along other segments of the project. Therefore, these stations could not be opened

for service until they are no longer needed as staging areas. Phasing the project’s

opening would subject the project cost to additional years of inflation, while adding to

mobilization costs.

The operating plan for the project has been phased, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table

2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In the opening year, the extension will operate at 15-

minute headways in the peak periods, with service increasing to 7.5-minute peak

headways by 2030. This allows SANDAG to defer some vehicle purchases and to

reduce operating and maintenance costs in the initial years.

3 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station has been noted

and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. When the

SANDAG Board of Directors reconfirmed the LPA on July 23, 2010, they approved

the evaluation of the station at the VA Medical Center as an option during the

development of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. This decision allowed for an analysis of the

benefits and impacts associated with the station as well as the opportunity for the

public to provide comments on the inclusion of the station.

On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build

Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be

evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

Future development plans for the VA Medical Center preclude moving the station

closer to the hospital. The alignment and station location that were evaluated in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR and carried forward to the Final SEIS/SEIR were developed in

coordination with representatives from the VA Medical Center based on these

development plans.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ball, Ian J. - ID259

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 837

Com ID Response

4 Your comment expressing opposition to the acquisition and relocation of Armstrong

Garden Center has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 3 regarding the evaluation of station

layout options at the Tecolote Road Station.

5 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station.

6 A station at Jutland Drive was previously considered in the 1995 AA/DEIS/DEIR but

was eliminated when the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the 2003 updated

LPA. However, based on an additional study (the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study), SANDAG determined that the project

alignment would be modified to accommodate a potential future station at Jutland

Drive. Thus, the project as proposed would allow for the construction of a station in

the future.

7 The project alignment is the result of prior studies and actions, as well as additional

studies and refinements, as detailed in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. An atgrade alignment on Genesee Avenue would displace two existing roadway lanes.

Given right-of-way constraints and adjacent development, there is no opportunity to

widen the roadway to replace these two lanes. The aerial alignment would minimize

impacts to access points (e.g., to residential, commercial, and educational uses

along the roadway) and avoid at-grade crossings (when a motorist or pedestrian

needs to cross the tracks) and the removal of roadway travel lanes to accommodate

an at-grade alignment. An aerial alignment is especially important along Voigt Drive,

where an at-grade alignment would conflict with the future planned I-5 Voigt Drive

direct access ramps and emergency vehicular access to adjacent hospitals.

8 Your comment expressing support for the project has been noted and will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Baxter, Rilla and Alan - ID305

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

838 September 2014

Baxter, Rilla and Alan - ID305
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Baxter, Rilla and Alan - ID305

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 839

Submission ID305 Baxter Rilla and Alan

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. A discussion of future

Trolley extension plans can be found in the RTP, accessible at:

www.sandag.org/2050rtp.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Beeman, Daniel - ID060

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

840 September 2014

Beeman, Daniel - ID060
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Beeman, Daniel - ID060

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 841

Submission ID060 Beeman Daniel

Com ID Response

1 The requested edit to show La Jolla Parkway as connecting to I-5 and SR 52 on the

base map used in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and technical reports was made for the Final

SEIS/SEIR and technical reports (available for review on the SANDAG website at

www.sandag.org/midcoast).

The comment expressing support for a station at the I-5/SR 52 interchange has been

noted. During CEQA scoping in 2010, comments suggested the evaluation of this

station. As noted in Chapter 8.0, Section 8.4.3 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report, the station at SR 52 was not

recommended for further consideration, mainly because of the grade differences in

that area which would preclude walk access because all development within one-half

mile would be restricted by the existing steep topography. The construction of parkand-ride facilities not associated with Trolley stations is beyond the scope of this

project.

2 Your comment expressing opposition to the aerial alignment along Genesee Avenue

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. While significant

impacts related to construction are identified in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, elimination of

the structure along Genesee Avenue would not reduce the impacts of the project in

this area. An at-grade alignment along Genesee Avenue was determined to be

infeasible primarily due to significant traffic impacts that would extend beyond the

construction period as a result of the permanent loss of travel lanes. The

incorporation of a tunnel along Genesee Avenue with aerial viaducts along I-5 was

determined to not be feasible because it would substantially increase the capital,

operating, and maintenance cost of the project.

The alignment extends approximately 400 feet beyond the UTC Transit Center

(referred to as a "tail track") to provide a storage and turn back area for Trolley

vehicles. This tail track is required to support operation of the project.

3 The comment requesting a station at Nobel Drive, providing a connection to

COASTER/Amtrak services, has been noted and will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In 1995 the Mid-Coast Corridor Project included

a new COASTER station along the existing COASTER rail corridor in University City.

Following a 2003 study that evaluated adding the Nobel Drive COASTER Station, the

project was not advanced due to cost constraints and potential operating impacts to

COASTER services. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation

of Alternatives Report evaluated changed conditions since the 1995 AA/DEIS/DEIR,

the 2001 FEIS, and the 2003 updated LPA. This report found no sufficient

justification to add this station back into the project.

The purpose of the project is to improve transit service in the Mid-Coast Corridor

between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and University City (see Chapter 1.0,
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Beeman, Daniel - ID060

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

842 September 2014

Com ID Response

Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). To effectively meet this purpose, the project

needs to serve the major travel destinations within University City, including UTC.

Terminating the project near Nobel Drive would require passengers to transfer to a

bus to reach their destinations within the UTC area. If required to transfer, fewer

passengers would use the system. The existing transit center at UTC also is a major

transfer facility for connecting bus service to other destinations in University City and

the region.

Service to the UTC Transit Center is important from a transit ridership standpoint.

The UTC Transit Center and the Executive Drive Station are projected to have the

third and fourth highest daily ridership, respectively, after the UCSD West and Balboa

Avenue Stations, thus supporting the need for transit service to the UTC Transit

Center (refer to Chapter 4.0, Table 4-27 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report for information regarding daily

boardings at each station). Refer to response to Comment 2 for a discussion of the

aerial alignment on Genesee Avenue.

Regarding the use of taxpayer funds, the local share of funding for this project will

come from the existing TransNet sales tax, which was most recently passed by the

voters of San Diego County in 2004. The ballot measure listed the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project as a priority for use of TransNet funds. The project was

described in the 2004 ballot measure as providing “high-level transit service along the

I-5 corridor from the Old Town area to the U.C. San Diego/University Towne Center

area...” Therefore, while the alignment described in the comment could provide

benefits to transit passengers, the alignment would be inconsistent with the project as

approved by voters.

4 As noted in the response to Comment 1, it is not feasible to construct a station at the

I-5/SR 52 interchange.

5 The comment requesting a free, one-stop ride for bicyclists has been noted and will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

6 Your comment regarding the timing of public meetings for the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project and the Mid-City Rapid Bus Project has been noted and will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG scheduled multiple

meetings in different locations throughout the Mid-Coast Corridor to provide

interested stakeholders with options regarding when and where to attend meetings,

and most meetings extended into the evening to accommodate people who work.

During the public comment period for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft

SEIS/SEIR, the following four public meetings and a public hearing were held:

· June 4, Cadman Elementary School in Clairemont, 4-7 p.m.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Beeman, Daniel - ID060

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 843

Com ID Response

· June 6, Price Center East on UCSD Campus, 3-6 p.m.

· June 10, La Jolla Country Day School in University City, 4-7 p.m.

· June 18, Caltrans offices in Old Town, 4-7 p.m.

· June 21 (public hearing), SANDAG offices in Downtown San Diego, 9 a.m.

Meetings were conducted in an open house format that included information stations

covering a variety of topics, thus allowing people to drop in at their convenience.

The Mid-Coast meetings spanned from the late afternoon into the early evening to

accommodate participants who wanted to attend toward the end of the work day, as

well as those who preferred to attend after work hours or in the early evening. While

the required public hearing was scheduled during the business day, it was conducted

as part of the SANDAG Transportation Committee meeting, which has a regularly

scheduled meeting time of 9 a.m. on the third Friday of each month.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Beth - ID043

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

844 September 2014

Beth - ID043
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Beth - ID043

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 845

Submission ID043 Beth

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Stations will be located on

the UCSD campus in Pepper Canyon, and near UCSD Thornton Hospital and Scripps

Memorial Hospital La Jolla. Additionally, on November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board

of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which includes the VA Medical

Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Biendara, Butch - ID108

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

846 September 2014

Biendara, Butch - ID108
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Biendara, Butch - ID108

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 847

Submission ID108 Biendara Butch

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The environmental impacts of the project are

described and discussed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As summarized in the Executive

Summary, adverse and significant long-term unmitigated impacts are limited to

traffic impacts on one roadway segment and two intersections, while temporary

construction-related impacts are limited to noise impacts, transit disruption (due to

Trolley and bus schedule impacts), roadway impacts, parking impacts, and air

quality impacts. The risks and uncertainties in the cost estimate, which include

scope and schedule risks, are acknowledged in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.5 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG and FTA will continue to collaborate as design

progresses to refine the cost estimate.

As explained in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIR, the

local share of project funding will come from the existing TransNet sales tax, which

was the result of a ballot measure passed by the voters of San Diego County. The

cost of the project will be shared across the region. Benefits of the project will also

be dispersed across the region since the Trolley Blue Line provides connections to

the Trolley Green and Trolley Orange Lines as well as local and regional bus

routes.

2 No adverse visual impacts to Mission Bay will occur as a result of the project. The

alignment will be within the existing rail corridor, separated from the bay by I-5. As

stated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, "Existing residential

areas along the east side of Morena Boulevard at lower elevations do not have

views of the bay because of freeway and ancillary landscape and berm features. At

higher elevations, the line of sight to Mission Bay from residences would be above

any of the project features and, therefore, will not be affected.”

3 Significant delays on I-5 resulting from project construction are not anticipated.

During project construction, the number of travel lanes on I-5 during the day will be

maintained (four lanes in each direction) as indicated in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-32 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR. By limiting lane and full freeway closures to nighttime hours,

delays on I-5 will be minimized.

A Transportation Management Plan will be prepared prior to the start of

construction with the goal to move motorists through the work zones safely and

quickly. As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the

heading "Transportation Management Plan," this plan will be developed in

consultation with the applicable public agencies and emergency providers.

Fatalities along I-5 resulting from construction activity are not anticipated. In

addition, Chapter 6.0, Section 6.12 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Construction Impacts Technical Report identifies project measures related to

project safety during construction.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Biendara, Butch - ID108

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

848 September 2014

Com ID Response

4 The comment is interpreted to be expressing opposition to the current steel-wheel

on steel-rail technology while stating support for an alternate technology.

As stated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, one of the purposes

of the project is to reduce the number of transfers required to complete a trip. Using

a different form of technology that is not compatible with the current MTS system

would not support this purpose. Further, the portion of the project between Santa

Fe Depot and the OTTC utilizes existing tracks, which support light-rail transit steelwheel on steel-rail technology. To facilitate the schedule for implementation of the

project, it is necessary to use readily available technology as opposed to

technologies that are not widely available or developed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 849

Bordieri, Paul - ID169
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

850 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 851
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

852 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 853
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

854 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 855
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

856 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 857
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

858 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 859
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

860 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 861

Submission ID169 Bordieri Paul

Com ID Response

1 Two new intersections will be constructed as part of the project to provide access to

the Clairemont Drive Station and the associated 150-space park-and-ride lot.

SANDAG conducted traffic studies for both long-term (year 2030) and near-term

conditions at five locations (three existing and two new intersections) in the vicinity

of the Clairemont Drive Station using City of San Diego guidelines (refer to Chapter

3.0, Figure 3-2 inset 2 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR for the locations analyzed). These

traffic studies, which also consider the effect of changes to traffic volumes in the

future, found that there will be no long-term adverse or near-term significant traffic

impact at these intersections. For details regarding 2030 impacts, see Chapter 4.0,

Table 4-62 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and

Mitigation Report. The near-term project impacts near the Clairemont Drive Station

are presented in Chapter 7.0, Table 7-9 of the same report.

2 The Clairemont Drive Station will have two entrance and exit driveways as a result

of the project: one on Clairemont Drive and one on Ingulf Street (as shown on

Sheet 310 in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set). The width and number of access

driveways and the street improvement design associated with the project will be

designed to comply with city and state specifications and standards (e.g., the City of

San Diego Standard Drawings, the City of San Diego Street Design Manual, and

the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices).

3 Station and parking design and safety are discussed in response to Comment 2.

4 Pedestrians using the Clairemont Drive Station park-and-ride facility and walking to

the Trolley station will use the existing signalized intersection and crosswalk at

Morena Boulevard and Ingulf Street. This signalized intersection was analyzed and

included in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, as discussed in response to Comment 1. As

indicated in that response, the project will not result in adverse or significant traffic

impacts in this location.

Construction of a pedestrian underpass at Morena Boulevard to access the

Clairemont Drive Station is not feasible because it would conflict with the existing

72-inch sewer pipe located under Morena Boulevard and the station platform.

Additionally, the available station platform width is limited by the existing LOSSAN

rail tracks to the west and Morena Boulevard to the east, with insufficient space to

accommodate an ADA-compliant, accessible pedestrian ramp or path between the

underpass and the station platform.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

862 September 2014

Com ID Response

5 The Balboa Avenue Station is a critical component of the project. This station will

have a 220-space park-and-ride facility and will be served by four bus routes. As

shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the Balboa Avenue

Station will have the second-highest daily ridership among the new stations

constructed as part of the project, with more than 3,000 boardings daily (only the

UCSD West Station will have greater ridership).

The pedestrian bridge will connect the station to areas north of Balboa Avenue. As

there are limited at-grade crossings in this area, the pedestrian bridge will provide

the means for accessing the station from points north of Balboa Avenue without

crossing the streets. Sidewalks will be added along portions of Balboa Avenue and

the reconfigured Morena Boulevard/Balboa Avenue ramp to provide pedestrian

connections from the surrounding residential communities to the station.

6 Approximately 70 percent of transit patrons will access the Balboa Avenue Station

via a transfer from a bus route, while approximately 20 percent will access the

station via automobile. Four bus routes will provide service to the station, as shown

in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 2

regarding stations in residential areas.

7 The importance of the Balboa Avenue Station is discussed in response to Comment

5. Refer to response to Comment 1 regarding traffic impacts.

8 The purpose of the project is to provide an alternative means of travel when

roadways are congested by improving transit connections between Downtown San

Diego, Old Town, and University City. Your comments regarding traffic conditions

on I-5 as a result of the SR 52 interchange, typical working hours, and unsafe

driving practices will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

9 Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change as a

result of the project.

10 The Trolley will be electrically powered and, as a result, there will be no emissions

from fuel combustion associated with operations of the system. In addition, a

Trolley traveling at its maximum speed of 55 mph will not generate substantial

levels of dust. Within the Mission Bay area (near the Bay Park neighborhood), the

project will use ballasted track and compacted engineered embankment, both of

which will reduce the amount of exposed soil and fugitive dust within the railroad

right-of-way.

11 Refer to Master Response 7 regarding project-related noise impacts in the Morena

Boulevard/Balboa Avenue area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 863

Com ID Response

12 Refer to Master Response 7 regarding project-related noise impacts in the Morena

Boulevard/Balboa Avenue area. The project will not result in noise impacts in the

Bay Park area that require mitigation..

13 Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the evolution of the project alignment.

As originally drafted in 1995, the LRT alignment served both UCSD and University

City, terminating in University City. The commenter is correct that one previously

considered alignment, LRT Alternative 3, would have traveled within the existing

MTS right-of-way through Rose Canyon. As described in more detail in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report, this

alternative would have had the greatest amount of impacts to ecosystems and

biological resources because of its alignment within the canyon. As a result, there

was strong public opposition to this alternative. Ultimately, the SANDAG Board of

Directors dropped this alternative from further consideration in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

14 The project will serve trips of all kinds—including trips to and from work, shopping,

recreation, and colleges and universities. The intent in planning and designing the

project has been to increase transit ridership in the region as much as possible.

Within and near this corridor, student travel to and from UCSD, the University of

San Diego, San Diego Mesa College, and San Diego City College constitutes a

significant market for transit. The faculty and staff at these institutions will also use

the project to travel to and from work on campus.

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR presents information on transit trips

by trip purpose. As shown in this table, there will be a 7-percent increase in the

number of home-to-college trips by transit as a result of the project.

15 The comments regarding the impacts to community infrastructure associated with

improvements to USD will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.

The goal of the transit project is to provide access to destinations in the Mid-Coast

Corridor, including University City and UCSD. This is a publicly funded project that

will serve residents, employees, and visitors in the corridor.

Additionally, any roads damaged by construction of the project will be repaired upon

the conclusion of construction activity in that area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

864 September 2014

Com ID Response

16 As discussed in response to Comment 8, the project seeks to more effectively

connect residents and jobs between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and

University City within the Mid-Coast Corridor as well as to other parts of the region

by transit. The analysis of travel markets shows a significant level of trips between

the University City area and locations east and south of Downtown San Diego,

which would be served by the Trolley extension. The project will also serve UCSD

students, faculty, and staff. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model predicts

that the project will increase home-to-college transit trips by 7 percent compared to

the No-Build Alternative. The justification for this project reflects all of the different

types of trips that will be accommodated, not just those for UCSD students. For

those who use the transit system, extending the Trolley Blue Line will mean a faster

trip compared to a trip via bus. The project will also offer a one-seat ride from San

Ysidro to University City, while others using the Trolley Orange and Trolley Green

Lines will be able to make the trip with one easy cross-platform transfer from one

Trolley line to another.

17 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is a public project and is in the 2030

Regional Transportation Plan adopted by SANDAG. SANDAG, a public agency

that serves as the forum for regional decision-making, coordinates with many

stakeholders regarding the project, including the City of San Diego, UCSD, the

Veterans Administration, several shopping centers, community planning groups,

and other local groups and organizations. The environmental review process

includes extensive public involvement and opportunities to comment for both public

and private entities. In addition, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was

approved by the voters of the region when TransNet was approved.

18 Refer to Master Response 11 regarding crime and security.

19 Your comment regarding impacts in the Bay Park area and expressing

disagreement with the statement that there is no community opposition to the

project will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Particulate matter (dust) from the project is discussed in response to Comment 10.

Refer to Master Response 7 for a discussion of noise impacts in the Morena

Boulevard/Balboa Avenue area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Bordieri, Paul - ID169

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 865

Com ID Response

20 While new development, including restaurants, could occur near the Balboa Avenue

Station, this development is expected to be consistent with adopted community

plans and will be subject to city review. As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.6.1 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, "under the Build Alternative, enhanced mobility could create

opportunities for more intensive and focused urban growth near transit stations and

corridors....The growth created under the Build Alternative would be consistent with

adopted community plans, and growth in travel beyond that already anticipated in

local or regional plans would not occur."

Additionally, the Balboa Avenue Station will "be located in Smart Growth

Opportunity Areas where densities already meet or will soon meet the target

development intensities, or where local government land use plans and zoning

support higher density smart growth....This future development would be consistent

with adopted land use plans and existing zoning regulations consistent with the City

of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) and the RCP....Community

infrastructure and public facilities would be improved and/or expanded in Smart

Growth Opportunity Areas in accordance with adopted plans to support the planned

urban development in areas targeted for growth" (Chapter 4.0, Section 4.18.2.2 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR).

The traffic analysis conducted for the project (refer to response to Comment 1) is

based on the SANDAG Series 11 Model, which incorporates anticipated future

growth.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brewer, Walt - ID301

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

866 September 2014

Brewer, Walt - ID301
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brewer, Walt - ID301

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 867

Submission ID301 Brewer Walter

Com ID Response

1 Your comment opposing the project has been noted and will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

A bus alternative was considered in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report. It was found to be less costly than the

Trolley extension, but also far less effective in meeting regional goals. As stated in

Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, “Although the Mid-Coast Corridor is

currently served by bus transit, the existing transit system in the Mid-Coast Corridor

does not offer the level of service needed to meet the region’s goals for mobility,

accessibility, reliability, and efficiency....While transit mobility and accessibility to

northern portions of the corridor are provided by express and local buses, the speed

and reliability of bus service are constrained by roadway congestion, and many transit

riders are required to transfer in Downtown San Diego or at the OTTC to reach

destinations in University City. With congestion projected to increase in the future, the

level of service, reliability, and efficiency of the transit system will all decrease.” As

such, the exclusive right-of-way for transit that is proposed for the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project will shorten travel time, improve operational reliability, and reduce the

number of transfers required for transit travel between major travel markets in the

region.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brezic, David - ID065

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

868 September 2014

Brezic, David - ID065
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brezic, David - ID065

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 869

Submission ID065 Brezic David

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the Genesee Avenue Design Option will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013,

the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which

included center columns supporting the aerial LRT alignment on Genesee Avenue,

eliminating the Genesee Avenue Design Option (i.e., straddle bents on Genesee

Avenue) from consideration in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brown, Karen - ID222

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

870 September 2014

Brown, Karen - ID222
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brown, Karen - ID222

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 871

Submission ID222 Brown Karen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment opposing the Balboa Avenue Station has been noted and will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Draft SEIS/SEIR analyzed

the environmental effects that the project will have on surrounding communities and

residences. These topic areas included, but were not limited to, construction, air

quality, traffic, noise and vibration, safety, visual resources, displacement, public

services, community facilities, land use and development, and economic impacts.

The majority of the project alignment will be within an existing railroad and freeway

right-of-way and will be compatible with existing transportation uses.

Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for change in

crime rates in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

Refer to Master Response 2 for information regarding the need for transit stations in

residential neighborhoods.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brown, Steve - ID306

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

872 September 2014

Brown, Steve - ID306
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brown, Steve - ID306

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 873

Submission ID306 Brown Steve

Com ID Response

1 Your comment recommending undergrounding the portion of the alignment within

Genesee Avenue will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved

the Refined Build Alternative, which includes center columns supporting the aerial

LRT alignment on Genesee Avenue, for evaluation in the Final SEIS/SEIR. The

Genesee Avenue Design Option (i.e., straddle bents on Genesee Avenue) was

eliminated and is not considered in the Final SEIS/SEIR. This design option was

more visually intrusive than the Build Alternative.

Incorporation of a tunnel along Genesee Avenue, together with aerial viaducts

along I-5, would substantially increase the capital, operating, and maintenance

costs of the project. This increase in capital cost would make the project less cost

effective and would not be justified, as there are no significant or adverse impacts

associated with the aerial viaduct along Genesee Avenue that would be mitigated

through construction of a tunnel.

In addition, the transition from an aerial structure to a tunnel section on Genesee

Avenue would permanently remove a minimum of two lanes from the street in the

vicinity of the transition. Because of current land uses along Genesee Avenue,

there is no opportunity to widen Genesee Avenue to replace these two lanes.

The permanent loss of two lanes on Genesee Avenue would cause permanent

impacts to traffic on Genesee Avenue that cannot be mitigated. Furthermore,

along the 1,200 to 1,500 feet that would be required to transition from an aerial

guideway to a tunnel section along Genesee Avenue, there could be no crossing

of the guideway as the transition structure would prevent all cross traffic at

intersections.

As discussed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the purpose of the project is to improve

transit service in the Mid-Coast Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old

Town, and University City (refer to Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR). To effectively meet this purpose, the project needs to serve the

major travel destinations within University City, including both UCSD and UTC.

Eliminating the portion of the project along Genesee Avenue would require

passengers to transfer to a bus to reach their destinations within the UTC area.

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR indicates that the UTC Transit

Center will be the single busiest station on the Mid-Coast line in terms of transfers

on the extension of the Trolley Blue Line north of the OTTC, as it is a major

transfer facility for connecting bus service to other destinations in University City

and the region. In addition, approximately 35 percent of the ridership expected on

the project is between and including the UCSD East Station and the UTC Transit

Center.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Brown, Steve - ID306

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

874 September 2014

Com ID Response

In addition, as stated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 and summarized in Table 4-4

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, adverse visual impacts from the Build Alternative along

Genesee Avenue will be mitigated through a combination of design and

landscape treatments, which are explained further in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Browne, Dave - ID155

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 875

Browne, Dave - ID155
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Browne, Dave - ID155

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

876 September 2014

Submission ID155 Browne Dave

Com ID Response

1 The comment stating appreciation of the public meeting will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 The comment regarding the benefits of expanded Trolley service will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

3 The comment regarding interest in the location of the I-5 crossing south of Nobel

Drive, which was clarified by project team members during the public meeting, will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The alignment will

cross I-5 approximately 1,500 feet south of Nobel Drive. The alignment and project

features, including TPSSs, park-and-ride and station locations, and the I-5 crossing,

are shown in more detail in Figure 2-11 in the Final SEIS/SEIR, which presents the

plan and profile for the alignment. More detailed information is also provided in the

Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (refer to sheets 92-93), which is Volume 2 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR. The Plan Set is available at www.sandag.org/midcoast. Chapter 2.0,

Section 2.4.1 of the Final SEIS/SEIR states that the design of the crossing has been

modified since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to use columns rather than straddle bents to

support the structure. Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Visual Impacts Technical Report includes a visual simulation (Key View 26)

that depicts the updated design.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Browne, Terri - ID154

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 877

Browne, Terri - ID154
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Browne, Terri - ID154

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

878 September 2014

Submission ID154 Browne Terri

Com ID Response

1 Your comment stating appreciation of the public meeting presentation will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Buck, Alice - ID044

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 879

Buck, Alice - ID044
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Buck, Alice - ID044

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

880 September 2014

Submission ID044 Buck Alice

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing your preference for the Genesee Avenue design with

center columns has been noted. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of

Directors eliminated the Genesee Avenue Design Option (i.e., straddle bents on

Genesee Avenue) from consideration in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

3 Your comment offering to volunteer with regards to public art in station design has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Decisions on public art will be made during the station design process. Additional

information on the station design process will be made available on the project

website located at http://www.sandag.org/midcoast.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Burgess, Nicole - ID109

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 881

Burgess, Nicole - ID109
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Burgess, Nicole - ID109

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

882 September 2014

Submission ID109 Burgess Nicole

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Bicycles will be permitted aboard Trolley vehicles, consistent with current MTS policy.

Bicycle lockers will be provided at all stations along the Mid-Coast Corridor

alignment. As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the

project will restripe bicycle lanes near some stations upon the completion of

construction work.

SANDAG is committed to working with jurisdictional agencies (e.g., the City of San

Diego, UCSD, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) to promote safe and

effective environments for pedestrians and bicyclists at project stations. All new

station facilities will be designed to provide adequate access for pedestrians and

bicyclists, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities directly adjacent to new stations will

be upgraded where they are missing or do not provide adequate access. Refer to

Master Response 1 regarding bicycle connections to Trolley stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Burrascano, Cindy - ID312

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 883

Burrascano, Cindy - ID312
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Burrascano, Cindy - ID312

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

884 September 2014

Submission ID312 Burrascano Cindy

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the riparian habitat and

creek in Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce

impacts to native habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within existing

MTS right-of-way and is separated from the open space by two existing LOSSAN

tracks that support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project design

retains all open and natural channels and, as such, will not expand the concretelined areas in Rose Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will result

in temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive habitat areas

(including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance

with the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Vegetation affected by temporary

impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. Permanent impacts are primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way (rail

corridor). As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon.

Master Response 16 provides additional information about proposed mitigation for

impacts in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Calandro, JD - ID005

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 885

Calandro, JD - ID005
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Calandro, JD - ID005

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

886 September 2014

Submission ID005 Calandro JD

Com ID Response

1 As part of the project, a pedestrian bridge will be constructed over Balboa Avenue

to connect the station platform to areas north of Balboa Avenue. Additionally, new

sidewalks will be added along the eastbound side of Balboa Avenue, the

reconfigured Morena Boulevard/Balboa Avenue ramp, and both sides of Morena

Boulevard to provide connections to the station. These improvements are shown in

Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-13 and described in Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The project does not include a pedestrian bridge over Morena Boulevard or the I-5

ramp, as the proposed facilities would provide safe and adequate access to the

station area. Refer to Master Response 1 for information about station design,

including pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID035

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 887

Caldwell, Linda - ID035
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID035

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

888 September 2014

Submission ID035 Caldwell Linda

Com

ID Response

1 Trolley operating hours will be established by MTS prior to opening of the project;

however, hours will be similar to those on the existing Trolley Blue Line. Currently, the

Trolley Blue Line operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next

day. Refer to Chapter 2.0, Section 2.2.2.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for a description of

the Trolley operating plan.

2 Traffic studies were conducted as part of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for the Nobel Drive/I-5

area and concluded that the project will not result in adverse impacts on roadway

segments or intersections in this station area. The results of this analysis were

presented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3.2 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report and summarized in Chapter 3.0, Section

3.4.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

3 The Final SEIS/SEIR’s construction noise analysis is described in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.17.3.2 under the heading "Noise and Vibration Impacts."

Project features and mitigation measures have been identified that will minimize noise

impacts to the extent practicable. These measures are summarized in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.17.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR under the heading “Noise and Vibration

Impacts” and in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.17 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Construction Impacts Technical Report. Measures include locating staging areas

away from noise-sensitive receivers, limiting unnecessary equipment idling, and

providing public notice to nearby residents prior to nighttime construction.

Additionally, during times when nighttime construction noise levels in locations along

Genesee Avenue, Charmant Drive, and in the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla

Gardens housing complex exceed the ambient noise level for that location by 5 dBA,

residents will be offered temporary relocation to a SANDAG approved hotel (see

Mitigation Measure CON2). SANDAG, as part of the final design of the project, will

prepare contract specifications that finalize the noise-control measures to be

implemented for specific activities during construction.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID153

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 889

Caldwell, Linda - ID153
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID153

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

890 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID153

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 891
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID153

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

892 September 2014

Submission ID153 Caldwell Linda

Com ID Response

1 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate as an extension of the existing

Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from

approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next day. In the opening year, the

Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute service frequency between

the America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00

a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods,

as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley

Blue Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency during the peak and off-peak

periods noted above, with less frequent service during the early morning and

evening hours. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be

established by MTS prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be

similar to those of the existing Trolley Blue Line.

2 The results of the future (2030) traffic analysis conducted for the intersection of

Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Square Driveway and at the intersection of Nobel

Drive and Via La Jolla Drive are provided in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-62 of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report; nearterm impacts are shown in Chapter 7.0, Table 7-9 of this report. The results of the

traffic study show that the addition of trips associated with the Nobel Drive Station

park-and-ride will not result in significant or adverse impacts either compared to

near-term conditions or as considered under anticipated 2030 conditions. The

analysis evaluated the level of service (LOS), which can range from A (best)

through F (worst), under existing and future conditions with and without the

project, and compared project-related impacts to the City of San Diego’s

thresholds for identifying significant traffic impacts.

To determine traffic impacts resulting from the project, conditions with the project

(referred to as the Build Alternative) were compared to conditions that would occur

without the project (referred to as the No-Build Alternative). For the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project, traffic studies evaluated both the anticipated traffic in the

year 2030 and the traffic demand as it existed in 2010 (referred to as near-term or

existing conditions). The 2030 analysis assumed an increase in traffic volumes

resulting from planned growth within the region. The 2010 conditions were based

on traffic counts collected in 2010. For both scenarios, SANDAG forecast the

number of vehicles that will access the Nobel Drive Station transit parking during

the peak hour and distributed them on the surrounding roadway network.

In 2030 at the intersection of Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Square Driveway,

the project will add up to 66 vehicles accessing the transit parking during the a.m.

peak hour and up to 55 vehicles exiting the transit parking during the p.m. peak

hour. The projected traffic volumes at the study intersections for the No-Build and

Build Alternatives are provided in Appendix B of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Caldwell, Linda - ID153

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 893

Com ID Response

As shown in Table 4-62 in Chapter 4.0 of the Transportation Impacts and

Mitigation Report, the intersection of Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Square

Driveway will operate at LOS E under both the No-Build and Build Alternatives in

2030 during the p.m. peak hour. The project in 2030 will increase average delay

at Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Square Driveway by 1.9 seconds in the p.m.

peak hour compared to the No-Build Alternative. This is less than the City of San

Diego’s threshold for an adverse impact. After the date of the traffic analysis for

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, exclusive right-turn lanes were constructed at this

intersection, which will improve the anticipated operation of the intersection in

2030 from LOS E to LOS D with the project.

Similarly, at the intersection of Nobel Drive and Villa La Jolla Drive, the project will

increase average delay by 1.4 seconds in 2030 during the a.m. peak hour and by

0.4 second during the p.m. peak hour. With the project, the level of service in the

a.m. peak hour will remain at LOS D, with LOS C conditions during the p.m. peak

hour. As a result, the project will not result in an adverse impact at this

intersection.

The results of the existing conditions analysis are documented in Chapter 7.0,

Table 7-9 of the Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report. As shown in this

table, the Nobel Drive at La Jolla Village Square and Nobel Drive at Villa La Jolla

Drive intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better)

with the addition of the project during both peak hours. Therefore, the addition of

the project will not result in a significant near-term impact near Nobel Drive.

3 Providing comments to a court reporter at the UCSD public meeting held for the

project on June 10, 2013, was an acceptable way to provide comments on the

Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Callon, Brandy - ID239

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

894 September 2014

Callon, Brandy - ID239
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Callon, Brandy - ID239

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 895

Submission ID239 Callon Brandy

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cao, Tan - ID110

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

896 September 2014

Cao, Tan - ID110
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cao, Tan - ID110

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 897

Submission ID110 Cao Tan

Com ID Response

1 As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the

heading “Air Quality Impacts: Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts,” the

project will be required to comply with regional and state rules and regulations that

govern construction activities. Additional measures to minimize emissions will be

included in the construction contract and will include, at minimum, the following best

management practices: minimize idle times of construction equipment, maintain

equipment in good condition, and control construction dust through watering of

earthwork during grading activities.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Christine - ID213

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

898 September 2014

Carlin, Christine - ID213
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Christine - ID213

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 899

Submission ID213 Carlin Christine

Com ID Response

1 Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR presented the capital funding

sources for the project. The local share of the project’s capital costs will be derived

from the existing TransNet sales tax, which was approved by San Diego County

voters. TransNet has sufficient capacity to pay for this project’s capital and

operating/maintenance costs, and no increase in local taxes is required to fund the

project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Christine - ID220

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

900 September 2014

Carlin, Christine - ID220
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Christine - ID220

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 901

Submission ID220 Carlin Christine

Com ID Response

1 Your statement expressing opposition to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23

units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses,

that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing

noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal but not exceed the

moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant

and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional

information on the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to

eliminate noise impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La

Paz condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the light-rail

tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the project will be

partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway noise. The noise impact

analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that there will be no

significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona

developments because they will be farther from, or shielded from, the project.

Additional information regarding operational noise levels is available in the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report.

Appendix G to this technical report provides detailed maps of all noise analysis

locations, and Table 5-4 provides existing noise levels and future projected projectgenerated noise levels for residential uses north of OTTC. The Barcelona

development is represented by Clusters 62 through 64 in the analysis. The existing

exterior sound levels range between 57 and 66 dBA Ldn, and the project will

introduce a new source of sound between 53 and 57 dBA Ldn, which is below the

current sound levels. Therefore, no impacts will occur at these locations and no

mitigation will be required.

2 The landscaping that will be removed along I-5 will be replaced by new landscaping

that will maintain a buffer between the transit system and the surrounding

environment. As outlined in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

Mitigation Measures VR4 through VR7 address landscaping mitigation, including the

replacement of landscaping that is removed during construction.

Refer to the response to Comment 1, which describes how noise from the freeway

will be reduced for some residences by the change in grade associated with the
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Christine - ID220

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

902 September 2014

Com ID Response

project. As stated in response to Comment 1, no significant noise impacts will occur

in the Barcelona Colony area.

3 The Trolley operates on a power system that is independent of household power

delivery. The power systems generate local fluctuations in the Earth’s natural

electromagnetic field at frequencies that are outside of the radio frequency band

and, therefore, do not interfere with radio reception.

EMF impacts have been analyzed, as documented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.14.3.2

of the Final SEIS/SEIR and described in more detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report. Mitigation for the

two locations where significant impacts would occur (at Scripps Memorial Hospital

La Jolla XiMed Building and the UCSD Structural Materials and Engineering

Building) is identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.14.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR

(Mitigation Measure EMF1).

4 Although some bus routes will be modified to serve the Trolley stations constructed

as part of the project (refer to Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR), the

frequency of bus service within the corridor will not increase as a result of the

project. Therefore, the project will not require the purchase of any additional bus

vehicles, and changes to bus service will not result in substantial changes in traffic

congestion as compared to the No-Build Alternative.

5 The project will not substantially alter adjacent communities along the alignment. As

identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3.3.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical

Report, the project will not create a new physical or perceived barrier, will not

introduce a new visual element that is incompatible with existing neighborhood

character, will not reduce accessibility to community facilities, and will not result in

major changes to land use. With mitigation, no adverse environmental impacts,

including noise, will occur that could degrade the quality of life in the neighborhoods

along the alignment, including the La Jolla Colony/Barcelona Colony area. Refer to

the response to Comment 1 regarding the noise analysis and mitigation in this area.

6 As indicated in the responses to Comments 1 through 5, with mitigation, the project will

not result in permanent significant or adverse impacts in the La Jolla Colony/Barcelona

Colony area. Refer to Master Response 10 regarding property values.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Stephen - ID313

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 903

Carlin, Stephen - ID313
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Stephen - ID313

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

904 September 2014

Submission ID313 Carlin Stephen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Responses to your concerns are addressed in the responses below.

2 Your statement expressing opposition to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23

units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses,

that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing

noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the

moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant

and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional

information on the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to

eliminate noise impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La

Paz condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the

light-rail tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the

project will be partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway noise.

The noise impact analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined

that there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla

Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from, or shielded

from, the project.

Additional information regarding operational noise levels is available in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report.

Appendix G to this technical report provides detailed maps of all noise analysis

locations, and Table 5-4 provides existing noise levels and future projected projectgenerated noise levels for residential uses north of the OTTC. The Barcelona

development is represented by Clusters 62 through 64 in the analysis. The existing

exterior sound levels range between 57 and 66 dBA Ldn, and the project will

introduce a new source of sound between 53 and 57 dBA Ldn, which is below the

current sound levels. Therefore, no impacts will occur at these locations and no

mitigation will be required.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Stephen - ID313

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 905

Com ID Response

3 Where trees and vegetation associated with landscaping are removed by the project,

new vegetation will typically be provided as mitigation. Specifically, mitigation

measures for vegetation replacement are outlined in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR (see Mitigation Measures VR5, VR6, and VR7). In some areas,

vegetation will be removed as part of property take or in public roadway or freeway

right-of-way; in such cases, there may not be sufficient area available to replace the

vegetation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure VR6, trees larger than 6 inches

in diameter at chest height will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, and trees smaller than 6

inches in diameter at chest height will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio contingent upon the

approval of the land owner. Replacement trees may be located elsewhere along the

alignment if insufficient area is available where they are removed.

Refer to the response to Comment 2, which describes how noise from the freeway

will be reduced for some residences by the change in grade associated with the

project. As stated in response to Comment 2, no significant noise impacts will occur

in the Barcelona Colony area. Refer to Master Response 9 regarding noise

mitigation in general.

4 The Trolley operates on a power system that is independent of household power

delivery. The power systems generate local fluctuations in the earth’s natural

electromagnetic field at frequencies that are outside of the radio frequency band

and, therefore, do not interfere with radio reception.

EMF impacts have been analyzed, as documented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.14.3.2

of the Final SEIS/SEIR and described in more detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report. Mitigation for the

two locations where significant impacts would occur (at Scripps Memorial Hospital

La Jolla XiMed Building and the UCSD Structural Materials and Engineering

Building) is identified in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.14.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.

5 Although some bus routes will be modified to serve the Trolley stations constructed

as part of the project (refer to Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR), the

frequency of bus service within the corridor will not increase as a result of the

project. Therefore, the project will not require the purchase of any additional bus

vehicles, and changes to bus service will not result in substantial changes in traffic

congestion compared to the No-Build Alternative.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Carlin, Stephen - ID313

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

906 September 2014

Com ID Response

6 The project will not substantially alter adjacent communities along the alignment. As

identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and

Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report, the project will not create a new physical or

perceived barrier, will not introduce a new visual element that is incompatible with

existing neighborhood character, will not reduce accessibility to community facilities,

or result in major changes to land use. With mitigation, no adverse environmental

impacts, including noise, will occur that could degrade the quality of life in the

neighborhoods along the alignment, including the La Jolla Colony/Barcelona Colony

area. Refer to the response to Comment 1 regarding noise analysis and mitigation

in this area.

7 It is assumed that the electrical boxes referenced in the comment refer to the traction

power substations (TPSS). Refer to the response to Comment 4 regarding EMF.

TPSS units generate lower EMF fluctuations than that generated by the Trolley

vehicles. FTA studies have indicated that beyond the TPSS fence or wall, the EMF

produced by the TPSS equipment is typically indistinguishable from background

levels.

