Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Statement and 

Subsequent 

Environmental Impact 

Report Volume 1 

State Clearinghouse No. 2010051001 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Federal Transit 

Administration 

and the 

San Diego Association of 

Governments 

September 2014 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

San Diego, California

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PREPARED PURSUANT TO: 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102 (42 United States Code [USC] § 4332); 

Federal Transit Law (49 USC Chapter 53); Public Law 112-141, 126 Statute 405, Section 

1319(b); Clean Water Act, § 404 (33 USC § 1344); Clean Air Act (42 USC § 7401 et seq.); 

Endangered Species Act (7 USC § 136; 16 USC § 1531 et seq.); National Historic Preservation 

Act, § 106 (16 USC § 470f); Department of Transportation Act, § 4(f) (49 USC § 303); 49 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 622.101; 23 CFR Parts 771 and 774; 36 CFR Part 800; 40 CFR 

Parts 51, 93 and 1500-1508; and Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 12898 

(Environmental Justice). 

by the

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

and the

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) 

 _________________________________________ ______________________ 

Leslie T. Rogers Date of Approval 

Regional Administrator, Region IX 

Federal Transit Administration 

 _________________________________________ ______________________ 

Gary Gallegos Date of Approval 

Executive Director 

San Diego Association of Governments 

 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

ABSTRACT 

The Federal Transit Administration and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 

have completed Preliminary Engineering and preparation of a Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in San 

Diego, San Diego County, California. The Proposed Action would extend the Trolley Blue Line 

from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit 

Center in University City, providing continuous service from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the 

U.S.–Mexico international border to University City. The Record of Decision (ROD) issued by 

the FTA for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is combined with this Final SEIS. 

This combined Final SEIS and ROD addresses public and agency comments received on both 

the Draft SEIS and the focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the 

impact to the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) not 

evaluated in the Draft SEIS. It also describes the impacts and benefits of the alternatives under 

consideration within the Mid-Coast Corridor, as well as measures for avoiding or mitigating any 

adverse or significant impacts. The alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative and a 

Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative is the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project, or project, approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors for evaluation in this Final 

SEIS. The Refined Build Alternative would extend the existing Trolley Blue Line from the Santa 

Fe Depot north to the Old Town Transit Center via the existing Trolley tracks, and then north 

along new tracks for 10.9 miles to the UTC Transit Center. Nine new stations would be built at 

Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, Veterans Administration Medical 

Center, University of California, San Diego (UCSD) West Campus, UCSD East Campus, 

Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center. 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in adverse and unavoidable impacts on traffic. 

Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would result in adverse impacts related to air 

quality exceedances of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, noise, and localized impacts on 

roadway and pedestrian traffic, transit, and the parking supply. Overall, however, the project 

would have a beneficial effect on various elements of the built and natural environments, 

including improvements to mobility and accessibility, air quality, and energy. The Refined Build 

Alternative also supports established land-use plans and policies. A more detailed 

documentation of impacts and mitigation measures is provided in this Final SEIS. 

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS DOCUMENT, CONTACT: 

Alexander Smith 

Community Planner 

Federal Transit Administration, Region IX 

201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-744-3133 

Leslie Blanda 

Mid-Coast Project Development Program 

Manager 

San Diego Association of Governments 

401 B Street, Suite 800 

San Diego, CA 92101 

619-595-5620 

Visit the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Web site (www.sandag.org/midcoast) where you 

can view and download the Draft SEIS, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and 

the combined Final SEIS and ROD and request a compact disc of the documents. Printed 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

copies of the combined Final SEIS and ROD are available for review and purchase at the 

SANDAG offices at the address listed above; compact discs are available free of charge. 

Printed copies of the combined Final SEIS and ROD have been placed in the following public 

libraries: Balboa Branch Library, City of San Diego Central Library, Clairemont Branch Library, 

Kensington-Normal Heights Branch Library, La Jolla/Riford Branch Library, Linda Vista Branch 

Library, Mesa College Library, Mission Hills Branch Library, Mission Valley Branch Library, 

North Clairemont Branch Library, North Park Branch Library, North University Community 

Branch Library, Ocean Beach Branch Library, Pacific Beach/Taylor Branch Library, Point 

Loma/Hervey Branch Library, San Diego County Public Law Library, Serra Mesa-Kearny Mesa 

Branch Library, University Community Branch Library, University Heights Branch Library, UCSD 

Geisel Library, and University of San Diego Copley Library. 

 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

LEAD AGENCY: San Diego Association of Governments 

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.: 2010051001 

TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

ABSTRACT: 

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has completed Preliminary Engineering 

and preparation of a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project in San Diego, San Diego County, California. The proposed project 

would extend the Trolley Blue Line from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the 

University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center in University City, providing continuous service 

from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico international border to University City. 

This Final SEIR addresses public and agency comments received on both the Draft SEIR and 

the focused Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 

impact to the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) not 

evaluated in the Draft SEIR. It also describes the impacts and benefits of the alternatives under 

consideration within the Mid-Coast Corridor, as well as measures for avoiding or mitigating any 

adverse or significant impacts. The alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative and a 

Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative is the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project, or project, approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors for evaluation in this Final 

SEIR. The Refined Build Alternative would extend the existing Trolley Blue Line from the Santa 

Fe Depot north to the Old Town Transit Center via the existing Trolley tracks, and then north 

along new tracks for 10.9 miles to the UTC Transit Center. Nine new stations would be built at 

Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, Veterans Administration Medical 

Center, University of California, San Diego (UCSD) West Campus, UCSD East Campus, 

Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center. The Refined Build Alternative would result in 

significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic. Construction of the Refined Build Alternative 

would result in significant impacts related to air quality exceedances of nitrogen oxides and 

carbon dioxide, and localized impacts on roadway and pedestrian traffic, transit, and parking 

supply. Overall, however, the project would have a beneficial effect on various elements of the 

built and natural environments, including improvements to mobility and accessibility, air quality, 

and energy. The Refined Build Alternative also supports established land-use plans and 

policies. A more detailed documentation of impacts and mitigation measures is provided in this 

Final SEIR. 

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS DOCUMENT, CONTACT: 

Alexander Smith 

Community Planner 

Federal Transit Administration, Region IX 

201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-744-3133 

Leslie Blanda 

Mid-Coast Project Development Program 

Manager 

San Diego Association of Governments 

401 B Street, Suite 800 

San Diego, CA 92101 

619-595-5620 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Visit the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Web site (www.sandag.org/midcoast) to view and 

download the Draft and Final SEIR, the Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report, and request a compact disc of the documents. Printed copies of the Final SEIR are 

available for review and purchase at the SANDAG offices at the address listed above; compact 

discs are available free of charge. 

This Final SEIR supplements the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (Metropolitan Transit Development Board 

[MTDB], 1995a), the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 

1995b), and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR (SANDAG, 2013a). Copies 

of these documents also are available to view and download on the Web site. 

Printed copies of the Final SEIR have been placed in the following public libraries: Balboa 

Branch Library, City of San Diego Central Library, Clairemont Branch Library, KensingtonNormal Heights Branch Library, La Jolla/Riford Branch Library, Linda Vista Branch Library, 

Mesa College Library, Mission Hills Branch Library, Mission Valley Branch Library, North 

Clairemont Branch Library, North Park Branch Library, North University Community Branch 

Library, Ocean Beach Branch Library, Pacific Beach/Taylor Branch Library, Point Loma/Hervey 

Branch Library, San Diego County Public Law Library, Serra Mesa-Kearny Mesa Branch 

Library, University Community Branch Library, University Heights Branch Library, UCSD Geisel 

Library, and University of San Diego Copley Library. 

The SANDAG Board of Directors will hold a meeting to certify the Final SEIR and approve the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project; oral testimony will be accepted during this meeting. A notice of this 

meeting will be sent to all whom submitted comments on the Draft SEIR and Supplement to the 

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, as well as to property owners where temporary 

easements and/or permanent easements or acquisitions are required by the project. 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 i

Table of Contents 

Volume 1 

TITLE PAGE 

ABSTRACT 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. S-1

S.1 Mid-Coast Corridor Description ......................................................................... S-2

S.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................ S-5

S.3 Alternatives Considered .................................................................................... S-5

S.3.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................... S-9

S.3.2 Refined Build Alternative ....................................................................... S-9

S.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ S-12

S.5 Financial Feasibility ......................................................................................... S-33

S.6 Public Outreach, Agency Consultation, and Coordination ............................... S-33

S.7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Addressed ......................................... S-35

S.8 Next Steps ....................................................................................................... S-37

S.9 Intended Use ................................................................................................... S-37

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 Mid-Coast Corridor Description .......................................................................... 1-3

1.2.1 Population and Employment ................................................................... 1-5

1.2.2 Land Use ................................................................................................ 1-5

1.2.3 Trip Purposes and Travel Patterns ......................................................... 1-7

1.2.4 Major Transit Markets ........................................................................... 1-10

1.3 Corridor Transportation Facilities and Services ................................................ 1-11

1.3.1 Transit System ...................................................................................... 1-11

1.3.2 Highway System ................................................................................... 1-16

1.4 Transportation System Performance ................................................................ 1-17

1.4.1 Regional Goals ..................................................................................... 1-17

1.4.2 Transit System Performance ................................................................ 1-18

1.4.3 Highway System Performance ............................................................. 1-22

1.5 Purpose and Need for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project ......................... 1-25

1.6 Other Project Goals .......................................................................................... 1-26

1.6.1 Livability ................................................................................................ 1-26

1.6.2 Sustainability ........................................................................................ 1-26

1.6.3 Equity .................................................................................................... 1-27

2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Development of Alternatives .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Prior Studies and Actions ....................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Additional Studies and Refinements to Prior LPA .................................. 2-3

2.2 Description of Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR ............................ 2-8

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.2 Build Alternative .................................................................................... 2-15
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

ii September 2014 

2.3 Refinements to the Build Alternative ................................................................ 2-16

2.3.1 Addition of VA Medical Center Station Option ...................................... 2-18

2.3.2 Elimination of the Genesee Avenue Design Option .............................. 2-18

2.3.3 Refinements to LRT Alignment ............................................................. 2-19

2.3.4 Refinements to Stations ........................................................................ 2-19

2.3.5 Refinements to Traction Power Substations ......................................... 2-22

2.3.6 Refinements to Construction Staging Areas ......................................... 2-26

2.3.7 Other Engineering Refinements ........................................................... 2-26

2.4 Description of the Refined Build Alternative in the Final SEIS/SEIR ................ 2-26

2.4.1 Alignment .............................................................................................. 2-30

2.4.2 Stations ................................................................................................. 2-36

2.4.3 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities .................................. 2-45

2.4.4 Power System and Signaling ................................................................ 2-45

2.4.5 Operating Plan ...................................................................................... 2-48

2.4.6 Schedule ............................................................................................... 2-52

3.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Travel Demand Forecasting Model .................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Travel Demand and Patterns ............................................................................. 3-3

3.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.1 Transit System and Performance ........................................................... 3-5

3.3.2 Freeway and Roadway System and Performance ............................... 3-14

3.3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian System ............................................................ 3-26

3.3.4 Parking ................................................................................................. 3-29

3.3.5 Freight .................................................................................................. 3-30

3.3.6 Airports ................................................................................................. 3-30

3.4 Transportation Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................. 3-30

3.4.1 Transit System Impacts ........................................................................ 3-31

3.4.2 Freeway and Roadway Impacts ........................................................... 3-50

3.4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Impacts ............................................... 3-74

3.4.4 Parking Impacts .................................................................................... 3-77

3.4.5 Freight Impacts ..................................................................................... 3-85

3.4.6 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts .......................................................... 3-88

3.4.7 Transportation Impacts during Construction ......................................... 3-92

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION .................... 4-1

4.1 Land Use Plans and Policies .............................................................................. 4-4

4.1.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .............................................. 4-4

4.1.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 4-7

4.1.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-10

4.1.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-13

4.1.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-13

4.2 Community and Neighborhoods ....................................................................... 4-16

4.2.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-16

4.2.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-17

4.2.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-23

4.2.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-28

4.2.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-28

 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 iii

4.3 Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts .................................................................. 4-31

4.3.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-32

4.3.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-33

4.3.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-33

4.3.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-37

4.3.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-37

4.4 Visual Resources and Aesthetics ..................................................................... 4-38

4.4.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-39

4.4.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-40

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-44

4.4.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-51

4.4.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-52

4.5 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 4-58

4.5.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-58

4.5.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-59

4.5.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-61

4.5.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-64

4.5.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-64

4.6 Climate Change ................................................................................................ 4-66

4.6.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-66

4.6.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-67

4.6.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-68

4.6.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-69

4.6.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-69

4.7 Noise and Vibration .......................................................................................... 4-71

4.7.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-72

4.7.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-78

4.7.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-79

4.7.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................. 4-86

4.7.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ............................. 4-87

4.8 Ecosystems and Biological Resources............................................................. 4-89

4.8.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology ............................................ 4-90

4.8.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 4-93

4.8.3 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 4-99

4.8.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-111

4.8.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-117

4.9 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 4-120

4.9.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-120

4.9.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-122

4.9.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-127

4.9.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-129

4.9.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-130

4.10 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 4-134

4.10.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-134

4.10.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-136

4.10.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-137

4.10.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-137

4.10.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-137
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

iv September 2014 

4.11 Geotechnical and Seismic Conditions ............................................................ 4-140

4.11.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-140

4.11.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-141

4.11.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-145

4.11.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-151

4.11.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-151

4.12 Energy ............................................................................................................ 4-154

4.12.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-154

4.12.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-155

4.12.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-155

4.12.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-156

4.12.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-156

4.13 Safety and Security ........................................................................................ 4-158

4.13.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-158

4.13.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-159

4.13.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-160

4.13.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-165

4.13.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-166

4.14 Electromagnetic Interference ......................................................................... 4-167

4.14.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-167

4.14.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-169

4.14.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-170

4.14.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-172

4.14.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-173

4.15 Historic Architectural, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources ......... 4-175

4.15.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-176

4.15.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-182

4.15.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-189

4.15.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-190

4.15.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-191

4.16 Utilities ............................................................................................................ 4-192

4.16.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-192

4.16.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-192

4.16.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-193

4.16.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-194

4.16.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-194

4.17 Construction Impacts ...................................................................................... 4-196

4.17.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-198

4.17.2 Construction Activities ........................................................................ 4-198

4.17.3 Construction Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and California 

Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................................... 4-202

4.18 Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................... 4-251

4.18.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-251

4.18.2 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-252

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-252

4.18.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination ........................... 4-253

 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 v

4.19 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-254

4.19.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-254

4.19.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-257

4.19.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-257

4.20 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-273

4.20.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology .......................................... 4-273

4.20.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 4-275

4.20.3 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 4-276

4.20.4 Benefits ............................................................................................... 4-282

4.20.5 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................ 4-283

4.20.6 Public Outreach .................................................................................. 4-283

4.20.7 Summary of Environmental Justice Analysis ...................................... 4-284

4.21 Other National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental 

Quality Act Considerations ............................................................................. 4-285

4.21.1 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and 

Long-term Productivity and Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources ................................................................. 4-285

4.21.2 Mandatory Findings of California Environmental Quality Act 

Significance ........................................................................................ 4-287

4.22 Anticipated Permits ........................................................................................ 4-290

5.0 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Public Review and Comment .................................................................. 5-2

5.2 Regulatory Background ...................................................................................... 5-5

5.3 Description of Section 4(f) Properties ................................................................. 5-7

5.3.1 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources ............................. 5-7

5.3.2 Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges ..... 5-10

5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Properties .......................................................................... 5-13

5.4.1 Historic Properties and Archaeological Resources ............................... 5-13

5.4.2 Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges ..... 5-14

5.5 Determinations of Section 4(f) Uses ................................................................. 5-31

5.6 Agency Coordination and Consultation ............................................................ 5-32

6.0 COST AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Cost Estimate Methodology ............................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate Methodology ........................................................ 6-1

6.1.2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Methodology ...................... 6-2

6.2 Capital Plan ........................................................................................................ 6-2

6.2.1 Capital Cost Estimate for Refined Build Alternative ................................ 6-2

6.2.2 Proposed Capital Funding Sources for Refined Build Alternative .......... 6-3

6.2.3 Evaluation of Financial Capacity ............................................................. 6-5

6.3 Operating and Maintenance Plan ....................................................................... 6-5

6.3.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs ......................................................... 6-6

6.3.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources ....................................... 6-6

6.4 Cash Flow Analysis ............................................................................................ 6-8

6.4.1 Project Financing Assumptions .............................................................. 6-8

6.4.2 Project Cash Flow................................................................................... 6-9

 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

vi September 2014 

6.5 Risks and Uncertainties ...................................................................................... 6-9

6.5.1 Project Cost Uncertainties ...................................................................... 6-9

6.5.2 Project Funding Uncertainties ............................................................... 6-12

6.5.3 Mitigation Strategies ............................................................................. 6-13

7.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Effectiveness in Meeting Purpose and Need...................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Mobility and Accessibility ........................................................................ 7-2

7.1.2 Efficiency ................................................................................................ 7-5

7.1.3 Reliability ................................................................................................ 7-5

7.2 Effectiveness in Supporting Other Local Goals .................................................. 7-6

7.2.1 Livability .................................................................................................. 7-6

7.2.2 Sustainability .......................................................................................... 7-7

7.2.3 Equity ...................................................................................................... 7-8

7.3 Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 7-8

7.4 Feasibility ........................................................................................................... 7-9

7.5 Environmental and Other Considerations......................................................... 7-10

7.5.1 Traffic Impacts ...................................................................................... 7-10

7.5.2 Visual Impacts ...................................................................................... 7-11

7.5.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 7-11

7.5.4 Construction Impacts ............................................................................ 7-12

7.6 Summary of Important Trade-offs ..................................................................... 7-13

7.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................... 7-14

8.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH, AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................ 8-1

8.1 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 Public and Agency Outreach Prior to Scoping ................................................... 8-2

8.2.1 Overview of Outreach Activities .............................................................. 8-2

8.2.2 Project Working Group ........................................................................... 8-3

8.3 Scoping .............................................................................................................. 8-4

8.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Scoping ........................................ 8-4

8.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act Scoping ............................................ 8-7

8.4 Public and Agency Outreach during Preparation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR ........ 8-10

8.4.1 Public and Stakeholder Coordination Activities .................................... 8-10

8.4.2 Agency Consultation Activities .............................................................. 8-10

8.5 Draft SEIS/SEIR Comment Period ................................................................... 8-13

8.5.1 Public Meetings and Hearing ................................................................ 8-14

8.5.2 Public and Agency Outreach during the Comment Period ................... 8-15

8.6 Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR .................................................................. 8-16

8.7 Comments on the Supplement ......................................................................... 8-17

8.8 Public and Agency Outreach since Close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR Public 

Review Period .................................................................................................. 8-19

8.8.1 Continued Public and Stakeholder Coordination Activities ................... 8-19

8.8.2 Agency Consultation Activities .............................................................. 8-20

REFERENCES 

LIST OF FINAL SEIS/SEIR PREPARERS 

LIST OF FINAL SEIS/SEIR RECIPIENTS 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 vii

List of Appendices 

APPENDIX A LIST OF TECHNICAL REPORTS IN SUPPORT OF FINAL SEIS/SEIR 

APPENDIX B NEPA AND CEQA NOTICES 

APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE 

APPENDIX D RECORD OF DECISION 

APPENDIX E PROJECT MEASURES 

Volume 2 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT FINAL SEIS/SEIR VOLUME 2: PLAN SET 

GENERAL PLANS ............................................................................................ SHEETS 001-005 

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLANS ......................................................................... SHEETS 006-108 

LOSSAN PLANS ............................................................................................... SHEETS 109-123 

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS .................................................................... SHEETS 124-197 

BIKE PATH PLANS .......................................................................................... SHEETS 198-207 

RETAINING WALL PLANS ............................................................................... SHEETS 208-281 

SUBSTATION PLANS ...................................................................................... SHEETS 282-297 

STATION PLANS .............................................................................................. SHEETS 298-366 

RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS ................................................................................... SHEETS 367-393 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

viii September 2014 

Volume 3 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT FINAL SEIS/SEIR VOLUME 3: COMMENTS 

AND RESPONSES 

VOLUME 3, PART 1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... I-1 

Master Responses ..................................................................................................... MR-1 

 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

 V3-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS/SEIR 

Index of Comment Submissions ........................................................................................ i 

Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................. 1 

State Agencies ................................................................................................................ 19 

Local Agencies .............................................................................................................. 103 

Tribes .......................................................................................................................... 135 

Elected officials ............................................................................................................. 141 

Groups/Organizations ................................................................................................... 153 

Businesses .................................................................................................................... 489 

VOLUME 3, PART 2 

 V3-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIS/SEIR (CONTINUED) 

Individuals ..................................................................................................................... 767 

Public Hearing – June 21, 2014 .................................................................................. 1403 

VOLUME 3, PART 3 

 V3-2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SUPPLEMENT 

Federal Agencies ........................................................................................................ 1493 

State Agencies ............................................................................................................ 1497 

Groups/Organizations ................................................................................................. 1503 

Individuals ................................................................................................................... 1511 

V3-3 OTHER CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

DOCUMENT 

Groups/Organizations ................................................................................................. 1519 

Businesses .................................................................................................................. 1549 

Individuals ................................................................................................................... 1713 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 ix

List of Figures 

Figure S-1. Location of Mid-Coast Corridor ......................................................................... S-3

Figure S-2. Mid-Coast Corridor ............................................................................................ S-4

Figure S-3. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements ......................................... S-10

Figure S-4. Refined Build Alternative ................................................................................. S-11

Figure 1-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Study Area .......................................................................... 1-4

Figure 1-2. Travel Analysis Districts ..................................................................................... 1-6

Figure 1-3. Existing Transportation System in the Mid-Coast Corridor ............................... 1-12

Figure 1-4. Existing Trolley System .................................................................................... 1-13

Figure 1-5. Bus Service in the Mid-Coast Corridor ............................................................. 1-14

Figure 1-6. Highway and Transit Travel Times between Travel Analysis Districts, 

Existing Conditions in 2010 .............................................................................. 1-19

Figure 1-7. Highway Travel Time between Travel Analysis Districts, 2010 and 2030 

without Project .................................................................................................. 1-20

Figure 1-8. Transit Travel Time between Travel Analysis Districts, 2010 and 2030 

without Project .................................................................................................. 1-21

Figure 2-1. Voigt Drive Alignment Options on UCSD Campus ............................................. 2-5

Figure 2-2. Refined LPA Alignment on UCSD Campus ........................................................ 2-6

Figure 2-3. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements .......................................... 2-10

Figure 2-4. No-Build Alternative Major Bus Routes ............................................................ 2-12

Figure 2-5. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan in 2030 ........................................ 2-14

Figure 2-6. Build Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-7. Refinements to Voigt Drive Alignment .............................................................. 2-20

Figure 2-8. Refinements to Traction Power Substations .................................................... 2-23

Figure 2-9. Refinements to Construction Staging Areas ..................................................... 2-27

Figure 2-10. Refined Build Alternative .................................................................................. 2-29

Figure 2-11. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Refined Build Alternative ................................. 2-31

Figure 2-12. Site Concept for Tecolote Road Station ........................................................... 2-37

Figure 2-13. Site Concept for Clairemont Drive Station ........................................................ 2-38

Figure 2-14. Site Concept for Balboa Avenue Station .......................................................... 2-39

Figure 2-15. Site Concept for Nobel Drive Station ................................................................ 2-40

Figure 2-16. Site Concept for VA Medical Center Station..................................................... 2-41

Figure 2-17. Site Concept for UCSD West Station ............................................................... 2-42

Figure 2-18. Site Concept for UCSD East Station ................................................................ 2-43

Figure 2-19. Site Concept for Executive Drive Station.......................................................... 2-44

Figure 2-20. Site Concept for UTC Transit Center ................................................................ 2-45

Figure 2-21. Existing Traction Power Substation at a Street North of Santa Fe Depot ........ 2-46

Figure 2-22. Traction Power Substation Layout.................................................................... 2-46

Figure 2-23. Refined Build Alternative Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan ...................... 2-50
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

x September 2014 

Figure 2-24. Refined Build Alternative 2030 Trolley Operating Plan .................................... 2-51

Figure 3-1. Southern Subarea ............................................................................................ 3-16

Figure 3-2. Northern Subarea ............................................................................................. 3-17

Figure 3-3. Major Bicycle Facilities in the Mid-Coast Corridor ............................................ 3-27

Figure 3-4. Rose Canyon Bicycle Path ............................................................................... 3-28

Figure 3-5. Comparison of Transit Travel Times between Travel Analysis Districts— 

Existing Conditions (2010) and No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives 

(2030) ............................................................................................................... 3-41

Figure 3-6. Bus Routes Serving Proposed Trolley Stations— Refined Build 

Alternative (2030) ............................................................................................. 3-45

Figure 3-7. Mitigation Measures for the Refined Build Alternative (2030) .......................... 3-65

Figure 3-8. Continuous Closures at Intersections and on Roadways ............................... 3-100

Figure 3-9. Temporary Off-Street Parking Impact Locations ............................................ 3-112

Figure 4-1. Existing Land Uses ............................................................................................. 4-8

Figure 4-2. Existing Land Uses within One-half Mile of Refined Build Alternative 

Stations .............................................................................................................. 4-9

Figure 4-3. Population, Housing, and Employment Density in the Mid-Coast Corridor ..... 4-18

Figure 4-4. Communities and Neighborhoods within One-half Mile of the Project 

Alignment ......................................................................................................... 4-20

Figure 4-5. Community, Park, and Recreational Facilities within One-Half Mile of the 

Project Alignment ............................................................................................. 4-24

Figure 4-6. Refined Build Alternative—Full and Partial Property Acquisitions .................... 4-34

Figure 4-7. Unique Forms of Michael Graves Building (Hyatt Regency) ............................ 4-41

Figure 4-8. Views to Mission Bay from the Bay Park Neighborhood .................................. 4-41

Figure 4-9. Overview of Mission Bay .................................................................................. 4-41

Figure 4-10. Mormon Temple ............................................................................................... 4-42

Figure 4-11. San Diego River ............................................................................................... 4-42

Figure 4-12. Candidate Key View Photo Locations .............................................................. 4-43

Figure 4-13. Key View No. 8 (Looking southwest on La Jolla Colony Drive near 

Gilman Drive and I-5) ....................................................................................... 4-46

Figure 4-14. Key View No. 26 (Looking southbound on I-5 south of Nobel Drive) .............. 4-47

Figure 4-15. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites ............................................................... 4-60

Figure 4-16. FTA Noise Impact Criteria ................................................................................ 4-76

Figure 4-17. Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis ............................................................. 4-78

Figure 4-18. Noise Measurement and Impact Locations (South) ......................................... 4-80

Figure 4-19. Noise Measurement and Impact Locations (North) .......................................... 4-81

Figure 4-20. Vibration Impact Location ................................................................................. 4-85

Figure 4-21. California Gnatcatcher ...................................................................................... 4-95

Figure 4-22. San Diego Fairy Shrimp ................................................................................... 4-95

Figure 4-23. Study Area Hydrologic Units, Areas, and Subareas ....................................... 4-123
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 xi

Figure 4-24. Study Area Associated FEMA Flood Zones ................................................... 4-126

Figure 4-25. Study Area Sites of Environmental Concern .................................................. 4-135

Figure 4-26. Faults and Tsunami Inundation Area ............................................................. 4-142

Figure 4-27. Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................... 4-143

Figure 4-28. Location of Fire Stations Relative to Grade Crossings ................................... 4-164

Figure 4-29. Modified Electrical System with Parallel Feeder Cable Below Tracks ............ 4-172

Figure 4-30. Linda Vista Housing Project .......................................................................... 4-183

Figure 4-31. Historic Architectural Properties Eligible for Listing in the NRHP and 

CRHR within the Historic Architectural APE .................................................. 4-185

Figure 4-32. Typical Construction Sequence and Average Construction Time .................. 4-200

Figure 4-33. Typical At-Grade Guideway............................................................................ 4-200

Figure 4-34. Typical Elevated Guideway ............................................................................ 4-201

Figure 4-35. Construction Staging Areas ............................................................................ 4-203

Figure 4-36. Temporary Encroachment by Land Use Type ................................................ 4-209

Figure 4-37. Mid-Coast Corridor EJ Populations ................................................................ 4-277

Figure 5-1. Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of Project ........................ 5-11

Figure 5-2. Construction Activities in Marian Bear Memorial Park ...................................... 5-21

Figure 5-3. Construction Areas in Mission Valley Preserve Open Space and the 

Ocean Beach Bicycle Path ............................................................................... 5-26

Figure 5-4. Clearance at Ocean Beach Bicycle Path.......................................................... 5-30
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

xii September 2014 

List of Tables 

Table S-1. Alternatives Considered in Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report ...... S-7

Table S-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................... S-13

Table 1-1. 2010 and 2030 Daily Trips To, From, and Within the Mid-Coast Corridor 

by Trip Purpose .................................................................................................. 1-8

Table 1-2. Direction of Daily External Trips to/from New Trolley Service Area, 2010 

and 2030 ............................................................................................................ 1-9

Table 1-3. Existing Transit System Performance, 2010 .................................................... 1-18

Table 1-4. Highway Peak Period/Peak Direction Levels of Service, 2008 ........................ 1-23

Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered in Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report ....... 2-4

Table 2-2. No-Build Alternative Bus Operating Plan in 2030 ............................................. 2-13

Table 2-3. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan ..................................................... 2-15

Table 2-4. Traction Power Substation Locations ............................................................... 2-47

Table 2-5. Trolley Operating Plans .................................................................................... 2-49

Table 2-6. Refined Build Alternative Bus Routes Serving Trolley Stations ........................ 2-53

Table 3-1. Daily Trips by Mode—2010 and 2030 ................................................................ 3-4

Table 3-2. Daily Transit Trips by Trip Purpose—2010 and 2030 ......................................... 3-5

Table 3-3. Major Transit Routes Serving the Mid-Coast Corridor—Existing 

Conditions .......................................................................................................... 3-7

Table 3-4. MTS Transit Boardings by Service Type—Fiscal Year 2010 ........................... 3-13

Table 3-5. Mid-Coast Corridor Daily VMT and VHD—Existing Conditions (2010) ............ 3-15

Table 3-6. A.M. and P.M. Peak-Hour ILV Performance—Existing Conditions (2010) ....... 3-18

Table 3-7. Daily Arterial Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS—2010 ................................. 3-20

Table 3-8. Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections .................................................. 3-22

Table 3-9. A.M. and P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection Performance in the Southern 

Subarea—2010 ................................................................................................ 3-24

Table 3-10. A.M. and P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection Performance in the Northern 

Subarea—2010 ................................................................................................ 3-25

Table 3-11. Daily Revenue Miles, Revenue Hours, and In-Service Hours—Existing 

Conditions and No-Build Alternative ................................................................. 3-32

Table 3-12. Daily Passenger Miles in Exclusive and Semi-Exclusive Right-of-Way— 

Existing Conditions (2010) and No-Build Alternative (2030) ............................ 3-34

Table 3-13. Passengers per In-Service Hour—2010 and 2030 ........................................... 3-35

Table 3-14. Comparison of Transit Boardings between 2010 and 2030 ............................. 3-37

Table 3-15. Comparison of Daily Revenue Miles, Revenue Hours, and In-Service 

Hours—No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives (2030) .................................. 3-39

Table 3-16. Daily Passenger Miles in Exclusive and Semi-Exclusive Right-of-Way—

2030 ................................................................................................................. 3-41

Table 3-17. Comparison of Transit Boardings during Peak and Off-Peak Periods—

2030 ................................................................................................................. 3-43

Table 3-18. Average Daily Boardings—Refined Build Alternative (2030) ............................ 3-46
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 xiii

Table 3-19. Daily Mode of Access to Proposed Trolley Stations— Refined Build 

Alternative (2030) ............................................................................................. 3-46

Table 3-20. Summary of Transit Performance—2010 and 2030 ......................................... 3-47

Table 3-21. Mid-Coast Corridor Daily VMT and VHD—2010 and 2030 .............................. 3-51

Table 3-22. Peak-Hour Signalized Intersection ILV Analysis—2030 ................................... 3-52

Table 3-23. Daily Arterial Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS—2010 and 2030 ................. 3-52

Table 3-24. Comparison of Bi-directional Train Crossings in the Two-Hour Peak 

Period between 2010 and 2030 ....................................................................... 3-54

Table 3-25. Intersection Level of Service and Delay (2010 and 2030) ................................ 3-60

Table 3-26. Summary of Adverse Impacts at Intersections—Refined Build Alternative 

(2030) ............................................................................................................... 3-62

Table 3-27. Intersection Mitigation Measures by Location .................................................. 3-63

Table 3-28. Traffic Impact Thresholds ................................................................................. 3-71

Table 3-29. Spillover Parking Demand—2010 and 2030 .................................................... 3-78

Table 3-30. Impacts on Parking—Refined Build Alternative (2030) .................................... 3-79

Table 3-31. Spillover Parking Demand—2010 .................................................................... 3-84

Table 3-32. Transit Routes Affected by Construction .......................................................... 3-94

Table 3-33. Construction-related Impacts to Freeways and Roadways .............................. 3-97

Table 3-34. Continuous Closures at Intersections ............................................................. 3-101

Table 3-35. Construction-related Impacts to Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................. 3-106

Table 3-36. Temporary Off-street Parking Impacts during Construction ........................... 3-111 

Table 4-1. Population, Housing, and Employment—2010 ................................................. 4-17

Table 4-2. Summary Comparison of Demographics for Potentially Affected MidCoast Corridor Neighborhoods ......................................................................... 4-21

Table 4-3. Summary of Property Acquisitions—Refined Build Alternative ........................ 4-35

Table 4-4. Summary of Impacts for Final Key Views ......................................................... 4-45

Table 4-5. Summary of Mitigation Measures and Impacts for Final Key Views ................. 4-53

Table 4-6. Regional Air Quality Attainment Status ............................................................ 4-60

Table 4-7. Ambient Air Quality Monitored Data, 2008–2010 ............................................. 4-61

Table 4-8. Existing and Projected Criteria Pollutant Emission Burdens, 2010 and 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 4-62

Table 4-9. Existing and Projected Greenhouse Gas Emission Burdens, 2010 and 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 4-68

Table 4-10. FTA Noise Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics ........................................ 4-75

Table 4-11. FHWA/Caltrans Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria .................. 4-77

Table 4-12. FTA Vibration Impact Criteria ........................................................................... 4-77

Table 4-13. Noise Impacts Evaluated for Mitigation ............................................................ 4-82

Table 4-14. Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 4-86

Table 4-15. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ...................................................... 4-94

Table 4-16. Impacts to Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources by Vegetation Type .................. 4-105
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

xiv September 2014 

Table 4-17. Impacts to Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources by Watershed ........................... 4-106

Table 4-18. Impacts to Wetland and Tier II Vegetation Communities/ Land Covers 

within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area............................................................ 4-110

Table 4-19. Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Wetland Vegetation Communities ........... 4-111

Table 4-20. Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Tier II and Tier IIIB Vegetation 

Communities within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area ...................................... 4-112

Table 4-21. Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Tier II and Tier IIIB Vegetation 

Communities Outside the Multi-Habitat Planning Area .................................. 4-112

Table 4-22. Proposed Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Aquatic 

Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-114

Table 4-23. Study Area Hydrologic Unit Classification ...................................................... 4-122

Table 4-24. Section 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies........................................................... 4-124

Table 4-25. FEMA Flood Zones and Associated Waters within the Study Area ................ 4-125

Table 4-26. Proposed BMPs and Treatment Efficiencies .................................................. 4-129

Table 4-27. Existing and Projected Future Daily Energy Use (mBtus) .............................. 4-155

Table 4-28. Static Magnetic Field Thresholds for Sensitive Instruments ........................... 4-168

Table 4-29. Historic Architectural Properties Eligible for Listing in the NRHP and 

CRHR within the Historic Architectural APE ................................................... 4-184

Table 4-30. Determinations of Eligibility for Archaeological Resources within the 

Archaeological APE ........................................................................................ 4-187

Table 4-31. Refined Build Alternative Temporary Construction Easements ...................... 4-205

Table 4-32. Employment, Earnings, and Output Generated by Construction-Phase 

Expenditures .................................................................................................. 4-210

Table 4-33. Annual Construction Emissions (Tons/Year) .................................................. 4-214

Table 4-34. Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) .......................................................... 4-214

Table 4-35. Temporary Construction Site BMPs ............................................................... 4-234

Table 4-36. 2010 Demographic and Socioeconomic Data—Mid-Coast Corridor .............. 4-278

Table 4-37. Applicable Project-related Permits and Agreements ...................................... 4-290

Table 5-1. Historic Properties Eligible for Listing in the NRHP within the APE .................... 5-9

Table 5-2. Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of Project ........................ 5-12

Table 5-3. Section 4(f) Use of Historic Properties within the APE ..................................... 5-13

Table 5-4. Section 4(f) Use of Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of 

the Alignment and Stations .............................................................................. 5-15

Table 5-5. Summary of Section 4(f) Uses of Resources ................................................... 5-32 

Table 6-1. Capital Cost Estimates by Standard Cost Category ........................................... 6-3

Table 6-2. Total Allocated and Unallocated Contingencies (2013$, Millions) ...................... 6-3

Table 6-3. Proposed Capital Funding Sources (YOE$, Millions) ......................................... 6-4

Table 6-4. Annual O&M Costs for FY 2030 for No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives (YOE$ Millions) ............................................................................... 6-6

Table 6-5. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Financing Costs (YOE$ Millions) ................ 6-9
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 xv

Table 6-6. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Sources and Uses of Funds (YOE$ 

Millions) ............................................................................................................ 6-10

Table 7-1. Effectiveness of Alternatives—Mobility and Accessibility Benefits ..................... 7-3

Table 7-2. Effectiveness of Alternatives—Sustainability Benefits ........................................ 7-7

Table 7-3. Benefits to Low-Income Persons in 2030 ........................................................... 7-8

Table 7-4. Financial Feasibility ............................................................................................ 7-9

Table 8-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Working Group ............................................ 8-4

Table 8-2. Publications Used for Public Notices .................................................................. 8-5

Table 8-3. Public Libraries Receiving Public Notices .......................................................... 8-5

Table 8-4. CEQA Public Scoping Meetings ......................................................................... 8-6

Table 8-5. Publications Used for Public Notices of the Draft SEIS/SEIR Comment 

Period ............................................................................................................... 8-14

Table 8-6. Publications Used for Advertisement of Public Meetings and Public 

Hearing for the Draft SEIS/SEIR Comment Period .......................................... 8-14

Table 8-7. Public Meetings and Hearing ........................................................................... 8-15

Table 8-8. Number of Submissions and Comments by Affiliation ...................................... 8-16

Table 8-9. Publications Supplement SEIS/SEIR Comment Period ................................... 8-17

Table 8-10. Publications Used for Advertisement of Supplement Comment Period ........... 8-17

Table 8-11. Number of Submissions and Comments by Affiliation ...................................... 8-18

 
Final SEIS/SEIR Table of Contents 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

xvi September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 xvii

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

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

2030 RTP 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future

2050 RTP 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future 

3-D Three dimensional 

AA/DEIS/DEIR Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

AB Assembly Bill 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

A-PA Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act 

APE Area of Potential Effects 

AWDT Average weekday daily traffic 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

C&S Communications and signaling 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

California Act California Relocation Assistance Act 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBC California Building Code 

CCC California Coastal Commission 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game (name changed to California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife on January 1, 2013) 

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of 

Fish and Game) 

CDP Coastal Development Permit 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon monoxide 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

xviii September 2014 

Coastal Act California Coastal Act 

CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DAR Direct access ramp 

dB Decibel 

dBA A-weighted scale decibel 

DPA Designated Project Archaeologist 

du/acre Dwelling units per acre 

EIR Environmental Impact Report 

EJ Environmental Justice 

EMF Electromagnetic field 

EMI Electromagnetic interference 

EMP Environmental Mitigation Program 

EO Executive Order 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area 

Esri Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FY Fiscal year 

GANs Grant Anticipation Notes 

GHG Greenhouse gases 

HOV High-occupancy vehicle 

I- Interstate 

ILV Intersecting lane vehicles 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 xix

JSA Joint Safety Analysis 

LCP LUP Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan 

Ldn Day-Night Noise Level 

Leq Equivalent Noise Level 

LID Low impact development 

LOS Level of service 

LOSSAN Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency 

LPA Locally Preferred Alternative 

LRDP Long Range Development Plan 

LRT Light rail transit 

LRV Light rail vehicle 

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

mBtus Million British thermal units 

MCAS Marine Corps Air Station 

mG milligauss 

MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

MRI Magnetic resonance imaging 

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program 

MTDB Metropolitan Transit Development Board 

MTS Metropolitan Transit System 

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria 

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 

NCTD North County Transit District 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NOA Notice of Availability 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

xx September 2014 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOP Notice of Preparation 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

O&M Operating and maintenance 

O3 Ozone 

OCS Overhead catenary system 

OTTC Old Town Transit Center 

Pb Lead 

PE Preliminary Engineering 

PM10 Particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 

PM2.5 Particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 

PRC Public Resources Code 

PRMMP Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 

Project Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RMS Root mean square 

ROD Record of Decision 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 

for Users 

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments 

SanGIS San Diego Geographic Information Source 

SB Senate Bill 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SCC Standard Cost Categories 

Scripps Hospital Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla 

SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District 

SDFD San Diego Fire-Rescue Department 

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric 

SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

Septmeber 2014 xxi

SEIS/SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent 

Environmental Impact Report 

Series 11 model SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SME Structural and Materials Engineering Building, UCSD 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SR State Route 

STA State Transit Assistance 

Supplement Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplement to the 

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

TDA Transportation Development Act 

TMP Transportation Management Plan 

TOD Transit-oriented development 

TOG Total organic gases 

TPSS Traction power substation 

Trolley San Diego Trolley 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

UCSD University of California, San Diego 

Uniform Act Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act, as amended 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

UTC University Towne Centre 

v/c Volume-to-capacity 

VA Veterans Administration 

Vdb Decibel notation 

VHD Vehicle hours of delay 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

xxii September 2014 

VMT Vehicle miles traveled 

WSEL Water surface elevation 

YOE Year-of-expenditure 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-1 

S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG) have prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project in San Diego, California. FTA is serving as lead agency for the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and SANDAG is serving as lead agency for 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This executive summary highlights the 

contents and findings of this Final SEIS/SEIR, including the study area for the project; 

project goals and purpose and need; alternatives under consideration; environmental 

impacts and mitigation measures for adverse or significant impacts; financial feasibility; 

public participation and agency coordination; the remaining issues to be resolved and 

decisions to be made regarding the project; next steps in the environmental and 

engineering phases of the project; and the intended use of this document. 

This Final SEIS/SEIR supplements the following environmental documents: the MidCoast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft 

Environmental Impact Report (Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a); 

the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b); and 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (MTDB, 2001). This Final SEIS/SEIR addresses the 

project elements and conditions in the Mid-Coast Corridor that have changed since the 

completion of these previous environmental studies. It also addresses public and 

agency comments received on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR

(SANDAG, 2013a) and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement/Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report (Supplement) (SANDAG, 2014ee) prepared for the impact to the federally 

endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) not evaluated in the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Final SEIS/SEIR also presents refinements to the Build Alternative 

and the results of a comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts and 

benefits of the alternatives under consideration for improving transit services in the MidCoast Corridor, as well as measures for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating any adverse or 

significant impacts. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is included in the 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007a). TransNet,

the San Diego County half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects, is expected to 

provide approximately 50 percent of the project’s capital cost. The remaining 50 percent 

is expected to come from the FTA New Starts program. Securing these federal funds 

will require successful completion of the FTA New Starts requirements for each project 

development phase. SANDAG applied for entry into the FTA New Starts Program on 

May 13, 2011, and FTA approved the project’s entry into the Preliminary Engineering 

project development phase of the New Starts Program on September 2, 2011. This 

Final SEIS/SEIR is part of this project phase. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-2 September 2014 

S.1 Mid-Coast Corridor Description 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is located in Southern California and lies within the County of San 

Diego. Figure S-1 shows the location of the corridor in relation to the San Diego region. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is centered on Interstate (I-) 5 and extends from Downtown San 

Diego on the south to the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and University City 

on the north. Located entirely within the City of San Diego, the Mid-Coast Corridor is 

bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and by I-805 and State Route (SR) 163 on 

the east. The corridor is topographically varied, with terrain ranging from coastal 

beaches and bays to inland areas containing steep hillsides and narrow canyons. It 

covers a cross-section of habitats, including a diverse range of riparian, marsh, open 

water, upland scrub and chaparral, and grasslands. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is characterized by dense urban centers and an abundance of 

regional activity centers and other major trip generators. Dense population and 

employment centers currently anchor both the northern and southern ends of the MidCoast Corridor. The UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping center, and regional 

hospitals are clustered in the northern part of the corridor and represent the secondmost dense land uses in the county. At the southern end of the corridor is the region’s 

only identified Metropolitan Center—Downtown San Diego—with the region’s densest 

land uses and high-rise development. Other major land uses within or immediately 

adjacent to the corridor are shown in Figure S-2 and listed below: 

 Regional hospitals: Scripps Green Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla 

(Scripps Hospital), UCSD Thornton Hospital, Veterans Administration (VA) Medical 

Center, UCSD Medical Center Hillcrest, and Scripps Mercy Hospital 

 Major colleges and universities: UCSD, University of San Diego, San Diego Mesa 

College, and San Diego City College 

 Regional shopping centers: Westfield UTC, Fashion Valley, and Westfield Horton 

Plaza 

 Major parks and visitor attractions: Mission Bay Park, San Diego Zoo, SeaWorld 

San Diego, Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, Balboa Park, the Gaslamp 

Quarter, San Diego Convention Center, Petco Park, Rose Canyon Open Space 

Park, and Marian Bear Memorial Park 

 San Diego International Airport 

The Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (RCP) (SANDAG, 2004a) 

calls for increased density in both the Downtown San Diego and University City areas, which 

are the population and employment centers anchoring the northern and southern ends of 

the corridor. A key implementation tool for local jurisdictions of the RCP is the Smart Growth 

Concept Map (SANDAG, 2008b) approved in 2006 and updated in 2008. The map 

identifies approximately 200 existing, planned, and potential smart growth locations 

identified by 18 cities and the County of San Diego as Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. All 

nine proposed stations in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project are located within Smart 

Growth Opportunity Areas. In addition, the corridor between the Tecolote Road and 

Clairemont Drive Stations is identified as a Mixed Use Transit Corridor. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-3 

Figure S-1. Location of Mid-Coast Corridor 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-4 September 2014 

Figure S-2. Mid-Coast Corridor 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-5 

S.2 Purpose and Need 

Chapter 1.0 presents the purpose and need for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

As stated in that chapter, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide for the 

implementation of transit improvements that improve transit service in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and University City. Although the 

Mid-Coast Corridor is currently served by transit, the existing transit system does not 

offer the level of service needed to meet the region’s goals for mobility, accessibility, 

reliability, and efficiency, as defined in the 2030 RTP. The COASTER commuter rail 

service passes through the corridor, but its stations are widely spaced and it does not 

have a station in close proximity to UCSD or University Towne Centre (UTC). The 

existing San Diego Trolley (Trolley) Blue Line currently terminates at the Old Town 

Transit Center (OTTC). 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.

To meet the region’s goals most effectively, the Mid-Coast Corridor needs a transit system 

that is better able to serve the major travel destinations of UCSD and the UTC Transit 

Center in University City. This transit system must provide a frequency of service, speed, 

and reliability that would better serve existing transit riders and attract new riders. The 

project, which extends the Trolley Blue Line north and connects with the other Trolley lines 

using an exclusive right-of-way for transit, would shorten travel times, improve reliability, and 

reduce the number of transfers required for travel to destinations in University City. This 

would improve service for existing riders and attract new riders. In addition, one-seat rides 

(trips that do not require a transfer) would be available from the U.S.–Mexico 

international border to University City, and between communities in South San Diego 

County, Downtown San Diego, and University City, making transit an attractive 

alternative to travel by automobile. 

S.3 Alternatives Considered 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Draft 

Environmental Impact Report (MTDB, 1995a) was completed in February 1995. In 

December 1995, MTDB certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor (MTDB, 1995b) for purposes of CEQA and adopted a Locally Preferred 

Alternative (LPA) to extend the existing Trolley light rail transit (LRT) system from the 

OTTC north to University City. An initial phase of the project, extending from just south of 

the San Diego River to Balboa Avenue, was the subject of a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (MTDB, 2001), and FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in August 2001. 

Following transfer of MTDB planning, programming, project development, and construction 

functions to SANDAG, the SANDAG Board of Directors in December 2003 approved an 

update to the 1995 LPA alignment to better serve the UCSD campus on both the east 

and west sides of I-5 and to improve connections with existing and planned transit 

services at the UTC Transit Center. In April 2005, the SANDAG Transportation 

Committee approved re-combining the Balboa Extension with the University City 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-6 September 2014 

Extension into a single project extending from the OTTC to University City and approved 

initiating the supplemental environmental review for the project. 

In 2008, SANDAG initiated an analysis of changed conditions in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

to identify and evaluate changes in the physical and regulatory environment that had 

occurred following the completion of previous environmental studies. The analysis 

included consideration of alternatives to the updated LPA alignment and station 

locations, including an evaluation of rapid bus, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail 

alternative modes to improve transit service between Downtown San Diego and 

University City. The alternative modes and alignments considered in the study were 

developed based on the transportation needs identified in Chapter 1.0, including 

increasing the speed and reliability of transit service, reducing transfers, and expanding 

transit capacity in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The alternatives were evaluated against a 

No-Build Alternative that assumed all of the highway and transit facilities in the Revenue 

Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP except for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, 

which was excluded from the alternative to represent conditions in the corridor without 

the project. It was assumed that existing bus Route 150, operating between Downtown 

San Diego and University City, would be continued and enhanced to address the 

increased transit demand projected for the corridor. The results of the analysis of 

changed conditions and the evaluation process for the project are documented in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report

(SANDAG, 2010e). The conceptual alternatives considered are described in detail in the 

report and summarized in Table S-1, along with the results of the study. 

SANDAG conducted CEQA scoping for the Draft SEIS/SEIR in 2010, and the results 

and comments received are documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f). On 

July 23, 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors, after considering public input received 

during scoping, reconfirmed the previously adopted LPA, which was refined to include 

direct service to UCSD and UTC, and the No-Build Alternative for evaluation in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. The SANDAG Board of Directors also approved evaluation of a station at 

the VA Medical Center during the development of the draft environmental document. On 

July 12, 2011, FTA issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register inviting comments 

on the proposed scope of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the purpose and need for the project, 

and the alternatives to be included in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In addition, SANDAG 

conducted numerous outreach activities. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

National Environmental Policy Act Scoping Report (SANDAG, 2011b) documents the 

NEPA scoping process and its results, and includes the comments received, which were 

similar to comments provided during the CEQA scoping process and/or previously 

identified concerns. All comments from both the NEPA and CEQA scoping processes 

were considered in the preparation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

Following reconfirmation of the LPA by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 2010 and 

NEPA scoping, SANDAG conducted additional studies and coordinated with project 

stakeholders, which resulted in a number of refinements to the alignment, station 

locations and facilities, and the LRT operating plan. The refinements were made in 

consultation with project stakeholders, including the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans), the City of San Diego, the Metropolitan Transit System, and 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-7 

Table S-1. Alternatives Considered in Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report 

Transit Mode Characteristics of Transit Mode Description of Alternative(s) Results of Evaluation 

TSM Rapid Bus • Buses operating at grade in mixedflow lanes

• Clean fuel (compressed natural 

gas) powered bus with rubber tires 

• 60 mph maximum or posted speed

• Up to 60-foot-long articulated bus

• Capacity: Up to 84 passengers per 

bus, with standees

• New rapid bus route connecting 

Downtown San Diego, Old 

Town, UCSD, and UTC, with 

limited-stop service along Pacific

Highway and Morena Boulevard 

and express service in HOV 

lanes to Nobel Drive

• Eliminated from consideration because 

it would not substantially improve travel 

times, ridership, or reliability

Bus Rapid Transit • Stylized buses operating at grade, 

below grade, or above grade in 

exclusive, semi-exclusive, and 

shared lanes

• Clean fuel (compressed natural 

gas) powered bus with rubber tires 

• 65 mph maximum speed

• Up to 65-foot-long articulated bus

• Capacity: Up to 100 passengers 

per bus, with standees

• Four BRT alternatives were 

considered, providing a 

combination of exclusive bus 

lanes, semi-exclusive bus or 

HOV lanes, and shared lanes 

from Downtown San Diego north 

to University City

• Eliminated from consideration because 

of lack of effectiveness in meeting 

regional goals (i.e., low ridership, 

consistency with regional and local land 

use plans), cost effectiveness, and 

likelihood of securing FTA New Starts 

funds

Light Rail Transit • Trains operating at grade, below 

grade, or above grade in exclusive 

lanes or fixed guideway

• Electrically powered via overhead 

power contact system and 

substations for power distribution

• 55 mph maximum speed

• Maximum four cars per train

• Capacity: 600 passengers per 

three-car train, with standees

• Seven potential alternatives 

were identified for extension of 

the Trolley Blue Line north to 

University City 

• All alternatives followed the MTS 

right-of-way to just north of SR 

52 

• LRT Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 

and 7 followed I-5 to the UCSD 

campus and then turned east to 

terminate at the UTC Transit 

Center 

• LRT Alternative 3 followed the 

MTS right-of-way east to 

Genesee Avenue, turned north 

via a new tunnel to the UTC 

Transit Center, and then turned 

west to terminate on the UCSD 

West Campus

• Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 following Voigt 

Drive and Genesee Avenue combined 

into a single alternative (i.e., Alternative 

1) and reconfirmed as the LPA

• Alternative 2 following Regents Road 

and Executive Drive eliminated 

because of impacts on traffic and 

property access

• Alternative 3 following MTS right-of-way 

to Genesee Avenue eliminated because

of public comments on impacts to Rose 

Canyon and additional biological 

impacts

• Alternative 6 turning south of Voigt 

Drive to UCSD Thornton Hospital 

eliminated because of operational, 

biological, and property access impacts

• Alternative 7 eliminated because of lack 

of service to UCSD West Campus

Commuter Rail Transit • Trains operating at grade, below 

grade, or above grade

• Tracks shared with intercity and 

freight trains

• Diesel-propelled locomotives

• 79 mph maximum speed

• Trains generally consist of up to 

five double-deck passenger cars 

• Capacity: 675 seated passengers 

per train

• New commuter rail service to the

University City area. The new 

service would have been 

operated as a shuttle from the 

Santa Fe Depot in Downtown 

San Diego to a new station at 

the UTC Transit Center via a 

new tunnel under UTC

• Commuter rail eliminated because of 

lack of effectiveness in meeting regional

goals (i.e., low ridership, consistency 

with regional and local land use plans), 

cost effectiveness, and likelihood of 

securing FTA New Starts funds

Source: SANDAG, 2010e 

Note: BRT = bus rapid transit; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; LRT = light rail transit; mph = miles 

per hour; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; SR = State Route; TSM = Transportation Systems Management; UCSD = University 

of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-8 September 2014 

UCSD. SANDAG also coordinated with Scripps Hospital and the VA Medical Center. 

The refinements to the LPA were incorporated into the Build Alternative that was 

evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Build Alternative was evaluated against the NoBuild Alternative and existing conditions in 2010, which was when SANDAG issued the 

CEQA Notice of Preparation. 

On May 17, 2013, FTA issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIS/SEIR in the 

Federal Register, inviting comments during a 60-day comment and review period from 

May 17, 2013 through July 17, 2013. SANDAG filed the Notice of Completion of the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR with the State Clearinghouse on May 14, 2013. Four public meetings 

and one public hearing were held during the public comment and review period to solicit 

comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. All comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

along with responses to the comments, are included in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 3: Comments and Responses. 

Subsequent to distribution of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a new impact to the federally listed 

endangered San Diego fairy shrimp was identified. A limited-scope environmental 

document was prepared as a supplement to the Draft SEIS/SEIR to address this new 

impact. On July 17, 2014, the FTA and SANDAG issued a Notice of Availability for the 

Supplement in the Federal Register, inviting comments on the potential impacts to, and 

proposed mitigation for, the San Diego fairy shrimp. The Supplement was made 

available for a 45-day review and comment period from July 17 to September 2, 2014. 

The Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on July 11, 2014. All 

comments received on the Supplement, along with responses to the comments, are 

included in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 3: 

Comments and Responses. 

Several of the comments received during the comment period for the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

required consideration prior to selection of the potential refinements to the Build 

Alternative for evaluation in the Final SEIS/SEIR due to their potential to affect the 

alignment, stations, or other elements of the Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. Comments also were received in support of, or in opposition to, the VA 

Medical Center Station Option and the Genesee Avenue Design Option evaluated in the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR. Consideration of these comments, coordination with agencies and 

stakeholders, and the evaluation of the Build Alternative and options in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR provided the basis for refinements to the Build Alternative, which led to the 

Refined Build Alternative evaluated in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

The SANDAG Board of Directors voted to approve the Refined Build Alternative on 

November 15, 2013, and to amend the Refined Build Alternative on May 9, 2014. The 

development and approval of the Refined Build Alternative are described in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build Alternative Report (SANDAG, 2014dd). 

The Refined Build Alternative generally reflects the Build Alternative with the addition of 

the VA Medical Center Station Option evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and some 

additional refinements to the LRT alignment, stations, traction power substations, and 

construction staging areas, as well as further engineering refinements. Many of the 

refinements were made to avoid or minimize impacts. The Genesee Avenue Design 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-9 

Option was eliminated from further consideration based on the evaluation in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR and comments received from the public during the comment period. The 

Refined Build Alternative is the preferred alternative under NEPA. 

S.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative is evaluated in the context of the existing transportation facilities 

and services in the Mid-Coast Corridor (as characterized in 2010) and other future facilities 

and services identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP. The NoBuild Alternative evaluated in this Final SEIS/SEIR is the same as in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

Figure S-3 identifies the location of the major transportation projects included in the 2030 

RTP within the Mid-Coast Corridor and assumed to exist in the No-Build Alternative. 

The No-Build Alternative also assumes other Trolley system improvements, including 

7.5-minute service frequencies during peak (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 

and the midday off-peak (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods on the Trolley Blue Line. 

Service during the early morning and evening hours would be less frequent. 

Because the No-Build Alternative provides the background transportation network 

against which the Refined Build Alternative’s impacts are identified and evaluated, the 

No-Build Alternative excludes the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project but does include 

continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 (as show in Figure S-3) that is planned 

for elimination in the 2030 RTP when the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project becomes 

operational. The route would operate in the proposed high-occupancy vehicle lanes on 

I-5 from the OTTC north to Nobel Drive. 

S.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative would extend the Trolley Blue Line from Santa Fe Depot in 

Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center in University City. The project would 

use the existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from Santa Fe Depot to north 

of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The Trolley Blue Line trains would share 

the tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains in this area. The project also would include 

construction of 10.9 miles of new double track that would extend from south of the San 

Diego River to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center. When completed, this project 

would provide for continuous service from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–

Mexico international border to University City. It would include 9 new stations (4 at 

grade and 5 elevated); 5 park-and-ride facilities with 1,170 parking spaces; 14 new and 

2 upgraded traction power substations; and 36 new low-floor LRT vehicles. New LRT 

stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel 

Drive, VA Medical Center, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Drive, and the UTC 

Transit Center. Figure S-4 shows the project alignment and station locations. 

The Refined Build Alternative operating plan would provide service every 7.5 minutes 

during peak and midday off-peak periods. Service during the early morning and evening 

hours would be less frequent. The total estimated capital cost of the project is $2,112 

million in year-of-expenditure dollars. Proposed FTA New Starts funding would provide 

$1,043 million, or 49.4 percent of the total capital cost. TransNet funds would provide 

the remaining capital costs. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-10 September 2014 

Figure S-3. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-11 

Figure S-4. Refined Build Alternative 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-12 September 2014 

S.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

This Final SEIS/SEIR includes an analysis of the affected environment and impacts on 

the social, economic, cultural, and natural environment that would result from 

construction and operation of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. All 

environmental impacts were analyzed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and 

local environmental regulations, and feasible mitigation measures were proposed to 

avoid or minimize adverse and significant impacts. 

The analysis results presented in this Final SEIS/SEIR indicate that the Refined Build 

Alternative would have no adverse and/or significant long-term, short-term 

(construction), and cumulative impacts to the following environmental areas: land use; 

climate change; water resources; hazardous materials; geotechnical, geologic, and 

seismic conditions; energy; safety and security; historic architectural resources; and 

utilities. For some of these environmental areas (i.e., water resources; hazardous 

materials; geotechnical, geologic, and seismic conditions; safety and security; historic 

architectural resources; and utilities), project measures, such as best management 

practices (BMPs), were incorporated into the project to avoid or minimize impacts, 

resulting in no adverse or significant impacts. A compendium of project measures is 

provided in Appendix E of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Mitigation measures would reduce or avoid long-term (operation) impacts to not adverse 

and/or less than significant for community and neighborhoods, visual and aesthetic 

resources, noise and vibration, ecosystems and biological resources, and 

electromagnetic interference. No long-term (operation) impacts would occur to 

archaeological resources. After mitigation, the Refined Build Alternative would result in 

long-term adverse and/or significant and unavoidable impacts on transportation (traffic). 

Mitigation measures would reduce short-term (construction) impacts to not adverse 

and/or less than significant for ecosystems and biological resources, archaeological 

resources, and paleontological resources. After mitigation, short-term (construction) 

impacts would result in adverse and/or significant and unavoidable impacts on 

transportation (transit, traffic, and parking), air quality, and noise and vibration. 

Construction would contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to economic and fiscal, 

air quality, and paleontological resources. 

During construction, project measures would minimize economic impacts and impacts to 

communities and neighborhoods. However, even though impacts of the Refined Build 

Alternative would not be adverse or significant, there could be adverse and significant 

cumulative impacts to communities and businesses in UCSD and University City 

because of other construction activity occurring concurrent with construction of the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

Adverse long- or short-term (construction) impacts remaining after mitigation also would 

affect environmental justice populations. These effects, however, would not be 

disproportionate. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-13 

Table S-2 summarizes the environmental impacts identified pursuant to NEPA and/or 

CEQA for the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives, the mitigation measures for the 

Refined Build Alternative, and the level of impact following mitigation. Impacts that were 

not adverse under NEPA or less than significant under CEQA are not included in Table 

S-2, although project measures and BMPs are identified in Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 for 

many of these impacts. No mitigation is identified for the No-Build Alternative because it 

is the no action alternative. Any impact or mitigation for projects assumed in the NoBuild Alternative would be determined through environmental review for those projects. 

Table S-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Freeway and Roadway Impacts before Mitigation (Section 3.4.2) Impacts after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Unacceptable level of service on 5 roadway segments and 16 

intersections 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Roadway impacts on Balboa Ave between I-5 SB on-ramp and I-5 NB offramp from Balboa Avenue Station traffic 

Intersection impacts from Balboa Avenue Station traffic: 

Mission Bay Dr and Garnet Ave 

Intersection impacts from increases in number of trains traveling through 

grade crossings: Beech St and Pacific Hwy 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Impacts to one roadway and 

two intersections would 

remain, resulting in adverse 

and significant project and 

cumulative impacts.