8 As indicated in the responses to Comments 1 through 7, with mitigation, the project

will not result in permanent significant or adverse impacts in the La Jolla

Colony/Barcelona Colony area. Refer to Master Response 10 regarding property

values.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ceveray, Brian - ID199

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 907

Ceveray, Brian - ID199
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ceveray, Brian - ID199

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

908 September 2014

Submission ID199 Ceveray Brian

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Chernowsky, Shirley - ID006

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 909

Chernowsky, Shirley - ID006
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Chernowsky, Shirley - ID006

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

910 September 2014

Submission ID006 Chernowsky Shirley

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 911

Christensen, Jon - ID338
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

912 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 913
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

914 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 915
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

916 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 917

Submission ID338 Christensen Jon

Com ID Response

1 The Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs were prepared in compliance with CEQA and

NEPA regulations. Chapters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 document a comprehensive impact

analysis covering the transportation network, land use plans and policies,

community and neighborhood impacts, socioeconomic and fiscal impacts, visual

resources and aesthetics, air quality, climate change, noise and vibration,

ecosystems and biological resources, water resources, hazardous materials,

geotechnical and seismic conditions, energy, safety and security, electromagnetic

interference, historic/archaeological/ paleontological resources, utilities,

construction impacts, growth inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, environmental

justice, and parklands.

Circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR afforded interested citizens and agencies an

opportunity to comment on the project, the assessment of impacts, and proposed

mitigation measures. To facilitate public comment on the document, SANDAG

hosted four public meetings and one public hearing during June 2013 in locations

throughout the Mid-Coast Corridor. These meetings provided an opportunity for the

public to learn more about the project and offer comments. Comments were

accepted via voice mail, postal mail, e-mail, fax, and comment cards, and a court

reporter recorded verbal comments at the public meetings and hearing.

The project has been designed to integrate well with the bus system. Bus stops

allowing for convenient transfers between buses and the Trolley are provided at

most of the new stations. Chapter 2.0, Figures 2-11 through 2-19 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR showed the locations of bus loading areas in relation to the planned

stations. The location of the bus stop at the Clairemont Drive Station was refined

after the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period and is shown in Chapter 2.0,

Figure 2-13 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. Anticipated changes to bus frequencies were

provided in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for service in 2030. MTS

is continually monitoring bus service and usage, and adjusting schedules

accordingly, so the bus schedules to be in place in the opening year are not

reasonably foreseeable at this time.

The comment regarding the financial information being confusing and incomplete

has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The FTA and its Financial Management Oversight Contractors have

reviewed the project's Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Their Annual Report

on Funding Recommendations, FY 2014, assigned the project a "Medium–High"

rating for local financial commitment.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

918 September 2014

Com ID Response

2 At the time that the Draft SEIS/SEIR was published, the total estimated amount of

TransNet sales tax bond proceeds needed for the project was $825 million. In

addition, the Financial Plan showed $450 million in Grant Anticipation Notes

(GANs), for a total of $1,275 million in debt financing. The project funding and

financing strategy was shown in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-7 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The amount of GANs was reflected as part of the FTA Section 5309 New Starts

funds because that amount would be eligible for repayment through the New Starts

program. Additional detail on the project funding and financing strategy was

provided in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.2 of the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR;

the project sources and uses of funds by fiscal year were summarized in Chapter

3.0, Table 3-4 of that Financial Plan.

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, summarized the interest and up-front

financing costs associated with the $1,275 million in both TransNet bond proceeds and

GANs for the project during the 10-year period from FY 2014 to FY 2024. This was

considered to be the period in which SANDAG would be receiving FTA Section 5309

New Starts funds for the project. These tables are updated in Chapter 6.0, Tables 6-5

and 6-6 of the Final SEIS/SEIR to reflect the engineering refinements and updated

capital cost, implementation schedule, and financing strategy.

3 Your support for public transit and your comment on the adequacy of the document

have been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The concerns referenced in your comment are addressed in the

following responses.

4 Intermodal connections are an important aspect of the project. Riders will arrive at

the stations by auto, bus, and on foot or bicycles, as shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-

18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. More than half (58 percent) of the riders are expected to

arrive by bus, and one-fifth (21 percent) by auto. SANDAG has designed the

project to provide convenient access for all riders, regardless of how they choose to

get to the stations.

Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR listed the bus routes that were

anticipated to connect to each of the nine new stations. The last column of this

table indicated whether the route will be modified under the Build Alternative.

Modifications consisted of minor route adjustments to connect to the station. The

frequency of service during peak and off-peak periods was also shown. A map of

the bus routes was presented in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

As stated in the comment, only Route 150 will be eliminated when the project

begins operation. The other bus routes, including the loop routes in University City,

will continue to operate. The UCSD shuttle bus service and the SuperLoop provide

an essential service for short trips within the University City/UCSD area. These

local circulator bus services were not designed or envisioned to serve as a feeder

system to connect University City and the UTC Transit Center to the Trolley.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 919

Com ID Response

As shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, there will be 15-minute

service frequencies on the extension of the Trolley Blue Line in opening year, and

there will be 7.5-minute service frequencies in FY 2030. The bus frequencies

shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR were for FY 2030.

If the extension were terminated at the VA Medical Center, as suggested in the

comment, those passengers with an origin or destination in University City would

find it necessary to transfer to a bus. As indicated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR, one of the purposes of the project is to reduce the number of

transfers required to complete a trip and to provide a one-seat ride between the

most significant origins and destinations of travel. University City, with nearly as

many jobs as Downtown San Diego, is one of the region’s most significant origins

and destinations. If passengers were forced to transfer to a bus, fewer of them

would use the system and their travel time would be longer and less reliable.

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR indicated that the UTC Transit

Center will be the busiest station on the Mid-Coast Line. Additionally, if the line

were terminated at the VA Medical Center, there would be no opportunity for transit

parking or a bus transfer facility, both of which will be provided at the UTC Transit

Center. There will be 260 transit parking spaces at the UTC Transit Center.

5 The commenter is correct in recognizing the importance of ridership in predicting

the benefits and fare revenues that will be derived from the project, but incorrect in

stating that county-wide population growth forecasts were misapplied onto this

limited area of the city. The SANDAG’s Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting

Model predicted regional growth to 2030 and predicted where that growth is most

likely to occur. As noted in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.2.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the

county's population was expected to grow 23 percent between 2010 and 2030,

while population in the Mid-Coast Corridor was expected to grow 19 percent. Close

to half of the corridor’s population growth was anticipated to occur in Downtown

San Diego. In addition, all of the project stations are located in designated Smart

Growth Opportunity Areas.

The anticipated growth in population and employment will lead to an increase in

travel. SANDAG’s Series 11 model predicts travel within the entire region, identifies

the likely origins and destinations of those trips, and assigns that travel to the

transportation network to predict how many trips will be made on each link in the

system. While the project corridor lies completely within the City of San Diego, it

will be part of the regional network and will attract trips that begin and/or end

outside the city. The forecasts contained in the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs were

reviewed and accepted by FTA at the start of Preliminary Engineering.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

920 September 2014

Com ID Response

6 As shown in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the capital cost

estimates included a total contingency of 32 percent, reflecting the level of design at

the time the estimate was prepared. Appropriate contingency amounts were

developed through collaboration among SANDAG, FTA, and FTA’s Project

Management Oversight Contractor. The updated capital cost estimate in the Final

SEIS/SEIR includes a 33 percent contingency, which is conservative at this stage of

project development. These contingency percentages are expected to decrease as

project design is better defined.

FTA guidance on contingencies can be found at:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/OP33_Capital_Cost_Estimate_Review_Rev._2_

May_2010MB.pdf.

7 Chapter 6.0, Table 6-3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR showed the project’s capital cost

estimate in Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars. This estimate reflected an assumed

construction schedule and escalation rates for materials and labor. For the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, construction was assumed to start in FY 2015 and revenue service was

assumed to begin by the end of FY 2018.

There is no single YOE, as costs are incurred throughout the construction period

and are escalated accordingly. The updated capital cost estimate in the Final

SEIS/SEIR is derived in the same manner, using an updated construction schedule

and updated escalation factors. The revised cost is presented in Chapter 6.0,

Table 6-1 in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-2 of the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR summarized

the project costs in base year (2011) dollars as well as in YOE dollars and showed

the assumed escalation rates by fiscal year. As the table shows, these escalation

factors vary by year since they are based on the cash flow, escalation assumption,

and relative proportion of each Standard Cost Category (SCC). The statement that

one single escalation factor of 3.5 percent was used to escalate costs for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR is inaccurate. Separate escalation rates were developed for different

SCCs (construction activities, vehicles, and professional services). The rates

corresponding to the most probable scenario were then used to escalate expected

costs by SCC from base year dollars to YOE dollars. The assumptions and

methodology for calculating these escalation factors were detailed in the

Construction Cost Escalation Forecast 2011 – 2018 Report.

For the Final SEIS/SEIR, the escalation rates are updated for four different SCCs

(construction activities, right-of-way, vehicles, and professional services) using 2013

as the base year. The rates corresponding to the most probable scenario are then

used to escalate expected costs by SCC from base year (2013) dollars to YOE

dollars. The assumptions and methodology for calculating these escalation rates

are detailed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cost Escalation Forecast

(2014 to 2023).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 921

Com ID Response

8 Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR summarized the project's

Financial Plan. This plan was made available to the public on SANDAG’s website

at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/midcoast/tr-10.pdf. Chapter 3.0, Section 3.2 of

the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR described the project funding and

financing strategies in detail. The summary of the Financial Plan is updated and

provided in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR and is also available

on the SANDAG website (refer to Chapter 3.0, Section 3.2 of the Financial Plan for

the Final SEIS/SEIR).

As noted in the comment, Chapter 6.0, Section 6.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR showed

a total estimated amount of TransNet sales tax bond proceeds needed for the

project as $825 million in addition to $450 million in GANs, for a total of $1,275

million in debt financing for the project. The financing cost of $343 million in

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR represented the interest and up-front

financing costs associated with the $1,275 million in TransNet bond proceeds and

GANs for a 10-year period from FY 2014 to FY 2024. (The comment that SANDAG

is spending $343 million in interest to acquire $825 million in proceeds is

inaccurate.) This was considered to be the period in which SANDAG would be

receiving FTA Section 5309 New Starts funds for the project. This was singled out

because interest paid during this period is eligible for FTA participation.

Because the finance costs were calculated for a set period of time (FY 2014 to FY

2024), the bonds issued earlier in that period (such as FY 2014) would have had

more years of debt service included in the total than the bond issuances that would

have occurred in later years. For example, the total financing costs included 10

years of interest associated with the FY 2014 issuance, but only four years of

interest associated with the FY 2020 issuance. Additionally, the total financing

costs shown in the plan differed based on the amount of proceeds from each

issuance that were used for the project. The FY 2016 issuance of $255 million was

expected to be used in its entirety for the project. Hence, the up-front financing cost

of $4 million and the interest through FY 2024 of $86 million were counted toward

the project’s total financing costs. On the other hand, only $80 million of the FY

2020 issuance of $619 million was needed for the project (or approximately 13

percent). Therefore, 13 percent of the up-front financing cost of $9 million (or $1

million) and 13 percent of the interest through FY 2024 of $108 million (or $14

million) were counted toward the project’s total financing costs. The remaining

bond proceeds were used to fund the rest of the TransNet program. As such, the

total financing costs associated with each issuance differed based on the amount of

proceeds applied to the project and the number of years included in the total.

The Financial Plan has been updated for the Final SEIS/SEIR, and the amount of debt

financing for the project has increased to $1,485 million ($935 million in TransNet sales

tax bond proceeds and $550 million in GANs), as shown in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-6 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR. Additional debt is needed due to the unavailability of FTA New

Starts funds for the project until FY 2016 (the Draft SEIS/SEIR assumed FTA News
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

922 September 2014

Com ID Response

Starts funds will be available starting in FY 2014). Debt financing for the project is

comprised of $935 million in TransNet sales tax bond proceeds and $550 million in

GANs. The financing cost associated with the revised debt financing of $1,485 million

is expected to total $424 million for a 12-year period between FY 2015 and FY 2026.

This is considered to be the period in which SANDAG will be receiving FTA Section

5309 New Starts funds for the project.

9 Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR summarized the project’s

Financial Plan and demonstrated that the region, through the TransNet sales tax,

has sufficient local funds to build and operate the project. The Financial Plan's

summary has been updated and is provided in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR.

As the project nears construction, SANDAG will continue to monitor market

conditions and evaluate the most cost-effective strategies for financing the project.

SANDAG’s goal is to minimize financing costs to the agency, optimize the use of

the TransNet revenue stream in accordance with the TransNet program, and

comply with the agency’s policies for debt financing. Once a Full Funding Grant

Agreement (FFGA) is in place, FTA New Starts revenues are a relatively

predictable source of revenues that can be leveraged as a source of repayment for

bonds. However, there may be advantages to the agency in issuing GANs that can

be repaid with FTA New Starts revenues over time. Regardless, as noted above,

SANDAG will consider alternative financing tools if they present a more costeffective financing strategy based on market conditions at the time of issuance.

10 TransNet sales tax revenues are assumed to increase each year, above the $204

million received in FY 2010. This assumption is based on the growth in taxable

retail sales as projected by the SANDAG Demographic and Economic Forecasting

Model. Based on this model, the growth rate in TransNet sales tax revenues is

expected to range from 3.9 percent to 6.0 percent each year through 2050. These

forecasts represent the best assessment of the changes anticipated for the region

and its communities and are based on the best available information and wellproven and verified computer models.

SANDAG has experienced a positive growth in sales tax revenues consistent with

expectations that revenue increases will occur as the local and national economy

begins to experience job growth. For the Draft SEIS/SEIR, TransNet revenues in

FY 2013 were projected to be 5.5 percent higher than actual FY 2012 revenues.

Although the outlook for future sales tax revenue has improved, the economic

turnaround has been slow and sporadic. As such, a modest 4.9 percent

compounded increase in TransNet revenue was projected through 2030. The same

4.9 percent compounded increase in TransNet revenue is assumed in the Final

SEIS/SEIR. The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee continues to closely

monitor the latest developments in the financial markets and the economy to

minimize possible impacts to the TransNet program.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 923

Com ID Response

Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR summarized the project's

Financial Plan. Chapter 3.0, Section 3.2 of the Financial Plan for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR described the project’s funding and financing strategies in detail.

Chapter 6.0, Section 6.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR noted the risks and uncertainties in

the plan, including the availability of New Starts funding and the growth in TransNet

sales tax revenues. Risk mitigation strategies were addressed in Chapter 6.0,

Section 6.5.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and were described in detail in Chapter 6.0,

Section 6.3 of the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. These strategies

included seeking additional state and federal funding and/or issuing additional debt

backed by TransNet revenues. These sections have been updated in Chapter 6.0,

Section 6.3 of the Financial Plan for the Final SEIS/SEIR and in Chapter 6.0,

Section 6.5.3 of the Final SEIS/SEIR to reflect engineering refinements that provide

more detail to better estimate costs.

It is not clear what the commenter has in mind as “one time purposes.” TransNet

funds may only be used for projects identified in the ballot measure. The ballot

measure identified the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as one of three priority

projects for TransNet revenues, and the other two projects have been or are nearly

completed. Thus, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has first priority on the

remaining TransNet revenue stream.

As the commenter noted, the FTA’s New Starts program is currently authorized

through September 2014. It is not expected that FTA and SANDAG will enter into a

FFGA committing to construction of the project before the middle of FY 2016. The

future availability of New Starts funds may be clearer by that time. The history of

the program provides great confidence that federal funding commitments in an

FFGA will be honored.

Travel time from the OTTC to the UTC Transit Center will take approximately 22

minutes via the Trolley Blue Line. As stated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, the purpose of the project is not only to reduce travel times but to

increase reliability, reduce the number of transfers required to complete a trip made

using transit, make transfers more convenient, and expand transit capacity to

accommodate existing and future travel demand.

11 As noted in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.2 of the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Financial Plan

assumed that 49.4 percent of the project’s capital cost or close to $1 billion in YOE

dollars would be covered by funds from FTA’s New Starts program. Although FTA

has not yet made a commitment to fund this project, FTA’s April 2013 Annual

Report on Funding Recommendations, Fiscal Year 2014 gave the project an overall

rating of "Medium–High." Based on this rating, the project is considered to be

highly competitive for New Starts funds in the future. The availability and timing of

New Starts funding were among the risks and uncertainties described in Chapter
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Christensen, Jon - ID338

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

924 September 2014

Com ID Response

6.0, Section 6.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.1 of the

Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

FTA’s New Starts program is currently authorized through September 2014. It is

not expected that FTA and SANDAG will enter into a FFGA committing to

construction of the project before the middle of FY 2016. The future availability of

New Starts funds may be clearer by that time. The history of the program gives

great confidence that federal funding commitments in an FFGA will be honored.

The Financial Plans for the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs do not contemplate a

scenario without New Starts funding.

12 This comment has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. The project does include multimodal considerations, including

bus-to-rail transfer facilities as well as provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities

at stations (refer to Master Response 1). As noted in the above responses, the

ridership forecast reflects standard practices and was reviewed and accepted by

the FTA at the start of Preliminary Engineering. Contingencies and inflation factors

included in the capital cost estimate are also reflective of standard practices and

FTA guidance, offering a realistic yet somewhat conservative estimate. As such,

the Draft SEIS/SEIR was not inadequate in terms of the analysis of cost, efficiency,

or service.

13 SANDAG does not currently anticipate phasing the opening of the project.

Construction activities will occur along several segments of the project alignment at

one time to minimize construction duration and thus the disruptions to the

surrounding communities. The Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa

Avenue Station sites will be needed for construction staging areas to support

construction along other segments of the project. Therefore, these stations cannot

be opened for service until they are no longer needed as staging areas. Phasing

the project’s opening would subject the project cost to additional years of inflation

while adding to mobilization costs.

The operating plan for the project has been phased, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table

2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In the opening year, the extension will operate at 15-

minute headways during peak periods, with service increasing to 7.5-minute peak

headways by FY 2030. This allows SANDAG to reduce operating and maintenance

costs in the initial years.

Refer to the response to Comment 4 regarding the impacts associated with

terminating the station at the VA Medical Center Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Clark, Jay A. - ID023

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 925

Clark, Jay A. - ID023
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Clark, Jay A. - ID023

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

926 September 2014

Submission ID023 Clark Jay A.

Com ID Response

1 Existing construction in the LOSSAN corridor is not related to the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project (construction work on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project cannot

begin until a Record of Decision is received from the FTA). This comment was

forwarded to SANDAG public relations for coordination with the manager of the

project currently under construction. The use of warning horns on the existing heavyrail line is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Regarding construction of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, safety procedures

required for working in an active rail corridor will be followed, which includes safety

flaggers with portable air horns. At times when construction crews are not scheduled

or present in the right-of-way, warning horns will not be required.

The quiet zone in Downtown San Diego applies to the operation of Amtrak,

COASTER, and Trolley trains through grade crossings. As part of the quiet zone

improvements, intersection modifications were made to prevent vehicles from

traveling through the grade crossing when the gates are down. Additionally, the

length of time crossing gates are in a down position prior to a train entering the

intersection was increased. As a result, Trolley, Amtrak, and COASTER trains do not

need to sound their horns prior to entering the grade crossing. As the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project will be grade separated north of the San Diego River, similar

modifications will not be required to support the project. Refer to Master Response 9

for additional information regarding Trolley noise levels.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Clark, Robert F. - ID056

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 927

Clark, Robert F. - ID056
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Clark, Robert F. - ID056

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

928 September 2014

Submission ID056 Clark Robert F.

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding the merits of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Your comment expressing concern about project costs will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The total cost of the project, both capital and

operating, can be found in Chapter 6.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As shown in Table 6-3

of this chapter, the capital cost estimates in year of expenditure dollars, adjusting for

anticipated inflation and including financing costs, were $1,985 million for the Build

Alternative and $2,001 million with the VA Medical Center Station Option. The capital

cost has been revised for the Final SEIS/SEIR and is presented in Chapter 6.0,

Section 6.1.1 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR showed the anticipated operating and

maintenance costs both with and without the project. In 2030, the extension is

expected to increase the cost to operate and maintain the regional Trolley system

from $108.28 million to $141.17 million.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cleveland, Mike - ID215

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 929

Cleveland, Mike - ID215
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cleveland, Mike - ID215

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

930 September 2014

Submission ID215 Cleveland Mike

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Conklin, James and Sylvia - ID256

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 931

Conklin, James and Sylvia - ID256
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Conklin, James and Sylvia - ID256

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

932 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Conklin, James and Sylvia - ID256

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 933

Submission ID256 Conklin James and Sylvia

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the project has been noted and will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Refer to Master Response 2 for information regarding the need for stations in

residential neighborhoods.

Regarding the potential for crime rates to change near station areas, refer to Master

Response 11 for information regarding safety in neighborhoods near transit stations.

Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site.

The project will not preclude future development of the Rose Canyon lot.

3 The Tecolote Road Station will be constructed near Tecolote Road and West

Morena Boulevard. Tecolote Road becomes Sea World Drive after it crosses the I-5

freeway. Stairs and a ramp will provide access from the station to Tecolote Road.

Additionally, the MTS Route 9 bus will provide access from the OTTC and Balboa

Avenue Station to SeaWorld.

4 A station and park-and-ride facility will be constructed at Clairemont Drive as part of

the project; this station will be located at Morena Boulevard between Clairemont

Drive and Ingulf Street. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR,

the Clairemont Drive Station will be served by one bus route—Route 50—which

provides express bus service from Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center.

5 Refer to Master Response 2 for information regarding the need for stations in

residential neighborhoods.

Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cooke, R. - ID314

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

934 September 2014

Cooke, R. - ID314
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cooke, R. - ID314

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 935

Submission ID314 Cooke R.

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station.

2 The traffic impacts referenced in the comment will occur on the segment of Balboa

Avenue between the I-5 southbound on-ramp and the I-5 northbound off-ramp due to

the addition of traffic accessing the Balboa Avenue Station and park-and-ride facility.

These impacts are independent of the modifications to the Balboa Avenue/Morena

Boulevard ramps and will occur even if the station were relocated to the City Yard

site north of Balboa Avenue.

Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

The primary objectives of the project are to provide an alternative mode of

transportation that will reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and improve regional

connectivity and access; reduction of traffic congestion is not a project goal. Refer to

Chapter 1.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for a description of the purpose and need for the

project.

3 The Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs and the documents they update, as discussed in

Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1 of the SEIS/SEIR and highlighted below, include a

comprehensive and reasonable range of alternatives. The 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 (MTDB, 1995b), and the

Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final

Environmental Impact Statement (MTDB, 2001) included the following alternatives:

1. No Build

2. Transportation System Management

3. Transportation System Management/Commuter Rail

4. Commuter Rail Tunnel

5. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

6. LRT – Genesee Alternative

7. LRT – I-5 Alternative

The Transportation System Management and Transportation System Management/

Commuter Rail alternatives were rejected because they were least effective at

meeting project objectives and cost. The Commuter Rail Tunnel alternative was

deemed infeasible due to cost and the difficulty in venting diesel fumes. The High

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Alternative was adopted along with an LRT

Alternative. The HOV alternative was then separated from the Mid-Coast Corridor

Project, and this project element was constructed by Caltrans. Finally, the LRT
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cooke, R. - ID314

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

936 September 2014

Com ID Response

Genesee Alternative was rejected for, among other reasons, its impact on Rose

Canyon. These alternatives were analyzed in the EIR certified in 1995 and the EIS

for which a Record of Decision was issued in 2001. The SEIS/SEIR adds to the

alternative analysis described above by considering an updated version of the LRT

I-5 Alignment (the current Refined Build Alternative) and an updated No-Build

Alternative. In summary, the alternatives considered in the prior environmental

review and SEIS/SEIR included a broad range of alternative mode and alignment

options to serve the transit needs of the Mid-Coast Corridor and constitute a

reasonable range of alternatives in compliance with NEPA and CEQA.

In addition, after completion of the 1995 and 2001 environmental process and prior

to initiation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 13 additional alternatives were evaluated and

considered: i) a new TSM alternative, ii) seven LRT alternatives, iii) four BRT

alternatives, and iv) a Commuter Rail Alternative. Some alternatives were deemed

infeasible prior to initiation of scoping for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and others were

carried through the scoping process and resulted in some further refinement of the

Build Alternative. The evaluation of alternatives considered during this phase is

presented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of

Alternatives Report. Chapter 3.0 and Chapter 4.0 of this report include information

related to the identification and screening of initial alternatives and the conceptual

alternatives considered; Chapter 6.0 presents the recommendation of alternatives to

carry forward into scoping. The information is summarized in Chapter 2.0, Section

2.1.1 and Table 2-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

4 Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 13 for information regarding lighting at stations.

Refer to Master Response 10 for information regarding changes in property values

near transit stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID111

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 937

Corbin, Sylvia - ID111
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID111

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

938 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID111

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 939

Submission ID111 Corbin Sylvia

Com ID Response

1 Master Response 7 provides information regarding project-related noise impacts

in the Bay Park area, and Master Response 9 describes the approach to the

noise impact analysis and identification of mitigation. The noise analysis for the

project was conducted in accordance with FTA guidance, which was specifically

developed to assess transit-related noise impacts. No moderate or severe noise

impacts requiring mitigation or significant noise impacts under CEQA in the Bay

Park area were identified and, as such, no mitigation is required.

2 Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime

rates to increase and the security measures that will be implemented. The

project has no control over the visibility of police within the community.

3 Information on the health effects of EMF were evaluated in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.14.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and in greater detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report. There are no

conclusive findings regarding the health effects of low-level EMF typical of

electrically powered rail vehicles. Magnetic fields from the planned DC traction

system for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be transient in nature and

relatively slow, quite unlike power line AC magnetic fields that alternate

continuously at 60 Hz. Further, EMF levels produced by the project, under all

anticipated conditions, will be well below the threshold limits specified by

voluntary guidelines to prevent short-term adverse effects from EMF exposure

across a wide range of frequencies.

4 Master Response 13 provides information regarding project lighting impacts.

Stations will be designed to be compatible with the existing character of the

surrounding communities and neighborhoods and will support existing

development.

5 SANDAG conducted a supplemental analysis to determine whether spillover

parking at the Balboa Avenue Station would adversely affect parking in the

surrounding community. The results are summarized in Master Response 6 and

Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID112

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

940 September 2014

Corbin, Sylvia - ID112
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID112

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 941

Submission ID112 Corbin Sylvia

Com ID Response

1 Master Response 7 provides information about noise impact analysis along Morena

Boulevard. Additional information on the provision of noise mitigation is provided in

Master Response 9.

2 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the operational noise

impacts that will result from the project. Impacts to Toler Elementary School were

evaluated in the noise analysis (refer to Appendix G, Cluster 49 in Figure G-11 and

Chapter 5.0, Table 5-5 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration

Impacts Technical Report). At Toler Elementary School, operation of the project will

not exceed the moderate noise impact threshold at this location because the noise

level from the project (56 dBA) will be below the FTA threshold for a moderate impact

(71 dBA). Therefore, mitigation is not required for this location.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

942 September 2014

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 943
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

944 September 2014

Submission ID262 Corbin Sylvia

Com ID Response

1 The Balboa Avenue Station is an essential component of the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project. This station is projected to have the second-highest daily

ridership among the new stations constructed as part of the project, with more

than 3,000 boardings daily (only the UCSD West Station will have greater

ridership) (refer to Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR). It provides a

critical transit connection for the communities of Clairemont and Pacific Beach.

This station is critical for the overall success of the project. If the station were

eliminated or moved, track construction activities and equipment and materials

staging would still occur at this location. Some localized air quality and noise

impacts related to construction would be reduced or moved, but the elimination or

relocation of the station is not needed to avoid significant or adverse impacts.

The cost of the Balboa Avenue Station is approximately 1 percent of the overall

cost of the project. Therefore, removing this station would not substantially

reduce the overall cost of the project.

2 Mitigation measures that were considered for Mission Bay Drive and Garnet

Avenue are summarized in Master Response 8. Refer also to Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.4.2.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and described more fully in Chapter 6.0,

Section 6.1.2.1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts

and Mitigation Report.

Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines allows for approval of a project with

significant environmental effects if mitigation measures or project alternatives are

infeasible due to technical, social, or other considerations. A Statement of

Overriding Considerations is required for any significant adverse impact that

remains after mitigation measures are implemented. The Statement of Overriding

Considerations will be available prior to project approval; it will address project

benefits including increased mobility, accessibility, efficiency, and reliability for

travelers in the region, supporting smart growth and decreased greenhouse gas

and other air emissions.

3 Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR shows the existing land uses within

one-half mile of each station. As indicated in Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, transportation land uses comprise 30 to 38 percent of total land use (in

2009) within one-half mile of the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa

Avenue Stations. The maps provide information related to the uses of land, and are

not intended to represent accessibility from these land uses to the stations.

The Balboa Avenue Station will be a transit center, providing an opportunity for

transit passengers to transfer between bus and the Trolley. As shown in Chapter

3.0, Table 3-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, approximately 70 percent of transit

patrons using the Balboa Avenue Station will arrive via bus, with 21 percent
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 945

Com ID Response

arriving in cars and using the 220-space park-and-ride facility that will be provided

at the station. Walking will only account for 8 percent of transit patrons.

4 Refer to Master Response 2 for information regarding the need for stations in

residential neighborhoods. As indicated in response to Comment 2, over 90

percent of users of the Balboa Avenue Station will arrive in buses and cars.

A user benefit analysis was completed, which shows travel-time benefits to

residents who use transit. This analysis was documented in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.2.2.2 of the Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report and Chapter 5.0 of

the Travel Forecasting Results Report. This analysis shows benefits by

geographic area. The darker the shade of green, the greater the benefit to

residents. As shown in Chapter 5.0, Figure 5-2 of the Travel Forecasting Results

Report, most areas around the Balboa Avenue Station are the darkest shade of

green, indicating “substantial transit system user benefits” for these residents as

they begin their transit trip.

5 The bus routes that will serve the Balboa Avenue Station travel along Balboa

Avenue. Rerouting the buses to the Clairemont Drive Station would increase

travel time and would likely decrease the ability of the bus routes to serve nearby

communities.

As noted in the comment, the Clairemont Drive Station will have easier access to

the freeway than the Balboa Avenue Station. The forecast parking demand at the

Clairemont Drive Station accounts for this easier freeway access. Similarly, the

forecast parking demand at the Balboa Avenue Station accounts for the

accessibility of the station by multiple bus routes.

6 As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the Balboa Avenue

Station will have the second-highest daily ridership and will serve as an important

bus transfer center. Thus, the station is considered to have a significant portion of

the ridership for the system, originating primarily in the Clairemont and Pacific

Beach communities. This station cannot be eliminated without affecting the

overall performance of the project; even moving the station to the north side of

Balboa Avenue would reduce the ridership on the overall system.

7 Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change in

the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project. The evaluation of security

impacts that is presented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Safety and

Security Impacts Technical Report and summarized in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.13.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, provides an appropriate level of detail for the

assessment of impacts in compliance with CEQA and NEPA. Additional analysis

that assumes specified scenarios is not required.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Corbin, Sylvia - ID262

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

946 September 2014

Com ID Response

8 The visual impact analysis conducted for the project follows guidelines in the

Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA, 1988), which is

applicable to many types of transportation projects. The mitigation is described in

detail in Chapter 3.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts

Technical Report. As noted in the comment, the analysis determined that the

project will not result in adverse or significant visual impacts near the Balboa

Avenue Station. The analysis evaluated several candidate key views

representing the areas near the Balboa Avenue Station and along Morena

Boulevard. Two were selected as final key views, Key Views 30 and 31.

As described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.3 of the Visual Impacts Technical

Report, visually prominent project features do not necessarily reduce scenic

qualities or have a negative visual character associated with them. The type and

level of impact depends on who sees it, for how long, how much it contrasts with

the existing environment, and if it physically changes the current visual

environment. Visual impacts, by key view location and landscape unit, are

described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and Chapter 5.0

of the technical report.

9 Refer to Master Response 13 regarding project lighting impacts.

10 Refer to Master Response 10 regarding changes in property values within the

Mid-Coast Corridor. No adverse impact on local property values is anticipated.

11 Refer to Master Response 10 regarding changes in property values within the

Mid-Coast Corridor. No adverse impact on local property values is anticipated. A

property owner’s rights with regard to claims of lower property values is a legal

question that goes beyond the scope of the Draft or Final SEIS/SEIRs.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cromer, Bruce - ID113

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 947

Cromer, Bruce - ID113
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cromer, Bruce - ID113

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

948 September 2014

Submission ID113 Cromer Bruce

Com ID Response

1 Bicycle lockers will be provided at the new Trolley stations along the extension of the

Trolley Blue Line north of the OTTC. The number of lockers at each station will be

determined based on the design guidelines for the project, which were developed in

coordination with MTS. The reservation system is managed by SANDAG through the

iCommute program at http://www.icommutesd.com/bike/.

Your comments regarding improving the bike locker program have been noted and

were forwarded to SANDAG staff on the iCommute program.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 949

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

950 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 951
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

952 September 2014

Submission ID334 Croshier Mark & Rose

Com ID Response

1 Your comments expressing concerns about the impacts of the Balboa Avenue Station

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The comments in

the attached letter are addressed in the responses below.

Refer to Master Response 8 regarding traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for transit stations in residential

neighborhoods.

The project alignment evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR is the result of prior studies

and actions, as well as additional studies and refinements, as detailed in Chapter 2.0

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The location of the Balboa Avenue Station evaluated in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR is the same location that was analyzed in the prior environmental

studies prepared for this project: the 1995 AA/DEIS/DEIR, the 1995 FEIR, and the

2001 FEIS. Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site (referred to in the comment as the Rose

Canyon Lot).

A number of outreach efforts were implemented to reach a broad and diverse

audience to publicize the availability of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for public comment,

including public meetings and a public hearing, as well as other opportunities to

submit public comments. These included the following:

· Nearly 40,000 postcards providing notice of the public meetings and the public

hearing were mailed to residents and businesses within one-quarter mile of the

alignment.

· Advertisements and public notices were placed in 17 publications (general

circulation and community publications) to promote the public meetings and

the public hearing and opportunities for public comment.

· Four public meetings and one public hearing were held at locations along the

proposed route to provide multiple options for the public to attend a meeting.

The Draft SEIS/SEIR was available for download on the project website, and

hard copies were available for viewing at 20 public libraries in the corridor and

at SANDAG's public information office.

· Information about public meetings and how to provide comments was made

available on the project website and was promoted via social media (Facebook

and Twitter).

· Comments were accepted in person at public meetings (in writing or spoken to

a court reporter), via e-mail, fax, U.S. mail, and voicemail.

· Notice of the public comment period, public meetings, and the public hearing,

and opportunities to submit comments, were included in the project enewsletter, which was distributed to nearly 1,000 individuals and

organizations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Croshier, Mark and Rose - ID334

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 953

Com ID Response

2 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

3 Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for transit stations in residential

neighborhoods.

4 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station. Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for transit

stations in residential neighborhoods.

Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change in the

Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station.

5 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station.

6 The Tecolote Road Station will be constructed near Tecolote Road and West Morena

Boulevard. Tecolote Road becomes Sea World Drive after it crosses I-5. Stairs and a

ramp will provide access from the station to Tecolote Road. Additionally, the Route 9

MTS bus will provide access from the OTTC and Balboa Avenue Stations to SeaWorld.

7 A station and park-and-ride facility will be constructed at Clairemont Drive as part of

the project; this station will be located on Morena Boulevard between Clairemont

Drive and Ingulf Street. Regarding the Clairemont Drive Station being a transit

center, as shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Clairemont

Drive Station will be served by one bus route—Route 50—which provides express

bus service from Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center.

The Balboa Avenue Station is a more appropriate location for a transit center

because the four bus routes that will serve the station travel on Balboa Avenue, and

thus bus travel time will not increase significantly as buses serve the Balboa Avenue

Station. Major adjustments to bus routes would be required if the Clairemont Drive

Station were a transit center, which would increase bus travel time.

8 Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for transit stations in residential

neighborhoods.

9 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID158

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

954 September 2014

Cummings, Kelly - ID158
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID158

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 955
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID158

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

956 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID158

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 957
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID158

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

958 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID158

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 959

Submission ID158 Cummings Kelly

Com ID Response

1 The suggested bridge and pedestrian improvements to address existing

conditions beyond immediate station areas are beyond the scope of this project.

Refer to Master Response 1 for a discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle

connections provided as a part of the project.

2 The suggested improvements to address existing conditions beyond the

immediate station areas are beyond the scope of this project. Refer to Master

Response 1 for a discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle connections provided

as a part of the project.

3 The suggested improvements to address existing conditions near the Clairemont

Drive bridge are beyond the scope of this project. Refer to Master Response 1

for a discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle connections provided as a part of

the project. The safety of the various project components has been evaluated as

presented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.13 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

4 The suggested improvements to address the safety of bridges on Pacific

Highway are beyond the scope of this project. Refer to Master Response 1 for a

discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle connections provided as a part of the

project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID164

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

960 September 2014

Cummings, Kelly - ID164
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID164

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 961
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID164

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

962 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Cummings, Kelly - ID164

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 963

Submission ID164 Cummings Kelly

Com ID Response

1 The suggested crossing facility to address existing conditions away from the

Trolley stations is beyond the scope of this project. Refer to Master Response 1

for a discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle connections provided as a part of the

project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

DeLira, Simone - ID243

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

964 September 2014

DeLira, Simone - ID243
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

DeLira, Simone - ID243

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 965

Submission ID243 DeLira Simone

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change in

the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Deroche, Christina - ID209

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

966 September 2014

Deroche, Christina - ID209
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Deroche, Christina - ID209

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 967

Submission ID209 Deroche Christina

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting that the project alignment avoid I-5 and follow the existing

railroad alignment has been noted. The project alignment is the result of prior studies

and actions, as well as additional studies and refinements, as detailed in Chapter 2.0

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As evaluated in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report, one previously considered alignment,

LRT Alternative 3, would have traveled within the existing MTS right-of-way through

Rose Canyon; however, it would have had the greatest amount of impacts to

ecosystems/biological resources of all the LRT alternatives evaluated. Additionally,

during CEQA scoping in 2010, the public expressed strong opposition to LRT

Alternative 3, due in part to the proximity of the alignment to open space and potential

environmental effects. Ultimately, the SANDAG Board of Directors reconfirmed the

previously adopted LPA (i.e., LRT Alternative 1) for evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

A portion of the project alignment is within Caltrans I-5 right-of-way, and the alignment

crosses I-5 at two locations. Columns will be placed within the I-5 right-of-way, but this

placement will not require the permanent or temporary removal of any travel lanes.

Temporary lane or road closures may occur at night during heavy construction.

Additionally, the alignment has been designed so as not to preclude the future

widening of I-5. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse impact on I-5 traffic.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Dickerson, Dale - ID028

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

968 September 2014

Dickerson, Dale - ID028
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Dickerson, Dale - ID028

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 969

Submission ID028 Dickerson Dale

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Drummy, Pat - ID095

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

970 September 2014

Drummy, Pat - ID095
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Drummy, Pat - ID095

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 971

Submission ID095 Drummy Pat

Com ID Response

1 No private property owner is being required to provide parking for the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project. The project will provide 150 spaces for park-and-ride patrons

at the Clairemont Drive Station. The parking will be located east of Morena Boulevard

on a former retail commercial site. This site will be purchased and improved by

SANDAG as part of the project. Mater Response 4 provides additional information

regarding future development potential near the Clairemont Drive Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Dube, Pat - ID026

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

972 September 2014

Dube, Pat - ID026
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Dube, Pat - ID026

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 973

Submission ID026 Dube Pat

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, and

transit in general, will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The use or development of the San Diego River is outside the scope of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

974 September 2014

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 975
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

976 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 977
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

978 September 2014

Submission ID217 Duffey Marilyn

Com ID Response

1 Consistent with the requirements of the CEQ and the CEQA Guidelines, an

Executive Summary should be brief while providing the public with the information

necessary to evaluate the project. For those seeking more detailed analyses, the

main text of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the technical reports include this information.

The Executive Summary in the Final SEIS/SEIR was modified as necessary to

reflect changes in the project definition, including any new impacts and/or mitigation

required to respond to comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The Executive Summary highlighted the contents and findings of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, including the Purpose and Need (Section S.2) and significant/adverse or

unavoidable impacts for all of the elements of the environment that were analyzed

for the project (Section S.4). Specifically, Table S-2 detailed all of the

adverse/significant impacts from the project and provided the exact language of the

mitigation measures as they appeared within the individual chapters of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR (including the height of the noise walls). Table S-2 also provided a

comparison of impacts between the No-Build and Build Alternatives, thus highlighting

that air emissions with the project will be lower than those under the No-Build

Alternative.

2 The "corridor" as described in the Draft SEIS/SEIR is the term that has been

consistently used throughout the recent studies conducted by SANDAG, including

the Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report in 2010. For many of the

transportation and environmental topical areas, the Mid-Coast Corridor served as the

“study area.” For example, the project serves travel within the entire corridor, and

the entire transit network within the corridor will be affected by the addition of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. However, for other topical areas (e.g., land use)

the “study area” was limited to an area 500 feet on each side of the alignment's

centerline and one-half mile around each station. For this reason, the consistent

reference to the “corridor” described on page S-1 and used throughout the

SEIS/SEIR will remain.

3 The suggested edit is noted. The previous paragraph in Section S.1 in the Executive

Summary states that the corridor is centered on I-5. Chapter 1.0, Section 1.3 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR provides information on the existing transportation system,

including Amtrak and COASTER service. Providing this information in the Executive

Summary is not required for the public to understand the corridor.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 979

Com ID Response

4 San Diego International Airport, the San Diego Zoo, and Balboa Park are land uses

as well as trip attractors/trip generators and therefore were appropriately included in

the list of land uses in the corridor. While not directly served by the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project, individuals wishing to travel to these destinations could do

so by transferring from the Trolley to a bus. The list was not intended to be inclusive

of all major land uses within the corridor, but rather meant to provide examples of the

range of hospitals, colleges, shopping centers, and parks/visitor attractions that exist

in the corridor. These land uses are also major trip generators. The Mormon

Temple and multifamily residential housing did not fall within these land use

categories (e.g., shopping centers or parks/visitor attractions) and thus were not

added to this list. Residential development is discussed in the paragraph after these

bullets, which provides information on housing densities by travel analysis district.

5 As stated in response to Comment 1, the Executive Summary is meant to provide an

overview of the project, its purpose and need, and impacts while keeping the text as

concise as feasible.

The observation on the decrease in VMT under the Build Alternative when compared

to the No-Build Alternative is correct and does support the benefits of the Build

Alternative. Data to support the reduction in VMT are provided in Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.4.2.2 and Table 3-20 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. However, decreasing traffic

congestion is not the purpose of the project. Additionally, while trips in the corridor

do represent 20 percent of daily regional trips, this information is not consistent with

the level of detail that was being provided as a summary. Therefore, the suggested

edits were not made.

The comments regarding buses operating at capacity and the use of on-street

parking in residential areas by individuals riding on the shuttle are noted. Chapter

1.0, Section 1.4.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR addresses existing bus capacity (referred

to as passenger load factors), with additional detail provided in Chapter 3.0, Section

3.2.4.2 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and

Mitigation Report. Results of the on-street parking utilization surveys are presented

in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.5.2 and Appendix I of the Transportation Impacts and

Mitigation Report.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

980 September 2014

Com ID Response

6 Section S.3.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR briefly describes the No-Build Alternative, and

Figure S-3 identifies the location of major transportation projects assumed in the NoBuild Alternative. HOV lanes on I-5 were the only major highway improvement

shown.

Information on highway level of service under the No-Build Alternative was provided

in Chapter 4.0 of the Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (specifically

Figure 4-15). The levels of service for the intersections of Nobel Drive and the I-5

northbound off-ramp and Nobel Drive and the I-5 southbound on-ramp are shown in

Chapter 4.0, Table 4-46 of this technical report. Both intersections would operate at

LOS C or better during peak hours under the No-Build Alternative, although with

increased delay compared to existing conditions. The project will not add more than

50 peak-hour trips to Regents Road at La Jolla Village Drive and, thus, will be

consistent with the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual. Accordingly, this

intersection was not analyzed.

Although many intersections would operate at more congested conditions under the NoBuild Alternative than the Build Alternative, providing this information in the Executive

Summary is not required for the public to understand the need for the project.

Additionally, decreasing traffic congestion is not the purpose of the project; rather, the

purpose is to increase transit speed and reliability; reduce the number of transfers

required; make transfers more convenient where they do occur; and expand transit

capacity to accommodate existing and future demand (refer to Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). The impacts of future traffic congestion under the No-Build

Alternative are factored in to the analysis of air quality, energy, and noise impacts, as

presented in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

7 The visual analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the supporting technical report

provide a comprehensive overview of project features and their visual impact (see

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Visual Impacts Technical Report). For purposes of assessing visual and

aesthetic impacts, the guidelines in the Visual Impact Assessment for Highway

Projects (FHWA, 1988) were used, which is applicable to many types of

transportation projects. The analysis used a representative approach to evaluate the

impacts of the project. By identifying key views that represent important resources,

viewer groups, and significant project elements, the impacts at these key views can

be used to characterize the overall impacts of the project and provide mitigation

measures that can be applied based on site-specific conditions. Key views within

University City were analyzed for the area, including those specified in the comment

(refer to Appendix A, Figure A-1 in the Visual Impacts Technical Report for the

location of key views). Simulations were prepared for the locations indicated in

Appendix B, Figure B-1.

Within the University Community, the guideway will be within the existing railroad,

freeway, and street rights-of-way, as well as portions of La Jolla Village Square
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 981

Com ID Response

shopping center, UCSD, and the Westfield UTC shopping center. The project will be

compatible with the existing transportation, commercial, and institutional uses.

TPSSs will be screened to reduce visual impacts (see Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2

of the Final SEIS/SEIR under the heading “Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize

Impacts” for a description of TPSS screening).

Mitigation Measures VR4, VR5, VR6, and VR7, as described in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.4.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, will apply to landscape design and aesthetic finishes.

VR4 requires that landscape design plans be developed by a qualified landscape

architect and coordinated with local agencies and property owners. VR7 specifically

requires the use of native and/or drought resistant plants whenever appropriate.

Mitigation, consisting of vegetation and architectural treatments, also will be provided

for walls higher than 6 feet and longer than 50 feet with a “moderate to high impact,”

including walls along La Jolla Colony Drive, as described in Chapter 6.0, Section

6.1.2 of the Visual Impacts Technical Report.

In addition, as identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community,

and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report, the project will not create a new physical

or perceived barrier, will not introduce a new visual element that is incompatible with

existing neighborhood character (except at the UCSD Matthews Apartments), will not

reduce accessibility to community facilities, and will not result in major changes to land

use. No long-term adverse community and neighborhood effects, including visual

impacts (including at the UCSD Matthews Apartments), will occur that could degrade the

quality of life in the neighborhoods along the alignment, including the University City and

La Jolla areas. Because the Genesee Avenue Design Option is no longer under

consideration, the impact related to change in the character of the street (e.g., blocked

views, shadows, and sense of confinement) as a result of the large straddle bents will

not occur.

8 A reference to the Section 4(f) analysis was provided toward the end of the

Executive Summary in Section S.4; however, the Draft SEIS/SEIR Executive

Summary did not provide information on the findings of the analysis. As suggested

in this comment, Section S.4 in the Executive Summary for the Final SEIS/SEIR has

been revised to state that the Refined Build Alternative will have a de minimis direct

use of Marian Bear Memorial Park and a temporary occupancy of the Ocean Beach

Bicycle Path, Marian Bear Memorial Park, and Mission Valley Preserve Open Space

during construction.

The temporary occupancy of Marian Bear Memorial Park for remedial grading and of

Mission Valley Preserve Open Space for bridge construction within the existing MTS

right-of-way qualify as exceptions to Section 4(f) (Code of Federal Regulations

774.13) as the impacts are of limited duration during the construction phase, the

scope of the work is minor, there are no permanent adverse impacts, and all

disturbed areas will be restored..
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

982 September 2014

Com ID Response

9 The suggested edit is noted. The beginning of the paragraph stated that “the

purpose of the proposed project is to provide for improvements to transit service in

the Mid-Coast Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and University

City.” The suggested edit has not been incorporated as the information already is

provided in the paragraph.

10 See response to Comment 2.

11 The impacts from construction of the planned HOV lanes on I-5 would be analyzed

as part of the environmental process for that project. The impacts of the HOV lanes

are considered in the cumulative impact analysis for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project, which included consideration of projects in the 2030 and 2050 RTPs, as well

as other long-range planning documents. Coordination has occurred with Caltrans

to ensure the project alignment is consistent with its existing and planned facilities.

The traffic volumes used for the No-Build Alternative are representative of the

cumulative future conditions for the traffic study area. Traffic volumes for the NoBuild Alternative were based on projections from the Series 11 Travel Demand

Forecasting Model. Additionally, traffic volumes from other planning documents,

such as the UCSD Long Range Development Plan, and traffic studies approved by

the City of San Diego for private developments were reviewed and included in the

traffic volumes for the No-Build Alternative. Additionally, Chapter 3.0, Section

3.4.2.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3.1 of the Transportation

Impacts and Mitigation Report describe traffic conditions under the No-Build

Alternative in terms of the roadway volume-to-capacity ratio and intersection level of

service.

12 As stated in response to Comment 1, an Executive Summary should be concise

while providing the public with the information necessary to evaluate the project.

While the suggested edit does support the need for the project, it is not necessary to

include it in the Executive Summary.

13 The roadway and lane closures shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-33 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR reflect a reasonable estimate regarding the duration required to construct

the project, as summarized below. The Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (contained in

Volume 2) provides additional detail regarding the project features located within

each roadway.

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-33 of the Final SEIS/SEIR states that there will be lane width

reductions for 30 months on the segment of I-5 referenced in the comment with

intermittent nighttime lane and freeway closures. Daytime lane closures are not

anticipated. The nighttime lane and freeway closures will not be required for the

entire 30-month construction phase in this location but will occur intermittently within

that time frame.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duffey, Marilyn - ID217

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 983

Com ID Response

The project will require the construction of a cut-and-cover box structure under La

Jolla Colony Drive just east of the I-5/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. Tunneling

under La Jolla Colony Drive is not feasible due to the shallow depth of the structure.

Instead, a bottom-up construction approach will be used (refer to Chapter 5.0,

Section 5.1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical

Report). The structure will be constructed in multiple stages. During each stage of

construction, one lane in each direction on La Jolla Colony Drive will be closed to

provide room for construction. The multiple stages of construction will avoid the

need for continuous full closure of the roadway and allow access on La Jolla Colony

Drive to be maintained during construction.

Along Genesee Avenue, the LRT viaduct will be located along the median of the

roadway. Continuous closures of the travel lane adjacent to the median will be

required during drilling operations for column footings to provide room for

construction equipment. Lane closures also will be required during construction of

the superstructure when falsework supports will encroach into the travel lanes

adjacent to the median. In addition, temporary concrete barriers will be installed

along the roadway to protect falsework supports and work areas from vehicles.

Construction work along Genesee Avenue will require lane closures that also will

affect travel lanes on La Jolla Village Drive. During construction of the

superstructure over the intersection of La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee Avenue,

temporary barriers and crash cushions will be installed to protect falsework supports

from vehicles, which will reduce the available width for travel lanes crossing the

intersection, thus requiring a reduction in the number of travel lanes.

As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a Transportation

Management Plan will be prepared as a project measure to minimize constructionrelated impacts on traffic, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians, and parking. The TMP will

also include information on haul routes. The TMP will be developed prior to the start

of construction of the project and will be prepared in consultation with the City of San

Diego and other agencies.

14 Responses to this commenter have been incorporated into Volume 3 of the Final

SEIR/SEIS and edits were made to the Executive Summary as applicable. SANDAG

will continue to coordinate with stakeholders along the project alignment through

design and construction of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duke, Sara - ID237

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

984 September 2014

Duke, Sara - ID237
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Duke, Sara - ID237

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 985

Submission ID237 Duke Sara

Com ID Response

1 The I-5 ramps at Balboa Avenue will not be modified as part of the project.

However, as described in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-32 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, there will

be intermittent nighttime closures of the I-5 northbound off-ramp at Balboa Avenue

during construction. This impact will be temporary and, when required, will occur

between 9:00 p.m. and the morning peak period.

Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes proposed to roadway and ramp

configurations in the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station and traffic conditions on

the roadways immediately adjacent to the station.

2 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate as an extension of the existing

Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from

approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next day. In the opening year, the

Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute service frequency between the

America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as

shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue

Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency during the peak and off-peak periods

noted above, with less frequent service during the early morning and evening hours.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be established by MTS

prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of the

existing Trolley Blue Line.

3 Consistent with current MTS policy, there will not be a fee to use the park-and-ride

lots at the new Trolley stations. With respect to ticketing and station security, as

stated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.13.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, "each station would

be provided with closed-circuit security cameras, roving code enforcement or

compliance inspectors, and a transit security force." Lighting will also be provided.

These practices are consistent with current MTS policy. Additionally, current MTS

policy includes roving transit officers who check the tickets of passengers onboard

vehicles. Those who have not paid their fare are cited. Refer to Master Response

11 for additional information regarding station security and crime.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Emery, Linda - ID163

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

986 September 2014

Emery, Linda - ID163
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Emery, Linda - ID163

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 987
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Emery, Linda - ID163

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

988 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Emery, Linda - ID163

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 989

Submission ID163 Emery Linda

Com ID Response

1 The Final SEIS/SEIR includes an extensive noise analysis that found no

significant impacts will occur near the Balboa Avenue Station. Refer to Master

Response 7 for a discussion of project-related noise near Morena Boulevard and

Balboa Avenue. Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR fully

describes all operational noise impacts that will result from the project.

2 SANDAG evaluated the feasibility of relocating the Balboa Avenue Station to the

City of San Diego facilities yard referenced in the comment. Refer to Master

Response 5 for a discussion of the analysis. Based on the results of the

analysis, SANDAG has retained the station in the location proposed in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.

3 Transit stations include extensive safety features, and a study of the existing

Trolley system in Mission Valley found no increase in crime as a result of the

Trolley extension. Potential changes in the crime rate in neighborhoods near

transit stations are discussed in Master Response 11. Traffic spillover into the

residential areas around the Balboa Avenue Station is discussed in Master

Response 6.

Traffic studies were completed to determine if the project will result in any

adverse or significant traffic impacts. No traffic impacts were identified in the

residential areas along Morena Boulevard.

4 As stated above, SANDAG evaluated the feasibility of relocating the Balboa

Avenue Station to the City of San Diego facilities yard referenced in the

comment. Refer to Master Response 5 for a discussion of the analysis. Based

on the results of the analysis, SANDAG has retained the station in the location

proposed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Master Response 2 describes the need for

transit stations in residential areas, and potential changes in the crime rate in

neighborhoods near transit stations are discussed in Master Response 11.

5 As stated above, Master Response 2 describes the need for transit stations in

residential areas, and potential changes in the crime rate in neighborhoods near

transit stations are discussed in Master Response 11.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

990 September 2014

Enright, Phillip - ID178
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 991
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

992 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 993
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

994 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 995
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

996 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 997
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

998 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 999
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1000 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1001

Submission ID178 Enright Phillip

Com ID Response

1 The comment has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 8 regarding the reconfiguration of

ramps and traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue Station.

2 Two new traffic signals are proposed near the Balboa Avenue Station as follows: one

at the bus-only exit driveway and one at the park-and-ride entrance. No new traffic

signals will be added on Morena Boulevard near the Tecolote Road or Clairemont

Drive Stations as part of the project. The Morena Boulevard and Ingulf Drive

intersection near the Clairemont Drive Station and the Morena Boulevard and Vega

Street intersection at the Tecolote Road Station entrance are existing signalized

intersections with pedestrian crosswalks across Morena Boulevard.

3 It is not anticipated that the addition of two new traffic signals (one at the bus-only

exit driveway and one at the park-and-ride entrance) would add five minutes to

travel time. The two new traffic signals will be timed to coordinate with traffic flow

on Morena Boulevard, and would provide traffic progression on Morena Boulevard

through the two intersections. As indicated in Master Response 8, the project will

not have an adverse or significant impact at the new signalized intersection at

Morena Boulevard and the Balboa Avenue loop ramp/park-and-ride entrance.

4 The location of the public meeting hosted in Clairemont was determined primarily

by the availability of venues with sufficient space to accommodate expected

attendance. Clairemont High School (the location of one of the five scoping

meetings) was not available at an appropriate time during the public review

period, so an alternate location within the Clairemont community was selected.

Notice of the public meetings was provided to residents in the area in a number of

ways:

· Nearly 40,000 postcards providing notice of the public meetings and the

public hearing were mailed to residents and businesses within one-quarter

mile of the alignment.

· Public notices that the Draft SEIS/SEIR was available for public review

and comment ran in the legal notices sections of the UT San Diego, San

Diego Daily Transcript, San Diego Voice & Viewpoint, Asian Journal, and

El Latino (in Spanish).

· Advertisements ran in 17 publications promoting the public meetings and

the public hearing. The publications were: UT San Diego, Voice of San

Diego (online), La Jolla Today, La Jolla Light, Beach & Bay Press,

Clairemont Community News, Peninsula Beacon, Presidio Sentinel, UCSD

Guardian (two ads), San Diego Uptown News, San Diego Downtown

News, Asian Journal, Star News, La Prensa online (in Spanish), El Latino

(in Spanish), San Diego Voice & Viewpoint, and Indian Voices.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1002 September 2014

Com ID Response

· A press release was distributed to the SANDAG media list with information

about public meetings and the public hearing, as well as the availability of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR for review and comment. Numerous print and

broadcast stories resulted from this press release.

· Information about the public meetings and public hearing, as well as

instructions on how to submit comments, was included on the project

website (www.sandag.org/midcoast) and the KeepSanDiegoMoving.com

website, and was included in the project e-newsletter distributed to nearly

1,000 people. Reminder notices about meeting dates and comment

deadlines were also distributed.

· Notices about public meeting dates and comment deadlines were

promoted via the SANDAG Facebook and Twitter pages.

5 The comment is correct that the No-Build Alternative would cost less than the

Build Alternative. However, as stated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, “With congestion projected to increase in the future, the level of

service, reliability, and efficiency of the transit system will all decrease.” The

project will improve these metrics and decrease greenhouse gas emissions; the

No-Build Alternative would not meet the project objectives.

6 The park-and-ride will provide one means of access to the station; however, as

shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, approximately 70

percent of transit passengers will access the station via a bus transfer. As shown

in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the Balboa Avenue Station will

have the second-highest daily ridership among the new stations constructed as

part of the project, with more than 3,000 boardings daily (only the UCSD West

Station will have greater ridership).

It is anticipated that more than 220 vehicles will be removed from the roadway

because of turnover of parking spaces (as people come and go) throughout the day.

7 Pedestrian facilities will be added along the south side of Balboa Avenue to connect

to the existing sidewalk at I-5. Bicycle facilities between Pacific Beach and the

Balboa Avenue Station will not be modified or added as part of the project. Refer to

Master Response 1 regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections and station design.

Three bus routes will provide a connection between the station and Pacific Beach.

As shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Routes 8, 9, and 27 will

operate at 15-minute headways between the station and Pacific Beach. This will

provide another means to access the Balboa Avenue Station from Pacific Beach for

those who do not want to walk or bike.

The pedestrian bridge will be separated from all vehicular traffic; therefore,

pedestrian fatalities for those using the bridge are not expected. The sidewalk

provided by the project in this area will be along the south side of Balboa Avenue.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1003

Com ID Response

Safety features of the station design, including any new pedestrian features, will

be reviewed as part of the hazard and safety certification process and will comply

with applicable state and local standards.

Consistent with existing policy, bicycles will be allowed on MTS vehicles free of

charge. As noted in Master Response 1, station amenities include the provision

of bicycle lockers.

8 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue

Station. See also response to Comment 9 below.

9 Under the new intersection configuration (illustrated in Master Response 8),

vehicles going to Costco from eastbound Balboa Avenue will use the reconfigured

Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard ramp and make a right turn at the new

signalized intersection at the Balboa Avenue eastbound ramps, park-and-ride,

and Morena Boulevard onto northbound Morena Boulevard.

As indicated in Master Response 8, the new signalized intersection at the Balboa

Avenue eastbound ramps, park-and-ride, and Morena Boulevard will operate at an

acceptable level of service based on City of San Diego guidelines. Although there

will be some delay added with the new traffic signal, the delay for vehicles making a

right turn from the ramp will be minimized with the dedicated right-turn lane from the

Balboa Avenue eastbound ramp to northbound Morena Boulevard. A right turn on

red is anticipated to be permitted at this intersection, pending city approval.

10 Refer to the response to Comment 6 regarding mode of access to the Balboa

Avenue Station. The extension of the Trolley system to areas north of the OTTC,

along with transit parking at five of the nine stations, is expected to cause a shift in

how people travel throughout the corridor. Provision of parking at stations will attract

transit patrons who are unable or unwilling to walk or take a bus to the Trolley station.

Further, while the project corridor lies completely within the City of San Diego, the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be part of the regional transportation network

and will attract trips that begin and/or end outside the project corridor.

As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.2.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, there will be

13,300 fewer daily auto trips under the Refined Build Alternative compared to the

No-Build Alternative.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1004 September 2014

Com ID Response

11 Refer to Master Response 6 regarding parking demand at the Balboa Avenue

Station. Refer to the response to Comment 6 regarding the purpose of the

project, which is not to relieve traffic congestion. In addition, the response to

Comment 6 also provides information regarding the various modes of access to

the station, including by bus. Refer to the response to Comment 10 regarding the

reduction in the number of auto trips.

12 SANDAG has committed to providing transit parking to meet future demand, as

feasible. The project will provide 1,170 park-and-ride spaces at five of the new

stations:

· Tecolote Road - 280 spaces

· Claremont Drive - 150 spaces

· Balboa Avenue - 220 spaces

· Nobel Drive - 260 spaces

· UTC Transit Center - 260 spaces

The number of spaces provided for each station was based on the anticipated

2030 demand, as predicted by the SANDAG Travel Demand Forecasting Model;

however, in some cases, parking capacity was constrained by what could be

reasonably provided at the station site. The ridership projections shown in

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR are based on the parking

capacities listed above. As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, “the ridership numbers presented in this chapter are based on the

planned supply of parking at each station; consequently, unmet parking demand

would not decrease ridership below what is presented in this Draft SEIS/SEIR.”

13 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue

Station, including the results of the traffic analysis conducted for the area. People

going to Costco from the south will continue to travel on northbound Morena

Boulevard through the two signalized intersections. As noted in response to

Comment 3, it is not anticipated that the addition of two new traffic signals would

add five minutes to travel time.

14 Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for transit stations in residential

areas and Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change

in the Mid-Coast Corridor. Refer to Master Response 6 regarding the potential for

spillover parking in the neighborhood.

15 Refer to Master Response 6 regarding the potential for spillover parking in the

neighborhood.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1005

Com ID Response

16 The purpose of the project is stated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The project seeks to more effectively connect residents and jobs

between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and University City within the MidCoast Corridor as well as to other parts of the region by transit. The analysis of

travel markets shows a significant level of trips between the University City area

and locations east and south of Downtown San Diego, which would be served by

the Trolley extension. As stated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.2.3 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, a significant number of trips to the project area come from Mission

Valley and south of downtown, which are already served by the Trolley.

Construction noise impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR under the subheading “Noise and Vibration.” The Draft

SEIS/SEIR includes project and mitigation measures to reduce construction noise

impacts to sensitive receptors, such as residential areas, during construction of

the project. These include the development and implementation of a Noise

Control Plan, which will identify specific measures to be implemented by the

contractor to reduce noise levels near sensitive receptors consistent with the city’s

Noise Ordinance.

Refer to Master Response 7 regarding the operational noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 8 regarding operational traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

17 Your comment expressing opposition to the project has been noted and will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

18 The SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model, which was used to

predict the number of trips that will be made on the project and the user benefits

attributable to the project, considers the total travel time from the trip origin to the

trip destination. This includes the time required to get to the Trolley, the time

waiting at the station, the time traveling on the Trolley, the time getting from the

Trolley station to one’s final destination, and any additional wait time for transfers.

Wait time is given added weight by the model, as transit riders consider wait time

to be more onerous than time spent moving in a vehicle. The model was

calibrated based on observed data and surveys within San Diego County. The

model has been reviewed by various experts, including the Southwest Region

Transportation Model User Group, the State Transportation Modeler User Group,

an Independent Transit Review Panel, and the FTA. Prior to approving the

project for the project development/preliminary engineering phase, FTA accepted

the forecast as representing best professional practice. With regard to parking, as

noted in the response to Comment 12, the project will include 1,170 parking

spaces at 5 stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1006 September 2014

Com ID Response

19 The commenter's concerns regarding walkability of his neighborhood will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As indicated in the

response to Comment 6, approximately 70 percent of transit patrons for the

Balboa Avenue Station will arrive at the station by bus, making it the primary

mode of access to the station. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR, walking will account for the lowest mode of access to the station.

New sidewalks will be added along the eastbound side of Balboa Avenue, the

reconfigured Morena Boulevard/Balboa Avenue ramp, and both sides of Morena

Boulevard to connect to the station. These improvements are shown in Chapter

2.0, Figure 2-13 and described in Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The

sidewalks will provide safe connections for residents who access the station by

walking.

20 Your comment regarding potential use of all available parking spaces at the

Balboa Avenue Station by people in the adjoining neighborhood will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As described in response to

Comment 18, the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model was

used to identify parking demand; parking impacts are discussed in Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The comment is correct that transfers

between transit vehicles add to travel time and make transit travel less

convenient; this is factored into the travel demand forecasting model when

determining how transit patrons utilize the transit system. As indicated in Chapter

1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, one purpose of this project is to reduce

the need to transfer between routes and make transfers as convenient as

possible where they do occur. Chapter 7.0, Table 7-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

showed that the project is effective in reducing the transfer rate. Additionally, as

indicated in Chapter 7.0, Section 7.1.1.3, "transfers still would be required for

passengers traveling between University City and areas east of downtown;

however, these transfers would be easier under the Build Alternative...passengers

transferring between the Trolley Blue and Green Lines at the OTTC would walk

across the Trolley platform, rather than walking through the pedestrian

undercrossing to access the bus as they would under the No-Build Alternative.

Further, the Build Alternative would reduce transfer wait times...since it would

operate with 7.5-minute headways throughout the day."

Several programs, including the Compass Card, mobile ticketing, and the day

pass, have been implemented to facilitate the ticketing process. Several bus

routes will be modified to connect to the Trolley stations constructed as part of the

project, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Four bus

routes (Routes 8, 9, 27, and 44) will connect to the Balboa Avenue Station. This

will provide a connection for those individuals who cannot walk to a station and

choose not to drive. Additional buses will not be required under the Build

Alternative when compared to the No-Build Alternative.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip - ID178

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1007

Com ID Response

21 A bus alternative was considered in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report, and several bus alternatives were

previously considered in the 1995 AA/DEIS/DEIR. A bus alternative was found to

be less costly than the Trolley extension but also far less effective in meeting

regional goals.

22 The ridership forecasts presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and retained for the

Final SEIS/SEIR, are based on a thorough analysis of the travel markets and the

likely response of transit riders to a faster, more reliable transit service with fewer

transfers. The forecasts were reviewed by FTA, which accepted them as reliable

for project decision-making. Although travel demand forecasting is not an exact

science, the forecasts show that the project will attract new riders to transit and

make transit travel better for those who currently ride the bus system.

The Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report, as summarized in Chapter

2.0, Table 2-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, compared the Trolley extension with

improved bus service alternatives in terms of ridership, cost, and other factors.

That analysis found that the Trolley extension will attract substantially higher

ridership than an improved bus system, in part because, unlike the bus system,

the Trolley will not be affected by traffic congestion. After considering the results

of this evaluation, the SANDAG Board of Directors reaffirmed the selection of the

Trolley extension as the LPA.

23 Household income is one of the factors accounted for in the SANDAG Series 11

Model as affecting a person’s propensity to use transit. Ridership forecasts for

the Balboa Avenue Station considered the household income of those who would

be accessing the station.

24 As stated in response to Comment 7, three bus routes will operate at 15-minute

headways between the Balboa Avenue Station and Pacific Beach, thereby

providing a means to access Pacific Beach via bus. Consistent with current MTS

practice, bicycles are allowed on Trolley vehicles and buses.

Mode of egress (or departure) from the Trolley stations is shown in Chapter 4.0,

Table 4-30 of the Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report. As shown in this

table, for the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Nobel Drive, and UCSD East

Stations, more than 70 percent of egress will be via walking or biking. However,

at the Balboa Avenue and UTC Transit Center Stations, more than 70 percent of

egress will include a transfer to a bus to complete the trip, rather than walking or

biking.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1008 September 2014

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1009
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1010 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1011

Submission ID235 Enright Phillip N.

Com ID Response

1 Your comments regarding the proposal to move the proposed location of the Balboa

Avenue Station to the Rose Canyon City Operations Facility will be part of the record

of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Testimony given at the public hearing is treated as official comments on the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. Responses to the specific comments made at the hearing, which are

reflected in the hearing transcript, are responded to in Volume 3 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to locate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site (Rose Canyon City Operations Facility).

Refer to Response to Comments 4 through 23 for specific responses to detailed

comments below.

2 The station names used in the Draft SEIS/SEIR represent the street or geographic

location of the station. The names used do not necessarily reflect the station names

that will be used when the project begins operation. These names will be determined

by MTS prior to the start of operation. To avoid confusion, the station names used in

the Draft SEIS/SEIR were also used in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

3 This comment submission and the testimony provided at the public hearing are

sufficient to consider a suggestion for a location change for the Balboa Avenue

Station. No other action is required.

4 The commenter is correct that the Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard ramp will be

eliminated and that a pedestrian bridge over Balboa Avenue will be constructed as

part of the project. However, the elimination of the ramp is not due to the size of the

station site. Rather, the ramp was eliminated to allow for a longer merge distance

(approximately an additional 300 feet) between the northbound I-5 off-ramp to the

eastbound Balboa Avenue and Morena Boulevard connector ramp from eastbound

Balboa Avenue (refer to Master Response 8 regarding the reconfigured ramps and

intersection). The elimination of the ramp will allow for a four-way intersection at the

entrance to the station, which will allow protected left-turns for vehicles connecting

from eastbound Balboa Avenue to southbound Morena Boulevard. This design has

been coordinated with the City of San Diego.

A pedestrian bridge over Balboa Avenue will be constructed as part of the project to

provide safe pedestrian access to and from the station across Balboa Avenue. The

pedestrian bridge will be grade-separated from Balboa Avenue to eliminate conflicts

between pedestrians and vehicles.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1012 September 2014

Com ID Response

5 Although the proposed ramp allows for the provision of approximately 70 additional

parking spaces, this was not the purpose of the improvement. Refer to the response

to Comment 4 regarding the reason for the elimination of the ramp.

6 The comment is correct that the City Yard site functions as a city operations and

maintenance facility and provides parking for city employees.

7 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to locate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site.

8 As indicated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, no significant

noise impacts will occur in the proposed Balboa Avenue Station area. Therefore,

changing the proposed location of the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site

would not eliminate or minimize a significant impact. Refer also to Master Response

7 regarding noise in the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the importance of transit stations in residential

areas. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be established by

MTS prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of the

existing Trolley Blue Line, which, as noted in the comment, runs through 2:00 a.m.

9 Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR notes that the park-and-ride

facilities at the Tecolote Road and Clairemont Drive Stations will have sufficient

capacity to accommodate demand and that demand will decrease at the OTTC with

the addition of the new park-and-ride facilities (refer to Table 3-28). Refer to Master

Response 6 regarding parking supply and demand at the Balboa Avenue Station and

the potential for spillover parking in the surrounding area. Providing parking at a

single consolidated location would not effectively meet the parking demand identified

at each station; eliminating parking at the Tecolote Road or Clairemont Drive Stations

would be expected to result in reduced ridership on the system and spillover parking

impacts near the stations or increased parking demand at adjacent stations.

10 SANDAG evaluated the potential to locate the Balboa Avenue Station on the City

Yard site, as documented in Master Response 5.

11 Refer to Master Response 6 and the response to Comment 9 regarding parking.

12 The commenter is correct that locating the station on the City Yard site would

eliminate the closure of the southbound Morena Boulevard on-ramp; however,

locating the station on the City Yard site could require localized widening of the

Balboa Avenue/Morena Boulevard ramps to accommodate buses. Refer to Master

Response 8 regarding changes to ramps and traffic conditions near the Balboa

Avenue Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1013

Com ID Response

13 Refer to Master Response 6 and the response to Comment 9 regarding parking

supply, and the response to Comment 12 regarding ramp modifications.

14 Freeway access from I-5 northbound to Morena Boulevard via eastbound Balboa

Avenue will be preserved as part of the project. In addition, as indicated in response

to Comment 4 and Master Response 8, reconfiguration of the Balboa Avenue to

Morena Boulevard ramp will improve weaving and merging on Balboa Avenue

between the I-5 northbound off-ramp and the Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard

ramp. Connectivity from eastbound Balboa Avenue to southbound Morena Boulevard

will be provided via the reconfigured ramp and signalized intersection.

15 Refer to Master Response 6 regarding parking supply and demand at the Balboa

Avenue Station and spillover parking in the surrounding area. No adverse spillover

parking impacts would occur if the station remains at the location proposed in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR.

16 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to locate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. As described in Master Response 5, the City Yard site

is not as accessible to buses as the site evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Note that

the mode of access presented in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR has

been revised in the Final SEIS/SEIR. As shown in the revised table (Table 3-19 in

the Final SEIS/SEIR), approximately 70 percent of access to the Balboa Avenue

Station will be via bus transfer.

17 As indicated in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the station at

Jutland Drive was eliminated because of low projected passenger boardings. As

indicated in Master Response 5, ridership would remain essentially unchanged if the

station were moved to the City Yard site, regardless of the riders attracted from areas

farther north.

18 The location of the Balboa Avenue Station south of Balboa Avenue, as presented in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR, does not preclude future mixed-use or commercial development on the

City Yard site located north of Balboa Avenue. Additionally, if future development occurs

on the southern end of the City Yard site, transit passengers could access the station

from the future development via the pedestrian bridge that will be constructed over

Balboa Avenue as part of the project.

19 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. Refer to the response to Comment 18 regarding

potential future development on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Enright, Phillip N. - ID235

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1014 September 2014

Com ID Response

20 The City Yard site offers some access improvements, but overall results in longer bus

travel times. All four bus routes that will serve the Balboa Avenue Station operate

along Balboa Avenue. There will be direct access to Balboa Avenue to/from the

station site analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR through the reconfiguration of the

Morena Boulevard/Balboa Avenue ramps (refer to Master Response 8 regarding

traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue Station and for a diagram of the

reconfigured ramps and access/egress at the Balboa Avenue Station). Refer to

Master Response 5 for information on bus access to the City Yard site.

21 The commenter is correct that the pedestrian bridge likely would not be needed if the

station were constructed on the City Yard site.

22 Additional travel forecasting was conducted to determine ridership and mode of

access if the Balboa Avenue Station were relocated to the City Yard site. The

majority of demand at the Balboa Avenue Station is related to patrons transferring to

bus (70 percent). While the low-intensity employment located north of Balboa

Avenue would generate a limited number of transit patrons, the travel demand studies

conducted for the Balboa Avenue Station on the City Yard site indicate that access to

the station at that site also would be predominantly by bus transfer. Therefore, while

relocating the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would provide better

pedestrian connections, relocating the station would not result in a significant

increase in pedestrian and bicycle use to the station. Refer to Master Response 2

regarding the need for transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

23 Approximately 70 percent of transit patrons will arrive at the station by bus at the

Balboa Avenue Station, thereby making it the primary mode of access to the station.

As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, walking will account for

the lowest mode of access to the station. However, new sidewalks will be added

along the eastbound side of Balboa Avenue, the reconfigured Morena

Boulevard/Balboa Avenue ramp, and both sides of Morena Boulevard to connect to

the station. These improvements are shown in Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-13 and

described in Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The sidewalks will provide safe

connections for residents who access the station by walking. Morena Boulevard and

Balboa Avenue are designated as Class 2 bicycle facilities within the station area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Falletta, Joe - ID122

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1015

Falletta, Joe - ID122
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Falletta, Joe - ID122

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1016 September 2014

Submission ID122 Falletta Joe

Com ID Response

1 Your comments expressing concern with impacts associated with decreased

property values and increased crime rates will be part of the record of proceedings

for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Master Response 10 provides additional information about

potential project effects related to property values, and Master Response 11

provides information about potential changes to crime rates near stations.

2 Master Response 7 provides additional information regarding the anticipated noise

from project operations as it relates to the area along Morena Boulevard near the

Balboa Avenue Station. The noise analysis determined that no significant noise

impacts would occur in this area as a result of project operation.

3 The project includes a station at Clairemont Drive, and the potential of relocating the

Balboa Avenue Station to the north was considered. Refer to Master Response 5

regarding the evaluation conducted with respect to relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station. As noted in the response, relocation of the station would adversely affect

ridership and substantially increase operating costs for the connecting bus routes.

The Clairemont Drive Station and park-and-ride facility that will be constructed as

part of the project will be located at Morena Boulevard between Clairemont Drive

and Ingulf Street. This station location was presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and

remains unchanged in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Farnsworth, Tiffany - ID221

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1017

Farnsworth, Tiffany - ID221
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Farnsworth, Tiffany - ID221

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1018 September 2014

Submission ID221 Farnsworth Tiffany

Com ID Response

1 The Build Alternative will not require any permanent acquisition of land from Rose

Canyon Open Space Park because the project alignment is within the existing MTS

right-of-way. Although temporary detours and closures will occur to the Rose

Canyon Bicycle Path during construction, access to the canyon for walking and biking

will be maintained during operation of the project.

2 The alignment will cross I-5 approximately 1,500 feet south of Nobel Drive. As

reflected in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Volume 2 of this document), the design of

the crossing was refined after the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period to

use columns rather than straddle bents.

3 A response to this comment was provided via e-mail on July 18, 2013. The e-mail

stated that the location of noise studies could be found in the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report, which is located on the

project website at: www.sandag.org/uploads/midcoast/tr-17.pdf.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ferrero, G. - ID114

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1019

Ferrero, G. - ID114
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ferrero, G. - ID114

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1020 September 2014

Submission ID114 Ferrero G.

Com ID Response

1 Your comment supporting the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing interest in shuttle connections to the airport will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Bus and shuttle connections

are currently provided to the airport from the Santa Fe Depot. The purpose of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to improve transit service between Downtown,

Old Town, and University City. The only improvements included in the project

south of the OTTC are upgrades to the existing systems, including the signaling

system and traction power system to accommodate the increase in Trolley service

along this segment. The future development of an Airport Intermodal Transit

Center, adjacent to the airport with direct connections to rail, Trolley, and bus

services, is included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2050 RTP, and

this connection is programmed for implementation in 2035 (additional details are

available at: www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf).

3 Your comment regarding the Palm Avenue Station Shuttle will be part of the record

of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Palm Avenue Station Shuttle is not

part of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Refer to the response to Comment

2 regarding connections to the airport.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Finely, Greg - ID097

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1021

Finely, Greg - ID097
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Finely, Greg - ID097

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1022 September 2014

Submission ID097 Finely Greg

Com ID Response

1 A response to this comment was provided via voicemail on June 28, 2013. The

current schedule for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is provided in

Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.6 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. As stated in this section, the

start of construction is anticipated to begin in 2015. Operation of the Trolley

line, referred to as the start of revenue service, will begin in spring of 2019.

SANDAG does not anticipate a phased opening for the system and, therefore,

all stations will open at the same time.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ford, Tom - ID115

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1023

Ford, Tom - ID115
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ford, Tom - ID115

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1024 September 2014

Submission ID115 Ford Tom

Com ID Response

1 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the operational noise

impacts that will result from the project. Noise from the warning horns used by the

LRT vehicles when they leave stations, as regulated by MTS, has been included in

the noise predictions. The analysis considers all hours of operation, as discussed

below. As the project will be grade separated north of the San Diego River (the tracks

will be grade-separated from the existing streets), there will be no crossing bells at

intersections near the Balboa Avenue Station.

Master Response 7 provides information about noise impact analysis along Morena

Boulevard.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate as an extension of the existing

Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from

approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next day. In the opening year, the

Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute service frequency between the

America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as

shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue

Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency during the peak and off-peak periods

noted above, with less frequent service during the early morning and evening hours.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be established by MTS

prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of the

existing Trolley Blue Line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Forster, Stewart - ID142

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1025

Forster, Stewart - ID142
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Forster, Stewart - ID142

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1026 September 2014

Submission ID142 Forster Stewart

Com ID Response

1 Bus and shuttle connections are currently provided to the airport from the Santa Fe

Depot. The purpose of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to improve transit

service between Downtown, Old Town, and University City. The only improvements

included in the project south of the OTTC are upgrades to the existing systems,

including the signaling system and traction power system to accommodate the

increase in Trolley service in this segment. The future development of an Airport

Intermodal Transit Center, adjacent to the airport with direct connections to rail,

Trolley, and bus services, is included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the

2050 RTP, and this connection is programmed for implementation in 2035 (additional

details are available at: www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf).

2 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be made part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Fralic, Lynn - ID210

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1027

Fralic, Lynn - ID210
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Fralic, Lynn - ID210

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1028 September 2014

Submission ID210 Fralic Lynn

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1029

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1030 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1031
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1032 September 2014

Submission ID244 Frodente Josephine P.

Com

ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the project has been noted and will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been noted

and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As described in

Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue Station. Refer

to Master Response 2 regarding locating transit stations in residential areas. Refer to

Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change in the MidCoast Corridor as a result of the project.

3 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential of relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station.

4 The Tecolote Road Station will be constructed near Tecolote Road and West Morena

Boulevard. Tecolote Road becomes Sea World Drive after it crosses I-5. Stairs and a

ramp will provide access from the station to Tecolote Road. Additionally, the MTS

Route 9 bus will provide access from the OTTC and the Balboa Avenue Station to

SeaWorld.

5 A station and park-and-ride facility will be constructed at Clairemont Drive as part of

the project; this station will be located at Morena Boulevard between Clairemont Drive

and Ingulf Street. Regarding the Clairemont Drive Station being a transit center, as

shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Clairemont Drive Station

will be served by one bus route—Route 50—which provides express bus service from

Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center.