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Intersection impacts from increases in number of trains traveling through 

grade crossings: 

Ash St and Pacific Hwy; Ash St and India St; Beech St and Kettner Blvd; 

Beech St and India St; Cedar St and Pacific Hwy; Cedar St and Kettner 

Blvd; Sassafras St and Pacific Hwy; Washington St and Pacific Hwy SB 

Frontage Rd; Washington St and Pacific Hwy NB Frontage Rd; 

Washington St and Hancock St; Noell St and Hancock St; and 

Rosecrans St and Jefferson St 

Intersection impacts from UTC Transit Center traffic: Genesee Ave and 

Esplanade Ct/UTC Drwy 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation TR1: Ash St and Pacific Hwy:

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles traveling EB and WB and pedestrians crossing Pacific Hwy

 Modify existing signal phasing—change WB left turns from first movement served to be served later in 

the traffic cycle

TR2: Ash St and Kettner Blvd: 

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles traveling EB and WB 

TR3: Cedar St at Pacific Hwy 

 Modify existing signal phasing—vehicles making SB left turns would be served first; vehicles traveling 

SB would be served with NB through and right-turn movements 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-14 September 2014 

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles making SB left turns first, followed by WB vehicles; the exit phase 

also would serve pedestrians crossing Pacific Hwy 

 Lengthen SB left-turn lane to 650 feet 

TR4: Cedar St and Kettner Blvd 

 Add traffic signal (intersection is currently an all-way stop-controlled intersection) 

 Add exit phase to serve EB and WB vehicles 

 Add a 75-foot WB left-turn lane (one does not currently exist) 

TR5: Sassafras St at Pacific Hwy 

 Modify existing signal phasing—left turns on Sassafras St would have a protected turn phase 

(indicated by a green arrow) rather than yielding to vehicles traveling in the other direction

TR6: Sassafras St and Kettner Blvd 

 Modify existing EB approach geometry—right-turn lane would be modified to a shared 

through/right-turn lane with two receiving lanes on other side of Kettner Blvd, indicating that 

vehicles in that lane could turn right or continue through the intersection 

TR7: Washington St and NB Frontage Rd and Hancock St 

 Add exit phase to serve pedestrians and vehicles traveling EB and WB 

 Modify existing limited-service phase during preemption so that the WB left turn is served after 

the SB through movement 

 Modify existing NB approach geometry on the NB Frontage Rd to include a dedicated left-turn 

lane, one shared left-turn/through lane, and one dedicated right-turn lane 

TR8: Taylor St/Rosecrans St and Pacific Hwy 

 Add a second NB right-turn lane 

 Reconfigure EB approach to have a third through lane 

 Realign southern sidewalk east and west of intersection to preserve existing dedicated bus-only 

lane 

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles making an EB left turn, vehicles traveling EB and WB through 

the intersection, and pedestrians crossing Pacific Hwy 

 Lengthen NB left-turn lane by 40 feet 

 Modify SB approach geometry to include a second left-turn lane for general-purpose vehicles 

 Change WB left-turn phase from first movement served to be served later in the traffic cycle 

TR9: Taylor St and Congress St 

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles traveling EB and WB through the intersection 

TR10: Genesee Ave and Esplanade Ct/UTC Drwy 

 Modify WB approach geometry to add a WB left-turn lane, thus providing two left-turn lanes, one 

shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane 

No feasible mitigation is available for impacts to the Balboa Ave roadway segment or the Beech St at 

Pacific Hwy or Mission Bay Dr at Garnet Ave intersections; therefore, those adverse impacts would 

remain. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-15 

Construction Impacts—Transit Impacts before Mitigation (Section 3.4.7) Impacts after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Schedule impacts to the Trolley Green Line; longer travel times for 

MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus services 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Adverse and significant project 

impacts would remain to Trolley 

Green Line and MTS, NCTD, and 

UCSD bus schedules and wait times. 

Would also result in adverse and 

significant cumulative impacts for 

MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus routes. 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2 

Project measures to minimize impacts would include single track, reverse running, and/or temporary 

crossovers for the Trolley and bus detours, signage, and relocated bus stops for the MTS, NCTD, and 

UCSD bus systems. 

Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures were identified to further reduce construction impacts to transit; therefore, 

adverse and significant impacts would remain. 

Construction Impacts—Freeway and Roadway Impacts before Mitigation 

(Section 3.4.7) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Impacts on roadways and intersections in the corridor would result 

from continuous closures as well as intermittent off-peak and/or 

nighttime closures. Construction-related vehicles and equipment 

would travel on residential streets and local roadways not 

designed to handle construction traffic, resulting in an adverse 

impact. 

During construction of aerial structures along Genesee Ave, leftturn movements would be prohibited at the intersections of 

Regents Rd, Eastgate Mall, Executive Dr, Executive Square, La 

Jolla Village Dr, and Esplanade Ct/UTC Drwy. May result in 

diversion of traffic to adjacent intersections and nearby arterials, 

such as Regents Rd, Nobel Dr, and Towne Centre Dr 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Adverse and significant project and 

cumulative impacts would remain to 

streets and intersections, particularly 

along Genesee Ave.

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2 

Project measures would include a Transportation Management Plan, designated haul routes, and 

maintaining emergency vehicle access to minimize impacts. 

Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to further reduce construction impacts to freeway 

and roadways; therefore, adverse and significant impacts would remain. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-16 September 2014 

Construction Impacts—Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts before Mitigation 

(Section 3.4.7) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Some bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be closed 

temporarily. Closure of bicycle lanes may require bicyclists to 

share the roadway with automobiles. 

A segment of the Class I Rose Canyon Bicycle Facility would 

require closure between Santa Fe St and La Jolla Colony Dr and 

there would be an adverse impact on bicyclists using this facility. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2 

Project measures would include a Transportation Management Plan, detours, channelizing pedestrian flow 

away from construction zones, signage to guide pedestrians and bicyclists to detour routes, using barriers 

and fencing to prevent access through construction zones, and providing warning to pedestrians and 

bicyclists in advance of closures. Temporary crosswalks would be provided at Genesee Avenue and La 

Jolla Village Drive. Advanced warning signs and pavement markings would be used for the Ocean Beach 

Bicycle Path. 

Mitigation TCON1: Construct a temporary bicycle path adjacent to the construction site along the Rose Canyon 

Bicycle Path to maintain access and connectivity. During any short-term, intermittent closures, such as 

may be required for safety and at the time the temporary path is being constructed, provide informational 

signs and a detour route along local streets and pathways. 

With mitigation, there would not be an adverse impact for bicyclists using the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path. 

Construction Impacts—Parking Impacts before Mitigation 

(Section 3.4.7) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Impacts to off-street parking supply, particularly in University City 

at UCSD and the La Jolla Village Square shopping center. 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

A large number of parking spaces 

would be removed temporarily at the 

La Jolla Village Square shopping 

center and the UCSD campus. 

Temporary replacement parking may 

not be available to offset all the 

parking removed and parking impacts 

would remain adverse. 

Adverse and significant cumulative 

impacts would also remain after 

mitigation. 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2 

For the La Jolla Village Square shopping center, project measures include working with the property owner 

to minimize parking impacts, which may include constructing the transit parking structure in phases, if 

feasible, to offset lost parking and reducing the footprint of parking impacts to the extent feasible during the 

November-to-January shopping season. Other project measures include providing off-site parking for 

construction workers and providing emergency access to fire hydrants at all times. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-17 

Mitigation3 TCON2: To offset parking loss at the VA Medical Center, SANDAG would implement one or more of the 

following measures in coordination with the institution: provision of valet parking, temporary restriping of 

other areas of their parking lot, issuance of transit passes to employees, and assistance with ridesharing 

programs for employees. 

TCON3: To offset parking loss at office and light industrial buildings, SANDAG would implement one or 

more of the following measures in coordination with the building management: joint-use parking 

arrangements with adjacent lots, provision of transit passes to employees, and assistance with ridesharing programs. If parking alternatives cannot be identified, the property owner would be compensated 

for lost parking. 

No additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified to further reduce construction impacts to 

parking; therefore, adverse and significant impacts would remain if replacement parking is not sufficient to 

offset the loss. 

Land Use Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.1) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Would not extend the Trolley line; therefore, would be inconsistent 

with adopted land use plans and policies 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Would extend the Trolley line; therefore, would be consistent with 

all applicable adopted land use plans and policies. The project 

would be consistent with the California Coastal Act because it 

supports policies regarding water quality, air quality, energy 

conservation, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, public access, 

and public transit, and, on balance, is the more protective of 

coastal resources than the No-Build Alternative. .Consistency with 

the California Coastal Act would be subject to review by the CCC 

during the Coastal Development Permit process. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation3 No mitigation measures are required. 

Community and Neighborhood Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.2) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts 

Would not alter community assets or impact environmental 

resources or the existing transportation networks within a 

community 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

The elevated structure would introduce a new visual element in the 

University City neighborhood, altering the view from the adjacent 

UCSD Matthews Apartments (i.e., west-facing views). Refer to 

Visual and Aesthetic Resource Impacts Section. 

Would result in moderate noise impacts requiring mitigation in the 

Little Italy and University City neighborhoods. Refer to Noise 

Impacts Section. 

Would result in temporary modification of eruv boundaries. Refer to 

Construction Impacts Section. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2

The proposed new Trolley stations would be designed to be consistent with the existing character of 

the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, and would support existing development. Design of 

the UCSD West Station would be completed in coordination with UCSD to visually integrate the station 

with the Matthews Apartments, thus minimizing potential visual impacts. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-18 September 2014 

Mitigation3 VR1 to VR7: As summarized below under Visual and Aesthetic Resource Impacts 

N1 to N4: As summarized below under Noise and Vibration Impacts 

With mitigation, there would not be community and neighborhood adverse impacts. 

Visual and Aesthetic Resource Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.4) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts 

With limited physical improvements for bus Route 150, there 

would be no impact to visual quality, visual resources, visual 

character, or view quality.

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Moderately high adverse impacts at Key View #8 looking 

southwest on La Jolla Colony Dr near Gilman Dr and I-5 (due to 

vegetation removal, retaining wall, and fencing) 

Moderate adverse impacts at: (1) Key View #32 looking east from 

I-5 to Santa Fe St (due to retaining walls in Rose Canyon), (2) Key 

View #23 looking north on I-5 north of La Jolla Colony Dr (due to 

removal of vegetation), (3) Key View #7 looking south at private 

HOA dog park from Charmant Dr (due to removal of vegetation 

and addition of aerial structure), (4) Key View #24 looking north on 

I-5 north of La Jolla Village Dr (due to retaining wall and addition of 

aerial structure), (5) Key View #12 looking east into Pepper 

Canyon from UCSD residence halls (due to removal of vegetation 

and addition of aerial structure), (6) Key View #18 looking south 

from intersection of Executive Dr and Genesee Ave (due to 

addition of aerial structure), and (7) Key View #20 looking north at 

the intersection of Genesee Ave at La Jolla Village Dr (due to 

addition of aerial structure). 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2, 3

The proposed new Trolley stations would be designed to be consistent with the existing visual character of 

the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, and would support existing development. Design of the 

UCSD West Station would be completed in coordination with UCSD to visually integrate the station with 

the Matthews Apartments, thus minimizing potential visual impacts. 

All TPSS enclosures located in highly urbanized and/or heavily traveled (vehicular or pedestrian) areas 

would 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. 

All TPSS enclosures located in sensitive natural or public open space areas would be screened from 

public view. Where appropriate, in sensitive natural open space areas, screening material would consist of 

native vegetation and would not use any non-native, invasive species, or noxious weeds. Screening 

vegetation for TPSS enclosures located near public open space areas, such as parks or public rights-ofway, and maintained by others would use ornamental plant material that is consistent with the surrounding 

or adjacent vegetation. 

At project stations and station areas, exterior lighting would include light fixtures for pedestrian safety, 

security, and signage. This lighting would be directed down and would minimize light trespass or spill-over 

into sensitive areas, such as residential neighborhoods, hotels, or medical facilities, using shielding where 

appropriate. Lighting levels would not exceed 2 foot-candles or more from the project area into the 

adjacent residential uses or other sensitive receptors. The project lighting would be designed to illuminate 

specific areas of the project site and station platforms, and the low level of lighting that would be visible 

from off-site locations would blend with the overall ambient glow that is associated with the immediate 

urban environment. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-19 

Mitigation3 VR1: The design of structures such as bridge columns, retaining walls, and sound walls within or adjacent 

to the Caltrans right-of-way, would be compatible with Caltrans Design Guidelines, including those 

prepared for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project. 

VR2: Other structure elements beyond walls and columns would take into account contextual design 

principles. New architectural features, such as stairs, ramps, elevators, aerial structures, support columns, 

screen walls, bridge rail, and station design elements, would be similar to or compatible with the visual 

character and quality of the surrounding area. 

VR3: Design plans developed for the project would include structure architectural design elements such 

as pilasters, recessed or raised concrete surfaces, and concrete surface treatments such as formliner 

textures and integrated colored concrete to reduce visual impacts associated with these elements. 

VR4: Landscape design plans would be developed for the project by a qualified landscape architect and 

coordinated with local agencies and property owners. A plant establishment period would be included in 

construction documents developed for the project. 

VR5: Where ornamental vegetation associated with maintained landscaped areas is affected, it would be 

replaced in-kind or with similar vegetation types and quantities contingent on the approval of the land 

owner. 

VR6: Where the project requires removal of trees and the removal results in adverse visual impacts, a tree 

replacement ratio of 2:1 for trees larger than 6 inches in diameter at chest height and a 1:1 ratio for trees 

smaller than 6 inches in diameter at chest height would be implemented contingent on the approval of 

the land owner. Specific tree replacement sizes, use of appropriate tree species, and consideration 

of native and low maintenance requirements would be determined by SANDAG in consultation with a 

qualified landscape architect and affected property owners. 

VR7: All new plantings, regardless of location, would not include invasive plants or noxious weeds, but 

would include native and/or drought-resistant plants wherever appropriate. Replacement trees would not 

be planted in locations where their growth is likely to block a view corridor of a regionally important viewing 

scene. 

With mitigation, there would not be an adverse visual impact under the Refined Build Alternative.

Air Quality Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.5) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Air quality emissions would be higher compared to existing 

conditions, although bus Route 150 would not measurably add to 

the emission burdens for the study area and region. 

N/A

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Air quality emissions would be lower compared to the No-Build 

Alternative, resulting in an overall beneficial impact. Regionally, 

all pollutants except for PM10 would decrease under the 

Refined Build Alternative. PM10 levels would remain essentially 

unchanged on a regional basis. The Refined Build Alternative 

is not predicted to cause or exacerbate a violation of the 

NAAQS and conforms to the CAAA and the Final 

Transportation Conformity Rule. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-20 September 2014 

Climate Change Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.6) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Emissions of GHG would be higher compared to existing 

conditions, although bus Route 150 would not measurably add to 

the GHG emissions for the study area and region. 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Emissions of GHG would be lower compared to the No-Build 

Alternative, resulting in a beneficial impact. Total GHG emissions 

would decrease overall. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 

Noise and Vibration Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.7) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts 

The increased bus frequency would not increase sufficiently 

compared to existing conditions to substantially change the noise 

environment. 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Moderate Noise and Vibration Impacts Requiring 

Mitigation 

CEQA: Significant 

Moderate noise impacts requiring mitigation (at least 1 dBA greater 

than the moderate noise impact threshold or an increase in the 

cumulative environmental noise level of more than 3 dBA) at: 4 

apartments at the Camden Tuscany apartment complex at 1670 

Kettner Blvd (Cluster 9); 4 single-family residences and 7 singlefamily residences at the La Paz condominium complex at 

Rosenda Ct along La Jolla Colony Dr (Clusters 57 and 59, 

respectively); 8 second-story apartments at the Loft Apartments at 

the Shops at La Jolla Village shopping center (Cluster 71); and 20 

rooms at the Sheraton La Jolla Hotel at 3299 Holiday Ct (Cluster 

72). 

CEQA noise impacts at the Loft Apartments at the Shops at La 

Jolla Village shopping center (Cluster 71). 

Vibration impact at residences at the La Paz condominium 

complex at Rosenda Ct along La Jolla Colony Dr. 

NEPA: No Impact 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2

If during final design the height of the retaining wall on the east side of I-5 becomes greater than one-tenth 

the distance to the nearest receivers on the west side of I-5, a sound-absorptive finish to the wall would be 

incorporated into the project design to eliminate or substantially reduce traffic noise reflections. 

Mitigation3 N1: For Cluster 9 (Camden Tuscany Apartment Complex), lower the sound level of the grade crossing 

bells by at least 2 decibels or to the lowest level allowed by the CPUC, resulting in a mitigated noise level 

of 64 dBA Ldn. 

N2: For Cluster 57 (La Paz Condominiums), install a sound wall (minimum 8 ft above top of rail) in front of 

the residential land use, resulting in a mitigated noise level of 56 dBA Ldn. 

N3: For Cluster 59 (La Paz Condominiums), install a sound wall (minimum 8 ft above top of rail) in 

front of the residential land use, resulting in a mitigated noise level of 51 dBA Ldn. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-21 

N4: For Cluster 71 (Loft Apartments at Shops at La Jolla Village shopping center) and Cluster 72 

(Sheraton La Jolla Hotel), install a sound wall on the aerial structure such that the top of the sound 

wall is at least 4 ft higher than the highest point of rail activity, and the wall is sufficiently long to 

reduce impacts at the Loft Apartments at the Shops at La Jolla Village shopping center. This would 

result in a mitigated noise level of 51 dBA Ldn at the Loft Apartments and 55 dBA at the hotel. 

VIB1: For Cluster 57 (La Paz Condominiums), install floating slab trackwork or similar measure in 

front of the residential land use for both the NB and SB tracks. A minimum 10-VdB reduction would 

be achieved at 25 hertz, fully mitigating the impact. 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures N1 through N4 would eliminate or reduce noise impacts from 

the Refined Build Alternative to no impact under NEPA and a less-than-significant impact under 

CEQA. 

Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIB1 would eliminate vibration impacts from the Refined Build 

Alternative. 

Ecosystems and Biological Resources before Mitigation (Section 4.8) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts 

No impacts to special-status species, special-status vegetation 

communities, or jurisdictional aquatic resources 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Direct impacts from operation of the Refined Build Alternative: 

 Long-term impacts to 8.29 acres of wetlands and Tier II–III 

vegetation communities (i.e., riparian [including disturbed], 

Diegan coastal sage scrub [including disturbed], and nonnative grassland) 

– Impacts to foraging habitat for eight special-status wildlife 

species known to occur in the study area (Cooper’s 

hawk, double-crested cormorant, long-billed curlew, 

yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, 

coastal California gnatcatcher, and mule deer) 

– Impacts to 5.99 acres of Tier II Diegan coastal sage 

scrub (including disturbed), which is suitable habitat for 

special-status species, including the coastal California 

gnatcatcher 

– Impacts to 0.68 acre of potentially suitable riparian 

habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

 Long-term impacts to 0.37 acre (0.17 acre wetland and 0.19 

acre non-wetland waters) under USACE/RWQCOB 

jurisdiction; 0.87 acre (0.68 acre of riparian and 0.19 acre of 

streambed) of areas under CDFW/City of San Diego 

jurisdiction; and 0.22 acre of wetlands potentially under CCC 

jurisdiction 

 Impacts to 0.26 acre of wetlands and Tier II vegetation 

communities within the MHPA, including 0.19 acre of riparian 

habitat along Rose Creek 

 Long-term direct impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp and 

potential California Coastal Act Environmentally Sensitive 

Habitat Area within an ephemeral basin (425 square feet) on 

the east side of the railroad tracks along Morena Boulevard 

(referred to as Basin II); the fairy shrimp within this basin would 

be directly impacted by the Refined Build Alternative 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-22 September 2014 

Indirect impacts from operation of the Refined Build Alternative: 

 Shading impacts to 1.24 acres of wetland and Tier II vegetation 

communities 

– Includes shading impacts to 0.79 acre of wetland 

communities (i.e., mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub 

[including disturbed], and Arundo-dominated riparian) 

that may be sensitive to changes in sunlight availability 

– Includes shading impacts to 0.28 acre of Tier II Diegan 

coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), which is 

suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher 

 Shading impacts to 0.76 acre of potentially suitable riparian 

habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher 

 Shading impacts to 0.72 acre (0.59 acre wetland and 0.13 acre 

non-wetland waters) under USACE/RWQCOB jurisdiction; 

0.88 acres (0.75 acre of riparian areas and 0.13 acre of 

streambed) areas under CDFW/City of San Diego jurisdiction; 

and 0.49 acre of wetlands under CCC jurisdiction

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2, 3

During final design, the project’s footprint would be further reviewed and, where possible, the footprint 

would be minimized to reduce impacts to wetlands and vegetation. 

Features would be added to the San Diego River Bridge to make it more “bat friendly.” 

The concrete-lined channel has been designed with a slight inclination toward the center of the 

channel. The majority of riprap placed at the upstream and downstream ends of the proposed 

channel would not be grouted, which would allow sediment to fill gaps, creating a more natural 

surface for wildlife to cross.

Mitigation3 BIO1: On-site Mitigation: To the extent feasible, disturbed lands within or adjacent to the existing 

MTS right-of-way would be revegetated with wetland and Tier II–III vegetation communities. 

Revegetated areas would be maintained and monitored for approximately five years to ensure 

successful reestablishment of vegetation communities. 

BIO2: Off-site Mitigation: Where mitigation requirements cannot be accommodated within existing 

disturbed lands in the study area, impacts to wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities would 

be mitigated inside or outside of MHPA lands elsewhere within the County of San Diego (e.g., Sage 

Hill site). Off-site mitigation may include creation (establishing wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation 

communities in areas that are currently disturbed, developed, or supporting non-native vegetation 

communities) or enhancement (improving the quality of existing areas of wetlands and Tier II–III 

vegetation communities through removal of non-native species, establishment of native species, 

restoration of prior impacts, and protection from future disturbance).

BIO3: Mitigation Credits: In addition to on-site and off-site mitigation, impacts to wetlands and Tier 

II–III vegetation communities may be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits. The 

purchase of mitigation credits result in the long-term preservation of vegetation communities within 

established mitigation banks where these communities have been created and/or enhanced and are 

maintained in perpetuity.

BIO4: Any impacts that cannot be mitigated on-site or at the identified off-site mitigation sites, SANDAG 

will implement a combination of one or more of the following mitigation alternatives: mitigation bank 

credits; in-lieu fee program credits; on-site creation, restoration, or enhancement; and off-site creation, 

restoration, or enhancement. 

BIO5: Impacts to ephemeral basins occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp, including Basin II, would be 

mitigated at a 2:1 ratio through restoration and/or enhancement of vernal pools within west Otay 

Mesa on the 40-acre Anderprizes parcel, which was previously acquired for future mitigation of vernal 

pools and which has been approved by the USFWS for mitigation of impacts to San Diego fairy 

shrimp, or within another approved mitigation area acceptable to the USFWS. Restoration would be 

conducted at a minimum 1:1 ratio to achieve a no-net-loss of San Diego fairy shrimp habitat; a 

combination of restoration and enhancement would make up the remaining mitigation. Restoration 

would be conducted in accordance with a vernal pool restoration plan to be developed by SANDAG 

and subject to approval by the USFWS prior to project construction. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-23 

With implementation of the identified minimization/avoidance measures and Mitigation Measures BIO1

through BIO5, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts under NEPA and would 

have less-than-significant impacts under CEQA. 

Energy Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.12) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Energy use would be higher compared to existing conditions, 

although bus Route 150 would not measurably add to the energy 

demand for the study area and region. 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Roadway energy use would decrease as a result of a decrease in 

roadway VMT in the study area and region due to project mode 

shifts from roadway vehicles to the Trolley system. Energy use 

would be lower compared to the No-Build Alternative and would 

result in an overall beneficial impact. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. 

Electromagnetic Interference before Mitigation (Section 4.14) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts 

Route 150 would not change EMF levels. 

N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Project-generated levels of EMF would adversely affect 

sensitive equipment located in the SME Building on the UCSD 

campus and in the XiMed Building at Scripps Memorial 

Hospital La Jolla. 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation3 EMF1: Project impacts to identified equipment that is sensitive to EMI at the UCSD SME Building 

and the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building would be mitigated through the use of a split-power 

configuration system with a parallel feeder cable located below each track connected to the OCS wire 

intermittently with cable risers at OCS poles—rather than the use of overhead messenger wires—in 

areas near these buildings. In these areas, the feeder cables would be located in line with the 

centerline of the track (single-split power supply) in order to get feeder cable and return current (the 

rails) as close as possible and reduce the magnetic fields. 

With implementation of the mitigation measure identified above, the Refined Build Alternative would result 

in no adverse impacts under NEPA and a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-24 September 2014 

Construction Impacts—Air Quality Impacts before Mitigation (Section 4.17) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No impacts N/A

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Construction would result in emissions of NOX and CO2 that 

exceed thresholds for air quality and GHG. 

NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Adverse impacts from NOX and CO2

would remain under NEPA, and are 

considered significant and 

unavoidable under CEQA. 

Adverse and significant cumulative 

air quality impacts remain under the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

An adverse and significant 

cumulative GHG impact would occur 

under the Refined Build Alternative. 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2 

Project measures, including minimizing idle times of construction work, maintaining equipment in good 

condition, and controlling dust, would be incorporated into construction of the project. SANDAG would 

consult with SDAPCD regarding measures to minimize air pollutant emissions from construction. 

Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to further reduce air quality and GHG impacts from 

construction. 

Construction Impacts—Noise and Vibration Impacts before Mitigation 

(Section 4.17) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Noise and Vibration Impacts 

CEQA: Significant 

The area of the noise impact during construction would be 

dependent on a variety of factors, including ambient noise, the 

type of construction activity, amount of shielding at the 

construction site, the nature of the environment in that location 

(amount and height of buildings, open space), the sensitivity of the 

land use, and the time of day or night. In some places, 

construction noise may only affect sensitive receivers within 50 

feet of the construction activity while in other places it could extend 

to more than 500 feet. Construction would result in increased 

noise levels during the day, which could impact sensitive 

receptors, including student housing near Sixth Lane, La Jolla 

Country Day School, UCSD, and the Preuss School. Construction 

traffic and activity would result in increased noise levels for 

residences at night, particularly along Genesee Avenue and the 

east side of Charmant Drive, and at the northeast corner of the 

Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5. 

Construction would also result in vibration that could impact nearby 

structures. 

NEPA: Noise Impacts 

CEQA: Significant 

No construction noise impacts would 

remain after mitigation for residents 

who voluntarily relocate pursuant to 

Mitigation Measure CON2. 

There would be noise impacts under 

NEPA that would be significant under 

CEQA. 

There would be no vibration impacts 

after mitigation. 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2 

The project would comply with all applicable noise regulations, including the City of San Diego Noise 

Ordinance. Equipment and staging areas would be located away from noise-sensitive receivers, and 

temporary noise barriers would be installed and public notice would be provided to nearby residents 

prior to nighttime construction. Coordination would occur with the site administrator of nearby 

schools and other sensitive noise receptors to discuss construction activities that generate high noise 

levels. The position of Noise Disturbance Coordinator would be established. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-25 

Mitigation3 CON1: The contractor would develop and implement a Noise Control Plan, approved by SANDAG prior to 

initiating construction. The plan would demonstrate how the contractor would reduce noise levels near 

sensitive noise receptors consistent with the city’s Noise Ordinance. The plan would include analysis of 

construction noise based on measured background noise levels, a list of the major pieces of construction 

equipment that would be used, and predictions of the noise levels at the closest sensitive receivers 

(including residences, hotels, schools, churches, temples, and similar facilities where either outdoor or 

indoor activities would be sensitive to noise levels). The Noise Control Plan would include noise 

attenuation features as necessary, such as temporary sound walls, mufflers, and locating noisy equipment 

away from sensitive land uses. In addition, the plan would consider alternative construction methods when 

relevant. 

CON2: To reduce nighttime noise impacts to sensitive receivers on Charmant Dr, in the northeast corner 

of the Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5, and along Genesee Ave, the contractor 

would provide noise-reducing curtains or noise-masking machines where appropriate and approved by the 

occupant. Temporary lodging in an approved hotel would be offered by SANDAG to residents if, after 

implementation of noise-reducing measures, nighttime construction noise is predicted to exceed the 

ambient noise levels for that area by 5 dBA. 

CON3: During final design, and where permission can be obtained, a qualified structural engineer would 

survey the existing foundation and other structural aspects of buildings located within close proximity (25 to 

100 feet depending on construction activity and structure type) of the construction zone boundaries. 

Potholing or other non-destructive testing of below-grade conditions may be necessary to establish 

baseline conditions. Depending on anticipated construction activities, the survey report would identify 

buildings that could be affected by construction vibration. The qualified structural engineer would 

document in the survey report baseline conditions at all buildings that may be affected by construction 

vibration. The survey report would provide a shoring design to protect identified buildings from potential 

vibration damage. Alternatively, the structural engineer may recommend alternative construction methods 

that would produce lower vibration levels. 

In areas where construction noise levels are less than 5 dBA above the ambient noise level for that area, 

noise-reducing curtains would eliminate the impact. For levels between 5 and 10 dBA above the ambient 

noise level for that area, a combination of curtains and noise-masking machines would be effective at 

reducing sleep disturbance for most residents. If residents are voluntarily relocated under Mitigation 

Measure CON2, no construction noise impacts would remain after mitigation. Implementation of project 

and mitigation measures would reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant at all 

locations, except for nighttime noise impacts for residents who do not temporarily relocate. There would 

be noise impacts under NEPA that would be significant under CEQA. There would be no vibration impacts 

after mitigation. 

Construction Impacts—Biological Resources Impacts before Mitigation 

(Section 4.17) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Direct construction impacts: 

 Temporary loss of 7.16 acres of habitat (4.1 acres of wetlands, 

2.85 acres of Tier II, and 0.21 acre of Tier III vegetation) used 

by a number of special-status wildlife species

 During the nesting season, generally between February 15 and 

August 31 for most species and January 15 through August 31 

for raptors, vegetation clearing, ground-disturbing activities, 

and disturbance of non-native or man-made nesting habitats 

associated with construction could directly impact nesting 

special-status birds.

 Impacts to 2.64 acres (1.51 acre of wetland and 1.13 acre nonwetland waters) under USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction; 4.08 

acres of CDFW/City of San Diego jurisdictional areas (2.87 

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-26 September 2014 

acres of riparian areas and 1.21 acres of streambed); and 0.66 

acre of CCC wetlands 

 Impacts to 2.13 acres of potentially suitable riparian habitat for 

least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher could 

occur if either species occupies the area prior to construction. 

 Modification of approximately 130 feet of the existing bridge for 

the Trolley Green Line at the San Diego River could directly 

impact roosting western mastiff bat, a California species of 

special concern. 

 Vegetation clearing activities within riparian habitat could 

directly impact roosting western red bat, a California species of 

special concern. 

Indirect construction impacts: 

 Noise and vibration impacts could occur to special-status bird 

species (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, 

light-footed clapper rail, or southwestern willow flycatcher) 

potentially breeding in adjacent native and non-native habitat 

areas if construction activities occur during the breeding 

season. 

Measures to 

Avoid or 

Minimize 

Impacts 2, 3

During final design, the project’s construction footprint would be further reviewed and, where 

possible, the footprint would be minimized to reduce impacts to wetlands and vegetation. Where 

construction occurs adjacent to sensitive biological resources, the limits of construction would be 

visibly delineated through brightly colored fencing or other highly visible means. Construction crews 

would be directed not to encroach beyond the limits of construction. BMPs would minimize dust, 

erosion, and runoff generated by construction activities. 

During construction, a biological monitor would be present to assist in the avoidance of impacts to native 

vegetation, jurisdictional aquatic resources, special-status plants and wildlife, and nesting birds. 

During construction, a movement corridor for light-footed clapper rail would be maintained along the 

San Diego River main channel to allow clapper rails to move through the construction area if they are 

present. The movement corridor would include exclusionary fencing along the project limits on both 

sides of the flow channel to prevent clapper rails from entering construction areas if they are present.

Indirect construction impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin BB would be avoided through the 

designation of a buffer. The buffer, to be developed in consultation with the USFWS and the CCC, 

would be established to prevent construction from indirectly affecting the pool and its associated 

watershed. 

To prevent the introduction of invasive plant species, construction vehicles and equipment would be 

washed prior to working in areas where sensitive vegetation communities are present adjacent to the 

project.

Mitigation3 CON4: Biologists would conduct nesting bird surveys not more than 72 hours prior to initiating 

construction-related ground-disturbing activities (i.e., grading or ground-clearing activities) during the 

breeding season (February 15 through August 31 for most species, and January 15 through August 

15 for raptors, or as determined by a qualified biologist). Biologists would determine if active nests of 

special-status birds or bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California Fish and Game 

Code 3503 are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the 

disturbance zone during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the 

site. Despite the lack of native habitat, similar pre-construction nesting bird surveys would be 

conducted at the four traction power substations located outside of the biological study area to the 

south of the Old Town Transit Center to ensure the avoidance of native birds potentially nesting in 

urbanized areas. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys 

would be conducted such that no more than 72 hours would have elapsed between the survey and 

the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. 

CON5: If biologists find an active nest of a native bird species, then vegetation clearing, grounddisturbing activities, and construction equipment that generates high noise or vibration levels would 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-27 

cease and be postponed or halted at the discretion of the biologist in consultation with the CDFW. 

This work cessation would be effective within a buffer area from the nest at a distance appropriate to 

the sensitivity of the species and the distribution of the surrounding habitat (typically 300 feet for most 

species, up to 500 feet for raptors—the area may vary depending on the types of vegetation 

surrounding the nest). Construction work would not resume until the biologist has determined that 

the nest is no longer active, the juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt 

at nesting. Alternatively, a qualified biological monitor would be present full-time while construction is 

occurring within the buffer area to observe the nesting birds and would have the authority to halt or 

redirect construction if the birds exhibit signs of distress. Limits of construction around active nests 

would be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction 

personnel would be informed about the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist would serve as a 

construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest 

areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to nesting birds occur. 

CON6: Vegetation clearing within suitable western red bat habitat would be avoided during the 

maternal roost season (May through August, or as determined by a qualified biologist) where 

feasible. Pre-construction surveys for roosting western red bat would be conducted within suitable 

habitat if construction would occur within or adjacent to suitable roost sites during the maternal roost 

season. If a roost is detected, passive exclusion would include monitoring the roost for three days to 

determine if the roost is vacated. If the roost is determined to support a reproductive female with 

young, the roost would be avoided until it is no longer active. If the roost remains active within the 

three monitoring days and supports a dispersing male but no breeding female or young, the foliage of 

the tree would be trimmed after the male has left the roost at dusk. The tree would be monitored 

again the following evening after the foliage has been trimmed to determine if any activity remains at 

that roost location. If there is no activity, the tree would be removed. If it cannot be determined 

whether an active roost site supports breeding females or males, the roost site would not be 

disturbed and construction within 300 feet would be postponed or halted until the roost is vacated 

and the young are volant. 

CON7: Focused surveys for the western mastiff bat maternity roosts would be conducted in the 

summer (May through August, or as determined by a qualified biologist) prior to construction, if 

feasible. 

Pre-construction surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist no earlier than 30 days prior to 

initiation of bridge modification activities if summer surveys in advance of construction are infeasible, 

Pre-construction surveys would include the bridge section planned for modification and would be 

conducted using visual search and ultrasonic recording devices to determine if active roosts of the 

western mastiff bat are present on or within 300 feet of the bridge section subject to modification. 

These surveys would concentrate on the periods when roosting bats are most detectable (i.e., when 

leaving the roost between one hour before sunset and two hours after sunset) and take place over a 

period of three to five days. 

CON8: Temporary and humane exclusionary devices would be installed in the fall (September or 

October) preceding construction at those locations where summer surveys detected an active 

maternity roost for the western mastiff bat to avoid potential direct impacts. Prior to any exclusion 

measures being implemented to prevent bats from using an existing roost habitat, a qualified bat 

biologist would survey (e.g., visually and using an ultrasonic device to record bat calls in concert with 

sonogram analysis software) and identify nearby alternative maternity colony roost sites. If any 

supplemental measures must be implemented to ensure successful exclusion of bats from an 

existing roost and/or the identification of alternative roosting habitat, all related assessments and 

monitoring must be conducted by a qualified bat biologist, with biological monitoring reports and 

findings provided to the CDFW. 

If construction activities must occur during the summer and pre-construction surveys have identified 

an active western mastiff bat maternity roost, the roost would not be disturbed and construction within 

300 feet would be postponed or halted until the roost is vacated and juveniles have fledged. 

If construction activities must occur when bats are active and pre-construction surveys have identified nonbreeding bat hibernacula in portions of the Trolley Green Line Bridge subject to disturbance from bridge 

modification activities, the individuals would be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-28 September 2014 

using appropriate means acceptable to the resource agencies (e.g., installation of one-way doors, foam 

filling of roosting locations when bats are not present, or plastic sheeting hung vertically). In situations 

requiring one-way doors, a minimum of one week would pass after doors are installed prior to concluding 

that the roost has been vacated. During this time, temperatures should be sufficiently warm for bats to 

leave the roost because bats do not typically leave their roost daily during winter months or on 

unseasonably cold nights in southern coastal California. In situations where the use of one-way doors is 

not necessary in the judgment of the qualified bat biologist, roosts that need to be removed would first be 

disturbed at dusk by various means at the direction of the bat biologist to allow bats to escape during the 

darker hours and access to the roost site would be excluded the next day (i.e., there would be one night 

between initial disturbance and exclusion of the roost site). 

CON9: Temporary impacts to wetland vegetation communities would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio, as 

shown in Section 4.8, Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21. The location and configuration of 

wetland vegetation communities within restoration areas in the San Diego River and Rose Creek 

would be adjusted to ensure that restored areas beneath bridges are limited to wetland communities 

that can tolerate reduced sunlight availability. 

Based on the presence of vegetation communities under existing bridges over the San Diego River 

and Rose Creek, similar communities, including cismontane alkali marsh, mulefat scrub, and in some 

cases southern willow scrub, would be planted under the proposed bridges. Restored areas adjacent 

to the proposed bridges and that are not subject to long-term shading would be revegetated primarily 

with southern willow scrub. 

CON10: Impacts to Tier II (coastal sage scrub) and Tier IIIB (non-native grasslands) vegetation 

communities would be mitigated according to the mitigation ratios shown in Section 4.8, Table 4-19, 

Table 4-20, and Table 4-21. 

CON11: Temporary impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 

ratio through on-site restoration, subject to approval by the USACE, RWQCB, CCC, and CDFW 

during the permitting process. On-site restoration would include the restoration of pre-existing 

contours, elevations, and vegetation communities within areas temporarily disturbed as a result of 

construction activities in the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek. The location and 

configuration of wetland communities within restoration areas in the San Diego River and Rose Creek 

would be adjusted to ensure that restored areas beneath bridges are limited to wetland communities 

that can tolerate reduced sunlight availability. 

Based on the presence of wetland communities under existing bridges over the San Diego River and 

Rose Creek, similar communities, including cismontane alkali marsh, mulefat scrub, and in some 

cases southern willow scrub, would be planted under the proposed bridges. Restored areas adjacent 

to the proposed bridges and that are not subject to long-term shading would be revegetated primarily 

with southern willow scrub. 

CON12: Construction-related noise levels in coastal California gnatcatcher occupied habitat within 

500 feet of construction activity would not exceed 60 dBA Leq or pre-construction ambient noise 

levels, whichever is greater, during the breeding season. Project construction within 500 feet of 

occupied habitat would occur outside of the breeding season if possible. If necessary, construction 

activities during the breeding season would be managed to limit noise levels in occupied habitat 

within 500 feet of the project, or noise attenuation measures, such as temporary sound walls, would 

be implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq or below existing ambient noise levels, 

whichever is greater. 

CON13: To avoid potential adverse impacts to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher 

from construction-related noise, project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat would be 

timed to occur outside of the breeding season if feasible. If project construction within 500 feet of 

occupied habitat must occur during the breeding season, construction-related noise within the 

occupied habitat areas would not exceed 60 dBA Leq or pre-construction ambient noise levels, 

whichever is greater. If necessary, construction activities during the breeding season would be 

managed to limit noise levels in occupied habitat within 500 feet of the project or noise attenuation 

measures would be implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq or below existing ambient 

noise levels, whichever is greater. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-29 

CON14: To avoid potential adverse impacts to light-footed clapper rail from construction-related 

noise, project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat would be timed to occur outside of the 

breeding season if possible. If project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat must occur 

during the breeding season, construction-related noise within the occupied habitat areas would not 

exceed 60 dBA Leq or pre-construction ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. If necessary, 

construction activities during the breeding season would be managed to limit noise levels in occupied 

habitat within 500 feet of the project or noise attenuation measures would be implemented to reduce 

noise levels below 60 dBA Leq or below existing ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 

With implementation of Mitigation Measures CON4 through CON14, no adverse biological resource 

construction impacts would remain under NEPA and impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant 

level under CEQA. 

Construction Impacts—Archaeological Resources before Mitigation (Section 

4.17) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative3 NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Significant 

Ground-disturbing activities during construction would not affect 

archaeological resources as none were identified within the 

archaeological APE. However, the project could result in the 

physical destruction of unknown archaeological resources 

discovered during construction (unanticipated discoveries).

NEPA: Not Adverse 

CEQA: Less Than Significant 

Mitigation3 During project construction, there would be no effect on known archaeological resources. However, 

the project could result in the physical destruction of resources as a result of unanticipated 

discoveries. To account for the possibility of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources 

or human remains during project-related ground disturbance, the following mitigation measures have 

been incorporated: 

CON15: Construction Monitoring: No archaeological resources eligible for listing in the NRHP or 

CRHR were identified or detected within the archaeological APE during Extended Phase I 

investigations; however, there exists a low potential to encounter unknown cultural materials given 

the landform context and depth of construction. As such, monitoring for both prehistoric and historic 

archaeological deposits would be conducted during ground-disturbing construction activities in 

designated monitoring areas of the project archaeological APE. 

Monitoring would occur under the supervision of a DPA who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualifications Standards. The DPA and archaeological monitors would be subject to the 

approval of SANDAG and/or the FTA. Full-time cultural resources monitoring of all ground-disturbing 

activities within the archaeological APE would occur within 500 feet south of the San Diego River; 

within 500 feet north of the San Diego River; in designated portions of the Rose Canyon corridor; and 

in the portion of the archaeological APE located on the UCSD campus. Specific information 

regarding full time monitoring areas is detailed in the confidential Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation Results and Effects Assessment 

(SANDAG, 2014a). Spot-check monitoring would occur within the archaeological APE in two areas: 

from the north bank of the San Diego River to 1,100 feet north of Sea World Drive, and in the Rose 

Canyon Corridor between Balboa Avenue and La Jolla Colony Drive. If the FTA determines that fulltime or spot-check monitoring is needed in additional portions of the archaeological APE, monitoring 

would be provided in these additional areas. 

In areas where full-time monitoring is designated, “full-time monitoring” is defined as follows: A 

qualified archaeological monitor is required during the entire work day on a daily basis during all 

ground disturbance throughout the course of the project until a sufficient depth of excavation has 

been reached at which it is unlikely to encounter buried resources. The DPA will determine the 

actual depth of excavation at which monitoring may cease based on soil conditions observed in the 

field. “Spot-check monitoring” is defined as part-time monitoring to be conducted by a qualified 

archaeological monitor throughout the duration of project-related ground disturbance. Spot-check 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-30 September 2014 

monitoring would include inspection of open excavations, grubbed areas, and excavation spoils. The 

frequency and duration of the spot checks would be based on field observations of exposed soils at 

the discretion of the DPA. 

In the event an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources occurs during construction, the 

following measures would be implemented immediately following the discovery: 

 The archaeological monitor would halt all construction within a 50-foot radius of the find until the DPA 

can assess the significance of the find. 

 If the discovery is determined to be significant or potentially significant by the DPA, the following tasks 

would be undertaken: 

– Discussion with project engineers to determine if impacts can be avoided/minimized, including 

consideration of preservation in place 

– Recovery and analysis of archaeological material and associated data 

– Preparation of a data recovery report or other reports 

– Accessioning recovered archaeological material to an accredited archaeological repository, such as 

the San Diego Archaeological Center 

Archaeological monitor qualification requirements, detailed approaches to archaeological monitoring of 

various project elements, and the procedures to follow in the event that unanticipated archaeological 

resources or human remains are discovered would be defined in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Construction Monitoring Plan (SANDAG, 2014c) and Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cultural 

Resources Discovery Plan (SANDAG, 2014b) submitted to SHPO for review and concurrence prior to the 

start of construction activities. 

A Native American monitor would be present at all areas designated for full-time and spot-check 

monitoring. This monitoring would occur on an as-needed basis and would be intended to ensure that 

Native American concerns are considered during the construction process. Native American monitors 

would be retained from Tribes who have expressed interest in the project and have participated in the 

Section 106 consultation process. Roles and responsibilities of the Native American monitors would be 

detailed in the Construction Monitoring Plan prepared for the project. 

CON16: Cultural Resource Awareness Training: Prior to, and for the duration of, ground disturbances, 

SANDAG would provide cultural resource awareness training to construction workers in accordance with 

the requirements listed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Survey Report

(SANDAG, 2013e). The training would describe appropriate measures for treatment and protection of 

cultural resources in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties, and would include a discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law, and samples or 

visual representations of artifacts that might be found in the project vicinity. The training would outline the 

steps that must be taken if cultural resources are encountered during project construction, including the 

authority of archaeological monitors to halt construction in the area of a discovery to an extent sufficient to 

ensure that the resource is protected from further impacts. 

The training would be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. A hard copy summary of cultural resource 

laws, discovery procedures, and contact information would be provided to all construction workers. It may 

be necessary to conduct the training in English and another language, particularly Spanish. If so, an 

individual proficient in both languages would be present to translate the training. Hard copy training 

summary cards would be produced in applicable languages to be distributed to all construction personnel. 

CON17: Treatment of Human Remains: In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during 

ground disturbances, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further 

disturbances occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition 

pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be 

prehistoric, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which would determine 

and notify a Most Likely Descendant. The FTA, SANDAG, NCTD, and/or MTS would be notified 

immediately. Procedures to follow for the discovery of human remains would be included in the Discovery 

Plan. The plan would include provisions for preferred removal techniques, storage, and re-internment to 

the extent feasible. 

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CON15 through CON17 would resolve adverse archaeological 

resource construction impacts under NEPA and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-31 

Construction Impacts—Paleontological Resources before Mitigation (Section 

4.17) Impact after Mitigation1

No-Build 

Alternative 

No Impacts N/A 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

NEPA: N/A 

CEQA: Significant 

Impacts to paleontological resources are evaluated under CEQA 

only. Ground-disturbing activities during construction could cause 

significant impacts on paleontological resources. 

NEPA: N/A 

CEQA: Significant 

Significant cumulative impacts would 

remain. 

Mitigation CON18: Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan: Prior to final design and as a 

measure to protect significant paleontological resources, SANDAG would authorize a PRMMP to be 

prepared and implemented during construction. The PRMMP would be developed in accordance 

with the guidelines and requirements listed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological 

Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l). 

 Paleontological Awareness Training—Paleontological awareness training would be provided 

to construction workers involved in earthwork (excavation and grading) and foundation activities 

prior to the start of work on the project. Training would include a discussion of the laws 

protecting paleontological resources, the types of paleontological resources that could be 

encountered, and the procedures to be followed if a paleontological resource were discovered. 

 Paleontological Monitoring—Paleontological resources monitoring is recommended because 

of the potential for impacts on paleontologically sensitive geologic units and, therefore, 

potentially significant paleontological resources, during construction activities. Detailed 

procedures regarding monitoring would be presented in the PRMMP. 

 Monitoring between the Santa Fe Depot and the Nobel Drive Station—Full-time 

paleontological monitoring of project ground disturbance would be required between the 

Santa Fe Depot and the Nobel Drive Station because of the presence of highly sensitive 

geologic units. Paleontological monitoring for this area would be conducted as described in 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as 

incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Monitoring between the Nobel Drive Station and the UTC Transit Center—Part-time 

paleontological monitoring of excavations would be conducted between the Nobel Drive 

Station and the UTC Transit Center. In the event that any unanticipated discoveries of 

significant fossils are made, full-time monitoring in this area would be required. 

Paleontological monitoring for this area would be conducted as described in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated 

into the PRMMP. 

 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources—If an unanticipated discovery of 

paleontological resources occurs during construction anywhere along the alignment, the 

procedures described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report

(SANDAG, 2014l) would be followed as incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Data Recovery—In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, fossil specimens 

will be properly collected and sufficiently documented to be of scientific value. Data recovery 

would be conducted as described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological 

Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Technical Reporting—In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, a data 

recovery report would be prepared that documents the methods and results of monitoring and 

provides an analysis of the nature and significance of fossils recovered. The report would 

contain the contents as described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological 

Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Curation of Recovered Fossils—After the data recovery report is prepared, the fossil material 

recovered during project monitoring activities would be accessioned for curation to a recognized 

paleontological repository, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Arrangements to 

accession fossil material should be made with such a repository before monitoring begins so that 

the repository can inform the qualified monitoring paleontologist of requirements necessary to 

accession the fossil material (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-32 September 2014 

Guidelines Committee, 1995). The data recovery report (see above) also will be submitted to the 

repository at which the fossils are curated. Curation would be conducted as described in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as 

incorporated into the PRMMP. 

With mitigation, project-level construction impacts to paleontological resources would be less than 

significant; however, adverse and significant cumulative impacts would remain. 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: 1

 Mitigation measures are not required for the No-Build Alternative. 2 Measures to avoid or minimize impacts identified for some topics are incorporated in the Refined Build 

Alternative, as applicable. 3 Information has been revised since the circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to the appropriate Final 

SEIS/SEIR section for a description of changes made since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

APE = Area of Potential Effects; BMPs = Best Management Practices; CAAA = California Air Act Amendments; 

Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; CCC = California Coastal Commission; CDFW = California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife; CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CPUC = 

California Public Utilities Commission; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; dBA = A-weighted 

decibel; EB = eastbound; DPA = Designated Project Archaeologist; EMI = electromagnetic interference; EMF = 

electromagnetic field; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; GHG = greenhouse gases; HOA = homeowners 

association; I = Interstate; Ldn = day-night noise level; Leq = equivalent sound level; MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act; MHPA = Multiple Habitat Planning Area; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; N/A = not applicable; NAAQS = 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards; NB = northbound; NCTD = North County Transit District; NEPA = 

National Environmental Policy Act; NOx = nitrogen oxides; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; OCS = 

overhead contact system; PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PRMMP = 

Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; 

SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; SB = southbound; SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution 

Control District; SEIS/SEIR = Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report; SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer; SME = Structural and Materials Engineering Building UCSD; 

TPSS = traction power substation; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans 

Administration; Vdb = vibration decibel; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; WB = westbound 

Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 of this Final SEIS/SEIR contain additional information regarding 

transportation and environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and project 

minimization/avoidance measures. The Section 4(f) Evaluation is included in Chapter 5.0. 

The Section 4(f) evaluation has determined that the Refined Build Alternative would have a 

de minimis direct use of Marian Bear Memorial Park and a temporary occupancy exception 

(23 Code of Federal Regulations Section 774.13) on the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, Marian 

Bear Memorial Park, and Mission Valley Preserve Open Space during construction. The 

City of San Diego, which has purview of these Section 4(f) resources, has concurred with 

the Section 4(f) findings and determinations in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Overall, the project would have a beneficial long-term effect on various elements of the 

built and natural environments, including improvements to mobility and accessibility 

(particularly transit service), air quality, climate change, and energy. By extending the 

Trolley system to University City, the project would reduce the travel time from the UTC 

Transit Center to downtown by 10 minutes and require fewer transfers. The Refined 

Build Alternative also supports established land-use plans and policies. 

By comparison, the No-Build Alternative would avoid many adverse and/or significant 

impacts, including all construction-related impacts; however, it would not meet the 

project’s purpose and need of providing a frequency of service, speed, and reliability that 

would better serve existing riders and attract new riders. In addition, under the No-Build 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-33 

Alternative, the number of intersections and roadways that would operate at 

unacceptable levels of service would increase and there would be additional impacts on 

vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. The No-Build 

Alternative is the only alternative that would avoid the impacts of the Refined Build 

Alternative, but the No-Build Alternative would result in adverse impacts for land use, air 

quality, energy, and greenhouse gases. As discussed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report (SANDAG, 2010e), the other 

alternatives previously considered that would meet the project’s purpose and need 

would have impacts that are comparable to or greater than the Refined Build Alternative, 

or are higher in cost. 

S.5 Financial Feasibility 

As summarized in Chapter 6.0, the Refined Build Alternative is considered to be 

financially feasible. The financial plan expects that the Refined Build Alternative, with an 

estimated capital cost of $2,112 million in year-of-expenditure dollars, would be funded 

through a combination of available TransNet funds and FTA New Starts funds. The cost 

effectiveness of the project when it was approved for entry into Preliminary Engineering 

in September 2011 was $24.87, which placed the project in the “medium” rating 

category. 

S.6 Public Outreach, Agency Consultation, and Coordination 

The project’s agency and public outreach program meets all federal and state 

requirements addressing transportation projects. These include NEPA, CEQA, and Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Agency 

Coordination Plan (SANDAG, 2011d) identifies the federal, tribal, state, regional, and 

local agencies affected by, having jurisdiction over, or an interest in the project. The 

Agency Coordination Plan also identifies Trustee and Responsible Agencies, and 

agencies that have jurisdiction by law. 

Preparation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR continued the environmental review process begun 

with the previous environmental documents. CEQA scoping was initiated in April 2010 

with a Notice of Preparation issued on April 28, 2010. SANDAG hosted five CEQA 

public scoping meetings in May 2010. In July 2011, SANDAG conducted NEPA 

scoping. On July 19, 2011, the FTA published a new Notice of Intent in the Federal 

Register to provide opportunities for public and agency comments on the project and to 

complete scoping. Appendix B to this Final SEIS/SEIR contains the Notice of 

Preparation and Notice of Intent for the project. 

Public and agency outreach is on-going and includes presentations for community, 

business, and transportation organizations; meetings with stakeholders; updates to the 

SANDAG Transportation Committee; distribution of e-newsletters; meetings of the 

Project Working Group; and briefings of elected officials. Chapter 8.0 of this Final 

SEIS/SEIR contains additional information on public and agency outreach conducted for 

the project. 

Since initiating the outreach program, SANDAG has coordinated with state and federal 

resource agencies. In May 2010, project briefing meetings were held individually with 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-34 September 2014 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Game 

(renamed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as of January 1, 2013), and the San 

Diego River Conservancy. Summaries of the meetings are contained in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Summary Report

(SANDAG, 2010f). A follow-up meeting was held with the USACE on July 23, 2012, and 

a pre-application meeting was held with the USACE, the California Department of Fish 

and Game, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) on 

August 14, 2012. A telephone conference call was held with the USACE and the FTA 

on September 7, 2012, to discuss permitting requirements, the role of the USACE in the 

environmental review of the project, and the potential for minimizing impacts to water 

resources. A second pre-application meeting was held with the USACE on October 31, 

2012, to discuss design options for the channel structure at Rose Creek and SR 52 (i.e., 

box culvert, open channel, bridge, and natural bottom channel) to minimize impacts to 

Waters of the U.S. in the Rose Creek watershed. 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 was incorporated into the Build Alternative analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and 

retained in the Final SEIS/SEIR. A follow-up meeting with the SDRWQCB and the 

USACE was held on February 27, 2013, to review the revised design. Coordination with 

resource agencies will be on-going throughout the project development process. 

Section 106 consultation has been conducted to identify cultural resources and concerns 

related to the project’s effects on cultural resources. As part of Section 106 consultation, 

coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been ongoing. In 

October 2011, FTA consulted with, and received concurrence from, the SHPO regarding the 

limits of the Area of Potential Effects. Refer to Appendix C for copies of the correspondence 

with the SHPO. In addition, as part of the Section 106 consultation process, the FTA sent 

consultation letters to 23 Native American groups, including those identified by the Native 

American Heritage Commission, in November 2011. SANDAG sent letters to local 

interested public historical or cultural organizations. In February 2013, additional 

coordination was conducted with the SHPO to address the eligibility of historic 

architectural properties and archaeological resources within the Area of Potential 

Effects. In August 2013, the SHPO concurred with the determinations of the eligibility of 

the historic architectural properties. A “no adverse effect” determination was made by 

FTA with respect to the eligible properties, and the SHPO concurred with the finding on 

April 9, 2014. Because no archaeological historic properties were identified in the Area 

of Potential Effects, FTA has made a finding of “no historic properties affected” with 

respect to archaeological resources, pursuant to Section 106. SHPO’s concurrence on 

the determination of effects was received on April 9, 2014. 

The FTA and SANDAG issued the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register

on May 17, 2013, and circulated the Draft SEIS/SEIR for a 60-day public review period 

from May 17 through July 17, 2013, so that agencies and the public may review the 

document and submit comments. As part of the notification process, the FTA and 

SANDAG sent the NOA, Notice of Completion, and the Draft SEIS/SEIR to federal, 

state, regional, and local government agencies, tribes, community groups, and other 

individuals, as specified in the List of Recipients included in the back of this Final 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-35 

SEIS/SEIR. The NOA and Notice of Completion are included in Appendix B of this Final 

SEIS/SEIR. 

Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR were submitted via mail, e-mail, voice mail, fax, and 

at each meeting via comment cards or by speaking to a court reporter. More than 350 

people attended the four public meetings, and 20 people provided oral comments during 

the public hearing. In total, 309 comment submissions (e.g., comment cards, e-mails, 

and letters) were received containing 1,417 individual comments. 

In March 2014, the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp was identified within the 

project impact footprint. The San Diego fairy shrimp within this basin would be directly 

impacted by the Refined Build Alternative. Therefore, in July 2014, the Supplement 

regarding impacts to and mitigation for the San Diego fairy shrimp within this basin was 

circulated for a 45-day review and comment period. Additionally, FTA initiated formal 

Section 7 consultation with the USFWS on June 12, 2014, regarding impacts to this 

species (refer to Appendix C for a copy of the initiation letter). A Biological Assessment 

was also transmitted to the USFWS at that time. On September 5, 2014, the USFWS 

issued a Biological Opinion concurring with the FTA’s determination that the project is 

not likely to adversely affect coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, 

southwestern willow flycatcher, light-footed clapper rail, or critical habitat for these 

species. While the project would directly affect San Diego fairy shrimp, the Biological 

Opinion concludes that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the San Diego fairy shrimp, and included authorization for incidental take of San Diego 

fairy shrimp. The Biological Opinion is included in Appendix C of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Comments on the Supplement were accepted via mail, e-mail, voice mail, and fax. In 

total, nine comment submissions (e.g., e-mails, voice mails, and letters) were received 

containing ten individual comments. 

The outreach effort continued after the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and Supplement 

comment periods. SANDAG continued to brief community groups and other stakeholder 

groups throughout the project area regarding the project. The focus of the briefings and 

coordination efforts primarily related to discussion of comments received on the project 

and the Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements made to the project in response to comments. 

Refer to Chapter 8.0, Section 8.8 of this Final SEIS/SEIR for a summary of coordination 

efforts that have occurred since the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR and Supplement public 

review periods. 

S.7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Addressed 

In addition to the decisions regarding the Refined Build Alternative, the following design 

and construction-related issues and special activities will need to be addressed as 

planning and design of the project proceeds: 

Site-specific studies will be required to develop precise impact avoidance and mitigation 

plans and to ensure compliance with applicable codes and ordinances to support final 

design of the project. These include the following: 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-36 September 2014 

 A project-specific Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, which 

would specify the appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented in the event 

fossil remains are identified during ground disturbance and allow for the salvage of 

potentially scientifically significant fossils and associated data that otherwise might 

be lost to earth-moving and to unauthorized fossil collecting. The preparation of the 

plan is included as a mitigation measure. 

 Additional geologic studies for design and code compliance purposes, which would 

further define any geological faults and fault ruptures in the corridor that could affect 

the design of structures at Balboa Avenue, the Rose Creek South Bridge, and the 

Rose Creek LRT Overhead Bridge. These studies would support final design and to 

assist in the refinement of the design to avoid/minimize the risk of fault ruptures. 

 A project-specific biological resources mitigation plan, which would identify mitigation 

locations and the type and area of habitat to be created or enhanced for impacts to 

sensitive vegetation communities and wetlands. The preparation of the plan is 

included as a mitigation measure. 

Stakeholder, agency, and community coordination will be required during advanced 

design, including the following: 

 Coordination with the USFWS to approve the off-site mitigation plan for impacts to 

San Diego fairy shrimp. 

 Coordination with CCC to address impacts to potential Environmentally Sensitive 

Habitat Areas and CCC wetlands through the Coastal Development Permit process. 

 Coordination with Caltrans and the USACE to minimize impacts to Rose Creek at the 

crossing below SR 52. 

 Coordination with the City of San Diego to avoid and minimize impacts to Marian 

Bear Memorial Park. 

 Coordination with the USACE, the SDRWQCB, the California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, and the CCC to identify and approve ratios and specific locations for 

compensatory mitigation for impacts to biological resources, including sensitive 

vegetation communities and wetlands. 

 Coordination with stakeholder user groups and the City of San Diego during study 

and design regarding a temporary bicycle path near the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path 

for use during construction between SR 52 and La Jolla Colony Drive. 

 Coordination with the community and stakeholders regarding input with respect to 

station design and identification of structural and landscaping measures to minimize 

impacts on visual resources. 

 Coordination with property owners/agencies regarding the construction schedules for 

other projects. 

 Coordination regarding constructability issues related to phasing of a second Los 

Angeles–San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency track across the San 

Diego River, possibly replacing the existing track, and adding the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project track over the San Diego River. 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 S-37 

 Coordination with stakeholders, including emergency service providers, hospitals, 

businesses, residences, the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, and UCSD 

during construction as identified and documented in the public outreach plan for the 

Transportation Management Plan. 

S.8 Next Steps 

The SANDAG Board of Directors will hold a meeting to certify the Final SEIS/SEIR and 

approve the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project; oral testimony will be accepted during 

this meeting. A notice of this meeting will be sent to all whom submitted comments on 

the Draft SEIS/SEIR and Supplement, as well as to property owners where temporary 

easements and/or permanent easements or acquisitions are required by the project. 

S.9 Intended Use 

This combined Final SEIS/SEIR and ROD will be used by the SANDAG Board of 

Directors to assess the environmental impacts that would result from changes in the 

project since its approval in 1995, to guide refinements of the LPA alignment, and to 

identify mitigation measures necessary for final certification of the SEIR and approval of 

the project and construction contract. FTA has used the Final SEIS to consider the 

economic, social, and environmental effects of the project and has issued a ROD for the 

Final SEIS (provided in Appendix D of this Final SEIS/SEIR). 

As the lead agencies, FTA and SANDAG invited the Federal Highway Administration, 

with Caltrans acting as its agent, and the USACE to be cooperating agencies (i.e., any 

federal agency that has jurisdiction with respect to any environmental impacts that may 

be caused by the proposed project). In addition, FTA and SANDAG invited numerous 

participating agencies (i.e., any federal, tribal, state, regional, or local government 

agencies that may have an interest in the project). As listed in Chapter 3.0, Table 3-1 of 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Agency Coordination Plan (SANDAG, 2011d), 

FTA and SANDAG identified 46 federal, tribal, state, and local agencies as potential 

participating agencies. Chapter 4.0, Section 4.22 of this Final SEIS/SEIR identifies 

anticipated permits for which this environmental document will be used. Chapter 8.0 of 

this Final SEIS/SEIR presents a discussion of coordination/consultation efforts 

conducted to date. 

 
Executive Summary 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

S-38 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-1 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego Association of 

Governments (SANDAG) have prepared this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project in San Diego, California. This Final SEIS/SEIR supplements the 

following environmental documents: the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (Metropolitan 

Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a); the Final Environmental Impact Report for 

the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b); and the Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa 

Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(MTDB, 2001). The FTA is serving as lead agency for the SEIS in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and SANDAG is serving as lead agency for 

the SEIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is identified in both the 2030 San Diego 

Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007a) 

and the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP) 

(SANDAG, 2011a). The 2030 RTP is the subject of the Final Environmental Impact 

Report for the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future 

(SANDAG, 2007c), and the 2050 RTP is the subject of Our Region, Our Future, 2050 

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Environmental 

Impact Report (SANDAG, 2011c). These documents provide a programmatic level of 

review for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project based on information available at the 

time of preparation. 

This chapter identifies the purpose of and the need for transit improvements in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor. This chapter presents a summary of the project background. It 

then describes the corridor, with a focus on land use and growth trends, travel demand, 

the existing transportation system, and the current and projected system performance. It 

concludes with a statement of project purpose and a list of the specific transportation 

needs to be addressed by the project. 

As identified in this chapter, 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. Although the Mid-Coast Corridor is currently 

served by transit, the existing transit system does not offer the level of service needed to 

meet the region’s goals for mobility, accessibility, reliability, and efficiency. The speed 

and reliability of bus service in the corridor are constrained by roadway congestion, and 

many transit riders are required to transfer in Downtown San Diego or at the Old Town 

Transit Center (OTTC) to reach major travel destinations in University City. With 

congestion projected to worsen in the future with the projected growth in population and 

employment, the level of service, reliability, and efficiency of the transit system will all 

decrease. To meet the region’s goals most effectively, the Mid-Coast Corridor needs a 

transit system that is better able to serve destinations in University City. This transit system 

must provide a frequency of service, speed, and reliability that would better serve existing 

transit riders and attract new riders. The project, which extends the San Diego Trolley 

(Trolley) Blue Line north and connects with the other Trolley lines using an exclusive right-of-
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-2 September 2014 

way for transit, would shorten travel times, improve reliability, and reduce the number of 

transfers required for travel to destinations in University City, thereby addressing the 

identified transportation needs in the corridor. 