The Balboa Avenue Station is a more appropriate location for a transit center because

the four bus routes that will serve the station travel on Balboa Avenue, and thus bus

travel time will not increase significantly as buses serve the Balboa Avenue Station.

Major adjustments to bus routes would be required if the Clairemont Drive Station

were a transit center, which would increase bus travel time.

6 Refer to Master Response 2 regarding locating stations in residential areas and

Master Response 5 regarding the potential of relocating the Balboa Avenue Station.

7 Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the importance of locating transit stations in

residential areas and examples of existing Trolley stations located within

predominantly residential areas.

8 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential of relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Frodente, Josephine P. - ID244

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1033

Com

ID Response

9 CEQA and NEPA notification requirements were met by publishing the Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general circulation.

Because of the public interest in this project, SANDAG went beyond the statutory

requirements of CEQA and NEPA and publicized the release of the environmental

document to a broad and diverse audience that included the following:

· Nearly 40,000 postcards providing notice of the public meetings and the public

hearing were mailed to residents and businesses within one-quarter mile of the

alignment.

· Advertisements and public notices were placed in 17 publications (general

circulation and community publications) to promote the public meetings and the

public hearing and opportunities for public comment.

· Four public meetings and one public hearing were held at locations along the

proposed route to provide multiple options for the public to attend a meeting.

· The Draft SEIS/SEIR was made available for download on the project website,

and hard copies were made available for viewing at 20 public libraries in the

corridor and at SANDAG's public information office.

· Information about public meetings and how to provide comments was made

available on the project website (www.sandag.org/midcoast) and was promoted

via social media (Facebook and Twitter).

· Comments were accepted in person at public meetings (in writing or spoken to

a court reporter), via e-mail, fax, U.S. mail, and voicemail.

· Notice of the public comment period, public meetings, the public hearing, and

opportunities to submit comments was included in the project e-newsletter,

distributed to nearly 1,000 individuals and organizations.

Notification of the availability of the Final SEIS/SEIR was similar to that for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR (exceeding the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gallego, Victor - ID252

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1034 September 2014

Gallego, Victor - ID252
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gallego, Victor - ID252

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1035

Submission ID252 Gallego Victor

Com ID Response

1 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes all operational noise

impacts that will result from the project; noise impacts for University City are shown

in Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The analysis considers all hours

of operation. The noise of the warning horns used by LRT vehicles when they leave

stations, as regulated by MTS, has been included in the noise analysis. Except in

limited areas, the project will not alter I-5 traffic noise, although within the La Jolla

Colony area freeway noise levels will be reduced for some residences. As

described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23 units

within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses, that

would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing noise

environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the moderate

impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant and no

mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional information on

the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to eliminate noise

impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La Paz

condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the light-rail

tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the project will be

partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway noise. The noise impact

analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that there will be no

significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona

developments because they will be farther from, or shielded from, the project.

Visual impacts were evaluated in the La Jolla Colony area, and mitigation measures

were identified to minimize impacts. Mitigation measures for landscape design and

vegetation replacement are outlined in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR. As design of the project progresses, the design of sound walls will

include input from community outreach and public coordination.

2 The UCSD bus system and the SuperLoop offer an effective circulator system

serving short trips at the north end of the corridor. The Trolley extension will provide

a complementary service for longer trips, replacing the Route 150 Express bus

between Downtown San Diego and University City and provide greater access to the

regional transit network. A large number of students, faculty, and staff live outside

the area served by the existing circulator buses. Many live in Mission Valley and in

neighborhoods south and east of downtown, as explained in Chapter 1.0, Section

1.2.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Those who live on or near campus will use the project

to travel to other regional destinations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gallego, Victor - ID252

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1036 September 2014

Com ID Response

The travel demand forecasts developed in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR indicate

that the Trolley line will be well utilized. As noted in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.1.2 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 44,100 trips per day are expected to use some part of the

extension, and there will be a 47-percent increase in daily boardings on the entire

Trolley Blue Line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Garcia, Kristina - ID116

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1037

Garcia, Kristina - ID116
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Garcia, Kristina - ID116

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1038 September 2014

Submission ID116 Garcia Kristina

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing support for pedestrian walkways in the Clairemont Drive

Station area will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

reflected in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Volume 2), the layout of the Clairemont

Drive Station was refined after public review to provide for bus transfers within the

Clairemont Drive Station parking lot rather than on Clairemont Drive. The

relocation of the bus transfer location allows the pedestrian ramps from Clairemont

Drive to Morena Boulevard to be removed from the project; however, new

sidewalks will still be constructed along the east side of Morena Boulevard from

Ingulf Street to the north of Clairemont Drive and along the west side of Morena

Boulevard from the north side of the station platform to Gesner Street.

3 The Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs provide a comprehensive analysis of the

environmental issues referenced in the comment. Specifically, the noise analysis

is documented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7 of the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs and

in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical

Report. The air quality analysis is documented in Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.5 and

4.6 of the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs and in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Air Quality Impacts Technical Report. The evaluation of other

environmental concerns is documented primarily in Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 of the

Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs and the supporting technical reports. There is existing

rail use located along the alignment, and adding light rail transit adjacent to

existing rail reduces or avoids many impacts.

4 SANDAG will keep the public informed about construction activities that could

result in delays, temporary road closures, or other community effects. As stated in

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2 under the heading "Project

Measures to Avoid or Minimize Freeway and Roadway Impacts," a Transportation

Management Plan will be prepared prior to the start of construction. The plan will

contain a public awareness campaign, which will include effective means and

channels to inform the public in advance about the project, roadway impacts, and

construction activities, including closures of any facilities.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Garcia-Herbst, Arleen - ID007

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1039

Garcia-Herbst, Arleen - ID007
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Garcia-Herbst, Arleen - ID007

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1040 September 2014

Submission ID007 Garcia-Herbst Arleen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for a station at Jutland Drive has been noted and

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. An additional study

(the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study) was

conducted to reevaluate the feasibility of a station at Jutland Drive from an

engineering, transportation, environmental, and cost standpoint. The study found that

a station at Jutland Drive would slightly increase system ridership but would have the

lowest number of boardings of any station on the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 and would

increase project costs by $19 million. As a result, SANDAG determined that this

station will not be carried forward as part of the project, but the project alignment was

modified to accommodate a potential future station at Jutland Drive. For additional

information see Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study.

2 Your comment regarding pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Morena Boulevard has

been noted, and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 1 for a discussion of this topic.

3 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gates, Kathleen - ID191

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1041

Gates, Kathleen - ID191
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gates, Kathleen - ID191

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1042 September 2014

Submission ID191 Gates Kathleen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gendelmen, Javi - ID200

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1043

Gendelmen, Javi - ID200
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gendelmen, Javi - ID200

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1044 September 2014

Submission ID200 Gendelmen Javi

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Geral, Debbie - ID211

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1045

Geral, Debbie - ID211
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Geral, Debbie - ID211

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1046 September 2014

Submission ID211 Geral Debbie

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gerber, Michael - ID166

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1047

Gerber, Michael - ID166
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gerber, Michael - ID166

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1048 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gerber, Michael - ID166

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1049

Submission ID166 Gerber Michael

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Information about the cost

of the project is presented in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

SANDAG and FTA have evaluated the costs and efficiencies of the project at various

stages of project development and will again consider them prior to project approval.

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR demonstrates that the project can be

funded with FTA New Starts funds and the existing TransNet revenue. The capital

costs have been refined and are included in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.1 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR; Table 6-3 shows the funding sources for the project.

As stated in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the purpose of the

project is to increase transit speed and reliability; reduce the number of transfers

required to complete a trip made using transit; make transfers more convenient; and

expand transit capacity to accommodate existing and future travel demand. Chapter

7.0, Section 7.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR summarized the effectiveness of the project in

meeting the purpose and need. As stated in Section 7.1.3, "roadway congestion has a

direct impact on the reliability of transit services, particularly buses. In comparison,

the Trolley operates in an exclusive right-of-way with a few grade crossings in

Downtown San Diego and is not hindered by fluctuations in traffic." The project will

operate in an exclusive right-of-way and thus will be able to maintain a higher on-time

performance than buses. As illustrated in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, transit travel time from City Center to the Golden Triangle will decrease by

between 10 and 15 minutes.

2 The purpose and need for the project includes reducing the number of transfers

required to complete a trip by transit. Transfers increase the time required to

complete a trip, add uncertainty, and generally result in fewer riders. As shown in

Chapter 7.0, Table 7-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a single line from San Ysidro to

University City is effective in reducing the transfer rate. Separate Trolley lines would

increase the number of transfers, reduce ridership, and be inconsistent with the

project purpose.

See response to Comment 1 regarding the cost of the project.

3 As noted in the comment, the existing regional transportation is lacking in mobility; the

project is intended to respond to the deficiency in both the near and long term. Year

2030 was the planning horizon used in the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIR, consistent with

SANDAG’s 2030 RTP. The number of rail vehicles required for the project and the

sizing of transit parking were based on total demand anticipated in 2030, ensuring that

the project will not be overcrowded soon after opening.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gerber, Michael - ID166

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1050 September 2014

Com ID Response

4 As noted in the comment, sometimes the transfer vehicle is overcrowded, which can

result in greater travel delays for riders. Trolley cars offer substantially more seating

capacity than traditional buses and will operate at increased frequency over buses

with 30-minute headways. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors

approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station

as part of the project evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR; therefore, the project will serve

the VA Medical Center from the OTTC with greater speed and reliability than buses

without the need for a transfer.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gibson, Linda - ID315

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1051

Gibson, Linda - ID315
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gibson, Linda - ID315

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1052 September 2014

Submission ID315 Gibson Linda

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site (Rose Canyon Lot).

2 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at

the Balboa Avenue Station.

The Balboa Avenue Station will have short-term parking, referred to as kiss-and-ride,

which will be located in close proximity to the station platform.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Giffen, Connie and Allen - ID045

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1053

Giffen, Connie and Allen - ID045
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Giffen, Connie and Allen - ID045

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1054 September 2014

Submission ID045 Giffen Connie and Allen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gille, Sarah - ID036

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1055

Gille, Sarah - ID036
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gille, Sarah - ID036

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1056 September 2014

Submission ID036 Gille Sarah

Com ID Response

1 Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR presents the project measures

that will be implemented to avoid or minimize bicycle impacts during construction.

These measures include: (1) providing alternative routes during construction where

available; (2) making extensive use of signage to guide bicyclists to detour routes

and around or through construction zones; (3) installing shared-lane pavement

markings on travel lanes and temporary signage where lanes will be shared by

bicyclists and vehicles during construction; and (4) providing warnings to bicyclists

in advance of any planned bicycle facility closures through public outreach. In

addition, speed limits on roadways may be reduced to ensure the safety of

bicyclists where they share the roadway with motorists.

2 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined

Build Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the

project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

3 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Glynn, Marysue - ID162

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1057

Glynn, Marysue - ID162
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Glynn, Marysue - ID162

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1058 September 2014

Submission ID162 Glynn Marysue

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and

the Balboa Avenue Station will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Godwin-Austen, Bill - ID032

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1059

Godwin-Austen, Bill - ID032
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Godwin-Austen, Bill - ID032

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1060 September 2014

Submission ID032 Godwin-Austen Bill

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing interest in a station between Balboa Avenue and SR 52 to

serve nearby businesses has been noted. An additional study (the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study) was conducted to

reevaluate the feasibility of a station at Jutland Drive from an engineering,

transportation, environmental, and cost standpoint. The study found that a station at

Jutland Drive would slightly increase system ridership, but would have the lowest

number of boardings of any station on the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 and would

increase project costs by $19 million. As a result, SANDAG determined that this

station will not be carried forward as part of the project, but the project alignment was

modified to accommodate a potential future station at Jutland Drive. For additional

information see Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Goings, Peggy - ID008

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1061

Goings, Peggy - ID008
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Goings, Peggy - ID008

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1062 September 2014

Submission ID008 Goings Peggy

Com ID Response

1 Master Response 1 provides information on the provision of bicycle and pedestrian

facilities near the Trolley stations constructed as part of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project.

The project will not impact the safety of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the I-5

bridge near the Tecolote Road Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Goodwill, Ken - ID058

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1063

Goodwill, Ken - ID058
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Goodwill, Ken - ID058

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1064 September 2014

Submission ID058 Goodwill Ken

Com ID Response

1 Your opposition to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comments expressing opposition to the use of taxpayer funds for the project and

concern about the overall cost of the project will be part of the record of proceedings

for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

With respect to the local funding contribution, as stated in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2

of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the local share of the funding will come from the existing

TransNet county-wide sales tax, which was passed by the voters of San Diego

County. The ballot measure listed the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as a priority

for use of TransNet funds. No new taxes are proposed.

Your comment indicating that the return on the investment is too low will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gould, Benjamin - ID037

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1065

Gould, Benjamin - ID037
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gould, Benjamin - ID037

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1066 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Gould, Benjamin - ID037

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1067

Submission ID037 Gould Benjamin

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding pedestrian safety near Executive Drive Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to

Master Response 1 for additional discussion of this topic. Column and straddle bents

will be placed to meet City of San Diego Street Design Manual sight-distance

requirements so as not to block the line of sight of pedestrians and motorists. The

straddle bent included in the Refined Build Alternative will span Genesee Avenue and

the crosswalks at Executive Square. The Executive Square intersection will continue

to be signal-controlled. An extended median with a pedestrian refuge is not required

at this location because of the relatively short width of Executive Square. Therefore,

extending the median is not required for safety or sight-distance reasons.

2 As stated in Master Response 1, all new station facilities will be designed to provide

adequate access for pedestrians and bicyclists, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities

directly adjacent to new stations will be upgraded where they are missing or do not

provide adequate access.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Greg - ID198

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1068 September 2014

Greg - ID198
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Greg - ID198

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1069

Submission ID198 Greg

Com ID Response

1 On July 18, 2013, information was provided to the commenter regarding the

schedule for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Updated schedule information

is provided in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.6 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Griggs, Karlyn - ID053

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1070 September 2014

Griggs, Karlyn - ID053
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Griggs, Karlyn - ID053

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1071

Submission ID053 Griggs Karlyn

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and the

stops on the UCSD campus will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Groth, Walter - ID102

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1072 September 2014

Groth, Walter - ID102
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Groth, Walter - ID102

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1073

Submission ID102 Groth Walter

Com ID Response

1 An initial response to this comment, which provided links to Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and

Vibration Impacts Technical Report on the SANDAG website

(www.sandag.org/midcoast), was provided via e-mail on June 28, 2013.

Chapter 4.0, Table 4-14 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR identified the locations of sound walls.

The noise analysis was updated since the circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR to reflect

the Refined Build Alternative. As a result, the location of sound walls has been

modified, as shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-14 in the Final SEIS/SEIR and Chapter

6.0, Figures 6-2 to Figure 6-3 of the Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Figures 4-18 and 4-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, noise

measurements were taken for sensitive noise receivers along Morena Boulevard to

determine existing noise levels in the area. Refer to Master Response 7 for additional

information on the noise analysis along Balboa Avenue, which concludes that

mitigation is not required along Balboa Avenue. In comparison, noise levels with the

project near the La Paz condominiums will exceed the moderate noise threshold by 2

decibels, and therefore a sound wall will be provided as mitigation. Master Response

9 provides additional information on noise mitigation.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hall, Lucia KB - ID039

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1074 September 2014

Hall, Lucia KB - ID039
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hall, Lucia KB - ID039

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1075

Submission ID039 Hall Lucia KB

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hall, Miranda K. - ID041

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1076 September 2014

Hall, Miranda K. - ID041
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hall, Miranda K. - ID041

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1077

Submission ID041 Hall Miranda K.

Com ID Response

1 The comment expressing approval of the Balboa Avenue Station location and layout

has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 As shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Route 27 is projected to

operate with 15-minute headways during peak (6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00

p.m.) and off-peak (9:00 am to 3:00 p.m.) periods in 2030. Route 27 is also projected

to operate with 15-minute headways during peak and off-peak periods on opening day

of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hamilton, Andy - ID022

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1078 September 2014

Hamilton, Andy - ID022
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hamilton, Andy - ID022

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1079

Submission ID022 Hamilton Andy

Com ID Response

1 Information related to this request was provided via a phone call on June 14, 2013.

Conceptual sketches of the pedestrian features are shown in Chapter 2.0, Figures 2-

11 through 2-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. More detailed drawings were presented in

the Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set, specifically the Station Plans. Pedestrian connections

have been refined since circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and are reflected in

Chapter 2.0, Figures 2-12 through 2-20 of the Final SEIS/SEIR and on the Station

Plans included in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Volume 2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR),

which are available on the SANDAG website at www.sandag.org/midcoast.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hansen, Chris - ID207

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1080 September 2014

Hansen, Chris - ID207
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hansen, Chris - ID207

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1081

Submission ID207 Hansen Chris

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hartman, Beth - ID107

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1082 September 2014

Hartman, Beth - ID107
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hartman, Beth - ID107

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1083

Submission ID107 Hartman Beth

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hartz, Keith - ID063

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1084 September 2014

Hartz, Keith - ID063
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hartz, Keith - ID063

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1085

Submission ID063 Hartz Keith

Com ID Response

1 A response to your comment was provided via email on June 27, 2013. The response

stated that the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Survey

Report is not available for public review due to the sensitive information contained

therein. Archaeological and other heritage resources can be damaged or destroyed

through uncontrolled public disclosure of information regarding their location,

character, or ownership. Releasing information about the nature and location of

archaeological and historic resources is restricted under federal and state law.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Healy, Charlotte - ID240

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1086 September 2014

Healy, Charlotte - ID240
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Healy, Charlotte - ID240

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1087
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Healy, Charlotte - ID240

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1088 September 2014

Submission ID240 Healy Charlotte

Com ID Response

1 The project alignment is the result of prior studies and actions, as well as

additional studies and refinements, as detailed in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. As indicated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR,

the Build Alternative will not introduce a new land use within the corridor or new

station areas and will be compatible with existing land use and zoning.

Your comment objecting to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa

Avenue Station. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding locating stations in

residential areas.

A station and park-and-ride facility will be constructed at Clairemont Drive as part

of the project; this station will be located at Morena Boulevard between

Clairemont Drive and Ingulf Street. This station location was presented in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR and remains unchanged in the Final SEIS/SEIR. With respect

to this station functioning as a transit center, as shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure 3-6

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Clairemont Drive Station will be served by one bus

route—Route 50—which provides express bus service from Downtown San

Diego to the UTC Transit Center.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hemmerly, Larry and Lynne - ID255

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1089

Hemmerly, Larry and Lynne - ID255
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hemmerly, Larry and Lynne - ID255

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1090 September 2014

Submission ID255 Hemmerly Larry and Lynne

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station

has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 12 regarding graffiti. Also, refer to Master Response 2

regarding the need for stations in residential neighborhoods.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site (referred to in the comment as the Rose Canyon Lot).

Also, refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

3 Refer to Master Response 7 regarding the noise analysis near the Balboa Avenue

Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change in

the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

Master Response 10 provides information with respect to property values.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need

for stations in residential neighborhoods.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Heppell, Janis - ID316

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1091

Heppell, Janis - ID316
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Heppell, Janis - ID316

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1092 September 2014

Submission ID316 Heppell Janis

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the Balboa Avenue Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station. Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for transit

stations in residential neighborhoods.

The Draft SEIS/SEIR analyzed the environmental effects that the project will have

on each surrounding community, including around the Balboa Avenue Station. This

analysis was documented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood

Impacts Technical Report. The topic areas analyzed included, but were not limited

to, construction, air quality, traffic, noise and vibration, safety, visual resources,

displacement of residences or businesses, public services, community facilities,

land use and development, and economic impacts. The majority of the project

alignment will be within an existing railroad and freeway right-of-way and will be

compatible with existing transportation uses.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates

to change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

Refer to Master Response 10 for information regarding changes in property values

near transit stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Higgins, Jacqueline - ID009

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1093

Higgins, Jacqueline - ID009
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Higgins, Jacqueline - ID009

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1094 September 2014

Submission ID009 Higgins Jacqueline

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 1 regarding pedestrian connections to the new Trolley

stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hill, F. - ID126

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1095

Hill, F. - ID126
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hill, F. - ID126

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1096 September 2014

Submission ID126 Hill F.

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hoffhine, Donald - ID127

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1097

Hoffhine, Donald - ID127
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hoffhine, Donald - ID127

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1098 September 2014

Submission ID127 Hoffhine Donald

Com ID Response

1 Your comment on bus connections to stations will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hoffman, Gary - ID055

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1099

Hoffman, Gary - ID055
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hoffman, Gary - ID055

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1100 September 2014

Submission ID055 Hoffman Gary

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing appreciation for the information provided at the UCSD

open house and your interest in the Ladrillo site has been noted and will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The Ladrillo site is interpreted to refer to the Santa Fe Railroad Ladrillo Station,

which was created to assist Rose Canyon Brick Works. This site was previously

identified and evaluated in the AA/DEIS/DEIR as Site H-4. The AA/DEIS/DEIR

found that “surface manifestations” of Site H-4, including structures associated

with the Ladrillo Station (a large kiln, a large brick tower, and associated

outbuildings), were no longer identifiable and “have been modified by recent

development and railroad activity.” Recent surveys conducted for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR reconfirmed that historic-era resources associated with the Ladrillo

Station are no longer visible above ground, likely because of ongoing railroad

activity and channel construction east of the railroad. Due to the level of

disturbance, the potential for the discovery of cultural artifacts associated with the

Ladrillo Station is considered low.

Project ground disturbance in the vicinity of the former Ladrillo Station site is

limited to one Rose Creek bridge crossing (consisting of concrete piers and

abutments) in an existing disturbed area. As described in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.17.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for Mitigation Measure CON14 (Revised as

CON15 in the Final SEIS/SEIR), the segment of Rose Canyon from north of

Balboa Avenue to La Jolla Colony Drive will be monitored during construction by

a qualified archaeologist, in accordance with specific protocols to avoid or

minimize impacts in the event of an unexpected cultural artifact discovery.

Artifacts associated with the Ladrillo Station would be considered cultural

artifacts.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Howard, Erin - ID236

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1101

Howard, Erin - ID236
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Howard, Erin - ID236

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1102 September 2014

Submission ID236 Howard Erin

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Howell, Patrick - ID152

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1103

Howell, Patrick - ID152
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Howell, Patrick - ID152

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1104 September 2014

Submission ID152 Howell Patrick

Com ID Response

1 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate as an extension of the existing

Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from

approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next day. In the opening year, the

Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute service frequency between the

America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as

shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue

Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency during the peak and off-peak periods

noted above, with less frequent service during the early morning and evening hours.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be established by MTS

prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of the

existing Trolley Blue Line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hull, Tim - ID018

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1105

Hull, Tim - ID018
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hull, Tim - ID018

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1106 September 2014

Submission ID018 Hull Tim

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 In response to this comment, information about the public meetings and hearings was

provided via e-mail on May 16, 2013.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hull, Tim - ID103

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1107

Hull, Tim - ID103
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hull, Tim - ID103

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1108 September 2014

Submission ID103 Hull Tim

Com ID Response

1 The changes to the Trolley Green Line and Trolley Blue Line network are not

included in the existing conditions analysis because they occurred after 2010 when

the Notice of Preparation for the Draft SEIS/SEIR was issued. CEQA guidelines

provide that it is generally appropriate to use the year the Notice of Preparation for

CEQA was issued as the basis for establishing existing conditions. The changes to

the Trolley operating plan occurred in September 2012 and thus were not used for

the existing conditions analysis documented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Final

SEIS/SEIR, and supporting technical reports. However, these changes were

captured in the long-term analysis, along with other projects in the Revenue

Constrained Scenario of the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan; the potential effects

associated with these changes are accounted for in the impact evaluation for the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

2 The comment on the travel time for the Trolley and Route 41 is noted. As shown in

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Route 41 provides service between

the Fashion Valley Transit Center and University City. Route 41 does not serve

Downtown San Diego directly nor does it provide service to the UTC Transit Center

on weekdays. However, as the commenter noted, one can take the Trolley from

downtown to the OTTC and transfer to Route 41 to travel to the UTC Transit Center

on weekends. This trip would take approximately 50 minutes based on MTS

schedules, compared to 48 minutes for Routes 50 or 150 or 1 hour and 40 minutes

for Route 30.

The text provided in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.3.2.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR was meant

to provide representative travel times for those traveling between Downtown San

Diego and the UTC Transit Center; it was not meant to be all inclusive of the ways

an individual could travel between these two destinations.

When forecasting ridership, the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting

Model assumes that transit riders traveling between particular origin–destination

pairs will take the route or combination of routes that takes the least amount of time.

The model relies on route and schedule data from MTS and the Trolley on-board

surveys. Therefore, the model determines the transit routes assumed to be used

during peak and off-peak periods.

3 The transit network used for the No-Build and Build Alternatives was based on transit

routes that are available to the general public—MTS and NCTD. The two UCSD

routes were also included because they operate within the UCSD campus and will

connect to project stations. No other UCSD routes were included in the network

because they are not available to the general public.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hull, Tim - ID103

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1109

Com ID Response

4 As stated in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.2.2.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 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.” Ultimately, decisions

regarding bus routes are made by MTS; however, as the 2030 RTP states that bus

Route 150 would be eliminated, that was the condition used in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hurst, David - ID096

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1110 September 2014

Hurst, David - ID096
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hurst, David - ID096

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1111
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hurst, David - ID096

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1112 September 2014

Submission ID096 Hurst David

Com ID Response

1 Your comment providing information about fish species in Rose Creek will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR notes one fish species that was observed during surveys for the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project. It did not conclude that there is only one fish species present in

the study area.

2 As stated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.3.2 under the heading "Edge Effects" of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, “considering the urbanized setting of the study area and the existing edge

effects of the existing LOSSAN tracks along Rose Creek and of the several bridges

across the San Diego River, the project is not expected to substantially increase edge

effects.” Indirect impacts from noise and vibration were evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR

but are not quantified in terms of the acreage affected.

The proposed project is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the migratory

patterns of birds. The project alignment is located within the existing railroad corridor

and is parallel to major roadways, including Morena Boulevard and I-5. The LRT trains

operating along the tracks will be similar to existing trains and vehicles traveling in the

same area and along the same general alignment as heavily used transportation

facilities. Mission Bay Park is bordered by I-5 and includes a network of roads, along

with development of varying intensity. The City of San Diego identifies Perez Cove as

one of the nesting sites for the great blue heron. This cove is located immediately

adjacent to SeaWorld San Diego, which is intensively developed. Great blue herons

generally coexist well with human activities, including development and traffic. Unitt

(2004) states that “The Great Blue Heron has taken readily to artificial nesting habitat...;

it feeds on prey introduced by man...” In San Diego County, the great blue heron has

become thoroughly integrated into the domesticated environment. Many colonies are

directly over places heavily trafficked by people, the nesting birds being indifferent to

human activity below. Similarly, the little blue heron occurs in areas with extensive

development, including a documented nesting colony at SeaWorld and foraging use

within Mission Bay and the San Diego River flood-control channel (Unitt, 2004). Green

herons, which are not colonial nesters, are not known to nest in the project vicinity (Unitt,

2004), but there is some potential for nesting in wetland and riparian habitats and they

are opportunistic in their use of scattered wetland areas. Some migrants and dispersers

are expected in the project area (Unitt, 2004), but not in high numbers. Kingfishers are

expected to be uncommon nesters in the project area, although nesting in the area is

possible (Unitt, 2004). They often forage at artificial water sources such as ponds and

reservoirs stocked with exotic fish and/or supporting crayfish (Unitt, 2004) and thus

demonstrate tolerance of human activities. All of these species are strong fliers and

capable of flying over highly developed areas.

The visual effect of the Trolley vehicles operating adjacent to existing transportation

facilities is unlikely to result in a notable change in the visual character of the area near

Rose Creek or Mission Bay. Therefore, implementation of the project is not anticipated
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hurst, David - ID096

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1113

Com ID Response

to adversely affect birds such as great blue heron, little blue heron, belted kingfisher, and

others, flying over the Rose Creek area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hutton, Pamela - ID046

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1114 September 2014

Hutton, Pamela - ID046
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Hutton, Pamela - ID046

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1115

Submission ID046 Hutton Pamela

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing general concern with the design of the parking structure at

the Nobel Drive Station will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. At the request of the property owner, the design of the Nobel Drive

Station park-and-ride facility was reconfigured after the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

comment period. Coordination with the property owner and further engineering

refinements resulted in a change in the layout of the parking structure. The structure

will include replacement parking spaces and 260 transit parking spaces. Chapter 2.0,

Figure 2-15 of the Final SEIS/SEIR illustrates the layout of the Nobel Drive Station

included under the Refined Build Alternative.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Innocente, Michael - ID180

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1116 September 2014

Innocente, Michael - ID180
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Innocente, Michael - ID180

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1117

Submission ID180 Innocente Michael

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Iturzaeta, Lisa - ID121

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1118 September 2014

Iturzaeta, Lisa - ID121
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Iturzaeta, Lisa - ID121

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1119

Submission ID121 Iturzaeta Lisa

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the Balboa Avenue Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Trolley stations have extensive

security features. Master Response 11 provides additional information about the

potential for crime to increase in the areas surrounding Trolley stations, as well as

the security measures being implemented as part of the project.

2 Public transit has been noted to increase the value for both residential and

commercial properties that are located near transit stations. Master Response 10

provides additional information regarding the anticipated property value effects

associated with the project.

3 In response to comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG evaluated the

potential to relocate or eliminate the Balboa Avenue Station. Master Response 5

provides additional information about the analysis. Based on the results, the station

location presented for the Draft SEIS/SEIR has been retained.

With respect to your comment regarding the proximity of the station to residential

areas, refer to Master Response 2.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Iturzaeta, Mark - ID147

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1120 September 2014

Iturzaeta, Mark - ID147
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Iturzaeta, Mark - ID147

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1121

Submission ID147 Iturzaeta Mark

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the Balboa Avenue Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 11

for a discussion of the potential for crime rates to change as a result of the

Trolley extension.

2 Refer to Master Response 2 for a discussion of the need for stations in

residential areas.

3 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR that

was available for public review from May 17 to July 17, 2013. The project

alignment evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR is the result of prior studies and

actions, as well as additional studies and refinements, as detailed in Chapter 2.0

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The location of the Balboa Avenue Station that was

evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR is the same location that was analyzed in the

prior environmental studies prepared for this project—the 1995 Alternatives

Analysis/Draft EIS/Draft EIR, the 1995 Final EIR, and the 2001 Final EIS. These

documents are available at www.sandag.org/midcoast.

SANDAG and FTA have sought public input on the project on several occasions,

including scoping meetings in 2010 and 2011 and meetings held during the

public review period for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The project presented to the public

has consistently included the station at Balboa Avenue.

4 SANDAG evaluated the traffic impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

and determined that there would be no adverse traffic impacts on Morena

Boulevard near the Balboa Avenue Station. As documented in Chapter 3.0,

Section 3.4.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the heading “Freeway and

Roadway System Performance,” the traffic analysis conducted for the project

included the analysis of two roadway segments on Morena Boulevard near the

Balboa Avenue Station to determine traffic impacts. Refer to Chapter 3.0, Figure

3-2, Inset 3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for the locations of the roadway segments

analyzed. The results of the future roadway segment analysis are presented in

Chapter 4.0, Table 4-57 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation

Impacts and Mitigation Report, and the results of the near-term analysis, as

documented in Chapter 7.0, Table 7-4 of the technical report. As shown in this

table, the project will not have an adverse impact on the two segments on

Morena Boulevard, along the Balboa Avenue underpass, and from the Balboa

Avenue westbound ramps to Avati Drive.

Roadway improvements on Morena Boulevard immediately adjacent to the

Balboa Avenue Station will be included as part of the project, as described in

additional detail in Master Response 8 and in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.2 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR. These improvements will be designed in compliance with city
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Iturzaeta, Mark - ID147

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1122 September 2014

Com ID Response

and state specifications and standards, which require consideration of pedestrian

access and safety. Therefore, the reconstructed roadway segment will not result

in safety hazards to the public.

Morena Boulevard at Paul Jones Avenue is not in the immediate area of the

Balboa Avenue Station, and as such, the project does not result in adverse traffic

impacts to this area.

5 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be established by

MTS prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of

the existing Trolley Blue Line. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from

approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next day. Operating hours are

designed to meet transit demand and maintain transit efficiency. MTS evaluates

service levels and times periodically to determine whether the goals for transit

efficiency are being met.

Refer to the Master Response 11 regarding crime.

6 Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the operational

noise impacts that will result from the project. The analysis considers all hours of

operation. Refer to Master Response 7 regarding noise impacts in the vicinity of

the Balboa Avenue Station.

The four bus routes that serve the station will travel along Balboa Avenue before

accessing the station via the reconfigured Balboa Avenue/Morena Boulevard

ramp. None of the routes will operate along Morena Boulevard near Paul Jones

Avenue.

7 In response to comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG evaluated the

potential relocation or elimination of the Balboa Avenue Station. Master

Response 5 summarizes the analysis. Because no significant impacts will occur

in this location, relocation of the station is not required to eliminate or reduce a

significant impact. Additionally, capital and operating and maintenance costs

would increase if the station were located at the City Yard site. Elimination of the

station would adversely affect ridership.

As noted above, Master Response 2 provides information about the need for

stations in residential areas.

8 Impacts to property values are described in Master Response 10. As noted

therein, property values are not expected to decrease as a result of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jamason, Paul - ID128

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1123

Jamason, Paul - ID128
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jamason, Paul - ID128

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1124 September 2014

Submission ID128 Jamason Paul

Com ID Response

1 Your comment in support of the service frequencies will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will

operate as an extension of the existing Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the

Trolley Blue Line operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next

day. In the opening year, the Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute

service frequency between the America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during

peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00

a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency

during the peak and off-peak periods noted above, with less frequent service during

the early morning and evening hours. Trolley operating hours will be established by

MTS prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of the

existing Trolley Blue Line.

2 The project is designed to serve all stations north of the OTTC. Express or limitedstop Trolley service would require passing tracks along portions of the alignment to

allow one transit vehicle to pass another that is traveling in the same direction or

stopped at a station. This design is not being considered as part of the project

because of right-of-way limitations. The total travel time between the OTTC and the

UTC Transit Center is approximately 22 minutes.

3 Additional parking will not be provided at the OTTC but will be provided at stations

north of the OTTC. This additional parking will decrease the demand for parking at

the OTTC because some passengers who would have parked at the OTTC will park

at the new Trolley stations instead. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-28 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, future parking demand at the OTTC will decrease 17 percent with

implementation of the project.

4 As discussed in response to Comment 2, design of the project does not allow for the

operation of express or limited-stop service because of right-of-way limitations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jan - ID010

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1125

Jan - ID010
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jan - ID010

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1126 September 2014

Submission ID010 Jan

Com ID Response

1 Noise impacts from the project are presented in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and

shown on Figures 4-18 and 4-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. Additional details on noise

impacts, mitigation, and methodology are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report.

As stated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the project will result

in several moderate noise impacts under the FTA criteria, with some requiring

mitigation, as shown in Table 4-14. With implementation of the mitigation measures,

there will be no significant noise impacts as a result of the project. Under CEQA,

noise and vibration impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

2 Master Response 11 provides a detailed discussion of safety along Trolley lines.

Based on studies conducted for the Trolley Green Line extension it was determined

that the Trolley extension did not substantially affect crime around stations.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jenson-Elliott, Cynthia - ID310

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1127

Jenson-Elliott, Cynthia - ID310
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jenson-Elliott, Cynthia - ID310

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1128 September 2014

Submission ID310 Jenson-Elliott Cynthia

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for a station at Jutland Drive will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. An additional study (the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study) was conducted to

reevaluate the feasibility of a station at Jutland Drive from an engineering,

transportation, environmental, and cost standpoint. The study found that a station at

Jutland Drive would slightly increase system ridership, but would have the lowest

number of boardings of any station on the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 and would

increase project costs by $19 million. As a result, SANDAG determined that this

station will not be carried forward as part of the project, but the project alignment was

modified to accommodate a potential future station at Jutland Drive. For additional

information see Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Johnston, Eamon - ID138

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1129

Johnston, Eamon - ID138
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Johnston, Eamon - ID138

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1130 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Johnston, Eamon - ID138

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1131
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Johnston, Eamon - ID138

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1132 September 2014

Submission ID138 Johnston Eamon

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG has employed a

number of methods to reach out to a broad array of stakeholders. In addition to

information made available on the project website (www.sandag.org/midcoast) and

through presentations, advertisements for public meetings were placed in 17 different

publications, including the UCSD Guardian (two advertisements). The public

meetings and the public hearing were also promoted throughout the campus via

student, faculty, and staff e-mail networks. A public meeting was also held on

UCSD’s campus to reach the student population. The project, public meetings, and

opportunities for public comment also were promoted via social media (Facebook and

Twitter).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jones, Scott - ID311

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1133

Jones, Scott - ID311
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jones, Scott - ID311

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1134 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Jones, Scott - ID311

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1135

Submission ID311 Jones Scott

Com ID Response

1 Rose Creek will remain in its current open channel configuration through the

project area. Although a four-cell box culvert was at one time proposed below SR

52, as discussed in Chapter 8.0, Section 8.4.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, “through

coordination with the USACE, an open channel design at SR 52/Rose Creek was

selected to replace the box culvert as the preferred design option for the Build

Alternative; this project design change is incorporated into the Build Alternative

analyzed in this Draft SEIS/SEIR.”

2 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the riparian habitat and

creek in Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce

impacts to native habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within

existing MTS right-of-way and is separated from the open space by two existing

LOSSAN tracks that support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project

design retains all open and natural channels, and, as such will not expand the

concrete-lined areas in Rose Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will

result in temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive

habitat areas (including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in

accordance with the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.17.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing

impacts to biological resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas

outside of the designated construction zone are not adversely affected.

Vegetation affected by temporary impacts will be restored and replanted with

native species following completion of construction. Permanent impacts are

primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way (rail corridor). As described in Chapter

4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, mitigation for permanent impacts

includes implementation of a portion of the restoration and creation opportunities

identified in the Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality

Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012), which will

improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon. Master Response 16 provides

additional information about proposed mitigation for impacts in the Rose Creek

watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kanters, Robert - ID186

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1136 September 2014

Kanters, Robert - ID186
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kanters, Robert - ID186

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1137

Submission ID186 Kanters Robert

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change

within the Mid-Coast Corridor.

2 As discussed in Master Response 11, it is unlikely that the project will significantly

impact crime rates. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Safety and Security

Impacts Technical Report addressed police and fire services, and concluded that

although the project will introduce new facilities (nine new stations) that will require

police and fire protection, as discussed in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.7 of the

technical report, the project will not adversely affect response times or exceed the

capacity of existing service providers. As stated in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.1.1 of

the Safety and Security Technical Report, the established goals of the San Diego

Police Department for average response times for emergency calls are 7 minutes for

Priority E (imminent threat to life) calls and 12 minutes for Priority 1 (serious crimes

in progress) calls. Specific concerns regarding San Diego Police Department

service are beyond the scope of this project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kearney, Susan - ID106

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1138 September 2014

Kearney, Susan - ID106
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kearney, Susan - ID106

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1139

Submission ID106 Kearney Susan

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station. Based on this evaluation, the location of the Balboa Avenue Station

proposed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR has been retained for the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kearney, Susan - ID181

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1140 September 2014

Kearney, Susan - ID181
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kearney, Susan - ID181

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1141

Submission ID181 Kearney Susan

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As described in Master Response

5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue Station. Based on this

evaluation, the location of the Balboa Avenue Station proposed in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR has been retained for the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Keenan, David - ID216

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1142 September 2014

Keenan, David - ID216
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Keenan, David - ID216

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1143

Submission ID216 Keenan David

Com ID Response

1 As stated in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will

provide improved pedestrian paths between the VA Medical Center Station and the

main hospital entrance. The existing bus stop is located adjacent to the main

entrance and will be connected to the Trolley station via these new paths.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Keetley, Reginald G. - ID192

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1144 September 2014

Keetley, Reginald G. - ID192
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Keetley, Reginald G. - ID192

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1145

Submission ID192 Keetley Reginald G.

Com ID Response

1 The project alignment is illustrated in the track alignment plan and profile drawings in

the Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (available on the SANDAG website at

www.sandag.org/midcoast). As shown on Sheets 80-90 of the Plan Set, the project

alignment will be located 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 La

Jolla Colony Drive, the alignment will continue at grade along the east side of I-5 and

transition to an aerial structure to cross over to the west side of I-5 south of Nobel

Drive.

The alignment would cross I-5 approximately 1,500 feet south of Nobel Drive. Refer

to Sheets 92-93 in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (available at

www.sandag.org/midcoast) for the alignment near I-5.

Typical track sections for the project are also shown in the Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set.

Sheet 44 of the Plan Set presents the typical sections for the La Jolla Colony Drive

cut-and-cover underpass and segments entering and leaving the underpass. The

typical sections for the at-grade segments along the east side of I-5 between La Jolla

Colony Drive and prior to crossing over to the west side of I-5 are shown on Sheets

45 and 46 of the Plan Set. As shown on these plan sheets, the Trolley tracks will be

constructed with retaining walls on one or both sides of the tracks along the

embankment between La Jolla Colony Drive and I-5.