1.1 Project Background 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was first identified as a transit project in 1987 

when voters approved Proposition A, the county’s half-cent transportation sales tax 

measure (TransNet). The environmental review process began in 1990 with a Notice of 

Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (MTDB, 1995a) was completed in 

February 1995. In December 1995, MTDB certified the Final Environmental Impact 

Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b) for purposes of CEQA and adopted a 

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to extend the existing light rail transit (LRT) system 

from the OTTC north to University City. An initial phase of the project, from just south of 

the San Diego River to Balboa Avenue, was the subject of a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (MTDB, 2001) and Record of Decision in August 2001. 

Following transfer of MTDB planning, programming, project development, and construction 

functions to SANDAG, the SANDAG Board of Directors in December 2003 approved an 

update to the 1995 LPA alignment to better serve the University of California, San Diego 

(UCSD) campus on both the east and west sides of Interstate (I-) 5 and to improve 

connections with existing and planned transit services at the University Towne Centre 

(UTC) Transit Center. In April 2005, the SANDAG Transportation Committee approved 

re-combining the Balboa Extension with the University City Extension into a single 

project extending from the OTTC to University City and approved initiating the 

supplemental environmental review for the project. To complete supplemental 

environmental review, SANDAG and FTA agreed to develop an SEIS in accordance with 

23 Code of Federal Regulations 771.130, and SANDAG decided to prepare an SEIR in 

accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. 

In 2008, SANDAG initiated an analysis of changed conditions in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

since the previous environmental studies were completed. The analysis of changed 

conditions was the initial step in the preparation of the SEIS/SEIR. The analysis included 

consideration of alternatives to the 2003 LPA alignment and station locations, as well as an 

evaluation of bus rapid transit and commuter rail alternatives. During May 2010, SANDAG 

conducted scoping under CEQA to solicit public and agency comments on the alternatives 

under consideration. The results of the scoping process and the alternatives considered are 

described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives 

Report (SANDAG, 2010e). Comments received by SANDAG during CEQA scoping are 

summarized in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project California Environmental Quality Act 

Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f). See Section 2.1.1 for additional information 

regarding prior studies. In 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors reaffirmed the LPA as an 

extension of the Trolley system from the OTTC to University City. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-3 

On July 12, 2011, FTA issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register, inviting 

comments on the proposed scope of the Draft SEIS, the purpose and need for the 

project, and the alternatives to be included in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG conducted 

numerous outreach activities. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project National 

Environmental Policy Act Scoping Report (SANDAG, 2011b) documents the NEPA 

scoping process and its results, including comments received. 

On May 17, 2013, FTA issued a Notice of Availability for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Draft SEIS/SEIR (SANDAG, 2013a) in the Federal Register, inviting comments 

during a 60-day public comment and review period. The Notice of Completion was filed 

with the State Clearinghouse on May 14, 2013. The Draft SEIS/SEIR evaluated a NoBuild Alternative and a Build Alternative with two options. One option, the Veterans 

Administration (VA) Medical Center Station Option, evaluated an additional station at the VA 

Medical Center, and the other option, the Genesee Avenue Design Option, proposed 

straddle bents instead of center columns for the aerial alignment along Genesee Avenue in 

University City. 

Four public meetings and one public hearing were held during the public comment and 

review period on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, which occurred from May 17, 2013 through July 

17, 2013. Based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and further analysis, 

refinements were proposed to the Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

The proposed Refined Build Alternative included the additional station at the VA Medical 

Center and eliminated the Genesee Avenue Design Option from further consideration. 

The proposed refinements also included changes to the alignment, stations, and other 

components of the Build Alternative. The SANDAG Board of Directors approved the 

proposed Refined Build Alternative on November 15, 2013 and amended the Refined 

Build Alternative on May 9, 2014 as the project for evaluation in the Final SEIS/SEIR, as 

documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build Alternative 

Report (SANDAG, 2014dd). 

Subsequent to distribution of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, a new impact to the federally listed 

endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) was identified. A 

limited-scope environmental document to supplement the Draft SEIS/SEIR was 

prepared to address this new impact. On July 18, 2014, the FTA issued a Notice of 

Availability for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement/Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

(SANDAG, 2014ee) in the Federal Register, inviting comments on the potential impacts 

to, and proposed mitigation for, the San Diego fairy shrimp during a 45-day public 

comment and review period from July 18, 2014 to September 2, 2014. The Notice of 

Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on July 11, 2014. 

1.2 Mid-Coast Corridor Description 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is the area centering on I-5 and extending from Downtown San 

Diego on the south to UCSD and University City on the north (Figure 1-1). Located 

entirely within the City of San Diego, the Mid-Coast Corridor is bounded by the Pacific 

Ocean on the west and by I-805 and State Route (SR) 163 on the east. The corridor is 

topographically varied, with terrain ranging from coastal beaches and bays to inland areas 

that contain steep hillsides and narrow canyons. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-4 September 2014 

Figure 1-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Study Area 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Note: The Trolley lines shown represent the 2010 Trolley operating plan. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-5 

1.2.1 Population and Employment 

The population within the San Diego region is growing. According to the SANDAG Series 11 

Travel Demand Forecasting Model (Series 11 model) forecasts of population and 

employment (2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update: Process and Model Documentation, 

SANDAG, 2008a), the county population will grow from about 3.18 million people in 2010 to 

3.91 million people by 2030, an increase of 23 percent. The population within the Mid-Coast 

Corridor is forecast to increase by 19 percent, from 358,000 people in 2010 to nearly 425,000 

people in 2030. The resident population in Downtown San Diego is predicted to almost 

double by 2030, to almost 80,000 people. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor contains over 10 percent of regional employment, with 

concentrations in both Downtown San Diego and University City. The number of jobs within 

University City approaches the number in Downtown San Diego, making these the two 

largest employment centers in the region. Between 2010 and 2030, employment in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor is predicted to increase 12 percent, from about 326,000 to over 364,000. 

Figure 1-2 shows the 29 travel analysis districts within the Mid-Coast Corridor region. 

These districts form the geographic units used to forecast population, employment, and 

travel demand. To capture trips to and from areas outside the region, an additional district 

was included in the analysis. The Mid-Coast Corridor is shaded green in the figure, and the 

various travel analysis districts are identified by number. Between 2010 and 2030, 

SANDAG predicts that employment in the Golden Triangle (District 16) and UCSD (District 

17) will increase by 14 and 8 percent, respectively. The two travel analysis districts that 

comprise Downtown San Diego, the Centre City (District 15) and Marina-Ballpark (District 

29), are predicted to experience job growth of 20 and 24 percent, respectively. MarinaBallpark (District 29) is located immediately south of the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

1.2.2 Land Use 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is characterized by dense urban centers and an abundance of 

regional activity centers and other major trip generators. Dense population and 

employment centers currently anchor both the northern and southern ends of the MidCoast Corridor. The UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping center, and regional 

hospitals are clustered in the north part of the corridor and represent the second most 

dense land uses in the county. At the south end of the corridor is the region’s only 

identified Metropolitan Center—Downtown San Diego—with the region’s densest land 

uses and high-rise development. Other major land uses within or immediately adjacent 

to the corridor, as shown in Figure 1-1, include the following: 

 Regional hospitals: Scripps Green Hospital, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla, 

UCSD Thornton Hospital, VA Medical Center, UCSD Medical Center Hillcrest, and 

Scripps Mercy Hospital 

 Major colleges and universities: UCSD, University of San Diego, San Diego Mesa 

College, and San Diego City College 

 Regional shopping centers: Westfield UTC, Fashion Valley, and Westfield Horton Plaza 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-6 September 2014 

Figure 1-2. Travel Analysis Districts 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-7 

 Major parks and visitor attractions: Mission Bay Park, San Diego Zoo, SeaWorld San 

Diego, Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, Balboa Park, the Gaslamp Quarter, 

San Diego Convention Center, Petco Park, Rose Canyon Open Space Park, and 

Marian Bear Memorial Park 

 San Diego International Airport 

Housing densities in the corridor tend to exceed those of the county as a whole. In the 

Golden Triangle (District 16) and Mission Bay (District 25) travel analysis districts, 

current densities of 28 and 21 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) are well above the 13 

du/acre county average. Three other travel analysis districts within, or adjacent to, the 

corridor also have higher-than-average residential densities—Uptown (District 27) at 19 

du/acre, Mission Valley (District 7) at 30 du/acre, and Centre City (District 15) at 114 

du/acre. All three areas are predicted to have increased housing densities by 2030. 

The Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (RCP) (SANDAG, 

2004a) calls for increased density in both the Downtown San Diego and University City 

areas, which are the population and employment centers anchoring the northern and 

southern ends of the corridor. A key implementation tool for local jurisdictions of the 

RCP is the Smart Growth Concept Map (SANDAG, 2008b) approved in 2006 and 

updated in 2008. The map identifies approximately 200 existing, planned, and 

potential smart growth locations identified by 18 cities and the County of San Diego as 

Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. All nine proposed stations in the Refined Build 

Alternative are located within Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. In addition, the 

corridor between the Tecolote Road and Clairemont Drive Stations is identified as a 

Mixed Use Transit Corridor. 

Additional information on current and planned land use is provided in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Land Use Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014d). 

1.2.3 Trip Purposes and Travel Patterns 

As regional population and employment increase, travel is expected to increase as well. 

People travel to, from, through, and within the corridor for a variety of purposes. The 

Series 11 model is used to predict travel and usage of the transportation system in 2030 

by trip purpose and travel market. 

The model identifies 10 trip purposes, such as trips from home to work or home to 

school. These are trips made by an individual regardless of the transportation mode 

they use to travel. Each trip has a beginning or origin, and an ending or destination. 

Thus, each trip has two trip ends—a production end and an attraction end. Trips taking 

place entirely within the corridor are internal trips, while those having a trip end outside 

the corridor are external trips. Trips coming into the corridor are external productions, 

and trips originating with the corridor and leaving it are external attractions. Table 1-1 

shows a breakdown, by purpose, of the 2010 and 2030 daily trips that have one or both 

trip ends within the Mid-Coast Corridor for the 10 trip purposes. Travel to, from, and 

within the corridor represents approximately 20 percent of the 18 million trips that 

occurred daily within the San Diego region. The region includes San Diego County and 

trips entering and leaving the county from the surrounding counties and across the U.S. 

border into Mexico. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-8 September 2014 

Table 1-1. 2010 and 2030 Daily Trips To, From, and Within 

the Mid-Coast Corridor by Trip Purpose 

Trip Purpose 

Trips to the 

Corridor 

(External 

Production)

Trips from the 

Corridor 

(External 

Attraction)

Trips within 

the Corridor 

(Internal)1

Total Trips Attracted 

to the Corridor 

(Internal + External 

Production)

Total Trips 

Produced by the 

Corridor (Internal + 

External Attraction)

2010 Daily Trips 

Home-Work 243,300 124,900 149,700 393,000 274,600 

Home-College 50,600 3,200 19,700 70,300 22,900 

Home-School 43,000 2,500 62,000 105,000 64,500 

Home-Shopping 21,100 77,300 174,000 195,100 251,300 

Home-Other 174,500 151,800 328,100 502,600 479,900 

Work-Other 113,900 150,500 231,900 345,800 382,400 

Other-Other 218,300 218,200 411,300 629,600 629,500 

Serve Passenger2 58,400 44,600 192,800 251,200 237,400 

Visitor 28,200 129,900 146,300 174,500 276,200 

Airport 96,600 0 18,600 115,200 18,600 

Total 1,047,900 902,900 1,734,400 2,782,300 2,637,300 

2030 Daily Trips 

Home-Work 262,900 133,900 183,100 446,000 317,000 

Home-College 55,100 2,800 21,200 76,300 24,000 

Home-School 45,100 3,100 63,500 108,600 66,600 

Home-Shopping 20,700 92,900 190,200 210,900 283,100 

Home-Other 215,400 196,900 422,700 638,100 619,600 

Work-Other 130,100 168,700 269,500 399,600 438,200 

Other-Other 251,100 250,900 492,800 743,900 743,700 

Serve Passenger2 73,600 53,400 230,100 303,700 283,500 

Visitor 32,100 171,100 196,200 228,300 367,300 

Airport 164,000 0 28,700 192,700 28,700 

Total 1,250,100 1,073,700 2,098,000 3,348,100 3,171,700 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: 1

 Internal trips have both ends within the corridor. 

2

 Serve passenger trips are home-based trips taken to assist a passenger in the vehicle (e.g., a parent 

dropping a child off at daycare). 

In 2010, the Mid-Coast Corridor attracted approximately 2.8 million daily trips, which on a 

daily basis are about 200,000 more trips than it produced. Of these trips, about 393,000 

(14 percent) were home-to-work trips, reflecting the strong employment centers within the 

corridor, and more than 175,000 (6 percent) were home-to-college and home-to-school trips, 

reflecting the strong educational centers in the corridor. 

Home-to-work, home-to-college, and home-to-school trips tend to occur during peak 

periods (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.). Of note, in 2010, more than 

50,000 of the approximately 73,500 home-to-college trips (i.e., the sum of trips to, from, 

and within the corridor) were produced outside the corridor. Together with home-to-work 

trips headed to University City, home-to-college trips contributed to a strong reverse 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-9 

commute travel pattern (i.e., during the a.m. peak, travel north in the corridor tends to be 

heavier than travel south to Downtown San Diego). 

To understand travel behavior better, an analysis was conducted that focused on the seven 

travel analysis districts within the corridor that lie north of I-8. These seven districts are 

outlined in red in Figure 1-2, and are referred to herein as the New Trolley Service Area. 

The New Trolley Service Area is the area that would be served by the proposed extension of 

the Trolley system north of the OTTC. Table 1-2 presents information on the origins and 

destinations of trips to and from the New Trolley Service Area from other parts of San Diego 

County. In 2010, more than 600,000 trips per day were attracted to the New Trolley Service 

Area, while over 670,000 daily trips were produced by the New Trolley Service Area and 

attracted to other parts of the county. By 2030, the number of trips attracted to the New 

Trolley Service Area is expected to grow by 17 percent, to more than 700,000 per day. 

Table 1-2. Direction of Daily External Trips to/from 

New Trolley Service Area, 2010 and 2030 

Generalized 

Direction 

2010 2030 

Trips Attracted to 

New Trolley 

Service Area 

(External 

Production) 

Trips Produced in 

New Trolley 

Service Area 

(External 

Attraction) 

Trips Attracted to

New Trolley Service 

Area 

(External 

Production) 

Trips Produced in 

New Trolley 

Service Area 

(External 

Attraction) 

North 120,400 20% 127,400 19% 132,800 19% 141,700 19% 

Northeast 147,500 25% 223,000 33% 168,100 24% 243,000 33% 

East 145,600 24% 127,400 19% 173,000 24% 139,300 19% 

South 180,300 30% 186,700 28% 219,700 31% 206,000 28% 

East County 7,700 1% 6,000 1% 13,100 2% 8,600 1% 

Total 601,500 670,500 706,700 738,600 

Source: Series 11 model 

In 2010, the New Trolley Service Area attracted 180,300 more daily trips from the south, 

including Downtown San Diego (Centre City [District 15] and Marina-Ballpark [District 29] 

travel analysis districts), than were attracted from other parts of the region. Substantial 

travel also was attracted from the east and northeast. Similarly, travel produced within 

the New Trolley Service Area tended to be headed northeast and south. These travel 

patterns are not expected to change substantially by 2030, although the number of trips 

is projected to grow. This is because the land use patterns within the New Trolley 

Service Area are not expected to change substantially. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report

(SANDAG, 2014v) provides a more detailed discussion of the data summarized in Table 

1-2, which shows that by 2030: 

 About 45 percent of trips that will be attracted to the New Trolley Service Area from the 

east will originate in the Mission Valley (District 7), Mission Trails (District 6), and East 

San Diego (District 9) travel analysis districts, while 52 percent of trips leaving the New 

Trolley Service Area for the east will have destinations in these same three travel 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-10 September 2014 

analysis districts. These districts are currently served by the Trolley Green Line, as 

described in Section 1.3.1.2. 

 Of the trips that will be attracted to the New Trolley Service Area from the south, 

more than 55 percent will originate in the South Bay (District 11), South San Diego 

(District 10), Centre City (District 15), Marina-Ballpark (District 29), and Uptown 

(District 27) travel analysis districts, currently served by the Trolley Blue Line. Over 

48 percent of all trips leaving the New Trolley Service Area for areas to the south will 

have destinations in these districts. 

 Approximately 24 percent of all home-to-college trips to the UCSD (District 17) travel 

analysis district will originate from the New Trolley Service Area and 16 percent will 

originate from the south, with 66 percent of these originating in the South San Diego 

(District 10), South Bay (District 11), Centre City (District 15), Marina-Ballpark 

(District 29), and Uptown (District 27) travel analysis districts. Approximately 11 

percent of home-to-college trips that will be attracted to the UCSD (District 17) travel 

analysis district will originate in the east, particularly in the North Park (District 8) and 

East Suburbs (District 13) travel analysis districts. 

In addition to these trips to and from the New Trolley Service Area, the Series 11 model 

shows substantial travel within the New Trolley Service Area. By 2030, more than one 

million daily trips will have both ends within the New Trolley Service Area. 

1.2.4 Major Transit Markets 

Some of the travel markets described in the previous section lend themselves to transit use 

more than others. For example, high concentrations of trips are better suited to transit 

because the service can be offered more frequently, making transit more attractive to those 

“choice riders” who have an automobile available, and therefore have a choice of travel 

modes. People also are more likely to use transit when their destination is a relatively 

dense, mixed-use area where good pedestrian or other transit connections are available. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report

(SANDAG, 2014v) presents data on trip density (the number of daily trips per 

developable acre) to and from the New Trolley Service Area. In 2010, the densest travel 

markets are trips that have both trip ends within the New Trolley Service Area. Travel 

between this area and the five travel analysis districts to the south and east also is quite 

dense. In terms of trip density, the best potential areas to increase transit use are as 

follows: 

 Travel entirely within the New Trolley Service Area is projected to increase by 15 

percent in 2030. 

 Travel between the New Trolley Service Area and the Centre City (District 15), 

Marina-Ballpark (District 29), and Uptown (District 27) travel analysis districts to the 

south is projected to grow by 17 percent by 2030. 

 Travel between the New Trolley Service Area and the Mission Valley (District 7) and 

Fashion Valley (District 28) travel analysis districts to the east is projected to grow by 

17 percent by 2030. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-11 

Although the South San Diego (District 10) and South Bay (District 11) travel analysis 

districts are not among the highest in trip density, there is a substantial amount of travel 

between the New Trolley Service Area and these districts, indicating that these transit 

markets are major markets for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as well. 

1.3 Corridor Transportation Facilities and Services 

The existing transportation system in the Mid-Coast Corridor1 includes a transit system 

consisting of commuter and regional rail, LRT, and bus transit services and facilities; and 

a roadway and highway system consisting of freeways, arterials, and local streets. 

Freight rail service also operates within the corridor. Major transportation facilities and 

transit services within the corridor are shown in Figure 1-3, Figure 1-4, and Figure 1-5, 

and are discussed below. Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including bicycle 

paths, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks, are located throughout the corridor, as described in 

Section 3.3.3 in Chapter 3.0. 

1.3.1 Transit System 

This section describes the existing transit system serving the Mid-Coast Corridor and 

planned system improvements, which would occur with or without the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project. The system includes commuter rail, intercity passenger rail, 

LRT, buses, and various paratransit and shuttle services. 

1.3.1.1 Commuter Rail Transit and Intercity Passenger Rail 

The COASTER commuter rail line and Amtrak intercity passenger rail both operate 

within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The COASTER is operated by the North County Transit 

District and provides service between Downtown San Diego and Oceanside, located 

north of the Mid-Coast Corridor. Three COASTER stations are in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor—the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC at the south end of the corridor and 

Sorrento Valley at the north end. On weekdays, the COASTER operates 11 trains in 

each direction, with peak-period headways (time between trains) as short as 35 minutes. 

Four trains in each direction are operated on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 

Intercity service is provided by Amtrak on COASTER tracks and departs from the Santa Fe 

Depot in Downtown San Diego. Amtrak operates 11 trains each weekday and 12 trains on 

weekends in each direction. One additional train operates in each direction on Friday 

evenings. On weekdays, five southbound Amtrak trains and one northbound train stop at 

the OTTC. On weekends, two additional northbound Amtrak trains stop at the OTTC. 

1.3.1.2 Light Rail Transit 

San Diego’s existing LRT system (the Trolley) consists of three lines (Figure 1-4). Under 

existing conditions, the Trolley Blue Line runs from the U.S.–Mexico international border 

through Downtown San Diego to the OTTC along the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) 

right-of-way. The Trolley Orange Line runs from Santee, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove to 

 

1

 Existing conditions generally refers to conditions in 2010 when the Notice of Preparation for CEQA was 

issued. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-12 September 2014 

Figure 1-3. Existing Transportation System in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Note: The Trolley lines shown represent the 2010 Trolley operating plan. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-13 

Figure 1-4. Existing Trolley System 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Note: The Trolley lines shown represent the 2010 Trolley operating plan. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-14 September 2014 

Figure 1-5. Bus Service in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-15 

Downtown San Diego, where it also provides downtown with circulation-loop service. 

The Trolley Green Line operates from Santee through Mission Valley, roughly paralleling 

I-8, to its terminus at the OTTC. Transit users traveling north must transfer to bus, 

COASTER, or Amtrak services in Downtown San Diego or at the OTTC. 

1.3.1.3 Bus Transit 

Local and express buses operated by MTS provide transit service to and within the corridor, 

connecting at transit centers in Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and the UTC Transit 

Center. Additionally, one bus route operated by the North County Transit District (Route 

101) also serves the northern portion of the corridor, providing service from Oceanside 

Transit Center to the VA Medical Center and the UTC Transit Center. Four MTS bus routes 

operate along the entire corridor between Downtown San Diego and the UTC Transit Center 

(Figure 1-5). Operating along I-5, Routes 50 and 150 (express routes) offer the quickest 

and most direct bus transit service between downtown and UTC, with Route 150 serving 

UCSD and Route 50 serving Clairemont. Routes 50 and 150 have peak-period headways 

of between 15 and 30 minutes, while 60-minute headways are provided during off-peak 

periods. Service is not provided on these routes during evenings or weekends. 

Local Route 105 serves nearly the full length of the corridor, traveling between the UTC 

Transit Center and the OTTC via local arterials in Clairemont. Route 105 operates at 

30-minute headways during both peak and off-peak periods. Route 30 serves the 

corridor, but travels via La Jolla and Pacific Beach, with 15-minute headways during both 

peak and off-peak periods. 

While travelers from the corridor to downtown are directly served by Routes 150 and 50, 

travel to other transit travel markets requires transfers, which typically occur at the OTTC 

(e.g., for trips to Mission Valley on the Trolley Green Line) or in downtown (for trips to 

areas south of downtown). Transfers add to travel time, and most riders perceive the 

time spent waiting (“out of vehicle time”) as more onerous than “in-vehicle time” moving 

toward one’s destination. In addition, access to the regional system through the OTTC 

is provided only by local buses, such as Route 105, that travel on slower, more 

circuitous, and less efficient routes. Express Routes 50 and 150 travel on I-5; however, 

Route 50 does not stop at the OTTC. Transfers between a bus and the Trolley at the 

OTTC also require a walk from the bus boarding area to the Trolley platform through an 

underground pedestrian tunnel. In 2030 under the No-Build Alternative, there are 

expected to be 11,600 transfers per day between the Trolley Green Line, the Trolley 

Blue Line, and Route 150. 

Other bus services connect the UTC Transit Center and UCSD to areas outside the 

corridor, while other routes provide service within the corridor. The SuperLoop (Route 

201/202) serves as an internal circulator between the University City and UCSD areas, 

providing frequent service. 

1.3.1.4 Other Transit 

MTS Access provides lift-equipped curb-to-curb public transportation services for eligible 

riders. The program operates in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (ADA). The ADA service parallels the rail and bus service system operating in the 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-16 September 2014 

MTS service area. Availability of service on any given day corresponds with the days 

and hours of operation of the Trolley and fixed-route buses. 

In addition to the above, the Mid-Coast Corridor is currently served by UCSD 

student/faculty shuttles, medical paratransit to hospitals in the corridor, COASTER 

connection shuttles to the Sorrento Valley Station, and privately operated employee 

shuttles to business locations. 

1.3.1.5 Planned Increases in Transit Service 

The 2030 RTP provides for a substantial increase in transit service. The plan calls for 

upgrading existing transit services in key urban corridors, and pursuing new transit 

projects in the most urbanized areas of the region using a broad combination of transit 

strategies. Projects proposed for implementation by 2030 include the following: 

 Increasing the frequency of service of the existing Trolley system 

 Adding new bus rapid transit lines to provide high-frequency regional transit 

connections along high-demand corridors 

 Developing a system of high-speed Rapid Bus services in key arterial corridors to 

supplement local bus services 

 Double tracking the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor 

Agency coastal rail corridor to enable more frequent and reliable service on the 

COASTER and Amtrak 

 Creating a system of high-frequency services on many existing local bus routes in 

urban core areas 

 Reintroducing streetcar and/or shuttle/circulator services to improve mobility within 

downtown areas 

1.3.2 Highway System 

The system of freeways and major arterials serving the Mid-Coast Corridor is shown in 

Figure 1-3. I-5 is an interstate highway serving the entire west coast of the United 

States. This limited-access freeway passes through the center of the Mid-Coast 

Corridor and connects the San Diego metropolitan region with Los Angeles and other 

cities to the north and with Mexico to the south. There are currently no high-occupancy 

vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-5 between Downtown San Diego and University City, although 

both the 2030 RTP and the 2050 RTP include planned HOV lanes along I-5 through the 

corridor. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor also is served by I-805 and SR 163, running north–south on the 

east side of the corridor, and by I-8 and SR 52, running east–west across the corridor. 

The 2050 RTP includes the addition of managed and HOV lanes with direct access 

ramps at several locations along I-805. 

Major arterial routes that run east–west in the corridor include Balboa Avenue and Friars 

Road. La Jolla Village Drive is a major east–west roadway in the northern portion of the 

corridor. Because of topographic constraints, few major north–south arterials serve the 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-17 

Mid-Coast Corridor, which increases traffic demand on I-5. Principal north–south 

arterials within the corridor include Pacific Highway in the southern portion; Morena 

Boulevard and Ingraham Street in the central portion; and Regents Road, Genesee 

Avenue, North Torrey Pines Road, and Gilman Drive in the north. 

1.4 Transportation System Performance 

This section presents the vision and goals established for the San Diego region, and 

assesses transit and highway system performance in terms of meeting those goals. 

1.4.1 Regional Goals 

SANDAG is responsible for regional planning, programming, project development, and 

construction of regional transportation projects. SANDAG’s 2030 RTP was developed to 

meet the region’s long-term mobility needs, better connect transportation and land use 

policy decisions, and create a transportation network that will serve the people of the 

region well into the 21st century. Adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in late 

2007, the 2030 RTP includes policy objectives to guide the planning and development of 

the regional transportation system. As the operator of one of the region’s two major 

transit systems, MTS is an advisory representative to the SANDAG Board of Directors. 

MTS assisted the SANDAG Board of Directors in development of the 2030 RTP and 

goals for the region. The goals in the 2030 RTP have guided the planning on the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project. They are as follows: 

 Livability—Focus transit improvements in areas with compatible land uses that 

support an efficient transit system. Use regional transportation funding as an 

incentive for smarter-growth land uses. 

 Mobility—Tailor transportation modal improvements to reflect supporting land uses in 

major travel corridors. Prioritize TransNet Early Action Program commitments and 

high-ranking projects and corridors for regional transportation funding. Minimize 

drive-alone travel by making it fast, convenient, and safe to carpool, vanpool, walk, 

and bike. Improve goods movement. 

 Efficiency—Measure the performance of the regional transportation system on a 

regular basis and manage its efficiency. Develop cost-effective, voluntary incentive 

programs for major employers, schools, and residential areas. 

 Accessibility—Increase transit mode share during peak periods with competitive 

transit travel time to major job centers. Encourage walkability and better bicycle 

access within local communities. 

 Reliability—Apply new technologies and management strategies to make transit 

service more reliable, convenient, and safe and to reduce congestion. 

 Sustainability—Focus roadway and transit improvements in urban/suburban areas, 

away from the region’s rural areas. Improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions, and limit impacts to sensitive habitats. Evaluate all reasonable 

noncapital transportation improvement strategies before pursing major expansions to 

roadway or fixed-guideway capacity. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-18 September 2014 

 Equity—Provide equitable levels of transportation services for low-income, minority, 

and elderly and disabled persons. 

These goals provide the basis for assessing current system performance and evaluating 

transit alternatives for 2030. 

1.4.2 Transit System Performance 

This section presents the results of the evaluation of the current transit system’s 

performance in terms of the SANDAG goals of improving mobility, efficiency, accessibility, 

and reliability. The evaluation used the same transit performance measures and 

standards that SANDAG and MTS use during their periodic performance assessments of 

the regional transit system. While many of these measures are used to evaluate the 

transit system’s performance as a whole, some can be applied to individual routes. Table 

1-3 presents a summary of the performance. Additional details are available in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 

2014v) and Chapter 3.0 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Table 1-3. Existing Transit System Performance, 2010 

Transit 

Service 

Average Speed (mph) Average 

Weekday 

Boardings 

Peak-Period 

Peak-Direction 

Load Factor 

On-Time 

Performance Passengers 

per Service 

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Hour 

Route 50 16.6 NB 16.6 SB 

16.9 NB 

1,139 0.45 93.4% 85.8% 27.9 

Route 150 17.9 NB 17.6 SB 

17.6 NB 

2,101 1.17 91.3% 86.3% 43.1 

Route 105 15.9 SB 

16.0 NB 

14.9 SB 

15.2 NB 

1,290 0.57 95.6% 85.8% 31.5 

Route 30 13.9 NB 12.9 SB 6,654 1.35 92.1% 79.4% 31.6 

Route 41 14.8 NB 14.1 SB 

14.2 NB 

3,888 1.19 92.6% 75.4% 43.4 

Trolley Blue 

Line 

20.0 (Daily) 20.0 (Daily) 52,416 1.88 93.1% (Daily) 278.4 

Trolley Green 

Line 

N/A N/A 18,584 0.86 97.0% (Daily 170.0 

Trolley Orange 

Line 

N/A N/A 20,284 1.51 93.4% (Daily) 126.5 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: mph = miles per hour; N/A = not available (average speed for the Trolley Green and Orange Lines was not 

available); NB = northbound; SB = southbound 

The analysis of transit performance excludes the COASTER commuter rail system and 

Amtrak, which carry passengers through the Mid-Coast Corridor. While both of these 

systems stop at the OTTC and the Santa Fe Depot, and the COASTER stops at 

Sorrento Valley Road at the northern end of the corridor, neither system effectively 

serves the University City area or the other travel markets that would be served by the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-19 

1.4.2.1 Speed and Transit Time 

One measure of transit mobility is average speed. Bus services in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

operate on I-5 and arterial streets, and experience the same congestion that auto drivers do. 

Because buses also make stops to pick up and drop off passengers, bus travel speeds are 

generally slower than auto speeds for a comparable trip. Currently, a 14-mile express bus 

trip between Downtown San Diego and the UTC Transit Center takes 48 minutes and has 

an average speed of 18.4 miles per hour. Local buses that operate on the non-continuous 

arterial streets between these two points and make more frequent stops are slower. In 

comparison, the existing Trolley Blue Line, which runs from the U.S.—Mexico international 

border through Downtown San Diego to the OTTC, averages 20 miles per hour. 

Figure 1-6 compares highway and transit travel times between various trip origins and 

destinations in 2010 (refer to Figure 1-2 for the location of each origin and destination). 

For this comparison, transit travel time includes both time riding the transit vehicle and 

time waiting at a station for the transit vehicle to arrive, but does not include access time to 

and from the transit system. Transit station waiting time is assumed to be half the 

headway, which is the estimated time between transit vehicle arrivals. For example, trains 

with 15-minute headways would have an estimated station waiting time of 7.5 minutes. 

Figure 1-6. Highway and Transit Travel Times between Travel Analysis Districts, 

Existing Conditions in 2010 

Source: Series 11 model 

As shown, transit travel times are 50 to 200 percent longer than the highway travel time 

for the same trip. This is particularly true for those trips that require a transfer, such as 

trips between the Mission Valley (District 7), Fashion Valley (District 28), and UCSD 

(District 17) travel analysis districts, and trips between the South Bay (District 11) and 

the Golden Triangle (District 16) travel analysis districts. These are among the largest 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Highway

Transit
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-20 September 2014 

travel markets identified in Section 1.2.3 and Section 1.2.4. For many, existing transit 

does not offer a competitive travel time with the automobile. 

By 2030, even with implementation of the other projects in the 2030 RTP, speeds on 

many highways is projected to decline as travel increases (see Section 1.4.3), which will 

increase highway travel times (Figure 1-7). Increased bus service called for in the 2030 

RTP will result in shorter wait times, helping to reduce transit travel time for some trips 

(Figure 1-8). However, increased congestion on the highway system will lead to slower 

speeds on many bus routes. As a result, transit travel times, on average, will be similar 

to those experienced in 2010. Although transit will be affected by highway system 

congestion and slower speeds, transit will continue to provide an alternative mode to 

travel by automobile, especially for those without access to an automobile. 

The analysis for future conditions in 2030 assumes the construction of HOV lanes along 

I-5 north of I-8. The HOV lanes will allow express buses on I-5 to travel more quickly 

while operating in the lanes. The lanes will not improve bus access from I-5 to the 

OTTC, however. Buses will still be required to travel nearly 1 mile on congested 

arterials to reach the I-5 interchange, and then they will be required to weave across the 

general purpose lanes to reach the HOV lanes. A similar weave will be necessary to 

leave the HOV lanes and access the UCSD/University City area. In 2030, an express 

bus ride between the UTC Transit Center and downtown is expected to take longer than 

today, even with the addition of the HOV lanes. 

Figure 1-7. Highway Travel Time between Travel Analysis Districts, 

2010 and 2030 without Project 

Source: Series 11 model 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010

2030
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-21 

Figure 1-8. Transit Travel Time between Travel Analysis Districts, 

2010 and 2030 without Project 

Source: Series 11 model 

1.4.2.2 Ridership 

Another measure of mobility is transit ridership, which is presented in Table 1-3 in terms of 

average weekday boardings, meaning the number of people who board a bus or train each 

day. Bus routes serving the corridor attract between 1,139 and 6,654 daily boardings, with 

the majority of ridership on the local bus routes. Transit use is a relatively small share of all 

trip-making within the corridor. By 2030, the Mid-Coast Corridor will have greater population 

and employment as well as more transit service. If the current bus-based system remains, 

however, transit ridership is not expected to grow substantially. 

High transit ridership can result in crowding on vehicles. Crowding is often measured in 

terms of passenger load factors, which is the ratio of passengers on a vehicle to the 

number of seats available. Thus, a transit load factor of 1.0 means that one seat is 

available for each rider, while a load factor of 1.5 means that for every two seated 

passengers, there is one standing passenger. Standing can be uncomfortable for riders, 

particularly on buses operating in stop and go traffic. On-time performance can be 

affected by the passenger load factor, as extra time may be needed for riders to board 

and alight if many passengers are standing. As shown in Table 1-3, several corridor bus 

routes have peak-period load factors exceeding 1.0. 

1.4.2.3 Reliability and Transit Efficiency 

Transit system reliability is measured in terms of on-time performance. Research has 

shown that travelers are more willing to use transit, even if it is slower than the 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010

No-Build Alternative
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-22 September 2014 

automobile, if the service is reliable and they can be confident of arriving at their 

destination on time. MTS and SANDAG define a bus as being on-time if its departure 

time at a station or stop is no more than 0 minutes, 0 seconds early and no more than 4 

minutes, 59 seconds late (SANDAG, 2010c). By this standard, as shown in Table 1-3, 

over 90 percent of the buses in the Mid-Coast Corridor are on-time in the a.m. peak 

period, but on-time performance deteriorates in the p.m. peak period when roads tend to 

be more congested. Those routes with the highest ridership and load factors tend to 

have the worst on-time performance. In contrast, the Trolley Blue, Green, and Orange 

Lines are able to maintain higher on-time performance because they operate in their own 

exclusive right-of-way. 

By 2030, as highway congestion increases, the speed and reliability of buses operating 

in mixed traffic will be reduced. More buses will be needed simply to maintain current 

headways and capacity, and operating efficiency will suffer. Performance of the NoBuild Alternative in 2030 is further assessed in Chapter 3.0. 

Transit efficiency or productivity is measured in terms of passengers per service hour. 

The ratios shown in Table 1-3 indicate that bus routes in the corridor are reasonably 

productive, but far less productive than the region’s three Trolley lines. 

1.4.2.4 Overall Performance 

In summary, transit services linking University City to Downtown San Diego and the remainder 

of the regional transit network currently lack sufficient speed, capacity, and reliability to 

compete effectively with the private automobile. Many riders need to transfer between bus 

routes or between bus and rail to complete their trip. Since some express buses bypass the 

OTTC and go directly to Downtown San Diego, those riders desiring to access the regional 

system through the OTTC must rely on slower, more circuitous, and less efficient local bus 

routes. A transit system based on buses operating in mixed traffic is not expected to attract 

substantial new ridership as population, employment, and travel grow in the future. 

1.4.3 Highway System Performance 

Level of service (LOS) can be used to evaluate roadway mobility, reliability, and 

efficiency by comparing traffic volumes with the capacity of the roadway (e.g., number of 

lanes). Level of service describes the quality of traffic flow using national standards 

published in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). 

Level of service is reported using letter designations from A to F, where LOS A 

represents free traffic flow and LOS F designates stop-and-go conditions, substantially 

reduced speeds, and difficulty maneuvering. Table 3-8 in Chapter 3.0 contains a more 

detailed description of each level of service. In the City of San Diego, LOS D or better is 

considered acceptable. 

Table 1-4 provides the 2008 peak hour and peak direction level of service for highways 

in the Mid-Coast Corridor. During the a.m. peak period, northbound is the peak direction 

of travel, indicating a reverse-commute pattern with travel heading away from Downtown 

San Diego. During the a.m. peak, the northbound lanes of both I-5 and I-805 have 

mostly LOS E/F conditions, indicating that travel demand is greater than available 

capacity. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-23 

Table 1-4. Highway Peak Period/Peak Direction Levels of Service, 2008 

Route Segment Period LOS

I-5 Southbound Peak Direction

I-805 to Voigt Dr PM A-D

Voigt Dr to La Jolla Village Dr PM E

La Jolla Village Dr to Nobel Dr PM A-D

Nobel Dr to SR 52 PM F

SR 52 on-ramp to Balboa Ave PM F

Balboa Ave to Clairemont Dr PM F

Clairemont Dr to Sea World Dr PM E

Sea World Dr to I-8 PM A-D

I-8 to Old Town Ave PM A-D

Old Town Ave to Washington St PM A-D

Washington St to Pacific Hwy PM F

Pacific Hwy to Hawthorn St/Grape St PM F

Hawthorn St/Grape St to 1st Ave/Front St PM F

1st Ave/Front St to SR 163 PM F

Northbound Peak Direction

I-805 to Sorrento Valley Rd AM A-D

Sorrento Valley Rd to Genesee Ave AM E

Genesee Ave to La Jolla Village Dr AM F

La Jolla Village Dr to Nobel Dr AM F

Nobel Dr to SR 52 AM F

SR 52 to Balboa Ave AM F

Balboa Ave to Grand Ave AM F

Grand Ave to Sea World Dr AM F

Sea World Dr to I-8 AM F

I-8 to Old Town Ave AM F

Old Town Ave to Washington St AM F

Washington St to Pacific Hwy AM F

Pacific Hwy to Hawthorn St/Grape St AM F

Hawthorn St/Grape St to First Ave/Front St AM F

First Ave/Front St to SR 163 AM F

I-8 Eastbound Peak Direction 

Sunset Cliffs Blvd to Sports Arena Blvd PM A-D

Sports Arena Blvd to Hotel Circle PM F

Hotel Circle to SR 163 PM F

Westbound Peak Direction 

Sunset Cliffs Blvd to Sports Arena Blvd AM E

Sports Arena Blvd to Hotel Circle AM A-D

Hotel Circle to SR 163 AM A-D
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-24 September 2014 

Table 1-4. Highway Peak Period/Peak Direction Levels of Service, 2008 (continued) 

Route Segment Period LOS

I-805 Southbound Peak Direction

I-5 to Sorrento Valley Rd PM E

Sorrento Valley Rd to Mira Mesa Blvd PM A-D

Mira Mesa Blvd to SR 52 PM F

SR 52 to Clairemont Mesa Blvd PM A-D

Clairemont Mesa Blvd to Balboa Ave PM A-D

Balboa Ave to SR 163 PM A-D

Northbound Peak Direction

I-5 to Nobel Dr AM A-D

Nobel Dr to SR 52 AM F

SR 52 to Clairemont Mesa Blvd AM F

Clairemont Mesa Blvd to Balboa Ave AM E

Balboa Ave to SR 163 AM A-D

SR 52 Eastbound Peak Direction

I-5 to Regents Rd PM A-D

Regents Rd to Genesee Ave PM A-D

Genesee Ave to I-805 PM F

Westbound Peak Direction

I-5 to Regents Rd AM F

Regents Rd to Genesee Ave AM F

Genesee Ave to I-805 AM F

SR 163 Southbound Peak Direction

I-805 to Genesee Ave AM F

Genesee Ave to Friars Rd AM F

Friars Rd to I-8 AM E

I-8 to 6th Ave AM F

6th Ave to Washington St AM F

Washington St to Robinson Ave AM A-D

Robinson Ave to I-5 AM A-D

Northbound Peak Direction

I-805 to Mesa College Dr PM A-D

Mesa College Dr to Friars Rd PM A-D

Friars Rd to I-8 PM A-D

I-8 to 6th Ave PM E

6th Ave to Washington St PM A-D

Washington St to Robinson Ave PM F

Robinson Ave to I-5 PM F

Source: SANDAG, 2010e 

Notes: Bold letters indicate an unacceptable level of service. 

I = interstate; LOS = level of service; SR = state route 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-25 

In contrast with the a.m. peak, travel patterns in the p.m. peak are more diverse. 

Morning peak-period travel typically consists of a majority of commuters traveling from 

home to work or school. During the p.m. peak period, many commuters will add 

additional trips to other activities, such as trips to shop or to visit friends on the way 

home. In the p.m. peak, most of the southbound segments on I-5 operate between 

LOS A and LOS D, with the worst congestion occurring between Downtown San Diego 

and Washington Street and between Sea World Drive and Nobel Drive. While highway 

travel speeds are generally faster than transit speeds, congestion can make travel times 

unreliable for both highway and transit users. 

Looking ahead to 2030, the performance of the highway system can be evaluated in terms of 

highway speeds for the representative trips presented earlier. As previously shown in Figure 

1-7, with a few exceptions, highway travel times during peak periods are expected to increase 

by 2030 because of growing congestion and slower speeds on the highway system. 

1.5 Purpose and Need for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

The Mid-Coast Corridor is characterized by dense urban centers and an abundance of 

regional activity centers and other major trip generators. Dense population and 

employment centers currently anchor both the northern and southern ends of the MidCoast Corridor. The UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping center, and regional 

hospitals are clustered in the north part of the corridor and represent the second-most 

dense land uses in the county. At the south end of the corridor is the region’s only 

identified Metropolitan Center—Downtown San Diego—with the region’s densest land 

uses and high-rise development. 

According to the Series 11 model, major growth is projected for the Mid-Coast Corridor, 

resulting in a corridor population that will increase by 19 percent to nearly 425,000 

people in 2030, and a corridor employment that will increase by 12 percent to over 

364,000 employees in 2030. Additionally, the RCP calls for increased population and 

employment density in Downtown San Diego and the UCSD and UTC areas of 

University City. Increased population and employment will lead to increased travel 

demand in the corridor. 

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. The COASTER 

commuter rail service passes through the corridor, but its stations are widely spaced and 

it does not have a station in close proximity to UCSD or UTC. Under existing conditions, 

the Trolley Blue Line terminates at the OTTC. 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. 

To meet the region’s goals most effectively, the Mid-Coast Corridor needs a transit system 

that is better able to serve the major travel destinations of UCSD and the UTC Transit 

Center in University City. This transit system must provide a frequency of service, speed, 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-26 September 2014 

and reliability that would better serve existing transit riders and attract new riders. The 

exclusive right-of-way for transit that is proposed for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

would shorten travel times, improve reliability, and reduce the number of transfers required 

for travel between major travel markets, thereby improving service for existing riders and 

attracting new riders. With the improved transit service provided by the project, one-seat 

rides (trips that do not require a transfer) would be available from the U.S.–Mexico 

international border to University City, and between communities in South San Diego 

County, Downtown San Diego, and the University City, making transit an attractive 

alternative to travel by automobile. 

In summary, the purpose of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is to: 

 Increase transit speed and reliability in the corridor. Provide direct transit routes with 

dedicated transit facilities and treatments for faster and more reliable transit service 

that can better compete with automobile travel and attract new transit riders. 

 Reduce the number of transfers required to complete a trip. Transit improvements 

should seek to provide a one-seat ride between the most significant origins and 

destinations of travel. 

 Make transfers more convenient where they do occur. 

 Expand transit capacity in the corridor to accommodate existing and future travel 

demand. 

1.6 Other Project Goals 

SANDAG has established goals in the 2030 RTP, not only for transportation mobility, 

accessibility, efficiency, and reliability, but also for livability, sustainability, and equity. 

While these goals do not directly contribute to the purpose and need for a major transit 

improvement in the Mid-Coast Corridor, they have guided development of the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project. 

1.6.1 Livability 

SANDAG’s livability goal seeks to focus transit improvements in areas with compatible land 

uses that support an efficient transit system and to foster smarter-growth land uses. As 

noted previously, the Mid-Coast Corridor contains the two largest and densest 

concentrations of population and employment in the county, Downtown San Diego and the 

University City area. These areas are expected to continue to develop following smart 

growth principles, in accordance with adopted general plan and community plan policies. 

1.6.2 Sustainability 

SANDAG’s goal for sustainability seeks to improve air quality and reduce GHG 

emissions. The San Diego Air Basin, which comprises all of San Diego County, is in 

attainment or unclassified for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards for all pollutants, 

except for the federal 8-hour standard for ozone, which is typically exceeded several 

times a year. Motor vehicles are the largest source of ozone precursors in the San 

Diego Air Basin, and a major source of GHG emissions. 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1-27 

State laws addressing climate change place new emphasis on reducing GHG emissions. 

California Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 

recognizes that California is the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. 

AB 32 established a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 

reduction of approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels, with further 

reductions to follow. AB 32 acknowledges that such emissions cause adverse impacts 

to human health and the environment. Senate Bill 97, enacted in 2007, amends the 

CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions 

are required subjects for CEQA analysis. 

Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, 

enhances California's ability to reach its AB 32 goals by promoting good planning. The 

law requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regional GHG emission 

reduction targets for passenger vehicles and to establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for 

each region covered by one of the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs). Each of California’s MPOs, including SANDAG, are required to prepare a 

“sustainable communities strategy” that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG 

reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. 

For the Mid-Coast Corridor, these state laws discourage the construction of new 

transportation facilities that would increase single-occupancy vehicle use and GHG 

emissions relative to the number of people using the facility. 

1.6.3 Equity 

SANDAG’s social equity goal establishes that it will provide equitable levels of 

transportation services for all segments of the population, including low-income, minority, 

elderly, and persons with disabilities. This goal is consistent with Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act (42 United States Code 2000d et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, and national origin, and also recognizes federal executive orders 

related to environmental justice. When evaluating alternatives for Mid-Coast Corridor 

transit improvements, consideration was given to avoiding any disparate benefits or 

impacts to these protected groups. Section 4.20 in Chapter 4.0 discusses the 

environmental justice issues related to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

 
Chapter 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

1-28 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-1

2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

This chapter summarizes the development of the alternatives evaluated in this Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report (SEIS/SEIR). It begins with a description of the process that led to the 

development of the alternatives considered and evaluated in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Draft SEIS/SEIR (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG], 

2013a). It then describes the No-Build and Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR and the refinements to the Build Alternative that provided the basis for the 

Refined Build Alternative. The chapter concludes with a description of the Refined Build 

Alternative, including alignment, stations, vehicles, power system and signaling, 

operating plan, and schedule for implementation. 

2.1 Development of Alternatives 

This section summarizes prior studies and actions related to the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project as well as the additional studies and refinements, which led to the 

development of the alternatives that were considered in the SEIS/SEIR. 

2.1.1 Prior Studies and Actions 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was included in Proposition A, a local half-cent 

transportation sales tax measure (TransNet), which was approved by San Diego County 

voters in 1987. The environmental review process began in 1990 with a Notice of Intent 

to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives 

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report

(Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a) was completed in February 

1995. In December 1995, MTDB certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 

Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b) in compliance with the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) and adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), which would 

extend the existing San Diego Trolley (Trolley) light rail transit (LRT) system from the 

Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) north to the University City neighborhood. In addition 

to the extension of the Trolley, the 1995 LPA included a new COASTER commuter rail 

station at Nobel Drive and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on Interstate (I-) 5. 

These projects were later separated from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project for 

implementation as separate projects. 

After completing the Final Environmental Impact Report in December 1995, MTDB 

elected to divide the project into two separate phases for implementation. The first 

phase of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, from just south of the San Diego River 

to Balboa Avenue (i.e., Balboa Extension), was the subject of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (MTDB, 2001) and Record of Decision (ROD) in August 2001 in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 1995 and 2001 

environmental documents for the projects evaluated a range of mode, alignment, and 

station alternatives, including no-build, Transportation System Management, commuter 

rail, HOV lanes, and LRT. 

Between completion of the 1995 environmental document and 2003, MTDB considered 

and evaluated various alignments and modes for the second phase of the project (i.e., 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-2 September 2014 

University City Extension). In July 2003, as a result of state legislation, all MTDB1

planning, programming, project development, and construction functions were 

transferred to SANDAG. In December 2003, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved 

an update to the 1995 LPA alignment to better serve the University of California, San 

Diego (UCSD) campus on both the east and west sides of I-5 and to improve 

connections with existing and planned transit services at the University Towne Centre 

(UTC) Transit Center. The update to the LPA provided for stations on both the UCSD 

east and west campuses and a terminal station at the UTC Transit Center instead of on 

Executive Drive east of Towne Centre Drive as in the 1995 LPA. The stations at Jutland 

Drive and Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive were eliminated in the 2003 update to the 

LPA. The station at Gilman Drive north of the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical 

Center also was eliminated with the change in alignment and addition of the station on 

the UCSD west campus. The updated LPA alignment followed Voigt Drive and Genesee 

Avenue between the UCSD west campus and the UTC Transit Center instead of turning 

east at Gilman Drive and following Executive Drive to the terminus east of Towne Centre 

Drive. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was included in the re-authorization of TransNet, 

approved by voters in November 2004. In April 2005, the SANDAG Transportation 

Committee approved re-combining the Balboa Extension with the University City 

Extension into a single Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project extending from the OTTC to 

University City and approved initiating the supplemental environmental review for the 

project. Supplemental environmental review would include updating and supplementing 

the previously prepared environmental documents and technical studies. The Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) concurred with this approach on July 24, 2006. The MidCoast Corridor Transit Project was included in the 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007a) adopted by 

the SANDAG Board of Directors in November 2007. 

SANDAG initiated an analysis of changed conditions in the Mid-Coast Corridor in 2008 to 

identify and evaluate changes in the physical and regulatory environment that had 

occurred following the completion of previous environmental studies. The analysis 

included consideration of alternatives to the updated LPA alignment and station locations 

and evaluation of rapid bus, bus rapid transit, and commuter rail alternatives to improve 

transit service between Downtown San Diego and University City. The alternative modes 

and alignments considered in the study were developed based on the transportation 

needs identified in Chapter 1.0, including increasing the speed and reliability of transit 

service, reducing transfers, and expanding transit capacity in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The 

alternatives were evaluated against a No-Build Alternative that included all of the highway 

and transit facilities in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of SANDAG’s 2030 RTP except 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, which was excluded from the alternative in 

order to represent conditions in the corridor without the project. The No-Build Alternative 

assumes that the existing bus Route 150, operating between Downtown San Diego and 

University City, would be continued and enhanced to address the increased transit 

demand projected for the corridor. 

 

1

 The MTDB is now the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-3

SANDAG conducted CEQA scoping for the Draft SEIR in 2010, and the results are 

documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project California Environmental Quality Act 

Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f). On July 23, 2010, the SANDAG Board of 

Directors considered public input received during scoping and reconfirmed the previously 

adopted LPA, refined to include direct service to UCSD and UTC, and the No-Build 

Alternative for evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The SANDAG Board of Directors also 

approved evaluation of a station at the VA Medical Center during the development of the 

draft environmental document. 

The results of the analysis of changed conditions and the evaluation process for the project, 

which concluded with the SANDAG Board of Directors’ reconfirmation of the LPA, are 

documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives 

Report (SANDAG, 2010e). The conceptual alternatives considered are described in detail in 

the report and summarized in Table 2-1, along with the results of the study. 

On July 12, 2011, FTA issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register inviting comments 

on the proposed scope of the Draft SEIS, the purpose and need for the project, and the 

alternatives to be included in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG conducted numerous outreach 

activities. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project National Environmental Policy Act 

Scoping Report (SANDAG, 2011b) documents the NEPA scoping process and its results, 

and includes the comments received. The comments were similar to comments provided 

during CEQA scoping and/or previously identified concerns. 

2.1.2 Additional Studies and Refinements to Prior LPA 

Following reconfirmation of the LPA by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 2010 and 

NEPA scoping, SANDAG conducted additional studies and coordinated with project 

stakeholders, which resulted in refinements to the alignment, station locations and 

facilities, and LRT operating plan. The LPA was refined in consultation with project 

stakeholders, including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the City 

of San Diego, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and UCSD. SANDAG also 

coordinated with Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (Scripps Hospital) and the VA 

Medical Center. The refinements to the LPA include determination of the alignment at 

Voigt Drive, inclusion of an optional station at the VA Medical Center, modifying the 

alignment to accommodate a potential future station at Jutland Drive, identifying 

additional parking areas, and including a design option to minimize right-of-way 

acquisition along Genesee Avenue. The refinements to the LPA were incorporated into 

the Build Alternative that was evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

2.1.2.1 UCSD—Voigt Alignment Options 

The updated LPA included three alignment options along Voigt Drive between the UCSD 

West Station and the UTC Transit Center, evaluated in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report (SANDAG, 2010e). The report 

stated that the three options in the vicinity of Voigt Drive would allow for the selection of 

a specific alignment to avoid potential impacts that may be discovered during the 

environmental review process. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-4 September 2014 

Table 2-1. Alternatives Considered in Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report 

Transit Mode Characteristics of Transit Mode Description of Alternative(s) Results of Evaluation 

TSM Rapid Bus • Buses operating at grade in 

mixed-flow lanes 

• Clean fuel (compressed natural 

gas) powered bus with rubber 

tires 

• 60 miles per hour maximum or 

posted speed 

• Up to 60-foot-long articulated bus 

• Capacity: Up to 84 passengers 

per bus, with standees 

• New rapid bus route connecting 

Downtown San Diego, Old Town, 

UCSD, and UTC, with limited-stop 

service along Pacific Hwy. and 

Morena Blvd. and express service 

in HOV lanes to Nobel Dr. 

• Eliminated from consideration because 

it would not substantially improve travel 

times, ridership, or reliability 

Bus Rapid Transit • Stylized buses operating at grade, 

below grade, or above grade in 

exclusive, semi-exclusive, and 

shared lanes 

• Clean fuel (compressed natural gas)

powered bus with rubber tires 

• 65 mph maximum speed 

• Up to 65-foot-long articulated bus 

• Capacity: Up to 100 passengers 

per bus, with standees 

• Four BRT alternatives were 

considered, providing a 

combination of exclusive bus 

lanes, semi-exclusive bus or HOV 

lanes, and shared lanes from 

Downtown San Diego north to 

University City 

• Eliminated from consideration because 

of lack of effectiveness in meeting 

regional goals (i.e., low ridership, 

consistency with regional and local land 

use plans), cost effectiveness, and 

likelihood of securing FTA New Starts 

funds 

Light Rail Transit • Trains operating at grade, below 

grade, or above grade in 

exclusive lanes or fixed guideway

• Electrically powered via overhead 

power contact system and 

substations for power distribution 

• 55 mph maximum speed 

• Maximum four cars per train 

• Capacity: 600 passengers per 

three-car train, with standees 

• Seven potential alternatives were 

identified for extension of the 

Trolley Blue Line north to 

University City 

• All alternatives followed the 

Metropolitan Transit System rightof-way to just north of State Route 

52 

• LRT Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 

7 followed I-5 to the UCSD campus

and then turned east to terminate 

at the UTC Transit Center 

• LRT Alternative 3 followed the 

MTS right-of-way east to Genesee 

Ave., turned north via a new tunnel 

to the UTC Transit Center, and 

then turned west to terminate on 

the UCSD West Campus 

• Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 following Voigt 

Dr. and Genesee Ave. combined into a 

single alternative (i.e., Alternative 1) and 

reconfirmed as the LPA 

• Alternative 2 following Regents Rd. and 

Executive Dr. eliminated because of 

impacts on traffic and property access 

• Alternative 3 following MTS right-of-way 

to Genesee Ave. eliminated because of 

public comments on impacts to Rose 

Canyon and additional biological 

impacts 

• Alternative 6 turning south of Voigt Dr. 

to UCSD Thornton Hospital eliminated 

because of operational, biological, and 

property access impacts 

• Alternative 7 eliminated because of lack 

of service to UCSD West Campus 

Commuter Rail Transit • Trains operating at grade, below 

grade, or above grade 

• Tracks shared with intercity and 

freight trains 

• Diesel-propelled locomotives 

• 79 mph maximum speed 

• Trains generally consist of up to 

five double-deck passenger cars 

• Capacity: 675 seated passengers 

per train 

• New commuter rail service to the 

University City area. The new 

service would have been operated 

as a shuttle from the Santa Fe 

Depot in Downtown San Diego to a

new station at the UTC Transit 

Center via a new tunnel under 

UTC 

• Commuter rail eliminated because of 

lack of effectiveness in meeting regional 

goals (i.e., low ridership, consistency 

with regional and local land use plans), 

cost effectiveness, and likelihood of 

securing FTA New Starts funds 

Source: SANDAG, 2010e 

Note: BRT = bus rapid transit; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; LRT = light rail transit; mph = miles 

per hour; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; SR = State Route; TSM = Transportation Systems Management; UCSD = University 

of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-5

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Evaluation of Voigt Drive Alignment Options 

Technical Memorandum (SANDAG, 2011f) describes the three alignment options and 

the results of the evaluation of the options based on additional studies and stakeholder 

comments. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if any of the alignment 

options should be eliminated from further study or whether all should be carried forward 

for further refinement and evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The LPA alignment would 

extend east of the UCSD West Campus along one of the following three alignment 

options to a terminus at the UTC Transit Center: 

 An at-grade alignment in the median of Voigt Drive and an aerial alignment on 

Genesee Avenue (Alignment Option 1) 

 An aerial alignment along the south side of Voigt Drive and on Genesee Avenue 

(Alignment Option 4) 

 An at- and below-grade alignment south of Voigt Drive and an aerial alignment on 

Genesee Avenue (Alignment Option 5) 

The LPA alignment differs under each option between the UCSD West Station and 

Genesee Avenue just east of Regents Road, as shown in Figure 2-1. 

Figure 2-1. Voigt Drive Alignment Options on UCSD Campus 

Source: SANDAG, 2011f 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-6 September 2014 

Based on the evaluation, Alignment Option 4 was selected for further refinement and 

evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. During stakeholder consultation, negative comments 

were received on Alignment Option 1 as a result of concerns over access and 

circulation, at-grade crossings at intersections, and dependence on the planned Voigt 

Drive widening and realignment; it was eliminated from further consideration. Alignment 

Option 5 had the least compatibility with current and planned land use, and—of the three 

options—it would have the greatest engineering, operating, and maintenance issues. 

Therefore, it was eliminated from further consideration. 

Alignment Option 4 was subsequently refined through coordination with project 

stakeholders, including Caltrans, Scripps Hospital, and UCSD, which resulted in the use 

of an aerial alignment through the UCSD West Campus with an elevated station in 

Pepper Canyon. The alignment was modified to cross over I-5 north of Voigt Drive, as 

shown in Figure 2-2. 

Figure 2-2. Refined LPA Alignment on UCSD Campus 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-7

2.1.2.2 Additional Stations 

In 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors determined that the SEIS/SEIR would evaluate 

a station at the VA Medical Center. The Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center 

Station is identified as an option of the Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

A station at Jutland Drive had been evaluated in the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives 

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report 

(MTDB, 1995a), and the LPA approved by MTDB in 1995 included this station. In 

December 2003, when the SANDAG Board of Directors approved an update to the 1995 

LPA alignment, it eliminated the station at Jutland Drive because of low projected 

passenger boardings. The Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit Extension Locally Preferred 

Alternative Update Summary (SANDAG, 2004c) identified the station locations that 

changed between the 1995 documents and the 2003 updated LPA. Several comments 

were received during CEQA scoping conducted in 2010 requesting a Jutland Drive 

Station be added to the project. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative 

Evaluation of Alternatives Report (SANDAG, 2010e) concluded that there had been no 

change in land use or development that would have any bearing on the decision by the 

SANDAG Board of Directors in 2003 to eliminate the Jutland Drive Station. 

Subsequent to the adoption of the LPA by the SANDAG Board of Directors in July 2010, 

comments were received during NEPA scoping requesting further evaluation of the 

feasibility of a station at Jutland Drive. In response to these comments, SANDAG 

subsequently reevaluated the feasibility of a station at Jutland Drive from an 

engineering, transportation, environmental, and cost standpoint, as documented in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study Technical 

Memorandum (SANDAG, 2011e). This evaluation found that while a Jutland Drive 

Station would slightly increase system ridership, the station would have the lowest 

number of boardings of any station on the Trolley Blue Line in 2030, and it would 

increase the project’s cost by $19 million (2010 dollars)2

. As a result, SANDAG 

determined that this station would not be carried forward as part of the project, but 

modified the alignment to accommodate a potential future station at Jutland Drive. 

2.1.2.3 Station Parking Facilities 

As outlined in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and 

Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v), SANDAG conducted an analysis of parking 

demand. Based on the results of that analysis, the LPA was refined to expand parking 

at the Tecolote Road Station and to provide transit parking at the Clairemont Drive and 

Nobel Drive Stations, as well as at the UTC Transit Center. As refined, the LPA 

provides 280 surface parking spaces at the Tecolote Road Station, 150 surface parking 

spaces at the Clairemont Drive Station, 220 surface parking spaces at the Balboa 

Avenue Station, 260 structure parking spaces at the Nobel Drive Station, and 260 

parking spaces at the UTC Transit Center parking structure. 

 

2

 The costs were estimated in 2010 dollars at the time of the study for comparison to the costs of the LPA 

or Build Alternative, which were in 2010 dollars at that date. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-8 September 2014 

2.1.2.4 Genesee Avenue Design Option 

The LPA included the use of center columns along Genesee Avenue with roadway 

widening where necessary to accommodate the center columns. In an attempt to 

reduce right-of-way acquisitions associated with the center column design, a design 

option was developed that uses straddle bents in place of some center columns to 

support the aerial structure and stations on Genesee Avenue. 

Under the Genesee Avenue Design Option, straddle bents would be used to support the 

aerial structure on beams that span the street below. Straddle bents are horizontal beams 

supported by columns at each end. The straddle bents would span the street, with 

columns placed to the outside of the roadway. By placement of the columns to the outside 

of the roadway, roadway widening can be avoided and right-of-way acquisitions could be 

reduced. The Genesee Avenue Design Option with additional straddle bents was a design 

option under the Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

2.1.2.5 LRT Operating Plan 

The operating plan defined for the LPA was based on the 2030 RTP and assumed an 

increase in the frequency of service on the Trolley Green Line from 15 to 7.5 minutes 

during peak periods. Further study was conducted following reconfirmation of the LPA, 

and it was determined that the passenger demand on the Trolley Green Line could be 

accommodated more efficiently by operating four-car trains at 15-minute headways 

instead of three-car trains at 7.5-minute headways. 

Consistent with the 2030 RTP, the LPA assumed an increase in service frequency on 

the Trolley Orange Line from 15 to 7.5 minutes during peak periods. Upon further study, 

it was determined that this would require a third LRT track and platform at the Santa Fe 

Depot. Because these improvements were not included in the 2030 RTP and forecast 

passenger demands on the Trolley Orange Line could be served more efficiently by 

trains operating at 15-minute peak-period service, the frequency of service on the Trolley 

Orange Line was changed to 15 minutes during peak periods in the operating plans for 

the Build and No-Build Alternatives. 

2.2 Description of Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

This section describes the No-Build and Build Alternatives and the Build Alternative 

options that were evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR based on the transportation needs 

identified in Chapter 1.0. 

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

This section describes the transportation improvements assumed in the No-Build 

Alternative within the Mid-Coast Corridor that were evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, as 

well as 2030 forecast year conditions resulting from projected development and changes 

in population and employment. The No-Build Alternative evaluated in this Final 

SEIS/SEIR is the same as in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-9

2.2.1.1 Highway and Transit Facility Improvements from the 2030 RTP 

The No-Build Alternative is evaluated in the context of the existing transportation 

facilities and services in the Mid-Coast Corridor (as characterized in 2010) and other 

facilities and services identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP. 

Since the No-Build Alternative provides the background transportation network against 

which the Build Alternative’s impacts are identified and assessed, the No-Build 

Alternative excludes the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project but does include continued 

and enhanced bus service on Route 150. The No-Build Alternative was derived from the 

2030 RTP. In October 2011, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a new regional 

transportation plan that extended the planning horizon from 2030 to 2050—the 2050 

Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP) (SANDAG, 2011a). 

However, the 2030 RTP has been retained as the basis for the No-Build Alternative 

because, as discussed below, no substantive differences exist between the 2030 and 

2050 RTPs that would alter the environmental analysis. 

The 2050 RTP was reviewed to determine if it includes any additional funded projects 

planned for implementation in the Mid-Coast Corridor by 2030 and not included in the 2030 

RTP. The only major new project in the Mid-Coast Corridor is the extension of the Trolley 

Blue Line from the UTC Transit Center to Mira Mesa via the Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon 

area. This extension is not an alternative to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project since it is 

dependent on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project’s implementation. The Mira 

Mesa/Sorrento Mesa extension has not been considered in a corridor-level alternatives 

analysis. Future analysis under NEPA and CEQA also would be required. Thus, this 

extension is not included in either the No-Build Alternative or the Build Alternative. 

The 2050 RTP also was reviewed to determine if it includes any Mid-Coast Corridor 

projects that are assumed in the No-Build Alternative that are not in the 2030 phase of 

the 2050 RTP. The only major project not in the 2030 phase of the 2050 RTP is the 

addition of HOV lanes in the segment of I-5 from I-8 to La Jolla Village Drive. The 2050 

RTP defers the implementation of the HOV lanes in this segment until the decade 

ending in 2050. Because the 2050 RTP only defers implementation of the HOV lanes, 

but still includes them, they are assumed in the design and analysis of the Mid-Coast 

Transit Project under the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The other Mid-Coast Corridor 

projects in the 2050 RTP that are not in the 2030 RTP and that are scheduled for 

implementation by 2030 are minor projects (e.g., minor adjustments to bus routes, 

increased bus frequency) and are not expected to have any substantial bearing on the 

analysis of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Figure 2-3 shows the location of the projects included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario 

of the 2030 RTP located within the Mid-Coast Corridor and assumed to exist in the No-Build 

Alternative. These include the following major improvements from the 2030 RTP: 

 Double tracking of the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor 

Agency (LOSSAN) tracks and other rail improvements, with an increase in frequency 

of COASTER service to every 20 minutes during peak periods and to every 

60 minutes during off-peak periods in both directions. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-10 September 2014 

Figure 2-3. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-11

 HOV lanes on I-5 from I-8 north to Oceanside, with direct access ramps (DARs) at 

various locations, of which the DARs at Voigt Drive would be located within the MidCoast Corridor. The HOV lanes would be restricted to vehicles with two or more 

occupants. 

 Combination of HOV and Managed Lanes on I-805 from I-5 to South Bay, with DARs 

at Carroll Canyon Road and Nobel Drive. 

 Trolley low-floor system improvements to the Trolley Blue and Orange Lines, 

including station platform, power, and signaling improvements to allow extension of 

the Trolley Green Line to the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit Center and use of 

low-floor vehicles systemwide. 

2.2.1.2 Transit System Improvements 

The No-Build Alternative transit system within the Mid-Coast Corridor assumes services 

planned to be in operation in or by 2030. As with the existing transportation system, the NoBuild Alternative transit system consists of MTS-operated Trolley services, Amtrak intercity 

passenger rail services, North County Transit District (NCTD)-operated COASTER 

commuter rail services, and MTS and NCTD bus transit services. MTS-operated bus 

services include local, express, limited express, and bus rapid transit services. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the 2030 Trolley operating plan would result in operation 

of the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico 

international border through Downtown San Diego to the Santa Fe Depot; the Trolley 

Green Line would operate north and east from the 12th and Imperial Avenue Transit 

Center through the OTTC and Mission Valley to Santee. The Trolley Orange Line would 

operate from Gillespie Field through Downtown San Diego to America Plaza. 

Figure 2-4 shows the major MTS bus routes serving the Mid-Coast Corridor under the NoBuild Alternative. Table 2-2 provides bus route information on fares and service frequency 

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

a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) periods. Service hours in the early morning and after 6:00 p.m. would be 

similar to existing operations. 

In addition to existing transit services, the No-Build Alternative assumes improvements 

to existing bus transit and LRT services operated by MTS. The following sections 

describe these improvements. 

2.2.1.3 Bus Transit Service Improvements 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is excluded from the No-Build Alternative to 

represent corridor conditions without the project. Without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project, more direct transit service would be needed to connect Downtown San Diego, 

the OTTC, and University City. To meet this need, continuing service on the existing 

Route 150, which provides bus transit services between Downtown San Diego, the 

OTTC, and University City, was added to the No-Build Alternative. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing Route 150 would be modified to operate 

along Broadway in Downtown San Diego and along Pacific Highway from Downtown 

San Diego north to the OTTC. From the OTTC north, Route 150 would be modified to 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-12 September 2014 

Figure 2-4. No-Build Alternative Major Bus Routes 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-13

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

Route Description 

Frequency of Service 

Fare 

Peak 

(6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) 

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 

Midday OffPeak 

(9:00 a.m. to 

3:00 p.m.) 

8 OTTC to Garnet and Bayard 15.0 15.0 $2.00 

9 Garnet and Bayard to OTTC 15.0 15.0 $2.00 

25 Clairemont Mesa to Fashion Valley Trolley Station 15.0 15.0 $2.00 

27 Mission and Felspar to Clairemont Mesa 15.0 15.0 $2.00 

30 UTC Transit Center to B and 9th St 10.0 10.0 $2.25 

31 Mira Mesa Transit Center to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.00 

41 Fashion Valley Transit Center to UCSD West 10.0 10.0 $2.25 

44 OTTC to Morena Blvd and Balboa Ave 7.5 7.5 $2.25 

50 Park Blvd and Broadway to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.50 

105 OTTC to UTC Transit Center 15.0 15.0 $2.25 

120 Kearny Mesa Transit Center to 3rd and Market St 15.0 15.0 $2.25 

150* 5th and Broadway to UTC Transit Center 15.0 30.0 $2.50 

201/202 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 $2.25**

276 UCSD Route—Voigt Drive Loop 15.0 15.0 ** 

284 UCSD Route—UCSD West to Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography 15.0 15.0 ** 

921 Mira Mesa Transit Center to UCSD West 15.0 15.0 $2.25 

960 UTC Transit Center to Euclid Avenue Trolley Station 25.0 No service $2.50 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Notes: * Not included in 2030 RTP 

 ** = Free for UCSD students and faculty 

 OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne 

Centre 

operate within the proposed I-5 HOV lanes north to Nobel Drive. This modification to 

Route 150 would improve travel times over the existing Route 150, which operates in the 

general-purpose lanes on I-5 north to Gilman Drive. Route 150 would operate at a 

frequency of 15 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes during the midday off-peak 

period. The service would be operated using articulated buses. Fares are assumed to 

be $2.50 for a one-way trip. 

2.2.1.4 Trolley Service Improvements 

In addition to the bus service improvements, the No-Build Alternative assumes service 

frequency improvements to the existing Trolley system, as identified in the Revenue 

Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP and shown in Figure 2-5. Under the No-Build 

Alternative, the frequency of service on the Trolley Blue Line would increase from 15 to 

7.5 minutes during midday off-peak period. Thus, the Trolley Blue Line would operate 

7.5-minute service from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and the Trolley Orange and Green Lines 

would continue to operate at 15-minute service from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-14 September 2014 

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

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Note: Peak = 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.; off-peak = 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-15

Table 2-3 presents a summary of the Trolley operating plans for existing conditions and for 

the No-Build Alternative. The operating plans identify the service frequency during peak 

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

p.m.) periods, vehicle type, and fares for the Trolley Green, Blue, and Orange Lines. 

Service during the early morning and evening hours would be less frequent. 

Table 2-3. No-Build Alternative Trolley Operating Plan 

Route 

Peak Frequency 

(6:00. to 9:00 a.m.)

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.)

Midday OffPeak 

Frequency 

 (9:00 a.m. to 

3:00 p.m.) 

Vehicle 

Type 

Fare 

(each 

way) 

2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to OTTC 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to OTTC 7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 12th and 

Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50

2030 Operating Plan (No-Build Alternative)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 12th and 

Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit Center to Santa 

Fe Depot 

7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to America Plaza 15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Note: OTTC = Old Town Transit Center 

Operation of the No-Build Alternative Trolley operating plan in 2030 would require a fleet of 

142 light rail vehicles (LRVs) including reserve, spare, and special-service vehicles. This 

represents an increase of eight vehicles over the existing fleet of 134 LRVs. No expansion 

of the existing maintenance facilities would be required under the No-Build Alternative 

Trolley operating plan. 

2.2.1.5 Regional Growth and Development 

The No-Build Alternative assumes regional growth and development consistent with the 

2030 RTP, which uses the Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update adopted 

by SANDAG. This forecast is used as a basis for land use and demographic information 

in the transportation and traffic modeling. The Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth 

Forecast Update: Process and Model Documentation (SANDAG, 2008a) presents a 

basic description of the SANDAG forecast models used in the 2030 Regional Growth 

Forecast Update. The conditions created by the No-Build Alternative in 2030, as 

predicted by the Series 11 forecast (adjusted to exclude the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project), include the expected effects of development projects consistent with adopted 

land use plans. 

2.2.2 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIS would extend the Trolley Blue Line 

from Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center in University City. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-16 September 2014 

The project would use the existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from the 

Santa Fe Depot to north of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The Trolley Blue 

Line trains would share the existing tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains. The project 

also would include construction of 10.9 miles of new double track that would extend from 

south of the San Diego River to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center. 

The new extension would follow the LOSSAN tracks within existing MTS and City of San 

Diego right-of-way from the Santa Fe Depot to north of the I-5/State Route (SR) 52 

interchange. The alignment would then leave the LOSSAN right-of-way and parallel the 

east side of the I-5 corridor traveling north partially within Caltrans right-of-way and 

partially on private property. South of Nobel Drive, the alignment would transition to an 

aerial structure and cross over to the west side of I-5. From Nobel Drive, the alignment 

would continue north along the west side of I-5 to the UCSD West Campus, cross back 

over to the east side of I-5 and proceed along Voigt Drive to Genesee Avenue, and then 

south in the median of Genesee Avenue to the UTC Transit Center. 

The Build Alternative included 8 new stations (3 at grade and 5 elevated); 5 park-and-ride 

facilities with 1,070 parking spaces; 14 new and 4 upgraded traction power substations 

(TPSSs); and 36 new low-floor LRT vehicles. No new maintenance facilities would be 

needed. New stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, 

Nobel Drive, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center. 

The Build Alternative included two options—one provided for an optional at-grade station 

at the VA Medical Center and the other provided for an alternative design for the 

proposed Genesee Avenue aerial alignment in University City (as described in Section 

2.1.2.4). Figure 2-6 shows the project alignment and station locations, as well as the VA 

Medical Center Station Option and the Genesee Avenue Design Option. 

With the extension of the Trolley Blue Line, continuous service would be provided 

from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico international border to 

University City. The service would be provided every 7.5 minutes during peak and 

midday off-peak periods in 2030. 

2.3 Refinements to the Build Alternative 

On May 17, 2013, FTA issued a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIS/SEIR in the Federal 

Register, inviting comments during a 60-day public comment and review period from May 

17, 2013 through July 17, 2013. The Notice of Completion was filed with the State 

Clearinghouse on May 14, 2013. Four public meetings and one public hearing were held 

during the public comment and review period to solicit comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

All comments, along with responses to the comments, are included in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 3: Comments and Responses. 

Several of the comments received during the comment period had the potential to affect the 

alignment, stations, or other elements of the Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. Comments also were received in support of, or in opposition to, the VA Medical 

Center Station Option and the Genesee Avenue Design Option evaluated in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. Consideration of these comments, coordination with agencies and 

stakeholders, and the evaluation of the Build Alternative and options in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-17

Figure 2-6. Build Alternative 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-18 September 2014 

provided the basis for refinements to the Build Alternative, or the Refined Build Alternative. 

The SANDAG Board of Directors voted to approve the Refined Build Alternative on 

November 15, 2013, and to amend the Refined Build Alternative on May 9, 2014. The 

SANDAG Board of Directors actions to approve and amend the Refined Build Alternative 

were conducted at regularly scheduled meetings that were open to the public, and public 

testimony was allowed at both meetings. The development and approval of the Refined 

Build Alternative is described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build 

Alternative Report (SANDAG, 2014dd). 

The refinements to the Build Alternative include the addition of the VA Medical Center 

Station; refinements to the LRT alignment, stations, TPSSs, and construction staging 

areas; and further engineering refinements. The Genesee Avenue Design Option was 

eliminated from further consideration. 

The following sections summarize the refinements included in the Refined Build 

Alternative. As documented in Chapters 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 7.0 of this Final SEIS/SEIR 

and in the supporting technical studies, the refinements do not result in any new 

significant environmental impacts and generally minimize or avoid project impacts. 

2.3.1 Addition of VA Medical Center Station Option 

The option for an additional station at the VA Medical Center was evaluated in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. Comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, including comments from the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, strongly supported the addition of the VA Medical 

Center Station. No comments were received in opposition to the station. The Draft 

SEIS/SEIR evaluation concluded that the addition of the VA Medical Center Station 

would improve access to the UCSD West Campus as well as to the VA Medical Center 

and would produce approximately 1,600 boardings daily. No adverse or significant 

environmental impacts were identified. The VA Medical Center Station is included in the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

2.3.2 Elimination of the Genesee Avenue Design Option 

The Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR provided for center columns 

supporting the aerial structure along Genesee Avenue with roadway widening where 

necessary to accommodate the center columns. To reduce right-of-way acquisitions 

associated with the center column design, the Genesee Avenue Design Option was 

developed, which used straddle bents in place of some center columns to support the 

aerial structure and stations on Genesee Avenue west of Regents Road. 

The evaluation of impacts of the Genesee Avenue Design Option in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR found that the option would result in significant and unavoidable visual 

impacts along Genesee Avenue and adversely affect the character of the community. 

Although the amount of right-of-way acquisitions would decrease slightly under the 

Genesee Avenue Design Option, the number of acquisitions would be the same and 

temporary construction easements would be greater than for the Build Alternative. 

Comments received from property owners along Genesee Avenue and the community 

expressed opposition to the Genesee Avenue Design Option. Elimination of the Genesee 

Avenue Design Option reduces visual and community character impacts and addresses 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-19

public comments opposing the use of straddle bents. The Genesee Avenue Design 

Option is excluded from the Refined Build Alternative. 

2.3.3 Refinements to LRT Alignment 

The refinements to the LRT alignment under the Build Alternative include changes to the 

design of the crossing of I-5 south of Nobel Drive and a shift in the Voigt Drive alignment 

in the vicinity of Scripps Hospital, west of I-5. 

 I-5 Crossing South of Nobel Drive—Under the Build Alternative in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR, straddle bents were included to support the aerial structure over the 

northbound and southbound lanes on I-5. The Draft SEIS/SEIR noted that the 

straddle bents would not be visually consistent with the aesthetics and scale of the 

built environment at this location and would contrast with the setting. Several 

comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR expressed opposition to the use of straddle bents 

along the alignment. A refinement to the Build Alternative was developed that 

improves visual aesthetics through the elimination of the straddle bents. The 

elimination of the straddle bents at the I-5 crossing would improve aesthetics and is 

included in the Refined Build Alternative. 

 Voigt Drive Alignment—Under the Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the LRT 

alignment in the vicinity of Scripps Hospital would be located on the north side of 

Voigt Drive. Comments from Scripps Hospital on the Draft SEIS/SEIR identified the 

location of sensitive medical equipment that could be susceptible to vibration and 

electromagnetic interference in the XiMed Building located on the south side of the 

hospital campus, which is closest to the alignment. The comments requested that an 

alignment south of Voigt Drive, away from the XiMed Building, be considered and 

evaluated. Further analysis of electromagnetic field impacts on the XiMed Building 

determined that the project could affect the equipment located in the XiMed Building 

even with the proposed mitigation at the source evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

Based on these findings and the comments from Scripps Hospital, a refinement to 

the Build Alternative was developed that shifts the LRT alignment to the south side of 

Voigt Drive. With this shift, the project-related electromagnetic interference at the 

XiMed Building would be substantially reduced. The refinement to the Voigt Drive 

alignment is shown in Figure 2-7. The refinement was reviewed with UCSD and 

Scripps Hospital, and included in the Refined Build Alternative. 

2.3.4 Refinements to Stations 

The refinements to stations include changes to the configuration of the Clairemont Drive 

Station park-and-ride lot and removal of the pedestrian ramps, reconfiguration of the 

parking structure at the Nobel Drive Station, relocation of the UCSD East Station to 

accommodate the change in alignment on Voigt Drive, and acquisition of parking spaces 

at the UTC Transit Center instead of construction of a parking deck for transit patrons. 

The stations at Tecolote Road, Balboa Avenue, UCSD West, and Executive Drive as 

defined in the Draft SEIS/SEIR are included in the Refined Build Alternative without 

substantial changes. No comments were received that would affect the UCSD West 

Station or the Executive Drive Station. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-20 September 2014 

Figure 2-7. Refinements to Voigt Drive Alignment 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

 Tecolote Road Station—Although comments were received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

to reconfigure or eliminate the Tecolote Road Station to avoid the acquisition of 

Armstrong Garden Center nursery, the design as evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR is 

being retained. Further study in response to the comments (SANDAG, 2014bb) 

determined that elimination of the station would reduce the project’s transit ridership 

and increase parking demands at the OTTC and Clairemont Drive Stations. It also 

was determined that alternative site designs to avoid the acquisition of the nursery 

would shift the impact to other adjacent businesses and reduce access to the station. 

In addition, it was determined that the replacement of the proposed surface parking 

with a parking structure would still require acquisition of Armstrong Garden Center 

and also would increase the cost of the project. 

 Clairemont Drive Station—Under the Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, bus 

transfers at the Clairemont Drive Station would be accommodated by on-street bus 

stops on Clairemont Drive east of Morena Boulevard. Pedestrian ramps were 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-21

provided for access to the station from Clairemont Drive to Morena Boulevard. 

Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR noted that the on-street bus stops on Clairemont 

Drive would be inconvenient for passengers transferring to and from the Trolley. The 

Refined Build Alternative provides for bus transfers within the Clairemont Drive 

Station parking lot. The relocation of the bus transfer location eliminates the need for 

pedestrian ramps from Clairemont Drive to Morena Boulevard. Transit passengers 

transferring between bus and the Trolley would be able to cross Morena Boulevard 

at the existing signalized crosswalk at Ingulf Street located at the southern end of the 

station platform. 

 Balboa Avenue Station—Although many comments were received regarding the 

Balboa Avenue Station, the design as evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR has been 

retained. Many comments requested that the Balboa Avenue Station be relocated to 

the City of San Diego Maintenance Yard to the north side of Balboa Avenue or be 

eliminated entirely. Although the City Maintenance Yard site could accommodate the 

station and provide sufficient space to meet the forecasted station parking demand, 

the station was not relocated because locating the station at the City Yard site would 

not eliminate or reduce any adverse or significant project impacts that were identified 

for the Draft SEIS/SEIR site and would increase capital and operating and 

maintenance costs (SANDAG, 2014cc). 

 Nobel Drive Station—Under the Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Nobel 

Drive Station provided for a 600-space joint-use parking structure to be constructed 

at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center. The structure provided 260 transit 

parking spaces as well as 340 replacement parking spaces for the surface parking 

spaces required for construction of the station and parking structure at the shopping 

center. Coordination with the property owner and further engineering refinements 

resulted in a change in the layout of the parking structure, reducing the structure’s 

height to three levels, which affected more existing surface parking spaces. While 

the number of transit parking spaces remains at 260, the increase in the number of 

required replacement parking spaces to approximately 540 spaces increased the 

total number of parking spaces in the joint-use structure to approximately 800 

spaces. Coordination with the property owner will continue through the design 

process, and the ultimate configuration of the parking structure may affect fewer or 

more existing parking spaces. Regardless, the parking structure would include 260 

transit parking spaces and replacement spaces for all existing surface parking 

spaces affected by the project footprint. As identified in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the 

existing surface parking lot also would be reconfigured with construction of the 

parking structure. 

 UCSD East Station—A refinement to the location of the UCSD East Station was 

necessary to accommodate the shift in the LRT alignment to the UCSD campus on 

the south side of Voigt Drive. With the shift in the LRT alignment, the station was 

relocated to the east to accommodate the alignment and avoid conflict with the 

planned future UCSD track and field facility. The station location would 

accommodate the planned realignment of Campus Point Drive by Caltrans, which is 

a separate project from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

 UTC Transit Center—The UTC Transit Center platform would be located in the 

center of Genesee Avenue, south of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Under the 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-22 September 2014 

Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the station was proposed to include 260 

transit parking spaces in a joint-use parking structure at the Westfield UTC shopping 

center. The parking structure would be constructed by Westfield as part of the 

planned expansion of the shopping center. The transit parking spaces would be 

constructed as an additional level on the parking structure. Comments received on 

the Draft SEIS/SEIR indicated concerns regarding the timing of the parking structure 

construction by Westfield and commitment of funds by SANDAG. Design of the 

shopping center parking structure is currently underway, with construction scheduled 

to begin in mid-2014, prior to the scheduled date of the ROD for the project. 

Because SANDAG cannot commit funds for construction prior to the ROD, the 260 

transit parking spaces would be provided by acquisition of parking spaces from the 

Westfield UTC shopping center. 

2.3.5 Refinements to Traction Power Substations 

The Build Alternative presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR was anticipated to require 18 

TPSSs, including 3 replacement substations on existing sites between Santa Fe Depot 

and the OTTC and 15 new substations. Refinements to the number and location of the 

TPSSs were made based on the results of a load-flow analysis. Figure 2-8 shows the 

location of the refinements to the TPSSs. 

The load-flow analysis identified a requirement for 16 TPSSs, 2 fewer than the Build 

Alternative presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The TPSSs proposed at the OTTC and 

on Anna Street north of the San Diego River were determined to be unnecessary based 

on the results of the load-flow analysis. Other refinements to the TPSS locations include 

the following: 

 Relocation of the substation at the Wright Street Yard to the south within the MTS 

property (Inset 1 in Figure 2-8) 

 Relocation of the substation at Baker Street to the Clairemont Drive Station parking 

lot (Inset 2 in Figure 2-8) 

 Relocation of the substation within the City Yard site north of Balboa Avenue (Inset 3 

in Figure 2-8) 

 Relocation of the substation on Charmant Drive to the west side of I-5 within the 

Caltrans right-of-way near the southern end of the La Jolla Village Square shopping 

center property (Inset 4 in Figure 2-8) 

 Relocation of the substation on Voigt Drive from north of the UCSD baseball field to 

east of I-5 and south of Voigt Drive (Inset 5 in Figure 2-8) 

 Relocation of the substation at Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive to the 

east of Genesee Avenue to the San Diego Gas & Electric substation facility on Fez 

Street (Inset 6 in Figure 2-8) 

The relocation of the substation on Charmant Drive to the west side of I-5 and the 

substation at Genesee Avenue to Fez Street would be in locations where the TPSSs 

would be more visually consistent with surrounding land uses. 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-23

Figure 2-8. Refinements to Traction Power Substations 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-24 September 2014 

Figure 2-8. Refinements to Traction Power Substations (continued) 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-25

Figure 2-8. Refinements to Traction Power Substations (continued) 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-26 September 2014 

2.3.6 Refinements to Construction Staging Areas 

The Build Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR included 15 construction staging areas. 

Some of these were located at future park-and-ride lots, station areas, existing parking 

lots, or portions of vacant private property. Comments were received on three of the 

identified staging areas that noted a conflict between the use of the property as a staging 

area and future approved development. By eliminating these areas as staging areas, 

these conflicts and any associated short-term impacts (e.g., loss of off-street parking) 

were avoided. Refinements were made to the number and location of construction 

staging areas based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR or due to 

refinements to the LRT alignment. The following four construction staging areas were 

eliminated: 

 The site on Charmant Drive on the east side of I-5 

 The site at the parking lot of Scripps Hospital located east of I-5 and north of Voigt 

Drive 

 The site on the Monte Verde property at La Jolla Village Drive and Genesee Avenue 

 The site on the UTC Westfield property 

The elimination of the four construction staging areas would all result in avoidance or 

minimization of impacts. 

To address the shift in the alignment from the north to the south side of Voigt Drive, an 

additional construction staging site was identified. This site is on the UCSD parking lot 

located east of I-5 and south of Voigt Drive where the new TPSS would be located. All 

other staging area sites identified in the Draft SEIS/SEIR are retained under the Refined 

Build Alternative. The refinements to the construction staging areas in the Refined Build 

Alternative are shown by location in Figure 2-9. 

2.3.7 Other Engineering Refinements 

Other engineering refinements, as a result of further engineering studies, include 

changes in retaining walls and bridges. The most notable change in the Refined Build 

Alternative is the elimination of two retaining walls and the addition of two bridges north 

of La Jolla Colony Drive near the La Paz condominiums (shown on the Final SEIS/SEIR 

Plan Set, Sheets 90 and 91). 

2.4 Description of the Refined Build Alternative in the Final SEIS/SEIR 

The Refined Build Alternative provides for a 14.4-mile extension of the Trolley Blue Line 

from the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to the UTC Transit Center in University 

City. With the extension of the Trolley Blue Line, construction of the project would provide 

for continuous service on the Trolley Blue Line from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the 

U.S.–Mexico international border to University City. 

Figure 2-10 shows the project alignment and station locations. The project begins at 

Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego, where the Trolley Blue Line would terminate 

under the No-Build Alternative. 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-27

Figure 2-9. Refinements to Construction Staging Areas 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-28 September 2014 

Figure 2-9. Refinements to Construction Staging Areas (continued) 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-29

Figure 2-10. Refined Build Alternative 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-30 September 2014 

The project would use the existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from the 

Santa Fe Depot to a point just north of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The 

Trolley Blue Line trains would share the tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains. North 

of this point, the project includes construction of 10.9 miles of new double track 

extending to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center in University City. 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. 

In addition to the new double-track extension, the project includes nine new stations, upgrades 

to existing systems facilities between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, and the acquisition 

of new Trolley vehicles for the extended project operation. Stations would be located at 

Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, the VA Medical Center, UCSD 

West Campus, UCSD East Campus, Executive Drive, and the UTC Transit Center. 

2.4.1 Alignment 

The project alignment would follow the LOSSAN tracks within the existing MTS and City 

of San Diego right-of-way from the Santa Fe Depot to approximately 3,500 feet south of 

the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. The alignment would then leave 

the LOSSAN right-of-way, enter Caltrans right-of-way, and parallel the east side of the 

I-5 corridor north to the I-5/Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive interchange. North of the 

interchange, the alignment would parallel the I-5 corridor, traveling partially within 

Caltrans right-of-way and partially on private property, and then transition to an aerial 

structure and cross over to the west side of I-5 south of Nobel Drive. From Nobel Drive, 

the alignment would continue north to the UCSD West Campus, then cross back over to 

the east side of I-5 along the south side of Voigt Drive and terminate on Genesee 

Avenue at the UTC Transit Center. The alignment’s total length from the south side of 

the San Diego River to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center is 10.9 miles. 

Plan and profile drawings for the project alignment are provided in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 2: Plan Set, referred to as the Final 

SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. Right-of-way plans showing existing and proposed rights-of-way 

and temporary construction easements for the project alignment, stations, and 

supporting facilities also are contained in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. The Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014o) identifies property acquisitions and structures to be demolished as part of the 

project. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014s) describes the construction methods, activities, and durations. 

Property acquisitions are also addressed in Section 4.3 and construction methods are 

summarized in Section 4.17 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Figure 2-11 presents a conceptual plan and profile drawing of the project alignment, 

stations, and supporting facilities. North of the OTTC, the project alignment would be 

located primarily at grade within the existing MTS right-of-way, north to the vicinity of Gilman 

Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive. This railroad corridor is used by the COASTER commuter rail, 

Amtrak intercity rail, and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe freight rail. The project 

alignment would be located east of the existing LOSSAN tracks, from the OTTC to south of 

SR 52, with at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue. 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Figure 2-11. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Refined Build Alternative 

Source: Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-32 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Figure 2-11. Conceptual Plan and Profile of Refined Build Alternative (conti

Source: Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set 
Chapter 2.0 - Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-34 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-35

The project alignment would use bridges to cross the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, 

and Rose Creek, and would be grade separated over Friars Road and Balboa Avenue. 

South of SR 52, the alignment would transition to an aerial structure and would cross the 

existing LOSSAN tracks, continuing at grade west of the existing LOSSAN tracks. To 

accommodate the alignment along the westerly right-of-way, the existing LOSSAN 

tracks would be relocated east but would still be located within the MTS right-of-way. 

Just south of Gilman Drive/La Jolla Colony Drive, the alignment would leave the MTS 

right-of-way and enter the I-5 right-of-way. Along the I-5 corridor, the project alignment 

would be designed so as not to preclude the future widening of I-5. 

Upon entering the I-5 right-of-way north of SR 52, the project alignment would extend 

at grade along the east side of I-5, crossing under La Jolla Colony Drive in a cut-and-cover 

underpass. North of the underpass, the alignment would continue at grade along the east 

side of I-5, generally within or adjacent to the I-5 right-of-way to Charmant Drive. The 

alignment would then cross over two canyons along the east side of I-5 and west of 

Charmant Drive and transition to an aerial structure to cross over to the west side of I-5, 

south of Nobel Drive. No major modifications to I-5 would be required to accommodate the 

crossing. The aerial alignment would continue north along the west side of I-5 to an aerial 

station at La Jolla Village Square (Nobel Drive Station). 

Continuing north from the Nobel Drive Station, the project alignment would remain on an 

aerial structure, travel for approximately 160 feet along the southeast corner of the shopping 

center on the north side of Nobel Drive, then enter the I-5 right-of-way and travel along the 

west side of I-5 within the I-5 right-of-way. It would return to grade just north of the I-5/La 

Jolla Village Drive interchange and run at-grade for a short distance along the west side of 

I-5 and the east side of the VA Medical Center. An at-grade station would be located at the 

VA Medical Center. The station would be within the I-5 right-of-way, with access provided 

from the VA Medical Center property. 

South of Gilman Drive, the project alignment would transition back to an aerial structure 

and enter the UCSD West Campus, crossing Gilman Drive and the surface parking lot 

located north of Gilman Drive on the UCSD campus. The aerial alignment would then 

cross Pepper Canyon and continue to an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus. 

North of the UCSD West Station, the project alignment would turn east on an aerial 

structure on the UCSD campus and cross to the north side of Voigt Drive. The aerial 

alignment would then proceed east and cross back over Voigt Drive to the northeastern 

corner of Warren Field and across Gilman Drive along the south side of the future Voigt 

Drive bridge proposed as part of the Caltrans I-5 North Coast Corridor Project. 

The I-5 North Coast Corridor Project proposes to construct HOV DARs that connect to 

the north side of Voigt Drive. Construction of the DARs by Caltrans is scheduled for 

completion by 2020. No major modifications to I-5 would be required to accommodate 

the crossing. As part of the North Coast Corridor Project, Caltrans proposes to realign 

Voigt Drive to connect to Genesee Avenue and realign Campus Point Drive to connect 

to Voigt Drive. Voigt Drive is located on UCSD property. The Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project’s alignment would be located so as not to preclude the realignment of 

Voigt Drive and Campus Point Drive. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-36 September 2014 

After crossing I-5, the project alignment would continue east along the south side of 

Voigt Drive and to the north of the existing UCSD baseball field. The aerial alignment 

would continue across the future realigned Campus Point Drive at Voigt Drive and 

across Voigt Drive to Genesee Avenue, where it would enter the street right-of-way. The 

UCSD East Station spans the future realigned Campus Point Drive. The aerial 

alignment would enter the Genesee Avenue right-of-way just west of Regents Road and 

continue south on an aerial structure in the median of Genesee Avenue, following the 

existing alignment of Genesee Avenue to a station at Executive Drive, and a terminal 

station at the UTC Transit Center. 

Under the project, the support columns generally would be located in the center of the 

Genesee Avenue median. The project would require two straddle bents along Genesee 

Avenue. The first straddle bent would be located west of Regents Road where the 

alignment would enter Genesee Avenue at an angle. The second one would be located 

on Genesee Avenue at the Executive Square intersection. The straddle bents would 

have support columns in the median of Genesee Avenue, along the south side of 

Genesee Avenue, or in the median of Executive Square. The remaining support 

columns would be spaced at approximately 125 to 210 feet apart. Localized widening of 

Genesee Avenue would be required to accommodate the support columns with 

necessary clearances and to maintain the number of existing traffic lanes, as well as to 

accommodate the stations at Executive Drive and the UTC Transit Center. 

2.4.2 Stations 

The project includes nine new stations for passenger access. All new stations would be 

side-platform stations with 360-foot-long platforms designed to accommodate up to fourcar trains. All platforms would be fully accessible and comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. 

Canopies would be provided at each station and would cover portions of the platforms 

and fare collection areas. Fare collection equipment, consisting of ticket/smart card 

vending machines and Compass Card validators, would be provided at each station. 

These amenities would be placed as appropriate on the platform where boarding occurs 

or at station entrances. Other station amenities would include benches, information 

kiosks, and security features according to SANDAG Design Criteria. Bicycle lockers 

would be available at all stations. At the UTC Transit Center, bicycle lockers would be 

located within the bus transit center adjacent to the Trolley station. Parking and bus 

transfer facilities would be provided at five stations, as described later in this section. 

Lighting would be provided at all station platforms and parking areas. No public 

restrooms would be provided at any of the stations. 

For the at-grade stations south of Balboa Avenue where the southbound platform would 

be adjacent to the LOSSAN tracks, a screen wall would be constructed at the back of 

the platforms to shield passengers from the wind induced by a fast-moving Amtrak or 

COASTER train. On aerial platforms, a 10-foot-high safety fence or screen would be 

provided at the back of both platforms. 

The new project stations include both at-grade and aerial stations. The project segment 

along the MTS right-of-way between the San Diego River crossing and Gilman Drive 

would include three at-grade stations at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-37

Avenue. The site concept plans developed for these stations are described below. More 

detailed station site plans for each of the stations are provided in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan 

Set. The Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set also contains street-improvement plans showing any 

modifications to the streets in the vicinity of the stations. The improvements would be 

designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in a safe manner. 

 Tecolote Road Station—This at-grade station would be located south of the existing 

Tecolote Road overcrossing (Figure 2-12). Primary access to the station for 

northbound traffic would be provided via the existing signalized intersection at West 

Morena Boulevard and Vega Street. A driveway for right turns in and out would be 

provided on West Morena Boulevard for southbound traffic. A TPSS would be 

located immediately north of the station driveway on West Morena Boulevard. The 

station site would include 280 surface parking spaces, with 180 spaces adjacent to 

the west side of West Morena Boulevard and another 100 spaces to the south of 

Vega Street. Short-term parking spaces would be provided for pick up and drop off 

of passengers (referred to as kiss-and-ride). Bus stops and turnouts for transferring 

passengers would be provided on both sides of West Morena Boulevard by widening 

the roadway and removing approximately 15 existing on-street parking spaces along 

the east side of West Morena Boulevard. In the vicinity of the bus stops, a fence 

would be provided in the median of West Morena Boulevard to prevent passengers 

from crossing at mid-block. Pedestrian ramps and stairs would be constructed on 

the east side of West Morena Boulevard for access to the north and south sides of 

Tecolote Road. Additionally, a new sidewalk would be constructed along the east 

side of West Morena Boulevard to Knoxville Street. 

Figure 2-12. Site Concept for Tecolote Road Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-38 September 2014 

 Clairemont Drive Station—This at-grade station would be located south of the 

existing Clairemont Drive overcrossing adjacent to Morena Boulevard (Figure 2-13). 

The station platforms would be located along the west side of Morena Boulevard, and 

a 150-space surface parking lot would be located across the street on the east side. 

The station parking lot would include a site for two TPSSs. Access to the station 

parking lot would be provided via driveways on Ingulf Street and Clairemont Drive. 

A new off-street bus stop would be provided within the station parking lot. New 

sidewalks would be constructed along the east side of Morena Boulevard from Ingulf 

Street to north of Clairemont Drive and along the west side of Morena Boulevard 

from the north side of the station platform to Gesner Street. Pedestrian crossings 

between the east and west sides of Morena Boulevard and the station parking lot 

would be provided by existing crosswalks at the signalized intersections at Morena 

Boulevard/Ingulf Street and Morena Boulevard/Gesner Street. 

Figure 2-13. Site Concept for Clairemont Drive Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-39

 Balboa Avenue Station—This at-grade station would be located in the southwest 

quadrant of the Balboa Avenue/Morena Boulevard interchange (Figure 2-14). The 

station site would include a surface parking lot with approximately 220 spaces, five 

bus bays, and short-term parking for pick up and drop off of passengers. An 

additional on-street bus turnout would be provided on the west side of Morena 

Boulevard. To provide for bus and vehicular access to the station, the existing on 

ramp from eastbound Balboa Avenue to southbound Morena Boulevard would be 

removed and traffic would be rerouted to the loop ramp connecting eastbound 

Balboa Avenue to Morena Boulevard. The loop ramp would be widened and its 

intersection with Morena Boulevard would be signalized, allowing traffic to turn south 

on Morena Boulevard. The westerly leg of this intersection would serve as the 

entrance to the station for buses and as an entrance and exit for vehicular traffic. 

Buses would exit the station via a new signalized intersection constructed at the 

southern end of the station site. Pedestrian access to the station from Morena 

Boulevard would be provided via new sidewalks on both sides of Morena Boulevard 

within the station area. Access from Balboa Avenue would be via ramps and stairs 

on both sides of the street. A pedestrian bridge would be provided across Balboa 

Avenue for access to the station from the north side of Balboa Avenue. 

Figure 2-14. Site Concept for Balboa Avenue Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-40 September 2014 

The project segment along the I-5 corridor between Gilman Drive and the alignment 

crossing of I-5 at Voigt Drive would include an aerial station at Nobel Drive, an at-grade 

station at the VA Medical Center, and an aerial station on the UCSD West Campus. The 

site concept plans developed for these stations are described below. 

 Nobel Drive Station—This aerial station would be located within an existing parking 

area on the west side of I-5 and south of Nobel Drive at the La Jolla Village Square 

shopping center (Figure 2-15). The station would include an approximately 800-

space joint-use parking structure with 260 transit parking spaces as well as 

approximately 540 replacement parking spaces for the surface parking spaces 

required for construction of the station and parking structure at the shopping center. 

In addition to the parking structure, a portion of the existing surface parking lot at the 

shopping center would be resurfaced and restriped. Access to the station platform 

would be provided by stairs and elevators. No bus stops would be constructed at 

this station as part of the project. Nobel Drive currently has bus stops on both sides of 

the street in the vicinity of the station. 

Figure 2-15. Site Concept for Nobel Drive Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-41

 VA Medical Center Station—This at-grade station would be located at the VA 

Medical Center on the west side of I-5 and north of La Jolla Village Drive (Figure 

2-16). The station would be at approximately the same elevation as the surface 

parking lot of the VA Medical Center. No new parking or bus stops would be 

provided at this station. A connection to the hospital would be provided by 

improvements to the pedestrian paths between the station and the main hospital 

entrance. A TPSS would be located in Caltrans right-of-way, south of the station. 

Figure 2-16. Site Concept for VA Medical Center Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

 UCSD West Station—This aerial station would be located at the north end of Pepper 

Canyon and west of the UCSD student-housing complex (Figure 2-17). The station 

would be located just east of the campus center and the Price Center. No parking 

would be provided at the station. 

Because the alignment would have to clear the existing parking lot at the south end 

of the canyon and Lyman Lane at the north end of the canyon, this station would be 

constructed at an elevation higher than the elevation of the canyon rim. North of the 

station, two to three shuttle bus stops and a bus turnaround area would be provided 

for UCSD shuttle bus service. The shuttle bus area would be located at grade below 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-42 September 2014 

Figure 2-17. Site Concept for UCSD West Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

the north end of the elevated station platforms. Stairs and an elevator would provide 

access to the north end of the station platform. Only stairs for emergency use would 

be provided at the south end of the platform. 

The project segment east of I-5, along Voigt Drive, would include an aerial station on the 

UCSD East Campus west of Campus Point Drive, serving both the UCSD East Campus and 

Scripps Hospital. The site concept plan for the UCSD East Station is described below. 

 UCSD East Station—This aerial station would be located along the south side of 

Voigt Drive and west of the Preuss School, near Scripps Hospital (Figure 2-18). The 

location of the station is designed to accommodate the future realignment of Campus 

Point Drive. Station access would be provided by stairs and elevators. A pedestrian 

bridge would be provided across Voigt Drive for access to the north side of Voigt 

Drive. New sidewalks would be constructed on both sides of Voigt Drive to connect 

with the western end of the station. No station parking or new bus stops would be 

provided. A TPSS would be located to the west of the station platforms. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-43

Figure 2-18. Site Concept for UCSD East Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

East of I-5 along Genesee Avenue, the project would include aerial stations at Executive 

Drive and at the UTC Transit Center. The site concept plans for these two stations are 

described below. 

 Executive Drive Station—This aerial station would be located in the center of 

Genesee Avenue, south of Executive Drive, and would span Executive Square 

(Figure 2-19) with a straddle bent with support columns located in the median of 

Executive Square. Station construction would require removal of the existing 

pedestrian bridge crossing Genesee Avenue just south of Executive Square. A new 

pedestrian bridge at the south end of the station platform would connect the station 

to both sides of Genesee Avenue and to the existing pedestrian bridge on the east 

side of Genesee Avenue. Pedestrian grade-separated access across Genesee 

Avenue at this location would be provided through the aerial station platform at 

Executive Drive via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities connecting to the 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-44 September 2014 

Figure 2-19. Site Concept for Executive Drive Station 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

existing pedestrian facilities to the west and east sides of Genesee Avenue. Shuttle 

bus pullouts and passenger drop-off and pick-up areas would be constructed on both 

sides of Genesee Avenue. No parking would be provided at the station. 

 UTC Transit Center—This aerial station would be located in the center of Genesee 

Avenue, south of Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway, with pedestrian bridges to the 

Westfield UTC shopping center on the east and the Costa Verde shopping center on 

the west (Figure 2-20). The station would provide 260 transit parking spaces within 

the Westfield UTC shopping center. Access to the station parking facility would be 

via the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. The 

station also would include a connection to the new bus transit center, which is a 

component of the expansion of the Westfield UTC shopping center. A TPSS would 

be located near the southern end of the station site. Construction of the Refined 

Build Alternative would require the removal of the pedestrian bridge across Genesee 

Avenue located mid-block between La Jolla Village Drive and Esplanade Court/UTC 

Driveway. Pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue would be provided 

approximately 500 feet to the south of the existing bridge at the intersection of 

Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Grade-separated pedestrian 

access across Genesee Avenue would also be accommodated through the aerial 

station platform at the UTC Transit Center to be located just south of Esplanade 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-45

Figure 2-20. Site Concept for UTC Transit Center 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Court/UTC Driveway via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities that would connect 

the LRT station to the parkway area along the west side of Genesee Avenue and the 

UTC Transit Center to the east of the LRT station. 

2.4.3 Trolley Vehicle Fleet and Maintenance Facilities 

The Trolley Blue Line extension would require 36 new LRVs to cover peak-period service 

with spares in 2030. In the opening year of revenue service, 25 of the 36 new LRVs would 

be required. Fare collection would be the same as the existing proof-of-payment system 

currently in use on the Trolley. No fare collection equipment would be provided on the 

vehicles. 

The MTS maintenance plan for LRVs, including those for the project, centralizes all 

functions at the existing maintenance facilities located at 1255 Imperial Avenue in 

Downtown San Diego. No expansion of existing maintenance facilities would be 

required for the project. 

2.4.4 Power System and Signaling 

The LRVs would receive electrical power from overhead contact wires. Catenary support 

poles, approximately 25 feet high, would be located at approximately 150- to 180-foot 

intervals. The catenary poles generally would be located in the center of the project 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-46 September 2014 

alignment. In some locations, the poles would be located on both sides of the Trolley tracks. 

The overhead electrical power lines would be suspended above the Trolley tracks. 

Electricity to power the LRVs 

would be provided by TPSSs. 

The TPSSs would be of similar 

size and design to the existing 

substations used on the Trolley 

Green Line. Typical TPSS 

dimensions would be a 40-foot 

by 15-foot unmanned equipment 

enclosure within a 45-foot by 75-

foot fenced site. Figure 2-21 

shows an example of an existing 

TPSS. 

The extension of the Trolley Blue 

Line service from Santa Fe 

Depot to the UTC Transit Center 

would require 16 TPSSs, 

consisting of four new or 

upgraded substations between 

Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC 

and 12 new substations north of 

the OTTC. The TPSS 

locations and layouts are 

shown in the Final 

SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. 

Figure 2-22 illustrates the 

layout of a typical TPSS. 

Between Santa Fe Depot 

and the OTTC, 

replacement or upgrades 

to two existing TPSS 

locations on Olive Street 

and on Bean Street and 

two new substations 

would be required 

because of the increased 

frequency of Trolley 

service and the higher 

power draw of the new 

vehicles. One of the new 

substations is a second 

substation to the existing 

site at Olive Street and 

the other is a new 

substation within the 

Figure 2-21. Existing Traction Power Substation 

at a Street North of Santa Fe Depot 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Figure 2-22. Traction Power Substation Layout 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-47

existing MTS Wright Street Yard south of the OTTC. The remaining 12 new substations 

would be located north of the OTTC. Table 2-4 identifies the location of the existing 

substations and the proposed substation upgrades between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, 

and the proposed new substations north of the OTTC. 

Table 2-4. Traction Power Substation Locations 

TPSS No. Stationing Description

1 64+50 Replacement of an existing substation located along the east side of the right-of-way at Olive 

St. 

2 64+50 Addition of a second new substation at Olive St 

3 101+36 Replacement of an existing substation at Bean St 

4 129+50 New substation at Wright St Yard within existing MTS property 

5 199+50 New substation south of the San Diego River and north of I-8, in City of San Diego right-ofway 

6 241+00 New substation at Tecolote Rd Station along east side of tracks and south of Tecolote Creek 

7 313+25 New substation at Clairemont Dr Station parking lot 

8 313+25 New substation at Clairemont Dr Station parking lot 

9 401+25 New substation north of Balboa Ave within City Yard 

10 456+00 New substation just north of Jutland Dr on undeveloped parcel east of MTS right-of-way 

11 550+00 New substation south of La Jolla Colony Dr on the east side of I-5 

12 612+10 New substation on the west side of I-5 in Caltrans right-of-way at the southern end of the La 

Jolla Village Square shopping center 

13 645+50 New substation in Caltrans right-of-way next to VA Medical Center 

14 687+00 New substation on east side of I-5 and west of the UCSD baseball field 

15 731+10 New substation on SDG&E property located at the terminus of Fez St 

16 771+00 New substation on Westfield UTC property north of Nobel Dr 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; I- = Interstate; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; 

SDG&E = San Diego Gas & Electric; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne 

Centre; VA = Veterans Administration

Communications and signaling (C&S) buildings centralize train control and 

communications for Trolley operations at each station. Each facility is an enclosure 

located within the station site area, typically adjacent to a station platform. Positioning of 

a C&S building must be selected to provide clearances for maintaining and servicing 

equipment and to maintain sight lines for LRT operations. Upgrades to the existing C&S 

system between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC would be required as part of the 

project; however, this would not require additional C&S buildings. 

Other proposed physical improvements to the Trolley system south of the OTTC and 

north of Santa Fe Depot would include upgrades to existing systems, including the 

signaling system and the overhead catenary system to accommodate all-day 7.5-minute 

Trolley Blue Line service. These potential improvements would be located within the 

existing railroad and MTS right-of-way, as described below: 

 LRT signaling system improvements would include additional track circuit relays at 

County Center/Little Italy, Middletown, and Washington Street Stations; upgrades to 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-48 September 2014 

the block signaling system to accommodate the reduced headways between Santa 

Fe Depot and the OTTC; and adjustments to the crossing gate controllers to ensure 

an efficient gate operation also meeting requirements of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (23 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 655, Subpart F). 

 Improvements to the overhead catenary system would include the addition of a 

double messenger wire instead of the existing single messenger wire. 

 LOSSAN track improvements would provide for the relocation of an existing control 

point signal from the north side of Taylor Street to the south side of Taylor Street, just 

north of the existing station platform. The improvements would reduce railroad gate 

down time for northbound COASTER and Amtrak trains stopping at the OTTC. 

2.4.5 Operating Plan 

Operating plans were developed using ridership forecasts. These operating plans were 

then used to develop the capital and operating cost estimates and to provide the basis 

for the analysis of potential project impacts. 

Table 2-5 presents the existing 2010 Trolley operating plan and the Trolley operating plans 

developed for the opening year and 2030 revenue service. The 2030 operating plan for the 

No-Build Alternative (also provided in Table 2-3) is included for comparative 

purposes. Currently, the Trolley Blue Line operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. until 

2:00 a.m. the next day. Hours of service for the Trolley Blue Line under the Refined 

Build Alternative would be similar to existing service. 

The 2010 operating plan (existing conditions) does not include the Refined Build 

Alternative. Therefore, to evaluate project impacts compared to existing conditions, the 

Refined Build Alternative was added into the 2010 operating plan to provide a basis for 

comparing project impacts to existing conditions. 

At the startup of revenue operations, the Trolley Blue Line extension north of Santa Fe 

Depot is expected to require 15-minute service during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 

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

3:00 p.m.). Figure 2-23 shows the operating plan for the opening year of service. 

The Trolley operating plan for the Refined Build Alternative in 2030 presented in Table 2-5 

includes the extension of the Trolley Blue Line to the UTC Transit Center. As shown in 

Figure 2-24, the Trolley Blue Line in 2030 would be operated as a single line with three-car 

trains from the existing San Ysidro Transit Center in the south to the UTC Transit Center in 

University City, with stops at all 29 intermediate stations. The Trolley Green and Orange 

Lines would operate the same as under the No-Build Alternative in 2030. Weekday Trolley 

Blue Line service in 2030 would operate every 7.5 minutes during peak periods and during 

the midday off-peak period. Service during the early morning and evening hours would be 

less frequent. The fare structure would be the same as previously described for the NoBuild Alternative. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-49

Table 2-5. Trolley Operating Plans 

Route 

Peak Frequency 

(6:00 to 9:00 a.m.) 

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) 

Midday Off-Peak 

Frequency 

(9:00 a.m. to 

3:00 p.m.) 

Vehicle 

Type 

Fare 

(each way) 

2010 Operating Plan (Existing Conditions)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center 

to OTTC 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 

Center to OTTC 

7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 

12th and Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

2010 Operating Plan (Refined Build Alternative)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center 

to OTTC 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 

Center to UTC Transit Center 

7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 

12th and Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Opening Year Operating Plan* 

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 

12th and Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 

Center to America Plaza 

7.5 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line America Plaza to UTC 

Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 

Santa Fe Depot 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

2030 Operating Plan (Refined Build Alternative)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 

12th and Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro to UTC 

Transit Center 

7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 

America Plaza 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

2030 Operating Plan (No-Build Alternative)

Trolley Green Line Santee Town Center to 

12th and Imperial Transit Center 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Blue Line San Ysidro Transit 

Center to Santa Fe Depot 

7.5 7.5 Trolley $2.50 

Trolley Orange Line Gillespie Field to 

America Plaza 

15.0 15.0 Trolley $2.50 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Notes: * The Trolley Blue Line would operate as a continuous run from the San Ysidro Transit Center to the 

UTC Transit Center. During peak periods in the opening year, alternating trains would turn back at 

America Plaza, resulting in 15-minute headways north of America Plaza and 7.5-minute headways 

south of America Plaza. 

 OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-50 September 2014 

Figure 2-23. Refined Build Alternative Opening Year Trolley Operating Plan 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: Peak = 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.; off-peak = 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-51

Figure 2-24. Refined Build Alternative 2030 Trolley Operating Plan 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: Peak = 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.; off-peak = 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-52 September 2014 

The Trolley operating plan in 2010 that includes the Refined Build Alternative is the 

same as the 2010 operating plan except for extension of the Trolley Blue Line from the 

OTTC to the UTC Transit Center and an increase in service frequency to 7.5 minutes 

during the midday off-peak period. Thus, under the Refined Build Alternative in 2010, 

the Trolley Blue Line would operate at 7.5-minute intervals during both peak and midday 

off-peak periods. 

With extension of Trolley Blue Line service to the UTC Transit Center, the service provided 

by bus Route 150 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City would 

duplicate the new Trolley services and therefore would be eliminated with implementation 

of the project, consistent with the 2030 RTP. In addition to this modification, minor 

changes would be made to several bus routes to improve access to the new Trolley 

stations proposed under the Refined Build Alternative. These modifications consist of 

rerouting of bus routes to connect to stations. The service frequency of the routes serving 

the stations would not change. Table 2-6 identifies routes serving the Trolley stations 

under the Refined Build Alternative and shows which routes would be modified to serve 

the stations. No changes to other bus routes or the COASTER would be required. 

2.4.6 Schedule 

The project is currently in the Project Development phase of the New Starts process, 

which includes the completion of the NEPA and CEQA processes. Completion of the 

environmental review process is anticipated in the fall of 2014, following which SANDAG 

will seek FTA approval to advance the project to the Engineering phase pursuant to the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. During the Engineering phase, 

SANDAG and FTA will negotiate a Full Funding Grant Agreement, which is anticipated in 

the fall of 2015. Construction is assumed to begin in 2015, and revenue service is 

expected to start by the spring of 2019. 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 2-53

Table 2-6. Refined Build Alternative Bus Routes Serving Trolley Stations 

Route Description 

Frequency of Service

Refined Build 

Alternative Stations 

Served 

Modified under 

Refined Build 

Alternative1 

Peak 

(6:00 to 9:00 a.m.)

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.)

Midday OffPeak 

(9:00 a.m. to 

3:00 p.m.) 

8 OTTC to Balboa Ave via 

Garnet and Bayard 

15 15 OTTC, Balboa Ave Yes 

9 Balboa Ave to OTTC via 

Garnet and Bayard 

15 15 OTTC, Balboa Ave Yes 

27 Mission and Felspar to 

Clairemont Mesa 

15 15 Balboa Ave Yes 

30 UTC Transit Center to B 

and 9th 

10 10 Washington St, OTTC, 

Nobel Dr, UCSD West, 

UTC Transit Center 

No 

31 Mira Mesa Transit Center 

to UTC Transit Center 

15 15 Executive Dr, UTC 

Transit Center 

No 

41 Fashion Valley Trolley 

Station to UCSD West 

10 10 UCSD West, Executive 

Dr, UTC Transit Center 

No 

44 OTTC to Balboa Ave 7.5 7.5 OTTC, Balboa Ave No 

50 Park and Broadway to 

UTC Transit Center 

15 15 Clairemont Dr, UTC 

Transit Center 

No 

105 OTTC to UTC Transit 

Center 

15 15 OTTC, Tecolote Rd, 

UTC Transit Center 

No 

1502 5th and Broadway to 

UTC Transit Center 

 Yes—Deleted 

201 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 Nobel Dr, VA Medical 

Center, UCSD West, 

UCSD East, Executive 

Dr, UTC Transit Center 

No 

202 SuperLoop 7.5 7.5 Nobel Dr, VA Medical 

Center, UCSD West, 

UCSD East, Executive 

Dr, UTC Transit Center 

No 

276 UCSD Route–Voigt Drive 

Loop 

15 15 VA Medical Center, 

UCSD West 

Yes 

284 UCSD Route–UCSD 

West to Scripps 

Institution of 

Oceanography 

15 15 UCSD West Yes 

921 Mira Mesa Transit Center 

to UCSD West 

15 15 UCSD West, Executive 

Dr, UTC Transit Center 

No 

960 UTC Transit Center to 

Euclid Avenue Trolley 

Station 

30 0 Executive Dr, UTC 

Transit Center 

No 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Notes: 1 Routes that do not require modification would provide adequate service to the Refined Build Alternative 

station locations based on the route alignments in the 2030 RTP. 2

 Route 150 does not operate under the Refined Build Alternative. 

 OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne 

Centre; VA = Veterans Administration 
Chapter 2.0 – Alternatives Considered 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2-54 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-1 

3.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 

This chapter describes the existing transportation conditions in the Mid-Coast Corridor and 

the transportation impacts resulting from implementation of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives described in Chapter 2.0. Transportation impacts include project benefits as 

well as adverse impacts on transit system performance, freeways and roadways, the bicycle 

and pedestrian system, parking, and freight. The methodology used to determine impacts is 

described under the relevant portions of Sections 3.3 and 3.4 as appropriate. A significance 

determination in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also is 

included. The CEQA analysis considers existing conditions and performance in 2010 and 

long-term conditions and performance in 2030. 

Project and/or mitigation measures have been identified to address impacts. Project 

measures are incorporated as part of the project and consist of design features, best 

management practices, or other measures (e.g., formation of plans to address 

hazardous materials) required by law and/or permit approvals, that avoid or minimize 

potential impacts. Where relevant, the project measures were included in the impact 

analyses presented in this chapter and the supporting technical reports. Appendix E of 

this document is a compendium of all project measures identified in this chapter and in 

the supporting technical reports. Upon certification of the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the project, SANDAG will use this 

appendix to ensure implementation. 

Mitigation measures are additional actions, not otherwise part of the project, that are 

designed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse or significant impacts. These 

measures are required where significant or adverse impacts have been identified based 

on the impact analyses. All mitigation measures identified in this chapter are presented 

in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached to the Record of Decision 

in Appendix D of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is committed to implementing 

the project measures and mitigation measures stated in this chapter and the supporting 

technical reports. Certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 

and adoption of the project will include a commitment by SANDAG to implement these 

measures; this commitment is also reflected in the Record of Decision (included as 

Appendix D) issued by the Federal Transit Administration with this Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 

(SEIS/SEIR). 

This chapter has been revised since preparation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR (SANDAG, 2013a) 

to reflect the approval of the refinements to the Build Alternative (now referred to as the 

Refined Build Alternative) by the SANDAG Board of Directors for evaluation in this Final 

SEIS/SEIR. The Refined Build Alternative includes the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical 

Center Station and excludes the Genesee Avenue Design Option. As a result, the evaluation 

of the Genesee Avenue Design Option has been eliminated from this chapter. Revisions to 

this chapter have also been made based on comments received during the review and 

comment period for the Draft SEIS/SEIR and any new or additional analysis required in 

response to the comments or as a result of the refinements to the project. In response to 

comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, additional surveys of on-street parking 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-2 September 2014 

utilization were taken within a one-half-mile radius of the Balboa Avenue Station to 

determine if there would be adequate on-street parking on residential streets in the 

unlikely event of spillover parking. The results of these surveys are summarized in 

Section 3.4.4.2. 

This chapter supplements and updates the transportation impact analysis and mitigation 

for the light rail transit (LRT) component of the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives 

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report

(AA/DEIS/DEIR) (Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a), the Final 

Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (FEIR) (MTDB, 1995b), and the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (MTDB, 2001). The AA/DEIS/DEIR assumed a 

2005 planning horizon when analyzing the impacts of the two LRT alternatives and 

included 41 intersections in the study area. Impacts were identified at four intersections 

with the Interstate (I-) 5 alignment and at two intersections with the Genesee Avenue 

alignment. Additionally, the alignment through University City was at-grade, and traffic 

impacts were identified at several locations along this section of the alignment. None of 

these intersections are affected by the alignment analyzed in the SEIS/SEIR, in part 

because the alignment would be aerial in University City and would not require the 

closure of medians or restriction of turning movements. The current environmental 

review identifies impacts at 15 intersections and 1 roadway segment; mitigation has 

been identified where feasible. These impacts and mitigation remain unchanged for the 

Refined Build Alternative evaluated in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Impacts on several bicycle facilities were identified in the AA/DEIS/DEIR and FEIR, 

including the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, which would be relocated as part of mitigation. 

Similar impacts were identified in the SEIS/SEIR. The AA/DEIS/DEIR also identified the 

removal of on-street parking along Executive Drive and off-street parking at the M.L. 

Lawrence Jewish Community Center, neither of which would be affected by the Refined 

Build Alternative. The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified the loss of 189 on- and off-street 

parking spaces, particularly in University City. In comparison, this Final SEIS/SEIR 

identifies the loss of 602 on- and off-street parking spaces, with the additional loss of 

parking occurring in University City. 

The FEIS had a 2015 planning horizon and did not identify traffic impacts at any of the 12 

intersections analyzed. The LRT alignment went from the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) 

to Balboa Avenue; accordingly, impacts were not assessed north of the Balboa Avenue 

Station. In all three documents, the study areas did not include intersections south of Taylor 

Street/Rosecrans Street and Pacific Highway, which are included in the SEIS/SEIR and 

Final SEIS/SEIR. In comparison, the current Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has a 2030 

planning horizon and includes a more in-depth analysis of impacts on other transportation 

modes than that provided in the previous documents. The study area for the SEIS/SEIR 

extends from Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego north to University City.

For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation 

Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The Preface of this technical report contains additional information on changes to the 

analysis and technical report since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-3 

3.1 Travel Demand Forecasting Model 

As noted in Chapter 1.0, the SANDAG Series 11 Travel Demand Forecasting Model 

(Series 11 model) was the tool used to analyze and forecast travel demand and patterns 

for this project. There are four basic steps to the travel demand forecasting model. The 

model generates person trips, then determines trip destinations, allocates these trips to 

various available transportation modes (e.g., bus, light rail, commuter rail, automobile, 

walk/bike, or school bus), and finally assigns vehicle trips to highway networks and 

transit trips to transit networks. Prior to circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the Series 11 

model was run for the following scenarios: (1) existing conditions in 20101

, (2) No-Build 

Alternative in 2030, (3) Build Alternative in 2030, and (4) existing conditions in 2010 with 

the Build Alternative. Modeling of the Build Alternative was done with and without the 

VA Medical Center Station Option. No additional model runs were required for the 

Refined Build Alternative. The modeling results for the Build Alternative with the VA 

Medical Center Station Option presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR are applicable to the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

For the travel demand analysis, the traffic analysis zones were combined to form 29 

travel analysis districts (as shown in Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1.0). One additional district 

also was modeled to account for external trips—that is, for trips beginning or ending 

outside the region (either in Mexico or a neighboring county). The Series 11 model 

provided various forecasts related to usage of the roadway and transit network, including 

roadway traffic volumes, travel times (peak and off-peak), and transit ridership. Within 

the model, the a.m. peak period extends from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m., and the p.m. peak 

period extends from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. 

In 2003, SANDAG calibrated the Series 11 model based on observed transportation 

data, including traffic counts provided by the City of San Diego and the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and passenger counts provided by the 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD). In 

2008, for the purpose of applying for New Starts funding for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project, the model was reviewed and further revised by the Mid-Coast Corridor 

team based upon the Federal Transit Administration New Starts guidelines and current 

best practices. The data inputs and SANDAG’s steps to calibrate and validate the 

Series 11 model are further described in the Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth Forecast 

Update: Process and Model Documentation (SANDAG, 2008a), the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project SANDAG Mode Choice Model Calibration and Validation Report

(SANDAG, 2010b), and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Travel Forecasting 

Results Report (SANDAG, 2014w) (none of these reports have been revised since 

circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). 

3.2 Travel Demand and Patterns 

The first three steps in the modeling process determine where people travel and by what 

mode (either motorized—automobile, transit, or school bus—or nonmotorized—walk or 

 

1

 Existing conditions generally refer to conditions in 2010 when the Notice of Preparation for CEQA was 

issued. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-4 September 2014 

bicycle). This information is important when planning transportation projects. For 

example, if a high concentration of trips occurs between two locations, then these trips 

could benefit from the provision of frequent, reliable transit service. 