Since the Trolley tracks will be separated from vehicular traffic on La Jolla Colony

Drive with the underpass, during operation the project will have no effect on La Jolla

Colony Drive. During construction of the cut-and-cover undercrossing, one lane in

each direction on La Jolla Colony Drive will be closed for approximately 15 months,

and intermittent nighttime closure of the roadway will be required (as described in

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-32 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Keeven, Karen - ID029

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1146 September 2014

Keeven, Karen - ID029
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Keeven, Karen - ID029

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1147

Submission ID029 Keeven Karen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern about the security of the existing Trolley system

has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 11 for a discussion of this topic.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kellough, Lenora - ID083

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1148 September 2014

Kellough, Lenora - ID083
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kellough, Lenora - ID083

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1149

Submission ID083 Kellough Lenora

Com ID Response

1 One copy of the CD containing Volumes 1 and 2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR was

provided to Lenora Kellough in June 2013 as requested.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kellough, Lenora - ID302

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1150 September 2014

Kellough, Lenora - ID302
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kellough, Lenora - ID302

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1151

Submission ID302 Kellough Lenora

Com ID Response

1 Your comment stating opposition to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIR/SEIS.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding noise impacts near the Balboa

Avenue Station and along Morena Boulevard. As summarized in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will not generate vibration

impacts between the OTTC and SR 52.

2 Refer to Master Response 7 regarding noise impacts along Morena

Boulevard/Balboa Avenue. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. Because

the project will not perceptibly raise the noise level, it will have no bearing on

residents’ decisions to have windows open or closed.

Furthermore, because the Trolley will be electrically powered, there will be no

emissions from fuel combustion associated with operation of the system. The longterm air emissions are summarized in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5.3.2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, and additional information is provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Air Quality Impacts Technical Report. As explained in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.5.3.2 and depicted in Table 4-8 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, emissions burdens in the

study area for all pollutants will be equal to or lower with the project than under

future conditions without the project. Thus the project will not result in unsafe and

unhealthy air quality conditions.

3 A portion of the project alignment is located adjacent to Mission Bay. There are

homes with frontage along Morena Boulevard, as well as homes at higher elevations

in the blocks east of Morena Boulevard. At the higher elevations, the line of sight to

Mission Bay from residences will be well above the project's catenary poles and

lines and, therefore, will not be affected (see Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR). Chapter 5.0, Figures 5-1 and 5-2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR depict

views of Mission Bay at the lowest elevations (in the immediate vicinity of 3321

Morena Boulevard). These views are already partially obstructed by large trees on

the east and west sides of I-5. Although the catenary lines will slightly encroach on

and partially obstruct views of Mission Bay, they are not dramatically out of

character with the existing visual setting and will not substantially diminish or

eliminate views of the bay. No adverse visual impacts will occur.

4 The proximity of the Trolley tracks to residences on Morena Boulevard does not

present a safety hazard. In addition to the general safety features of the track

design, a retaining wall and/or other barriers will separate the tracks from Morena

Boulevard in this location. A hazard and safety analysis is required by the CPUC

prior to operation, which will ensure safety of design. Additionally, the CPUC will

review the project design and a safety certification process will be implemented prior

to and during construction.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kellough, Lenora - ID302

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1152 September 2014

Com ID Response

5 Light-rail operations typically generate substantially lower vibration levels than

freight rail. The results of the vibration analysis are summarized in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the heading "Light Rail Transit

Vibration Levels." As shown in Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-20 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the

project (with more frequent operations than COASTER or Amtrak) will not generate

vibration impacts between the OTTC and SR 52, including along Morena Boulevard

6 Mitigation measures for noise, vibration, and air quality impacts have been proposed

to mitigate adverse or significant impacts. Mitigation measures will consist of sound

walls where warranted. The provision of sound walls to reduce exterior noise levels

at the source is preferable to window sound insulation in homes because they

continue to benefit residents when they are outside or have their windows open.

Refer to Chapter 4.0, Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR for the location of noise

mitigation. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional information on the noise

analysis and mitigation.

Because the Trolley will be electrically powered, there will be no emissions from fuel

combustion associated with operation of the system. Refer to the response to

Comment 2 regarding the results of the noise and air quality analyses. The project

will have no bearing on residents’ decisions to have windows open or closed, and

therefore will not require installation of air purification or air conditioning systems.

Refer to the response to Comment 5 regarding vibration.

7 The primary objectives of the project are to provide an alternative mode of

transportation that will reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and improve regional

connectivity and access.

Regarding the comment on personal health, please refer to the response to

Comment 2. Additionally, operation of the project will not result in water pollution,

noise, or other environmental impacts that could impact personal health, nor will the

project impact emergency response times.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kirkland, Kelly - ID263

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1153

Kirkland, Kelly - ID263
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kirkland, Kelly - ID263

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1154 September 2014

Submission ID263 Kirkland Kelly

Com ID Response

1 The northbound track of the project, as it crosses I-5, will be approximately 280 feet

from the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex and

approximately 360 feet from the nearest building. The screening distance for the

noise analysis is 350 feet per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment Guidance Manual (FTA, 2006). Noise levels beyond 350 feet will not

exceed significance thresholds. Additionally, because of the combination of distance

to the tracks and high existing noise levels generated by I-5, the project will not

noticeably increase noise levels at the Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex. No

noise wall is proposed in this location because the noise experienced would not be

caused by the transit project, and adding a noise wall to the guideway would not

reduce noise levels at nearby residences.

Master Response 9 provides additional information regarding the evaluation of noise

impacts in proximity to residential areas and the methodology for the provision of

mitigation.

The use of decibels in characterizing noise as described in Appendix A of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report is

typically used for this type of noise impact assessment, as decibels approximate

human sensitivity to sound. A 10-decibel increase is generally perceived as twice the

loudness of the sound level, and noise-level changes below 3 decibels are typically

not perceptible.

The concerns expressed regarding freeway noise are noted but are outside the scope

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will not affect freeway

noise in this location.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Klima, Rob - ID317

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1155

Klima, Rob - ID317
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Klima, Rob - ID317

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1156 September 2014

Submission ID317 Klima Rob

Com ID Response

1 The comment expressing support for a station at the I-5 and Gilman Drive park-andride facility has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. A station at Gilman Drive was previously considered in the

AA/DEIS/DEIR but was eliminated when the SANDAG Board of Directors approved

the 2003 updated LPA. During CEQA scoping in 2010, public comments suggested

the reevaluation of this station. As stated in Chapter 8.0, Section 8.4.3 of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report,

because there had been no change in land use or development that would change

the conditions under which the Gilman Drive station was eliminated, a station at this

location was not recommend for further consideration.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kruger, Janay - ID047

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1157

Kruger, Janay - ID047
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kruger, Janay - ID047

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1158 September 2014

Submission ID047 Kruger Janay

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding mitigation of biological impacts in Rose Canyon will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 16

for a discussion of mitigation for impacts in Rose Canyon.

2 As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23 units

within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses, that

would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing noise

environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal but not exceed the moderate

impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant and no

mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional information on

the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to eliminate noise

impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La Paz

condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in Chapter

4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the lightrail tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the project

will be partially offset for these residences as a result of this reduction in freeway

noise. The noise impact analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

determined that there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within

the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from, or

shielded from, the project.

3 Your comment regarding the importance of station design and parking garage design

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Consultation with

Supervisor Ron Roberts regarding the project in general, and station design

specifically, has been ongoing and began prior to circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Stations will be designed to be consistent with the existing character of the

surrounding communities and neighborhoods and will support existing development.

Refer to Master Response 1 for additional information about station amenities. At the

request of the property owner, the design of the Nobel Drive Station park-and-ride

facility was reconfigured after the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period.

Coordination with the property owner and further engineering refinements resulted in

a change in the layout of the parking structure. The structure will include replacement

parking spaces and 260 transit parking spaces. Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-15 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR illustrates the layout of the Nobel Drive Station included in the Refined

Build Alternative.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kruger, Janay - ID047

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1159

Com ID Response

4 Your comment regarding UCSD’s subsidy for students will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Although coordination with UCSD is ongoing,

UCSD’s subsidy policy is beyond the scope of this project.

5 Detailed vibration analyses indicated that vibration levels at the VA Medical Center

and Scripps Memorial Hospital, La Jolla (Scripps Hospital) will be below the most

stringent vibration impact criteria (see Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR under the heading “Light Rail Transit Vibration Levels”).

In addition, the alignment near Scripps Hospital has been refined (refer to Chapter

2.0, Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR). By shifting the LRT alignment to

the south side of Voigt Drive, vibration levels at Scripps Hospital will be further

reduced.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kruger, Janay - ID254

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1160 September 2014

Kruger, Janay - ID254
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kruger, Janay - ID254

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1161
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kruger, Janay - ID254

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1162 September 2014

Submission ID254 Kruger Janay

Com ID Response

1 As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23 units

within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses, that

would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing noise

environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the moderate

impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant and no

mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional information on

the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to eliminate noise

impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La Paz

condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in Chapter

4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the lightrail tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the project

will be partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway noise. The

noise impact analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that

there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla

Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from, or shielded

from, the project.

A continuous wall encompassing both sound walls (Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR) has been incorporated into the

project to improve project aesthetics, but this wall was not necessary to provide noise

reduction to residents in Clusters 57 and 59 or any other nearby noise-sensitive

locations.

Additional information on operational noise levels is available in the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report. Appendix G

to this technical report provides detailed maps of all noise analysis locations, and

Chapter 5.0, Table 5-4 of this technical report lists existing levels and future projected

project-generated noise levels for the analysis locations in this vicinity. The

Barcelona development is represented by Clusters 62 through 64 in the analysis.

The existing exterior sound levels range between 63 and 66 dBA Ldn, and the project

will introduce a new source of sound between 57 and 58 dBA Ldn. The analysis is

complete; no impacts will occur in this vicinity and no mitigation will be required.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kucharski, Jeff - ID139

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1163

Kucharski, Jeff - ID139
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Kucharski, Jeff - ID139

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1164 September 2014

Submission ID139 Kucharski Jeff

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding the need to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to

stations will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to

Master Response 1 for a more detailed discussion of this comment.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

L - ID061

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1165

L - ID061
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

L - ID061

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1166 September 2014

Submission ID061 L

Com ID Response

1 Dating back to 1995, the Mid-Coast LRT alignment has been designed to serve

both UCSD and University City with the project terminus in University City.

Section 2.1 in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the prior studies

and actions that have influenced the current project alignment and terminus.

As discussed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the purpose of the project is to improve

transit service in the Mid-Coast Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old

Town, and University City (see Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR). To effectively meet this purpose, the project needs to serve the

major travel destinations within University City, including both UCSD and UTC.

Terminating the project at the UCSD West Station would require passengers to

transfer to a bus to reach their destinations within the UTC area. As indicated

in Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, one of the purposes of the

project is to reduce the number of transfers required to complete a trip and to

provide a one-seat ride between the most significant origins and destinations of

travel. University City, with nearly as many jobs as Downtown San Diego, is

one of the region’s most significant origins and destinations. Approximately 35

percent of the ridership expected on the project is between and including the

UCSD East Station and the UTC Transit Center. If passengers were forced to

transfer to a bus, fewer of them would use the system and their travel time

would be longer and less reliable. Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR indicated that the UTC Transit Center will be the busiest station in

terms of transfers on the extension of the Trolley Blue Line north of the OTTC

for connecting bus service to other destinations in University City and the

region. Additionally, if the line were terminated at the UCSD, there would be no

opportunity for transit parking or a bus transfer facility, both of which will be

provided at the UTC Transit Center; there will be 260 transit parking spaces at

the UTC Transit Center.

If required to transfer, fewer passengers would use the system. The existing

transit center at UTC also is a major transfer facility for connecting bus service

to other destinations in University City and the region. Terminating the project

at the UCSD West Station would also not be ideal as the area available near

the station is unlikely to accommodate a major bus transfer facility with

connections to the region and transit parking.

The traffic analysis performed for the Draft SEIS/SEIR (summarized in Chapter

3.0, Section 3.4.2.2) and discussed in detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report indicates that the project

will result in an adverse but mitigable traffic impact (based on City of San Diego

criteria) at Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway (Intersection

ID 15 as described in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-25 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). This

intersection serves as the driveway to the UTC Transit Center where transit
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

L - ID061

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1167

Com ID Response

parking will be provided. At this location, delays will occur from traffic traveling

to and from the UTC Transit Center and transit parking. Implementation of

Mitigation Measure TR10, as identified in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-26 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, will mitigate this adverse impact, restoring the intersection to an

acceptable condition.

Your comment stating that the city has reneged on the plan to extend Regents

Road from the northern to southern sections of University City will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Provision of a bridge at

Regents Road is beyond the scope of this project.

Regarding impacts to neighborhoods associated with construction and

operation of the Trolley line, these were evaluated as part of the community

and neighborhood impact analysis (refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report and

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report

for additional detail). During construction of the project, the Draft SEIS/SEIR

acknowledges that there will be adverse traffic impacts along Genesee Avenue

(refer to Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). The

lane/roadway and intersection closures required for construction of the project

are identified in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-32 and Table 3-33 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, respectively. Lane closures during peak periods will be minimized

to the extent feasible to reduce impacts to motorists when traffic volumes are

higher. Traffic impacts will be limited to the duration of the construction period.

As mitigation, a Transportation Management Plan will be developed prior to the

start of construction that will include a public awareness campaign to inform the

public of construction activity and roadway/lane closures and detours; real-time

traffic information; incident management to respond to incidents on roadways

near construction areas; and identification of alternative routes and detours.

2 Travel patterns in the Mid-Coast Corridor are summarized Chapter 1.0, Section

1.2.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As noted by the commenter, many of those who

work in the University City area commute from residential areas to the south

and east of downtown, including Mission Valley. The project will make transit a

more attractive option for these workers by improving transit speeds and

reliability while reducing transfers for many transit passengers. The Trolley

Blue Line and the Trolley Green Line already serve the areas where many

commuters to University City live; however, currently there is no direct Trolley

connection for these commuters to University City. While the project corridor

lies completely within the City of San Diego, it will be part of the regional

network and will attract trips that begin and/or end outside the city.

The ridership forecasts in the Draft SEIS/SEIR showed that the project will be

effective in attracting new transit riders. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Build Alternative will attract about 30,000 more transit
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

L - ID061

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1168 September 2014

Com ID Response

boardings per day than the No-Build Alternative in 2030.

3 The project does not contain a residential component, but it will provide transit

infrastructure, including transit parking for passengers, to alleviate some of the

traffic concerns that the commenter raises.

The UTC Transit Center will provide 260 transit parking spaces at the Westfield

UTC shopping center. In the Draft SEIS/SEIR, these parking spaces were

planned in a joint-use parking structure at the shopping center. However,

design of the shopping center parking structure is currently underway, with

construction scheduled to begin in the middle of 2014, prior to the scheduled

date of the Record of Decision. SANDAG cannot commit funds for construction

prior to the ROD. Transit parking will not have a visual impact on the University

City community because it will be accommodated within the existing or entitled

Westfield UTC parking areas. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter

4.0, Section 4.19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

No adverse effects to circulation and accessibility will occur as a result of the

project. As stated in response to Comment 1, the traffic analysis for the project

found that with mitigation, no significant traffic impacts will occur as a result of

the park-and-ride facility at the UTC Transit Center.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Leary, Alex - ID204

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1169

Leary, Alex - ID204
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Leary, Alex - ID204

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1170 September 2014

Submission ID204 Leary Alex

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lebowitz, David - ID040

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1171

Lebowitz, David - ID040
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lebowitz, David - ID040

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1172 September 2014

Submission ID040 Lebowitz David

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

LeCates, Corrine - ID129

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1173

LeCates, Corrine - ID129
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

LeCates, Corrine - ID129

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1174 September 2014

Submission ID129 LeCates Corrine

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, elimination of the Tecolote

Road Station was considered. Master Response 3 provides a description of the

evaluation. It was determined that acquisition of the business could not be avoided

without adversely affecting ridership or shifting impacts onto adjacent businesses.

3 The comment expressing a lack of concern regarding noise and traffic will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lin, Jonathan - ID027

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1175

Lin, Jonathan - ID027
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lin, Jonathan - ID027

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1176 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lin, Jonathan - ID027

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1177
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lin, Jonathan - ID027

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1178 September 2014

Submission ID027 Lin Jonathan

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Link, Jenny - ID205

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1179

Link, Jenny - ID205
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Link, Jenny - ID205

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1180 September 2014

Submission ID205 Link Jenny

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lockwood, Wallace - ID059

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1181

Lockwood, Wallace - ID059
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lockwood, Wallace - ID059

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1182 September 2014

Submission ID059 Lockwood Wallace

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Clairemont Drive Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comments describing the merits of the construction of a pedestrian deck above

the Clairemont Drive Station will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The proposed pedestrian deck will not support the transit purpose and

need for the project, and as such it is not included in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project. Station facilities included as part of the project are discussed further in

Master Response 1. It should be noted that parking at the Clairemont Drive Station

will be provided in a surface parking lot; a parking structure will not be constructed at

this location.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lopez, Inge - ID011

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1183

Lopez, Inge - ID011
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lopez, Inge - ID011

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1184 September 2014

Submission ID011 Lopez Inge

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Loveless, Rebecca - ID143

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1185

Loveless, Rebecca - ID143
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Loveless, Rebecca - ID143

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1186 September 2014

Submission ID143 Loveless Rebecca

Com ID Response

1 Mitigation Measure CON15 in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3 of the Final SEIS/SEIR

describes the process for the unanticipated discovery of obvious or possible

human remains. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section

7050.5(b), Disturbance of Human Remains, upon the discovery of possible human

remains, work will halt immediately and the area will be secured until the coroner of

the county in which the human remains are discovered has made a determination.

If human remains are discovered, the location will be secured and the Coroner will

be contacted immediately. The Coroner will make the formal/official identification

of the remains. .
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Loveless, Rebecca - ID156

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1187

Loveless, Rebecca - ID156
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Loveless, Rebecca - ID156

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1188 September 2014

Submission ID156 Loveless Rebecca

Com ID Response

1 Mitigation Measure CON15 in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR describes the process for the unanticipated discovery of obvious or

possible human remains. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code

Section 7050.5(b), Disturbance of Human Remains, upon the discovery of

possible human remains, work will halt immediately and the area secured until

the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has made

a determination.

If human remains are discovered, the location will be secured and the Coroner

will be contacted immediately. The Coroner will make the formal/official

identification of the remains.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lyntock, Brian - ID208

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1189

Lyntock, Brian - ID208
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Lyntock, Brian - ID208

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1190 September 2014

Submission ID208 Lyntock Brian

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Malone, Barbara - ID318

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1191

Malone, Barbara - ID318
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Malone, Barbara - ID318

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1192 September 2014

Submission ID318 Malone Barbara

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support of the project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Access to the apartments referenced in the

comment (9555 Genesee Avenue) will be maintained with the project. As shown on

Sheets 198-203 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR Plan Set, the number of travel lanes at the

Genesee Avenue and Eastgate Mall intersection under the Build Alternative will

remain the same as they are under existing conditions (three through lanes and two

left-turn lanes in the southbound direction and three through lanes and one left-turn

lane in the northbound direction). Southbound left turns and U-turns at this

intersection will be allowed. The aerial structure and its supporting columns will be in

the median of Genesee Avenue and will not obstruct intersection turning lanes.

Genesee Avenue will be widened between Regents Road and Nobel Drive, and the

travel lanes will be restriped as part of the project.

During construction of the aerial structure along Genesee Avenue, left turns on

Genesee Avenue will be prohibited at various intersections, including the Genesee

Avenue and Eastgate Mall intersection (as described in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-33 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR). During this time, detour routes using the adjacent intersections

and roadways will be provided to residents from the apartment complex referenced in

the comment. As described in the footnote to Table 3-33, “Closures and vehicular

movement prohibitions at these intersections would be phased such that adjacent

intersections would not be affected concurrently.” Therefore, residents from the

apartment complex could make a U-turn at the Genesee Avenue and Executive Drive

intersection to access the apartments during the temporary prohibition of left turns at

the Genesee Avenue and Eastgate Mall intersection.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Manalo, Markov - ID104

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1193

Manalo, Markov - ID104
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Manalo, Markov - ID104

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1194 September 2014

Submission ID104 Manalo Markov

Com ID Response

1 Your comments regarding incorporation of public art into station design will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Decisions on public art will be

made during the station design process. Additional information on the station design

process will be made available on the project website located at:

http://www.sandag.org/midcoast.

2 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. When the SANDAG Board of

Directors reconfirmed the LPA on July 23, 2010, they approved the evaluation of the

station at the VA Medical Center as an option during the development of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. This decision allowed for an analysis of the benefits and impacts

associated with the station as well as the opportunity for the public to provide

comments on the inclusion of the station.

On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build

Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be

evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mansell, Paul - ID161

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1195

Mansell, Paul - ID161
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mansell, Paul - ID161

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1196 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mansell, Paul - ID161

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1197

Submission ID161 Mansell Paul

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As discussed in Chapter

1.0, Section 1.6.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, providing equitable levels of

transportation services for all segments of the population is one of the goals of the

project. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will provide connections to several

medical facilities within the corridor, including Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla

and UCSD Thornton Hospital.

2 As noted in the comment, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is expected to

reduce air pollutant emissions burdens in the study area, indicating that the project

will have a beneficial air quality impact. For details, refer to Chapter 4.0, Section

4.5.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mathy, Sarah - ID094

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1198 September 2014

Mathy, Sarah - ID094
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mathy, Sarah - ID094

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1199

Submission ID094 Mathy Sarah

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McGehee, Jason - ID019

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1200 September 2014

McGehee, Jason - ID019
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McGehee, Jason - ID019

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1201

Submission ID019 McGehee Jason

Com ID Response

1 Your comment supporting the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Additional project maps and

conceptual renderings of stations can be found at the project website.

(www.sandag.org/midcoast).

Bus and shuttle connections are currently provided to the airport from the Santa Fe

Depot. The purpose of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to improve transit

service between Downtown, Old Town, and University City. The only improvements

included in the project south of the OTTC are upgrades to the existing systems,

including the signaling system and traction power system to accommodate the

increase in Trolley service in this segment. The future development of an Airport

Intermodal Transit Center, adjacent to the airport with direct connections to rail,

Trolley, and bus services, is included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the

2050 RTP, and this connection is programmed for implementation in 2035 (additional

details are available at: www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf).

2 A response to this comment was provided via email on June 27, 2013. The email

included a link to the project website (www.sandag.org/midcoast) where the project

map and renderings of stations could be viewed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McIlwain, Craig - ID321

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1202 September 2014

McIlwain, Craig - ID321
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McIlwain, Craig - ID321

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1203

Submission ID321 McIlwain Craig

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the riparian habitat and

creek in Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce impacts

to native habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within existing MTS

right-of-way and is separated from the open space by two existing LOSSAN tracks

that support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project design retains all

open and natural channels and, as such, will not expand the concrete-lined areas in

Rose Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will result in

temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive habitat areas

(including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance with

the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Vegetation affected by temporary

impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. Permanent impacts are primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way (rail

corridor). As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon. Master

Response 16 provides additional information about proposed mitigation for impacts in

the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McIlwain, Mary - ID328

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1204 September 2014

McIlwain, Mary - ID328
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McIlwain, Mary - ID328

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1205

Submission ID328 McIlwain Mary

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the riparian habitat and

creek in Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce

impacts to native habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within existing

MTS right-of-way and is separated from the open space by two existing LOSSAN

tracks that support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project design

retains all open and natural channels and, as such, will not expand the concretelined areas in Rose Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will result

in temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive habitat areas

(including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance

with the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Vegetation affected by temporary

impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. Permanent impacts are primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way (rail

corridor). As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon.

Master Response 16 provides additional information about proposed mitigation for

impacts in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McIlwain, Virginia - ID327

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1206 September 2014

McIlwain, Virginia - ID327
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McIlwain, Virginia - ID327

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1207

Submission ID327 McIlwain Virginia

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the riparian habitat and

creek in Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce

impacts to native habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within

existing MTS right-of-way and is separated from the open space by two existing

LOSSAN tracks that support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project

design retains all open and natural channels and, as such, will not expand the

concrete-lined areas in Rose Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will result in

temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive habitat areas

(including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance

with the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Vegetation affected by temporary

impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. Permanent impacts are primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way (rail

corridor). As described in the Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon.

Master Response 16 provides additional information about proposed mitigation for

impacts in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID140

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1208 September 2014

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID140
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID140

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1209
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID140

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1210 September 2014

Submission ID140 McLaughlin Nancy

Com ID Response

1 The alignment will cross I-5 approximately 1,500 feet south of the Nobel Drive

Station. Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.1 of the Final SEIS/SEIR states that the design of

the crossing has been modified since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to use columns rather

than straddle bents to support the structure. Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.1 of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report includes a

visual simulation (Key View 26) that depicts the updated design.

Many of the figures in the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIR are meant to provide an

overview of the corridor (e.g., Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). A

close up of the alignment and project features, including TPSSs, park-and-ride and

station locations, and the I-5 crossing, are shown in more detail in Figure 2-11 in the

Final SEIS/SEIR, which presents the plan and profile for the alignment. More

detailed information is also provided in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (refer to

sheets 92-93), which is Volume 2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. The Plan Set is available

at www.sandag.org/midcoast.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID144

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1211

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID144
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID144

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1212 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

McLaughlin, Nancy - ID144

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1213

Submission ID144 McLaughlin Nancy

Com ID Response

1 Parking demand at each station is calculated based on results from the SANDAG

Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Parking demand is based on the

modes of access available to the Trolley station, including bus service. The model

results have been reviewed and approved by FTA for use in the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project. As identified in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-29 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

transit park-and-ride demand at the Nobel Drive Station is estimated at 258 spaces.

The 260 parking spaces proposed for the station are sufficient to meet the forecast

demand in 2030, and no spillover parking impact to the shopping center is

anticipated. Parking constraints at UCSD were reflected in the model.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mertz, June - ID012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1214 September 2014

Mertz, June - ID012
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mertz, June - ID012

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1215

Submission ID012 Mertz June

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Miller, Sally - ID137

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1216 September 2014

Miller, Sally - ID137
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Miller, Sally - ID137

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1217

Submission ID137 Miller Sally

Com ID Response

1 The visual analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Visual Impacts Technical Report provide a comprehensive overview of project

features and their visual impact (refer to Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR and the supporting technical report). The visual impact analysis is

consistent with FTA guidelines and uses a representative approach to evaluate the

impacts of the project. As shown in Key View 18 (refer to Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2

of the Visual Impacts Technical Report), the guideway will be visible from properties

along Genesee Avenue but, with mitigation, the project will not result in adverse visual

impacts (refer to Chapter 4.0, Table 4-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR).

2 SANDAG evaluated the noise impacts associated with the project in accordance with

guidelines from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance

Manual (FTA, 2006). Master Response 9 provides an overview of the impact analysis

and determination of mitigation requirements. The effects of project noise were

assessed at the Good Samaritan Episcopal Church (referred to as Cluster 90 in the

noise analysis), and no significant impacts will occur. Specifically, the existing hourly

average noise level (Leq) at the church is 63 dBA, and project-generated noise will be

58 dBA Leq. When the project-related noise is combined with ambient noise, the

ambient level will increase to 64 dBA Leq, which is an increase of 1 dBA (as presented

in Chapter 5.0, Table 5-5 and Chapter 7.0, Table 7-1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mills, Rodney W. - ID130

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1218 September 2014

Mills, Rodney W. - ID130
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mills, Rodney W. - ID130

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1219

Submission ID130 Mills Rodney W.

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 1 for information regarding station design and features.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mogilner, Geoffrey - ID086

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1220 September 2014

Mogilner, Geoffrey - ID086
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Mogilner, Geoffrey - ID086

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1221

Submission ID086 Mogilner Geoffrey

Com ID Response

1 A response to this comment was provided via email on June 27, 2013. The email

included a link to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and

Mitigation Report, which includes the average daily traffic volumes requested in the

comment.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Muczynski, Sharon - ID322

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1222 September 2014

Muczynski, Sharon - ID322
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Muczynski, Sharon - ID322

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1223

Submission ID322 Muczynski Sharon

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the riparian habitat and

wildlife in Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce

impacts to native habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within

existing MTS right-of-way and is separated from the open space by two existing

LOSSAN tracks that support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project

has been designed to retain all open and natural channels and, as such, will not

expand the concrete-lined areas in Rose Creek.

As part of the assessment of project impacts, SANDAG conducted focused surveys

for threatened and endangered species, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern

willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, and San Diego fairy shrimp. The

survey reports are appended to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological

Resources Technical Report. Coastal California gnatcatcher was detected within

Rose Canyon. San Diego fairy shrimp was detected within the project impact

footprint in March 2014. Additionally, one individual male least Bell’s vireo was

detected in April and early May 2014 during preconstruction and focused surveys.

This single male least Bell’s vireo was observed using riparian habitat to the east and

west of the existing rail bridge and to the west of the existing Santa Fe Street bridge

over Rose Creek. Suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo also occurs in the San Diego

River. SANDAG and FTA have consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act and have identified

measures to avoid adverse impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s

vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, SANDAG and FTA have identified a suitable mitigation site to offset

impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp.

The project will result in some temporary and permanent impacts to biological

resources. During construction in sensitive habitat areas (including along Rose

Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance with the impact

avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological resources,

including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Mitigation Measures CON4 through

CON14 outline the requirements to reduce or avoid impacts to nesting birds, bats,

and threatened and endangered species such as coastal California gnatcatcher

and least Bell’s vireo, as well as provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to

vegetation communities and wetlands. Permanent impacts will be limited

primarily to the MTS right-of-way (rail right-of-way), and vegetation affected by

temporary impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following

completion of construction. Mitigation for permanent impacts includes

implementation of a portion of the restoration and creation opportunities identified

in the Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Muczynski, Sharon - ID322

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1224 September 2014

Com ID Response

Opportunities Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the

quality of habitat in Rose Canyon. Master Response 16 provides additional

information about proposed mitigation for impacts in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Naschak, Bruce - ID048

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1225

Naschak, Bruce - ID048
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Naschak, Bruce - ID048

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1226 September 2014

Submission ID048 Naschak Bruce

Com ID Response

1 There will be no moderate or severe project noise impacts according to FTA criteria

or significant noise impacts under CEQA east of Charmant Drive. As described in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR,

noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23 units within the La

Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR (a

cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses, that would experience

similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing noise environment).

Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the moderate impact threshold.

At that location, the impact will be less than significant and no mitigation will be

provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional information on the noise

analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to eliminate noise impacts at

the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La Paz condominiums in La

Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4

of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the

light-rail tracks between the residences and the freeway. The noise impact analysis

conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that there will be no

significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona

developments because they will be farther from, or shielded from, the project.

Additional information regarding operational noise levels is available in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report.

Appendix G to this technical report provides detailed maps of all noise analysis

locations, and Chapter 5.0, Tables 5-2 through 5-5 of the technical report provide

existing levels and future projected project-generated noise levels for each of the

analysis locations. Noise levels at locations farther removed from the project than

those included in Appendix G will be lower than for the locations included in the

appendix.

There are no conclusive findings regarding the health effects of low-level EMF

typical of electrically powered rail vehicles. Magnetic fields from the planned DC

traction system for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be transient in nature

and relatively slow, quite unlike power line AC magnetic fields that alternate

continuously at 60 Hz. Further, EMF levels produced by the project, under all

anticipated conditions, will be well below the threshold limits specified by voluntary

guidelines to prevent short-term adverse effects from EMF exposure across a wide

range of frequencies. For additional information regarding EMF impacts, refer to the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report.

The Trolley will be electrically powered, and therefore there will be no emissions

(dust) from fuel combustion associated with operation of the system. As explained
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Naschak, Bruce - ID048

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1227

Com ID Response

in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, emissions burdens in the

study area for all pollutants, including particulate matter (dust), will be equal or lower

under the Build Alternative than under the No-Build Alternative.

The trees on the east side of Charmant Drive will not be affected by the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Naschak, Bruce - ID253

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1228 September 2014

Naschak, Bruce - ID253
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Naschak, Bruce - ID253

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1229

Submission ID253 Naschak Bruce

Com ID Response

1 The Draft SEIS/SEIR found that, with mitigation, no adverse environmental effects

will occur along Charmant Drive that could negatively affect residences in La Jolla

Colony. As identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community,

and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report and summarized in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.2.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will not create a new physical or

perceived barrier, will not introduce a new visual element that is incompatible with

existing neighborhood character, will not reduce accessibility to community facilities,

and will not result in major changes to land use. With mitigation, no adverse

environmental effects will occur that could negatively affect residences in La Jolla

Colony or degrade the quality of life in the neighborhoods along the alignment,

including the area near Charmant Drive in La Jolla Colony.

The primary changes that will affect residences in this area will be from visual and

noise effects of the project. In this area of the alignment, a visual rendering was

completed (Key View 7 in Chapter 5.0, Figure 5-7 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Visual Impacts Technical Report). The visual report found that, while

moderate visual effects will occur from the loss of vegetation and contrast in scale

with the existing character, with implementation of mitigation measures listed in

Chapter 6.0, Section 6.1 of the Visual Impacts Technical Report, these effects will

not be adverse.

In addition, five clusters of the closest residences along Charmant Drive were

modeled for noise to represent the maximum noise levels experienced (Chapter 5.0,

Table 5-4 and Figure 5-6 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and

Vibration Impacts Technical Report). There will be no moderate or severe project

noise impacts according to FTA criteria or significant noise impacts under CEQA

east of Charmant Drive. As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated

in Figure 4-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area

will be limited to 23 units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57,

59, and 61 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses,

such as houses, that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a

similar existing noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not

exceed, the moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than

significant and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for

additional information on the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be

provided to eliminate noise impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59

within the La Paz condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2

and N3 in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the

light-rail tracks between the residences and the freeway. The noise impact analysis

conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that there will be no
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Naschak, Bruce - ID253

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1230 September 2014

Com ID Response

significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona

developments because they will be farther from, or shielded from, the project.

2 Refer to the response to Comment 1 for information regarding the noise analysis and

mitigation in the La Jolla Colony area near I-5.

There are no conclusive findings regarding the health effects of low-level EMF typical

of electrically powered rail vehicles. Magnetic fields from the planned DC traction

system for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be transient in nature and

relatively slow, quite unlike power line AC magnetic fields that alternate continuously

at 60 Hz. Further, EMF levels produced by the project, under all anticipated

conditions, will be well below the threshold limits specified by voluntary guidelines to

prevent short-term adverse effects from EMF exposure across a wide range of

frequencies. For additional information regarding EMF impacts, refer to the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report.

3 Refer to the response to Comment 1.

Refer to Master Response 10 for information regarding changes in property values

near transit stations.

EMF impacts are discussed in response to Comment 2.

Where trees and vegetation associated with landscaping are removed by the project,

new vegetation will typically be provided as mitigation. Specifically, mitigation

measures for vegetation replacement are outlined in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR (see Mitigation Measures VR5, VR6, and VR7). In some areas,

vegetation will be removed as part of property take or in public roadway or freeway

right-of-way; in such cases, there may not be sufficient area available to replace the

vegetation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure VR6, trees larger than 6 inches

in diameter at chest height will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, and trees smaller than 6

inches in diameter at chest height will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio contingent upon the

approval of the land owner. Replacement trees may be located elsewhere along the

alignment if insufficient area is available where they are removed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Nelson, Sharon - ID201

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1231

Nelson, Sharon - ID201
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Nelson, Sharon - ID201

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1232 September 2014

Submission ID201 Nelson Sharon

Com ID Response

1 Near the Middletown Station, two of the parcels are privately owned and another

is owned by a public agency. There are no plans to add parking near the

existing Trolley stations between and including Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC.

As described in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, "the only

improvements included in the project south of the OTTC are upgrades to the

existing systems, including the signaling system and traction power system to

accommodate the increase in Trolley service in this segment."
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Nickel, Melanie - ID131

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1233

Nickel, Melanie - ID131
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Nickel, Melanie - ID131

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1234 September 2014

Submission ID131 Nickel Melanie

Com ID Response

1 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will include measures to improve the

efficiency of gate operations at Taylor Street (as described in Chapter 2.0, Section

2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). The project will also include modifications to the traffic

signal timing and phasing at two intersections (as described in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-

26 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR): 1) Taylor Street/Rosecrans Street at Pacific Highway

and 2) Taylor Street at Congress Street to reduce vehicular delay.

Gate down times vary based on train type (e.g., Trolley, Amtrak) and the number of

trains traveling through the grade crossing while the gates are down. Even though

the gates will be down more frequently with the project, the improvements to gate

operations will decrease the maximum and average gate down times per train

crossing in 2030 compared to conditions in 2030 without the project (referred to as

the No-Build Alternative), as well as for existing conditions. The actual time a

pedestrian or driver will wait to cross the tracks will still depend on the type and

number of trains traveling through the crossing.

With the improvements to gate operations and traffic signal modifications, average

delay during the peak hour for vehicles at the intersections analyzed near the Taylor

Street grade crossing will be less with the project in 2030 than under the No-Build

Alternative (see Chapter 3.0, Table 3-24 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). Further, with these

improvements to gate operations, the additional Trolley vehicles will result in only

minor increases in the total time that the gate is down during the peak hour.

2 Your comment regarding the need for lighting in the tunnel under I-5 near the OTTC

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Improvements to

this tunnel are outside the scope of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Refer to

Master Response 1 for a discussion of station area improvements that will be

provided as part of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pallazola, Carol - ID167

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1235

Pallazola, Carol - ID167
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pallazola, Carol - ID167

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1236 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pallazola, Carol - ID167

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1237

Submission ID167 Pallazola Carol

Com ID Response

1 The traffic analysis prepared in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR meets the

requirements of the Federal Transit Administration and was conducted in

accordance with the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (City of San

Diego, 1998c), and is not affected by the change in the number of lanes on

Clairemont Drive.

As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.3.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the

heading “Roadway Performance,” a roadway segment analysis is performed only

if a project adds more than 50 peak-hour trips (for both directions combined) to a

roadway segment. This standard applies to all roadway segments, regardless of

the number of lanes. Peak hours refer to the busiest times of day in both the

morning and the afternoon. The two-lane segment on Clairemont Drive (with one

travel lane and a bike lane in each direction), referred to in the comment, is

between Erie Street and Burgender Boulevard located east of Denver Street.

Station-area traffic will increase peak-hour traffic volumes on Clairemont Drive

east of Denver Street by up to 28 vehicles; therefore, the roadway segment on

Clairemont Drive east of Denver Street was not included in the traffic analysis for

the project.

The reduction in lanes along this segment to add additional bike lanes was done

by the City of San Diego, and does not affect the traffic analysis for the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project. The City of San Diego would be the responsible agency

for modifying the configuration of this segment of Clairemont Drive as suggested

in the comment.

2 The noise attenuation devices suggested in your comment are not necessary to

address project noise. Master Response 7 provides additional information about

noise impact analysis along Morena Boulevard. Master Response 9 provides

information about the approach to noise analysis and identification of noise

mitigation. As noted in those responses, no moderate or severe noise impacts

would occur and no noise mitigation is required along Morena Boulevard.

3 Along Morena Boulevard, the light rail tracks will be located between Morena

Boulevard and the existing heavy rail tracks. The area between Morena

Boulevard and the existing tracks will be cleared and graded for the new LRT

tracks. The area referenced in the comment between the existing heavy rail

tracks and I-5 will not be affected by the project. Sounding of a warning horn is

required if the train operator believes there to be a safety concern (e.g.,

pedestrian on the track); however, it is not anticipated to be a routine occurrence.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Parchia, Robin - ID329

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1238 September 2014

Parchia, Robin - ID329
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Parchia, Robin - ID329

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1239

Submission ID329 Parchia Robin

Com ID Response

1 An email with a link to the previous environmental documents was provided to the

commenter on August 2, 2013. The previous environmental documents

addressing the Mid-Coast Corridor are available at www.sandag.com/midcoast.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Parrish, Lynn - ID020

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1240 September 2014

Parrish, Lynn - ID020
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Parrish, Lynn - ID020

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1241

Submission ID020 Parrish Lynn

Com ID Response

1 A hard copy of the Final SEIS/SEIR has been provided to the Mesa College Library

for review during public circulation of the Final SEIS/SEIR. Additionally, a hard copy

of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplement to the

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report regarding the San Diego fairy shrimp was

provided to the library in July 2014. During circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, hard

copies of the Draft SEIS/SEIR Volumes 1 and 2 were distributed to 20 libraries

throughout the Mid-Coast Corridor (refer to Chapter 8.0, Table 8-3 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR) to be made available for public review.

2 SANDAG has conducted extensive public outreach with regard to the project in

compliance with CEQA and NEPA public noticing requirements. The outreach

coordinator for Mesa College (Genevieve Esguerra) was not on the public

involvement distribution list. Based on this comment letter, Ms. Esguerra was

added to the distribution list to receive information about the ongoing process of

review and approval for the project, including the e-newsletter for the project. Ian

Kay with the architecture department at Mesa College was also added to the

distribution list.

The outreach efforts that were implemented to publicize the availability of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR for public review, the public meetings, and the public hearing, as well as

opportunities to submit comments, included postcards, newspaper advertisements,

public notices, social media posts, the e-newsletter for the project, four public

meetings, and a public hearing. In addition, information about the project, including

the Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical reports, was made available on the

project website.

3 SANDAG has confirmed that the libraries with copies of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for

public review received a hard copy of the Draft SEIS/SEIR Volumes 1 and 2 on May

8, 2013. Additionally, confirmation that the libraries received hard copies of the

Supplement for public review was received on July 9, 2014 for most libraries and on

July 28 for the two libraries that were closed for remodeling on July 9.

4 SANDAG has not yet received federal funds through the FTA New Starts program

for this project.

5 The City of San Diego working groups are conducted separately from the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project. Community planning information can be found on the City

of San Diego website at http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/index.shtml.

Information on public involvement in the planning process can be accessed on the

City of San Diego website at

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/involved/index.shtml.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Patel, Shila - ID064

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1242 September 2014

Patel, Shila - ID064
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Patel, Shila - ID064

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1243

Submission ID064 Patel Shila

Com ID Response

1 Bus and shuttle connections are currently provided to the airport from the Santa Fe

Depot. The purpose of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to improve transit

service between Downtown, Old Town, and University City. The only improvements

included in the project south of the OTTC are upgrades to the existing systems,

including the signaling system and traction power system to accommodate the

increase in Trolley service along this segment. The future development of an Airport

Intermodal Transit Center, adjacent to the airport with direct connections to rail,

Trolley, and bus services, is included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the

2050 RTP, and this connection is programmed for implementation in 2035 (additional

details are available at: www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Patula, Nancy - ID149

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1244 September 2014

Patula, Nancy - ID149
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Patula, Nancy - ID149

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1245

Submission ID149 Patula Nancy

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As described in Master Response

5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue Station. Based on this

evaluation, the location of the Balboa Avenue Station proposed in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR has been retained for the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pedusseau, Nadine - ID013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1246 September 2014

Pedusseau, Nadine - ID013
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pedusseau, Nadine - ID013

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1247

Submission ID013 Pedusseau Nadine

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Consistent with current MTS policy, the cost of parking at the five new stations with

transit parking (Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, and

the UTC Transit Center Stations) will be free.

The park-and-ride facilities at the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Nobel Drive, and

UTC Transit Center Stations will be able to accommodate the projected demand for

parking at those stations. The Balboa Avenue Station site cannot accommodate

additional surface parking; however, as described in Master Response 6, the spillover

parking analysis performed for the Balboa Avenue Station indicates there is adequate

on-street parking to accommodate the unmet demand, although on-street parking

likely would not be utilized due to distance and topography.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pho, Nisa - ID125

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1248 September 2014

Pho, Nisa - ID125
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pho, Nisa - ID125

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1249

Submission ID125 Pho Nisa

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding the provision of restrooms at Trolley stations will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 1 for

information regarding station features.

2 Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR describes the bus facilities that

will be provided near the stations constructed as part of the project. The bus routes

that will connect to the Trolley stations are shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR. Transfers between buses and the Trolley will be coordinated at

these stations.

Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00

a.m. the next day. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be

established by MTS prior to opening of the project; however, hours are anticipated

to be similar to those of the existing Trolley Blue Line.

The existing weekday hours of service for the major bus routes serving the MidCoast Corridor are listed in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-3 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. As

shown, most routes operate from approximately 6:00 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. or later.

Several routes (including Routes 8 and 30) operate until nearly 1:00 a.m. Similar

hours of operation are anticipated on opening day and 2030.

3 Master Response 1 provides information on the pedestrian connections that will be

provided at the new Trolley stations. Convenient pedestrian access has been

provided at all stations with a focus on safety. Fencing is provided in the median of

Tecolote Road near the Tecolote Road Station to prevent jaywalking, but a midblock

crosswalk could be considered during final design. Before the city would approve

the installation of a signalized mid-block crosswalk, a traffic study would be required

to determine impacts to traffic and whether such a crosswalk meets city

requirements for installation of a signal. A need for fencing in the median of

roadways has not been identified near the other stations.

As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the new stations

are located within areas identified for smart growth and supportive of TransitOriented Development. As noted in Master Response 4, which relates to

development at the Clairemont Drive Station, joint developments are beyond the

scope of this transit project. However, the new stations would be supportive of

Transit-Oriented Development.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Piarulli, Josephine - ID160

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1250 September 2014

Piarulli, Josephine - ID160
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Piarulli, Josephine - ID160

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1251

Submission ID160 Piarulli Josephine

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing your opposition to the Balboa Avenue Station will be part

of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 2

for a discussion of the need for stations in residential areas.

2 A station and park-and-ride facility will be constructed at Clairemont Drive as part of

the project; this station will be located at Morena Boulevard between Clairemont

Drive and Ingulf Street. This station location was presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR

and remains unchanged in the Final SEIS/SEIR. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Figure

3-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Clairemont Drive Station will be served by one bus

route—Route 50—that provides express bus service from Downtown San Diego to

the UTC Transit Center.

As noted above, Master Response 2 provides additional information on the need for

stations in residential areas.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pique, Michael - ID319

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1252 September 2014

Pique, Michael - ID319
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pique, Michael - ID319

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1253

Submission ID319 Pique Michael

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern regarding impacts to the plants and wildlife in

Rose Canyon will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce impacts to native

habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within existing MTS right-ofway and is separated from the open space by two existing LOSSAN tracks that

support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. By locating the new tracks in the

existing right-of-way, impacts to native vegetation communities and the wildlife

therein are minimized. Further, placing the tracks adjacent to existing LOSSAN

tracks ensures that the area affected by indirect impacts (such as noise from rail

activity) is not expanded into the natural open space areas. As described in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the project will maintain the

local wildlife connection between Rose Canyon and San Clemente Canyon

below SR 52.

As acknowledged in the comment, the project will result in some temporary and

permanent impacts to vegetation (refer to Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR). During construction in Rose Canyon, a biological monitor will be

present in accordance with the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter

4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in

minimizing impacts to biological resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that

areas outside of the designated construction zone are not adversely affected.

Mitigation Measures CON4 through CON14 outline the requirements to reduce

or avoid impacts to nesting birds, bats, and threatened and endangered species,

as well as provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to vegetation

communities and wetlands. Permanent impacts will be limited primarily to the

MTS right-of-way (rail right-of-way). Vegetation affected by temporary impacts

will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San

Diego Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose

Canyon. Master Response 16 provides additional information about proposed

mitigation for impacts in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pitzel, Diane - ID132

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1254 September 2014

Pitzel, Diane - ID132
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Pitzel, Diane - ID132

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1255

Submission ID132 Pitzel Diane

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding jobs at UCSD has been noted; however, it is outside the

scope of this project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Post, Nick - ID241

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1256 September 2014

Post, Nick - ID241
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Post, Nick - ID241

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1257

Submission ID241 Post Nick

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Post, Trey - ID242

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1258 September 2014

Post, Trey - ID242
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Post, Trey - ID242

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1259

Submission ID242 Post Trey

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Quesenberry, John - ID159

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1260 September 2014

Quesenberry, John - ID159
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Quesenberry, John - ID159

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1261

Submission ID159 Quesenberry John

Com ID Response

1 Your comment recommending termination of the trolley extension at UCSD will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

As discussed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the purpose of the project is to improve transit

service in the Mid-Coast Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and

University City (refer to Chapter 1.0, Section 1.5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). To

effectively meet this purpose, the project needs to serve the major travel destinations

within University City, including both UCSD and UTC. Terminating the project at the

UCSD West Station would require passengers to transfer to a bus to reach their

destinations within the UTC area. Approximately 35 percent of the ridership

expected on the project extension north of the OTTC is from the UCSD East Station,

Executive Drive Station, and the UTC Transit Center (refer to Chapter 4.0, Table 4-

27 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation

Report). If required to transfer, fewer passengers would use the system. The

existing transit center at UTC also is a major transfer facility for connecting bus

service to other destinations in University City and the region.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Reers, Elizabeth - ID123

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1262 September 2014

Reers, Elizabeth - ID123
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Reers, Elizabeth - ID123

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1263

Submission ID123 Reers Elizabeth

Com ID Response

1 No sound walls are proposed on the west side of I-5 south of La Jolla Village

Square. As shown in the additional noise analysis included in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.7.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the project will not create noise impacts west of I-5

and south of La Jolla Village Square; therefore, no sound wall is required at this

location.

Construction of the project will begin in 2015 (refer to Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.6 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Reid, Tom and Carol - ID031

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1264 September 2014

Reid, Tom and Carol - ID031
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Reid, Tom and Carol - ID031

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1265

Submission ID031 Reid Tom and Carol

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern about noise in the Bay Park area, including the

potential for nighttime noise, has been noted and will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Please refer to Master Response 7 for a

detailed discussion of noise impacts in the Bay Park area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Robbins, Lou Ellen - ID049

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1266 September 2014

Robbins, Lou Ellen - ID049
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Robbins, Lou Ellen - ID049

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1267

Submission ID049 Robbins Lou Ellen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding support for the project has been noted and will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 11 for a

discussion of security and crime.

With respect to your comment expressing concerns about parking, the project will

provide 1,170 park-and-ride spaces at five of the new stations. As shown in Chapter

3.0, Table 3-28 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the stations and the anticipated number of

spaces are as follows:

· Tecolote Road - 280 spaces

· Clairemont Drive - 150 spaces

· Balboa Avenue - 220 spaces

· Nobel Drive - 260 spaces

· UTC Transit Center - 260 spaces

The number of spaces assumed for each station was based on the anticipated future

(2030) demand, as predicted by the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting

Model, as well as site restrictions. In some cases, parking capacity was constrained

by how much parking could be reasonably provided at the station site.

Your comment expressing concerns about entering and leaving the shopping center,

and the need for revised entrances, has been noted and will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. It is unclear which shopping center is being

referenced in the comment. However, vehicular access to and egress (exiting) from

all park-and-ride facilities has been considered as part of project design, including

those located at the Nobel Drive Station (La Jolla Village Square shopping center) and

the UTC Transit Center (Westfield UTC shopping center). The design for access to

park-and-ride facilities considers sight distance and queuing; and traffic analyses were

conducted to determine if the project would result in traffic impacts at entrances to the

park-and-ride facilities. As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-62 of the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report, all intersections

to park-and-ride facilities will operate at acceptable conditions with the incorporation of

mitigation at Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. In addition, see

Master Response 1 for a discussion of station design and bicycle and pedestrian

connections.

If the comment is referring to access to shopping centers along the alignment that are

not located at the stations, the project has been designed to maintain access to all

locations along the alignment.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Roberts, Dave - ID150

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1268 September 2014

Roberts, Dave - ID150
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Roberts, Dave - ID150

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1269

Submission ID150 Roberts Dave

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rodriguez, Eric W. - ID298

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1270 September 2014

Rodriguez, Eric W. - ID298
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rodriguez, Eric W. - ID298

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1271

Submission ID298 Rodriguez Eric William

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rosado, Carolyn - ID141

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1272 September 2014

Rosado, Carolyn - ID141
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rosado, Carolyn - ID141

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1273

Submission ID141 Rosado Carolyn

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 1 for additional information about bicycle and pedestrian

facilities associated with the project. A pedestrian walkway along the aerial

guideway where it crosses I-5 would not be accessible to the general public. While

the northern end of the walkway (west of I-5) would connect to the Nobel Drive

Station at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center, access to the southern end

of the walkway would require access through private properties, as well as stairs

and elevators for ADA compliance, and would be inaccessible by the general public

due to the restricted access at the southern end of the walkway (east of I-5).

Therefore, the only users of such a facility are anticipated to be residents of the

condominiums located on La Jolla Colony Drive and Charmant Drive.

Your comment requesting a pedestrian walkway on the I-5 crossing north of Nobel

Drive will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Roth, Brenda - ID246

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1274 September 2014

Roth, Brenda - ID246
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Roth, Brenda - ID246

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1275

Submission ID246 Roth Brenda

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master

Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station on the

City Yard site.

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the project where needed to support

the alignment and project features (e.g., stations). The visual impact of retaining

walls required for the project is described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.4 of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report. The visual

impact analysis considered wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer exposure.

Near the Balboa Avenue Station, retaining walls higher than 6 feet and longer

than 50 feet will result in “none to low” impacts; therefore, mitigation will not be

required. Relocating the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not

substantially reduce the number of retaining walls needed.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime

rates to change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa

Avenue Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding

the need for transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa

Avenue Station on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Roth, Ed - ID247

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1276 September 2014

Roth, Ed - ID247
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Roth, Ed - ID247

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1277

Submission ID247 Roth Ed

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master

Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station on the City

Yard site.

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the project where needed to support the

alignment and project features (e.g., stations). The visual impact of retaining walls

required for the project is described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.4 of the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report. The visual impact analysis

considered wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer exposure. Near the Balboa

Avenue Station, retaining walls higher than 6 feet and longer than 50 feet will result in

“none to low” impacts; therefore, mitigation will not be required. Relocating the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not substantially reduce the

number of retaining walls needed.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates to

change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need

for transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the Balboa

Avenue Station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Russakoff, Sharon - ID050

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1278 September 2014

Russakoff, Sharon - ID050
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Russakoff, Sharon - ID050

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1279

Submission ID050 Russakoff Sharon

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Russel, Michael - ID183

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1280 September 2014

Russel, Michael - ID183
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Russel, Michael - ID183

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1281

Submission ID183 Russel Michael

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1282 September 2014

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1283
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1284 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1285
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1286 September 2014

Submission ID333 Rustin Russell and Lisa

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station.

2 Your comment regarding prior discussions with Councilwoman Donna Frye has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

3 SANDAG studied the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station from south of Balboa

Avenue to the City Yard site. The results of this evaluation are documented in the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Balboa Avenue Station Relocation Study

Technical Memorandum and summarized in Master Response 5. Capital and

operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were developed for the City Yard site and

compared to costs of the Draft SEIS/SEIR site. Two station options were evaluated

for the City Yard Site (referred to as Options 1 and 2). Capital costs would increase

by approximately $12.5 million (Option 1) and $17.7 million (Option 2) over the Draft

SEIS/SEIR site in year of expenditure dollars. These costs included any roadway

improvements required. Additionally, relocating the station would increase bus travel

time and distance. Such increases could require additional buses in order to

maintain service headways, which would increase O&M costs by approximately

$497,000 to $1,105,000 depending on the number of routes that require a new bus.

Therefore, capital and O&M costs would be lower for the Draft SEIS/SEIR site.

4 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at the

Balboa Avenue Station. The comment stating that no parking would be provided at the

Clairemont Drive Station is incorrect; that station includes a park-and-ride lot that will

provide 150 spaces, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-12 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

5 Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station. Note that the intersection modifications do not include

adding signals on Balboa Avenue.

6 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue

Station. Master Response 5 provides additional information regarding drive access if

the station were located on the City Yard site.

Refer to the response to Comment 3 regarding cost.

7 Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station and Master Response 6 for information regarding parking

supply and demand at the Balboa Avenue Station. Note that consistent with current

MTS policy, transit parking will be provided free of charge and will not be a source of

revenue for the City of San Diego.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Rustin, Russell and Lisa - ID333

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1287

Com ID Response

Constructing the Balboa Avenue Station south of Balboa Avenue as proposed in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR will not preclude future development on the City Yard site. The

pedestrian bridge over Balboa Avenue that will be built as part of the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project will provide a connection to any future development on the

City Yard site from the Trolley station.

8 Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station and to Master Response 2 regarding stations in residential

areas.

9 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station to the City Yard site.

10 a) Refer to the response to Comment 3 regarding cost.

b) Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and

demand at the Balboa Avenue Station. Further, the project does not include a

joint-development component. However, the location of the Balboa Avenue

Station as shown in the Draft SEIS/SEIR does not preclude future development

of the City Yard site.

c) Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

If the station were moved to the City Yard site, vehicular traffic would continue to

use Balboa Avenue and the intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue

to access the station and park-and-ride facility, the two locations where traffic

impacts that cannot be mitigated will occur. Thus, relocating the station would

not minimize the traffic impacts identified for the Draft SEIS/SEIR station site.

d) Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

e) Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential to relocate the

Balboa Avenue Station.

11 The design of the project considers both short- and long-term impacts, using 2030 as

the horizon year for the long-term impact evaluation. The alignment and station

locations are the result of prior studies and projections of future conditions and

demand for the project. As stated in response to previous comments, relocating the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not avoid or minimize any impacts

identified for the location analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Additionally, relocating

the station would increase capital and O&M costs. Refer to Master Response 5 for

information regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sammarco, Gavin - ID323

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1288 September 2014

Sammarco, Gavin - ID323
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sammarco, Gavin - ID323

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1289

Submission ID323 Sammarco Gavin

Com ID Response

1 Your comment recommending the installation of underpasses to facilitate pedestrian

access has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 1 for a discussion of bicycle and pedestrian

facilities.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sauder, Ellen - ID324

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1290 September 2014

Sauder, Ellen - ID324
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sauder, Ellen - ID324

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1291

Submission ID324 Sauder Ellen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schindler, Kristine - ID133

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1292 September 2014

Schindler, Kristine - ID133
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schindler, Kristine - ID133

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1293

Submission ID133 Schindler Kristine

Com ID Response

1 Bicycles will be permitted aboard Trolley vehicles, consistent with current MTS policy.

Bicycle lockers will be provided at all stations along the Mid-Coast Corridor alignment.

As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will

restripe bicycle lanes near some stations upon the completion of construction work.

Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of bicycle and pedestrian

connections at stations.

2 Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of bicycle and pedestrian

connections at stations.

3 Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of bicycle and pedestrian

connections at stations.

4 As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, mitigation measure

TCON1 will include the construction of "a temporary bicycle path adjacent to the

construction site along the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path to maintain access and

connectivity." In addition, during any short-term, intermittent closures, such as may

be required for safety and during the time the temporary path is being constructed,

informational signs and a detour route will be provided along local streets and

pathways. Intermittent closure of the temporary bicycle detour may be required for

safety reasons, and these closures could last up to two weeks. SANDAG will provide

advanced notice of closures. There are no plans to provide a shuttle during

intermittent closures of up to two weeks. Although not anticipated, a shuttle could be

provided by SANDAG if closures lasting one month or longer are required, which will

be stipulated in the Transportation Management Plan.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schmidt, Margaret - ID014

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1294 September 2014

Schmidt, Margaret - ID014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schmidt, Margaret - ID014

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1295

Submission ID014 Schmidt Margaret

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding the need for pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting to

Mission Bay and other recreational areas from the Tecolote Drive Station, Clairemont

Drive Station, and Balboa Avenue Station will be part of the record of proceedings for

the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master Response 1 for a discussion of this topic.

2 As shown in Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-12 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a bus pullout will be

located on Clairemont Drive north of the park-and-ride facility. To provide more

efficient operating conditions for bus Route 50, while locating the bus stop as close to

the Clairemont Drive Station platform as feasible, the bus stop was moved off-street to

the park-and-ride facility (see Chapter 2.0, Figure 2-13 in the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Transit patrons transferring between buses and the Trolley will cross Morena

Boulevard at the signalized crosswalk at Ingulf Street.

3 The comment regarding the merits of the project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

4 Your comment regarding the availability of parking at the Clairemont Drive Station will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Parking requirements at

each station are based on travel demand forecasting that was conducted for the

project, which identified the expected number of automobile trips traveling to each

station (refer to Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5.1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report for additional information). The project

will provide 150 spaces for park-and-ride patrons at the Clairemont Drive Station,

which is the number required according to the forecasting model. The parking will be

located east of Morena Boulevard on a former retail commercial site.

5 On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build

Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be

evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1296 September 2014

Schwartz, Matt - ID331
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1297
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1298 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1299
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1300 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1301
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1302 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1303
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1304 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1305
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1306 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1307
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Schwartz, Matt - ID331

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1308 September 2014

Submission ID331 Schwartz Matt

Com ID Response

1 The comment has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. The station location, traffic, noise, and environmental concerns

referenced in this comment are addressed in detailed responses to subsequent

comments.

2 The Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical reports document the evaluation of

traffic and noise impacts associated with the Balboa Avenue Station to the Bay Park

community. The results of these analyses are documented in Chapters 3.0 and 4.0

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Additional information is presented in Master Responses 5,

7, and 8.

3 Based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, relocation of the Balboa

Avenue Station to the City of San Diego Rose Canyon Operations Station (City

Yard) site north of Balboa Avenue was considered. Refer to Master Response 5

regarding the potential relocation of the station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential relocation of the Balboa Avenue

Station and to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near

the Balboa Avenue Station with implementation of the project.

5 Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the evaluation of noise

impacts near the Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 2 for information regarding the need for stations in

residential neighborhoods.

6 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at

the Balboa Avenue Station.

7 Refer to Master Response 2 for information regarding the need for stations in

residential neighborhoods.

The location of the Balboa Avenue Station as presented in the Draft and Final

SEIS/SEIRs would not preclude future development of the City Yard/Rose Canyon

site. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project does not include joint development as a

component of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Shulds, Andrea - ID190

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1309

Shulds, Andrea - ID190
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Shulds, Andrea - ID190

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1310 September 2014

Submission ID190 Shulds Andrea

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sinclair, Ken - ID134

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1311

Sinclair, Ken - ID134
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sinclair, Ken - ID134

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1312 September 2014

Submission ID134 Sinclair Ken

Com ID Response

1 The project has been refined based on public and agency input and additional

engineering and may be further refined prior to approval of the project by the

SANDAG Board of Directors. Significant changes to the project are not anticipated

after approval of the project by the SANDAG Board of Directors, although minor

modifications are normal during Final Design. For example, station features could

be modified by MTS (e.g., increase the number of bicycle racks provided) if

anticipated demand warranted such changes.

The use of photos to document the progress of constructing the project will be

considered during the development of the Transportation Management Plan, which

is the appropriate plan to address providing information related to construction to the

public.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sinclair, Ken - ID148

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1313

Sinclair, Ken - ID148
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sinclair, Ken - ID148

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1314 September 2014

Submission ID148 Sinclair Ken

Com ID Response

1 Your request for photos documenting the progress of construction activities has been

noted. As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a

Transportation Management Plan will be prepared prior to the start of construction.

This plan will include a public awareness campaign that will “inform the public in

advance about the project, roadway impacts, and construction activities, including

closures of any facilities.” The use of photos and video to document the progress of

constructing the project will be considered during the formation of the Transportation

Management Plan.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sopher, Jan - ID146

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1315

Sopher, Jan - ID146
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sopher, Jan - ID146

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1316 September 2014

Submission ID146 Sopher Jan

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station.

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes operational noise

impacts that will result from the project. Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-19 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR identifies no significant noise impacts in the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue

Station. Because no significant impacts will occur in this location, relocation of the

station is not required to eliminate or reduce a significant impact. Master Response 7

provides a discussion of noise impacts near Morena Boulevard and Balboa Avenue,

and Master Response 9 provides a general discussion of noise impact assessment

and mitigation.

2 Where existing terrain can provide noise reduction, it has been considered in the

noise impact evaluation for the project. Modification of the terrain, such as through

the provision of berms in place of sound walls, is not feasible in most locations, as it

would result in greater impacts. Refer to Master Response 17 for the potential to

construct a berm. No noise walls are proposed at the Balboa Avenue Station

because there are no noise impacts within this area that require mitigation (refer to

Master Response 7).

Refer to Master Response 12 regarding how graffiti will be addressed both in terms of

preventative measures and response during operation. Refer to Master Response 11

regarding the potential for crime to change in the Mid-Coast Corridor.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding how traffic conditions will change in the vicinity

of the Balboa Avenue Station. No new traffic control or traffic movement will be

introduced on Balboa Avenue, and thus the new configuration will not affect traffic

flow on eastbound and westbound Balboa Avenue.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sopher, Jan - ID251

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1317

Sopher, Jan - ID251
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sopher, Jan - ID251

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1318 September 2014

Submission ID251 Sopher Jan

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station. Refer to Master Response 2 regarding the importance of locating stations in

residential areas.

2 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes in street and ramp configurations

around the Balboa Avenue Station and changes in traffic conditions.

3 The relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site, referred to as the

Rose Canyon Lot by the commenter, is discussed in Master Response 5. Refer to

Master Response 12 regarding graffiti prevention and removal.

Refer to Master Response 7 regarding noise in the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue

Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 regarding the potential for crime rates to change in the

Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the feasibility of relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station. The project will not result in significant noise or safety impacts near the

Balboa Avenue Station, and traffic impacts would not be avoided, minimized, or

mitigated by moving the station to the north side of Balboa Avenue.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sopher, Joseph - ID248

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1319

Sopher, Joseph - ID248
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sopher, Joseph - ID248

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1320 September 2014

Submission ID248 Sopher Joseph

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master

Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station on the City

Yard site.

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the project where needed to support the

alignment and project features (e.g., stations). The visual impact of retaining walls

required for the project is described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.4 of the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report. The visual impact analysis

considered wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer exposure. Near the Balboa

Avenue Station, retaining walls higher than 6 feet and longer than 50 feet will result in

“none to low” impacts; therefore, mitigation will not be required. Relocating the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not substantially reduce the

number of retaining walls needed.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates to

change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for

transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the Balboa

Avenue Station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Spagarino, Lea - ID105

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1321

Spagarino, Lea - ID105
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Spagarino, Lea - ID105

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1322 September 2014

Submission ID105 Spagarino Lea

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the

Balboa Avenue Station. In addition, refer to Master Response 1 for information

regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections and station amenities.

3 Refer to Master Response 7 and Master Response 9 for information regarding the

results of the noise analysis near the Balboa Avenue Station and information

regarding noise mitigation, respectively.

4 Any modifications to Morena Boulevard, including roundabouts, would be the

responsibility of the City of San Diego. Refer to Master Response 1 for information

regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections and station amenities that are within

the scope of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Plant materials are generally

not helpful in reducing noise; solid mass between the noise source and receiver is

necessary to substantially reduce noise. Consistent with Mitigation Measures VR5

and VR6, vegetation that is removed to accommodate project construction will be

replaced in-kind or with equivalent material.

5 Fixed-location warning devices at crossings and on platform public address systems

will be designed to have limited audible range and direction. However, focused

sound is not appropriate for warning devices that need to be heard over a wide area

to notify of a train's approach, in compliance with California Public Utilities

Commission regulations. The technology identified in the comment may be

appropriate in these applications if it can meet performance specifications

established for the project. However, such a change in technology would not reduce

any adverse impacts associated with the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Spagarino, Lea - ID145

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1323

Spagarino, Lea - ID145
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Spagarino, Lea - ID145

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1324 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Spagarino, Lea - ID145

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1325

Submission ID145 Spagarino Lea

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing concern with the number of bus routes accessing the

Balboa Avenue Station will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. No new bus routes are proposed as part of the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project. In Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Table 2-6 describes the

existing bus routes that will provide access to the Balboa Avenue Station. These

existing routes are already providing service in the area but will be modified where

required to include stops at the Balboa Avenue Station.

As described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating or eliminating the

Balboa Avenue Station. Based on this evaluation, the location of the Balboa Avenue

Station proposed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR has been retained for the Final SEIS/SEIR.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate as an extension of the existing

Trolley Blue Line service. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from

approximately 4:00 a.m. through 2:00 a.m. the next day. In the opening year, the

Trolley Blue Line is anticipated to provide 15-minute service frequency between the

America Plaza and the UTC Transit Center during peak (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods, as

shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-5 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In 2030, the Trolley Blue

Line will provide 7.5-minute service frequency during the peak and off-peak periods

noted above, with less frequent service during the early morning and evening hours.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project operating hours will be established by MTS

prior to opening of the project; hours are anticipated to be similar to those of the

existing Trolley Blue Line.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

St Gillian, Billy - ID297

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1326 September 2014

St Gillian, Billy - ID297
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

St Gillian, Billy - ID297

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1327

Submission ID297 St. Gillian Billy

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Steinbach, Joseph - ID303

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1328 September 2014

Steinbach, Joseph - ID303
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Steinbach, Joseph - ID303

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1329

Submission ID303 Steinbach Joseph

Com ID Response

1 As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Sections 4.9.3.2 and 4.9.5.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR,

the project will be designed and constructed in a manner that will not impede or

redirect flood flows from Rose Creek. Proposed systems will safely and efficiently

convey the estimated runoff from the 100-year storm through the study area. The

50-year and 100-year Water Surface Elevations were presented in Chapter 5.0,

Table 5-3 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Water Impact Analysis Technical

Report.

Refer to Master Response 1 for information regarding bicycle and pedestrian

connections.

New bridge piers will be placed parallel to existing bridge piers. Therefore, the

space under the bridges will be similar to existing conditions and there will be no

impacts on wildlife movement.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Stender, Leah - ID135

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1330 September 2014

Stender, Leah - ID135
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Stender, Leah - ID135

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1331

Submission ID135 Stender Leah

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding the need to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to

stations will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to

Master Response 1 for a more detailed discussion of this comment.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Stewart, Kay - ID296

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1332 September 2014

Stewart, Kay - ID296
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Stewart, Kay - ID296

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1333

Submission ID296 Stewart Kay

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 1 for information regarding bicycle and pedestrian

facilities connections.

2 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce impacts to native

habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within existing MTS right-of-way

and is separated from the open space by two existing LOSSAN tracks that support

COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project design retains all open and

natural channels and, as such, will not expand the concrete-lined areas in Rose

Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, the project will result in

temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive habitat areas

(including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance with

the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Vegetation affected by temporary

impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. Permanent impacts are primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way (rail

corridor). As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon. Master

Response 16 provides additional information about proposed mitigation for impacts

in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sullivan, Michael - ID170

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1334 September 2014

Sullivan, Michael - ID170
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sullivan, Michael - ID170

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1335
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sullivan, Michael - ID170

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1336 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sullivan, Michael - ID170

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1337

Submission ID170 Sullivan Michael

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding the availability of daily bike count data from SDSU’s active

transportation resource project has been noted. The bicycle activity described in

Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.1.2 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation

Impacts and Mitigation Report provides an overview of bicycle activity around each

existing and proposed station based on field observations collected in 2011. The

SDSU count program data were not available at that time. These observations were

conducted to provide an overview of bicycle activity within the immediate station

area and were not used to determine project impacts.

SANDAG considered both motorized and nonmotorized (pedestrian and bicycle)

access to each station, and found that nonmotorized modes of transportation play

an important role in system access. The projections of nonmotorized access to

stations are determined by the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting

Model based on household surveys conducted within the region. As shown in

Chapter 4.0, Table 4-30 of the Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report,

walking will account for 21 percent of access to stations, which is the same mode

share as auto access.

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation

Impacts and Mitigation Report presents an analysis of impacts to bicycle and

pedestrian facilities under the Build Alternative. This analysis is based on impacts to

existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian features (e.g., if column placement would

require realigning a bicycle lane). Additionally, the analysis examined pedestrian

connectivity to the stations, with the results presented in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-69 of

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report.

The analysis identified major pedestrian generators and barriers and reviewed

existing facilities and those planned as part of the project. This analysis was based

on site visits for the 1⁄4 mile station areas and a review of maps to characterize

existing land uses and concluded there would be no adverse impacts to

nonmotorized access to stations. Therefore, no additional studies were conducted.

2 Master Response 1 describes the pedestrian and bicycle connections and station

amenities that are part of the project. As stated in Master Response 1, while there

are currently no plans to incorporate the City of San Diego's bicycle share program

as part of the project stations, station design will not preclude future incorporation of

this program.

3 The suggested improvements to address existing conditions along I-5 are beyond

the project scope. Master Response 1 provides information about the pedestrian

and bicycle connections that are part of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sullivan, Michael - ID304

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1338 September 2014

Sullivan, Michael - ID304
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Sullivan, Michael - ID304

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1339

Submission ID304 Sullivan Michael

Com ID Response

1 Your comment regarding flooding at the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path at the “dog leg”

turn will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As indicated in

Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the realigned segments of the

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path will meet all current code requirements (e.g., will not

substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or substantially increase the

rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding). Much of

the path will not be modified by the project. The "dog-leg" portion of the existing bike

path will not be realigned as part of the project, as it is not within the area affected by

the project. Reconstruction of the path is limited to those areas that are affected by

the project. The segments that will not be modified could remain susceptible to

flooding in existing and future conditions. Master Response 1 provides additional

information about the bicycle and pedestrian connections that are within the scope of

the project.

2 Your comment regarding the provision of lighting on the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As indicated in

Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, where the project will encroach

on the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, those segments will be realigned and

reconstructed to City of San Diego and Caltrans requirements. Improvements

(betterments), such as the provision of lighting, to segments of the bicycle path that

are not affected by the project are beyond the scope of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Syverson, Kort - ID066

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1340 September 2014

Syverson, Kort - ID066
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Syverson, Kort - ID066

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1341

Submission ID066 Syverson Kort

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and the

Balboa Avenue Station has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings

for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Taylor, Sharon - ID307

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1342 September 2014

Taylor, Sharon - ID307
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Taylor, Sharon - ID307

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1343

Submission ID307 Taylor Sharon

Com ID Response

1 The primary changes that will affect residences in this area will be from visual and noise

effects of the project. In this area of the alignment, a visual rendering was completed

(Key View 7 in Chapter 5.0, Figure 5-7 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual

Impacts Technical Report). The visual report found that, while moderate visual effects

will occur from the loss of vegetation and contrast in scale with the existing character,

with implementation of mitigation measures listed in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.1 of the

Visual Impacts Technical Report, these effects will not be adverse. Structure and

landscape design measures, including vegetation replacement, are provided in Chapter

6.0 of the Visual Impacts Technical Report and Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR (Mitigation Measures VR2 through VR7).

In addition, five clusters of the closest residences along Charmant Drive were

modeled for noise to represent the maximum noise levels experienced (Chapter 5.0,

Table 5-4 and Figure 5-6 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and

Vibration Impacts Technical Report). There will be no moderate or severe project

noise impacts according to FTA criteria or significant noise impacts under CEQA east

of Charmant Drive. As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in

Figure 4-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will

be limited to 23 units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59,

and 61 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such

as houses, that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar

existing noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the

moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant

and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional

information on the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to

eliminate noise impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La

Paz condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the lightrail tracks between the residences and the freeway. The noise impact analysis

determined that there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within

the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from, or

shielded from, the project.

Refer to Master Response 10 for information regarding property values.

The project alignment is the result of prior studies and actions, as well as additional

studies and refinements, as detailed in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to

Chapter 1.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR for a description of the purpose and need for the

project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Terwilliger, Troy and Jeannie - ID118

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1344 September 2014

Terwilliger, Troy and Jeannie - ID118
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Terwilliger, Troy and Jeannie - ID118

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1345

Submission ID118 Terwilliger Troy and Jeannie

Com ID Response

1 Your comments expressing concern with the existing conditions and amenities in the

Bay Park community will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. In the case of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, SANDAG, not the

City of San Diego, is serving as the lead agency for this project under CEQA. As the

lead agency, SANDAG is responsible for identifying and mitigating significant

impacts of the project.

As documented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical reports, SANDAG

evaluated the potential effects of the project with respect to noise, traffic, pedestrian

and bicycle circulation, and many other aspects. Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR present the overall analysis and conclusions for transportation and

environmental topics, while the supporting technical reports provide more detailed

information.

2 Project measures and mitigation measures are identified to address project impacts.

Measures to address existing conditions identified in the comment are beyond the

scope of this project. As described in more detail in Master Response 7, there are

no noise impacts requiring mitigation in the Bay Park area. The modifications being

implemented as part of the project to the area along Morena Boulevard between

Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue are shown in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set,

Street Improvement Plans (specifically, sheets 151-152 and 154-157). Proposed

improvements include a new sidewalk along the west side of Morena Boulevard from

the Clairemont Drive Station to Gesner Street; a new sidewalk on the west side of

Morena Boulevard at the Balboa Avenue Station; reconfiguring the Morena

Boulevard and eastbound Balboa Avenue ramp with new sidewalks on both sides of

the ramp to connect to Balboa Avenue; and two new traffic signals with crosswalks

on Morena Boulevard at the Balboa Avenue Station. Refer to Master Response 1

for additional information about station design and bicycle and pedestrian

connections to the surrounding area.

SANDAG has given thorough consideration to the security aspects of the project.

Master Response 11 provides additional information about the security features of

the project.

As noted above, SANDAG, rather than the City of San Diego, is the responsible

agency for this project. City maintenance and improvement of the existing

community facilities are separate activities unrelated to the Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Thomason, Stephen - ID188

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1346 September 2014

Thomason, Stephen - ID188
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Thomason, Stephen - ID188

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1347

Submission ID188 Thomason Stephen

Com ID Response

1 Your comment requesting the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer

to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station. The location of the Balboa Avenue Station that was presented in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR remains unchanged in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

The Costco mentioned in the comment is in close proximity to the previously

evaluated station at Jutland Drive. A study (the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study) was conducted to reevaluate the feasibility

of a station at Jutland Drive from an engineering, transportation, environmental, and

cost standpoint. The study found that a station at Jutland Drive would slightly

increase system ridership but would have the lowest number of boardings of any

station on the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 while increasing project costs by $19

million. As a result, SANDAG determined that this station will not be carried forward

as part of the project but modified the alignment to accommodate a potential future

station at Jutland Drive.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Toledo, Alex - ID206

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1348 September 2014

Toledo, Alex - ID206
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Toledo, Alex - ID206

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1349

Submission ID206 Toledo Alex

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of

the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included

the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final

SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Triglia, Cory - ID168

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1350 September 2014

Triglia, Cory - ID168
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Triglia, Cory - ID168

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1351
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Triglia, Cory - ID168

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1352 September 2014

Submission ID168 Triglia Cory

Com ID Response

1 A station at Clairemont Drive has been part of the project since the first

environmental evaluation, the 1995 Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact

Report. The ridership and parking demand at stations proposed for the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project were determined through the use of the SANDAG

Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model. The model identified a demand for

a station and park-and-ride facility at the Clairemont Drive area to serve the Bay

Park neighborhood. This demand would not be well served by eliminating the

station and having transit passengers access the Trolley system at the Tecolote

Road or Balboa Avenue Stations instead; rather, elimination of the station would

reduce transit ridership.

Additionally, the space available to accommodate parking at the Tecolote Road

and Balboa Avenue Stations is limited, and it would not be cost-effective to

expand parking at either location to offset the increased parking demand if the

Clairemont Drive Station were eliminated. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19

of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Clairemont Drive Station is expected to attract 45

percent of its daily boardings via drive access and 39 percent via walk access.

Transit passengers anticipated to arrive at the Clairemont Drive Station on foot

would not find the Balboa Avenue or Tecolote Road Stations to be convenient.

Therefore, eliminating the Clairemont Drive Station would reduce the benefits of

this transit investment.

Eliminating this station and the park-and-ride facility would reduce the overall

capital cost by less than 1 percent and would not provide a significant cost

savings.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Varonfakis, Joyce - ID249

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1353

Varonfakis, Joyce - ID249
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Varonfakis, Joyce - ID249

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1354 September 2014

Submission ID249 Varonfakis Joyce

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station

will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master

Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station on the

City Yard site.

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the project where needed to support

the alignment and project features (e.g., stations). The visual impact of retaining

walls required for the project is described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.4 of the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report. The visual

impact analysis considered wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer exposure.

Near the Balboa Avenue Station, retaining walls higher than 6 feet and longer than

50 feet will result in “none to low” impacts; therefore, mitigation will not be required.

Relocating the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not substantially

reduce the number of retaining walls needed.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates

to change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need

for transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the Balboa

Avenue Station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Varonfakis, James - ID250

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1355

Varonfakis, James - ID250
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Varonfakis, James - ID250

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1356 September 2014

Submission ID250 Varonfakis James

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing opposition to the location of the Balboa Avenue Station will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Master

Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue Station on the City

Yard site.

Retaining walls have been incorporated into the project where needed to support the

alignment and project features (e.g., stations). The visual impact of retaining walls

required for the project is described in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.4 of the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report. The visual impact analysis

considered wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer exposure. Near the Balboa

Avenue Station, retaining walls higher than 6 feet and longer than 50 feet will result in

“none to low” impacts; therefore, mitigation will not be required. Relocating the

Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would not substantially reduce the

number of retaining walls needed.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates to

change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. Also, refer to Master Response 2 regarding the need for

transit stations in residential neighborhoods.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding changes to traffic conditions near the Balboa

Avenue Station.

4 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential to relocate the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Vasquez, Tim - ID193

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1357

Vasquez, Tim - ID193
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Vasquez, Tim - ID193

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1358 September 2014

Submission ID193 Vasquez Tim

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Voss, Dave - ID051

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1359

Voss, Dave - ID051
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Voss, Dave - ID051

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1360 September 2014

Submission ID051 Voss Dave

Com ID Response

1 The comment expressing support for modifications to the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path

has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.3.1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, where the project

will encroach on the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, those segments will be realigned and

reconstructed to City of San Diego and Caltrans requirements. Lighting and wider

lanes are outside of the scope of this transit project.