Existing travel demand and travel patterns, as determined by the Series 11 model, were 

analyzed to identify major travel markets for trips with origins and/or destinations within 

the Mid-Coast Corridor. As stated in Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, key travel markets for 

many of these trips include Downtown San Diego and areas to the east and south, as 

well as University City. An analysis of trips by purpose reveals a strong reverse commute 

travel pattern, with more home-to-work and home-to-college trips traveling north, away 

from downtown, than toward downtown during the a.m. peak hour. 

An analysis of trips by mode shows that auto trips dominate travel, accounting for 95 percent 

of systemwide person trips in 2010 (Table 3-1). Transit trips account for 1.4 percent of 

systemwide trips (251,200), while nonmotorized modes (bicycling and walking) account for 2.8 

percent of all travel. A transit trip is a trip from origin to destination regardless of the number of 

transfers needed. This is referred to as a “linked transit trip.” Home-to-work transit trips 

comprise 46 percent of all daily transit trips, and 31 percent of daily transit trips are home-toother trips (Table 3-2). Home-to-college trips comprise 10 percent of daily transit trips. 

The key travel markets identified based on travel patterns in 2010 will continue to be 

important travel markets in 2030. As shown in Table 3-1, under the No-Build Alternative, 

the largest increases in the number of trips would occur for auto trips (25.5 percent) and 

transit trips (23.4 percent), while nonmotorized travel would increase 12.7 percent. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, there are projected to be 4.3 percent more transit 

trips than under the No-Build Alternative. Auto trips would be reduced by 0.1 percent 

(13,100 trips) with the Refined Build Alternative. 

Table 3-1. Daily Trips by Mode—2010 and 2030 

Mode 

Existing 

Conditions 

(2010) 

Trips 

2030

No-Build Alternative Refined Build Alternative

Trips 

Percent Change 

from 2010 Trips 

Percent Change 

from No-Build 

Motorized 

Transit 251,200 309,900 23.4% 323,300 4.3% 

Auto 17,244,300 21,636,000 25.5% 21,622,900 -0.1% 

School bus 138,100 143,500 3.9% 143,500 0.0% 

Subtotal 17,633,600 22,089,400 25.3% 22,089,700 0.0% 

Nonmotorized 

Walk 456,800 512,900 12.3% 512,600 -0.1% 

Bicycle 44,900 52,400 16.7% 52,300 -0.2% 

Subtotal 501,700 565,300 12.7% 564,900 -0.1% 

Total Daily Trips 18,135,300 22,654,700 24.9% 22,654,600 0.0% 

Source: Series 11 model 

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-5 

Table 3-2. Daily Transit Trips by Trip Purpose—2010 and 2030 

Trip Purpose 

Existing Conditions 

(2010) 

No-Build Alternative 

(2030) 

Refined Build Alternative 

(2030) 

Trips 

Percent 

Share Trips 

Percent

Change 

from 2010 Trips 

Percent Change 

from No-Build 

Alternative 

Home-to-work 116,100 46% 145,600 25% 152,700 5% 

Home-to-college 24,600 10% 25,800 5% 27,600 7% 

Home-to-school 12,100 5% 13,400 11% 13,700 2% 

Home-to-other 78,600 31% 96,700 23% 99,500 3% 

Non-home-based 19,800 8% 28,400 43% 29,800 5% 

Total 251,200 100% 309,900 23% 323,300 4% 

Source: Series 11 model 

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. 

Systemwide, there would be 309,900 linked transit trips under the No-Build Alternative in 

2030 (Table 3-2). Compared to existing conditions, there would be a 43 percent 

increase in daily non-home-based trips made by transit under the No-Build Alternative 

and a 25 percent increase in daily home-to-work trips, indicating that changes in transit 

supply would be well suited to serve these trip purposes. The number of daily linked 

transit trips would increase 4.3 percent to 323,300 trips under the Refined Build Alternative. 

The largest increase in linked transit trips by purpose would occur for home-to-college trips 

(7 percent), followed by non-home-based and home-to-work trips (both increasing by 

5 percent), indicating that the Refined Build Alternative would improve transit service to the 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and would serve a variety of trip purposes 

throughout the day. 

3.3 Existing Conditions 

3.3.1 Transit System and Performance 

Transit services in the corridor are operated primarily by MTS, although several NCTD 

routes and Amtrak also operate within the corridor. Specifically, the transit system 

includes COASTER commuter rail, Amtrak intercity passenger rail, LRT, and bus transit. 

The NCTD operates the COASTER and several bus routes, of which one route (Route 

101) provides service from areas north of the corridor to the VA Medical Center and the 

University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center. MTS operates San Diego’s LRT system 

(the San Diego Trolley [Trolley], as shown in Figure 1-4) and the majority of bus routes 

within the corridor (as shown in Figure 1-5). 

MTS and SANDAG closely monitor the performance of the transit system, making 

adjustments to frequencies and alignment as necessary to meet key performance 

measures. Such adjustments are necessary to ensure the transit system is reliable and 

efficient and meets the needs of the population it serves. 

The following sections describe the existing transit system and performance, expanding 

on information presented in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.4.2. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-6 September 2014 

3.3.1.1 Transit System 

MTS provides transit service to about 3,240 square miles of urbanized San Diego 

County and rural East County. The MTS transit system includes three Trolley lines 

totaling 53.5 miles and 53 stations, and 93 fixed bus routes with 2,851 route miles. 

Buses serve more than 4,700 bus stops (MTS, 2011d and MTS, 2011e). MTS bus 

services are categorized based on several service types; the major bus routes that serve 

the corridor are categorized as follows: 

 Express: High-speed service provided throughout the day and possibly on 

weekends that links major residential, employment, and activity centers; routes 

typically operate on highways and major arterials (e.g., Routes 50 and 150) 

 Urban Frequent: High-frequency service (every 15 minutes or less during weekdays) 

on major arterials in denser urban areas (e.g., Routes 8, 9, and 30) 

 Urban Standard: Basic service with frequencies between 30 and 60 minutes 

operating in less dense areas (e.g., Routes 105 and 921) 

 Circulator: Neighborhood feeder routes operating on arterials and local streets (e.g., 

SuperLoop) 

The major transit routes serving the corridor are summarized in Table 3-3. These routes 

are highlighted because they provide key transit service to major activity centers within 

the corridor or would connect to stations constructed as part of the Refined Build 

Alternative. Four MTS bus routes (Routes 30, 50, 105, and 150) operate along the 

entire corridor between Downtown San Diego and the UTC Transit Center (Figure 1-5). 

Other transit services, including paratransit shuttles operated by UCSD, are described in 

Chapter 1.0 and in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and 

Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v). 

Hours of service (the number of hours during the day when transit is provided along a route, 

often referred to as service span) and headways (the time between transit vehicles [bus or 

Trolley] along a given route) are presented in Table 3-3 for major transit routes in the corridor. 

Weekend headways also are presented. Most key routes serving the corridor provide service 

for more than 14 hours each weekday, with most routes beginning service before 6:00 a.m. 

The Trolley provides more than 19 hours of service each day, with service on all three lines 

beginning around 4:00 a.m. and continuing until 1:00 a.m. or later. On weekends, many bus 

routes provide fewer hours of service, do not serve all stops along a route, or may not 

operate at all. For example, Express Routes 50 and 150 do not operate on weekends. In 

comparison, the Trolley serves all stations on weekends, operating from approximately 4:30 

a.m. until 1:00 a.m., or later, on both Saturdays and Sundays. Additionally, the Trolley 

Orange Line provides late-night service until 2:30 a.m. on Saturdays. 

Refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation 

Report (SANDAG, 2014v) for information regarding revenue miles, revenue hours, and 

in-service hours. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-7 

Table 3-3. Major Transit Routes Serving the Mid-Coast Corridor—Existing Conditions 

Route Route Name 

OneDirection 

Travel 

Time (in 

minutes) 

Weekday 

Hours of 

Service1 

Service Headway (in minutes) 

Communities and 

Activity Centers 

Served in/near the 

Corridor 

Weekday2

SaturdaySunday3 Peak Base Night

NCTD COASTER 

398 COASTER 61 5:18: a.m. 

– 8:10 p.m.

5 IB, 2 

OB4 3 IB 

and 

OB4

3 IB, 4 

OB4 4 roundtrips4

 OTTC, Santa Fe 

Depot 

MTS TROLLEY

510 Trolley Blue 

Line 

56 4:10 a.m. –

1:45 a.m. 

7.5 15 15 15 

(30 in early 

a.m. and late 

p.m.). 

All night (Owl) 

service 

Saturday 

evenings 

OTTC, Washington 

Street, Middletown, 

County Center/Little 

Italy, Santa Fe Depot 

520 Trolley 

Orange Line 

57 4:05 a.m. –

1:55 a.m. 

15 15 15 15 

(30 in late 

evenings) 

Gaslamp Quarter, 

Petco Park, 

Convention Center 

530 Trolley 

Green Line 

47 4:15 a.m. –

12:55 a.m.

15 15 15 15 

(30 in late 

evenings) 

OTTC, Qualcomm 

Stadium, Fashion 

Valley, San Diego 

State University 

MTS URBAN FREQUENT BUS

8 OTTC West 

to Bayard St 

and Garnet 

Ave 

25–26 5:40 a.m. –

12:40 a.m.

15 15 30 20–30–60 OTTC – Pacific Beach 

via Mission Beach: 

Sports Arena, Crystal 

Pier, Mission Bay 

9 OTTC West 

to Bayard St 

and Garnet 

Ave 

32–34 

20–21 for 

trips that 

skip 

SeaWorld 

5:50 a.m. –

10:40 p.m.

15 15 30 20–30–60 OTTC – Pacific Beach 

via SeaWorld and 

Ingraham St: Sports 

Arena, SeaWorld, 

Mission Bay 

30 9th Ave and 

B St to UTC 

Transit 

Center 

89–93 5:00 a.m. –

12:50 a.m.

15 15 30 30 Saturday, 

30–60 Sunday 

Downtown – UTC and 

VA Medical Center: 

OTTC, Pacific Beach, 

UCSD, UTC Transit 

Center 

41 Fashion 

Valley 

Transit 

Center to 

Rupertus and 

Russell 

40–48 5:30 a.m. –

11:50 p.m.

15 15 30 30 Fashion Valley – 

UCSD and VA Medical 

Center: Fashion Valley 

Mall, VA Medical 

Center, UTC Transit 

Center 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-8 September 2014 

Table 3-3. Major Transit Routes Serving the Mid-Coast Corridor—Existing Conditions 

(continued) 

Route 

Route 

Name 

OneDirection 

Travel 

Time (in 

minutes) 

Weekday 

Hours of 

Service1

Service Headway (in minutes)

Communities and 

Activity Centers 

Served in/near the 

Corridor 

Weekday2

SaturdaySunday3 Peak Base Night 

44 OTTC East 

to Clairemont 

Dr and 

Clairemont 

Mesa Blvd 

44–45 4:40 a.m. –

11:40 p.m.

15 15 30 30 Clairemont – OTTC via 

Linda Vista and Mesa 

College: San Diego 

Mesa College, 

University of San 

Diego 

120 4th and G St 

to Kearny 

Mesa Transit 

Center 

58–61 5:00 a.m. –

12:00 a.m.

15 (30 

north of 

Fashion 

Valley) 

15 (30 

north of 

Fashion 

Valley)

30 30–60 Downtown, Kearny 

Mesa Transit Center 

via Hillcrest – Fashion 

Valley – Linda Vista: 

Fashion Valley Mall, 

Horton Plaza 

MTS URBAN STANDARD BUS 

25 Fashion 

Valley 

Transit 

Center to 

Kearny Mesa 

Transit 

Center 

51–56 6:25 a.m. –

7:10 p.m. 

60 60 – No service 

Saturday or 

Sunday 

Fashion Valley – 

Kearny Mesa via Linda 

Vista and Stonecrest: 

Children's Hospital, 

Fashion Valley Mall 

27 Mission Blvd 

and Felspar 

St to Kearny 

Mesa Transit 

Center 

41–43 5:30 a.m. –

10:05 p.m.

30 30 60 30 

Saturday, 

no service 

Sunday 

Pacific Beach – Kearny 

Mesa via Balboa Ave: 

Clairemont High 

School, Crystal Pier, 

Garnet Ave, Genesee 

Plaza 

31 UTC Transit 

Center to 

Westview 

Pkwy 

31 5:40 a.m. –

9:00 a.m. 

and 3:00 

p.m. – 7:10 

p.m. 

30 – – No service 

Saturday or 

Sunday 

UTC – Mira Mesa via 

Miramar Road: MCAS 

Miramar, VA Medical 

Center, Westfield UTC 

Shopping Center 

105 OTTC East 

to UTC 

Transit 

Center 

42-43 5:10 a.m. –

10:40 p.m.

30 30 60 (no 

service 

north 

of 

Clairemont 

60 (no 

service 

north of 

Clairemont 

OTTC – UTC via 

Milton St and 

Clairemont Drive: 

OTTC, Clairemont 

Square, University City 

High School 

921 Russell Dr 

and Gilman 

Dr to 

Westview 

Pkwy 

40–41 5:45 a.m. –

7:55 p.m. 

30 30 30 60 

Saturday, 

no service 

Sunday 

UCSD – VA Medical 

Center via Mira Mesa 

Blvd: VA Medical 

Center, Westfield UTC 

Shopping Center 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-9 

Table 3-3. Major Transit Routes Serving the Mid-Coast Corridor—Existing Conditions 

(continued) 

Route 

Route 

Name 

OneDirection 

Travel 

Time (in 

minutes) 

Weekday 

Hours of 

Service1

Service Headway (in minutes)

Communities and 

Activity Centers 

Served in/near the 

Corridor 

Weekday2

SaturdaySunday3 Peak Base Night 

MTS CIRCULATOR BUS 

201/202 

SuperLoop 

(201 is 

counterclockwise, 

202 is 

clockwise) 

UTC Transit 

Center Loop 

31–32 5:45 a.m. –

10:30 p.m.

10 15 15 15 SuperLoop: La Jolla 

Village Square, 

Scripps Memorial 

Hospital, The Shops at 

La Jolla Village, UCSD 

Medical Center (La 

Jolla), Westfield UTC 

Shopping Center 

MTS EXPRESS BUS 

50 9th Ave and 

C St. to 

UTC Transit 

Center 

50–55 5:00 a.m. –

7:14 p.m. 

15/30 60 – No service 

Saturday or 

Sunday 

Downtown – UTC 

Express via Clairemont 

Dr.: Clairemont 

Square, Costa Verde 

Shopping Center, 

Westfield UTC 

Shopping Center 

150 9th Ave and 

C St to UTC 

Transit 

Center 

50–57 5:55 a.m. –

7:20 p.m. 

15/30 60 – No service 

Saturday or 

Sunday 

Downtown, UTC/VA 

Hospital Express: 

OTTC, UCSD, VA 

Medical Center 

960 Euclid Ave 

Trolley 

Station to 

UTC Transit 

Center 

55–60 5:10 a.m. –

7:40 a.m. 

and 

3:20 p.m. –

6:50 p.m. 

peakdirection 

only 

15/30 – – No service 

Saturday or 

Sunday 

Euclid Trolley – UTC 

via I-15, Mid City, 

Kearny Mesa: The 

Boulevard Transit 

Plaza, City Heights 

Transit Plaza, Kearny 

Mesa Transit Center, 

Market Creek Plaza 

Source: MTS, 2011a and NCTD, 2011 

Notes: 1

 Hours of service based on earliest and latest movements from 2011 service schedules. 

2

 Peak is from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.; Base is generally from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; 

Night is generally after 6:00 p.m. 

 3

 Service headways shown for Saturdays and Sundays are for base, peak-base, or peak-base-night 

periods, as applicable. 4 Represents service frequency 

 IB = inbound; MCAS = Marine Corps Air Station; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; NCTD = North 

County Transit District; OB = outbound; OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, 

San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-10 September 2014 

Transit Facilities 

Transit facilities consist of bus stops, transit stations, transit centers, and park-and-ride 

facilities. Bus stops are the most common and typically are served by a small number of 

routes. Some bus stops have no benches or shelters while others may provide such 

features. MTS and NCTD bus stops are available throughout the corridor, many with 

shelters, seating, and signage indicating which routes serve the stop. 

In comparison, transit stations are served by routes with higher capacities, and can 

include connections to rail. The County Center/Little Italy, Washington Street, and 

Middletown Trolley Stations are examples of transit stations, all of which provide seating, 

bicycle racks/lockers, transit information, and ticket vending machines. Some bus routes 

stop near these Trolley stations, but they are not important transfer locations. Several 

public parking lots also are located near these Trolley stations; however, they are not 

operated by MTS and charge a fee for use. 

Lastly, transit centers are facilities served by multiple bus routes, although bus–rail 

connections also may be an equally important feature. Three transit centers are located in 

the corridor—Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC in the southern end of the corridor and the 

UTC Transit Center in the northern end. Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC are both served 

by COASTER, Amtrak, and Trolley trains (the Trolley Blue Line at Santa Fe Depot and 

the Trolley Blue and Green Lines at the OTTC). Additionally, 10 bus routes serve 2 bus 

loading zones adjacent to the OTTC, thus making this transit center an important 

location for bus–bus, rail–rail, and bus–rail transfers. Transit passengers at Santa Fe 

Depot can access bus routes along Broadway or walk across Kettner Boulevard and 

access the Trolley Orange Line at America Plaza. Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC 

provide bicycle racks/lockers, transit information, and seating for passengers. 

Additionally, a 397-space park-and-ride facility operated by MTS is located to the west of 

the Trolley platforms at the OTTC. An additional 350 park-and-ride spaces are provided 

at an overflow lot near the OTTC; 

however, these spaces are only 

available after 5:00 p.m. and on 

weekends. A public parking lot is 

located near Santa Fe Depot, 

although it is not operated by 

MTS and charges a fee for use. 

Under existing conditions, the 

UTC Transit Center is served by 

10 bus routes, providing a 

connection between bus routes 

originating in Downtown San 

Diego and areas south to 

Sorrento Valley, Scripps Ranch, 

and Mira Mesa. 

Transit facilities also can include preferential treatment for transit, such as bus-only 

lanes. Bus operations in the corridor primarily use arterials and local roads and 

segments of I-5; dedicated bus-only facilities, such as transit lanes, are not provided 

along highways in the corridor. Exclusive bus lanes are located along some arterials 

Bus Transfer Area at Old Town Transit Center 

Source: SANDAG, 2011 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-11 

and freeway ramps, including at Taylor Street/ Rosecrans Street at Pacific Highway, 

westbound Washington Street to southbound State Route (SR) 163, and 11th Avenue to 

northbound SR 163. Additionally, queue jumpers, which provide buses with priority 

access through intersections, are located in several areas of the corridor, including the 

intersection of Taylor Street/Rosecrans Street at Pacific Highway to enter the OTTC. 

3.3.1.2 Transit System Performance 

Transit performance, whether measured by agencies or as perceived by the transit 

passenger, is an indicator of the convenience of the transit system. Transit performance 

is measured in terms of travel time, frequency, reliability, and passengers per service 

hour. Improved transit performance increases transit ridership and makes transit more 

competitive with the automobile. To assess how well the transit system serves existing 

and future demand and meets goals established in SANDAG’s 2030 San Diego 

Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007a), 

SANDAG and MTS developed evaluation criteria (as described in the Coordinated Plan 

2010–2014 [SANDAG, 2010c] and Policies and Procedures Number 42: Transit Service 

Evaluation and Adjustment [MTS, 2007]). The Coordinated Plan 2010-2014 established 

a goal of 80 percent on-time performance for determining reliability and a guideline of 35 

passengers per service hour to measure efficiency. Criteria from these documents are 

used during periodic performance evaluations; transit services are modified if the route is 

found to perform poorly in terms of the criteria. These same criteria were used to 

analyze the existing and future transit performance in the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

The following performance evaluation focuses on MTS services within the Mid-Coast 

Corridor. Although Amtrak and two NCTD transit routes (COASTER and Bus Route 

101) operate within the corridor, neither system effectively serves the University City 

area or the other travel markets that would be served by the Refined Build Alternative. 

Accordingly, their performance was not analyzed as it would not be affected by the 

project. 

The transit data used for the performance analysis were obtained from the MTS 

passenger counting program and from periodic performance evaluations and were 

supplemented by forecasts of demand from the Series 11 model. Existing conditions in 

2010 include an evaluation of the following performance measures: travel time and 

frequency and reliability (measured by on-time performance). Refer to Section 1.4.2 for 

a discussion of the evaluation of passengers per service hour. 

Travel Time and Frequency 

Travel time represents how long it takes a passenger to complete a trip by transit and is 

affected by the speed of the transit vehicle, roadway congestion, the number of stops, 

and the distance between stops. Travel time is typically measured from origin to 

destination, including time spent on the vehicle and at stations waiting to transfer. 

Figure 1-8 presents transit travel time from boarding at the first transit stop to the time 

the passenger gets off at the last stop, including transfers, but does not include the time 

the passenger spends walking from their origin or destination to the transit stop. As 

stated in Section 1.4.2, bus services in the corridor operate on I-5 and arterial streets; 

therefore buses experience the same congestion as motorists, which results in slower 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-12 September 2014 

travel speeds and longer travel times. Because buses make stops to pick up and drop off 

passengers, bus travel speeds are generally slower than auto speeds for a comparable trip. 

There are a large number of trips between downtown and University City, making it one 

of the major travel markets, as identified in Section 1.2.4. These two locations are 

important employment and activity centers, generating trips during peak periods and 

throughout the day. Individuals who travel between these destinations by transit can use 

express Routes 50 and 150 or local Route 30. Under existing conditions, an express 

bus trip from downtown to the UTC Transit Center takes 48 minutes; however, the 

express routes operate with 60-minute frequencies outside peak periods and do not 

operate on weekends. Consequently, many passengers traveling between downtown 

and the UTC Transit Center during other times of day or on weekends must rely on local 

Route 30. While Route 30 operates with 15-minute frequencies during peak and midday periods and 30-minute frequencies in the evening and provides service on 

weekends, its scheduled travel time is twice as long as the express routes. A weekday 

trip on Route 30 between 9th Avenue and B Street and the UTC Transit Center is 

estimated to take 1 hour and 40 minutes. This time does not include any transfers that 

may be required to complete the trip. 

Reliability 

Transit service reliability is measured in terms of on-time performance, or the time a 

transit vehicle departs a station compared to its scheduled time. If a route is not reliable, 

transit passengers may feel they need to take an earlier bus or rail vehicle to ensure that 

they reach their destination on time. Additionally, transfers can be inconvenient if one or 

both routes are not on time. According to MTS, a bus or Trolley vehicle is on-time if it 

leaves a transit stop or station no more than 0 minutes, 0 seconds early and no later 

than 4 minutes, 59 seconds late. Many factors influence on-time performance, including 

traffic congestion, weather, the number of passengers boarding or alighting at stops, and 

the use of wheelchair lifts on buses and Trolley vehicles. Reliability typically is higher for 

transit vehicles operating in semi-exclusive or exclusive right-of-way because these 

vehicles are not affected by traffic congestion (semi-exclusive right-of-way includes 

Trolley lines operating through at-grade crossings [e.g., the Trolley Orange Line on C 

Street in downtown]). SANDAG establishes a guideline of 80 percent reliability for bus 

routes. Under existing conditions, all key bus routes shown in Table 3-3 met this 

guideline during the a.m. peak period; however, only 9 of the 16 routes met this 

guideline during the p.m. peak period when roadways are more congested. As stated 

previously, dedicated bus-only facilities, such as transit lanes, are not provided on 

freeways in the corridor; however, exclusive bus lanes are located on some arterials and 

freeway ramps. Therefore, existing bus services share roadways with other vehicular 

traffic. In comparison, the Trolley lines, which operate in semi-exclusive or exclusive 

right-of-way, experienced more than 90 percent on-time reliability throughout the day. 

3.3.1.3 Transit Ridership 

Transit ridership is typically measured in terms of average weekday or annual boardings 

and represents the number of people who board a bus, Trolley, or train over the course 

of a typical weekday or year. Ridership can be measured for the entire transit system or 

individual routes. A boarding occurs whenever a rider gets on a transit vehicle. When a 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-13 

rider transfers from one transit vehicle to another, it counts as a separate boarding, although 

it is part of a single linked trip. Ridership is a reflection of the amount of service supplied 

and the performance of a transit system. If a transit system has frequent, reliable 

service throughout the day and serves destinations important to the population, then that 

system will have higher ridership than a system that does not perform as well. 

Systemwide Ridership 

Table 3-4 summarizes average weekday and annual transit boardings in Fiscal Year 

2010 for MTS fixed-route transit services and demand-response services (typically a van 

or smaller bus that operates in response to calls from passengers; demand-response 

routes are not fixed and typically provide door-to-door service for passengers), as 

reported by MTS. This table represents systemwide boardings and is not limited to the 

key routes that serve the corridor. In 2010, there were nearly 52 million boardings on 

the bus system with approximately 170,000 boardings on an average weekday. Most 

passengers use urban frequent routes (37 million passengers per year). In comparison, 

there were more than 30 million annual boardings on the Trolley system, with 

approximately 91,000 boardings each weekday. 

Table 3-4. MTS Transit Boardings by Service Type—Fiscal Year 2010 

Service Category Average Weekday Boardings Annual Boardings 

Light Rail 91,280 30,468,980 

Bus 170,730 51,936,250 

Premium Express 1,130 282,100 

Express 7,740 2,149,980 

Urban Frequent 119,760 37,101,320 

Urban Standard 38,470 11,552,480 

Circulator 3,470 823,680 

Rural 160 26,700 

Demand–Responsive 1,290 353,990 

Source: MTS, 2010 

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. 

Mid-Coast Corridor Ridership 

Sixteen key bus routes provide service in the Mid-Coast Corridor. Additionally, the 

corridor is served in part by each of the three Trolley lines. Table 1-3 in Chapter 1.0 

provides average weekday ridership of these bus and Trolley routes. Among the key 

bus routes, Route 30 served the most weekday riders with 6,654 daily boardings. In 

comparison, all three Trolley routes served more passengers than Route 30, with the 

Trolley Blue Line having approximately eight times more weekday boardings. It should 

be noted that the entire alignment for Route 30 is located within the corridor whereas the 

Trolley Blue Line serves more than 10 stations located outside the corridor. These 

stations connect the San Ysidro Transit Center at the U.S.–Mexico international border 

and other communities south of downtown to downtown San Diego. Some of these 

stations have among the highest ridership on the Trolley Blue Line, with 5 of these 

stations having more than 3,000 daily boardings in 2010. In comparison, the 5 Trolley 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-14 September 2014 

Blue Line stations between and including Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC had between 

200 (Middletown) and 6,000 (OTTC) daily boardings (MTS, 2010). 

Most key bus routes have 40 to 49 percent of their boardings during peak periods, 

indicating that approximately half of all daily ridership occurs during off-peak periods 

(i.e., midday, early morning, and evening). Accordingly, reliable, frequent transit 

service is needed during both the peak and off-peak periods as demand is spread 

throughout the day. Similarly, peak-period boardings on all three Trolley lines 

comprise between 50 percent (Trolley Green Line) and 63 percent (Trolley Orange 

Line) of daily boardings. Northbound boardings on north–south bus routes are 

higher than southbound boardings during the a.m. peak period, indicating that 

northbound is the predominant direction of travel. This indicates the importance of 

activity centers and employment destinations in the northern portion of the corridor. 

3.3.2 Freeway and Roadway System and Performance 

Section 1.3.2 discusses the corridor freeways and major arterials, which are shown in 

Figure 1-3. As discussed in this section, the corridor is served by three north–south 

highways (I-5, I-805, and SR 163) and two east–west highways (I-8 and SR 52). 

Principal north–south arterials include Pacific Highway, Morena Boulevard, Ingraham 

Street, Regents Road, Genesee Avenue, and Gilman Drive. Major arterials that run 

east–west include Balboa Avenue, Friars Road, and La Jolla Village Drive. 

3.3.2.1 Freeway and Roadway System Demand 

Freeway and roadway travel demand directly affects congestion on the roadway 

system. Travel demand can be measured in terms of auto person trips and vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT). Both auto person trips and VMT are outputs from the Series 

11 model. An auto person trip is a trip made by one person in an automobile. This 

measure does not account for vehicle occupancy; therefore, two individuals in a 

carpool are still counted as two person trips. For the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project, auto person trips were categorized based on the number of people in the 

automobile and the type of facility the trip is made on (e.g., managed lanes). As 

identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and 

Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v), in 2010, drive-alone trips accounted for more 

than half of all auto person trips. In comparison, the number of person trips in 

carpools of two persons and three or more persons equaled approximately one-half 

and one-third of the drive-alone person trips, respectively. 

The amount of auto travel also can be described in terms of VMT, the total number of 

miles that are traveled by all vehicles using the highway system over a period of 

time, such as a day or a year. For this project, daily VMT was calculated based on 

roadway classification (e.g., freeway), as shown in Table 3-5. This measure reflects 

the amount of use for each roadway facility. Approximately 13 percent of the VMT 

within the San Diego region occurs within the corridor. As shown in Table 3-5, more 

than half the VMT in the corridor occurs on freeways, with the next highest 

percentage (30 percent) occurring on arterials, indicating that these are the most 

used facilities in the corridor. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-15 

Table 3-5. Mid-Coast Corridor Daily VMT and VHD—Existing Conditions (2010) 

Functional 

Class 

VMT VHD

Total Percent Total Percent 

Freeway 5,490,000 51% 33,000 21% 

Arterial 3,201,000 30% 83,000 54% 

Collector 1,075,000 10% 20,000 13% 

Local 111,000 1% 3,000 2% 

Ramps 804,000 8% 16,000 10% 

Total 10,681,000 100% 155,000 100% 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. 

 VHD = vehicle hours of delay; VMT = vehicle miles traveled

3.3.2.2 Freeway and Roadway System Performance 

The freeway and roadway system consists of freeways and freeway interchanges, 

arterial roadways (roadways that provide connections to freeways, other arterials, and 

other important destinations), and intersections. Adverse impacts to these facilities are 

measured in terms of increased delay and a deterioration in levels of service (LOS) that 

would occur on these facilities when they do not provide sufficient capacity to 

accommodate the demand. Systemwide roadway congestion can be measured in terms 

of vehicle hours of delay (VHD), which is also calculated for each roadway classification, 

similar to VMT. Additionally, specific methodology has been developed by the City of 

San Diego, the local jurisdiction in which the Refined Build Alternative would be located, 

to measure performance of each of the other freeway and roadway facilities. Using this 

methodology, a freeway and roadway performance analysis was conducted to determine 

how well the system meets SANDAG’s transportation goals from the 2030 RTP, as 

described in Section 1.4.1. The analysis also helped to define the need for transit 

improvements in the corridor because congestion affects overall mobility of both 

automobiles and transit. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor was divided into two subareas for purposes of the traffic 

analysis: the southern subarea, south of the San Diego River (Figure 3-1), and the 

northern subarea, north of the San Diego River (Figure 3-2). In the southern subarea, 

the project would use the existing Trolley tracks and operate through eight existing 

at-grade crossings at Ash, Beech, Cedar, Palm, Sassafras, Washington, Noell, and 

Taylor Streets. These crossings are referred to as grade crossings within this document. 

Within this subarea, intersections adjacent to these grade crossings were identified for 

study because they could be affected by the increase in the number of Trolley trains 

operating through these grade crossings. North of the San Diego River, there would be 

no new grade crossings of any intersecting street. Therefore, in the northern subarea, 

traffic impacts from the project are assessed based on vehicular traffic accessing the 

new Trolley stations and transit parking facilities. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 show the 

roadway segments and intersections included in the traffic analysis. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-16 September 2014 

Figure 3-1. Southern Subarea 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-17 

Figure 3-2. Northern Subarea 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-18 September 2014 

Vehicle Hours of Delay 

VHD is an indicator of systemwide roadway congestion. VHD is the difference between 

congested vehicle hours traveled (the number of vehicle trips using a roadway multiplied 

by the travel time) and the vehicle hours traveled that are expected under free-flow 

conditions. Under existing conditions, 18 percent of daily regional VHD occurs within the 

corridor. A review of VHD by facility type within the corridor indicates that the highest VHD 

occurs on arterials (54 percent), followed by freeways (21 percent), as shown in Table 3-5. 

In comparison, VMT was higher on freeways than arterials, indicating that speeds are 

higher on freeways than arterials. Consequently, buses traveling on arterials are most 

likely to experience congested conditions that affect their reliability and travel time. 

Freeway Interchange Performance 

An intersecting lane vehicles (ILV) analysis provides a method of analyzing performance 

at signalized intersections. Caltrans District 11 requires that an ILV analysis be 

performed at signalized freeway ramp intersections within the corridor that would 

experience an increase of 50 peak-hour trips with the addition of project-related traffic. 

The analysis uses intersection lane geometric configurations, signal phasing2

, and a.m. 

and p.m. peak-hour volumes to determine how well traffic travels through an intersection 

during each respective peak hour. According to the Highway Design Manual, an ILV of 

1,500 during a given peak hour is considered capacity. Travel conditions are optimal 

with minor delay when ILV equals 1,200 during a given peak hour (Caltrans, 2009b). An 

ILV analysis was performed at the intersections of Nobel Drive with the I-5 northbound 

off-ramp and the I-5 southbound on-ramp, as they were the only locations that met this 

guidance. As shown in Table 3-6, under existing conditions both locations are under 

capacity during both peak periods. 

Table 3-6. A.M. and P.M. Peak-Hour ILV Performance—Existing Conditions (2010) 

Intersection 

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Total 

Operating 

Level (ILV/HR)

Capacity 

Analysis 

Total Operating 

Level (ILV/HR) 

Capacity 

Analysis 

Nobel Dr and I-5 northbound off-ramp 653 Under capacity 962 Under capacity 

Nobel Dr and I-5 southbound on-ramp 505 Under capacity 885 Under capacity 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: ILV/HR = intersecting lane vehicles per hour 

 ILV/HR less than or equal to 1,200 is considered under capacity. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report

(SANDAG, 2014v) includes additional information on average weekday daily traffic 

(AWDT) on freeways within the corridor and the overall level of service on these 

facilities, as extracted from the Series 11 model. 

 

2

 A traffic signal phase determines the order of vehicular movements through an intersection. In 

comparison, traffic signal timing determines the length of the red, yellow, and green lights for each phase. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-19 

Roadway Performance 

A roadway segment analysis provides insight on how a particular roadway segment 

would perform for an entire 24-hour period, rather than just during peak hours. 

Based on the guidelines established by the city in the City of San Diego’s Traffic 

Impact Study Manual (City of San Diego, 1998c), a roadway analysis is performed 

only if a project adds more than 50 peak-hour trips—for both directions combined—to 

a roadway segment. A roadway segment analysis was performed for roadway 

segments where the Refined Build Alternative would meet the city’s guidance, using 

the methodologies set forth in the City’s Traffic Impact Study Manual (City of San 

Diego, 1998c) and the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual

(Transportation Research Board, 2000). These segments are indicated in red on 

Figure 3-2. In the northern subarea, five stations would have new transit parking 

provided as part of the Refined Build Alternative. Consequently, vehicular traffic on 

roadways near the new facilities would increase, which could result in impacts on 

roadway segments. The Refined Build Alternative would not introduce any new 

stations or transit parking in the southern subarea. Additionally, results from the 

Series 11 model projected a minimal change in drive trips to the OTTC park-and-ride 

facility, which is the only park-and-ride in the southern subarea. As a result, 

vehicular trips would not exceed the city’s guidelines in the southern subarea and, 

therefore, a roadway analysis was not performed in this subarea. 

For each of the roadway segments shown in Figure 3-2, the existing functional 

classification and the number of lanes were determined. The Traffic Impact Study 

Manual (City of San Diego, 1998c) defines the capacities for roadway segments 

based on their functional classifications. Existing traffic volumes for each roadway 

included in the analysis were compared to guidelines in the Traffic Impact Study 

Manual to determine level of service and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. According 

to city guidelines, the acceptable level of service for roadways is “D” or better, thus 

indicating that roadways operating at LOS E or F are unacceptable. Existing 

roadway classifications, AWDT, V/C ratios, and level of service are shown in Table 

3-7. All roadway segments analyzed operate at LOS A through C, with the exception of five 

roadway segments on four roadways that operate at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F: 

 Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp 

(LOS F) and from the I-5 northbound off-ramp to Morena Boulevard (LOS E) 

 Balboa Avenue from Morena Boulevard to Moraga Avenue (LOS E) 

 Mission Bay Drive from Damon Avenue to Garnet Avenue (LOS F) 

 La Jolla Village Drive from Villa La Jolla Drive to the I-5 southbound ramps (LOS F) 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-20 September 2014 

Table 3-7. Daily Arterial Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS—2010 

Roadway Segment Roadway Classification LOS E Capacity AWDT V/C Ratio LOS

Tecolote Rd 

I-5 SB Ramp to I-5 NB Ramp 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 28,605 0.715 C 

I-5 NB Ramp to Morena Blvd 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 24,380 0.610 C 

West Morena Blvd 

Vega St to Buenos Ave 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 10,229 0.256 A 

Buenos Ave to Morena Blvd 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 12,280 0.307 A 

Balboa Ave 

Mission Bay Dr to I-5 SB On-Ramp 5 Lane Major Arterial 45,000 32,270 0.717 C 

I-5 SB On-Ramp to I-5 NB OffRamp 5 Lane Major Arterial 45,000 49,698 1.104 F

I-5 NB Off-Ramp to Morena Blvd 6 Lane Major Arterial 50,000 49,312 0.986 E

Morena Blvd to Moraga Ave 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 36,006 0.900 E

Mission Bay Dr

Damon Ave to Garnet Ave 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 41,078 1.027 F

Morena Blvd 

Balboa Ave overpass 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 11,668 0.292 A 

Balboa Ave WB Ramps to Avati Dr 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 22,536 0.563 C 

Nobel Dr

Villa La Jolla Dr to La Jolla Village 

Sq 

4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 16,139 0.403 B 

La Jolla Village Square to I-5 NB 

Ramp 

4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 24,907 0.623 C 

I-5 NB Ramp to Lebon Dr 6 Lane Major Arterial 50,000 26,644 0.533 B 

Lebon Dr to Regents Rd 6 Lane Major Arterial 50,000 25,538 0.511 B 

Regents Rd to Costa Verde Blvd 6 Lane Major Arterial 50,000 22,577 0.452 B 

Villa La Jolla Dr

Nobel Dr to La Jolla Village Dr 4 Lane Major Arterial 40,000 27,790 0.695 C 

Genesee Ave 

La Jolla Village Dr to Esplanade Ct 6 Lane Major Arterial 50,000 28,387 0.568 C 

Esplanade Ct to Nobel Dr 6 Lane Major Arterial 50,000 23,759 0.475 B 

La Jolla Village Dr

Villa La Jolla Dr to I-5 SB Ramps 6 Lane Prime Arterial 60,000 68,466 1.141 F

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: Bold values indicate roadway segments operating at LOS E or F. 

The V/C ratio is calculated by dividing the AWDT volume by each respective roadway segment’s capacity. 

AWDT = Average Weekday Daily Traffic; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; 

WB = westbound; V/C = volume-to-capacity 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-21 

Intersection Performance 

An intersection performance analysis examines average delay at an intersection during 

a peak hour and, from that delay, determines the level of service of that intersection. To 

assess intersection performance, the City of San Diego uses level-of-service definitions 

established by the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000) 

that are based on intersection delay (Table 3-8). Level of service is based on the 

average time that motorists are delayed as they pass through an intersection. It is 

categorized into six grades, each represented by a letter of the alphabet. Based on 

guidance from the city, LOS D or better is considered an acceptable level of service at 

intersections within the corridor. 

The level of service and delay at 

intersections in the southern and 

northern subareas were analyzed 

using turning movement counts 

collected in May 2010 with 

supplemental counts collected in 

January and May 2012. Turning 

movement counts identify the number 

of vehicles approaching an intersection 

from each direction (i.e., north, south, 

east, or west) and by movement (i.e., 

left turns, through movements, and 

right turns) on each approach. These 

counts are provided in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Transportation 

Impacts and Mitigation Report

(SANDAG, 2014v). 

Southern Subarea 

In the southern subarea, 24 intersections were analyzed because the increase in the 

frequency of trains traveling through the existing grade crossings under the Refined 

Build Alternative could affect the performance of these intersections. Flashing lights and 

automatic gates activated by approaching trains control vehicular movements through 

these grade crossings. With the approach of any train, the traffic signals are preempted 

and the normal signal operation is modified to facilitate the traffic movements that may 

be extending onto the tracks (referred to as the track clearance phase). After those 

movements are cleared, only movements that do not result in cars traveling toward the 

crossing gates are allowed to occur (referred to as the limited service phase). Finally, as 

the preemption ends and the gate returns to an upright position, the traffic signal serves 

any exit phases that have been programmed in to the traffic signal controller before 

resuming standard operation. An exit phase serves a specific phase or phases prior to 

resuming standard operation. Typically, an exit phase serves the movement or 

movements that are not served while a train travels through the grade crossing. This 

process generally increases average delays by reducing signal efficiency and roadway 

throughput capacity. 

A Vehicle Stopped at the Washington Street 

Grade Crossing 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-22 September 2014 

Table 3-8. Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections 

Level of 

Service 

Control Delay 

(seconds/vehicle) Interpretation Example 

A <10.0 This level of service occurs when progression is 

extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the 

green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short 

cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values.

B >10.0 and <20.0 This level generally occurs with good progression, short 

cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with 

LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 

C >20.0 and <35.0 These higher delays may result from fair progression, 

longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures 

may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs 

when a given green phase does not serve queued 

vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles 

stopping is significant at this level, although many still 

pass through the intersection without stopping. 

D >35.0 and <55.0 At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more 

noticeable. Longer delays may result from some 

combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle 

lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many 

vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not 

stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are 

noticeable. 

E >55.0 and <80.0 These high delay values generally indicate poor 

progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-tocapacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. 

F >80.0 This level, considered unacceptable by most drivers, 

often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival 

flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may 

also occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios with many 

individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long 

cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high 

delay levels. 

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000, and SANDAG, 2012 

Note: The control delay for each level of service is different for nonsignalized (stop-controlled) intersections, but 

LOS D or better still is considered acceptable. 

LOS = level of service 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-23 

Trolley, Amtrak, and COASTER 

train schedules from 2010 were 

used to determine how frequently 

crossing gates are down and traffic 

movements are preempted under 

existing conditions. VISSIM, a 

simulation model, was used to 

analyze performance at both 

signalized and nonsignalized 

intersections in the southern 

subarea. The model was run for 

the a.m. and p.m. peak periods 

from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., respectively, 

with level of service and delay 

presented for the peak one-hour 

within each peak period. The peak 

hour start and end times varied by 

intersection. 

At each grade crossing, train approach times (the time from when warning bells begin to 

the time the train reaches the crossing) for each train type (Trolley, Amtrak, and 

COASTER), by direction, were observed in the field. For each crossing, an average train 

approach time was calculated for each train type and direction and coded into VISSIM for 

use in the analysis. VISSIM calculated the total gate down time (or the time the crossing 

is closed to vehicular traffic) based on the train approach time, the length of the crossing, 

and the speed of the train. 

During the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, all intersections in the southern subarea operate 

at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) (Table 3-9). 

Northern Subarea 

In the northern subarea, 18 intersections were analyzed at locations where the Refined 

Build Alternative would add 50 or more vehicular trips, per City of San Diego guidelines, 

through intersections during the peak hour. These trips would occur from vehicular 

traffic accessing the new Trolley stations and transit parking facilities. The Synchro 7.0 

software suite, a traffic software based on procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity 

Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000), was used to analyze traffic conditions in 

the northern subarea. Three intersections—two signalized and one yield controlled—

operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F) during either the a.m. or p.m. 

peak hour, while the other peak hour operates at an acceptable level of service (Table 

3-10): 

 Balboa Avenue eastbound ramps and Morena Boulevard (LOS E in the a.m. peak 

hour) 

 Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour) 

Taylor Street Grade Crossing 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-24 September 2014 

Table 3-9. A.M. and P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection Performance 

in the Southern Subarea—2010 

Grade 

Crossing Intersection 

Intersection 

Control Type 

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Average Delay 

(sec/veh) LOS 

Average Delay 

(sec/veh) LOS 

Ash St Ash St and Pacific Hwy Signalized 34.0 C 29.9 C 

Ash St and Kettner Blvd Signalized 23.9 C 21.8 C 

Ash St and India St Signalized 12.2 B 12.7 B 

Beech St Beech St and Pacific Hwy Stop-Control 22.5 C 23.7 C 

Beech St and Kettner Blvd Stop-Control 8.4 A 10.6 B 

Beech St and India St Stop-Control 8.7 A 10.5 B 

Cedar St Cedar St and Pacific Hwy Signalized 25.4 C 25.8 C 

Cedar St and Kettner Blvd Stop-Control 10.7 B 12.1 B 

Cedar St and India St Stop-Control 8.1 A 9.4 A 

Palm St Palm St and Pacific Hwy Signalized 15.2 B 15.5 B 

Palm St and Kettner Blvd Stop-Control 13.5 B 16.5 C 

Sassafras 

St 

Sassafras St and Pacific Hwy Signalized 21.3 C 25.9 C 

Sassafras St and Kettner Blvd Signalized 17.6 B 19.4 B 

Washington 

St 

Washington St and Pacific 

Hwy SB Frontage Rd 

Signalized 28.2 C 38.2 D 

Washington St and Pacific 

Hwy NB Frontage Rd 

Signalized 34.6 C 37.8 D 

Washington St and Hancock 

Rd 

Signalized 31.4 C 32.4 C 

Noell St Noell St and Kurtz St Stop-Control 9.0 A 10.3 B 

Noell St and Hancock St Stop-Control 7.6 A 9.2 A 

Taylor St Taylor St/Rosecrans St and 

Pacific Hwy 

Signalized 34.7 C 44.7 D 

Taylor St and Congress St Signalized 22.1 C 35.8 D 

Taylor St and Calhoun St Stop-Control 4.8 A 19.6 C 

Taylor St and Juan St Signalized 23.1 C 27.3 C 

Pacific Hwy and OTTC Parkand-Ride Lot Access Signalized 22.7 C 26.6 C 

Rosecrans St and Jefferson St Stop-Control 5.4 A 8.5 A 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Note: LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; SB = southbound; 

sec = second; veh = vehicles 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-25 

Table 3-10. A.M. and P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection Performance 

in the Northern Subarea—2010 

Intersection 

Intersection 

Control Type 

A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour

Average

Delay 

(sec/veh) LOS 

Average 

Delay 

(sec/veh) LOS 

Tecolote Rd and Morena Blvd Signalized 39.7 D 42.0 D 

Clairemont Dr and Denver St Signalized 31.7 C 43.1 D 

Morena Blvd and Ingulf St Signalized 7.5 A 7.4 A 

W Morena Blvd and Vega St Signalized 7.0 A 9.7 A 

Balboa WB Ramps and Morena Blvd Signalized 6.6 A 7.9 A 

Balboa EB Ramps and Morena Blvd Yield-Controlled 37.1 E 31.9 D 

Mission Bay Dr and Garnet Ave Signalized 50.1 D 62.0 E

Denver St and Ingulf St Stop-Control 10.1 B 11.0 B 

Nobel Dr and I-5 NB Off-Ramp Signalized 15.7 B 20.0 B

Nobel Dr and I-5 SB On-Ramp Signalized 3.2 A 7.1 A 

Nobel Dr and La Jolla Village Sq Signalized 18.2 B 41.7 D

Nobel Dr and Villa La Jolla Dr Signalized 17.2 B 23.1 C 

Genesee Ave and Regents Rd Signalized 24.9 C 17.5 B 

Genesee Ave and Eastgate Mall Signalized 31.0 C 39.9 D 

Genesee Ave and Executive Dr Signalized 16.9 B 31.0 C 

Genesee Ave and Executive Sq Signalized 11.7 B 19.5 B 

Genesee Ave and La Jolla Village Dr Signalized 61.8 E 46.0 D 

Genesee Ave and Esplanade Ct/ 

UTC Drwy Signalized 20.3 C 34.6 C

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: Bold text indicates an unacceptable level of service. 

 EB = eastbound; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; sec = second; 

veh = vehicles; WB = westbound 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-26 September 2014 

3.3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian System 

Figure 3-3 shows the location of existing major bicycle facilities (including Class I bike 

paths and Class II bike lanes) in the Mid-Coast Corridor. Detailed maps showing the 

location of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within a quarter-mile radius of each 

existing and proposed Trolley station are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Transportation Impacts and 

Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v). 

3.3.3.1 Bicycle System 

Approximately 510 miles of existing 

bicycle facilities are located within the 

City of San Diego (SANDAG, 2010d). 

The four types of bicycle facilities are 

Class I bike paths, Class II bike 

lanes, Class III bike routes, and 

facilities along freeway shoulders. 

Each facility type differs based on the 

degree of separation between the 

bicyclist and automobiles, with bike 

paths offering complete separation. 

Approximately 60 percent of the 

existing bicycle facilities are bicycle lanes, which are striped lanes along a roadway. 

Bicycle facilities are available at most Trolley and COASTER stations, thus 

accommodating access to the stations by bicycles. In 2011, MTS provided 872 bicycle 

parking spaces at 60 transit centers. Additionally, the regional transit agencies permit 

bicycles on buses, the Trolley, Amtrak, and COASTER. 

Signed bike routes and/or bike lanes are located within a quarter-mile radius of each 

existing and proposed station area. Bicycle volumes observed at station areas during 

field observations in 2011 were 

mostly low, except near the proposed 

UCSD West Station area, where 

bicycle volumes and bike rack 

utilization were high. In addition to 

bicycle facilities near stations, the 

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path is an 

important regional bicycle facility 

located between the railroad tracks 

and I-5. The Rose Canyon Bicycle 

Path, along with a signed bicycle 

route and a bicycle path along Rose 

Creek, connect UCSD and University 

City to Mission Bay. The alignment 

of the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path is 

shown in Figure 3-4. 

Bicycle Lockers at Old Town Transit Center 

Source: SANDAG, 2011 

Bicycle Lane and Pedestrian Bridge 

at Genesee Avenue near UTC Transit Center 

Source: SANDAG, 2011 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-27 

Figure 3-3. Major Bicycle Facilities in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Note: The Trolley lines shown represent the 2010 operating plan. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-28 September 2014 

Figure 3-4. Rose Canyon Bicycle Path 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-29 

3.3.3.2 Pedestrian System 

Street connectivity and pedestrian facilities vary among the different San Diego 

neighborhoods. Areas within a quarter-mile radius of the Santa Fe Depot, the County 

Center/Little Italy Station, and the OTTC have sidewalks on all streets and striped 

crosswalks at most signalized intersections. Near the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, 

Balboa Avenue, and UCSD West Station areas, some streets do not have sidewalks. 

Striped crosswalks are provided in all directions at most signalized intersections near 

Executive Drive and the UTC Transit Center, and pedestrian bridges also are provided. 

Pedestrian activity observed in 2011 at most station areas was low, except near the 

Santa Fe Depot, the OTTC, and the proposed UCSD West Station, where volumes were 

moderate-to-high. 

3.3.4 Parking 

Off- and on-street parking is available throughout the corridor, although availability and 

use of parking spaces varies. Within the corridor, some off-street parking lots charge a 

fee for parking. Downtown parking rates are high; in 2010, the median daily parking rate 

in San Diego was $26, nearly $10 more than the national median. San Diego’s monthly 

median parking rate for an unreserved space was $170, which is approximately $9 

higher than the national median (Colliers, 2010). Maps showing the location and 

utilization of on- and off-street parking supply are available in Appendix I of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 

2014v). 

On the UCSD campus, the university manages parking supply through parking permits 

and regulations. The permits have different categories of eligible users (students, staff, 

and faculty), and the pricing often varies by user and location, from $61 per month for 

unreserved spaces to $174 per month for reserved spaces on campus. Daily permits 

range from $8 to $16 per day. In University City, a few privately owned and operated 

parking structures charge $10 per day for noncommercial business. Several commercial 

buildings offer parking at no cost to employees, while others charge employees up to 

about $75 per month. 

On-street parking demand in the southern subarea is high, especially within downtown. 

Observations in 2011 showed on-street parking use of between 60 and 100 percent. 

The OTTC is the only station along the existing alignment that offers a park-and-ride 

facility; 90 percent of spaces were occupied at the time of observation. On-street 

parking is available along many roadways near the OTTC and was between 80 and 100 

percent occupied at the time conditions were observed. 

On-street parking was more readily available near proposed stations north of the OTTC 

and south of University City at the time conditions were observed, with use varying 

between 0 to 60 percent. In comparison, demand for on-street parking near proposed 

stations in the University City area is high, with the majority of available parking being 

used by residents of multifamily residential and on-campus housing developments. The 

majority of parking was between 50 and 100 percent occupied at the time of observation. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-30 September 2014 

3.3.5 Freight 

Within the corridor, freight is transported by either truck (referred to as vehicular freight) 

or rail. I-5 and I-805 are the major north–south facilities for commercial trucks, and I-8 is 

a major east–west truck route. Vehicular freight also travels on arterial roadways as 

drivers travel between freeways and marine or airport terminals to pick up goods or 

make deliveries to customers. 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe is the rail freight operator on the coastal corridor between 

National City and Orange County. Rail freight vehicles operate through the grade 

crossings in the southern subarea; however, these trains do not operate during peak 

periods. North of Friars Road and south of Tecolote Drive, a connection exists to a spur 

track along the east side of the railroad right-of-way. The spur track connects to an area 

between Buenos Avenue and Anna Avenue. There is no freight service to any of the 

buildings along this spur track. 

3.3.6 Airports 

The San Diego International Airport is located in the Mid-Coast Corridor near Downtown 

San Diego. The airport has a single east–west runway, making it the busiest singlerunway airport in the nation. The airport is under ownership and operation of the San 

Diego County Regional Airport Authority (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, 

2008). The Refined Build Alternative would not impact San Diego International Airport 

and therefore it is not discussed in Section 3.4. 

3.4 Transportation Impacts and Mitigation 

The following sections describe impacts and performance of the transportation system in 

2030, with and without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, and identify mitigation for 

the Refined Build Alternative. No mitigation is identified for the No-Build Alternative 

because it is the no action alternative. Any impact or mitigation for projects assumed in 

the No-Build Alternative would be determined through environmental review for those 

projects. Adverse conditions that are associated with the No-Build Alternative, including 

unacceptable level of service on roadways and at intersections, would be due to the loss 

of benefits that would result from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, not 

improvements associated with the No-Build Alternative (e.g., continuation and 

enhancement of service on bus Route 150). A significance determination in accordance 

with CEQA also is included for performance in 2010 and long-term performance in 2030. 

As stated in the introduction to this chapter, the SEIS/SEIR differs from the 

AA/DEIS/DEIR and FEIR in 1995 and the FEIS in 2001. The 1995 documents had a 

2005 planning horizon and the 2001 document had a 2015 planning horizon. None of 

these documents analyzed traffic impacts at intersections south of Taylor Street. 

Consequently, the SEIS/SEIR has identified different impacts to the freeway and 

roadway system, parking, and the bicycle and pedestrian system than those described in 

the previous environmental documents. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-31 

3.4.1 Transit System Impacts 

3.4.1.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes that all revenue-constrained transportation and transit 

improvements in the 2030 RTP would be constructed, except for the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project. The only change in planned transportation and transit improvements 

that would result from the No-Build Alternative would relate to the continuation and 

enhancement of bus Route 150. Route 150 is currently planned for elimination in the 

2030 RTP concurrent with implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as 

Route 150 would provide service that is duplicative with the Trolley Blue Line extension. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, existing Route 150 would be modified to provide more 

direct bus service between downtown, the OTTC, and University City (Figure 2-4). 

These transit improvements would affect overall transit service levels and performance 

under the No-Build Alternative. 

No-Build Alternative Transit Service Levels 

The availability of transit service, including the hours that service is available and the 

headways (or time) between transit vehicles, is an important determinant as to whether 

transit services will be used to make a trip. If transit is not available when or where one 

wants to go, then other aspects of transit service performance do not matter as the trip 

may not be made by transit (Transportation Research Board, 2003). 

Under the No-Build Alternative, hours of service for express bus routes operating 

between the OTTC and the UTC Transit Center, including Route 150, would be similar to 

those under existing conditions (as shown in Table 3-3). On these routes, service would 

continue to be available during peak periods or during peak and midday periods with no 

service provided on weekends. While the Route 150 alignment would be modified under 

the No-Build Alternative compared to existing conditions, the hours of service would 

remain largely unchanged. However, headways on Route 150 would be every 15 

minutes during the peak period with 30-minute service during the midday off-peak 

period, which is an improvement to the off-peak headways under existing conditions 

(60 minutes). 

Daily revenue miles and revenue hours are indicators of the amount of service operated 

by a transit agency whereas in-service hours represent the amount of service available 

to the public provided by all vehicles along the route during the scheduled hours of 

service. These measures would remain the same or increase on many bus routes 

between existing conditions and the No-Build Alternative (Table 3-11). An increase in 

service is considered beneficial for transit passengers using the service because it 

increases their mobility. In-service hours on Route 150 would increase nearly 70 

percent as a result of reduced headways between 2010 and 2030, indicating that the 

enhancements to this route under the No-Build Alternative would substantially increase 

the amount of service available to the public. With the changes that MTS plans to make 

to its operating plan for the Trolley (as described in Section 2.2.1), the Trolley Blue and 

Orange Lines would have fewer revenue miles, revenue hours, and in-service hours by 

2030, while the Trolley Green Line would have more. These changes would not impact 

the public as the Trolley Green Line would provide service to areas of downtown that are 

served by the Trolley Blue and Orange Lines under existing conditions. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-32 September 2014 

Table 3-11. Daily Revenue Miles, Revenue Hours, and 

In-Service Hours—Existing Conditions and No-Build Alternative 

Route* 

Existing Conditions (2010) No-Build Alternative (2030) 

Revenue 

Miles 

Revenue 

Hours 

In-Service 

Hours 

Revenue 

Miles 

Revenue 

Hours 

In-Service 

Hours 

Local Routes 

8 715 55 46 715 56 46 

9 828 66 55 828 67 56 

25 343 28 21 1,826 144 108 

27 533 45 34 933 82 61 

30 2,978 228 190 4,048 324 271 

31 200 14 11 854 58 49 

41 1,198 76 64 2,014 135 113 

44 1,222 98 82 2,972 237 198 

105 709 54 46 1,228 96 80 

120 998 77 64 998 79 66 

201 245 20 17 695 52 43 

202 252 21 17 1,068 79 66 

921 549 46 34 1,236 105 79 

Total 10,770 828 681 19,415 1,514 1,236 

Express Routes 

50 693 47 39 1,564 108 91 

150 847 49 41 1,560 82 69 

960 251 15 11 502 28 21 

Total 1,791 111 91 3,626 218 181 

Trolley 

Blue 3,996 214 185 3,820 208 180 

Orange 3,024 171 148 2,820 147 127 

Green 2,643 125 108 3,093 157 136 

Total 9,663 510 441 9,733 512 443 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Note: * Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under each time period; 

for example, the northern terminus for the Trolley Blue Line is located at the OTTC in 

2010, at Santa Fe Depot under the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit Center 

under the Refined Build Alternative. 

No-Build Alternative Transit System Performance 

The transit improvements included in the 2030 RTP and the continuation and 

enhancement of Route 150, as well as increased transit demand and traffic congestion 

from population growth, would affect transit performance. Changes in travel demand 

and performance would be evident in regard to travel time, reliability, and passengers 

per service hour under the No-Build Alternative compared to existing conditions. The 

assessment of transit performance under the No-Build Alternative is based on the 

forecasts from the SANDAG Series 11 model and the evaluation criteria presented in 

Section 3.3.1.2. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-33 

Travel Time and Frequency 

The forecast population and employment growth, and the resulting increase in travel, 

between 2010 and 2030 will place higher demands on both roadways and transit in the 

corridor. Roadway travel times for many of the travel analysis district pairs are projected 

to increase an average of 5 minutes between 2010 and 2030 (as shown in Figure 1-7), 

affecting the speed of both automobiles and buses (refer to Figure 1-2 for a map of the 

travel analysis districts). The largest increases in roadway travel time would occur for 

trips from the South Bay (District 11) travel analysis district to UCSD (District 17) or the 

Golden Triangle (District 16) travel analysis districts, which would be 12 minutes longer 

in 2030 than in 2010. Despite modifications to the alignment of Route 150 and the 

implementation of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-5, a trip on Route 150 from 

downtown to the UTC Transit Center is projected to take 49 minutes in 2030 compared 

to 48 minutes today. Therefore, the improvements in transit service and the use of HOV 

lanes would not be sufficient to offset completely the additional congestion when Route 

150 operates in mixed traffic. Additionally, this travel time represents only the time spent 

on Route 150 and not any additional time that would be required to get to or from the 

route or transfers. 

As discussed in Section 1.4.2 and illustrated in Figure 1-8, transit travel times, on 

average, would be similar to those experienced in 2010. Because of improved transit 

service and implementation of HOV lanes on I-5, transit travel times under the No-Build 

Alternative would be reduced an average of 3 minutes for trips between some travel 

analysis district pairs. These include trips from the Golden Triangle (District 16) travel 

analysis district to the Centre City (District 15) travel analysis district, which would be 

approximately 7 minutes less in 2030 than in 2010. The largest savings would occur for 

trips from the Kearny Mesa (District 5) travel analysis district to the Clairemont (District 

23) travel analysis district, which would be 22 minutes less when compared to travel 

times in 2010. For transit passengers wishing to arrive at their destination quickly, 

shorter travel times would be beneficial. Further, improvements in transit travel time 

tend to make transit a more competitive alternative to the private automobile, especially 

for choice riders who could make the trip by automobile instead. However, travel times 

for trips between other travel analysis district pairs, such as those from the South Bay 

(District 11) travel analysis district to the UCSD (District 17) or the Golden Triangle 

(District 16) travel analysis districts, are projected to be approximately 2 minutes longer 

because of increases in traffic congestion, which would result in slower travel speeds. 

Reliability 

As stated previously, reliability typically is higher for transit vehicles operating in semiexclusive or exclusive right-of-way because these vehicles are not affected by traffic 

congestion. Under existing conditions, there are no HOV lanes on I-5 or I-805; therefore, 

buses travel in general purpose lanes and arterials for the entire length of their route. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, most key bus routes in the corridor would continue to 

operate in mixed traffic. Increased congestion on freeways and arterials would 

negatively affect bus service reliability. Exceptions include bus routes operating in the 

I-5 and I-805 HOV lanes, such as Route 150, which would serve approximately 50,000 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-34 September 2014 

daily passenger miles3 (Table 3-12). However, these routes still would use arterials and 

general purpose lanes on I-5 to access these HOV lanes, thereby potentially reducing 

reliability. In comparison, the Trolley lines would serve more than 1,170,000 passenger 

miles in exclusive or semi-exclusive right-of-way (semi-exclusive right-of-way includes 

Trolley lines operating through grade crossings [e.g., the Trolley Orange Line on 

C Street in downtown]), which is a 16 percent increase compared to existing conditions. 

Passenger miles on the Trolley Orange Line would decrease as this line would have a 

shorter alignment under the No-Build Alternative than it does under existing conditions. 

As the Trolley lines operate in exclusive and semi-exclusive right-of-way, reliability would 

be higher for passengers on Trolley routes compared to buses, consistent with 

experiences under existing conditions. 

Table 3-12. Daily Passenger Miles in Exclusive and Semi-Exclusive Right-of-Way— 

Existing Conditions (2010) and No-Build Alternative (2030) 

Route1 Existing Conditions (2010) 

No-Build Alternative 

(2030) Percent Change 

Trolley Blue Line 607,000 691,000 14% 

Trolley Orange Line 218,000 179,000 -18% 

Trolley Green Line 186,000 304,000 63% 

Total Trolley system 1,011,000 1,174,000 16% 

Route 150 N/A 31,000 - 

All buses operating on HOV lanes2 N/A 49,000 - 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: 1

 Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under each time period; for 

example, the northern terminus for the Trolley Blue Line is located at the OTTC in 2010, at Santa 

Fe Depot under the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit Center under the Refined Build 

Alternative. 2 Includes Routes 150, 680, and 960 which would operate on the I-5 and I-805 HOV lanes in 2030 

HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; N/A = not applicable (there are no HOV lanes in the corridor); 

Routes 150, 680, and 960 operate in mixed-traffic for the entire length of their alignment; 

OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 

Passengers per Service Hour 

Transit (bus and rail) efficiency is measured in terms of passengers per in-service hour. 

This is a measure of the number of passenger boardings on the route divided by the 

hours that the route is available to transport passengers. As discussed in Section 

3.3.1.2, SANDAG has established a guideline of 35 revenue passenger boardings per 

service hour. If a route does not meet the guideline, then it may be operating service for 

more hours than is needed to serve the ridership demand. In these cases, the transit 

agency may adjust service by reducing service during off-peak periods or reducing the 

service span to serve demand more efficiently. 

 

3

 Passenger miles are the number of miles traveled by transit passengers, in this case, in semi-exclusive 

and exclusive right-of-way; it does not include travel on segments of routes that operate in mixed traffic. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-35 

Transit efficiency would improve on several routes between 2010 and the No-Build 

Alternative in 2030, with only 3 of the 16 routes not meeting the established guideline 

(Table 3-13). Even though travel times for many of the routes would increase slightly 

between 2010 and 2030, the number of passengers using these routes would increase, 

thus improving efficiency. Transit efficiency on Route 150 would increase more than 40 

percent compared to existing conditions, indicating the benefits of the enhancements. 

The SuperLoop (Route 201) and Route 105 meet the guideline but do not exceed it. 

Passengers per service hour are projected to increase on all Trolley routes, indicating 

the greater demand in 2030 for these and all other corridor transit services. 

Table 3-13. Passengers per In-Service Hour—2010 and 2030 

Route* 

Existing Conditions 

(2010) 

No-Build Alternative

(2030) 

Refined Build 

Alternative (2030) 

Local Routes 

8 38.7 52.2 54.1 

9 41.6 46.4 54.4 

25 20.3 25.9 25.9 

27 23.1 47.5 56.3 

30 31.6 66.8 56.1 

31 24.0 61.2 73.5 

41 43.4 78.8 47.8 

44 42.1 47.5 53.5 

105 31.5 35.0 23.8 

120 36.4 43.9 40.9 

201 28.9 34.9 18.6 

202 36.0 27.3 33.3 

921 32.1 53.2 50.6 

Express Routes 

50 27.9 28.6 16.5 

150 43.1 62.3 N/A 

960 26.5 47.6 38.1 

Trolley 

Blue 278.4 425.6 373.3 

Orange 126.5 208.7 207.9 

Green 170.0 361.0 311.8 

Source: MTS, 2010; SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: Text in bold indicates the route does not meet the established 

guideline, defined as 35 passengers per in-service hour. 

* Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under 

each time period; for example, the northern terminus for the Trolley 

Blue Line is located at the OTTC in 2010, at Santa Fe Depot under 

the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit Center under the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

N/A = not applicable (bus Route 150 would not operate under the 

Refined Build Alternative); OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = 

University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-36 September 2014 

No-Build Alternative Transit Ridership and Access to Stations 

Changes in transit service levels and improvements in the performance of the system 

can increase transit ridership. The forecasted growth in population and employment in 

the corridor together with the transit improvements under the No-Build Alternative would 

increase transit ridership over existing conditions. 

Systemwide Ridership 

Table 3-14 summarizes transit boardings during peak and off-peak periods for COASTER, 

LRT (Trolley and SPRINTER), and bus for the No-Build Alternative compared to existing 

conditions, as forecast by the Series 11 model. Total daily boardings also are presented. 

There would be 608,200 daily boardings systemwide under the No-Build Alternative, 

representing a 35 percent increase over existing conditions. Under the No-Build 

Alternative, 45 percent of daily boardings are estimated to occur during peak periods, 

indicating that more than half of all daily boardings occur during off-peak periods. 

Mid-Coast Corridor Ridership 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Trolley Blue Line would terminate at Santa Fe Depot, 

and the Trolley Green Line would serve the existing stations between Santa Fe Depot and 

the OTTC. Route 150 would operate between Fifth Avenue and the UTC Transit Center. 

This section focuses on ridership on these routes because they provide service comparable 

to that provided under the Refined Build Alternative. During the a.m. peak hour, northbound 

is the peak direction of travel on both routes. During this peak hour, the highest number of 

Trolley boardings would occur at the OTTC on the northbound Trolley Green Line (250 

boardings) and the highest number of alightings would occur on the southbound Trolley 

Green Line (560 alightings). On Route 150, the highest number of boardings would occur at 

the OTTC, while the highest number of alightings would occur at the UCSD West Station. 

Access to Transit Services 

Daily mode of access to Trolley Green Line stations between and including Santa Fe 

Depot and the OTTC is forecast to occur primarily by walking or transfers between the 

Trolley and nearby bus routes or the COASTER. The highest transfer rates are 

projected to occur at Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, with each station having a transfer 

rate accounting for more than 80 percent of all access trips. This indicates the 

importance of these stations for providing connections between various modes of transit. 

Summary 

The improvements to Route 150 would result in shorter headways compared to service 

under existing conditions. Additionally, when compared to existing conditions, there 

would be improvements in travel time for travel between certain areas; however, travel 

times would increase slightly for trips between other areas of the corridor (e.g., South 

Bay [District 11] travel analysis district to the UCSD [District 17] or the Golden Triangle 

[District 16] travel analysis districts). Travel to destinations in the northern area of the 

corridor, including University City, would continue to be by buses operating in mixed 

traffic or on HOV lanes along I-5. These routes would have service spans similar to 

those under existing conditions, with limited or no service provided outside peak periods. 

Despite minor increases in travel times, transit efficiency would increase on several bus 

routes and all three Trolley lines, indicating the greater demand in 2030 for these and all 

other transit services in the corridor. 
Chapter 3.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Table 3-14. Comparison of Transit Boardings between 2010 and 2030 

Transit Mode1

Existing Conditions (2010) No-Build Alternativ

Total Daily 

Boardings 

Peak Periods Off-Peak Period

Total Daily 

Boardings 

Peak Periods 

Boardings 

Share of 

Total Boardings

Share of 

Total Boardings 

Share of 

Total 

Commuter Rail (COASTER) 7,900 6,600 84% 1,300 16% 14,700 11,700 80% Light Rail 

Trolley Blue Line 68,700 36,800 54% 31,900 46% 76,600 38,700 51% Trolley Green Line 32,000 13,300 42% 18,700 58% 49,100 21,000 43% Trolley Orange Line 32,700 14,600 45% 18,100 55% 26,500 12,300 46% 

Total Trolley 133,400 64,700 49% 68,700 51% 152,200 72,000 47% Total Light Rail2 144,100 69,300 48% 74,800 52% 173,900 81,200 47% Express Bus 

Route 150 4,100 3,600 88% 500 12% 4,200 2,500 60% 

Total Express Bus 22,000 12,100 55% 9,900 45% 59,300 31,500 53% Local Bus 276,200 112,000 41% 164,200 59% 360,300 146,400 41% System Total 450,200 200,000 44% 250,200 56% 608,200 270,800 45% 

Source: Series 11 model Notes: 1 Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under each time period; for example, the northern terminus for t

located at the OTTC in 2010, at Santa Fe Depot under the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit Center under the Ref

2 Includes North County Transit District SPRINTER 

 Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-38 September 2014 

However, as described in Section 3.4.1.2, the Trolley Blue Line extension under the Refined 

Build Alternative would serve more efficiently the key travel markets in and adjacent to the 

Mid-Coast Corridor with substantially faster travel times, longer spans of service, and greater 

reliability. Accordingly, the transit benefits provided under the No-Build Alternative would be 

less than what would be provided under the Refined Build Alternative. 

3.4.1.2 Refined Build Alternative 

Similar to the No-Build Alternative, the Refined Build Alternative in 2030 assumes 

implementation of all revenue-constrained transportation and transit improvements in the 

2030 RTP; however, the Refined Build Alternative also includes operation of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project. Route 150 would be eliminated under the Refined Build 

Alternative as its service would duplicate that provided by the Trolley Blue Line 

extension, except with longer frequencies and fewer hours of service. As described in 

Section 2.4, the Refined Build Alternative includes the extension of the Trolley Blue Line 

from the Santa Fe Depot to University City, with accompanying changes to the bus 

system to serve stations along the alignment. The extension would operate in exclusive 

right-of-way, separated from traffic north of the San Diego River. These transit 

improvements would affect overall transit service levels and performance under the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

The following sections discuss transit service levels, performance, and ridership for the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

Refined Build Alternative Transit Service Levels 

The availability of transit service under the Refined Build Alternative would increase 

compared to the No-Build Alternative. Under the Refined Build Alternative, the Trolley Blue 

Line would operate between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC every 7.5 minutes during both 

peak and midday off-peak periods, and the Trolley Green Line would operate every 15 

minutes during the peak and midday off-peak periods. This would reflect an increase in 

service frequency over the No-Build Alternative in which only the Trolley Green Line 

operated between these stations. Trolley Blue Line frequency would improve compared to 

existing conditions in which the Trolley Blue Line operates with 7.5-minute frequencies 

during peak periods and with 15-minute frequencies during the midday off-peak period. 

Service during the early morning and evening hours would be less frequent. 

North of the OTTC, the Trolley Blue Line extension would operate with 7.5-minute 

headways during the peak and midday off-peak periods, which would provide improved 

transit service compared to the frequency provided by Route 150 under the No-Build 

Alternative (15-minute peak and 30-minute midday off-peak headways). Additionally, 

similar to existing conditions, Route 150 would not operate on weekends whereas the 

Trolley Blue Line extension would continue to operate on weekends with hours of service 

similar to that provided by the Trolley Blue Line under existing conditions. Because the 

Trolley Blue Line extension would replace service provided by Route 150, it is likely that 

many transit passengers who would use Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would 

shift to the Trolley Blue Line extension under the Refined Build Alternative. Accordingly, 

these passengers would benefit from the improved frequencies and longer hours of 

service provided by the Trolley Blue Line. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-39 

Daily revenue miles and revenue hours for the systemwide Trolley system would 

increase 36 and 27 percent, respectively, with the Refined Build Alternative (Table 3-15). 

Similarly, in-service hours would also increase 27 percent. Daily revenue miles, revenue 

hours, and in-service hours for most bus routes would not vary between the No-Build 

and Refined Build Alternatives, indicating that bus service levels would not be reduced 

with implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. Local Routes 8 and 9 would offer 

increased service as these routes would be rerouted to serve proposed Trolley stations. 

While trip distances and travel times could be longer for passengers on Routes 8 and 9, 

the rerouting would provide better connections to other transit services, thus improving 

mobility. 

Table 3-15. Comparison of Daily Revenue Miles, Revenue Hours, and In-Service Hours—

No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives (2030) 

Route* 

No-Build Alternative (2030) Refined Build Alternative (2030)

Revenue 

Miles Revenue Hours

In-Service 

Hours Revenue Miles

Revenue 

Hours 

In-Service 

Hours 

Local Routes 

8 715 56 46 1,052 89 74 

9 828 67 56 977 81 68 

25 1,826 144 108 1,826 144 108 

27 933 82 61 986 85 64 

30 4,048 324 271 4,048 324 271 

31 854 58 49 854 58 49 

41 2,014 135 113 2,014 135 113 

44 2,972 237 198 2,972 237 198 

105 1,228 96 80 1,228 96 80 

120 998 79 66 998 79 66 

201 695 52 43 695 52 43 

202 1,068 79 66 1,068 79 66 

921 1,236 105 79 1,236 105 79 

Total 19,415 1,514 1,236 19,954 1,564 1,279 

Express Routes 

50 1,564 108 91 1,564 108 91 

150 1,560 82 69 N/A N/A N/A 

960 502 28 21 502 28 21 

Total 3,626 218 181 2,066 136 112 

Trolley 

Blue 3,820 208 180 7,276 348 300 

Orange 2,820 147 127 2,820 147 127 

Green 3,093 157 136 3,093 157 136 

Total Trolley 9,733 512 443 13,189 652 563 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Note: * Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under each time period; for example, the 

northern terminus for the Trolley Blue Line is located at the OTTC in 2010, at Santa Fe Depot under 

the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit Center under the Refined Build Alternative. 

N/A = not applicable (Route 150 does not operate under the Refined Build Alternative); OTTC = Old 

Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-40 September 2014 

Refined Build Alternative Transit System Performance 

The Refined Build Alternative would provide improved service frequencies over the NoBuild Alternative while operating in exclusive right-of-way. Together, these features 

would affect transit performance, particularly in terms of travel time and reliability. The 

following sections describe transit performance under the Refined Build Alternative 

based on Series 11 forecasts and the evaluation criteria established by MTS and 

SANDAG. 

Travel Time and Frequency 

For buses operating in mixed traffic, transit travel time is affected by roadway 

congestion, the speed of the vehicle, and the number and distance between stops. 

However, the extension of the Trolley Blue Line would operate in an exclusive right-ofway and would not be affected by roadway congestion. A comparison of travel times 

from downtown to the UTC Transit Center was conducted for the Refined Build 

Alternative against Route 150 in the No-Build Alternative. Under the Refined Build 

Alternative, the travel time for the Trolley Blue Line between downtown and the UTC 

Transit Center would be approximately 40 minutes during peak periods, compared to 49 

minutes for the northbound Route 150. Because the Refined Build Alternative would 

operate entirely within exclusive right-of-way, speeds would be higher and travel times 

would be shorter. 

With the expected transit speed improvements provided by the Refined Build Alternative, 

transit travel times for major origins and destinations would be, on average, 13 minutes 

shorter than under the No-Build Alternative (Figure 3-5). In most cases, the travel time 

reductions would exceed 20 percent, including travel from the South Bay (District 11) travel 

analysis district to the Golden Triangle (District 16) travel analysis district. A trip between 

these travel analysis districts under the No-Build Alternative would take 88 minutes; 

however, that same trip would take 69 minutes under the Refined Build Alternative—an 

approximate 20-minute savings for passengers. Travel times also are projected to be 

shorter than travel times under existing conditions. For instance, a transit trip from the 

Golden Triangle (District 16) travel analysis district to the Centre City (District 15) travel 

analysis district took approximately 55 minutes in 2010, but would take about 43 minutes 

with the Refined Build Alternative, or about three-quarters of what it takes today. Except for 

trips from the Clairemont (District 23) to Centre City (District 15) travel analysis districts, all 

travel times would be noticeably shorter. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the shorter 

travel times for the Refined Build Alternative would provide a benefit for those travelers who 

wish to reach their destination as quickly as possible. 

Reliability 

The entire 10.9-mile extension of the Trolley Blue Line would operate in an exclusive 

right-of-way that would allow Trolleys to avoid conflicts with roadway traffic that would 

interfere with service reliability. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, a 50-percent 

increase in passenger miles would occur on the Trolley Blue Line while overall 

systemwide Trolley passenger miles would increase 28 percent (Table 3-16). Even with 

population, employment, and travel growth through 2030, this reliability would not 

decrease. For buses operating on HOV lanes, passenger miles in exclusive right-of-way 

would decrease 76 percent, partly as a result of eliminating Route 150, which accounted 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-41 

Figure 3-5. Comparison of Transit Travel Times between Travel Analysis Districts— 

Existing Conditions (2010) and No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives (2030) 

Source: Series 11 model 

Table 3-16. Daily Passenger Miles in Exclusive and Semi-Exclusive Right-of-Way—2030 

Route1 No-Build Alternative (2030)

Refined Build 

Alternative (2030)

Percent Change from 

No-Build Alternative 

Trolley Blue Line 691,000 1,020,000 48% 

Trolley Orange Line 179,000 181,000 1% 

Trolley Green Line 304,000 287,000 -6% 

Total Trolley System 1,174,000 1,488,000 27% 

Route 150 31,000 N/A N/A 

All buses running on HOV lanes2 49,000 12,000 -76% 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: 1

 Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under each time period; for example, 

the northern terminus for the Trolley Blue Line is located at the OTTC in 2010, at Santa Fe Depot 

under the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit Center under the Refined Build Alternative. 2 Includes Routes 150, 680, and 960, which would operate on the I-5 and I-805 HOV lanes in 2030. 

 HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; N/A = not applicable (bus Route 150 would not operate under the 

Refined Build Alternative); OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-42 September 2014 

for more than 60 percent of passenger miles in exclusive or semi-exclusive right-of-way. 

Additionally, some riders who previously took a bus to reach their destination would 

switch to the Trolley Blue Line extension. When service is not reliable, some 

passengers may depart earlier than necessary to ensure they reach their destination on 

time. However, the improved reliability on the Trolley Blue Line would minimize that 

uncertainty, thus benefitting passengers. 

Passengers per Service Hour 

While the Refined Build Alternative would lead to substantially higher transit ridership 

than the No-Build Alternative, the Trolley Blue Line in-service hours would grow more 

rapidly than ridership. Thus, as shown in Table 3-13, the Trolley system under the 

Refined Build Alternative would be somewhat less efficient than the Trolley system 

under the No-Build Alternative, decreasing from 425.6 passengers per in-service hour to 

373.3 (a 12 percent decrease in efficiency), but it would be substantially more efficient 

than existing conditions (278.4). As the Trolley Blue Line would still meet the guidelines 

presented in Section 3.3.1.2 and the decrease in efficiency compared to the No-Build 

Alternative is minor, this is not considered an adverse impact. 

Compared to the No-Build Alternative, passengers per in-service hour would increase on 

several routes under the Refined Build Alternative, particularly Routes 9, 27, and 31. 

These are among the routes that connect to proposed Trolley stations, with Routes 9 

and 27 being modified to better serve the stations, and thus would serve passengers 

transferring to or from the Trolley extension. Two routes—Routes 105 and 201 

(SuperLoop)—would no longer meet the guidelines. This would not reflect an adverse 

impact on these routes since passengers would be shifting from local bus routes to the 

Trolley Blue Line extension. Service could be adjusted on these routes so they would 

meet the guidelines; however, since this service efficiency is based on model forecasts, 

it is recommended that service be monitored before making any modifications. 

Monitoring would occur as part of the performance evaluations, and service would be 

modified if deemed necessary. 

Refined Build Alternative Transit Ridership and Access to Stations 

Changes in transit ridership indicate the effectiveness and performance of transit 

alternatives, in this case, the No-Build Alternative and the Refined Build Alternative. 

Systemwide Ridership 

As indicated in Table 3-17, total systemwide daily boardings would increase by 28,100—

from 608,200 to 636,300 boardings per day—under the Refined Build Alternative (a 5 

percent increase). Daily boardings would decrease on commuter rail (5 percent) and 

express bus (11 percent), while Trolley ridership would increase by 28,600 daily 

boardings (19 percent) and local bus ridership would increase by 6,800 daily boardings 

(2 percent). The increase in local bus boardings likely is due to increased use of feeder 

buses to access the new Trolley stations. Additionally, Express Route 150 would be 

eliminated under the Refined Build Alternative and some passengers would shift from 

bus routes to the Trolley Blue Line, thus explaining the decrease in boardings on 

express routes. 
Chapter 3.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Table 3-17. Comparison of Transit Boardings during Peak and Off-Peak Periods—203

Transit Mode1 

No-Build Alternative (2030) Refined Build Alternative (

Total Daily 

Boardings

Peak Periods Off-Peak Period

Total Daily 

Boardings

Peak Periods 

Boardings

Share of 

Total Boardings

Share of 

Total Boardings

Share of

Total Bo

Commuter Rail (COASTER) 14,700 11,700 80% 3,000 20% 13,900 11,000 79% Light Rail 

Trolley Blue Line 76,600 38,700 51% 37,900 49% 112,000 54,400 49% Trolley Green Line 49,100 21,000 43% 28,100 57% 42,400 17,700 42% Trolley Orange Line 26,500 12,300 46% 14,200 54% 26,400 12,200 46% 

Total Trolley 152,200 72,000 47% 80,200 53% 180,800 84,300 47% 

Total Light Rail2 173,900 81,200 47% 92,700 53% 202,300 93,500 46% 1Express Bus 

Route 150 4,200 2,500 60% 1,700 40% N/A N/A N/A 

Total Express Bus 59,300 31,500 53% 27,800 47% 53,000 28,000 53% Local Bus 360,300 146,400 41% 213,900 59% 367,100 149,400 41% 2System Total 608,200 270,800 45% 337,400 55% 636,300 281,900 44% 3

Source: Series 11 model Notes: 1 Some route termini and the location of transit stops may vary under each time period; for example, the northern termi

Line is located at the OTTC in 2010, at Santa Fe Depot under the No-Build Alternative, and at the UTC Transit CenteAlternative. 

 2 Includes North County Transit District SPRINTER 

Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred. N/A = not applicable (route does not operate); OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-44 September 2014 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, peak-period and daily boardings on the Trolley Blue 

Line would increase substantially. Peak-period boardings would increase by 15,700 

(a 41 percent increase), while daily boardings would increase by 35,400, or 46 percent. 

Mid-Coast Corridor Ridership 

Even though ridership would increase systemwide, changes in ridership would be more 

noticeable for routes that operate in the corridor. The following sections discuss peak hour 

and daily boardings (number of passengers getting on the Trolley at stops), alightings 

(number of passengers getting off at stops), and through volumes (number of passengers 

on board the Trolley between stops) for the Trolley Blue Line by station. There would be 

44,100 daily riders on the Trolley Blue Line between Santa Fe Depot and the UTC Transit 

Center, of which 31,300 riders would use the Trolley Blue Line north of the OTTC. 

A.M. Peak Hour Station Volumes for the Refined Build Alternative: Ridership during the a.m. 

peak period would increase at existing Trolley stations between and including the Santa 

Fe Depot and the OTTC. Of the stations constructed as part of the Refined Build 

Alternative, the Balboa Avenue Station would have the greatest number of northbound 

boardings (190), while the UCSD West Station would have the greatest number of 

alightings (500). With the Refined Build Alternative, the maximum northbound peakperiod/peak-direction through volume on the Trolley Blue Line at stations north of the 

Santa Fe Depot would occur between Santa Fe Depot and County Center/Little Italy with 

1,990 passengers per hour on board. 

Northbound vehicles on the Trolley Blue Line carry more passengers during the a.m. peak 

hour than southbound vehicles, consistent with the peak direction during the morning 

commute. This higher demand reflects the importance of major employment centers in the 

northern end of the corridor, as well as students traveling to UCSD. Downtown would 

remain an important destination, particularly for work-related trips; however, the expected 

growth in employment at major locations in the northern part of the corridor, such as UCSD 

and University City, would result in higher demand for northbound travel. 

Daily Station Volumes for the Refined Build Alternative: The OTTC would have the highest 

total daily boardings on the Trolley Blue Line north of Santa Fe Depot (6,970 boardings 

and alightings). The highest through volume would occur between the Washington 

Street Station and the OTTC, with 11,790 passengers aboard the Trolley Blue Line on 

an average weekday. For stations constructed as part of the Refined Build Alternative,

the UCSD West Station would have the highest forecasted total daily boardings with 

4,090 passengers per day getting on at this location (Table 3-18). 

Bus Ridership in the Mid-Coast Corridor: Ridership would increase on 6 of the corridor’s 13 

local bus routes with the Refined Build Alternative, representing a combined 46 percent 

increase compared with the No-Build Alternative. The largest increases are projected 

for Routes 8, 9, and 44, all of which would have more than 1,000 additional boardings. 

These routes would serve proposed stations under the Refined Build Alternative, thus 

providing connectivity between surrounding communities and the Trolley Blue Line 

extension (Figure 3-6). Six other local routes are forecast to have fewer daily boardings, 

with approximately 3,000 fewer boardings occurring on both Routes 30 and 41 as riders 

would shift from these bus routes to the Trolley Blue Line extension. Ridership on Route 

25 is not expected to change with the addition of the Refined Build Alternative.
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-45 

Figure 3-6. Bus Routes Serving Proposed Trolley Stations— 

Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-46 September 2014 

Table 3-18. Average Daily Boardings—Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

Station Average Daily Boardings

Tecolote Road 1,130 

Clairemont Drive 760 

Balboa Avenue 3,180 

Nobel Drive 2,360 

VA Medical Center 1,610 

UCSD West 4,090 

UCSD East 1,870 

Executive Drive 2,490 

UTC Transit Center 2,600 

Total Blue Line boardings north of OTTC 20,090 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten and may not equal due to rounding. 

 Information presented in origin-destination. Daily alightings would equal daily boardings. 

 OTTC = Old Town Transit Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University 

Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration 

Access to Transit Services 

Transfers from a bus would be an important mode of access to the stations constructed 

as part of the Refined Build Alternative, with 96 percent of access at the UCSD West 

Station occurring by transfer (Table 3-19). The transfer share is expected to be 

particularly high at both stations on the UCSD campus because parking would not be 

provided and there is an extensive network of buses operated by both MTS and UCSD 

that serve the area, therefore making transfers a convenient option. 

Table 3-19. Daily Mode of Access to Proposed Trolley Stations— 

Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

Trolley Station 

Walk Drive Transfer

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 

Tecolote Road 390 32% 760 63% 60 5% 1,210 

Clairemont Drive 390 39% 450 45% 160 16% 1,000 

Balboa Avenue 270 8% 700 21% 2,290 70% 3,260 

Nobel Drive 760 27% 720 26% 1,330 47% 2,810 

VA Medical Center 20 14% 0 0% 120 86% 140 

UCSD West 40 4% 0 0% 850 96% 890 

UCSD East 70 19% 0 0% 300 81% 370 

Executive Drive 370 54% 0 0% 310 46% 680 

UTC Transit Center 580 15% 620 17% 2,550 68% 2,550 

Total 2,890 22% 3,250 25% 7,970 62% 12,910 

Source: Series 11 model 

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten and presented in production-attraction. Each trip has a 

production end (the home end for a home-based trip or the trip origin for a non-home-based 

trip) and an attraction end (the non-home end of a home-based trip or the destination end for a 

non-home-based trip). 

UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans 

Administration 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-47 

Walk and bike also are expected to be important access modes to several stations along 

the Trolley extension. For example, the walk access share at the Executive Drive 

Station is forecasted at 54 percent. Additionally, transit parking facilities would be 

provided at five of the nine proposed Trolley stations, thus providing auto access for 

those wishing to drive. Drive access would be high at the Tecolote Road and Clairemont 

Drive Stations (63 and 45 percent, respectively); drive access is high at the Tecolote 

Road Station because the station is served by only one bus route. 

Summary 

The Refined Build Alternative would improve overall transit system performance while 

providing benefits to passengers, particularly in terms of longer hours of service, shorter 

frequencies, reduced travel time, and increased reliability (Table 3-20). Such 

improvements are reflected by the increase in ridership on the overall transit system, 

and in particular on the Trolley Blue Line. As such, mitigation would not be required. 

Table 3-20. Summary of Transit Performance—2010 and 2030 

Transit 

Performance 

Measure 

Existing Conditions (2010)1

No-Build Alternative 

(2030) 

(Route 150)2 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

(2030) 

(Trolley Blue Line)2 Route 150 Trolley Blue Line 

Frequency of trips 

(headways) 

15 minutes peak 

and 60 minutes 

midday off-peak 

7.5 minutes peak, 15 

minutes midday offpeak; 15/30 minutes on 

weekends 

15 minutes peak and 30 

minutes midday off-peak 

7.5 minutes peak and 

midday off-peak 

Hours of service Peak and midday 

periods only; no 

service on 

weekends 

Early morning, peak, 

midday, evening, and 

weekend service 

Peak and midday periods 

only; no service on 

weekends 

Early morning, peak, 

midday, evening, and 

weekend service 

Travel time from 

Downtown to UTC 

Transit Center 

48 minutes N/A 49 minutes 40 minutes 

Reliability 87 percent; 

absence of HOV 

lanes and 

operation entirely 

in mixed traffic 

93 percent Operation on HOV lanes 

and in mixed traffic would 

decrease reliability 

Operation in exclusive 

right-of-way would 

increase reliability 

Passengers per 

service hour 

43.1 278.4 62.3 373.3 

Systemwide daily 

boardings 

450,2002 608,200 636,300 

Daily boardings on 

route 

1,300 52,400 4,200 112,000 (46 percent 

increase on the 

Trolley Blue Line 

compared to the NoBuild Alternative) 

Notes: 1 Source: MTS, 2010 unless noted otherwise 

2

 Source: Series 11 model 

HOV = high-occupancy vehicle; N/A = not applicable (the Trolley Blue Line does not serve the UTC Transit 

Center under existing conditions); UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-48 September 2014 

3.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to the transit system. 

As such, mitigation measures are not required. 

3.4.1.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following thresholds of significance for use in 

evaluating impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on the transit system under 

existing conditions in 2010 and future conditions in 2030. 

Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing 

measures of effectiveness for the performance of the transit system and relevant 

components of the transit system? 

SANDAG and MTS developed evaluation criteria (as described in the Coordinated Plan 

2010–2014 [SANDAG, 2010c] and Policies and Procedures Number 42: Transit Service 

Evaluation and Adjustment [MTS, 2007] and summarized in Section 3.3.1.2). These 

same criteria were used to analyze the existing and future transit performance in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor, under both the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative assumes that the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be constructed and Route 150 would 

continue to serve the corridor. As described in Section 1.5, the transit system in the MidCoast Corridor does not offer the level of service needed to meet the region’s goals for 

mobility, accessibility, reliability, and efficiency. With congestion projected to increase 

between 2010 and 2030, the level of service, reliability, and efficiency of the transit 

system all would decrease in the long term. While express and local buses provide 

transit service to northern portions of the corridor, the speed and reliability of bus service 

are constrained by roadway congestion. 

Section 3.4.1.1 describes transit performance for the No-Build Alternative as evaluated 

in terms of various measures of effectiveness established by SANDAG and MTS. 

Compared to existing conditions, travel time would improve for travel between certain 

areas; however, travel times would increase for trips between other areas of the corridor 

(e.g., South Bay [District 11] travel analysis district to the UCSD [District 17] or the 

Golden Triangle [District 16] travel analysis districts). 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Transit performance under the Refined Build 

Alternative also was evaluated in terms of measures of effectiveness established by 

SANDAG and MTS. As described in Section 3.4.1.2 and summarized in Table 3-20, 

long-term performance of the transit system under the Refined Build Alternative in 2030 

would improve compared to that provided under the No-Build Alternative, reducing 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-49 

transit travel time and increasing reliability—both important measures of effectiveness. 

These benefits were reflected by increases in transit ridership. Consequently, there 

would be long-term beneficial impacts from the Refined Build Alternative. 

The performance of the transit system under the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 would 

be similar to its performance in 2030. Operationally, there would be one difference 

between the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 and 2030 with regard to the alignment 

between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC. In 2030, this segment would be served by the 

Trolley Green Line under the No-Build Alternative and by the Trolley Blue and Trolley 

Green Lines under the Refined Build Alternative. However, under existing conditions in 

2010, this segment is served by the Trolley Blue Line and this segment would continue 

to be served only by the Trolley Blue Line under the Refined Build Alternative in 2010. 

The difference would not materially alter the benefits of the Refined Build Alternative, 

which would be focused on areas north of the OTTC where the Trolley Blue Line would 

replace service provided by Route 150. The benefits of the Trolley Blue Line compared 

to Route 150 in 2010 would be similar to those experienced in 2030. The Trolley Blue 

Line would be more reliable than Route 150 as it would operate in an exclusive right-ofway and not be affected by traffic delays. The Trolley Blue Line also would provide more 

frequent service and longer hours of service than the Route 150. 

As stated previously, changes in transit ridership indicate the effectiveness and 

performance of transit alternatives, in this case the Refined Build Alternative. Based on 

results from the Series 11 model, an 8 percent increase in systemwide transit boardings 

is projected with the Refined Build Alternative in 2010, which is slightly higher than the 

increase in systemwide boardings with the Refined Build Alternative in 2030 (5 percent). 

Trolley boardings with the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 would increase by 23 

percent over existing conditions (compared to 19 percent in 2030). The increase in 

boardings both systemwide and on the Trolley indicate that improved transit 

performance would occur under the Refined Build Alternative in 2010. As a result, the 

Refined Build Alternative in 2010 and 2030 would comply with measures of effectiveness 

from adopted policies and plans and would result in a beneficial impact. 

The existing bus network was used in the 2010 analysis, which is different from that 

used in the 2030 analysis. The 2030 RTP includes a number of improvements related to 

service coverage and frequency of bus service, which were coded into the Series 11 

model. As a result, the higher increase in projected ridership for the Refined Build 

Alternative in 2010 could be related to the different bus network that operates under 

existing conditions compared to the network in 2030. The higher increase in ridership 

projections for 2010 also demonstrates the importance of this project today. Therefore, 

the Refined Build Alternative would result in a beneficial or no impact on the 

effectiveness of the transit system in both the short and long term. 

Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public 

transit or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities? 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). As stated in Section 4.1.1, plans and policies 

adopted by SANDAG, the City of San Diego, and UCSD support LRT in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor and, therefore, the No-Build Alternative would conflict with these plans. 

Additionally, the benefits, in terms of improved transit performance, that would be provided 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-50 September 2014 

by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project under the Refined Build Alternative would not be 

realized under the No-Build Alternative. As a result, the No-Build Alternative would reflect 

decreased transit performance when compared to the Refined Build Alternative. 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative in 2010 and 2030 

would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit. As 

stated in Section 1.4.1, plans adopted by SANDAG, specifically the 2030 RTP, include 

policy objectives and goals related to the regional transportation system. The Refined 

Build Alternative in 2010 and 2030 would support these objectives and goals, in 

particular efficiency, accessibility, and reliability; refer to Chapter 7.0 of this Final 

SEIS/SEIR for a discussion of how the Refined Build Alternative supports these goals. 

Further, as described in Section 4.1.1, plans and policies adopted by SANDAG, the City 

of San Diego, and UCSD support LRT in the corridor. As a result, the Refined Build 

Alternative in 2010 and 2030 would not conflict with adopted policies and plans. Further, 

the Refined Build Alternative would improve overall transit system performance while 

providing benefits to passengers, particularly in terms of longer hours of service, shorter 

frequencies, reduced travel time, and increased reliability. 

Significance after Mitigation 

The Refined Build Alternative would be compatible with applicable plans, ordinances, 

and policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the transit system. Additionally, 

the Refined Build Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 

regarding transit nor decrease the performance of the transit system. Accordingly, no 

mitigation measures are required and there would be no impacts under the Refined Build 

Alternative. 

3.4.2 Freeway and Roadway Impacts 

Just as the growth in population and employment between 2010 and 2030 will place 

additional demand on the transit system, travel demand on freeways and roadways also 

will increase. Higher demand could impact the performance of the freeway and roadway 

system, as described in Section 3.3.2. Impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives would occur if additional delay at freeway interchanges, roadways, and 

intersections results in conditions that are over capacity or operation at unacceptable 

levels of service. Refer to Section 3.3.2.2 under the subheadings of Freeway 

Interchange Performance, Roadway Performance, and Intersection Performance for a 

discussion of the methodology used for the impact analysis. 

3.4.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

No-Build Alternative Freeway and Roadway System Demand 

Regionwide, there is projected to be a 25-percent increase in daily auto person trips 

between 2010 and the 2030, from 17 million to approximately 22 million in 2030. This 

increase in daily auto person trips would indicate increased vehicles on roadways, which 

could result in congestion. Drive-alone trips would account for approximately 12 million 

of the 22 million daily auto person trips, indicating that more than half of all vehicles 

would be single-occupant vehicles. Large increases in auto trips would occur on HOV 

facilities, which are expected as the 2030 RTP includes several HOV and toll lane 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-51 

projects, including HOV lanes on I-5. Typically, as vehicles shift from general purpose 

lanes to the new HOV lanes, conditions would improve on the general purpose lanes. 

However, this improvement may be negated by the increase in vehicular traffic. 

Table 3-21 presents daily VMT for the Mid-Coast Corridor under existing conditions in 

2010 and the No-Build Alternative in 2030. As shown, approximately 12.5 million VMT 

per day are projected on the corridor’s transportation system under the No-Build 

Alternative, a 17 percent increase from existing conditions. Similar to existing 

conditions, half of the corridor’s VMT would occur on the freeway network, while 30 

percent of VMT would occur on arterials and 20 percent would occur on collector roads. 

This indicates that, similar to existing conditions, freeways and arterials would be among 

the most used facilities in the corridor. 

Table 3-21. Mid-Coast Corridor Daily VMT and VHD—2010 and 2030 

 VMT VHD 

Existing Conditions (2010) 10,681,000 155,000 

No-Build Alternative (2030) 12,450,000 238,000 

% Change from Existing Conditions 17% 54% 

Refined Build Alternative (2030) 12,393,000 237,000 

% Change from No-Build Alternative -0.5% -0.4% 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. 

 VHD = vehicle hours of delay; VMT = vehicle miles traveled 

No-Build Alternative Freeway and Roadway System 

Congestion from increased travel demand would affect the performance of freeways and 

freeway interchanges, roadways, and intersections. SANDAG has established goals for 

the performance of the transportation system, as stated in the 2030 RTP, specifically 

related to mobility, accessibility, and reliability. Performance of the freeway and roadway 

system is an important component to meeting those goals. 

Vehicle Hours of Delay 

While daily VMT is projected to grow by 17 percent by 2030, daily VHD (a measure of 

delay and thus an indicator of congestion) in the corridor is expected to increase by 54 

percent (Table 3-21) as increased traffic volumes lead to more congested roadways. 

Within the corridor, VHD on arterials would increase by 53 percent, while VHD would 

increase by 45 percent on collectors. The smallest increase would occur on freeways 

(18 percent). These increases in VHD would affect the travel time, speed, and reliability 

of the transit services with routes along these facilities, leading to longer trips with 

potentially less reliability in service. Consequently, this would be an adverse impact for 

both automobiles and transit vehicles operating in mixed traffic. 

Freeway Interchange Performance 

As shown in Table 3-22, the peak-hour freeway interchange performance analysis for the 

No-Build Alternative revealed that both the I-5 northbound off-ramp and the I-5 southbound 

on-ramp at Nobel Drive would remain under capacity. The increased traffic volumes under 

the No-Build Alternative would not have an adverse impact on either intersection. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-52 September 2014 

Table 3-22. Peak-Hour Signalized Intersection ILV Analysis—2030 

Intersection 

Peak 

Hour 

No-Build Alternative (2030) Refined Build Alternative (2030)

Total Operating 

Level (ILV/HR) Capacity Analysis

Total Operating 

Level (ILV/HR) Capacity Analysis 

Nobel Dr and I-5 

NB off-ramp 

AM 887 Under capacity 896 Under capacity 

PM 1094 Under capacity 1095 Under capacity 

Nobel Dr and I-5 

SB on-ramp 

AM 715 Under capacity 735 Under capacity 

PM 1045 Under capacity 1049 Under capacity 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: HR = hour; ILV = intersecting lane vehicles; NB = northbound; SB = southbound 

ILV/HR less than or equal to 1,200 is considered under capacity. 

Roadway Performance 

Increases in population and employment between 2010 and 2030 would be reflected by 

increases in AWDT on arterials and collectors in the corridor (Table 3-23). While the 2030 

RTP contains some capacity improvements, such as the addition of HOV lanes on I-5, V/C 

ratios for the roadways included in the analysis are forecast to increase. The five arterial 

segments that operated at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or LOS F) under 

existing conditions in 2010 would continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service 

under the No-Build Alternative in 2030. The five segments are as follows: 

 Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp 

(LOS F) and from the I-5 northbound off-ramp to Morena Boulevard (LOS F) 

 Balboa Avenue from Morena Boulevard to Moraga Avenue (LOS E) 

 Mission Bay Drive from Damon Avenue to Garnet Avenue (LOS F) 

 La Jolla Village Drive from Villa La Jolla Drive to the I-5 southbound ramps (LOS F) 

Table 3-23. Daily Arterial Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS—2010 and 2030 

Roadway Segment 

Existing Conditions

(2010) 

No-Build Alternative

(2030) Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

AWDT 

V/C 

Ratio LOS AWDT 

V/C 

Ratio LOS AWDT 

V/C 

Ratio LOS 

Adverse 

Impact 

Tecolote Rd 

I-5 SB Ramp to I-5 NB 

Ramp 

28,605 0.715 C 31,200 0.78 D 31,520 0.788 D No 

I-5 NB Ramp to Morena 

Blvd 

24,380 0.61 C 32,900 0.823 D 33,220 0.831 D No 

West Morena Blvd 

Vega St to Buenos Ave 10,229 0.256 A 11,200 0.28 A 11,520 0.288 A No 

Buenos Ave to Morena 

Blvd 

12,280 0.307 A 15,500 0.388 B 15,729 0.393 B No 

Balboa Ave 

Mission Bay Dr to I-5 

SB On-Ramp 

32,270 0.717 C 35,700 0.793 D 36,168 0.804 D No 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-53 

Table 3-23. Daily Arterial Segment Traffic Volumes and LOS—2010 and 2030 (continued) 

Roadway Segment 

Existing Conditions

(2010) 

No-Build Alternative

(2030) Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

AWDT 

V/C 

Ratio LOS AWDT 

V/C 

Ratio LOS AWDT 

V/C 

Ratio LOS 

Adverse 

Impact 

I-5 SB On-Ramp to I-5 

NB Off-Ramp 

49,698 1.104 F 50,800 1.129 F 51,268 1.139 F Yes 

I-5 NB Off-Ramp to 

Morena Blvd 

49,312 0.986 E 58,000 1.16 F 58,468 1.169 F No 

Morena Blvd to Moraga 

Ave 

36,006 0.9 E 44,800 1.12 F 45,013 1.125 F No 

Mission Bay Dr 

Damon Ave to Garnet 

Ave 

41,078 1.027 F 45,400 1.135 F 45,528 1.138 F No 

Morena Blvd 

Balboa Ave Overpass 11,668 0.292 A 15,000 0.375 B 15,468 0.387 B No 

Balboa Ave WB Ramps 

to Avati Dr 

22,536 0.563 C 27,500 0.688 C 27,628 0.691 C No 

Nobel Dr 

Villa La Jolla Dr to La 

Jolla Village Square 

16,139 0.403 B 19,400 0.485 B 19,751 0.494 B No 

La Jolla Village Square 

to I-5 NB Ramp 

24,907 0.623 C 27,400 0.685 C 27,927 0.698 C No 

I-5 NB Ramp to Lebon 

Dr 

26,644 0.533 B 27,700 0.554 B 28,051 0.561 C No 

Lebon Dr to Regents 

Rd 

25,538 0.511 B 26,800 0.536 B 26,932 0.539 B No 

Regents Rd to Costa 

Verde Blvd 

22,577 0.452 B 30,700 0.614 C 30,832 0.617 C No 

Villa La Jolla Dr 

Nobel Dr to La Jolla 

Village Dr 

27,790 0.695 C 33,200 0.83 D 33,463 0.837 D No 

Genesee Ave 

La Jolla Village Dr to 

Esplanade Ct 

28,387 0.568 C 40,100 0.802 D 40,321 0.806 D No 

Esplanade Ct to Nobel 

Dr 

23,759 0.475 B 40,100 0.802 D 40,615 0.812 D No 

La Jolla Village Dr 

Villa La Jolla Dr to I-5 

SB Ramps 

68,466 1.141 F 77,200 1.287 F 77,376 1.29 F NO 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: Bold values indicate roadway segments operating at LOS E or F 

 The V/C ratio is calculated by dividing the AWDT volume by each respective roadway segment’s capacity. 

 AWDT = Average Weekday Daily Traffic; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; V/C = 

volume-to-capacity; WB = westbound 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-54 September 2014 

Additionally, level of service on nine roadway segments would deteriorate under the NoBuild Alternative; however, these segments would continue to operate at an acceptable 

level of service and thus would not constitute an adverse impact (Table 3-23). 

Intersection Performance 

The increased volumes on roadways in the study area would result in adverse impacts 

at intersections when increases in average delay and level of service compared to 

existing conditions exceed thresholds established by the City of San Diego. However, 

Route 150 is not expected to contribute to increases in traffic volumes and delay. The 

increase in traffic volumes under the No-Build Alternative is the result of land use and 

development projects assumed in the 2030 RTP as established by local jurisdictions and 

community plans. These individual projects would be subject to separate environmental 

review independent of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Measures for mitigation of 

impacts would be determined during environmental review for the individual projects and 

would be the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies. 

Southern Subarea: The Trolley operating plan described in Section 2.2.1 for the No-Build 

Alternative was used for the intersection performance analysis. The operating plan 

provides for the extension of the Trolley Green Line from the OTTC south to the 12th 

and Imperial Transit Center at 15-minute frequencies during both peak and midday offpeak periods, and the termination of the Trolley Blue Line at Santa Fe Depot. This 

change would reduce the number of Trolley trains traveling through the Ash Street to 

Noell Street grade crossings. As described in Chapter 2.0, the frequency of COASTER 

and Amtrak service would increase between 2010 and 2030, thus increasing the number 

of times grade crossings are closed to vehicular movement. Table 3-24 presents the 

number of trains operating through the grade crossings in 2010 and 2030. Additional 

information on the traffic analysis is provided in Section 3.3.2.2 and the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 

2014v). 

Table 3-24. Comparison of Bi-directional Train Crossings in the 

Two-Hour Peak Period between 2010 and 2030 

Line 

Existing Conditions 

(2010) 

Existing Conditions

with Refined Build 

Alternative (2010) 

No-Build Alternative 

(2030) 

Refined Build 

Alternative (2030) 

Ash-Noell 

Streets 

Taylor 

Street 

Ash-Noell 

Streets 

Taylor 

Street 

Ash-Noell 

Streets 

Taylor 

Street 

Ash-Noell 

Streets 

Taylor 

Street 

Amtrak 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 

COASTER 5 5 5 5 12 12 12 12 

Trolley Blue Line 32 N/A 32 32 N/A N/A 32 32 

Trolley Green Line N/A 16 N/A 16 16 16 16 16 

Total 40 24 40 56 32 32 64 64 

Source: Existing crossings are based on 2010 peak-period timetables; future crossings are based on projected 

increases in service, as described in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. 

Note: N/A = not applicable (the Trolley line does not operate through the crossing[s]). 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-55 

Under existing conditions, all intersections operated at acceptable levels of service (LOS 

A through D). However, under the No-Build Alternative in 2030, ten intersections are 

projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F): one during the 

a.m. peak hour, six during the p.m. peak hour, and three during both peak hours. This 

indicates that future traffic volumes under the No-Build Alternative would adversely 

impact intersection performance by increasing delay compared to existing conditions. 

The following intersections were projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service 

under the No-Build Alternative: 

 Ash Street and India Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour) 

 Beech Street and Pacific Highway (LOS E and F during the a.m. and p.m. peak 

hours, respectively) 

 Cedar Street and Pacific Highway (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) 

 Washington Street and Pacific Highway Southbound Frontage Road (LOS E during 

the p.m. peak hour) 

 Taylor Street/Rosecrans Street and Pacific Highway (LOS E during the p.m. peak 

hour) 

 Taylor Street and Congress Street (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour) 

 Taylor Street and Calhoun Street (LOS E and F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, 

respectively) 

 Taylor Street and Juan Street (LOS F during both peak hours) 

 Pacific Highway and the OTTC Park-and-Ride Lot Access (LOS F during the p.m. 

peak hour) 

 Rosecrans Street and Jefferson Street (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) 

Northern Subarea: Under existing conditions, three study area intersections operated at 

unacceptable levels of service. Under the No-Build Alternative, the following six 

intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F, indicating an adverse impact 

compared to existing conditions:

 Clairemont Drive and Denver Street (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour) 

 Balboa Avenue eastbound ramps and Morena Boulevard (LOS F in both peak hours) 

 Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue (LOS E in both peak hours) 

 Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Square (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive (LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E 

in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) 

The intersections of the Balboa Avenue eastbound ramps and Morena Boulevard, 

Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue, and Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive 

also operated at unacceptable levels of service under existing conditions. At these 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-56 September 2014 

intersections, delay would exceed thresholds established by the City of San Diego and, 

in some cases, level of service would worsen from LOS E to LOS F. Additionally, under 

existing conditions, these intersections performed at an unacceptable level of service 

during only one peak hour but under the No-Build Alternative performance would be 

unacceptable during both peak hours. Therefore, there would be an adverse impact at 

all six intersections with the No-Build Alternative. 

Summary 

While improvements to Route 150 are not expected to result in direct, adverse impacts 

on freeway or roadway facilities, traffic conditions would worsen between 2010 and 2030 

because of increases in traffic volumes, resulting in adverse impacts at 16 intersections 

and 5 roadway segments under the No-Build Alternative. 

3.4.2.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The freeway and roadway system under the Refined Build Alternative includes all 

planned improvements included in the No-Build Alternative plus roadway improvements 

required to accommodate the proposed alignment and new stations. These 

improvements primarily consist of widening and restriping roadways to accommodate 

the alignment of the Refined Build Alternative. The roadway improvements under the 

Refined Build Alternative are illustrated in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final 

SEIS/SEIR Volume 2: Plan Set (Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set). Additional information on 

roadway system demand and performance is available in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v). 

Refined Build Alternative Freeway and Roadway System Demand 

By extending the Trolley Blue Line north to the UTC Transit Center, thus improving 

transit service along the I-5 corridor north of downtown, the Refined Build Alternative 

provides a competitive transportation alternative to driving. The Refined Build 

Alternative would result in some shift of trips from auto to transit, while possibly 

increasing travel on local streets in the vicinity of transit stations. 

The Refined Build Alternative would have approximately 13,300 fewer daily auto person 

trips in the region compared to the No-Build Alternative. In general, the more transit trips 

an alternative attracts, the less auto person trips and vehicle trips produced. As shown 

in Table 3-21, under the Refined Build Alternative, approximately 12.4 million daily VMT 

are projected on the corridor’s transportation system. This is a decrease of 57,000 VMT 

per day (a 0.5 percent decrease) from the No-Build Alternative. The most substantial 

decrease in VMT would occur on freeways (a 0.6 percent decrease). 

The forecast changes in auto person trips and VMT under the Refined Build Alternative 

result from a single Trolley line extension. While these travel demand changes appear 

small when distributed across a large regional street and highway system, they could 

provide a minor but beneficial impact within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The Refined Build 

Alternative would offer an attractive and sustainable travel alternative for people facing 

highway congestion in the corridor. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-57 

Refined Build Alternative Freeway and Roadway System Performance and Impacts 

Impacts from the Refined Build Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative can be 

beneficial, such as shorter travel times as a result of decreases in congestion. 

Alternatively, impacts can be adverse, such as increases in delay at intersections or 

along roadway segments. The Refined Build Alternative would result in decreases in 

VHD and, although minor, freeway and roadway users would benefit. Nonetheless, 

additional gate down times or station area traffic resulting from implementation of the 

Refined Build Alternative would cause a deterioration in level of service at several 

intersections requiring mitigation. 

Vehicle Hours of Delay 

Table 3-21 also presents VHD for the corridor under the Refined Build Alternative. 

There would be approximately 1,000 fewer hours of vehicle delay in the corridor (a 

0.4 percent decrease) compared to the No-Build Alternative. The largest decrease 

would occur on freeways (a 2.6 percent decrease), improving mobility for freeway users 

and any bus routes that travel along freeways, thus representing a beneficial impact. 

Freeway Interchange Performance 

The ILV analysis for the I-5 northbound off-ramp and I-5 southbound on-ramp at Nobel 

Drive revealed that both intersections would remain under capacity and, consequently, 

the Refined Build Alternative would not have an adverse impact on these intersections 

(Table 3-22). Since the Refined Build Alternative would not require any geometric 

changes to the freeway system nor introduce additional traffic to these facilities, the 

Refined Build Alternative would not have an adverse impact on the performance of 

freeways or freeway interchanges. 

Roadway Performance 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, vehicular traffic on some roadways would increase 

as a result of cars traveling to and from the new stations (Table 3-23). Traffic volumes 

would be higher on roadways near the five stations that include transit parking—the 

Tecolote Road, Balboa Avenue, Clairemont Drive, and Nobel Drive Stations and the 

UTC Transit Center. Adverse impacts on roadways are determined by changes in the 

V/C ratio on the roadway segment compared to guidelines established by the city. 

Based on the results of the roadway segment analysis, the V/C ratio on Balboa Avenue 

from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp would increase, 

representing an adverse impact from the Refined Build Alternative compared to the NoBuild Alternative. This segment is located close to the Balboa Avenue Station and, as a 

result, many trips would travel along this roadway to and from the station and park-andride facility. This segment, which is approximately 720 feet (0.13 mile) long, operated at 

LOS F under both existing conditions and the No-Build Alternative, and would continue 

to operate at LOS F under the Refined Build Alternative. Under the Refined Build 

Alternative, daily traffic would increase from approximately 50,800 vehicles to 51,300 

vehicles (less than 1 percent) and the V/C ratio would increase by 0.01, which meets—

but does not exceed—the threshold established by the City of San Diego for a roadway 

operating at LOS F. Thus there would be an adverse impact on this segment based on 

city guidance. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-58 September 2014 

Intersection Performance 

Southern Subarea: The Refined Build Alternative would increase the number of trains 

traveling through grade crossings, from 32 to 64 trains during the two-hour peak period 

(Table 3-24). Each grade crossing is comprised of four tracks—two for the Los 

Angeles–San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) trains (Amtrak 

and COASTER) and two for the Trolley. So while 64 train crossings would occur during 

the two-hour peak period, the number of times when the gate is down is expected to be 

less than 64 because multiple trains may pass through the grade crossing at the same 

time on separate tracks. When multiple trains pass through concurrently, the gates 

would be down for a longer period; however, this could be offset by the gates being up 

for a longer period before the next preemption event and would result in fewer events 

when the gates are down. With the approach of any train, traffic signals are preempted 

and the normal signal operation is modified to first serve vehicles that may be extending 

onto the tracks and then serve vehicles that would not travel toward the crossing gates. 

This process generally increases average delays. 

Gate operations for the Trolley under the Refined Build Alternative would be improved by 

various measures that are included in the project, as described in Section 2.4. These 

improvements would reduce gate down times for Trolley crossings at all grade crossings 

and for northbound Amtrak and COASTER crossings at Taylor Street. For a few grade 

crossings, particularly Taylor Street, gate operation improvements would substantially 

decrease gate down times, thus reducing delay for vehicles at adjacent intersections. 

Nevertheless, for some intersections, even with gate operational improvements, the 

increased frequency of gate down events would result in adverse impacts to intersection 

level of service. Adverse impacts would occur at the following 13 intersections:

 Ash Street and Pacific Highway (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour) 

 Ash Street and India Street (LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. 

peak hour) 

 Beech Street and Pacific Highway (LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours) 

 Beech Street and Kettner Boulevard (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Beech Street and India Street (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Cedar Street and Pacific Highway (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Cedar Street and Kettner Boulevard (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Sassafras Street and Pacific Highway (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Washington Street and Pacific Highway Southbound Frontage Road (LOS E in the 

a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Washington Street and Pacific Highway Northbound Frontage Road (LOS E in the 

p.m. peak hour) 

 Washington Street and Hancock Street (LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours) 

 Noell Street and Hancock Street (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) 

 Rosecrans Street and Jefferson Street (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-59 

Table 3-25 identifies the level of service and delay for the intersections where the 

increased frequency of trains traveling through the grade crossings would result in 

adverse impacts; the impacts are summarized in Table 3-26. 

Northern Subarea: There are no grade crossings in the northern subarea, so intersection 

impacts related to gate closures would not occur. However, increased traffic near new 

transit stations and parking facilities could impact intersection performance. Only those 

intersections that would experience an increase of 50 or more peak-hour trips were 

selected for study, consistent with guidance from the City of San Diego Traffic Impact 

Study Manual (City of San Diego, 1998c). These intersections are located near the five 

Trolley stations with transit parking. Vehicular traffic accessing the new transit parking 

would be higher during peak hours when transit passengers use the stations to travel to 

work or school. Accordingly, the intersection analysis focuses on delay and level of service 

during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 

Intersections that would be modified by the Refined Build Alternative also were 

analyzed. These include intersections in the vicinity of stations and on Genesee Avenue 

where the street would be modified to accommodate the project alignment. 

Modifications also would be made to Morena Boulevard, the Morena Boulevard/Balboa 

Avenue interchange, and Balboa Avenue to accommodate access to the Balboa Avenue 

Station. These modifications are shown in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. 

The analysis projected an increase in delay at two intersections, both during the p.m. 

peak hour: Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue and Genesee Avenue and Esplanade 

Court/UTC Driveway would operate at LOS E and F respectively. Level of service and 

delay are shown in Table 3-25, and impacts are summarized in Table 3-26. There would 

be no adverse impacts during the a.m. peak hour. 

3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would not affect the freeway system or freeway 

interchanges; therefore, mitigation measures are not required for these facilities. The 

measures proposed to mitigate or minimize adverse impacts on the one roadway 

segment and 15 intersections (13 in the southern subarea and 2 in the northern 

subarea) from the Refined Build Alternative are described in the following sections. 

Implementation of these mitigation measures would be the responsibility of SANDAG; 

the mitigation measures would be in place on opening day of the project. 

Roadways 

The Refined Build Alternative would increase traffic on Balboa Avenue from the I-5 

southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp, which would increase the V/C ratio 

and result in an adverse impact. As stated previously, this segment of Balboa Avenue is 

approximately 720 feet (0.13 mile) long, and the Refined Build Alternative would 

increase the daily volume by less than 1 percent. The increase in the V/C ratio is 0.01, 

which meets—but does not exceed—the threshold established by the City of San Diego 

for a roadway operating at LOS F. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-60 

Table 3-25. Intersection Level of Service and Delay (2010 and 2030) 

Intersection 

Peak Hour 

Intersection 

Control Type

Existing 

Conditions 

No-Build 

Alternative 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

∆

Delay 

Adverse 

Impact 

Refi

Altern

Mi

Delay 

(sec) LOS 

Delay 

(sec) LOS 

Delay 

(sec) LOS 

Dela

(sec

Southern SubareaAsh St and Pacific Hwy AM Signalized 34.0 C 50.9 D 47.7 D -3.2 NO 42.3 

PM 29.9 C 43.7 D 71.5 E 27.8 YES 41.0 

Ash St and Kettner Blvd AM Signalized 23.9 C 33.9 C 34.4 C 0.5 NO 27.6 

PM 21.8 C 30.3 C 32.0 C 1.7 NO 30.7 

Ash St and India St AM Signalized 12.2 B 93.5 F 137.1 F 43.6 YES 36.4 

PM 12.7 B 40.5 D 65.2 E 24.7 YES 35.6 

Beech St and Pacific Hwy AM Stop-Control 22.5 C 42.3 E 57.6 F 15.3 YES 42.9 

PM 23.7 C 75.2 F 295.9 F 220.7 YES 53.6 

Beech St and Kettner Blvd AM Stop-Control 8.4 A 13.6 B 14.4 B 0.8 NO 15.0 

PM 10.6 B 18.4 C 40.8 E 22.4 YES 20.3 

Beech St and India St AM Stop-Control 8.7 A 10.6 B 10.8 B 0.2 NO 10.5 

PM 10.5 B 12.7 B 37.4 E 24.7 YES 12.2 

Cedar St and Pacific Hwy AM Signalized 25.4 C 39.2 D 51.4 D 12.2 NO 26.8 

PM 25.8 C 63.3 E 93.9 F 30.6 YES 33.9 

Cedar St and Kettner Blvd AM Stop-Control2 10.7 B 24.8 C 34.7 D 9.9 NO 40.5 

PM 12.1 B 33.9 D 35.2 E 1.3 YES 36.4 

Cedar St and India St AM Stop-Control 8.1 A 15.6 C 18.2 C 2.6 NO 22.1 

PM 9.4 A 15.8 C 15.0 C -0.8 NO 16.4 

Sassafras St and Pacific Hwy AM Signalized 21.3 C 25.7 C 26.9 C 1.2 NO 25.0 

PM 25.9 C 50.9 D 69.2 E 18.3 YES 53.2 

Sassafras St and Kettner Blvd AM Signalized 17.6 B 26.4 C 48.1 D 21.7 NO 26.0 

PM 19.4 B 43.2 D 53.7 D 10.5 NO 50.9 

Washington St and Pacific Hwy SB Frontage Rd 

AM Signalized 28.2 C 42.3 D 59.8 E 17.5 YES 44.4 

PM 38.2 D 76.6 E 126.3 F 49.7 YES 41.3 

Washington St and Pacific Hwy NB Frontage Rd 

AM Signalized 34.6 C 33.3 C 47.0 D 13.7 NO 37.9 

PM 37.8 D 40.2 D 59.2 E 19.0 YES 48.8 

Washington St and Hancock St AM Signalized 31.4 C 38.5 D 85.7 F 47.2 YES 39.6 

PM 32.4 C 41.5 D 156.5 F 115.0 YES 41.8 
Chapter 3.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Table 3-25. Intersection Level of Service and Delay (2010 and 2030) (continued) 

Intersection 

Peak Hour 

Intersection 

Control Type

Existing 

Conditions 

No-Build 

Alternative 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

∆

Delay 

Adverse 

Impact 

Refi

Altern

Mi

Delay 

(sec) LOS 

Delay 

(sec) LOS

Delay 

(sec) LOS 

Dela

(sec

Noell St and Kurtz St AM Stop-Control 9.0 A 8.4 A 11.7 B 3.3 NO 11

PM 10.3 B 8.4 A 19.9 C 11.5 NO 13

Noell St and Hancock St AM Signalized 7.6 A 8.5 A 20.8 C 12.3 NO 8

PM 9.2 A 10.7 B 120.5 F 109.8 YES 10

Taylor St/Rosecrans St and Pacific Hwy 

AM Signalized 34.7 C 46.4 D 44.4 D -2.0 NO 43

PM 44.7 D 67.5 E 65.2 E -2.3 NO 54

Taylor St and Congress St AM Signalized 22.1 C 53.1 D 43.8 D -9.3 NO 31

PM 35.8 D 94.2 F 77.7 E -16.5 NO 67

Taylor St and Calhoun St AM Stop-Control 4.8 A 38.0 E 22.9 C -15.1 NO 9

PM 19.6 C 65.7 F 37.8 E -27.9 NO 14

Taylor St and Juan St AM Signalized 23.1 C 80.6 F 70.1 E -10.5 NO 26

PM 27.3 C 110.5 F 69.3 E -41.2 NO 27

Pacific Hwy and OTTC Parkand-Ride Lot Access AM Signalized 22.7 C 23.5 C 23.3 C -0.2 NO 23

PM 26.6 C 241.5 F 219.6 F -21.9 NO 21

Rosecrans St and Jefferson St AM Stop-Control 5.4 A 6.5 A 6.3 A -0.2 NO 6

PM 8.5 A 41.9 E 63.3 F 21.4 YES 7

Northern Subarea Mission Bay Dr and Garnet Ave AM Signalized 50.1 D 67.0 E 67.9 E 0.9 NO ** 

PM 62.0 E 73.2 E 77.0 E 3.8 YES ** 

Genesee Ave and Esplanade Ct/UTC Drwy 

AM Signalized 20.3 C 21.2 C 21.9 C 0.7 NO 21

PM 34.6 C 124.3 F 126.2 F 1.9 YES 114

Source: SANDAG, 2014v Notes: 1 Delay with mitigation would be reduced to levels better than the No-Build Alternative but not to LOS D or better. 2 Intersection would be signalized as mitigation 

 Text in bold indicates an unacceptable level of service ** Mitigation was not identified to reduce the adverse impact. 

∆ = Change in delay compared to the No-Build Alternative; LOS = level of service; NB = northbound; OTTC = Old Town Transit 

sec = seconds; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-62 September 2014 

Table 3-26. Summary of Adverse Impacts at Intersections—Refined Build 

Alternative (2030) 

Intersection ID Intersection Description of Adverse Impact

Int 1 Ash St and 

Pacific Hwy 

Queues along Pacific Hwy would extend back from Cedar St to this intersection 

resulting in slow traffic movements. 

Delays and queues would be experienced by the eastbound and westbound 

movements due to frequent train crossings. 

Int 2 Ash St and India 

St 

Queues along Ash St from Pacific Hwy and Kettner Blvd would extend back to 

this intersection. 

Int 3 Beech St and 

Pacific Hwy 

Queues along Pacific Hwy from Cedar St would extend back to this intersection 

causing delay to the northbound and westbound movements. 

Int 4 Beech St and 

Kettner Blvd 

Queues along Beech St from Pacific Hwy would extend back to this intersection 

causing delays. 

Int 5 Beech St and 

India St 

Queues along Beech St from Pacific Hwy would extend back to this intersection 

causing delays. 

Int 6 Cedar St and 

Pacific Hwy 

Delays and queues would be experienced by the northbound and southbound 

movements due to frequent train crossings and traffic signal operations. 

Int 7 Cedar St and 

Kettner Blvd 

Delays would be experienced by the eastbound movements when a train clears 

the tracks and from queues at the stop-controlled intersection. 

Int 8 Sassafras St and 

Pacific Hwy 

Delays would be experienced by eastbound and westbound movements due to 

frequent train crossings and from queues from Sassafras St and Kettner Blvd 

that would extend to this intersection. 

Int 9 Washington St 

and Pacific Hwy 

SB Frontage Rd 

Queues from Washington at NB Frontage Road and Hancock St would extend to 

this intersection causing delays to the eastbound and southbound movements. 

Int 10 Washington St 

and Pacific Hwy 

NB Frontage Rd 

Delays would be experienced for the southbound and westbound movements 

due to frequent train crossings. 

Int 11 Washington St 

and Hancock St 

Delays would be experienced for the southbound and westbound movements 

due to frequent train crossings. 

Int 12 Noell St and 

Hancock St 

Queues along southbound Hancock Street would extend back to this intersection 

causing delays. 

Int 13 Rosecrans St 

and Jefferson St 

Queues along eastbound Rosecrans St would extend back from the intersection 

of Pacific Hwy and Taylor St causing delays. 

Int 14 Mission Bay Dr 

and Garnet Ave 

Delays would occur from traffic traveling to/from the Balboa Ave Station and 

park-and-ride lot. 

Int 15 Genesee Ave 

and Esplanade 

Ct/UTC Drwy 

This intersection would be the main driveway to the UTC Transit Center and 

transit parking; delays would occur from traffic traveling to/from the UTC Transit 

Center and transit parking. 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Note: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-63 

This segment of Balboa Avenue crosses under I-5. Widening Balboa Avenue as mitigation 

would require reconstruction of the I-5 overpass and the railroad overpass, significantly 

expanding the scope and cost of the project. Widening would also require utility relocation 

and result in additional impacts due to, among other things, partial or full acquisitions from 

properties on the north side of the roadway. The significant cost of reconstructing the I-5 

and railroad overpasses, combined with the additional impacts that would result, render 

mitigation of this impact infeasible. Consequently, this segment of Balboa Avenue would not 

be widened as mitigation and an adverse and unmitigated impact would remain. 

Intersections 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in adverse impacts at 13 intersections near 7 

grade crossings in the southern subarea and at 2 intersections in the northern subarea 

near the Balboa Avenue Station and the UTC Transit Center. Mitigation measures have 

been identified for all but two of the affected locations, as discussed below. Level of 

service and delay for the Refined Build Alternative with mitigation are summarized in 

Table 3-25, which also identifies if any adverse impacts would remain after mitigation. In 

some instances, mitigation measures are proposed for intersections adjacent to those 

affected by the Refined Build Alternative or such measures could affect operation at an 

adjacent intersection. The level of service and delay for these intersections also are 

included in Table 3-25. Table 3-27 summarizes the mitigation measures proposed to 

address adverse impacts under the Refined Build Alternative, and Figure 3-7 shows the 

locations of mitigation measures. 

Table 3-27. Intersection Mitigation Measures by Location 

Location 

Mitigated 

Intersection 

ID1 Summary of Mitigation Measure(s) 

Adverse 

Impact after 

Mitigation 

TR1: Ash St and 

Pacific Hwy

Int 1, Int 2  Add exit phase to serve vehicles traveling eastbound and 

westbound and pedestrians crossing Pacific Hwy

 Modify existing signal phasing—change westbound left 

turns from first movement served to be served later in the 

traffic cycle 

No

TR2: Ash St and 

Kettner Blvd 

(mitigates impact at 

Ash St and India St)

Int 2  Add exit phase to serve vehicles traveling eastbound and 

westbound

No

TR3: Cedar St at 

Pacific Hwy 

(mitigates impact at 

the Ash St 

intersection with 

Pacific Hwy and at 

Cedar St and India 

St and reduces 

impact at Beech St 

and Pacific Hwy)

Int 1, Int 3, Int 

4, Int 5, Int 6 

 Modify existing signal phasing—vehicles making 

southbound left turns would be served first; vehicles 

traveling southbound would be served with northbound 

through and right-turn movements 

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles making southbound left 

turns first, followed by westbound vehicles; the exit phase 

also would serve pedestrians crossing Pacific Hwy 

 Lengthen southbound left-turn lane to 650 feet 

Yes (Beech 

St and Pacific 

Hwy) 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-64 September 2014 

Table 3-27. Intersection Mitigation Measures by Location (continued) 

Location 

Mitigated 

Intersection 

ID1 Summary of Mitigation Measure(s) 

Adverse 

Impact after 

Mitigation 

TR4: Cedar St and 

Kettner Blvd

Int 7  Add traffic signal (intersection is currently an all-way stopcontrolled intersection) 

 Add exit phase to serve eastbound and westbound vehicles 

 Add a 75-foot westbound left-turn lane (one does not currently exist) 

No 

TR5: Sassafras St 

at Pacific Hwy

Int 8  Modify existing signal phasing—left-turns on Sassafras St would 

have a protected turn phase (indicated by a green arrow) rather 

than yielding to vehicles traveling in the other direction

No 

TR6: Sassafras St 

and Kettner Blvd

Int 8  Modify existing eastbound approach geometry—right-turn lane 

would be modified to a shared through/right-turn lane with two 

receiving lanes on other side of Kettner Blvd, indicating that 

vehicles in that lane could turn right or continue through the 

intersection 

No 

TR7: Washington 

St and NB 

Frontage Rd and 

Hancock St (also 

mitigates Noell St 

and Hancock St)

Int 9, Int 10, 

Int 11, Int 12 

 Add exit phase to serve pedestrians and vehicles traveling 

eastbound and westbound 

 Modify existing limited-service phase during preemption so that 

the westbound left turn is served after the southbound through 

movement 

 Modify existing northbound approach geometry on the NB 

Frontage Rd to include a dedicated left-turn lane, one shared 

left-turn/through lane, and one dedicated right-turn lane 

No 

TR8: Taylor 

St/Rosecrans St 

and Pacific Hwy (to 

mitigate Rosecrans 

St and Jefferson St 

and Pacific Hwy)3 

Int 13  Add a second northbound right-turn lane 

 Reconfigure eastbound approach to have a third through lane 

 Realign southern sidewalk east and west of intersection to 

preserve existing dedicated bus-only lane 

 Add exit phase to serve vehicles making an eastbound left turn, 

vehicles traveling eastbound and westbound through the 

intersection, and pedestrians crossing Pacific Hwy 

 Lengthen northbound left-turn lane by 40 feet 

 Modify southbound approach geometry to include a second leftturn lane for general purpose vehicles 

 Change westbound left-turn phase from first movement served 

to be served later in the traffic cycle

No

TR9: Taylor St 

and Congress St

Int 13  Add exit phase to serve vehicles traveling eastbound and 

westbound through the intersection

No2

TR10: Genesee 

Ave and Esplanade 

Ct/UTC Drwy

Int 15  Modify westbound approach geometry to add a westbound leftturn lane, thus providing two left-turn lanes, one shared 

through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane

No2

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: 1

 Mitigated intersection ID – Refer to Table 3-26 

2

 While the intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service, the facility would 

operate at a better level of service with the Refined Build Alternative with mitigation than with the No-Build 

Alternative. 3. Mitigation at Taylor Street/Rosecrans Street and Pacific Highway would require widening Pacific Highway. The 

bike lane on Pacific Highway would be closed for up to 6 months during construction of the mitigation measures. 

Exit phase = An exit phase can be programmed into the traffic-signal controller to serve a specific phase or 

phases prior to resuming standard operation. Typically, exit phases would serve the movement or 

movements that are preempted when a train travels through the grade crossing. 

Limited-service phase = only movements that do not result in cars traveling toward the crossing gates are 

allowed to occur. 

 NB = northbound; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-65 

Figure 3-7. Mitigation Measures for the Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-66 September 2014 

Based on guidelines from the City of San Diego, the goal of 

mitigation is to restore an intersection back to an acceptable 

level of service (LOS D or better) or to conditions similar to the 

No-Build Alternative. For future year conditions, city guidance 

requires that mitigation measures restore an intersection to 

conditions similar to what would occur without the project, therefore, 

ensuring that the effects of the project are offset. The mitigation 

measures proposed to address intersection delay consist of 

geometric and operational modifications. Geometric 

modifications would include the addition of turn lanes or through 

lanes or extending an existing turn lane to provide more storage 

capacity for vehicles. In most cases, these modifications could 

be accommodated within the existing roadway right-of-way. 

Operational improvements at intersections generally consist of 

changes to traffic signal timing (the length of the traffic signal 

provided for each directional movement) and phasing (the traffic 

movements served by each signal phase), or, in one location, 

the addition of a traffic signal at an all-way stop-controlled 

intersection (Cedar Street and Kettner Boulevard). Additional 

information on the proposed mitigation measures, including 

detailed graphics illustrating geometric modifications and 

changes to traffic signal phasing, is provided in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation 

Report (SANDAG, 2014v). 

Southern Subarea 

The increased frequencies of trains traveling through grade 

crossings would result in additional preemptions at adjacent 

intersections. Even with the improved gate operation included in 

the Refined Build Alternative (as described in Section 2.4), this 

would increase delay for motorists. Based on the results of the 

traffic analysis, as described previously, mitigation is required for 

intersections adjacent to the Ash Street, Beech Street, Cedar Street, Sassafras Street, 

Washington Street, Noell Street, and Taylor Street grade crossings, as identified in Table 

3-27. Developing appropriate mitigation for these intersections required consideration of 

the following: (1) vehicular delay, (2) pedestrian wait times, and (3) vehicular queuing at 

intersections. Mitigation measures to address one impact could create or exacerbate 

another. Thus, analysis was conducted to ensure that mitigation measures for vehicular 

delay would not negatively affect the length of vehicular queues or how long a pedestrian 

would need to wait to cross an intersection. As identified in Table 3-25, traffic signal 

phasing and timing modifications, roadway and intersection restriping, and geometric 

changes would maintain or restore intersections to an acceptable LOS D or better at all 

locations except at the non-signalized intersection of Beech Street at Pacific Highway and 

the signalized intersection of Taylor Street at Congress Street. 

Mitigation measures are proposed at several intersections adjacent to the Beech Street 

and Pacific Highway intersection that would reduce delay at this intersection compared 

to the Refined Build Alternative without mitigation. With mitigation at the adjacent 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-67 

intersections, the intersection of Beech Street and Pacific Highway would operate during 

the p.m. peak hour at LOS F with 53.6 seconds of delay, an approximate 22-second 

improvement compared to the No-Build Alternative (LOS F with 75.2 seconds of delay). 

However, during the a.m. peak hour, the intersection would operate at LOS E with a 

delay 0.6 seconds greater than that experienced under the No-Build Alternative. When 

a train clears the crossing and the gates rise, a queue of traffic that had been waiting 

along westbound Beech Street is released, which arrives at the Pacific Highway and 

Beech Street intersection all at once. Because it is a stop-controlled approach, only one 

vehicle can be served at a time, which results in greater delays for all vehicles in the 

queue. Vehicles that arrive under normal conditions (i.e., not immediately after a train 

travels through the grade crossing) are not expected to experience an adverse delay. 

A traffic signal was examined for Beech Street at Pacific Highway as a means of 

restoring the intersection to LOS D or better; however, the intersection does not meet 

traffic signal warrants based on the 

low number of vehicles traveling 

westbound through the intersection. 

Additionally, the intersection is 

within close proximity of two other 

signalized intersections. Adding a 

traffic signal at this location would 

reduce vehicular storage capacity in 

the area and increase delay along 

Pacific Highway; therefore, it is not 

considered feasible. The mitigation 

measure proposed at Cedar Street 

and Pacific Highway (TR3) would 

minimize the impact at Beech Street 

and Pacific Highway. However, 

because delay under the Refined 

Build Alternative with mitigation is 

greater than delay under the NoBuild Alternative, the impact at 

Beech Street and Pacific Highway 

remains adverse and not mitigated. 

Traffic signal modifications were incorporated at Taylor Street at Congress Street; 

nevertheless, because of the increased frequency of trains traveling through the Taylor 

Street grade crossing and the congested roadway conditions in this location, the level of 

service could not be restored to acceptable conditions. However, with improvement in 

gate down times, as explained previously, and the mitigation measures shown in Table 

3-27, the delay at this intersection would be approximately 30 seconds less than that 

experienced under the No-Build Alternative. For future year conditions, city guidance 

requires that mitigation measures restore an intersection to conditions similar to the NoBuild Alternative, which offsets impacts of the project. Consequently, there would not be 

an adverse impact at Pacific Highway or Taylor Street and Congress Street, even 

though it would operate at an unacceptable level of service. 

View from the Beech Street Grade Crossing 

toward the Intersection of Beech Street and 

Pacific Highway 

Source: SANDAG, 2013
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-68 September 2014 

Even with the increased frequency of gate down times, the mitigation measures and 

improvements to gate operation would benefit motorists traveling in the southern 

subarea. For the southern subarea, average delay per vehicle was analyzed for the 

a.m. and p.m. peak hours for the No-Build Alternative, the Refined Build Alternative, and 

the Refined Build Alternative with mitigation to compare conditions at all 24 intersections 

adjacent to the eight grade crossings analyzed. Based on results, delay during the p.m. 

peak hour is higher than that experienced during the a.m. peak hour. Under the NoBuild Alternative, average delay per vehicle in the p.m. peak hour would be 149 seconds 

(approximately 2.5 minutes); however, under the Refined Build Alternative, average 

delay time would increase 38 percent to 206 seconds (over 3.5 minutes). With 

implementation of the mitigation measures summarized in Table 3-27, average delay per 

vehicle would decrease 42 percent to 86 seconds (approximately 1.5 minutes) when 

compared to the No-Build Alternative, indicating that mitigation and gate optimization 

combined would offset the increased frequency of trains traveling through the grade 

crossings, resulting in decreased delay for the system. Average delay per vehicle during 

the a.m. peak hour also would improve for the Refined Build Alternative with mitigation. 

However, because average delay during the a.m. peak hour was lower than during the 

p.m. peak hour, improvements in delay would not be as substantial as those 

experienced during the p.m. peak hour. Average delay for the No-Build Alternative 

during the a.m. peak hour would be 74 seconds (1 minute 14 seconds) but would 

increase 24 percent under the Refined Build Alternative to 92 seconds (approximately 

1.5 minutes). With mitigation, average delay would be reduced by 11 percent compared 

to the No-Build Alternative, resulting in an average delay of 66 seconds (or 1 minute 6 

seconds). Accordingly, roadway conditions under the Refined Build Alternative with 

mitigation would be better than conditions under the No-Build Alternative. 

Northern Subarea 

Traffic accessing the Balboa Avenue Station would increase delay at Mission Bay Drive 

and Garnet Avenue during the p.m. peak hour, resulting in an adverse impact at the 

intersection. Mitigation could include either a second southbound through lane or a dual 

westbound left-turn lane. These measures are deemed not feasible because they 

require additional right-of-way (three partial acquisitions would be needed for the 

southbound through lane and two partial acquisitions would be needed for the dual 

westbound left-turn lane). Both options would require utility relocation, including 

relocation of a storm drain. Under the Refined Build Alternative, delay at this 

intersection would be 4 seconds greater than the No-Build Alternative and the 

intersection would operate at LOS E, as it does under existing conditions. While the 

project does increase delay above city guidelines, its contribution is relatively minor 

when compared to existing and future conditions without the project. With 

implementation of either mitigation measure, level of service would remain at E but with 

slightly less delay than the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, the benefits of mitigating this 

intersection would not outweigh the secondary impacts and the Refined Build Alternative 

impact at this location would remain adverse and not mitigated. 

The intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway would serve 

as the primary access to the UTC Transit Center terminal station, which includes transit 

parking. Mitigation for the adverse impact at this intersection would include the addition of a 

westbound left-turn lane and re-striping to provide two left-turn lanes, one shared 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-69 

through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane for the westbound approach. While 

the intersection would still perform at LOS F, the geometric changes would serve traffic 

movements more efficiently and improve the intersection level of service to a condition better 

than under the No-Build Alternative. 

With implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Table 3-27, adverse 

impacts from the Refined Build Alternative would be fully mitigated at all intersections 

except Beech Street at Pacific Highway and Mission Bay Drive at Garnet Avenue. 

Mitigation is infeasible at these intersections and thus the impact would remain adverse. 

3.4.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

This section discusses the CEQA determination for the freeway and roadway system. 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following thresholds of significance to evaluate the 

impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on the freeway and roadway system 

under existing conditions in 2010 and future conditions in 2030. 

Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy 

establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and 

relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, 

streets, highways and freeways? 

The 2030 RTP and the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) 

Mobility Element are among the primary documents establishing measures of 

effectiveness for the freeway and roadway system. The relevant goals from the 2030 

RTP are described in Section 1.4.1. The Mobility Element from the City of San Diego 

General Plan seeks to attain a balanced, multi-modal transportation network that minimizes 

environmental and neighborhood impacts. The following are goals from the Mobility 

Element that are applicable to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project: 

 Vehicle congestion relief 

 Improved performance and efficiency of the street and freeway system by means 

other than roadway widening or construction 

 Optimization of traffic signal timing and coordination to improve circulation

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not support the 

goals and policies from the 2030 RTP or the General Plan Mobility Element. As shown in 

Table 3-21, the No-Build Alternative in 2030 would have the highest VMT and VHD when 

compared to existing conditions in 2010 and the Refined Build Alternative in 2030; both 

VMT and VHD are measures of congestion on the roadway network. Further, as 

described in Section 3.4.2.1, the No-Build Alternative would result in significant impacts 

on 5 roadway segments and 16 intersections (10 in the southern subarea and 6 in the 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-70 September 2014 

northern subarea) when compared to existing conditions. This indicates that the 

performance of the roadway and freeway system would be worse under the No-Build 

Alternative than under existing conditions and thus would not support goals or measures 

of effectiveness from established plans and policies related to mobility, reliability, 

efficiency, or congestion relief. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would support the goals and policies from the 2030 RTP and the City of San Diego 

General Plan Mobility Element. As shown in Table 3-21, VMT and VHD would decrease 

by up to 1 percent on roadways under the Refined Build Alternative, indicating some 

improvements in congestion. These decreases occur without the need to widen 

roadways or construct new ones, which directly supports goals established by the 

General Plan Mobility Element. While minor, these improvements would benefit 

motorists and transit vehicles and thus would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, 

or ordinances. 

A freeway interchange, roadway segment, and intersection analysis was performed for 

the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 and 2030 based on measures of effectiveness 

established in the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (City of San Diego, 

1998c). Based on the analysis described in Section 3.4.2.2 under the heading “Refined 

Build Alternative Freeway and Roadway System Performance and Impacts,” the Refined 

Build Alternative in 2030 would result in long-term impacts at one roadway segment and 

15 intersections. Feasible mitigation measures would be implemented, but impacts 

would remain at two intersections and one roadway segment, as described in Section 

3.4.2.3. However, the mitigation measures proposed for the other intersections would 

improve the level of service and delay at these intersections compared to the No-Build 

Alternative, thereby supporting the policy of improving operations and circulation on city 

streets. 

A discussion of traffic impacts for the Refined Build Alternative under existing conditions 

is provided under Thresholds 2 and 3, below. 

Threshold 2: Would the project result in any intersection, roadway segment, or freeway 

segment operating at LOS D or better, to operate at LOS E or F or cause any ramp 

meter delays to exceed 15 minutes? 

Threshold 3: Would the project impact any intersection, roadway segment, or freeway 

segment operating at LOS E or F under existing or cumulative conditions? If yes, then 

the impact would be significant if it exceeds the thresholds in Table 3-28. 

No-Build Alternative 

Impacts under Thresholds 2 and 3 are discussed together as both relate to deterioration 

in level of service based on impacts of the Refined Build Alternative compared to 

existing conditions. Refer to Threshold 1 and Section 3.4.2.1 for a discussion of longterm impacts. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-71 

Table 3-28. Traffic Impact Thresholds 

Level of Service 

with Project1

Allowable Change Due to Project Impact2

Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections Ramp Metering

V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec) Delay (min)

LOS E (or ramp meter delays 

longer than 15 minutes) 

0.010 1.0 0.02 1.0 2.0 2.0 

LOS F (or ramp meter delays 

longer than 15 minutes) 

0.005 0.5 0.01 0.5 1.0 1.0 

Source: City of San Diego, 2011a 

Notes: The allowable increase in delay at a ramp meter with more than 15 minutes delay and freeway LOS E is 

2 minutes. The allowable increase in delay at a ramp meter with more than 15 minutes delay and freeway 

LOS F is 1 minute. 

1

 All LOS measurements are based upon Highway Capacity Manual procedures for peak-hour conditions. 

However, V/C ratios for roadway segments are estimated on an average daily traffic/24-hour traffic 

volume basis (using Table 2 of the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual). The acceptable LOS 

for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally D (C in undeveloped locations). For metered 

freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are considered 

excessive. 2

 If a proposed project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are 

determined to be significant. The project applicant shall then identify feasible improvements (within the 

Traffic Impact Study) that will restore and maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with 

the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see note 1 above), or if the project adds a significant 

amount of peak-hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on- or off-ramp storage capacities, the 

project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating the project’s direct significant and/or cumulatively 

considerable traffic impacts. 

Delay = average control delay per vehicle; LOS = level of service; min = minutes; mph = miles per hour; 

sec = seconds; V/C = volume-to-capacity

Less-than-Significant Impact (Freeway Interchanges). As shown in Table 3-22, the ILV 

analysis revealed that the intersections of Nobel Drive and the I-5 northbound off-ramp 

and I-5 southbound on-ramp would remain under capacity. 

Significant Impact (Roadways and Intersections). As described in Section 3.4.2.1, the 

No-Build Alternative in 2030 would result in significant impacts on 5 roadway segments 

and 16 intersections (10 in the southern subarea and 6 in the northern subarea) when 

compared to existing conditions. The No-Build Alternative under consideration assumes 

that the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be constructed and instead Route 

150 would continue to serve the corridor. While the improvements to Route 150 are not 

expected to result in direct, adverse impacts on roadway segments or intersections, 

traffic conditions would worsen between 2010 and 2030, resulting in significant impacts 

under the No-Build Alternative. Additionally, four intersections near the Taylor Street 

grade crossing would have higher delay under the No-Build Alternative when compared 

to the Refined Build Alternative because the Refined Build Alternative includes project 

features that improve performance of the grade crossing, which results in reduced delay 

at these intersections. These improvements would not occur under the No-Build 

Alternative. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-72 September 2014 

Refined Build Alternative 

Refer to Threshold 1 and Section 3.4.2.2 for a discussion of long-term impacts. 

Less-Than-Significant Impacts (Freeway Segments). The Refined Build Alternative 

would neither affect any freeway segments nor generate enough trips to require freeway 

ramp analysis per Caltrans or city guidelines; consequently impacts are considered less 

than significant. 

Less-Than-Significant Impacts (Freeway Interchanges). With the addition of the project 

to existing conditions, the freeway interchanges on Nobel Drive at the I-5 northbound offramp and the I-5 southbound on-ramp would continue to operate under capacity. Thus 

the impact would be considered less than significant. 

Significant Impact (Roadways). Similar to results for the Refined Build Alternative in 

2030, the segment of Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 

northbound off-ramp would experience an impact above the significance thresholds 

shown in Table 3-28 with the Refined Build Alternative in 2010. There is no feasible 

mitigation for this impact and thus, the project would result in a significant impact on this 

roadway segment. 

Significant Impact (Intersections). In the southern subarea, the Trolley operating plan for 

the project under existing conditions would provide for the extension of the Trolley Blue 

Line north from the OTTC to the UTC Transit Center at 7.5-minute frequencies during 

both peak and midday off-peak periods. The Trolley Green Line would operate at 15-

minute frequencies during both peak and midday off-peak periods, and terminate at the 

OTTC. Therefore, the project in 2010, compared to existing conditions, would increase 

the number of trains traveling through the Taylor Street grade crossing from 24 to 56 

during the two-hour peak period, while the number of trains traveling through the other 

seven grade crossings south of the OTTC would remain unchanged (Table 3-24). The 

number of COASTER and Amtrak trains would remain the same as under existing 

conditions. The project would include improvements to gate operations that would result 

in shorter gate down times at many grade crossings, as compared to existing conditions. 

During the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, all intersections in the southern subarea would 

operate at an acceptable level of service. Delays would be reduced at several 

intersections because of the shorter gate down times resulting from the more efficient 

gate operations provided by the project. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts to level 

of service at intersections would occur. 

In the northern subarea, additional station-area traffic on Mission Bay Drive and Garnet 

Avenue, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour, would increase delay by 

2.6 seconds and result in a significant impact at this location. No other intersections 

would experience a significant impact as a result of the project. 

Threshold 4: Would the project result in a substantial restriction in access to publically 

or privately owned land? 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-73 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would not 

substantially restrict access to publically or privately owned land. However, it would not 

substantially improve access to these facilities either. 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would not restrict 

access to publically or privately owned land as roadways would not be closed as part of 

the project. Further, as discussed in Section 3.4.4.2, the Refined Build Alternative would 

not require removal of any parking spaces in a manner that would restrict access. The 

Refined Build Alternative would provide improved transit service between University City 

and the OTTC, thus improving access to San Diego State Historic Park near the OTTC 

and publically and privately owned lands in University City. 

Threshold 5: Would the project increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or 

pedestrians due to proposed non-standard design features (e.g., poor sight distance, 

proposed driveway onto an access-restricted roadway)? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). Route 150 enhancements under the No-Build 

Alternative would not increase traffic hazards as a result of non-standard design 

features. 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would not increase 

traffic hazards due to proposed non-standard design features. While the Refined Build 

Alternative would include features that may be non-standard (e.g., reduced lane and 

median widths and setback from right-of-way), these features would not result in poor 

sight distance or result in hazards to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Additionally, 

all non-standard design features would be approved by the governing agency to ensure 

the features meet the safety requirements of that agency. 

Threshold 6: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). Route 150 enhancements under the No-Build 

Alternative would not restrict the movement of emergency vehicles. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in Section 

4.13.3, the Refined Build Alternative would not hinder emergency access and thus would 

have a less-than-significant impact. Further, all roadway modifications required for the 

Refined Build Alternative would be designed so as not to restrict the movement of 

emergency vehicles. 

Significance after Mitigation 

With implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 3.4.2.3, there 

would be significant and unavoidable long-term impacts on the Balboa Avenue roadway 

segment between the I-5 southbound on-ramp and the I-5 northbound off-ramp and at 

the intersections of Beech Street at Pacific Highway and Mission Bay Drive at Garnet 

Avenue. With mitigation, all other long-term impacts would be less than significant. 

The Refined Build Alternative in 2010 would result in significant impacts on the Balboa 

Avenue roadway segment between the I-5 southbound on-ramp and the I-5 northbound 

off-ramp and at the intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue. No feasible 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-74 September 2014 

mitigation measures exist to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance; 

therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. 

3.4.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian System Impacts 

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities play a key role in providing access to and from transit 

stations. Further, these facilities are a component of the accessibility goals established 

by SANDAG and the city. Accordingly, various SANDAG and city plans seek to expand 

the pedestrian and bicycle system between 2010 and 2030 to serve the needs of a 

growing population and to encourage travel by modes other than the automobile. 

3.4.3.1 Bicycle System Impacts 

Adverse impacts on the bicycle system would occur if the No-Build or Refined Build 

Alternatives remove or degrade a facility; beneficial impacts would occur if either 

alternative enhances the system by adding new facilities or upgrading existing ones. 

Typically, impacts (both beneficial and adverse) would be limited to areas immediately 

adjacent to the alignment and stations. 

No-Build Alternative 

SANDAG and the City of San Diego have established plans to expand the bicycle 

system by 2030. Appendix J of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation 

Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v) shows the 2030 bicycle system, based 

on these plans, beyond a quarter-mile of each Trolley station between and including the 

Santa Fe Depot and the UTC Transit Center. As the No-Build Alternative includes an 

expanded bicycle system compared to existing conditions, there would be a beneficial 

impact to bicyclists. Further, while the continuation and enhancement of Route 150 

would require construction of new transit stops, it is not anticipated that bicycle facilities 

would be adversely affected. 

Refined Build Alternative 

The bicycle system under the Refined Build Alternative would be the same as that for 

the No-Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative was reviewed to determine 

whether it conflicted with the 2030 RTP, the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan Riding to 

2050 (SANDAG, 2010d), and the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update (City of 

San Diego, 2011b). Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would encroach upon 

several portions of the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path between Santa Fe Street and the La 

Jolla Colony Drive/Gilman Drive interchange. The bike path would be realigned and 

reconstructed to City of San Diego and Caltrans requirements as part of the project; 

therefore, there would not be an adverse impact to the facility. Along Voigt Drive, 

support columns would impede upon existing bicycle facilities; however, these facilities 

would be realigned as part of the project and there would be no adverse impacts to the 

bicycle system with the Refined Build Alternative. 

As part of the Refined Build Alternative, bicycle lanes near some stations would be 

restriped upon the completion of construction work. For passengers choosing to access 

stations by bicycle, bicycle lockers would be provided at all stations under the Refined 

Build Alternative, which would be designed per SANDAG Design Criteria. This would 

allow passengers to leave their bicycle in a secure location. For passengers who want 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-75 

to bring their bicycle with them, bicycles would be allowed on Trolley vehicles, consistent 

with current practice. The Refined Build Alternative would not result in any adverse 

impacts to the bicycle system, and the provision of bicycle lockers at new stations could 

represent a beneficial impact in terms of connectivity between communities and transit. 

3.4.3.2 Pedestrian System Impacts 

Similar to impacts on the bicycle system, adverse impacts on the pedestrian system 

would occur if the No-Build or Refined Build Alternatives remove or degrade a facility, 

while beneficial impacts would occur if either alternative enhances the system. 

Typically, impacts (both beneficial and adverse) would be limited to areas immediately 

adjacent to the alignment and stations. Additionally, pedestrian activity around stations 

would increase under both alternatives. 

No-Build Alternative 

Some improvements to the pedestrian system could occur as new development or 

redevelopment occurs in the corridor; however, changes are not expected to be 

substantial. Consequently, there would not be an impact to the pedestrian system. 

Further, while the continuation and enhancement of Route 150 would require 

construction of new transit stops, it is not anticipated that pedestrian facilities would be 

adversely affected. 

Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative was reviewed and compared to the existing pedestrian 

system. As shown in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set, construction of an aerial LRT 

station at Executive Drive proposed in the Refined Build Alternative would require the 

removal of the existing pedestrian bridge across Genesee Avenue near Executive 

Square. Pedestrian grade-separated access across Genesee Avenue at this location 

would be provided through the aerial station platform at Executive Drive via ramps, 

elevators, and stairway facilities linking to the existing pedestrian facilities to the west 

and east sides of Genesee Avenue. 

Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would also require the removal of the 

pedestrian bridge across Genesee Avenue located mid-block between La Jolla Village 

Drive and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue 

would be provided approximately 500 feet to the south of the existing bridge at the 

intersection of Genesee Avenue and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway. Grade-separated 

pedestrian access across Genesee Avenue would also be accommodated through the 

aerial station platform at the UTC Transit Center to be located just south of Esplanade 

Court/UTC Driveway via ramps, elevators, and stairway facilities linking the LRT station 

to the parkway area along the west side of Genesee Avenue and the UTC Transit 

Center to the east of the LRT station. 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to the pedestrian 

system. Section 2.4.1.2 describes the pedestrian facilities that would be constructed as 

part of the project; all facilities would comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA). Examples of new pedestrian facilities include pedestrian access between the 

east side of West Morena Boulevard and Tecolote Road via new stairs and an ADA-
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-76 September 2014 

compliant ramp. Additionally, passengers using the Balboa Avenue Station would be 

able to cross over Balboa Avenue via the LRT bridge. Where new pedestrian facilities 

are constructed, the Refined Build Alternative would result in a beneficial impact. 

Pedestrian activity would increase around existing and proposed Trolley stations from 

transit passengers walking to and from the Trolley. The Series 11 model forecasts that 

each day, there would be approximately 7,000 additional walk trips to and from the 

existing Trolley stations compared to the No-Build Alternative. Additionally, there would 

be approximately 17,160 daily walking trips, combined to or from the nine new stations. 

The greatest number of walking trips is projected to and from the UCSD West Station. 

The Refined Build Alternative would maintain the existing flow of pedestrian movements 

around each station and, therefore, would not result in an adverse impact. Beneficial 

impacts would occur where new pedestrian facilities are constructed. 

3.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would encroach upon bicycle and pedestrian facilities in 

several locations; however, these facilities would be realigned as part of the project and, 

thus, no encroachment would remain. Consequently, there would not be any adverse 

impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and no mitigation is required. 

3.4.3.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project to pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities under existing conditions in 2010 and future conditions in 2030. 

Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding bicycle or 

pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities? 

SANDAG and the City of San Diego have adopted the following plans and policies 

related to the bicycle and pedestrian network: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan Riding to 

2050 (SANDAG, 2010d), City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update (City of San 

Diego, 2011b), and the 2030 RTP. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The continuation and enhancement of Route 150 

under the No-Build Alternative would not result in any significant impacts to bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities. Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would occur 

consistent with applicable plans. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would not conflict 

with any plans, policies, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian 

facilities, and would not decrease the performance of such facilities. The Refined Build 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-77 

Alternative in 2010 and 2030 would support several goals and objectives of the bicycle 

plans adopted by SANDAG and the City of San Diego; specifically, the following 

objectives from the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan: Riding to 2050 (SANDAG, 2010d): 

Objective 3: Support bicycle-transit integration to improve access to major employment 

and other activity centers and to encourage multimodal travel for longer trip distances. 

Objective 4: Ensure the provision of convenient and secure bicycle parking and support 

facilities region-wide. 

The Refined Build Alternative in 2010 and 2030 would provide reliable, efficient transit 

service connecting University City to downtown and areas west and south of downtown, 

thus improving access to major employment and activity centers. The San Diego 

Regional Bicycle Plan: Riding to 2050 (SANDAG, 2010d) also recommends coordination 

with transit providers to ensure bicycles can be accommodated on transit vehicles and 

that convenient and secure short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities are 

available at transit stations. Bicycle parking facilities would be included at all Refined 

Build Alternative stations, and bicycles would be allowed onboard Trolleys. 

Significance after Mitigation 

As the Refined Build Alternative would not result in significant impacts on the bicycle and 

pedestrian system, mitigation would not be required. As stated previously, the project 

would improve the bicycle and pedestrian system by providing bicycle parking at all 

stations and improving pedestrian facilities near some stations. 

3.4.4 Parking Impacts 

Two types of parking impacts could occur from the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives: permanent removal of parking spaces or spillover parking. The transit 

facilities needed to support Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative or the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project under the Refined Build Alternative could require the permanent 

removal of on- and off-street parking spaces. Additionally, while many transit 

passengers would access stations via transfers or by walking or bicycling, some 

passengers may choose to drive. Spillover parking occurs when those passengers 

cannot find designated transit parking and park elsewhere, either in a private lot or along 

a street, thus spilling over into other areas. Public parking supply is not anticipated to 

change substantially between 2010 and 2030, although supply could change at private 

properties, such as shopping centers. However, demand for public parking would 

increase as population, employment, and travel demand grow. 

3.4.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative 

would require construction of some transit stops; however, removal of parking is not 

anticipated. Parking demand at the OTTC under the No-Build Alternative was calculated 

based on projections from the Series 11 model. This is the only station in the corridor 

that would have a park-and-ride facility under the No-Build Alternative. Table 3-29 

presents the demand for parking at the OTTC for all transit services at that station 

(COASTER; buses, including Route 150; and the Trolley, as applicable). 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-78 September 2014 

Table 3-29. Spillover Parking Demand—2010 and 2030 

Station 

Existing 

Conditions 

and NoBuild 

Alternative 

Supply 

(No. of 

spaces 

provided) 

Existing Conditions 

(2010) 

No-Build Alternative 

(2030) Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

Total 

Demand 

(No. of 

spaces 

needed) 

Total 

Demand in 

Excess of 

Supply 

(Spillover)

Total 

Demand 

(No. of 

spaces 

needed) 

Total Demand 

in Excess of 

Supply 

(Spillover) 

Refined 

Build 

Alternative 

Supply (No. 

of spaces 

provided) 

Total 

Demand 

(No. of 

spaces 

needed) 

Total Demand 

in Excess of 

Supply 

(Spillover)* 

Old Town 

Transit 

Center 

397 638 241 753 356 397 624 227 

Tecolote 

Rd 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 280 280 0 

Clairemont 

Dr 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 150 150 0 

Balboa 

Ave 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 220 382 162 

Nobel Dr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 260 258 -2 

UTC 

Transit 

Center 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 260 260 0 

Total 397 638 241 753 356 1,567 1,953 389 

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: * Negative spillover values indicate excess capacity 

N/A = not applicable (new stations would only be constructed under the Refined Build Alternative); 

UTC = University Towne Centre 

Under existing conditions, 397 spaces are available at the OTTC for transit passengers 

to park during the day; there are no plans to expand parking supply. Based on forecasts 

from the Series 11 model, parking demand at the OTTC under the No-Build Alternative 

would increase to 753 spaces compared to 638 spaces under existing conditions (Table 

3-29). As shown, parking demand would increase by 18 percent between existing 

conditions and the No-Build Alternative with demand exceeding supply in 2030 without 

the project. This would be an adverse impact; however, continuation and enhancement 

of bus Route 150 would not significantly contribute to this impact. 

3.4.4.2 Refined Build Alternative 

On- and Off-Street Parking Impacts 

The Refined Build Alternative would affect on- and off-street parking spaces. As shown 

in Table 3-30, the Refined Build Alternative would result in the permanent loss of 602 

parking spaces, including 15 on-street and 587 off-street spaces. Coordination has 

occurred with several stakeholders along the alignment to determine if any planned, 

future increases in parking could be affected by the Refined Build Alternative (primarily 

La Jolla Village Square shopping center, the VA Medical Center, UCSD, and the 

Westfield UTC shopping center). Based on this coordination, the Refined Build 

Alternative would not affect the location of any planned parking on the La Jolla Village 

Square, VA Medical Center, or UCSD properties. Representatives from the Westfield 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-79 

Table 3-30. Impacts on Parking—Refined Build Alternative (2030) 

Location 

Anticipated Parking Spaces 

Removed 

Description of Effect 

On-StreetNB/EB On-StreetSB/WB Off-Street 

West Morena Blvd from Vega 

St to Tecolote Rd 

15 0 0 New bus bays would displace parking on 

east side of the street. 

Tecolote Rd Station (Morena 

Plaza) 

0 0 93 The Tecolote Road Station park-and-ride 

facility would permanently remove shopping 

center parking spaces. 

Clairemont Dr Station Site 0 0 0 Station parking would displace unused 

business property parking, including three 

handicapped spaces; all on-street 

improvements affect current no parking 

areas; parking lot would be restriped; no net 

loss. 

Nobel Dr Station Site 0 0 0 Station parking would displace some of the 

existing shopping center parking; the parkand-ride structure constructed for the 

Refined Build Alternative would 

accommodate displaced parking; no net 

loss. 

South of Gilman (Leased to 

VA) UCSD Parking Lot P406 - 

north of VA Medical Center and 

Gilman Dr 

0 0 12 Column location would block access to 

parking spaces. 

UCSD East Campus Parking 

Lot west of baseball field (Lot 

701) 

0 0 7 TPSS would remove parking spaces. 

UCSD East Campus and 

Parking lot west of Campus 

Point Dr (Lot P702) 

0 0 183 Station parking would displace some 

existing campus parking; no effect on 

current on-street parking (on-street parking 

currently not allowed). Column location 

would land in parking spaces. 

UCSD “Regents” Parking Lot 0 0 5 Column location would land in parking 

spaces and blocks access to those spaces. 

UTC Transit Center 0 0 287 260 parking spaces would be acquired for 

transit parking, and TPSS would require 

removal of 27 spaces. 

Total 15 0 587

Source: Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 2: Plan Set

Notes: EB = eastbound; NB = northbound; SB = southbound; TPSS = traction power substation; UCSD = University 

of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans Administration; WB = westbound 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-80 September 2014 

UTC shopping center indicated that the traffic mitigation at Genesee Avenue and 

Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway (referred to as Mitigation Measure TR10 in Table 3-27) 

could impact future parking. Coordination will continue with the shopping center during 

final design, and any potential reduction in the area available to construct future parking 

would be minimized to the extent feasible. Regardless of whether future parking spaces 

are affected by this mitigation measure, SANDAG would compensate the shopping 

center for the acquisition of property needed to accommodate the widening of the 

driveway. 

On-street parking spaces would be removed near the Tecolote Road Station to allow for 

a bus turnout. The nearest business that was potentially using these spaces would be 

displaced by the project. Displacement of this business would reduce the need for onstreet parking, so the parking impact would not be adverse. 

Of the 587 off-street parking spaces removed, 380 spaces are from commercial/private 

properties, 195 are used by UCSD, and 12 are used by the VA Medical Center. Per 

federal, state, and local requirements, as described in Section 4.3.1, compensation 

would be provided to private property owners for the loss of parking spaces. Although 

93 parking spaces would be removed from Morena Plaza, overall demand for parking at 

this location would be reduced as one commercial business would be displaced by the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, 287 parking spaces would be acquired from the 

Westfield UTC shopping center. Of these, 260 parking spaces are required for transit 

parking at the UTC Transit Center. The acquisition of these spaces would not result in 

adverse parking impacts because this acquisition would not reduce the shopping 

center's existing parking supply (approximately 4,500 spaces) below the current parking 

demand. Current demand is based on the existing amount of commercial space at the 

Westfield UTC shopping center and the ratio of parking spaces to commercial space as 

calculated from the approved development permit; this demand is estimated at 

approximately 4,200 spaces. Further, the shopping center, under a development permit 

with the City of San Diego, is required to provide a minimum number of on-site parking 

spaces to correspond to the planned redevelopment and expansion of the center. The 

shopping center site has the capacity to provide additional parking spaces as needed 

through the construction of multi-level parking garages at various locations on the site. 

SANDAG also proposes to construct a traction power substation (TPSS) at the Westfield 

UTC shopping center. The location of the TPSS would require reconfiguration of the 

existing surface parking lot and removal of 27 parking spaces. Although the existing 

surface lot is located within an area of the shopping center proposed for redevelopment, 

the removal of these spaces may increase the number of parking spaces acquired from 

260 to 287, depending on the design of the planned Westfield UTC shopping center 

expansion. However, the Westfield UTC shopping center’s parking supply would still 

remain above the minimum site requirements. 

The loss of parking at the UCSD campus would occur in several parking lots and, with 

the exception of the parking lot west of Campus Point Drive, would represent between 1 

and 3 percent of total supply within each parking lot. The largest number of lost parking 

spaces would occur at the parking lot west of Campus Point Drive (29 percent of the 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-81 

638 spaces). Based on parking utilization surveys conducted by UCSD in the summer 

of 2013, this parking lot was approximately 49 percent utilized (UCSD, 2013) (according 

to quarterly parking surveys, the highest parking utilization for the year occurred in the 

summer of 2013). Therefore, sufficient parking would remain to accommodate demand 

and there would not be an adverse impact to parking at UCSD. Additionally, UCSD 

plans indicate that this parking lot will be eliminated with future development. 

The removal of 12 parking spaces from the parking lot leased by UCSD to the VA 

Medical Center would represent approximately 4 percent of the total parking supply for 

that lot (340 total spaces). The VA Medical Center has other existing parking facilities 

and plans to increase its parking supply. Therefore, there would not be an adverse 

impact to parking at the VA Medical Center. 

In other locations, off-street parking spaces would be relocated either by restriping the 

parking lot or including spaces in a joint-use parking facility constructed as part of the 

project. In these instances, there would be no net loss of parking and, therefore, there 

would not be an adverse impact on those parking spaces. 

Spillover Parking Impacts 

A spillover parking analysis was conducted for the OTTC and the five proposed stations 

that would provide transit parking. It was determined that a spillover parking analysis 

would not be needed at the UCSD West, UCSD East, or VA Medical Center Stations 

because parking in these areas is regulated by UCSD or the VA Medical Center. 

Consequently, transit passengers would be unable to park at existing spaces in these 

areas. Further, a spillover parking analysis was deemed unnecessary at the Executive 

Drive Station because there is little available parking around the Executive Drive Station 

and the station would be approximately 1,500 feet (0.3 mile) from the UTC Transit 

Center. Thus transit passengers wishing to park near the Executive Drive Station would 

be unable to find a place to park and likely drive to the UTC Transit Center instead. 

Analysis revealed that sufficient transit parking would be provided at the Tecolote Road, 

Clairemont Drive, and Nobel Drive Stations and at the UTC Transit Center (Table 3-29). 

Consequently, spillover parking is not expected to occur at these stations and there 

would not be an adverse impact. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the demand for parking at the OTTC would be nearly 

twice as high as available supply (Table 3-29). Under the Refined Build Alternative, 

however, parking demand would decrease by 129 spaces (17 percent) because 

additional parking would be provided at the new Trolley stations north of the OTTC. 

Consequently, some passengers who would have parked or desired to park at the OTTC 

would park at the new Trolley stations, thus reducing the demand for parking at the 

OTTC. As the Refined Build Alternative would reduce the demand for parking at this 

station, there would not be an adverse impact and mitigation would not be required. 

The demand for parking at the Balboa Avenue Station would exceed the planned 

capacity of the parking facility by about 160 spaces. Additional capacity is not proposed 

to be added to the planned surface park-and-ride lot at this time because it is not 

feasible to construct a parking structure on site due to an active earthquake fault. 

Therefore, to account for worst-case conditions, parking is assumed to be limited to 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-82 September 2014 

surface parking only. Distance and topography, particularly the grade differential 

between the Balboa Avenue Station and the residential streets with on-street parking to 

the east of Morena Boulevard, would discourage transit patrons from parking on 

residential streets farther from the station. For example, parking at existing on-street 

facilities would require crossing busy streets, such as Morena Boulevard, or walking 

along Balboa Avenue and crossing under the I-5 overcrossing to reach the station 

platform. Such a walk likely would be a deterrent for those wishing to park near this 

station if parking spaces were not available in the station park-and-ride lot. Additionally, 

the majority of available on-street parking is located on residential side streets and is not 

visible from the main roadways that provide access to the station (i.e., Morena 

Boulevard and Balboa Avenue). Further, pedestrian access from parking on these side 

streets to the station is not convenient. Consequently, it is not expected that spillover 

parking would result in an adverse impact on the existing on-street parking supply in this 

area and mitigation would not be required. 

As a result of comments received during the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period, a spillover 

parking analysis was conducted for a one-half-mile area around the Balboa Avenue 

Station to assess available parking supply. The analysis identified 100 available spaces 

within a one-quarter-mile walk of the station and approximately 800 additional available 

spaces within a one-half-mile walk of the station during the midday period when parking at 

the Balboa Avenue Station could likely be full. The spillover parking analysis indicates 

there is adequate on-street parking to accommodate unmet demand in the unlikely event 

of spillover parking; however, the parking spaces that are closer to the station would be 

more desirable (e.g., along Morena Boulevard, a non-residential area). 

In the unlikely situation that transit patrons do park on-street, they are anticipated to find 

on-street spaces within one-half mile of the station (approximately a 10-minute walk) 

without substantially displacing parking for existing residents. Drivers who do not park in 

the park-and-ride lot or on-street likely would drive to another station with available 

parking or drive to their ultimate destination rather than taking transit. The ridership 

numbers presented in this chapter are based on the planned supply of parking at each 

station; consequently, unmet parking demand at the Balboa Avenue Station would not 

decrease ridership below what is presented in the SEIS/SEIR. 

3.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in the permanent loss of 602 parking spaces, 

including 15 on-street and 587 off-street spaces, which would be spread throughout the 

corridor. Compensation for removal of off-street spaces would be provided to private 

property owners in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations as described in 

Section 4.3; consequently, mitigation is not required for the loss of off-street spaces. 

Although 93 off-street parking spaces would be removed from Morena Plaza, overall 

demand for parking in this location would be reduced as one commercial business would 

be displaced by the Refined Build Alternative. 

The acquisition of parking spaces from the Westfield UTC shopping center would not 

result in an adverse impact because the acquisition of these spaces would not reduce 

the center's existing parking supply (approximately 4,500 spaces) below the current 

parking demand. Current demand is based on the existing amount of commercial space 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-83 

at the Westfield UTC shopping center and the ratio of parking spaces to commercial 

space as calculated from the approved development permit; this demand is estimated at 

approximately 4,200 spaces. 

No mitigation would be required for the loss of the 15 on-street parking spaces near the 

Tecolote Road Station. The nearest business that would potentially use the spaces 

would be displaced and the site would be used for the Tecolote Road Station. 

Displacement of this business would reduce the need for on-street parking; therefore, no 

mitigation would be required. 

3.4.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on parking under 

existing conditions in 2010 and future conditions in 2030. 

Would the project substantially affect parking supply? 

No-Build Alternative 

Significant Impact (Parking). The continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 

under the No-Build Alternative would require construction of some transit stops; 

however, removal of parking is not anticipated. Parking demand at the OTTC under the 

No-Build Alternative (Table 3-29) would be the highest compared to demand in 2010 

(Table 3-31) and under the Refined Build Alternative in 2030, which would represent a 

significant impact on parking supply. 

Refined Build Alternative 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (On and Off-Street Parking). Since public on- and offstreet parking supply is not anticipated to change substantially between 2010 and 2030, 

parking impacts from the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 would be the same as the 

long-term impacts shown in Table 3-30. Private property owners would be compensated 

consistent with federal, state, and local regulations. Although 93 parking spaces would 

be removed from Morena Plaza, overall demand for parking in this location could be 

reduced as one commercial business would be displaced by the Refined Build 

Alternative. The acquisition of parking spaces from the Westfield UTC shopping center 

would not result in a significant impact because the acquisition of these spaces would 

not reduce the center's parking supply (approximately 4,500 spaces) below the current 

parking demand. Current demand is based on the existing amount of commercial space 

at the Westfield UTC shopping center and the ratio of parking spaces to commercial 

space as calculated from the approved development permit, and is estimated at 4,200 

spaces. Consequently, there would be no near-term significant parking impact. 

Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact to on- and off-street parking 

supply. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-84 September 2014 

Table 3-31. Spillover Parking Demand—2010 

Station

Existing 

Supply (No. 

of spaces 

provided)

Existing Conditions

(2010)

Existing Conditions with Refined Build 

Alternative (2010)

Total 

Demand 

(No. of 

spaces 

needed)

Total 

Demand in 

Excess of 

Supply 

(Spillover) 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

Supply (No. of 

spaces 

provided) 

Total 

Demand 

(No. of 

spaces 

needed)

Total Demand in 

Excess of 

Supply 

(Spillover)*

Old Town Transit 

Center

397 638 241 397 442 45

Tecolote Rd N/A N/A N/A 280 242 -38

Clairemont Dr N/A N/A N/A 150 150 0

Balboa Ave N/A N/A N/A 220 482 262

Nobel Dr N/A N/A N/A 260 278 18

UTC Transit 

Center

N/A N/A N/A 260 253 -7

Total 397 638 241 1,567 1,847 280

Source: Series 11 model 

Notes: * Negative spillover values indicate excess capacity. 

N/A = not applicable (new stations would only be constructed under the Refined Build Alternative); 

UTC = University Towne Centre 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Spillover Parking). A spillover parking analysis was 

conducted for the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 for the same stations analyzed under 

the Refined Build Alternative in 2030. As shown in Table 3-31, the Refined Build 

Alternative in 2010 would provide sufficient parking at the Tecolote Road and Clairemont 

Drive Stations and the UTC Transit Center. Consequently, spillover parking is not 

expected to occur near these stations. 

Based on projections from the Series 11 model, parking demand is projected to exceed 

the supply at the OTTC and the Balboa Avenue and Nobel Drive Stations with the 

Refined Build Alternative in 2010. Under existing conditions, the Series 11 model 

projected the demand for parking at the OTTC to be nearly twice as high as available 

supply. With the addition of the project, the projected parking demand would decrease 

by 196 spaces (30 percent). Therefore, the project would reduce the total demand for 

parking, including the demand for parking for Trolley Blue Line passengers at the OTTC; 

there would not be a significant impact and mitigation would not be required. Long-term 

impacts at the OTTC would be the same as those described in Section 3.4.4.2. 

The demand for parking at the Balboa Avenue Station would be approximately 260 

spaces in excess of the planned capacity of the parking facility. Similar to long-term 

conditions in 2030, it is not expected that spillover parking would have a significant 

impact on the existing on-street parking supply near the Balboa Avenue Station. At the 

Nobel Drive Station, demand for parking would be approximately 18 spaces, or 7 

percent, in excess of the planned capacity of the parking facility. 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. Consequently, the project would not have a 

significant impact on parking supply near the Nobel Drive Station. There would be no 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-85 

long-term significant impacts on parking near the Nobel Drive Station as the park-andride facility would accommodate projected demand. 

Significance after Mitigation 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts on parking 

supply and would result in less-than-significant spillover parking impacts near the OTTC 

or the Balboa Avenue or Nobel Drive Stations in 2010 or 2030; consequently, mitigation 

is not required. 

3.4.5 Freight Impacts 

In 2030, vehicular and rail freight will continue to be important means of moving freight 

through the Mid-Coast Corridor. Increases in traffic congestion from the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives could impact vehicular freight movement, and operation and 

maintenance of the Refined Build Alternative in the LOSSAN corridor could impact rail 

freight. 

3.4.5.1 No-Build Alternative 

The continuation and enhancement of Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would 

require additional bus service traveling on I-5 and major streets within the corridor, but 

these additional vehicles would have a minimal impact on vehicular freight traffic. A 25-

percent increase in auto person trips is projected between existing conditions in 2010 

and the No-Build Alternative in 2030, and VHD is estimated to increase by 54 percent 

within the corridor. This added delay on freeways and arterials would impact vehicular 

freight, which could result in increased costs and delays to deliveries. Consequently, 

there would be an adverse impact on vehicular freight movement. Route 150 would be 

separated from the LOSSAN rail tracks and consequently would not affect rail freight. 

3.4.5.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative could affect vehicular and rail freight. Vehicular impacts 

could occur from modification of roadways to accommodate the Refined Build Alternative 

alignment and stations, the increased frequency of preemption events in the southern 

subarea, or the addition of traffic in the northern subarea. Additionally, impacts to rail 

freight could occur for the portion of the Refined Build Alternative that is adjacent to the 

LOSSAN tracks. 

Vehicular Freight 

Any street modifications required as part of the Refined Build Alternative would be 

designed so as not to adversely impact freight movement. However, in the southern 

subarea, the Refined Build Alternative would result in additional gate down time at grade 

crossings between Santa Fe Depot and the San Diego River, and in the northern 

subarea, there would be additional station area traffic on roadways, both of which could 

increase delay at intersections and impact vehicular freight movement. As described in 

Section 3.4.2.2, there would be adverse impacts at 15 intersections during peak periods 

under the Refined Build Alternative. However, vehicular freight travel generally occurs 

outside the peak period when the roadways are less congested. As station area traffic 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-86 September 2014 

and COASTER and Amtrak frequencies would also be lower during off-peak periods, 

there would be a minimal impact to freight movement during off-peak periods. 

The Refined Build Alternative would also result in an impact on one roadway segment 

during the course of a day. However, this segment of Balboa Avenue is approximately 

720 feet (0.13 mile) long, and the Refined Build Alternative would increase the daily 

volume by less than 1 percent. Therefore, while an unmitigated traffic impact remains, it 

is not anticipated to adversely impact vehicular freight. 

Minor decreases in auto person trips and VHD are projected with the Refined Build 

Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative, which could provide a minor benefit to 

vehicular freight movement and potentially offset delays from the additional gate down 

time and increased traffic near stations. As a result, there would be no adverse impacts 

on vehicular freight. 

Rail Freight 

For rail freight, improvements and modifications to approximately 1.3 miles of the 

LOSSAN tracks in the vicinity of SR 52 would be required under the Refined Build 

Alternative. Because of the separation of the Trolley and LOSSAN tracks, operation of 

the new Trolley tracks in the LOSSAN corridor would not have an adverse impact on rail 

freight. Future maintenance work on the Trolley tracks may require slow orders for all 

traffic on the LOSSAN tracks. As maintenance work is expected to occur infrequently, 

this would have a minor impact on freight operations. Access from Morena Boulevard to 

the west side of the LOSSAN tracks would be provided across the Trolley tracks at two 

locations south of Balboa Avenue. In the vicinity of SR 52, a maintenance access road 

to the existing Control Point Elvira would be removed to allow for the double tracking of 

the LOSSAN tracks and construction of the LRT tracks. The control point would be 

moved farther south where access can be provided from Santa Fe Street. Therefore 

there would not be an adverse impact. 

Removal of the spur track located south of Tecolote Road would not have an impact 

because rail freight service is not provided to any of the businesses along this spur track 

(additional information on the spur track is provided in Section 4.3.3.2). 

3.4.5.3 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts on vehicular freight. 

Additionally, no adverse impacts have been identified to the rail freight system and, 

consequently, mitigation would not be necessary. 

3.4.5.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-87 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would the project impede or slow the transport of freight? 

No-Build Alternative 

Significant Impact (Vehicular Freight). The continuation and enhancement of bus Route 

150 under the No-Build Alternative would have no impact on the transport of freight; 

however, VHD would be substantially higher under the No-Build Alternative compared to 

existing conditions and higher than the Refined Build Alternative, which would result in 

significant impacts for vehicular freight. 

No Impact (Rail Freight). The continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 would 

not have an impact on rail freight. 

Refined Build Alternative 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Vehicular Freight). Long-term impacts of the Refined 

Build Alternative in 2030 were identified in Section 3.4.5.2. Generally, impacts of the 

Refined Build Alternative on existing freight movement would be similar to those 

described for the Refined Build Alternative in 2030. In the southern subarea, the project 

would not result in additional preemptions as the same number of trains would travel 

through the Ash, Beech, Cedar, Washington, Sassafras, and Noell Street grade 

crossings compared to existing conditions. However, gate operations would be 

optimized, as described in Section 2.4.1.4, which would result in gates being down for a 

shorter period, thus benefitting freight movement in that area. At the Taylor Street grade 

crossing, the number of Trolley vehicles traveling through the crossing would increase; 

however, gate operation would be optimized. Consequently, there would be a less-thansignificant impact on freight movement through this grade crossing. In the northern 

subarea, the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 would result in a significant impact at the 

Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue intersection during the p.m. peak period and on 

Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp. 

However, as stated previously, freight movement primarily occurs outside peak periods. 

Additionally, the Refined Build Alternative in 2010 would increase the daily roadway 

volume by approximately 1 percent on this 720-foot-long segment of Balboa Avenue. 

Consequently, significant impacts are not anticipated to vehicular freight movement 

traveling through these areas. 

Long-term impacts of the Refined Build Alternative in 2030 are identified in Section 

3.4.5.2. Vehicular freight impacts would occur during the peak periods at intersections 

that would operate at an unacceptable level of service or along the segment of Balboa 

Avenue that would be significantly affected by the Refined Build Alternative. However, 

vehicular freight primarily operates outside peak periods; therefore, impacts are not 

anticipated to be significant. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-88 September 2014 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Rail Freight). Impacts to rail freight in 2010 would be the 

same as the long-term impacts described in Section 3.4.5.2 for the Refined Build 

Alternative in 2030. Operation of the new Trolley tracks in the LOSSAN corridor would 

not result in a significant impact. In addition, removal of the spur track located south of 

Tecolote Road would not have a significant impact because freight service is not 

provided to any of the businesses along this spur track. 

Significance after Mitigation 

Operation of the Refined Build Alternative in both the short and long term would result in 

less-than-significant impacts to vehicular and rail freight; consequently, mitigation is not 

required. 

3.4.6 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

This section discusses transportation-related indirect and cumulative impacts of the NoBuild and Refined Build Alternatives. 

3.4.6.1 Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects include the reasonably foreseeable secondary effects of the project that 

generally occur later in time or that are farther removed in distance from the project. 

These impacts can only be discussed qualitatively, as quantification of these impacts 

would be speculative. Under the No-Build Alternative, this would include indirect effects 

from the continuation and enhancement of Route 150, while for the Refined Build 

Alternative indirect effects would be related to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Indirect effects of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives could include increases in 

traffic congestion at other intersections in the corridor, including those located farther 

from the Route 150 or Refined Build Alternative alignment. Under the No-Build 

Alternative, these impacts could occur because fewer new transit passengers would 

switch from automobiles to transit to make their trip. Under the Refined Build 

Alternative, increases in traffic on roadways could increase as passengers drive to 

access the stations; however, these additional trips would be below the city guidelines 

requiring an impact analysis and consequently any impacts would be minor. The 

decrease in VMT in the corridor under the Refined Build Alternative compared to the NoBuild Alternative would reduce wear and tear on roadways, which also would decrease 

maintenance costs. 

An indirect effect from the absence of new parking facilities under the No-Build 

Alternative could be an increase in parking demand in other locations of the corridor, 

particularly in Downtown San Diego and University City. Such an impact could occur 

because individuals may decide to drive to their destination, thus requiring parking, or 

may attempt to park near a bus stop, thus resulting in spillover parking impacts. In 

comparison, the Refined Build Alternative could indirectly decrease parking demand in 

other locations of the corridor—such as Downtown San Diego, UCSD, or University 

City—as individuals switch from an automobile to transit or use the new transit parking 

provided as part of the project. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-89 

The enhancement of Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would include the 

construction of new bus stops along Morena Boulevard. These new bus stops could 

focus future land use development in these areas, consistent with adopted community 

plans. Under the Refined Build Alternative, enhanced mobility could create opportunities 

for more intensive and focused urban growth near new transit stations and corridors 

compared to the No-Build Alternative, as well as for continuing growth in areas made 

accessible by these new transit services. The growth created under the Refined 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. 

The Refined Build Alternative would directly result in increased pedestrian and bicycling 

activity near station areas. This would have a beneficial indirect effect, as pedestrian 

and bicycle activity would increase the perceived vitality of the surrounding 

communities. In addition, bicycle routes within the corridor, particularly Class I and 

Class II facilities, could directly experience higher usage from the increased access that 

the Refined Build Alternative would provide. This could have an indirect effect on 

bicyclists using these facilities who are not traveling to the stations if the increased 

volumes hinder their movement. However, the need for additional bicycle facilities is not 

anticipated and, consequently, an adverse indirect effect would not occur. 

3.4.6.2 Cumulative Effects 

The section evaluates potential cumulative impacts of the Refined Build Alternative when 

the impacts are combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(Code of Federal Regulations 1508.7), including both public and private actions. Section 

15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual 

impacts that, when considered together, are considerable and may compound or 

increase environmental impacts. According to both federal and state guidelines, 

cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, project 

impacts. 

The cumulative analysis contained in this document includes an analysis of both (1) 

projects that are either approved or being considered for approval by SANDAG, the City 

of San Diego, USCD, and other agencies (or anticipated to be submitted for 

consideration, including projects in the design phase or under construction) and (2) 

growth projections set forth in regional plans, including regional modeling plans. Various 

related environmental documents and regional plans were reviewed and used in the 

cumulative analysis and included, but were not limited to, the following: 

 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (SANDAG, 2007c) 

 2050 RTP Program EIR (SANDAG, 2011c) 

 Final Program EIR for the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the San Diego 

Region (SANDAG, 2004b) 

 UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Final Environmental Impact 

Report (UCSD, 2004c) 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-90 September 2014 

 Los Angeles to San Diego Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements (LOSSAN) Final 

Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Federal 

Railroad Administration and Caltrans, 2007) 

Of the documents listed above, both the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP EIRs evaluated the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in the Revenue Constrained Scenario. Thus, the 

analyses in these documents were most applicable to evaluation of the project. The 

Mid-Coast Corridor served as the study area for the cumulative impact analysis; 

however, cumulative impacts could occur throughout the region. 

The Refined Build Alternative would increase the capacity and expand the reach of the 

Trolley system in a congested corridor; therefore, the overall effect of the Refined Build 

Alternative on the transit system would be beneficial. Even when considering the time 

required for passengers to access the new Trolley service, the Refined Build Alternative 

would decrease travel time and improve system reliability. When combined with other 

planned transit projects and improvements assumed in the 2030 RTP, a beneficial 

cumulative effect would accrue to the entire San Diego region, and, in particular, to the 

Mid-Coast Corridor. In comparison, bus Route 150 would be enhanced under the NoBuild Alternative, with the addition of bus stops in areas not served by express bus 

service under existing conditions. Such a modification would improve transit service in 

these areas; however, as buses would still operate in mixed traffic, this beneficial impact 

would be less than that achieved by the Refined Build Alternative. 

The traffic analysis in Section 3.4.2.2 presented impacts for the Refined Build Alternative 

in 2030 compared to conditions that would occur under the No-Build Alternative. Traffic 

volumes for the No-Build Alternative were based on projections from the Series 11 model, 

which include the planned growth in population and employment as detailed in the city’s 

general plan, community plans, and the 2030 RTP. Additionally, traffic volumes from other 

planning documents, such as the UCSD LRDP (UCSD, 2004a), and traffic studies 

approved by the city for private developments, were reviewed and incorporated into the 

traffic volumes for the No-Build Alternative. As a result, the traffic volumes used for the 

No-Build Alternative represent the cumulative future condition based on the effects of 

regional growth and various individual projects on the transportation system in 2030. To 

develop the traffic volumes used for the Refined Build Alternative, projections of the 

number of vehicles that would access the proposed Trolley stations during the peak hour 

under the Refined Build Alternative were added to the traffic volumes for the No-Build 

Alternative. Consequently, this analysis showed whether the addition of the project would 

contribute an adverse condition on any roadway segment or intersection. 

The analysis showed that the Refined Build Alternative would contribute to cumulatively 

significant impacts to the roadway system as a result of an increase in gate down times 

at 13 intersections in the southern subarea and additional station-area traffic on 1 

roadway segment and 2 intersections in the northern subarea. Mitigation measures 

were identified that would minimize the project impacts to below a level of significance at 

13 of the 15 intersections. Mitigation for project impacts at these locations is sufficient to 

ensure that cumulatively significant impacts are eliminated or reduced to a level that is 

less than the impact level under the No-Build Alternative without the project. Thus, after 

mitigation, project impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable at these 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-91 

intersections. No feasible mitigation measures were identified for one roadway segment 

(Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp) and 

two intersections (Beech Street at Pacific Highway and Mission Bay Drive at Garnet 

Avenue), and thus a cumulative impact that cannot be mitigated would occur at these 

three locations. Because the traffic analysis for the Refined Build Alternative represents 

the cumulative transportation system in 2030, these adverse impacts are considered 

adverse under NEPA and cumulatively considerable and significant under CEQA. 

In general, the Refined Build Alternative is projected to decrease VMT, auto trips, and 

VHD compared to the No-Build Alternative. As a result, the incremental effect of the 

Refined Build Alternative on the regionwide roadway system would be beneficial and 

would not contribute to a cumulative adverse impact. 

No cumulatively significant impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking, or freight 

were identified. The Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts on the 

parking supply. Parking demand at the OTTC would decrease, resulting in a beneficial 

impact at this location. In addition, the Refined Build Alternative may have an indirect 

beneficial impact on parking demand, particularly in Downtown San Diego and University 

City, as travelers switch from automobiles to transit and use the transit parking provided 

as part of the project. Consequently, the project would not contribute to any 

cumulatively significant impact on the parking supply. 

The cumulative impact determination was based in part on a review of regional land use 

planning documents. The cumulative impact findings for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project are similar to those described in the Final EIR for the 2030 RTP (SANDAG, 

2007c). The EIR found that implementation of the 2030 RTP projects would reduce 

regional transportation and circulation impacts that otherwise are expected to occur if the 

2030 RTP projects were not implemented. The EIR concluded that the traffic and 

circulation impacts of the 2030 RTP would be beneficial and thus not cumulatively 

considerable. This is similar to the conclusions reached in the LOSSAN Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Federal Railroad Administration and 

Caltrans, 2007). 

The findings in the SEIS/SEIR differ slightly from those presented in the EIRs prepared 

for the 2050 RTP (SANDAG, 2011c), the RCP for the San Diego Region (SANDAG, 

2004a), the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008b), and the UCSD 

LRDP (UCSD, 2004a). The 2050 RTP EIR did not identify any significant direct 

transportation impacts in 2035 (one of the horizon years included in the RTP); however, 

it did identify significant cumulative transportation impacts from other proposed 

infrastructure projects. Similarly, the EIRs prepared for the RCP, the City of San Diego 

General Plan, and the UCSD LRDP identified cumulatively significant and unavoidable 

impacts to the localized roadway system. These EIRs largely assumed that while 

individual projects are required to prepare an environmental document before starting 

development, not all traffic impacts may be mitigated, as is the case for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project. In the case of UCSD, many of the mitigation measures that 

would avoid cumulative transportation impacts were outside the university’s jurisdiction 

and thus could not be guaranteed. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-92 September 2014 

Largely, these EIRs did not consider cumulative impacts to other components of the 

transportation system, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or freight; 

although the EIR for the UCSD LRDP stated there would be no cumulatively significant 

impacts to parking, which is consistent with the findings of the SEIS/SEIR for the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project. 

3.4.7 Transportation Impacts during Construction 

Unlike the permanent impacts identified in the preceding sections, construction impacts 

are temporary in nature, lasting for the duration of construction activity in a particular 

area. Construction impacts and mitigation associated with the individual projects 

assumed in the No-Build Alternative would be determined during separate environmental 

review independent of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project; therefore, these projects 

were not assessed for construction impacts within the SEIS/SEIR. Construction activity 

related to Route 150 would be limited to construction of new bus stops primarily within 

existing rights-of-way and would not be considered adverse. 

Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would affect transit, freeways and 

roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking, and freight systems. Several 

different techniques would be used to manage construction impacts to the transportation 

system, including detours, slow orders along rail routes, adjustments to vehicular freight 

routes, and road closures. Implementation of the mitigation measures described in this 

section would be the responsibility of SANDAG. For additional information, refer to the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report 

(SANDAG, 2014v) and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014s). 

The AA/DEIS/DEIR identified impacts to traffic resulting from construction of at-grade 

crossings and LRT stations in University City. Traffic impacts also were identified 

around construction staging areas. Based on findings in the SEIS/SEIR, construction 

activity and traffic around staging areas would impact traffic; however, there would not 

be construction of at-grade crossings. Mitigation in the AA/DEIS/DEIR included 

developing a Traffic Management Plan; establishing temporary lanes, sidewalks, and 

bus stops; and constructing at-grade crossings sequentially to minimize traffic impacts. 

These mitigation measures are similar to the project features proposed in the 

SEIS/SEIR. For example, left turns would be prohibited on Genesee Avenue at several 

intersections during construction, but construction activity would be phased so adjacent 

major intersections are not closed at the same time. The AA/DEIS/DEIR did not identify 

impacts to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking, or freight and concluded that 

there would not be any adverse impacts after mitigation. 

The 2001 FEIS identified construction impacts to bus transit service, rail service on 

LOSSAN tracks, traffic near proposed stations, and sidewalks. The FEIS concluded that 

parking impacts and impacts on rail freight would not occur. While the SEIS/SEIR does 

have similar conclusions, it differs in that parking impacts would occur, particularly in the 

University City area. Both the 2001 FEIS and the SEIS/SEIR propose to minimize 

impacts with a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-93 

Since circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, one staging and laydown area was added while 

four construction staging and laydown areas were removed. The change in the number 

and location of staging areas reduced temporary parking impacts. The temporary 

parking impacts that were previously identified for Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla 

were eliminated and, therefore, Mitigation Measure TCON2 was revised so that it no 

longer applies to this medical facility. Temporary parking impacts also were updated for 

the La Jolla Village Square shopping center to reflect the maximum number of spaces 

affected at one time. On-street parking along La Jolla Village Drive east of Genesee 

Avenue would be affected during construction of the project. Additionally, the elimination 

of the staging areas resulted in a change in the location of haul routes and thus a 

minimization of impacts to residential streets, specifically Charmant Drive. The findings 

for temporary traffic, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and freight impacts in this Final 

SEIS/SEIR remain unchanged from those in Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

3.4.7.1 Transit System 

Construction would temporarily impact operation of the Trolley Green Line; MTS, NCTD, 

and UCSD bus routes; and COASTER and Amtrak trains. Mitigation would be required 

for any construction-related impacts on the transit system. The following sections 

describe impacts and proposed project measures to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Construction-related Impacts on the Transit System 

Trolley Green Line 

Operation of the Trolley Green Line would be affected during construction of the San 

Diego River Bridge and installation of turnouts, TPSSs, and train signaling systems for 

the Refined Build Alternative alignment on the existing Trolley Green Line. Construction 

of the San Diego River Bridge would cause MTS “slow order operations” for 

approximately eight to ten months; however, slow orders would occur for one segment at 

a time. Slow orders would result in longer travel time for passengers on the Trolley; 

however, the overall schedule for the Trolley Green Line would not be affected as a 

result of the slow order operations and, thus, the effect is not anticipated to be adverse. 

Installation of the turnouts, track slab, track, signaling, and overhead catenary system 

would require a single-track operation on the Trolley Green Line along the San Diego 

River Bridge under slow orders for approximately three to four months. Existing Trolley 

Green Line crossovers are adequate to support a single-track operation along the San 

Diego River Bridge without any other required improvements or impacts to the Trolley 

Green Line. Running both Trolley Green and Trolley Blue Lines between Santa Fe 

Depot and the San Diego River would require additional TPSSs along this reach. The 

additional TPSSs may require modification to the existing traction power system along 

the Trolley Green Line from the Santa Fe Depot to the OTTC, including new or up-sized 

TPSSs, wiring duct banks, additional or upsized messenger wire, and other 

enhancements as part of the Refined Build Alternative. Installation of these new 

features may require single tracking, and reverse running of the Trolley Green Line may 

be required along some segments between the OTTC and Santa Fe Depot for 

approximately three to four months. Single tracking and reverse operations would 

impact the Trolley Green Line schedule and cause some increase to travel time. The 

impact would be adverse. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-94 September 2014 

MTS, NCTD, and UCSD Bus Routes 

Local access to MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus routes would be affected by lane closures 

within the construction corridor. Construction activity and lane closures could result in 

temporary diversions of bus routes and temporary closure of bus stops. Table 3-32 

summarizes the MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus and shuttle routes—and the streets on 

which these routes operate—that would be affected during construction. The 

approximate durations of impacts to the MTS, NCTD, and UCSD shuttle routes would be 

similar to the duration of roadway impacts described in Section 3.4.7.2 for the segment 

of the route that operates along those roadways. Lane closures would increase roadway 

traffic and congestion, thereby delaying transit riders. Further, bus detours could add to 

travel time if the route is longer. The relocation of bus stops could require additional 

walking for pedestrians to get to the relocated bus stations. This would result in adverse 

impacts to MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus routes. 

Table 3-32. Transit Routes Affected by Construction 

Street Name MTS Bus Route(s)* UCSD Shuttle Route(s)

Morena Blvd Route 105 

Garnet St/Balboa Ave Route 27 

I-5 northbound off-ramp and 

Gilman Dr/ 

La Jolla Colony Dr 

Route 150 Hillcrest/Campus Shuttle 

Nobel Dr Route 201, 202 (SuperLoop) 

La Jolla Village Dr Routes 30, 41, NCTD 101, 150, 880, 

921 

COASTER West Shuttle, Nobel Shuttle, 

Mesa Housing Shuttle, Arriba Shuttle 

Gilman Dr/Voigt Dr Routes 201, 202 (SuperLoop) Campus Loop Shuttle, COASTER East 

Shuttle, Hillcrest/Campus Shuttle, Mesa 

Housing Shuttle, East/Regents Shuttle 

I-5 southbound off-ramp and 

La Jolla Village Dr 

 COASTER East Shuttle 

Genesee Ave Routes 30, 31, 41, 50, NCTD 101, 

150, 201/202 (SuperLoop), 880, 960 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: * All routes are MTS unless noted otherwise 

MTS = Metropolitan Transit System; NCTD = North County Transit District; UCSD = University of California, 

San Diego 

COASTER and Amtrak 

The Refined Build Alternative would require reconstruction and/or relocation of a portion of 

the LOSSAN tracks located approximately 3,300 feet south of the SR 52 to the La Jolla 

Colony Drive/Gilman Drive interchange. Construction activities in this stretch also include the 

Rose Creek LRT Overhead, Rose Creek Open Channel, and various other project features. 

During construction of this segment of the Refined Build Alternative, a series of shooflies 

(temporary tracks) would maintain rail service around phased construction activities. Travel 

on the shooflies would be at a slower speed than under existing operations. 

Construction of shooflies and the LOSSAN track improvements would generally occur at 

night when COASTER and Amtrak trains are not in revenue service, and thus would not 

cause an adverse impact to the operation of COASTER and Amtrak trains. However, 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-95 

some construction activities along the LOSSAN corridor from Santa Fe Depot to the La 

Jolla Colony Drive/Gilman Drive interchange would occur during Amtrak and COASTER 

operating hours. This includes construction work within the existing MTS right-of-way or 

within 25 feet of the LOSSAN tracks. Construction activity would require slow orders to 

be issued. To reduce the schedule impact from slow orders, construction activities 

during operating hours would only occur in one area at a time and that area would not 

exceed 3 contiguous miles in length. At night when COASTER and Amtrak trains are 

not in revenue service, construction activities could exceed this 3-mile limit. By limiting 

the distance of construction activities during operating hours and coordinating 

construction activities with the NCTD, schedule impacts to the operation of COASTER 

and Amtrak trains would not be adverse. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Transit Impacts 

The following measures are proposed to minimize impacts to the Trolley Green Line and 

MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus service: 

 Impacts to Trolley operations would be minimized by single tracking, reverse 

running, and/or provisions for temporary crossovers from the Santa Fe Depot to the 

OTTC, and single-track operations at the San Diego River Bridge. 

 Impacts to local bus operations would be minimized by temporarily relocating bus 

stops and diverting bus routes. Pedestrian access to relocated bus stops would be 

provided. Rerouting and relocating bus routes would be coordinated with the 

corresponding transit agencies and providers, including MTS, NCTD, and UCSD. 

Even with implementation of these measures, the impact to Trolley Green Line and 

MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus services would remain adverse. Impacts to local bus 

services would remain adverse because of the increase in travel time as buses travel 

along detoured routes and through traffic congestion caused by lane closures (as 

described in Section 3.4.7.2). This impact is expected to be more substantial during 

peak periods because of higher traffic volumes and congestion on roadways. 

Transit Mitigation 

All measures that reduce transit impacts would be incorporated into the design of the 

project and would be a requirement of project construction. No mitigation measures 

have not been identified that would reduce the adverse impacts to the Trolley Green 

Line or MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus services; therefore, impacts would remain adverse 

and unavoidable during construction. There would be no adverse impacts to COASTER 

and Amtrak trains. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-96 September 2014 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would project construction impact transit performance (e.g., increase travel time or 

reduce service coverage)? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in the previous sections, 

construction of the project would require single tracking and reverse running of the 

Trolley Green Line, which would increase travel time on the Trolley Green Line and thus 

result in a significant impact. Additionally, construction would significantly impact the 

performance of MTS, NCTD, and UCSD buses because of bus route detours, relocated 

bus stops, and increases in travel time from traffic congestion. There would not be a 

significant impact on Amtrak and COASTER trains. 

Significance after Mitigation 

After implementation of the project measures listed above, significant impacts would 

remain to the Trolley Green Line and MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus services. These 

impacts would consist of longer travel time, detoured bus routes, and relocated bus 

stops. Mitigation measures have not been identified that would reduce these impacts; 

therefore, impacts to the Trolley Green Line and MTS, NCTD, and UCSD bus services 

would remain significant and unavoidable. 

3.4.7.2 Freeway and Roadway System 

Construction would temporarily impact I-5, several freeway ramps, and roadways. 

Additionally, turn prohibitions are expected at some intersections where lane and 

roadway closures would be required. Minimization and avoidance measures have been 

identified for construction-related impacts on the freeway and roadway system. 

Construction-related Impacts on the Freeway and Roadway System 

Freeways and Roadways 

Construction of several elements of the Refined Build Alternative, including at-grade 

guideway segments, aerial structures, retaining walls, the cut-and-cover 

undercrossing, Trolley stations, and transit parking facilities, would impact the 

freeway and roadway system, as summarized in Table 3-33. During installation and 

removal of falsework, nighttime roadway and freeway closures would be required. 

Such closures on I-5 would require detours on city streets and would be provided in 

consultation with Caltrans and the City of San Diego. To the extent practical, detour 

routes would avoid residential areas. Roadways affected by continuous closures 

(meaning closures that would last 24 consecutive hours or longer) are shown on 

Figure 3-8. Nighttime, off-peak, or continuous closures could result in increased 

congestion as the same volume of cars would need to be served by fewer travel 

lanes. As a result, an adverse impact would occur as travel time would be longer for 

motorists traveling along I-5 and the other roadways listed in Table 3-33 and shown 

on Figure 3-8. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-97 

Table 3-33. Construction-related Impacts to Freeways and Roadways 

Name Segment 

Construction 

Type 

Number of 

Existing Lanes 

(Bi-direction) Impact 

Approximate 

Duration/Frequency

Freeway or Ramps 

I-5 Between La Jolla 

Colony Dr and 

Nobel Dr 

Aerial Structure 8 Continuous lane 

width reduction 

30 months 

Nighttime lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime freeway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Between La Jolla 

Village Dr and 

Genesee Ave 

Aerial Structure 8 Continuous lane 

width reduction 

30 months 

Nighttime lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime freeway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

I-5 NB Offramp Balboa Ave Trolley Station 1 Nighttime 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

I-5 NB ramp La Jolla Colony Dr Undercrossing at 

La Jolla Colony 

Dr 

2 Nighttime 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Cut-and-cover box 

structure 

construction) 

I-5 SB Onramps La Jolla Village Dr Aerial Structure 2 Nighttime 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

I-5 SB Offramp La Jolla Village Dr Aerial Structure 2 Nighttime 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Roadway 

Friars Rd Sea World Dr to 

Napa St 

Grade-separated 

Bridge Structure 

4 Continuous onelane reduction in 

both directions 

1 month 

Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime 

roadway closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

West Morena 

Blvd 

Buenos Ave to 

Morena Blvd 

Trolley Stations 

and Bus Stop 

4 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-98 September 2014 

Table 3-33. Construction-related Impacts to Freeways and Roadways (continued) 

Name Segment 

Construction 

Type 

Number of 

Existing Lanes 

(Bi-direction) Impact 

Approximate 

Duration/Frequency

Morena Blvd West Morena Blvd to 

Balboa Ave 

Retaining Walls; 

Stations 

4 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Littlefield St to W. 

Morena Blvd 

4 Continuous onelane reduction in 

the southbound 

direction 

18 months 

Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Baker St to Ingulf St 4 Continuous onelane reduction in 

the southbound 

direction 

18 months 

Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Paul Jones Ave to 

Avati Dr 

Trolley Station 4 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Balboa Ave Mission Bay Dr 

Moraga Ave 

Grade-separated 

Bridge Structure; 

Trolley Station 

6 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime 

roadway closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

La Jolla 

Colony Dr 

NB I-5 off-ramp to 

Rosenda Ct 

Cut-and-Cover 

Undercrossing 

4 Continuous onelane reduction in 

both directions 

15 months 

Nighttime 

roadway closures 

Intermittent 

Nobel Dr Villa La Jolla Dr to 

I-5 NB Ramp 

Aerial Structure 4 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime 

roadway closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

La Jolla Village 

Dr 

Villa La Jolla Dr to 

I-5 NB Ramp 

Aerial Structure 6 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime 

roadway closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Regents Rd to 

Executive Way 

Aerial Structure 6 Continuous onelane reduction in 

both directions 

12 months 

Gilman Dr Villa La Jolla Dr to 

South of Voigt Dr 

Aerial Structure 2 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime roadway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-99 

Table 3-33. Construction-related Impacts to Freeways and Roadways (continued) 

Name Segment 

Construction 

Type 

Number of 

Existing Lanes 

(Bi-direction) Impact 

Approximate 

Duration/ 

Frequency 

Lyman Ave N/A Aerial Structure 2 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime roadway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Sixth Ln N/A Aerial Structure 2 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime roadway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Voigt Dr Lyman Ave to 

Campus Point Dr 

Aerial Structure 2 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime roadway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Campus Point 

Dr 

Genesee Ave to 

Voigt Dr 

Aerial Structure 4 Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime roadway 

closures 

Intermittent 

(Falsework erection 

and take down) 

Genesee Ave Regents Rd to 

Nobel Dr 

Aerial Structure; 

Trolley Stations 

6 Continuous onelane reduction in 

both directions of 

travel 

36 months 

Off-peak lane 

closures 

Intermittent 

Nighttime roadway 

closures 

36 months of closure 

of one direction; 

Intermittent nights of 

full closures 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: Nighttime closures = closures that would occur between 9:00 p.m. and the morning peak period 

Off-peak closures = closures that would occur during midday or midday and nighttime hours, but not during 

peak periods 

 Continuous closures = closures that would last for the entire day or longer, including during peak periods 

 Intermittent = closures that would occur occasionally during nighttime or off-peak periods throughout the 

construction period in that area 

N/A = not applicable; NB = northbound; SB = southbound 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-100 September 2014 

Figure 3-8. Continuous Closures at Intersections and on Roadways 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-101 

Intersections 

During construction, several roadways identified in Table 3-33 would be affected by 

continuous lane closures, resulting in turn-movement restrictions at some intersections 

along these roadways. These closures would last 24 consecutive hours or more, 

including during peak periods and would be an adverse impact. The locations of 

continuous closures are listed in Table 3-34 and shown on Figure 3-8. 

Table 3-34. Continuous Closures at Intersections 

Intersection Impacts Approximate Duration

La Jolla Colony Dr and I-5 

NB Ramp 

Continuous one approach lane reduction on 

La Jolla Colony Dr 

15 months 

Voigt Dr and Campus Point 

Dr 

Continuous left-turn and side-street through 

movement prohibitions 

12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Voigt Dr and 

Campus Point Dr 

36 months 

Genesee Ave and Regents 

Rd* 

Continuous left-turn movement and sidestreet movement prohibitions 12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Genesee Ave 36 months 

Genesee Ave and 

Eastgate Mall* 

Continuous left-turn and side-street through 

movement prohibitions 

12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Genesee Ave 

and Eastgate Mall 

36 months 

Genesee Ave and 

Executive Dr* 

Continuous left-turn and side-street through 

movement prohibitions 

12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Genesee Ave 

and Executive Dr 

36 months 

Genesee Ave and 

Executive Sq 

Continuous left-turn and side-street through 

movement prohibitions 

12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Genesee Ave 

and Executive Sq 

36 months 

Genesee Ave and La Jolla 

Village Dr* 

Continuous left-turn prohibitions 12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Genesee Ave 

and La Jolla Village Dr 

36 months 

Genesee Ave and 

Esplanade Ct/UTC Drwy 

Continuous left-turn and side-street through 

movement prohibitions 

12 months 

Continuous lane reduction on Genesee Ave 

and Esplanade Ct/UTC Drwy 

36 months 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: Continuous closures = closures that would last for the entire day or longer, including during peak periods 

* Closures and vehicular movement prohibitions at these intersections would be phased such that 

adjacent intersections would not be affected concurrently. 

NB = northbound; UTC = University Towne Centre 

During construction of aerial structures along Genesee Avenue, left-turn movements 

would be prohibited at the intersections of Regents Road, Eastgate Mall, Executive 

Drive, Executive Square, La Jolla Village Drive, and Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway 

under the Refined Build Alternative. Through-movement prohibitions on side streets 

also may be required. The turn-lane closures or movement prohibitions at intersections 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-102 September 2014 

on Genesee Avenue may result in diversion of traffic to adjacent intersections and 

nearby arterials, such as Regents Road, Nobel Drive, and Towne Centre Drive. The 

affected signalized intersections on these arterials and Genesee Avenue may require 

temporary modification and/or signal re-timing. 

The proximity of Regents Road, Eastgate Mall, Executive Drive, and La Jolla Village 

Drive to each other allows for a nearby detour when left-turn movements are prohibited 

at one of these intersections. Hence, traffic impacts resulting from the elimination of leftturn movements to and from Genesee Avenue at these four intersections would be 

reduced by staging the construction activities such that left-turn movements at the 

adjacent intersections would not be affected at the same time. 

During construction of the straddle bent in the median of Executive Square, Executive 

Square at the Genesee Avenue intersection would need to be closed. To minimize the 

impact at the intersection and avoid its closure during the daytime, construction of 

columns in the median of Executive Square would occur during nighttime. During the 

nighttime closure of Executive Square at the Genesee Avenue intersection, access to 

properties on the east and west sides of Genesee Avenue would be rerouted through 

Executive Drive and La Jolla Village Drive. 

The anticipated lane closures or turning-movement prohibitions and detours along 

Genesee Avenue during construction would increase delays for motorists, particularly 

during peak periods. Because these delays occur during the peak hours and because of 

the long duration of these effects, the impacts are considered to be adverse. 

Construction Vehicle Traffic 

The Refined Build Alternative would be organized in several contract phases that group 

together specific activities and types of work to facilitate construction. Contract packages 

have not been identified at this time. The construction jobs created would generate 

construction-related traffic to and from the various contractor work areas. These trips 

would be spread between the various staging areas and over the duration of the 

construction schedule. The contractor would be encouraged to implement ridesharing to 

work areas to reduce traffic impacts. Arrangements would be made to provide nearby offsite parking that would be used by construction workers, and shuttle service would be 

provided by the contractors between these parking areas and the work sites, thus further 

reducing traffic impacts. Identified construction staging areas would serve as temporary 

parking lots for construction workers. Construction-related vehicles and equipment also 

would generate construction traffic; however, equipment would operate during off-peak 

periods or during peak periods with the use of a flagging operation. Consequently, 

construction vehicle traffic would not cause an adverse impact. 

Construction-related vehicles and equipment also would generate construction traffic. 

Construction vehicles and equipment would be used to transport materials to and from 

contractor work areas, and construction vehicle traffic would be greatest at staging and 

station areas. Construction-related vehicles and equipment would be required to travel on 

designated haul routes that would be identified prior to the start of construction. Haul 

routes generally would be along major arterials where most land uses are commercial and 

industrial. However, there is one location in the University City community where 

construction vehicle activity would occur close to residences (the Matthews apartments on 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-103 

Sixth Lane in UCSD). Additionally, some interior streets at UCSD are narrow and are not 

designed to handle major construction traffic (Lyman Avenue and Sixth Lane). It is 

expected that these roadways would be adversely affected by construction activity. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Freeway and Roadway Impacts 

Construction of the Refined Build Alternative temporarily would interfere with the normal 

flow of traffic and could delay travelers in the transportation system. A TMP would be 

prepared during the design phase, and designated truck haul routes would be identified 

prior to construction to minimize traffic impacts. The following sections discuss 

measures that would be included in the TMP and designated truck haul routes. 

Transportation Management Plan 

The TMP would include measures to minimize traffic impacts during construction with 

the goal to move motorists through work zones quickly and safely. These measures 

would be developed in consultation with Caltrans, the City of San Diego, UCSD, MTS, 

NCTD, Amtrak, emergency providers, and other appropriate agencies. The TMP would 

include the following measures: 

 Public Awareness Campaign—A public awareness campaign would include effective 

means and channels to inform the public in advance about the project, roadway 

impacts, and construction activities, including closures of any facilities. Additional 

coordination and communication would be required with police and fire departments 

regarding road closures, detours, lane restrictions, and other changes during 

construction that may affect emergency response routes or times. 

 Traveler Information—Key components would include the provision of real-time traffic 

information and alternate route information to motorists approaching the work zone. 

 Incident Management—A plan would identify effective tools and procedures to 

respond to incidents on roadways near construction areas. 

 Construction Strategies—Construction plans would describe the sequence of 

construction activities. Traffic management plans would show the routing of traffic 

through construction zones and include information about the use of temporary 

barriers, signage, striping, and channelization devices. Instructions as to the time of 

day or night when lanes can be closed would be provided to minimize impacts to 

motorists. Major haul routes and staging areas would also be identified. 

 Demand Management—Strategies would be identified with the goal to reduce peakhour traffic volumes within areas affected by construction by supporting the use of 

alternative modes of transportation. These strategies would build upon the demand 

management programs already available within the project corridor, including 

rideshare programs. 

 Alternate Routes—Effective and safe alternate and detour routes would be identified 

for any roadway and lane closures. Traffic-control plans depicting the detour routes 

and proper signage along the detours would be prepared. Bypasses through 

residential or local streets would be avoided. Coordination would occur with area 

emergency responders to ensure adequate access is maintained at all times within 

the community and that construction zone and evacuation routes are not impeded. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-104 September 2014 

Designated Haul Routes 

Prior to the start of construction activities, major haul routes to and from the construction 

zones and staging areas would be identified through coordination with the City of San 

Diego and stipulated in the TMP. These routes would use major freeways and arterial 

roadways with the goal to minimize noise, vibration, and other possible impacts to 

surrounding property owners as much as practical. The major freeways and arterials 

that are anticipated to be used as haul routes include I-5, I-15, SR 52, Morena 

Boulevard, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, La Jolla Village Drive, Genesee Avenue, Friars 

Road, and Tecolote Road. Impacts to traffic on these roadways would be minimized by 

scheduling haul route operations during off-peak hours, where feasible. 

Emergency vehicle access would be maintained at all times to construction work sites, 

nearby businesses, schools, and residential neighborhoods. In addition, emergency 

vehicle access would be maintained at all times to and from fire stations, hospitals, and 

medical facilities near construction areas and along haul routes. Construction activities, 

planned roadway closures, and haul route operations would be coordinated with fire 

departments, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies. With incorporation of these 

project measures, there would be no adverse impacts on emergency vehicle access. 

The elements of the TMP would minimize adverse impacts to I-5 and the roadway 

system during construction. For example, providing the public with advance information 

regarding planned and ongoing construction work would allow motorists to adjust their 

travel plans, which could reduce the number of vehicles traveling through the work area. 

Real-time traffic information would allow motorists to complete their trips more smoothly 

and help reduce overall congestion through the work area. Incident management 

programs also could reduce traffic congestion. 

With implementation of these measures, the anticipated closures and detours during 

construction would still increase delay for motorists that are unavoidable; therefore, the 

impacts would remain adverse. The degree of impacts would vary. For example, traffic 

impacts along Genesee Avenue would be worse because of the degree of continuous 

lane and intersection closures expected with multiple phases of construction work and 

the high traffic volumes on the roadway. In other areas listed in Table 3-33 and Table 

3-34 where existing traffic volumes are lower, the impacts are expected to be less. 

With the designated haul routes, the impacts to roadways resulting from construction 

vehicle and equipment traffic are not expected to be adverse, except on local streets not 

designed to handle such construction traffic (Lyman Drive and Sixth Lane in UCSD); 

impacts would be adverse at these locations. 

Freeway and Roadway Mitigation 

Mitigation measures have not been identified that would reduce the adverse impacts to 

the freeway and roadway system. The impacts to roadways resulting from the expected 

closures and detours that would delay travelers and the impacts to local streets (Lyman 

Drive and Sixth Lane in UCSD) resulting from construction vehicle and equipment traffic 

would remain adverse and unavoidable. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-105 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would project construction substantially impede or slow traffic movement? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction would result in significant 

impacts on roadways and intersections in the corridor resulting from continuous closures 

as well as intermittent off-peak and/or nighttime closures, as described previously in this 

section. Delays would also occur on I-5; however, closures would be limited to nighttime 

hours when fewer vehicles use the facility. Accordingly, closures would reduce the 

severity of the impact by reducing the number of vehicles affected, but would still result 

in significant short-term impacts. 

Significance after Mitigation 

Implementation of measures to avoid or minimize impacts (the TMP and designated haul 

routes) would minimize significant impacts to the freeway and roadway system during 

construction. However, significant impacts would remain as roadway closures and 

detours would increase travel time for travelers. Delays would vary throughout the 

corridor based on the existing volume on roadways and the length that detours and 

closures would be in place. No mitigation measures have been identified to offset these 

impacts; therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable. 

3.4.7.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian System 

Construction would affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities, resulting in closures of 

sidewalks and bicycle facilities and detours. Measures to avoid and minimize these 

impacts and mitigation measures are proposed while ensuring the safety of pedestrians 

and bicyclists. 

Construction-related Impacts on the Bicycle and Pedestrian System 

Existing bicycle facilities and pedestrian sidewalks would be affected during 

construction. Because of the close proximity of construction-related activities to existing 

bike and pedestrian facilities, some facilities would be temporarily closed and disruptions 

would occur along adjacent sidewalks and bike lanes (Table 3-35). 

On roadways where sidewalks on both sides of the street would be affected, 

construction would be phased when possible such that pedestrian access on one side of 

the street would be maintained whenever possible. However, phasing may not be 

possible in all locations, and construction work could require closures of sidewalks on 

both sides of a roadway. Closures would be limited to the nighttime, if feasible, and 

temporary detours for pedestrians would be provided where possible. As stated in 

Section 3.4.7.2, traffic movement restrictions would occur at intersections along 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-106 September 2014 

Table 3-35. Construction-related Impacts to Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

Roadway Name From To Sidewalk(s) Affected 

Bicycle Facilities Affected 

(Class)1

Ocean Beach 

Bicycle Path 

Morena Blvd I-5 N/A Ocean Beach Bicycle Path (I) 

Friars Rd Sea World Dr Napa St Eastbound Eastbound (I) 

West Morena Blvd Vega Rd 1,200 feet north 

of Vega Rd 

Eastbound; Westbound N/A 

Morena Blvd West Morena 

Blvd 

Ashton St N/A N/A 

Jellett St Ingulf St Southbound N/A 

Ingulf St Gesner St Northbound N/A 

Ticonderoga Ave Paul Jones Ave N/A 

Paul Jones Ave Balboa Ave Northbound N/A 

Balboa Ave Moraga Ave I-5 interchange Eastbound N/A 

Rose Canyon 

Bicycle Path 

Santa Fe St La Jolla Colony 

Dr/Gilman Dr 

Interchange 

N/A Rose Canyon Bicycle Path (I) 

La Jolla Colony Dr I-5 NB ramp 1,000 feet east 

of I-5 NB ramp 

intersection 

Eastbound N/A 

Nobel Dr La Jolla Village 

Sq entrance 

I-5 interchange Westbound Both directions (II) 

La Jolla Village Dr I-5 interchange I-5 interchange Westbound N/A 

Gilman Dr West of VA 

Medical Center 

parking lot drwy 

East of VA 

Medical Center 

parking lot drwy 

Eastbound Both directions (II) 

Lyman Ave South of Voigt Dr Northbound Northbound (II) 

Sixth Ln East of Lyman Ave Eastbound; Westbound Eastbound (II) 

Voigt Dr East of Lyman Ave Eastbound N/A 

I-5 overcrossing Campus Point 

Dr 

Eastbound; Westbound Eastbound (II) 

Campus Point Dr Voigt Dr Genesee Ave Westbound Both directions (II) 

Regents Rd Genesee Ave Health Sciences 

Dr 

Northbound N/A 

Genesee Ave Campus Point Dr Nobel Dr Northbound; Southbound Both directions (II) 

Executive 

Square 

Esplanade Ct/ 

UTC Drwy 

Removal of pedestrian 

bridges spanning 

Genesee Ave 

Nobel Dr East of Genesee Ave Northeast corner of 

intersection of Genesee 

Ave and Nobel Dr 

N/A 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: 1

 Class I: bike path (separate right-of-way); Class II: bike lane (striped); Class III: bike route (signed, 

unstriped) 

N/A = not applicable (no affected facility); NB = northbound; UTC = University Towne Centre; VA = Veterans 

Administration 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-107 

Genesee Avenue between Regents Road and La Jolla Village Drive. Construction 

would be phased so traffic movements are not restricted at the adjacent major 

intersection. Where traffic movement restrictions are in place, pedestrian access across 

Genesee Avenue would also be prohibited at that intersection. However, pedestrians 

would be able to cross Genesee Avenue at the adjacent intersection. Because these 

closures would be temporary and connectivity would be maintained during these 

closures, the temporary impact would not be considered adverse. 

Additionally, the pedestrian bridges spanning Genesee Avenue at Executive Square and 

south of La Jolla Village Drive would be removed during construction. Under existing 

conditions, crosswalks do not exist at every approach of the Executive Square, La Jolla 

Village Drive, or Esplanade Court/UTC Driveway intersections at Genesee Avenue (the 

intersections closest to the pedestrian bridges), which could impact pedestrian 

circulation after the bridges are removed. 

During construction of the Refined Build Alternative, some Class II bike lanes on 

roadways would be closed temporarily (Table 3-35). Additionally, construction of 

mitigation measure TR8 (Table 3-27) would require the temporary closure of the Class II 

bicycle lane on Pacific Highway between Taylor Street and the OTTC park-and-ride lot 

access driveway for up to 6 months. Signage would be provided to identify alternate 

routes for bicyclists. In locations where detours are not available, bicyclists would share 

the roadway with vehicles. In these locations, roadway speed limits may be reduced. 

With implementation of these measures, temporary closure of Class II bike lanes would 

not be considered adverse. 

A segment of a Class I bicycle facility, the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, would require 

closure between Santa Fe Street and La Jolla Colony Drive during construction. Closure 

of the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path would result in adverse impacts to bicyclists. 

Mitigation, including the construction of a temporary bike path, is discussed in Section 

3.4.3.3; with mitigation, the impact would not be adverse. 

Construction would require nighttime closure of the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path along the 

San Diego River during erection and demolition of falsework for construction of the San 

Diego River Bridge. Because the closure would be limited to nighttime, impacts would 

be minimized on those that use the facility. During the time when the falsework is in 

place, bicyclists may have to disembark and walk while crossing falsework due to low 

vertical clearance. These limited and temporary impacts would not be adverse. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Pedestrians and Bicycle Impacts 

Pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained during construction where possible 

while emphasizing safety. The TMP that would be developed during the design phase of 

the project would include measures to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access through 

construction zones with the emphasis on safety. These measures would be developed 

in consultation with the City of San Diego, UCSD, emergency providers, and other 

appropriate agencies. Measures to maintain safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle 

access would meet ADA requirements and could include the following: 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-108 September 2014 

 Provide alternate routes as a result of any pedestrian and bike facility closure during 

construction where available 

 Limit complete closures of pedestrian and bike facilities to locations in which there 

are no feasible alternatives 

 Channel pedestrian flow to areas away from construction zones 

 Make extensive use of signage to guide pedestrians and bicyclists to detour routes 

around or through construction zones 

 Use proper deterrents, such as barriers and fencing, to prevent pedestrian access 

through construction areas 

 Install shared-lane pavement markings on travel lanes and temporary signage where 

lanes would be shared by bicyclists and vehicles during construction; speed limits on 

roadways may be reduced to ensure safety of bicyclists where they share the 

roadway with motorists 

 Provide warnings to pedestrians and bicyclists in advance of any planned sidewalk 

and bike facility closures 

In coordination with the City of San Diego, SANDAG would develop a traffic control plan that 

would specify the use of advance warning signs. Pavement markings also would be 

provided on the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path to inform bicyclists of the reduced headroom 

clearance and to disembark from their bicycle during construction of the San Diego River 

Bridge. 

If closures of sidewalks on both sides of a roadway at the same time cannot be avoided 

during construction, temporary pedestrian detours would be provided and identified in 

the TMP. Signage would be used to guide pedestrians to the detour routes. Proper 

deterrents, such as barriers or fencing, would be placed to prevent access through the 

construction area. 

Under existing conditions, crosswalks are not provided across all approaches at the 

intersection of Genesee Avenue and La Jolla Village Drive, which is located between the 

two pedestrian bridges that would be removed during construction. The missing crosswalks 

would be temporarily striped at this intersection to allow pedestrian circulation once the 

pedestrian bridges are removed. The temporary crosswalks would require retiming traffic 

signals and installing temporary pedestrian signals where they do not exist. With this project 

measure, there would be no impact to pedestrian circulation on Genesee Avenue because 

of the removal of the pedestrian bridges. At the end of construction activities, these 

temporary crosswalks would be removed and access across Genesee Avenue would be 

provided through the Executive Drive Station and the UTC Transit Center. 

With these project measures, the temporary adverse impacts would remain for bicyclists 

using the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path; however, temporary impacts to pedestrians and 

bicyclists traveling in other areas of the corridor would not be adverse. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-109 

Mitigation for Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts 

A mitigation measure has been proposed to mitigate the temporary impact to the Class I 

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path: 

TCON1 Construct a temporary bicycle path adjacent to the construction site along the 

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path to maintain access and connectivity. During any 

short-term, intermittent closures, such as may be required for safety and at 

the time the temporary path is being constructed, provide informational signs 

and a detour route along local streets and pathways. 

Although intermittent closure of the temporary bicycle path for up to two weeks at a time 

may still be required during construction for safety and other reasons, connectivity to the 

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path would be maintained during construction. During such 

intermittent closures, the public would be notified in advance of the closure and 

information signs and detour routes along local streets and pathways would be provided. 

With this mitigation measure, impacts to bicyclists using the Class I Rose Canyon Bicycle 

Path would not be adverse. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, as described below. 

Would project construction remove pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction of the project would require 

closure of some pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as listed in Table 3-35. Additionally, 

implementation of the mitigation measures at Taylor Street would involve the temporary 

closure of the Class II bicycle lane on Pacific Highway. Impacts to pedestrian facilities and 

Class II bike lanes would be temporary, lasting for the duration of construction activity in that 

area. Detours would be provided where available and impacts would be less than 

significant. The Class I Rose Canyon Bicycle Path would require temporary closures and, 

accordingly, the closure would result in a significant impact to bicyclists using this facility. 

Significance after Mitigation 

With implementation of project measures and TCON1, significant impacts would be 

eliminated. 

3.4.7.4 Parking 

Construction would impact on- and off-street parking supply while also generating 

additional demand for parking to serve construction workers. Project measures and 

mitigation are proposed where applicable. Parking spaces that are closed during 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-110 September 2014 

construction would be restored once construction is complete; therefore, the impacts 

discussed below would be temporary. 

Construction-related Impacts on Parking 

On-Street Parking 

During construction, it may be necessary to prohibit temporarily on-street parking along 

segments of West Morena Boulevard and Morena Boulevard. On-street parking would be 

restricted for the duration that the temporary traffic controls are in place. These on-street 

parking areas generally are not heavily utilized, and alternate on-street parking areas are 

available on side streets that intersect West Morena Boulevard and Morena Boulevard. 

Approximately eight on-street parking spaces would also be temporarily restricted along La 

Jolla Village Drive east of Genesee Avenue. These spaces represent a small percentage of 

on-street parking on this roadway. Therefore, the temporary removal of these parking 

spaces on these streets would not be an adverse impact. 

In addition, some on-street emergency access areas would be restricted for the duration 

that traffic controls are in place. These areas are identified by red curbs and provide for 

emergency parking near fire hydrants. Through coordination with the City of San Diego 

Fire-Rescue Department and direction to contractors to provide emergency access to 

fire hydrants at all times, impacts would not be adverse. 

Off-Street Parking 

A number of off-street parking locations would be used as staging areas to 

accommodate construction, thus requiring closure of parking spaces in those areas. 

Parking would be prohibited once temporary construction easements are put in place, 

thus resulting in an adverse impact on parking during construction. Table 3-36 lists the 

number of off-street parking spaces that would be affected during construction; the 

locations are presented in Figure 3-9. Not all spaces would be affected at the same 

time. 

The parking lots on the West Campus of UCSD are fully utilized, and the loss of parking 

spaces would cause an adverse impact. As shown in Table 3-36, parking temporarily 

would be removed at the VA Medical Center. The number of parking spaces affected at 

the hospital would result in a temporary adverse impact. 

Construction Worker Parking 

The number of construction workers on the various construction sites at any one time 

would vary depending on the activities being performed. In most situations, there would 

be concurrent construction operations and many crews of workers at each site. Off-site 

parking areas would be needed to accommodate parking demand. Construction staging 

areas would be used, but additional parking may be required, which would be secured 

by the contractor as the need arises. Because parking for construction workers is 

generally provided in designated areas where either an easement or right-of-use has 

been obtained, or through leases of parking areas negotiated with property owners, 

construction-worker parking is not expected to have a temporary adverse impact during 

construction. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-111 

Table 3-36. Temporary Off-street Parking Impacts during Construction 

Location 

Estimated Parking 

Spaces Removed during 

Construction Description of Impacts 

San Diego Humane Society parking lot 30 Temporary easement for construction 

Tecolote Rd Station (Morena Blvd and Vega 

Rd) 

22 Temporary easements for Tecolote Rd 

Station construction 

City of San Diego (north of Balboa Ave 

Station) 

76 Temporary easements for construction 

staging area 

North of the South Rose Creek Bridge 

(parking lot) 

20 Temporary easements for construction 

staging area and access road 

Parking lot north of the intersection of 

Morena Blvd and Ariane Dr 

33 Temporary easements for construction 

Nobel Dr Station (La Jolla Village Square) 512 Construction easement for station 

parking structure 

The Shops at La Jolla Village (Whole Foods) 9 Temporary easement would block 

access to parking behind Whole Foods 

VA Medical Center (parking lot) 70 Temporary easement for station 

construction 

UCSD Parking Lot P406—north of VA 

Medical Center and Gilman Dr 

117 Temporary easement would block 

access to these parking spaces 

UCSD East Campus Parking Lot P701 – 

west of Baseball Field 

135 Temporary easement for construction 

UCSD East Campus Parking Lot P702 – 

west of Campus Point Drive 

134 Construction and staging area for 

UCSD East Station 

UCSD “Regents” parking lot 280 Construction staging area 

Costa Verde Shopping Center 16 Temporary easement for construction 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Notes: UCSD = University of California, San Diego; VA = Veterans Administration 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-112 September 2014 

Figure 3-9. Temporary Off-Street Parking Impact Locations 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-113 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Parking Impacts 

Measures to replace off-street parking spaces that would be lost temporarily during 

construction would be provided, where feasible, as described below. 

At La Jolla Village Square shopping center, a maximum of 512 parking spaces would be 

affected at any one time during different construction phases. SANDAG would work with 

the property owner and the contractor to develop an approach to minimize the loss of 

parking spaces at the shopping center at any one time while maintaining required 

construction access. This may include constructing the transit parking structure in 

phases, if feasible, to offset parking affected during construction of the guideway and 

station. After the parking structure is constructed, parking spaces in the structure would 

be made available to shopping center patrons during later phases of construction, which 

include reconstruction of the shopping center parking lot area adjacent to the parking 

structure. The parking spaces in the transit parking structure would temporarily replace 

the parking spaces lost during the time when the shopping center parking area adjacent 

to the structure is being reconstructed. After the parking structure has been made 

available to shopping center patrons, no adverse parking impact to the shopping center is 

anticipated. 

The contractor would be required to reduce the footprint of parking impacts at the La 

Jolla Village Square shopping center to the extent feasible during the November-toJanuary shopping season. With this project measure, parking impacts during 

construction at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center would be reduced but would 

remain adverse. 

Construction-related vehicle parking would occur at designated off-street parking 

locations and construction staging areas only. Construction-related vehicles would not 

be allowed to park in residential neighborhoods or in adjacent commercial or businesses 

parking areas. To accommodate the construction-worker parking demand, 

arrangements would be made for nearby off-site parking that could be used by 

construction workers, and, if appropriate, shuttle service would be provided by the 

contractors between these parking areas and the work sites. Some identified 

construction staging areas also could serve as temporary parking lots for construction 

workers when excess area is not required for material storage. Because parking for 

construction workers generally would be provided in designated areas where either an 

easement or right of use has been obtained, construction-worker parking is not expected 

to have a temporary adverse impact during construction. 

Impacts associated with restrictions in access to on-street emergency areas (red curbs) 

would not be adverse as a result of coordination with the City of San Diego Fire–Rescue 

Department and direction to contractors to provide emergency access to fire hydrants at 

all times. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-114 September 2014 

Mitigation for Parking Impacts 

The following mitigation measures have been identified to further reduce parking impacts 

during construction: 

TCON2 To offset parking loss at the VA Medical Center, SANDAG would implement 

one or more of the following measures in coordination with the institution: 

provision of valet parking, temporary restriping of other areas of their parking 

lot, issuance of transit passes to employees, and assistance with ridesharing 

programs for employees. 

TCON3 To offset parking loss at office and light industrial buildings, SANDAG would 

implement one or more of the following measures in coordination with the 

building management: joint-use parking arrangements with adjacent lots, 

provision of transit passes to employees, and assistance with ridesharing 

programs. If parking alternatives cannot be identified, the property owner 

would be compensated for lost parking. 

The limited temporary parking loss at the VA Medical Center is not expected to have an 

adverse impact after mitigation. A large number of parking spaces would be removed 

temporarily during construction at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center and the 

UCSD campus. There is the likelihood that temporary replacement parking would not be 

available to offset all the parking removed. In these situations, parking impacts would 

remain adverse. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following thresholds of significance for use in 

evaluating impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would project construction substantially affect parking supply? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction of the project would remove 

on-street parking along West Morena and Morena Boulevards and La Jolla Village Drive 

and off-street parking as listed in Table 3-36 and presented in Figure 3-9. 

Consequently, there would be significant impacts on parking supply. 

Would project construction impede emergency access? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Without the project measures 

described above, construction of the project temporarily would restrict some on-street 

emergency access areas and would have the potential to result in significant impacts to 

emergency access. These areas are identified by red curbs and provide for emergency 

parking near fire hydrants. However, with the project measures, including coordination 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-115 

with the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department and direction to contractors to 

provide emergency access to fire hydrants at all times, the impact of these restrictions 

would be less-than-significant. Emergency vehicle access would be maintained at all 

times to construction work sites, nearby businesses, and residential neighborhoods. In 

addition, emergency vehicle access would be maintained at all times to and from fire 

stations, hospitals, schools, and medical facilities near construction areas and along haul 

routes. Construction activities, planned roadway closures, and haul route operations 

would be coordinated with fire departments, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies. 

Significance after Mitigation 

With implementation of TCON3, significant impacts could still occur as temporary 

replacement parking may not be available to offset all of the parking removed during 

construction, particularly in University City. After implementation of TCON2, there would 

not be a significant impact to the VA Medical Center. 

Coordination would occur with the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department regarding 

restrictions of on-street emergency access and access to fire hydrants. Impacts would 

be minimized based on coordination and thus would not be significant. 

3.4.7.5 Freight 

Construction impacts on vehicular and rail freight are described in the following sections, 

with project measures proposed where applicable. 

Construction-related Impacts on Freight 

Vehicular Freight 

Several roadways along the proposed alignment and I-5 are used as freight routes. 

Freight movement on the freeways and roadways listed in Table 3-33 would be affected 

during construction, particularly during nighttime and off-peak periods when roadways 

would be closed for construction activities. Nighttime and off-peak closures and detours 

could delay vehicular freight delivery times; however, because detours, advance notice, 

and signage would be provided, and because these delays would be of short duration (a 

few hours or one night at a time), impacts associated with delays to vehicular freight 

movement would not be considered adverse. 

Rail Freight 

As stated in Section 3.4.7.1 under the subheading “COASTER and Amtrak,” construction 

of the Refined Build Alternative within the LOSSAN corridor would occur. Slow orders 

would be implemented, requiring freight trains to travel at slower speeds near 

construction zones. At night, construction work may occur along the entire MTS right-ofway, and thus nighttime freight movement could be delayed because of slow orders 

being applied to additional segments of tracks. However, construction activities during 

the daytime would be limited to 3 contiguous miles at any one time and freight operation 

during daytime off-peak periods would not be adversely affected. Close coordination 

with NCTD and Burlington Northern Santa Fe would optimize construction activities 

while minimizing the need for slow orders to avoid adverse impacts to freight operations. 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-116 September 2014 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Freight Impacts 

Measures to avoid or minimize vehicular freight impacts would be similar to the measures 

used to minimize freeway and roadway impacts, as described in Section 3.4.7.2. 

Additionally, during project construction, detours for truck traffic would be required; detour 

routes would avoid U-turns. Signage would be posted to direct freight trucks to detour 

routes. Placement of falsework would be conducted so as to not preclude trucks from using 

the driveways, when feasible. The impact on vehicular freight would not be adverse with 

these project measures. 

Mitigation for Freight Impacts 

With the measures listed in Section 3.4.7.2, there would be no adverse impacts to vehicular 

freight during construction. Therefore, no mitigation measures for vehicular freight are 

required. There would not be adverse impacts to rail freight. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed the following threshold of significance for use in 

evaluating impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, as described below. 

Would project construction impede or slow the transport of freight? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As stated previously, 

construction of the project would result in temporary significant impacts to vehicular 

freight, increasing the time needed to make deliveries. However, with the project 

measures described above, these impacts would be less than significant. 

Slow orders along the LOSSAN corridor would slow the transport of rail freight. 

However, because the slow orders during daytime would be limited to 3 contiguous 

miles, there would be no significant impact on rail freight. Freight delivery during 

nighttime operation would have adequate time to recover any schedule loss, and the 

effects of slow orders would be less than significant. 

Significance after Mitigation 

There would be less-than-significant impacts on vehicular and rail freight. 

3.4.7.6 Cumulative Construction Impacts 

This section evaluates potential cumulative construction impacts of the Refined Build 

Alternative, when the impacts of the Refined Build Alternative are combined with existing 

conditions and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Mid-Coast Corridor. These 

projects include planned improvements that are encompassed in the 2030 RTP. The 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014s) summarizes the major foreseeable development projects in the study area, 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3-117 

including, among others, projects on the UCSD campus, the Westfield UTC shopping 

center, La Jolla Commons, the Monte Verde project, the Scripps Memorial Hospital 

project, the VA Medical Center expansion, construction of direct access ramps as part of 

the North Coast Corridor Project, and the double tracking of the LOSSAN tracks, which 

are expected to be under construction concurrently with the Refined Build Alternative 

from 2014 to 2019. 

As described in the previous sections, construction of the Refined Build Alternative 

would result in temporary traffic disruption and rerouting of traffic, including buses. Such 

rerouting would contribute to cumulative increases in congestion within the corridor, 

particularly on roadways and at intersections adjacent to the construction area. 

Although the majority of the identified construction impacts on transit, traffic circulation, 

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking, and freight would be temporary, these impacts 

would be unavoidable during the construction period. 

During the expected construction period of the Refined Build Alternative, additional 

impacts associated with construction of some projects, particularly those on the UCSD 

campus and in the University City area, would compound the construction impacts of the 

Refined Build Alternative. Although the majority of these construction effects would be 

localized and temporary, cumulative construction impacts could be considered adverse 

and unavoidable for short periods during the Refined Build Alternative construction 

period. 

Mitigation for Cumulative Construction Impacts 

As described in the previous sections, the Refined Build Alternative includes project 

measures and mitigation to minimize construction impacts. These measures would 

reduce the proposed project’s construction impacts. Coordination would occur with 

other agencies and jurisdictions undertaking construction work near the Refined Build 

Alternative alignment, which would reduce cumulative construction impacts. However, 

impacts after mitigation would remain adverse and unavoidable during construction. 

 
Chapter 3.0 - Transportation Impacts 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

3-118 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION 

This chapter describes the environmental impact analyses, which include both direct and 

indirect short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts for the No-Build Alternative and 

the Refined Build Alternative described in Chapter 2.0. Operations and maintenance are 

considered long-term impacts. Construction impacts are considered short-term impacts. 

The analysis considers cumulative impacts from construction and operations and 

maintenance. A significance determination in accordance with the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) also is included. The CEQA analysis considers existing conditions and 

performance in 2010 and long-term conditions and performance in 2030. 

The chapter is organized primarily by major environmental topic. Each section begins 

with a brief summary of the conclusions reached in the prior environmental documents 

being supplemented, followed by the conclusions presented in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent 

Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) (San Diego Association of Governments 

[SANDAG], 2013a) and any changes to those conclusions in this Final SEIS/SEIR. The 

three “prior environmental documents” being supplemented by this SEIS/SEIR are as 

follows: 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft 

Environmental Impact Report (AA/DEIS/DEIR) (Metropolitan Transit Development 

Board [MTDB], 1995a) 

 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (MTDB, 2001) 

Each topic then includes a description of regulatory background and methodology, 

affected environment, environmental impacts (under the National Environmental Policy 

Act [NEPA]), and project and/or mitigation measures to address impacts. Project 

measures are incorporated as part of the project and consist of design features, best 

management practices (BMPs), or other measures (e.g., formation of plans to deal with 

hazardous materials) required by law and/or permit approvals, that avoid or minimize 

potential impacts. Where relevant, the project measures were included in the impact 

analyses presented in this chapter and the supporting technical reports. Appendix E of 

this document is a compendium of all project measures identified in this chapter and in 

the supporting technical reports. Upon certification of the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the project, SANDAG will use this 

appendix to ensure implementation. 

Mitigation measures are additional actions, not otherwise part of the project, that are 

designed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse or significant impacts. These 

measures are required where significant or adverse impacts have been identified based 

on the impact analyses. All mitigation measures identified in this chapter are presented 

in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached to the Record of Decision 

in Appendix D of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-2 September 2014

SANDAG is committed to implementing the project measures and mitigation measures 

stated in this chapter and the supporting technical reports. Certification of the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the project will include a 

commitment by SANDAG to implement these measures; this commitment is also 

reflected in the Record of Decision (included as Appendix D) issued by the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) with this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

This chapter includes separate sections discussing the relationship between short-term 

uses of the environment and long-term productivity, as well as irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources, and provides a list of anticipated required 

permits. Construction, growth-inducing, and cumulative impacts also are discussed in 

separate sections. Technical reports have been prepared that provide more detailed 

supporting analyses for most environmental topics; these are cited as appropriate. 

Refer to Appendix A for a complete list of technical reports and memoranda prepared in 

support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The analysis in this chapter is based on federal and state requirements. NEPA and 

CEQA require the evaluation of impacts of proposed government actions on the 

environment. In addition to regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), through the FTA and the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has adopted regulations to implement NEPA. 

The California CEQA Guidelines provide guidance to implement CEQA. Based on the 

CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and the City of 

San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 2011a), 

SANDAG developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating the impacts 

of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

This chapter has been revised since publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR (SANDAG, 

2013a) to reflect the approval of the refinements to the Build Alternative (now referred to 

as the Refined Build Alternative) by the SANDAG Board of Directors for evaluation in the 

Final SEIS/SEIR. The Refined Build Alternative includes the Veterans Administration 

(VA) Medical Center Station and excludes the Genesee Avenue Design Option, as well 

as the other refinements described in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.3. As a result, the 

evaluation of the Genesee Avenue Design Option has been eliminated from the sections 

within this chapter. Revisions to this chapter have also been made based on comments 

received during the review and comment periods for the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Supplement) (SANDAG, 

2014ee) and any new or additional analysis required in response to the comments or as 

a result of the refinements to the project (Chapter 1.0, Section 1.1 and Chapter 8.0 

Section 8.7 provide additional information on the Supplement). Refer to the individual 

sections within this chapter for a discussion of the specific changes made to the analysis 

and mitigation measures since publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

Many of the technical reports prepared in support of the Draft SEIS/SEIR have been 

updated to reflect the refinements to the Build Alternative and comments received on the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR or Supplement, including any new or additional analysis. The analyses 

and conclusions presented in some technical reports were not affected by the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-3 

refinements to the Build Alternative or comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR or 

Supplement; therefore, the following reports did not require updates: 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Energy Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014g) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Safety and Security Impacts Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014n) 

Additionally, six new reports have been prepared as a result of the development of the 

Refined Build Alternative, further studies, or in response to comments on the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. The following reports were created after the Draft SEIS/SEIR review and 

comment period: 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I 

Investigation Results and Effects Assessment1

 (SANDAG, 2014a) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Balboa Avenue Station Relocation Study 

Technical Memorandum (SANDAG, 2014cc) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Monitoring Plan1 (SANDAG, 2014c) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cultural Resources Discovery Plan1

 (SANDAG, 

2014b) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build Alternative Report (SANDAG, 

2014ee) 

 Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Tecolote Road Station Layout Options Technical 

Memorandum (SANDAG, 2014bb) 

 

1

 This document contains sensitive information regarding the location of archaeological sites and is not available to 

the public or other unauthorized persons. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-4 September 2014

4.1 Land Use Plans and Policies 

This section evaluates the impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

land use and development. Local policies for land use and development regulate the 

types of uses allowed, as well as the intensity of development permitted on public and 

private property. As new development results in changes to land use patterns, the 

character of an area can be affected and adverse physical effects to the environment 

may occur. For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Land Use Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014d) prepared in support of the 

SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents concluded that the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project was consistent with local land use plans and policies. 

The analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that the Build Alternative remains 

consistent with local land use plans and policies and would not result in any adverse or 

significant land use or development impacts under NEPA or CEQA. This section has 

been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR; specifically, impacts within the Multi-Habitat 

Planning Area (MHPA) have been revised based on the updated analysis for biological 

resources. 

Following the Draft SEIS/SEIR review period, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) 

provided a formal Coastal Zone boundary determination (refer to Appendix C for the 

correspondence regarding this determination). The Coastal Zone boundary differed 

from the boundary presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR in the area between the San Diego 

River and Balboa Avenue. As a result, this Final SEIS/SEIR addresses the additional 

portion of the project that is within the Coastal Zone and includes an updated evaluation 

of consistency with the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act). 

As discussed further in Section 4.1.3.2, the project would be consistent with the Coastal 

Act because it supports important policies regarding water quality, air quality, energy 

conservation, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, public access, and public transit, and 

on balance, the Refined Build Alternative is the more protective of coastal resources 

than the No-Build Alternative. 

With the exception of new information regarding consistency with all policies of the 

Coastal Act, the conclusions of the land use impacts analysis remain unchanged for the 

Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative remains consistent with all 

applicable local land use plans and policies and would not result in any adverse or 

significant land use or development impacts under NEPA or CEQA. The Preface in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Land Use Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014d) contains additional information on the changes made to the technical report 

since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

4.1.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Land use is regulated primarily at regional and local levels in accordance with state 

planning and zoning laws, Government Code Section 65000 et seq. The Mid-Coast 

Corridor is located within the City of San Diego in San Diego County. For San Diego 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-5 

County, SANDAG defines the regional vision and planning principles (such as integrating 

land use and transportation); within the City of San Diego, the city defines and regulates 

local land uses through its general plan and zoning. Additionally, portions of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project are located within the University of California, San Diego 

(UCSD) campus, where land use is regulated by the University of California Regents. 

Portions of the project are located within or near the Coastal Zone, which is regulated by 

the CCC pursuant to the Coastal Act and in accordance with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 United States Code [USC] 1451-1464). The 

Coastal Act provides the standard of review for the portions of the project within the 

Coastal Zone and requires findings of project consistency with specific policies related to 

public access and recreation, habitat protection, visual resources, and water quality, 

among others, for issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The CCC is 

responsible for issuance of the project CDP. Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act 

requires the CCC to resolve conflicts between Coastal Act policies in a manner that on 

balance is most protective of coastal resources. 

Because the project involves federal support, it would also require a consistency 

determination in accordance with the CZMA. The CZMA was passed in 1972 to 

encourage coastal states to develop and implement coastal zone management plans to 

protect, preserve, and enhance the coastal zone. It is implemented by the CCC through 

the federal consistency review process, which requires a finding that the project is 

consistent with the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP). The enforceable 

policies of this program are in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Consistency with the 

Coastal Act generally satisfies the requirement for consistency review. CCC permits and 

approvals are discussed in Section 4.22 of this Final SEIS/SEIR, and impacts to 

biological resources within the Coastal Zone are discussed in Section 4.8. 

Other agencies at the federal and state levels also play a role in land use decisions. 

These agencies’ plans and policies regulate the types of uses allowed and the intensity 

of development permitted on public and private property. The Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Land Use Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014d) contains detailed 

information on the state, regional, and local land use plans and policies reviewed for this 

analysis, including, but not limited to, the following: 

 UCSD Master Plan (UCSD, 1989) 

 UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan (UCSD, 2004a) 

 University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study (UCSD, 2004b) 

 UCSD East Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study (UCSD, 2000) 

 Old Town San Diego State Historic Park Resource Management Plan and General 

Development Plan (California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1977) 

 Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region (RCP) (SANDAG, 2004a) 

 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) 

(SANDAG, 2007a) 

 City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-6 September 2014

 Old Town San Diego Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1987) 

 Mission Valley Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1985) 

 Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LCP LUP) 

(City of San Diego, 1998a) 

 Clairemont Mesa Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1989) 

 Pacific Beach Community Plan and LCP LUP (City of San Diego, 1993) 

 La Jolla Community Plan and LCP LUP (City of San Diego, 2001) 

 University Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1986) 

 North City Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of San Diego, 1981) 

 City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan

(City of San Diego, 1997) 

 North Bay Redevelopment Plan (City of San Diego, 1998b) 

 Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines (City of San Diego, 1992) 

 Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update (City of San Diego, 1994a) 

 Draft 2010 San Diego River Park Master Plan (City of San Diego, 2010a) 

 City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update (City of San Diego, 2011b) 

SANDAG is the metropolitan planning organization for the region. The 2030 RTP and the 

RCP were used to identify transportation priorities in the San Diego region. These plans 

support smart growth policies that rely on the integration of transit and land use. The 2050 

Regional Transportation Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP) (SANDAG, 2011a) 

was also reviewed, and it was determined that it does not identify additional projects that 

would influence the land use review for this project.2

 For a further description of the 

differences between the 2030 and 2050 RTPs, refer to Chapter 2.0.

At the local level, the City of San Diego, through its general plan, has implemented 

policies to guide future land use development in its various community planning areas. 

The City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) Strategic Framework 