3 Your comment regarding the provision of bicycle maintenance stations at stations and

bicycle lockers has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

W., Mark - ID171

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1361

W., Mark - ID171
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

W., Mark - ID171

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1362 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

W., Mark - ID171

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1363

Submission ID171 W. Mark

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Stations will be designed to be compatible with the existing character of the

surrounding communities and neighborhoods and will support existing development.

Refer to Master Response 1 regarding station amenities.

3 Refer to Master Response 4 for a discussion of future development on the Clairemont

Drive Station site. As described in the master response, providing surface parking on

the site for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will not preclude future

development of the site.

4 Master Response 11 provides information regarding the potential for crime rates to

increase and the security measures that will be incorporated into the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wainscott, Joanne - ID332

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1364 September 2014

Wainscott, Joanne - ID332
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wainscott, Joanne - ID332

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1365
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wainscott, Joanne - ID332

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1366 September 2014

Submission ID332 Wainscott Joanne

Com ID Response

1 Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Construction-related impacts on the roadway and freeway system are presented in

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-32 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As shown, the I-5 northbound offramp to Balboa Avenue will have intermittent nighttime closures, and there will be

intermittent off-peak lane and nighttime roadway closures along Balboa Avenue from

Mission Bay Drive to Moraga Avenue for construction of the guideway over Balboa

Avenue. The nighttime closures will occur between 9:00 p.m. and the morning peak

period. As these closures are intermittent and will not occur continuously or during

peak periods when traffic volumes are greater, they are not anticipated to have

significant or adverse impacts on traffic. Further, these construction impacts would

occur even if the station site were relocated.

Refer to Master Response 1 regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections to

stations.

2 Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station and to Master Response 5 for information regarding the

potential relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station. Master Response 2 provides

additional information about locating stations in residential areas.

3 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand

near the Balboa Avenue Station.

4 The project does not include joint development as a component of the project.

The location of the Balboa Avenue Station south of Balboa Avenue, as presented in

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, does not preclude future development of the City Yard site

located north of Balboa Avenue.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wasserman, Larry - ID015

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1367

Wasserman, Larry - ID015
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wasserman, Larry - ID015

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1368 September 2014

Submission ID015 Wasserman Larry

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG

Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which included the VA

Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wasserman, Larry - ID084

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1369

Wasserman, Larry - ID084
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wasserman, Larry - ID084

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1370 September 2014

Submission ID084 Wasserman Larry

Com ID Response

1 One copy of the CD containing Volumes 1 and 2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR was

provided to Larry Wasserman in June 2013 as requested.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Watson, Elizabeth - ID042

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1371

Watson, Elizabeth - ID042
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Watson, Elizabeth - ID042

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1372 September 2014

Submission ID042 Watson Elizabeth

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Watters, Eric - ID308

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1373

Watters, Eric - ID308
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Watters, Eric - ID308

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1374 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Watters, Eric - ID308

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1375

Submission ID308 Watters Eric G. and Rabon Cooke

Com ID Response

1 Your statement expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station.

Refer to Master Response 12 for information regarding graffiti.

2 Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates

to change as a result of the project.

3 Refer to Master Response 10 for information regarding changes in property values

near transit stations.

Refer to Master Response 13 for information regarding lighting at stations.

Refer to Master Response 7 for information regarding the noise analysis near the

Balboa Avenue Station.

A portion of the project alignment is located adjacent to Mission Bay. There are

homes with frontage along Morena Boulevard, as well as homes at higher elevations

in the blocks east of Morena Boulevard. At the higher elevations, the line of sight to

Mission Bay from residences will be well above the project's catenary poles and lines

and, therefore, will not be affected (see Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR). At the Balboa Avenue Station, project features will be visible at lower

elevations but will not contrast with the existing visual setting, as the project

alignment will be located within an existing railroad right-of-way and the station will

be located adjacent to a freeway (i.e., I-5). Although project features will slightly

encroach on and partially obstruct views, they will not be dramatically out of

character with the existing visual setting and will not substantially diminish, eliminate,

or alter views. No adverse visual impacts will occur.

4 The project provides for the extension of the Trolley Blue Line from Santa Fe Depot

to the UTC Transit Center. It does not include a joint-development component.

The location of the Balboa Avenue Station south of Balboa Avenue, as presented in

the Draft SEIS/SEIR, does not preclude future development of the City Yard site

located north of Balboa Avenue. Refer to Master Response 5 for information

regarding the potential relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station.

5 The traffic impacts referenced in the comment will occur on the segment of Balboa

Avenue between the I-5 southbound on-ramp and the I-5 northbound off-ramp due to

the addition of traffic accessing the Balboa Avenue Station and park-and-ride facility.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Watters, Eric - ID308

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1376 September 2014

Com ID Response

These impacts are independent of the modifications to the Balboa Avenue/Morena

Boulevard ramps and will occur even if the station were relocated to the City Yard

site north of Balboa Avenue.

The commenter is correct that the ramps would not be modified if the station were

moved to the City Yard site. Refer to Master Response 8 for a discussion of traffic

conditions with the intersection modification at Balboa Avenue and Morena

Boulevard.

6 Refer to Master Response 5 for information regarding the potential relocation of the

Balboa Avenue Station.

As stated in response to Comment 4, the project does not preclude future

redevelopment of the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wellhouse, Ann - ID325

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1377

Wellhouse, Ann - ID325
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wellhouse, Ann - ID325

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1378 September 2014

Submission ID325 Wellhouse Ann

Com ID Response

1 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to reduce impacts to native

habitat to the extent feasible. The project is located within existing MTS right-ofway and is separated from the open space by two existing LOSSAN tracks that

support COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains. The project has been designed to

retain all open and natural channels and, as such, will not expand the concretelined areas in Rose Creek.

As shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-17 of Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will result in

temporary and permanent impacts. During construction in sensitive habitat areas

(including along Rose Creek), a biological monitor will be present in accordance

with the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Vegetation affected by temporary

impacts will be restored and replanted with native species following completion of

construction. Permanent impacts are primarily limited to the MTS right-of-way

(rail corridor). As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR,

mitigation for permanent impacts includes implementation of a portion of the

restoration and creation opportunities identified in the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012), which will improve the quality of habitat in Rose Canyon.

Master Response 16 provides additional information about proposed mitigation for

impacts in the Rose Creek watershed.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wiese, Andy - ID052

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1379

Wiese, Andy - ID052
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wiese, Andy - ID052

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1380 September 2014

Submission ID052 Wiese Andy

Com ID Response

1 The Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration

Impacts Technical Report, and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual

Impacts Technical Report provide a thorough analysis of visual and noise impacts

in the University City and Nobel Drive area. Mitigation measures were included in

these documents where noise levels with the project exceeded FTA criteria or

resulted in a significant impact under CEQA or where adverse and significant

visual impacts were identified.

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR describes all operational noise

impacts that will result from the project, which are depicted in Figures 4-18 and

4-19. Refer to the response to Comment 2 regarding noise impacts and mitigation

in this area.

Appendix A to the Visual Impacts Technical Report includes photos for several key

locations, as summarized in Table A-1. Key View 7 was from the dog park along

Charmant Drive. A simulation of the mitigation measures for this key view was

provided in Chapter 6.0, Figure 6-6 of the Visual Impacts Technical Report. The

project will include design and landscape mitigation in this area, as summarized in

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-1 of the technical report. After mitigation measures are

included, there will be no adverse visual impacts at this location. This review is

summarized in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23

units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the

Final SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses,

that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing

noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal but not exceed the

moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant

and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional

information on the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to

eliminate noise impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La

Paz condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the

light-rail tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the

project will be partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway

noise. The noise impact analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

determined that there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within

the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from,

or shielded from, the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wiese, Andy - ID052

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1381

Com ID Response

A continuous wall encompassing both sound walls (Mitigation Measures N2 and

N3 in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-14 in the Final SEIS/SEIR) has been incorporated into

the project to improve project aesthetics, but this wall was not necessary to provide

noise reduction to residents in Clusters 57 and 59 or any other nearby noisesensitive locations.

3 As described in Master Response 15, SANDAG conducted a supplemental

evaluation of visual impacts in Rose Canyon Open Space Park. The analysis

concluded that visual impacts will not be adverse or significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measures for impacts to visual resources include both design and

landscaping measures to address loss of vegetation and the visual impact of

sound walls and retaining walls. These measures are identified in Chapter 4.0,

Section 4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO1

(Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR) and CON9 through CON11

(Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR) require restoration of areas

where vegetation is removed to facilitate construction activities (temporary

impacts). Within Rose Canyon, such areas will be restored using only native plant

materials in accordance with a habitat restoration plan that has been subject to

agency review. In addition, mitigation for permanent impacts in Rose Canyon will

be provided, as described in Master Response 16.

4 Refer to the responses to Comments 2 and 3 regarding sound walls and visual

mitigation.

5 Refer to the response to Comment 3 regarding visual and biological resources

mitigation.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Will, Amber - ID238

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1382 September 2014

Will, Amber - ID238
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Will, Amber - ID238

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1383

Submission ID238 Will Amber

Com ID Response

1 Where trees and vegetation associated with landscaping are removed by the project,

new vegetation will typically be provided as mitigation. Specifically, mitigation

measures for vegetation replacement are outlined in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.4 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR (see Mitigation Measures VR5, VR6, and VR7). In some areas,

vegetation will be removed as part of property take or in public roadway or freeway

right-of-way; in such cases, there may not be sufficient area available to replace the

vegetation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure VR6, trees larger than 6 inches in

diameter at chest height will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, and trees smaller than 6 inches

in diameter at chest height will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio contingent upon the approval

of the land owner. Replacement trees may be located elsewhere along the alignment

if insufficient area is available where they are removed. It should be noted that

vegetation does not provide any appreciable noise reduction but is effective for visual

screening purposes.

2 As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23 units

within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses, that

would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing noise

environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the moderate

impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant and no

mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional information on

the noise analysis and mitigation. A sound wall will be provided to eliminate noise

impacts at the 11 affected units at Clusters 57 and 59 within the La Paz

condominiums in La Jolla Colony (refer to Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in Chapter

4.0, Section 4.7.4 and Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the lightrail tracks between the residences and the freeway. Noise generated by the project

will be partially offset for these residences by this reduction in freeway noise. The

noise impact analysis conducted in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that

there will be no significant noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla

Colony or Barcelona developments because they will be farther from, or shielded

from, the project.

Refer also to Master Response 9 regarding evaluation of noise impacts and

identification of mitigation.

3 The comment expressing lack of opposition to the project and requesting that it be

kept quiet and beautiful for nearby residents will be part of the record of proceedings

for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was designed to

reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1384 September 2014

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1385
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1386 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1387
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1388 September 2014

Submission ID330 Wilson Patricia A.

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing appreciation for outreach efforts has been noted;

SANDAG is committed to continue working with property owners and businesses to

minimize impacts related to the project.

2 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has been designed to avoid and minimize

impacts, and mitigation measures have been incorporated to address adverse and

significant impacts where they have been identified. Responses to concerns

referred to in the comment are addressed in the responses to the more specific

comments that follow.

3 Mitigation measures for landscape replacement are outlined in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and include Mitigation Measures VR4, VR5, VR6, and

VR7. Measures include the requirement to replace existing landscaping that is

temporarily affected during construction, to replace small trees at a 1:1 ratio (less

than 6 inches in diameter at chest height), and to replace large trees at a 2:1 ratio

(greater than 6 inches in diameter at chest height).

Mitigation is proposed for the project features depicted in Key Views 8 and 23,

referenced in the comment. For these key views (see Chapter 4.0, Table 4-4 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR), there will be no adverse impacts with mitigation. Also see

Chapter 6.0, Table 6-1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts

Technical Report for a further explanation of the effectiveness of the proposed

mitigation.

4 As design of the project progresses, the design of sound walls will include input from

community outreach and public coordination. As described in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, sound walls will include architectural design elements,

aesthetic finishes, and landscaping requirements (Mitigation Measure VR3).

Further, as identified in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-2 of the Visual Impacts Technical

Report one option for treatment of sound walls is the use of vines to help soften the

appearance of a wall, control graffiti, and change the scale (see Code G). Master

Response 12 provides additional information related to graffiti.

5 Based on analysis of power requirements and in consideration of comments

received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, TPSS 14 (now referred to as TPSS 12 in the Final

SEIS/SEIR) has been relocated from Charmant Drive to the west side of I-5. It will

be located on Caltrans right-of-way adjacent to the La Jolla Village Square shopping

center. The TPSS and associated enclosure will be designed to ensure that the

facility is visually compatible with surrounding uses. Refer to Chapter 4.0, Section

4.4.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR under the heading “Project Measures to Avoid or

Minimize Impacts” for a discussion of design measures that will be applied to

TPSSs. Refer to Chapter 2.0, Section 2.3.5 for a summary of the changes made to

TPSS locations since the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1389

Com ID Response

6 As described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.7.3.2 and illustrated in Figure 4-19 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR, noise impacts within the La Jolla Colony area will be limited to 23

units within the La Paz condominiums, identified as Clusters 57, 59, and 61 in the

Final SEIS/SEIR (a cluster is a grouping of noise-sensitive uses, such as houses,

that would experience similar impacts from the project and have a similar existing

noise environment). Noise levels at Cluster 61 will equal, but not exceed, the

moderate impact threshold. At that location, the impact will be less than significant

and no mitigation will be provided. Refer to Master Response 9 for additional

information on the noise analysis and mitigation.

Sound walls will be provided at two locations to mitigate noise impacts at 11 units

within the La Paz condominiums (referred to as Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in

Chapter 4.0, Table 4-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR). The noise impact analysis

conducted in support of the SEIS/SEIR determined that the project will not generate

noise that would exceed FTA noise-impact criteria at other locations within the La

Jolla Colony.

Freeway noise at some residences in La Jolla Colony will be reduced as a result of

shielding that will be created in the area when the grade is elevated to install the

light-rail tracks between the residences and the freeway. There will be no significant

noise impacts to other residences within the La Jolla Colony or Barcelona

developments because they will be farther from, or shielded from, the project.

Two sound walls (Mitigation Measures N3 and N4 in the Draft SEIS/SEIR—referred

to as Mitigation Measures N2 and N3 in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-14 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR) were identified in the Draft SEIS/SEIR as mitigation for the noise

impacts to the 11 units in the La Paz condominiums; however, a single continuous

sound wall encompassing both walls has been incorporated into the Final

SEIS/SEIR Plan Set based on aesthetics and will provide equivalent noise

mitigation.

Refer to the response to Comment 4 regarding sound wall design and Master

Response 12 regarding graffiti.

7 The noise analysis was conducted in accordance with FTA criteria as documented in

the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual (FTA, 2006),

and the disclosed impacts are based on typical wind and weather conditions. Noise

measurements were taken over a 24-hour period during regionally-typical weather

conditions to represent what is commonly experienced in the community.

Wind and weather conditions can affect noise levels over long distances; in general,

sound travels faster and for a longer distance when humidity is increased. The

effects of wind and weather conditions are negligible at the distances that will be

affected by project-related noise. Noise impacts related to the project will not extend

beyond 350 feet when unobstructed, or beyond 175 feet with intervening buildings.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1390 September 2014

Com ID Response

Because the project will be adjacent to I-5 in the La Jolla Colony area, the area

within 500 feet of I-5 is the area where existing noise levels are relevant to the

project noise analysis. Because noise travels a short distance from I-5 to this area,

the area experiences relatively constant noise from I-5 compared to areas farther

from I-5 where weather conditions affect the level of noise.

8 SANDAG is committed to working with property owners and businesses to minimize

construction impacts. Regular community updates will be provided during the

construction phase to notify neighbors about changing traffic and detour routes and

other construction impacts. The Transportation Management Plan to be prepared

for the project (see Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR) will include

a public awareness campaign to inform the public of construction activity and

roadway/lane closures and detours, real-time traffic information, incident

management to respond to incidents on roadways near construction areas, and

identification of alternative routes and detours.

9 The transit system used to develop the ridership forecasts for the project included

the UCSD shuttles operating within the UCSD campus that connect to project

stations and the SuperLoop. The model reflects a variety of trip types, including

home-to-school trips.

Parking demand at each station is calculated based on results from the SANDAG

Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model. The model results for use in this

project have been reviewed and approved by FTA. As identified in Chapter 3.0,

Table 3-28 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, transit park-and-ride demand at the Nobel Drive

Station is estimated at 258 spaces. The 260 parking spaces proposed for the station

are sufficient to meet the forecast demand in 2030, and no spillover parking impact

to the shopping center is anticipated. Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.4 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR concluded that, "Parking around the Nobel Drive Station is regulated for

the use of patrons of the shopping center; therefore, spillover parking would be

unlikely to occur." Parking constraints at UCSD were reflected in the model and,

therefore, parking demand at the Nobel Drive Station reflects these constraints.

Observations were gathered regarding existing on-street parking utilization as part of

the transportation analysis conducted for the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Mid-Coast

Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report. However, the

origin of these vehicles was not determined nor was it relevant for a description of

existing conditions. The removal of on- and off-street parking spaces and the

potential for spillover parking were analyzed to determine impacts from the Build

Alternative. The use of on-street parking by those with destinations at UCSD is of

marginal relevance to this analysis, since that would be captured in the overall

parking utilization study results. The addition of this project is not expected to affect

the practice of students parking in residential areas to take transit, although the

project includes sufficient no-cost parking to accommodate the anticipated demand

at each of the stations in the University City area.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wilson, Patricia A. - ID330

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1391

Com ID Response

10 Refer to Master Response 11 for information regarding the potential for crime rates

to change in the Mid-Coast Corridor as a result of the project. Refer to previous

responses regarding noise and visual concerns.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wiszowaty, Walter - ID057

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1392 September 2014

Wiszowaty, Walter - ID057
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Wiszowaty, Walter - ID057

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1393

Submission ID057 Wiszowaty Walter

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing support for an additional extension of the Trolley into Mira

Mesa will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Yates, Susan - ID320

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1394 September 2014

Yates, Susan - ID320
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Yates, Susan - ID320

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1395

Submission ID320 Yates Susan

Com ID Response

1 The comment expressing support for the project, along with concerns, has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Refer to Master Response 6 for information regarding parking supply and demand at

the Balboa Avenue Station.

3 Refer to Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions at the Balboa

Avenue Station. As shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Routes

8, 9, and 27 serve Pacific Beach and Mission Bay. As shown in Chapter 2.0, Table

2-6, these routes will connect to the Balboa Avenue Station, thus providing a

connection between these beach communities and the Trolley system. Consistent

with current MTS practice, bicycles will be allowed on the Trolley and buses.

Other access configurations west of I-5 would add to the capital cost of the project,

increase impacts, and would not reduce any significant or adverse impacts.

Accordingly, a station entrance and a pedestrian/bicycle bridge will not be provided

on the Mission Bay side of I-5. Refer to Master Response 1 for information

regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections at stations.

4 The SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model, which was used to

calculate parking demand at each station, assumes drivers will travel up to 8 miles to

reach a park-and-ride facility. This allowed the traffic analysis conducted for the

project to consider the effect of individuals traveling from the surrounding areas to

the station. The model considers trip travel time by vehicle and transit in determining

which park-and-ride facility a driver will use. The demand for parking is also based

on the other modes of access available to the station. In the case of the Balboa

Avenue Station, approximately 70 percent of the ridership at the station will be

transfers from bus to rail (refer to Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.3.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the

heading “Roadway Performance,” a roadway segment analysis is performed only if a

project adds more than 50 peak-hour trips (for both directions combined) to a

roadway segment, consistent with the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study

Manual. The project, including the park-and-ride facility, will not add more than 50

peak-hour trips to the roadways referenced in the comment. Therefore, a traffic

analysis was not required for the roadways referenced in the comment. Also refer to

Master Response 8 for information regarding traffic conditions near the Balboa

Avenue Station.

5 Refer to Master Response 4 for information regarding future development potential

near the Clairemont Drive Station.

6 Eliminating either the Clairemont Drive or Balboa Avenue Stations would decrease

the capital cost of the project by less than 1 percent. However, as shown in Chapter
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Yates, Susan - ID320

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1396 September 2014

Com ID Response

3.0, Table 3-18 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, these two stations combined will have an

average of 3,940 daily boardings under the Refined Build Alternative, comprising

approximately 20 percent of the total boardings among all new transit stations along

the extension of the Trolley Blue Line north of Santa Fe Depot. These stations are

needed for the overall success of the project.

Refer to Master Response 1 for information regarding bicycle and pedestrian

connections and station amenities.

7 The Draft SEIS/SEIR analyzed the environmental effects that the project will have on

surrounding communities and residences. These topic areas included, but were not

limited to, construction, air quality, traffic, noise and vibration, safety, visual

resources, displacement, public services, community facilities, land use and

development, and economic impacts. The effects of the project elements are not

anticipated to result in negative social or community impacts. The effects to the Bay

Ho neighborhood are described in additional detail in Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.2.3 of

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood

Impacts Technical Report.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Zakeri, Vahid - ID016

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1397

Zakeri, Vahid - ID016
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Zakeri, Vahid - ID016

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1398 September 2014

Submission ID016 Zakeri Vahid

Com ID Response

1 To assist the public and decision makers in understanding the visual impacts of the

project within the Mid-Coast Corridor, visual simulations were prepared for certain

areas of the alignment where the project has the potential to result in a visual impact.

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR included two visual simulations

depicting the before and after project views on La Jolla Colony Drive and I-5.

Additional simulations were included in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual

Impacts Technical Report, which supported the Draft SEIS/SEIR. This report was

available on the SANDAG website (www.sandag.org/midcoast). A total of 18 key

views, including those of Mission Bay, La Jolla Colony, Pepper Canyon, UCSD, and

other areas along the alignment, were presented in the technical report. The Visual

Impacts Technical Report has been updated for the Final SEIS/SEIR to address

refinements to the alignment. The visual simulation for the I-5 crossing was revised

since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to reflect the new design of the crossing; refer to Chapter

4.0, Figure 4-14 in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

2 The project will provide 260 transit parking spaces at the UTC Transit Center. The

number of spaces required for transit use was determined through application of the

SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model. The Mid-Coast Corridor

Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report has been updated to

reflect the Refined Build Alternative, which proposes acquisition of parking spaces

from the Westfield UTC shopping center rather than constructing an additional level of

a future parking structure. Refer to Chapter 4.0, Section 4.5.2 of the technical report

and Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR for a discussion of parking at

the Westfield UTC shopping center.

3 Catenary poles were considered as part of the visual analysis conducted for the

project. Specifically, Key Views 30 and 31 in the Visual Impacts Technical Report

address the visual impacts of the overhead catenary system as seen from along

Morena Boulevard facing Mission Bay. The type and level of impact depends on who

sees it, for how long, how much it contrasts with the existing environment, and if it

physically changes the current visual environment. As documented in the technical

report, visual impacts associated with the overhead catenary system would be less

than significant.

SANDAG is currently completing Preliminary Engineering for the project. The final

design phase of the project will include detailed designs of project features, including

catenary poles.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Zakeri, Vahid - ID016

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1399

Com ID Response

4 The Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs and the documents they update, as discussed in

Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1 of the Final SEIS/SEIR and highlighted below, include a

comprehensive and reasonable range of alternatives. The Mid-Coast Corridor

Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental

Impact Report (Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB, 1995b), Final 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) included the following alternatives:

1. No Build

2. Transportation System Management

3. Transportation System Management/Commuter Rail

4. Commuter Rail Tunnel

5. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

6. LRT – Genesee Alternative

7. LRT – I-5 Alternative

The Transportation System Management and Transportation System

Management/Commuter Rail Alternatives were rejected because they were least

effective at meeting project objectives and cost. The Commuter Rail Tunnel Alternative

was deemed infeasible due to cost and the difficulty in venting diesel fumes. The High

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes alternative was adopted along with an LRT Alternative.

The HOV Alternative was then separated from the Mid-Coast Corridor Project, and this

project element will be constructed by Caltrans. Finally, the LRT Genesee Alternative

was rejected for, among other reasons, its impact on Rose Canyon. These alternatives

were analyzed in the EIR certified in 1995 and the EIS for which a record of decision was

issued in 2001. The Final SEIS/SEIR adds to the alternative analysis described above by

considering an updated version of the LRT I-5 Alignment (the current Refined Build

Alternative) and an updated No-Build Alternative. In summary, the alternatives

considered in the prior environmental review and Draft and Final SEIS/SEIRs included a

broad range of alternative mode and alignment options to serve the transit needs of the

Mid-Coast Corridor and constitute a reasonable range of alternatives in compliance with

NEPA and CEQA.

In addition, after completion of the 1995 and 2001 environmental process and prior to

initiation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 13 additional alternatives were evaluated and

considered: i) a new TSM alternative, ii) seven LRT alternatives, iii) four BRT

alternatives, and iv) a commuter rail alternative. Some alternatives were deemed

infeasible prior to initiation of scoping for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and others were

carried through the scoping process and resulted in some further refinement of the

Build Alternative. The evaluation of alternatives considered during this phase is

presented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of

Alternatives Report. Chapter 3.0 and Chapter 4.0 of this report include information

related to the identification and screening of initial alternatives and the conceptual

alternatives considered; Chapter 6.0 presents the recommendation of alternatives to
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Zakeri, Vahid - ID016

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1400 September 2014

Com ID Response

carry forward into scoping. The information is summarized in Chapter 2.0, Section

2.1.1 and Table 2-1 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Following the results of the evaluation (March 2010) and consideration of comments

received during CEQA scoping (May 2010), the SANDAG Board of Directors, in July

2010, reconfirmed the previously adopted LPA (LRT Alternative 1), which was refined

to include direct service to UCSD and UTC, and the No-Build Alternative for

evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

5 Due to station configuration changes and increased costs that would be associated

with placing the Trolley tracks on the west side of the LOSSAN tracks (referred to in

the comment as Amtrak rails) at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa

Avenue, this portion of the LRT alignment is proposed on the east side of the

LOSSAN tracks. If the Trolley tracks were placed on the west side of the LOSSAN

tracks, access to the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue Station

platforms would require elevators, stairs, and pedestrian bridges to connect the

stations to Morena Boulevard and the park-and-ride facilities included at these

stations and additional right-of-way would be required along the east side of Morena

Boulevard to allow for the stairs and elevator landings (all of which would add to

project costs). The additional separation that would be provided by locating the

Trolley tracks on the west side of the LOSSAN tracks would not substantially reduce

noise or visual effects of the project. Furthermore, no adverse or significant impacts

have been identified that would be mitigated by locating the Trolley tracks to the west

of the LOSSAN tracks.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ziegler, Carole - ID067

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1401

Ziegler, Carole - ID067
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Individuals

Ziegler, Carole - ID067

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1402 September 2014

Submission ID067 Ziegler Carole

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 Refer to Master Response 1 for a discussion of station features, including the

provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014

 Public Hearing

June 21, 2013
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

La Jolla Square Village Square -

Blick, C. Samual, Esquire - ID275

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1403

PUBLIC HEARING – JUNE 21, 2013

La Jolla Square Village Square -

Blick, C. Samual, Esquire - ID275
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

La Jolla Square Village Square -

Blick, C. Samual, Esquire - ID275

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1404 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

La Jolla Square Village Square -

Blick, C. Samual, Esquire - ID275

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1405

Submission ID275 La Jolla Village Square Blick C. Samuel

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, along

with concerns related to parking, signage, and construction impacts, will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Coordination with representatives of

the La Jolla Village Square shopping center began prior to circulation of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR and has continued since the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR public comment

period in an effort to address concerns.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

United Veterans Council of San Diego County -

Harkins, Jack, Chairman - ID276

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1406 September 2014

United Veterans Council of San Diego County -

Harkins, Jack, Chairman - ID276
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

United Veterans Council of San Diego County -

Harkins, Jack, Chairman - ID276

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1407
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

United Veterans Council of San Diego County -

Harkins, Jack, Chairman - ID276

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1408 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

United Veterans Council of San Diego County -

Harkins, Jack, Chairman - ID276

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1409

Submission ID276 United Veterans Council of San Diego County Harkins Jack

Com ID Response

1 On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined

Build Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the

project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1410 September 2014

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1411
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1412 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1413
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1414 September 2014

Submission ID277 Friends of Rose Canyon Knight Deborah

Com ID Response

1 The comment expressing support of the project alignment is acknowledged. LRT

Alternative 3 was eliminated from consideration in July 2010 after CEQA scoping,

due, in part, to concerns expressed by the public about potential impacts to Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

2 The project has been designed to minimize the impact on Rose Canyon Open Space

Park, Marian Bear Memorial Park, the MHPA, and the Rose Creek Watershed.

Elimination of LRT Alternative 3 after Scoping avoided potentially significant noise

and visual impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park. The project has been

designed to minimize the impacts to recreation within Rose Canyon Open Space

Park, Marian Bear Memorial Park, and the Rose Creek Watershed, and is located

within the existing MTS right-of-way. The two existing LOSSAN tracks within the MTS

right-of-way currently support freight, COASTER, and Amtrak service, and the project

alignment is separated from Rose Canyon Open Space Park by these two tracks.

The nearest park trail is located approximately 90 feet east of the MTS right-of-way at

its closest point (approximately 325 feet south of La Jolla Colony Drive). As noted in

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.4.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, “The additional project features

would not be visually prominent for recreational users because they would be

adjacent to existing tracks, buildings, freeways, and above ground utilities, and

mitigation measures would reduce the visual impact of retaining walls and tree and

vegetation removal. Thus, with implementation of mitigation measures, the new

project features would not contrast with the existing visual character or quality, and no

adverse impacts would occur.”

The project incorporates design features, management policies, and mitigation

measures that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of San Diego

MSCP Subarea Plan. As noted in the discussion of mitigation measures for biological

resource impacts (Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR), mitigation for

impacts to wetlands within the Rose Creek watershed is proposed to occur in Rose

Canyon through implementation of the Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian &

Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012).

Implementing portions of this plan is expected to enhance, not degrade, the natural

open space within Rose Canyon. Finally, refinements made to the Build Alternative

eliminated moderate noise impacts to Marian Bear Memorial Park.

Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR describes the impacts on the

wildlife corridor and habitat linkages, including the direct and indirect impacts to the

MHPA (see also the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources

Technical Report). Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR describes the

mitigation measures for impacts on biological resources. With implementation of

these identified mitigation measures, impacts on biological resources will be reduced

to a less-than-significant level, as described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.5.2 of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. In response to comments, SANDAG has committed to additional
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1415

Com ID Response

avoidance and minimization measures, which are described in Chapter 4.0, Section

4.8.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.

3 Refer to Master Response 15 for information regarding the visual analysis for Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

Refer to Master Response 14 for information regarding the noise analysis for Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

As described in these master responses, the analysis of the visual and noise impacts

to Rose Canyon Open Space Park determined that impacts from the project, including

those from increased frequency of train passbys and the nearby TPSS, will be less

than significant with mitigation for recreational users and biological resources. A

noise analysis of the TPPS sites was conducted for noise-sensitive sites (refer to

Chapter 5.0, Section 5.1.3.3 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and

Vibration Impacts Technical Report). TPSS sites typically create a noise level of 45

dBA at 50 feet from the substation, which will be within city land use compatibility

criteria for parks.

4 At the location depicted in the photograph (i.e., as viewed from a trail in Rose Canyon

Open Space Park), the LRT tracks will be transitioning below grade toward the La

Jolla Colony undercrossing, decreasing the portion of the LRT vehicles and overhead

catenary system that will be visible from the trail; thus, no adverse or significant visual

impacts will occur as a result of the project.

Refer to Master Response 15 for information regarding the visual analysis for Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

Refer to Master Response 14 for information regarding the noise analysis for Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

As described in these master responses, the analysis of the visual and noise impacts

to Rose Canyon Open Space Park determined that impacts from the project, including

those from increased frequency of train passbys, will be less than significant with

mitigation for recreational users and biological resources.

5 Parks and recreational facilities are shown in Chapter 4.0, Figure 4-5 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, and an overall discussion is provided for those locations where projectrelated impacts will occur. Rose Canyon Open Space Park is discussed in Chapter

5.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR as part of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, as well as Chapter

5.0, Section 5.1.3 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration

Impacts Technical Report. There will be no “use” of Rose Canyon Open Space Park

as defined by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966

(United States Code 1983).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

Knight, Debbie, President - ID277

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1416 September 2014

Com ID Response

Further, elimination of LRT Alternative 3 after scoping avoided potentially significant

noise and visual impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park. As stated in the

response to Comment 2, the project has been designed to minimize the impacts to

recreation within Rose Canyon Open Space Park. As further noted in the response to

Comment 2, with implementation of mitigation measures, the new project features will

not contrast with the existing visual character or quality, and no adverse impacts will

occur.

Refer to the response to Comment 2 for information regarding impacts to biological

resources in Rose Canyon.

Refer to Master Response 14 for information regarding the noise analysis for Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

6 Refer to Master Response 15 for information regarding the visual analysis for Rose

Canyon Open Space Park.

In response to comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG conducted a more

detailed assessment of visual resource impacts within Rose Canyon Open Space

Park and Marian Bear Memorial Park, which verified the conclusions reached in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR that, with mitigation, no adverse or significant impacts will occur

within the parks. Refer to Master Response 15 for information regarding the

additional visual analysis for Rose Canyon Open Space Park.

7 The analysis conducted for the Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that there would be no

significant noise impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park recreational uses and,

with mitigation, less than significant visual and biological resource impacts. Sound

walls or berms are not required, and would themselves create additional visual and

wildlife impacts (refer to Master Response 17 for additional information on the

potential to construct a berm). As noted in the discussion of mitigation measures for

biological resource impacts (Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR),

mitigation for impacts to wetlands within the Rose Creek watershed is proposed to

occur in Rose Canyon through implementation of the Rose Creek Watershed

Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego

Earthworks, 2012). Implementing portions of this plan is expected to enhance, not

degrade, the natural open space within Rose Canyon.

8 As stated in the response to Comments 2 and 5, the project in the area of Rose

Canyon Open Space Park has been designed to minimize impacts to the park.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1417

Friends of Rose Canyon -

DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1418 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1419
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1420 September 2014

Submission ID278 Friends of Rose Canyon Delano Everett

Com ID Response

1 Rose Canyon Open Space Park has been the subject of extensive analysis in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. Design alternatives, project measures, and mitigation measures

have been included to avoid and minimize impacts to the open space park where they

have been identified. For example, as a result of public input during scoping,

SANDAG and the FTA determined to eliminate the alignment that would have crossed

through Rose Canyon to Genesee Avenue using the existing MTS right-of-way (LRT

Alternative 3). Instead, the Draft SEIS/SEIR moved forward with an alternative

alignment that avoids direct impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park entirely.

Remaining impacts to the park are indirect, limited in nature, and are fully considered

in the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park are evaluated in several sections of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR and the supporting technical reports, including the following sections

in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR: Sections 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.3.2 (Community,

Park, and Recreational Facilities), Section 4.4 (Visual Resources and Aesthetics),

Section 4.7 (Noise and Vibration), and Section 4.17 (Construction). Some of these

sections refer to the park by name, other sections evaluate the impacts to the park as

part of a larger group or area. For example, Section 4.2, Figure 4-5 identifies Rose

Canyon Open Space by name in a list of parks. Section 4.4.2 includes the riparian

habitat in Rose Creek as an existing visual resource; some of this riparian habitat

occurs within Rose Canyon Open Space Park. The visual changes in the Rose

Canyon West and Rose Canyon North landscape units described in Section 4.4.3.2

include visual changes to Rose Canyon Open Space Park as part of this larger area.

The evaluation of impacts to biological resources includes impacts to habitat in Rose

Creek; the analysis includes a discussion of edge effects that applies to adjacent

habitat, such as occurs in Rose Canyon Open Space Park. Section 4.7 included

Marian Bear Memorial Park as a noise-sensitive receiver cluster. As a Category 3

land use per FTA noise impact assessment methodology, the threshold for noise

impacts is based on an hourly (rather than daily) average level and represents the

time when Trolleys are most frequent. In response to comments on the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG performed supplemental noise measurements in Rose Canyon

Open Space Park to verify that no noise impacts to the park would occur as a result of

the project. Refer to Master Responses 14 and 15 for information regarding the

additional noise analysis and visual analysis for Rose Canyon Open Space Park,

which concluded that no significant noise or visual impacts will occur in this area. In

addition, refer to Master Response 16 regarding habitat mitigation.

Impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park were also evaluated in the context of the

Section 4(f) Evaluation, which is Chapter 5.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Section 4(f), as

amended, of the USDOT Act of 1966 (United States Code 1983) protects public

parklands and recreational lands, wildlife refuges, and historic sites of national, state,

or local significance, commonly referred to as Section 4(f) properties or resources.

Figure 5-1 identifies parks and recreational facilities within one-half mile of the project
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Friends of Rose Canyon -

DeLano, Everett, Attorney - ID278

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1421

Com ID Response

and includes Rose Canyon Open Space. Table 5-3 describes Rose Canyon Open

Space as adjacent to the project. Section 5.4.2 acknowledges the value of Rose

Canyon Open Space as a wildlife refuge in addition to a recreational facility. The

project does not physically encroach into Rose Canyon Open Space. Thus, a 4(f)

impact (referred to as a “use”) would only occur if the proximity of the project results in

effects (e.g., noise, vibration, visual, and property access) so severe that the features

or attributes that qualify the resource for protection are substantially impaired.

Substantial impairment occurs only if the protected activities, features, or attributes

are substantially diminished. Chapter 5.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR found that the

proposed project would not disrupt access, perceptibly increase noise, or introduce

visual changes that would diminish the use and enjoyment of Rose Canyon Open

Space Park as a Section 4(f) resource. The conclusion that there is no “use,” as

defined in Section 4(f), of Rose Canyon Open Space Park is based on the results of

the analysis of impacts throughout Chapter 4.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 As stated in response to Comment 1, Rose Canyon Open Space Park and the

resources therein were considered and impacts and mitigation are disclosed

throughout the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In addition, in response to comments on the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG performed supplemental noise measurements in Rose Canyon

Open Space Park to verify that no noise impacts to the park would occur as a result of

the project. Further, as described in response to Comment 3, SANDAG conducted a

more detailed assessment of visual impacts. Refer to Master Responses 14 through

16 for additional information regarding Rose Canyon Open Space Park.

3 As stated in response to Comment 1, visual impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space

Park are evaluated in the context of the Rose Canyon West and Rose Canyon North

landscape units, as well as in the consideration of impacts to visual resources.

In response to comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG conducted a more

detailed assessment of visual resources impacts within Rose Canyon Open Space

Park and Marian Bear Memorial Park, which verified the conclusions reached in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR that, with mitigation, no adverse or significant impacts would occur

within the parks. Refer to Master Response 15 for information regarding the

additional visual analysis for Rose Canyon Open Space Park.

4 The response to the noise and visual concerns referenced in this comment are

addressed in the preceding responses.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1422 September 2014

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1423
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1424 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1425

Submission ID279 Clairemont Community Planning Group Barfield Jeff

Com ID Response

1 Comments regarding the Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue Stations are

addressed in detailed responses to the subsequent comments.

2 Refer to Master Response 4 regarding future development on the Clairemont Drive

Station site. As described in the response, construction of the station and park-andride facility will not preclude future development on the site.

3 In response to comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG has

incorporated design measures requiring screening of TPSS sites. The two TPSS

units to be constructed adjacent to the park-and-ride lot at the Clairemont Drive

Station will be screened from public view with walls and/or vegetation. If walls are

used, the material and design would be consistent with the existing visual character of

the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, TPSS enclosures would use the

minimum footprint needed for operation and access (refer to Chapter 4.0, Section

4.4.3.2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR under the heading “Project Measures to Avoid or

Minimize Impacts”). The TPSSs will not degrade the visual character of the station

area. Refer to Master Response 4 regarding future development on the Clairemont

Drive Station site.

4 The Balboa Avenue Station site cannot accommodate additional surface parking, and

it is not be feasible to construct a parking garage on the site due to an active

earthquake fault. Since the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period, a spillover

parking analysis was conducted for a one-half-mile area around the Balboa Avenue

Station to determine if unmet demand (ranging up to 160 spaces throughout the day)

could impact on-street parking in surrounding areas. Refer to Master Response 6 for

a discussion of the spillover parking analysis.

5 Refer to Master Response 1 for regarding station amenities and pedestrian and

bicycle connections at stations.

In the immediate vicinity of the Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue Stations, the

project includes the addition or enhancement of sidewalks. At the Clairemont Drive

Station, this includes new sidewalks on the west side of Morena Boulevard from the

north side of the station platform to Gesner Street and on the east side of Morena

Boulevard from Ingulf Street to north of Clairemont Drive (as shown in Chapter 2.0,

Figure 2-13 of the Final SEIS/SEIR). For the Balboa Avenue Station, this includes

new sidewalks on both sides of Morena Boulevard within the station area. Further,

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 (as shown in Chapter 2.0, Figure

2-14 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1426 September 2014

Com ID Response

6 Although there are no current plans to incorporate the City of San Diego's bicycle

share program as part of the project stations, station design will not preclude future

incorporation of this program. Refer to Master Response 1 for a description of station

amenities, including bicycle lockers. Consistent with current MTS policy, bicycles are

permitted on Trolleys and buses.

7 The transit analysis conducted for the project was based on service standards

established by MTS and SANDAG. These standards, which correlate to the levels of

service referenced in the comment, include service frequencies, hours of service,

reliability, and crowding on vehicles, including buses and light rail vehicles. The

results of this analysis are summarized in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.1.2 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR and detailed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report. As shown in Chapter 3.0,

Table 3-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, transit performance will improve under the Build

Alternative compared to conditions without the project.

The pedestrian and bicycle analysis conducted for the project did not determine a

level of service for biking or walking. However, the analysis considered whether the

project would impact any existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and

identified whether the existing pedestrian facilities were adequate to support the

increased pedestrian traffic from the project. Further, as shown in Chapter 4.0, Table

4-69 of the Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report, the analysis considered

pedestrian connectivity near Trolley stations to determine if there were barriers to

pedestrian access within one-quarter mile of each station area. As described further

in Master Response 1, the project will add or enhance sidewalks or pedestrian

connections where they are missing or inadequate in the immediate station areas.

Based on this analysis, as summarized in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.3 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, the project will not result in adverse or significant impacts to bicycle or

pedestrian facilities.

8 As noted in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Financial Plan

assumes that 49.4 percent of the project’s capital cost will be covered by funds from

the FTA’s New Starts program. While FTA has not yet made a commitment to fund

this project, FTA’s April 2013 Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, Fiscal

Year 2014 gave the project an overall rating of "Medium-High." Based on this rating, it

is reasonable to assume that the project will receive New Starts funds in the future.

Funding depends upon Congress reauthorizing the program when the current

authorization expires at the end of fiscal year 2014.

The TransNet program, as passed by voters, gives the project a high priority for use

of funds collected. In the event that FTA New Starts funding is not available, and if

SANDAG elects to proceed with the project on its own, other TransNet projects could

lose funding. The funding priorities for other TransNet projects would be determined

by SANDAG in the event that the project proceeds in the absence of federal funding.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Clairemont Community Planning Group -

Barfield, Jeff, Chair - ID279

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1427

Com ID Response

SANDAG does not currently anticipate phasing the opening of the project.

Construction activities will occur along several segments of the project alignment at

one time to minimize construction duration and the corresponding disruptions to the

surrounding communities. The Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue

Station sites will be used for construction staging areas to support construction along

other segments of the project. These stations could not be opened for service until

they are no longer needed as staging areas. Phasing the project’s opening would

subject the project cost to additional years of inflation, while adding to mobilization

costs.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Howell, Debra - ID280

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1428 September 2014

Howell, Debra - ID280
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Howell, Debra - ID280

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1429
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Howell, Debra - ID280

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1430 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Howell, Debra - ID280

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1431

Submission ID280 Howell Debra

Com ID Response

1 Three bus routes will provide a connection between the Balboa Avenue Station and

Pacific Beach. As shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, Routes

8, 9, and 27 are expected to operate at 15-minute headways between the station

and Pacific Beach, thereby providing a means to access Pacific Beach via bus.

Although bicycle facilities between Pacific Beach, Clairemont, and the new Trolley

stations will not be modified or added as part of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit

Project, bicycles are allowed on Trolley vehicles and buses, consistent with current

MTS practice.

Similarly, there will be four bus routes that will provide connections between the

Clairemont community and the new Trolley stations: Routes 27 and 44, which will

connect to the Balboa Avenue Station; Route 50, which will connect to the

Clairemont Drive Station; and Route 105, which will connect to the Tecolote Road

Station.

2 Route 27 will be modified to connect to the Balboa Avenue Station via its existing

route on Balboa Avenue. It will continue to serve Pacific Beach. Other existing bus

routes will not need to be modified and will serve the project stations, which are

located along the existing routes. As shown in Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR, Route 50 will connect to the Clairemont Drive and UTC Transit Center

Stations, while Route 105 will provide service to the OTTC, Tecolote Road Station,

and UTC Transit Center. The communities and destinations served by these routes

are shown in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

3 Refer to the response to Comment 1 regarding bus service between Trolley stations

and the Pacific Beach and Clairemont communities.

4 Traffic impacts of the project are described in Chapter 3.0, Sections 3.4.2.2 and

3.4.2.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and include adverse and unmitigated impacts near

Pacific Beach where delay will increase incrementally. These impacts will occur on

Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp and

at Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue. Refer to Master Response 8 for a

summary of the mitigation measures considered at these locations.

For roadway segments on Balboa Avenue where the project will not have an

adverse impact, no mitigation will be required. Refer to Master Response 8

regarding traffic conditions associated with the reconfigured Balboa Avenue/Morena

Boulevard interchange at the Balboa Avenue Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Hydoski, Ian - ID281

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1432 September 2014

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Hydoski, Ian - ID281
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Hydoski, Ian - ID281

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1433
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Hydoski, Ian - ID281

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1434 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Hydoski, Ian - ID281

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1435

Submission ID281 Armstrong Garden Centers Hydoski Ian

Com ID Response

1 Your comment providing information about the benefits provided by the Armstrong

Garden Center on West Morena Boulevard has been noted and will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 The comment regarding communication with SANDAG has been noted and will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG will continue to

coordinate with Armstrong Garden Center during any potential acquisition and

relocation process.

Site design variations and elimination of the Tecolote Road Station were evaluated

to determine the potential of avoiding acquisition of the nursery without impacting

other businesses and the number of transit parking spaces. Master Response 3

provides a detailed discussion of the evaluation. Based on the evaluation

completed, it was determined that the Tecolote Road Station cannot be configured to

avoid acquisition of Armstrong Garden Center while still providing adequate parking

without shifting adverse impacts to surrounding businesses.

To the extent applicable, relocation assistance and compensation will be provided by

SANDAG as required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR 24); the California

Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended (California Government Code

Section 7260 et seq.); and SANDAG Board of Director's Policy No. 021.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1436 September 2014

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1437
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1438 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1439

Submission ID282 San Diego City Council, District 1 Lightner Sherri S.

Com ID Response

1 Your comments regarding the merits of the project and expressing support for the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 SANDAG has considered and analyzed impacts to residents throughout the corridor

and has identified measures to avoid or reduce impacts where they have been

identified. The Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical reports (particularly the

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts

Technical Report and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts

Technical Report) prepared for the project directly address the long-term operational

and temporary construction impacts to communities adjacent to the project alignment.

Within the Bay Park community, the alignment will be within the existing railway

corridor. Within the University Community, the proposed alignment will be within the

existing I-5 right-of-way; the rights-of-way of several streets, including Voigt Drive and

Genesee Avenue; and portions of property at La Jolla Village Square, the UCSD

campus, and the Westfield UTC shopping center.

The environmental analysis concluded that the project will not result in long-term

adverse or significant social or community impacts (refer to Chapter 4.0, Section

4.2.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Social, Community, and Neighborhood

Impacts Technical Report). The Draft SEIS/SEIR also stated that no businesses or

residences will be displaced in the Bay Park neighborhood or the University

Community as a result of the project; however, the permanent acquisition of portions

of property (referred to as partial acquisitions) and temporary easements will be

necessary in some locations (see the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set right-of-way plans).

Socioeconomic and fiscal impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project are

addressed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, which provides that

compensation for property acquisitions will be in accordance with the Federal Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as

amended, the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended, and

SANDAG Board of Directors’ Policy No. 021.

The Draft SEIS/SEIR stated that the project will result in short-term noise impacts

during construction (see Section 4.17.3.2 under the heading "Noise and Vibration

Impacts" in Chapter 4.0 of the Final SEIS/SEIR). SANDAG will prepare contract

specifications that define the noise-control measures that will be implemented during

construction. These measures will minimize construction-related noise impacts to the

extent practicable. In locations along Charmant Drive, the northeast corner of Cape

La Jolla Gardens, and Genesee Avenue where nighttime construction may be

necessary and where available measures cannot completely reduce noise to a lessthan-significant level, residents will be offered temporary relocation to a local hotel

(Mitigation Measure CON2). Other project measures to avoid or minimize noise
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1440 September 2014

Com ID Response

impacts include the following, when practicable: compliance with applicable noise

regulations, installation of temporary noise barriers, locating staging areas and

equipment away from noise-sensitive receivers, routing construction-related truck

traffic away from residential streets, providing public notice to residents prior to

nighttime construction, and coordination with nearby schools or other sensitive noise

receptors to discuss construction activities that generate high noise levels.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure CON1 provides for the development and

implementation of a Noise Control Plan to demonstrate how the contractor will reduce

noise levels near sensitive noise receptors. Further information on the project and

mitigation measures is included in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR and Chapter 6.0 of the Construction Impacts Technical Report.

As stated in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7 of the Final SEIS/SEIR, construction of the

project will result in short-term transportation impacts within University City, including

the temporary loss of off-street parking; impacts to MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus

services (longer travel times, detoured bus routes, and relocated bus stops); and

increased travel time for motorists. Mitigation and project measures have been

identified to minimize impacts to the extent practicable and include coordination with

local transit agencies, implementation of a Transportation Management Plan, phasing

the construction within the La Jolla Village Square shopping center to minimize

parking impacts, and coordinating with the VA Medical Center and offices to offset

parking loss. However, temporary adverse and significant impacts will remain.

As stated in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR under the heading

“Visual Impacts”, short-term visual impacts will occur along the alignment right-of-way

and at construction staging areas. Staging areas along the alignment north of La

Jolla Colony Drive will produce new localized sources of light and glare. Nighttime

work will require lighting and may cause light spillover and glare along the alignment,

including along roadways and highways, and within staging areas. Vegetation along

I-5 will be removed, which will temporarily change the visual quality of the area until

replacement vegetation is installed. Project specifications will require screening of

construction zones and staging areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods; shielding

light at construction zones and staging areas to minimize light and glare that might

affect adjacent communities and neighborhoods, particularly in residential areas and

on roads; and minimizing light and glare into the night sky above the construction

zone and staging areas. With the project measures, the short-term visual impacts will

not be adverse.

As stated in Chapter 1.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the purpose of the project is to

improve transit service in the Mid-Coast Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old

Town San Diego, and University City, recognizing the economic importance of the

community. Section 1.5 in this chapter characterized University City as a dense

population and employment center that anchors the northern end of the Mid-Coast

Corridor.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1441

Com ID Response

SANDAG has conducted extensive public outreach to identify and address the

concerns of residents, students, business owners, and other members of the public

throughout the Mid-Coast Corridor. During the public review period, SANDAG held

public meetings in University City at UCSD and at the La Jolla Country Day School to

provide information and receive comments. Similar meetings were held in 2010 for

project scoping, as documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project California

Environmental Quality Act Scoping Report. Residents and businesses within onequarter mile of the alignment have been notified of public meetings related to the

project through direct mailings. SANDAG has provided newspaper noticing and

advertisements in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and NEPA, and has

also provided information on its web site and with social media posts.

3 The project has been designed to minimize the impact on Rose Canyon Open Space

Park, Marian Bear Memorial Park, the MHPA, and the Rose Creek Watershed.

Elimination of LRT Alternative 3 after Scoping avoided potentially significant noise

and visual impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park. The project has been

designed to minimize the impacts to recreation within Rose Canyon Open Space

Park, Marian Bear Memorial Park, and the Rose Creek Watershed, and is located

within the existing MTS right-of-way. The two existing LOSSAN tracks within the

MTS right-of-way currently support freight, COASTER, and Amtrak service, and the

project alignment is separated from Rose Canyon Open Space Park by these two

tracks. The nearest park trail is located approximately 90 feet east of the MTS rightof-way at its closest point (approximately 325 feet south of La Jolla Colony Drive).

The project incorporates design features, management policies, and mitigation measures

that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea

Plan. As noted in the discussion of mitigation measures for biological resources impacts

(Chapter 4.0, Section 4.8.4 of the Final SEIS/SEIR), mitigation for impacts to wetlands

within the Rose Creek watershed is proposed to occur in Rose Canyon through

implementation of the Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian & Water Quality

Restoration Opportunities Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012). Implementing

portions of this plan is expected to enhance, not degrade, the natural open space within

Rose Canyon. Finally, refinements made to the Build Alternative since circulation of the

Draft SEIS/SEIR eliminated moderate noise impacts to Marian Bear Memorial Park.

A path along the east side of the open channel will remain and continue to allow for

wildlife movement along the east side channel below SR 52. Additionally, the

following design features have been incorporated into the project to facilitate wildlife

movement through the concrete-lined channel under SR 52. The channel has been

designed with a slight inclination toward the center of the channel. During the dry

season when the flows will be limited to irrigation runoff, the outer segments of the

channel bottom will carry limited amounts of runoff and will continue to facilitate

wildlife movement. The majority of riprap placed at the upstream and downstream

ends of the proposed channel will not be grouted, which will allow sediment to fill

gaps, creating a more natural and even surface for wildlife to cross.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Lightner, Sherri S.

City Council President Pro Tem - ID282

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1442 September 2014

Com ID Response

As design progresses, the project footprint will be further reviewed and, where

possible, minimized to reduce impacts to wetlands and vegetation. During

construction in Rose Canyon, a biological monitor will be present in accordance with

the impact avoidance measures described in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the

Final SEIS/SEIR. The monitor will assist in minimizing impacts to biological

resources, including wildlife, and in verifying that areas outside of the designated

construction zone are not adversely affected. Mitigation Measures CON4 through

CON14 outline the requirements to reduce or avoid impacts to nesting birds, bats,

and threatened and endangered species, as well as provide compensatory mitigation

for impacts to vegetation communities and wetlands.

SANDAG will continue to coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and local

resource agencies to ensure biological resources are protected.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Christensen, Jon - ID283

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1443

Christensen, Jon - ID283
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Christensen, Jon - ID283

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1444 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Christensen, Jon - ID283

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1445
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Christensen, Jon - ID283

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1446 September 2014

Submission ID283 Christensen Jon

Com ID Response

1 Your support for the Trolley system and public transportation has been noted and will

be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

As described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.2 of the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR

and summarized in Chapter 6.0, Section 6.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project is

expected to be funded from a mix of federal and local sources. Local sources will be

provided from the TransNet sales tax that was passed by the voters of San Diego

County. The ballot measure listed the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as a priority

for use of TransNet funds. The FTA and its Financial Management Oversight

Contractors have reviewed the project's Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. FTA’s

Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, FY 2014, which was submitted to

Congress in April 2013, assigned the project a "Medium-High" rating for local financial

commitment.

In terms of the project’s cost effectiveness, the TransNet ballot measure noted above

attests to voter support for this project. In addition, the FTA uses a variety of criteria to

evaluate projects that are seeking funds from the New Starts program. One of these is

cost effectiveness. The FTA’s Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, FY

2014, assigned the project a “Medium” rating for cost effectiveness.

2 Regarding connections to other modes of travel, Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR listed the bus routes that will serve each of the stations along the project

alignment. The table included the peak- and off-peak service frequencies for these

routes. Refer to Master Response 1 regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections and

station amenities.

3 Forecasts of ridership for the project are based upon SANDAG’s Series 11 Travel

Demand Forecasting Model. The model predicts travel within the entire region and

assigns that travel to the transportation network to predict how many trips will be made

on each link in the system. While the project corridor lies completely within the City of

San Diego, it will be part of the regional network and will attract trips that begin and/or

end outside the city. The use of a regional model is appropriate and reflects best

professional practice for these types of projects. The forecasts contained in the Draft

and Final SEIS/SEIR were reviewed and accepted by FTA at the start of Preliminary

Engineering.

4 The project’s capital cost estimate developed for the Draft SEIS/SEIR included various

contingencies to cover real project costs that were anticipated but unknown at that

point in project development. The contingency percentages reflected experience on

other projects. As the level of engineering advances in the future and the project

becomes better defined, the cost estimate will become more precise and the

contingency percentages are expected to be reduced.

FTA’s New Starts program is currently authorized through September 2014. It is not
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Christensen, Jon - ID283

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1447

Com ID Response

expected that FTA and SANDAG will enter into a Full Funding Grant Agreement

committing to construction of the project before the middle of fiscal year 2016. The

future availability of New Starts funds may be clearer by that time. The history of the

program gives great confidence that federal funding commitments in an FFGA will be

honored. The Financial Plans for the Draft and Final SEIS/SEIR do not contemplate a

scenario without New Starts funding.

Chapter 6.0, Section 6.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR showed a total estimated amount of

TransNet sales tax bond proceeds needed for the project as $825 million in addition to

$450 million in Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs), for a total of $1,275 million in debt

financing for the project. GANS are a form of municipal security that pledges future

federal funds to make debt service payments. The financing cost of $343 million

identified in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR provided the interest and

up-front financing costs associated with the $1,275 million in TransNet bond proceeds

and GANs for a 10-year period from FY 2014 to FY 2024. (The comment that

SANDAG is spending $343 million in interest to acquire $825 million in proceeds is

inaccurate.) This was considered to be the period in which SANDAG would be

receiving FTA Section 5309 New Starts funds for the project. This was singled out

because interest paid during this period is eligible for FTA participation.

Because the finance costs were calculated for a set period of time (FY 2014 to FY

2024), the bonds issued earlier in that period (such as FY 2014) would have had more

years of debt service included in the total than the bond issuances that would have

occurred in later years. For example, the total financing costs included 10 years of

interest associated with the FY 2014 issuance, but only four years of interest

associated with the FY 2020 issuance. The total financing costs shown in the plan

differed based on the amount of proceeds from each issuance used for the project.

The FY 2016 issuance of $255 million was expected to be used in its entirety for the

project. Hence, the up-front financing cost of $4 million and the interest through FY

2024 of $86 million were counted toward the project’s total financing costs. On the

other hand, only $80 million of the FY 2020 issuance of $619 million was needed for

the project (or approximately 13 percent). Therefore, 13 percent of the up-front

financing cost of $9 million (or $1 million) and 13 percent of the interest through FY

2024 of $108 million (or $14 million) were counted toward the project’s total financing

costs. The remaining bond proceeds were used to fund the rest of the TransNet

program. As such, the total financing costs associated with each issuance differed

based on the amount of proceeds applied to the project and the number of years

included in the total. The project’s financing assumptions were described in greater

detail in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.2 of the Financial Plan for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

The Financial Plan has been updated for the Final SEIS/SEIR, and the amount of debt

financing for the project has increased to $1,485 million ($935 million in TransNet

sales tax bond proceeds and $550 million in GANs), as shown in Chapter 6.0, Table 6-

6 of the Final SEIS/SEIR. Additional debt is needed due to the unavailability of FTA

New Starts funds for the project until FY 2016 (the Draft SEIS/SEIR assumed FTA

News Starts funds would be available starting in FY 2014). Debt financing for the
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Christensen, Jon - ID283

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1448 September 2014

Com ID Response

project is comprised of $935 million in TransNet sales tax bond proceeds and $550

million in GANs. The financing cost associated with the revised debt financing of

$1,485 million is expected to total $424 million for a 12-year period between FY 2015

and FY 2026. This is considered to be the period of time in which SANDAG will be

receiving FTA Section 5309 New Starts funds for the project.

5 As stated in response to Comment 1, the existing TransNet sales tax has sufficient

local funds to build the project. By bonding against the TransNet revenue stream,

SANDAG currently anticipates building the project in one phase, although the service

levels will be phased in over time. (Initially, trains will operate at 15-minute headways,

transitioning to 7.5-minute headways by FY 2030.) This allows SANDAG to defer

some vehicle purchases and to reduce operating and maintenance costs in the initial

years. SANDAG does not currently anticipate phasing the opening of the project.

Construction activities will occur along several segments of the project alignment

simultaneously to minimize construction duration and thus the disruptions to

surrounding communities. Phasing the project’s construction would lead to higher

capital costs due to inflation and additional mobilization and start-up costs.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Jones, Gary, Vice President of Marketing - ID284

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1449

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Jones, Gary, Vice President of Marketing - ID284
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Jones, Gary, Vice President of Marketing - ID284

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1450 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Jones, Gary, Vice President of Marketing - ID284

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1451
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Jones, Gary, Vice President of Marketing - ID284

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1452 September 2014

Submission ID284 Armstrong Garden Centers Jones Gary

Com ID Response

1 The comment regarding expenses associated with relocation and marketing has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

To the extent applicable, relocation assistance and compensation will be provided by

SANDAG as required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR 24); the California

Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended (California Government Code Section

7260 et seq.); and SANDAG Board of Director's Policy No. 021.

2 The comment regarding marketing investments has been noted and will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

3 The comment regarding Armstrong Garden Center’s community investment has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Site

design variations and elimination of the Tecolote Road Station were evaluated to

determine the potential of avoiding acquisition of the nursery without impacting other

businesses and the number of transit parking spaces. Master Response 3 provides a

detailed discussion of the evaluation. Based on the evaluation completed, it was

determined that the Tecolote Road Station cannot be configured to avoid acquisition of

Armstrong Garden Center while still providing adequate parking without shifting

adverse impacts to surrounding businesses.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr - ID285

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1453

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr - ID285
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr - ID285

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1454 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr - ID285

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1455
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr - ID285

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1456 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Asakawa Eric, South and Bay Area Regional Mgr - ID285

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1457

Submission ID285 Armstrong Garden Centers Asakawa Eric

Com ID Response

1 Your opposition to the Tecolote Road Station location has been noted and will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Elimination of the Tecolote Road Station was evaluated to determine the potential of

avoiding acquisition of the nursery without impacting other businesses or the number

of transit parking spaces. Master Response 3 provides a detailed discussion of the

evaluation. Based on the evaluation completed, it was determined that the Tecolote

Road Station cannot be configured to avoid acquisition of Armstrong Garden Center

while still providing adequate parking without shifting adverse impacts to surrounding

businesses.

2 Refer to Master Response 3 with regard to ridership information and the evaluation

of the effect of eliminating the Tecolote Road Station.

3 Changes to tax revenue that would occur as a result of the project were analyzed as

socioeconomic impacts. Chapter 4.0, Section 4.3.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

documented the change in tax revenue that will result under the Build Alternative.

As stated in this section, "The loss of property tax revenue would be negligible

compared to total property tax revenues (less than 0.06 percent of property tax

revenues and less than 0.02 percent of total city general fund revenues). Therefore,

no adverse impacts to government revenue would occur under the project." This

analysis conservatively assumed the acquisition, not relocation, of Armstrong

Garden Center. To the extent applicable, relocation assistance and compensation

will be provided by SANDAG as required by the Federal Uniform Relocation

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR

24); the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended (California

Government Code Section 7260 et seq.); and SANDAG Board of Director's Policy

No. 021.

4 Refer to Master Response 3 regarding accessibility to the area surrounding the

Tecolote Road Station from the OTTC or Clairemont Drive Station.

5 The comment regarding the impact to the community of the loss of the Armstrong

Garden Center has been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the

Draft SEIS/SEIR. Chapter 4.0, Section 4.2.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR states that

there is another nursery within 1.85 miles that would continue to serve the

community.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Bollard, Will, Attorney - ID286

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1458 September 2014

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Bollard, Will, Attorney - ID286
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Armstrong Garden Centers -

Bollard, Will, Attorney - ID286

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1459

Submission ID286 Armstrong Garden Centers Bollard Will

Com ID Response

1 Your opposition to the Tecolote Road Station location has been noted and will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Site design variations and

elimination of the Tecolote Road Station were evaluated to determine the potential of

avoiding acquisition of the nursery without impacting other businesses and the

number of transit parking spaces. Master Response 3 provides a detailed

discussion of the evaluation. Based on the evaluation completed, it was determined

that the Tecolote Road Station cannot be configured to avoid acquisition of

Armstrong Garden Center while still providing adequate parking without shifting

adverse impacts to surrounding businesses.

To the extent applicable, relocation assistance and compensation will be provided by

SANDAG as required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR 24); the California

Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended (California Government Code

Section 7260 et seq.); and SANDAG Board of Director's Policy No. 021.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Department of Veteran Affairs - VA San Diego Healthcare System -

Butler, Cindy - ID287

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1460 September 2014

Department of Veteran Affairs - VA San Diego Healthcare System -

Butler, Cindy - ID287
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Department of Veteran Affairs - VA San Diego Healthcare System -

Butler, Cindy - ID287

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1461
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Department of Veteran Affairs - VA San Diego Healthcare System -

Butler, Cindy - ID287

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1462 September 2014

Submission ID287 US Dept of Veteran Affairs - VA San Diego Healthcare System Butler

Cindy

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station and

information about current access needs and parking deficiencies will be part of the

record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. On November 15, 2013, the

SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build Alternative, which

included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be evaluated in

the Final SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Bike San Diego -

Cummings, Kelly - ID288

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1463

Bike San Diego -

Cummings, Kelly - ID288
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Bike San Diego -

Cummings, Kelly - ID288

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1464 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Bike San Diego -

Cummings, Kelly - ID288

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1465

Submission ID288 Bike San Diego Cummings Kelly

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the project will be part of the record of

proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

2 On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined

Build Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the

project to be evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

3 The addition of the suggested bridge over Morena Boulevard is beyond the scope

of this project. Refer to Master Response 1 for a description of the bicycle and

pedestrian facilities that are included as part of the project.

4 Transit passengers will be able to access Mission Bay from the Balboa Avenue

Station by bus, bike, or walking. Bus routes 8, 9, and 27 will provide access to

Mission Bay from the station. Transit passengers from East County with

connections in Mission Bay can take the Trolley Green Line and transfer to the

Trolley Blue Line at the OTTC and take the Trolley Blue Line to the Balboa Avenue

Station. Transit passengers from the South Bay can take the Trolley Blue Line to

the Balboa Avenue Station.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Paul, Billy - ID289

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1466 September 2014

Paul, Billy - ID289
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Paul, Billy - ID289

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1467
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Paul, Billy - ID289

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1468 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Paul, Billy - ID289

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1469
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Paul, Billy - ID289

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1470 September 2014

Submission ID289 Paul Billy

Com ID Response

1 When the SANDAG Board of Directors reconfirmed the LPA on July 23, 2010, they

approved the evaluation of the station at the VA Medical Center as an option during

the development of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. This decision allowed for an analysis of

the benefits and impacts associated with the station as well as the opportunity for the

public to provide comments on the inclusion of the station.

On November 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Refined Build

Alternative, which included the VA Medical Center Station as part of the project to be

evaluated in the Final SEIS/SEIR.

2 Your comment expressing support for the VA Medical Center Station has been noted

and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Future

development plans for the VA Medical Center preclude moving the station closer to

the hospital. The alignment and station location that were evaluated in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR and carried forward to the Final SEIS/SEIR were developed in

coordination with representatives from the VA Medical Center based on these

development plans. Improved pedestrian paths will be provided from the VA Medical

Center Station to the main entrance of the hospital, as shown in Chapter 2.0, Figure

2-16 of the Final SEIS/SEIR and Sheet 331 in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set.

3 Your comment expressing support for the Tecolote Road Station has been noted

and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIR/SEIS.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1471

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1472 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1473
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1474 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1475

Submission ID290 Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) Heidelberg

Evelyn

Com ID Response

1 Public notification for the project fully satisfied the public and agency outreach and

coordination requirements of NEPA and CEQA. As summarized in Chapter 8.0,

Section 8.3 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, in April and May 2010, scoping notices were

published in local newspapers and, as the commenter has noted, postcards were sent

to nearly 25,000 residents and businesses in the corridor to notify them about the

project. The scoping notices provided summary information about the project and

approval process, and described multiple ways to obtain additional information,

including public scoping meetings and website links. Participation at either the

scoping meetings or through the website provided the opportunity to join the project email newsletter distribution list. The 2010 scoping process culminated in the SANDAG

Board of Directors' reconfirmation of the LPA that had been first identified during the

1990s and was a matter of public record.

As part of the publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, FTA and SANDAG placed notices in

local newspapers and mailed notices to local residents and businesses, as well as

provided notice through the Federal Register, the State Clearinghouse, and the San Diego

County Clerk’s office. In addition, SANDAG has included groups and organizations, such

as the University Community Planning Group and the San Diego Regional Chamber of

Commerce, throughout the planning process as a secondary means to distribute

information to their members. SANDAG has continued to make a good-faith effort to

notify all affected parties about the project and opportunities for participation.

2 As discussed in response to Comment 1, throughout the duration of the project,

SANDAG has conducted the required public notification and has provided ample

opportunities for public participation. All SANDAG Board of Directors meetings related

to project decisions, including decisions regarding the alignment, have published

agendas and have been open to the public. Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR describes the prior actions and studies relevant to the project. The Draft

and Final SEIS/SEIRs are a continuation of work that began with issuance of the

Notice of Intent in 1990. The project is not approved or adopted until the SANDAG

Board of Directors certifies the Final SEIS/SEIR, approves the project, and files the

Notice of Determination, thus completing the CEQA process. The Final SEIS/SEIR

includes all comments received and SANDAG’s responses to such comments.

In addition to these public opportunities to participate, SANDAG met with the

management team for the property in 2009, when the shopping center was

represented by Madison Marquette, and again in 2013, when represented by

StepStone Real Estate Services.

In 2008, right-of-way was transferred for the purpose of improving access to the Shops

at La Jolla Village (at that time known as the La Jolla Village Center), an action

unrelated to environmental review for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Alecta Real Estate USA, LLC (Shops at La Jolla Village) -

Heidelberg, Evelyn - ID290

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1476 September 2014

Com ID Response

3 As discussed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4.17.3.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the project will

require temporary construction easements on several properties during construction.

The specific areas required are detailed in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Volume 2 of

the Final SEIS/SEIR), Sheet 387 (available at www.sandag.org/midcoast).

SANDAG is committed to working with property owners and businesses to minimize

the negative effects to access and operations during the construction period. The

parking lot on the west side of the Alecta property will remain open to shopping center

use and will not be used for staging of construction. A temporary construction

easement will be required between the building and the I-5 freeway (as shown on

Sheet 387 in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set), but access to loading docks will be

maintained during construction. Delivery of construction material will be closely

coordinated with operation of the tenants in the shopping center. Maneuvering of

delivery trucks around construction areas (truck turning templates) will be used to

demonstrate adequacy of the remainder of the access road for use by delivery trucks.

4 In response to the concerns raised in your comment, construction vehicle access from

Nobel Drive has been eliminated in the Final SEIS/SEIR, as shown in the right-of-way

plans included in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set (Volume 2 of the Final SEIS/SEIR).

5 The general comment is interpreted to refer to the potential for parking impacts at the

Alecta property as a result of the increased parking demand at the adjacent La Jolla

Village Square shopping center due to the Nobel Drive Station, as described in your

written comments dated July 10, 2013. The parking imbalance identified in the Draft

SEIS/SEIR is a short-term impact that is not considered significant. The near-term

analysis for spillover parking stated that the demand for parking at the Nobel Drive

Station will exceed supply by 18 spaces or 7 percent, as stated in Chapter 3.0, Table

3-30 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.4 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

concluded that, "Parking around the Nobel Drive Station is regulated for the use of

patrons of the shopping center; therefore, spillover parking would be unlikely to occur."

In particular, signage at the Shops at La Jolla Village shopping center indicates that

parking is for the use of shopping center patrons and is limited to 2 hours. In addition,

the Nobel Drive Station will provide an alternative means of access for local shopping

centers. Thus, the small, short-term parking imbalance is not anticipated to result in

significant vehicular congestion or other physical impacts. The long-term (2030)

analysis shows a demand for 258 spaces, which is within the capacity of the parking

facility (refer to Chapter 3.0, Table 3-28 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). Therefore, there will

not be adverse or significant spillover parking impacts from the Nobel Drive Station

and park-and-ride facility.

6 SANDAG will continue to coordinate with representatives of the Shops at La Jolla

throughout development and construction of the project.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Heisman, Charles - ID291

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1477

Heisman, Charles - ID291
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Heisman, Charles - ID291

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1478 September 2014

Submission ID291 Heisman Charles

Com ID Response

1 The schedule for the project, including the completion of the environmental review

process and construction, is presented in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.4.6 of the Final

SEIS/SEIR. As stated in this section, operation on the Mid-Coast Corridor alignment

is scheduled to begin in spring 2019.

2 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will be

part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Thompson, Richard - ID292

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1479

Thompson, Richard - ID292
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Thompson, Richard - ID292

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1480 September 2014

Submission ID292 Thompson Richard

Com ID Response

1 Your comment expressing support for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has

been noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR.

Master Response 1 provides information on station design.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Enright, Phillip - ID293

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1481

Enright, Phillip - ID293
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Enright, Phillip - ID293

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1482 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Enright, Phillip - ID293

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1483
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Enright, Phillip - ID293

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1484 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Enright, Phillip - ID293

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1485

Submission ID293 Enright Phillip

Com ID Response

1 Your comment recommending the relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station has been

noted and will be part of the record of proceedings for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As

described in Master Response 5, SANDAG evaluated relocating the Balboa Avenue

Station. Based on this evaluation, the location of the Balboa Avenue Station

proposed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR has been retained for the Final SEIS/SEIR.

Refer to Master Response 8 regarding the reconfigured intersection and traffic

conditions in the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station.

2 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential relocation of the Balboa Avenue

Station on the City Yard site. As stated in that response, although the City Yard site

could accommodate a greater number of parking spaces, locating the station at the

City Yard would not eliminate or reduce any unmitigated adverse or significant

project impacts that were identified for the Draft SEIS/SEIR station site. Additionally,

locating the station at the City Yard would increase capital and operating and

maintenance (O&M) costs. Also, the potential to have some additional parking on

the City Yard site is not precluded by maintaining the transit station at the designated

location to the south.

3 The City Yard site offers some access improvements, but overall results in longer

bus travel times. The commenter is correct that the City Yard site would provide

adequate room for a bus turnaround area on-site, and that the site proposed in the

Draft SEIS/SEIR does not. There will be direct access to Balboa Avenue to/from the

station site analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR through the reconfiguration of the

Morena Boulevard/Balboa Avenue ramps (refer to Master Response 8 for a diagram

of the reconfigured ramps and access/egress at the Balboa Avenue Station). Bus

access to the City Yard site would not be as direct and would result in longer bus

travel time .

4 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding the ramp reconfiguration and traffic conditions

on implementation of the project. The design of the traffic signals and intersections

will comply with city and state specifications and standards and will be reviewed by,

and require the approval of, the city. The city and state specifications and standards

include specific requirements to ensure traffic safety. Therefore, the new traffic

signals and intersection design will be safe to the public.

5 A study to evaluate relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station concluded that location

is an important factor for bus service efficiency. Refer to Master Response 5

regarding the potential relocation of the Balboa Avenue Station on the City Yard site.

As indicated in Master Response 5, the City Yard site offers some access

improvements, but overall results in longer bus travel times and would result in

higher capital and O&M costs.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Enright, Phillip - ID293

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1486 September 2014

Com ID Response

It should be noted that the mode of access presented in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-18 of

the Draft SEIS/SEIR was incorrect as a result of a typographical error. The

corrected numbers are presented in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-19 of the Final SEIS/SEIR.

As shown, approximately 70 percent of access to the Balboa Avenue Station will be

via bus transfer, as opposed to the 78 percent referenced in the comment. The

typographical error does not affect the results or conclusions presented in the

SEIS/SEIR.

6 Additional travel forecasting was conducted to determine ridership and mode of

access if the Balboa Avenue Station were relocated to the City Yard site. The

majority of demand at the Balboa Avenue Station is related to patrons transferring to

bus (70 percent). While the low-intensity employment located north of Balboa

Avenue would generate a limited number of transit patrons, the travel demand

studies conducted for the Balboa Avenue Station on the City Yard site indicate that

access to the station at that site also would be predominantly by bus transfer.

Therefore, while relocating the Balboa Avenue Station to the City Yard site would

provide better pedestrian connections, relocating the station would not result in a

significant increase in pedestrian and bicycle use to the station.

7 Refer to the response to Comment 6 regarding pedestrian access at the proposed

site as compared to the City Yard site.

8 Refer to Master Response 6 regarding parking supply and demand at the Balboa

Avenue Station and in the surrounding area, including additional information

regarding the potential for spillover parking. As documented in Master Response 6,

no adverse impacts will occur as a result of spillover parking if the station is located

on the site proposed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The commenter is correct that the City

Yard site would reduce the potential for parking spillover; this would be the result of

providing sufficient parking to meet demand.

9 Refer to Master Response 8 regarding traffic conditions near the Balboa Avenue

Station. A traffic light would likely be required for the City Yard site to accommodate

the increased bus and vehicular traffic, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle

access, if the station were located there.

10 Refer to Master Response 5 regarding the potential relocation of the Balboa Avenue

Station to the City Yard site.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Allen, Dan - ID294

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1487

Allen, Dan - ID294
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Allen, Dan - ID294

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1488 September 2014
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Allen, Dan - ID294

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1489
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Allen, Dan - ID294

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1490 September 2014

Submission ID294 Allen Dan

Com ID Response

1 Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR provides information on where bus-to-Trolley

transfers are possible. Specifically, Chapter 2.0, Table 2-6 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR

lists the bus routes that will serve each of the stations along the Trolley Blue Line

north of Santa Fe Depot and states whether the routes will be modified under the

Build Alternative. The project will not preclude the operation of private shuttles from

communities to the Trolley stations.

The 2030 RTP, and thus the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model,

assumed changes in several routes between existing conditions and conditions in

2030 with implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Specifically,

Routes 8 and 9 would be diverted from their current terminal point at Bayard &

Garnet to the Balboa Avenue Station; Route 44 would be extended to the Balboa

Avenue Station; and Route 30 would be diverted to serve the Nobel Drive Station.

Additionally, all bus routes serving the UTC Transit Center would be moved to the

more southern location of the Trolley platform/bus transit center. SANDAG

coordinated with MTS on bus route alignments and service frequencies during

development of the 2030 RTP.

There would also be changes to the frequency of service between 2010 and 2030.

For instance, Route 50 operated with 15-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak

headways in 2010 but would have 15-minute peak and off-peak headways in 2030.

Route 30 would provide a connection between La Jolla and the Nobel Drive, UCSD

West, and UTC Transit Center Stations. Therefore, residents in La Jolla who wish to

take a bus to a Trolley station could do so via Route 30, which would operate with

10-minute peak and off-peak periods.

Station site concept figures were presented in Chapter 2.0, Figures 2-11 through

2-19 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Each figure indicated where bus stops will be located,

and additional text regarding bus-Trolley transfers was provided in Chapter 2.0,

Section 2.2.2.2 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. For example, on-street bus turnouts will be

provided on both sides of West Morena Boulevard near the Tecolote Road Station

(Figure 2-11), and five off-street bus bays will be provided within the Balboa Avenue

Station park-and-ride facility (Figure 2-13). Additionally, as stated for the Nobel

Drive Station, "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." Refer to Chapter 2.0, Figures 2-12 through 2-20 for updated

conceptual site plans and Section 2.4.2 for updated station descriptions.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Allen, Dan - ID294

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

September 2014 1491

Com ID Response

2 The parking supply presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and retained for the Final

SEIS/SEIR was determined based on forecasts derived from the SANDAG Series 11

Travel Demand Forecasting Model for parking demand at the station, which

assumes that a driver will travel up to 8 miles to access a park-and-ride facility

associated with a Trolley station. This model was reviewed and approved by FTA

for this project.

Parking demand is based on many factors, including other modes of access to the

station (walk/bike and other modes of transit), as well as site restrictions. Sufficient

parking is available to meet demand at all stations except the Balboa Avenue Station,

where parking is constrained by the size of the station site and the presence of an active

earthquake fault that precludes construction of a parking structure. Transit patrons from

areas north of the Nobel Drive Station may also opt to take the COASTER to the OTTC

and transfer to a Trolley to complete their trip; this would not require additional parking at

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project stations.

3 This comment is interpreted to be a variation of Alternative 3, which was analyzed in

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives

Report, which is summarized in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1.1 and Table 2-1 of the Draft

SEIS/SEIR. LRT Alternative 3 followed the existing MTS right-of-way north from the

OTTC through Rose Canyon. At Genesee Avenue, Alternative 3 turned north and

transitioned from at grade to a tunnel configuration, continuing below grade to the

UTC Transit Center. (Note: a tunnel would be needed to transition out of Rose

Canyon.) Alternative 3 then turned west under Executive Drive, exiting the tunnel

portal just west of Regents Road. The comment appears to be proposing a shorter

version, terminating at UTC.

The Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report found that Alternative 3 would be

equally effective as the other LRT alternatives in meeting project goals and

objectives, and would have reduced visual impacts in University City. However, it

was also found to have the greatest impacts to ecosystem and biological resources

of all the LRT alternatives evaluated. Substantial public comment was received in

opposition to this alternative. A shorter version of Alternative 3 ending at UTC would

have these same adverse impacts.

In July 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors reconfirmed the previously adopted

LPA, which was refined to include direct service to UCSD and UTC, and the NoBuild Alternative for evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. At that time, the Alternative 3

alignment through Rose Canyon was eliminated from further consideration.

The UCSD shuttle bus service and the SuperLoop provide an essential service for

short trips within the University City/UCSD area. These local circulator bus services

were not designed or envisioned to serve as a feeder system to connect University

City and the UTC Transit Center to the Trolley.
Volume 3 – Comments and Responses

Public Hearing – June 21, 2013

Allen, Dan - ID294

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

1492 September 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK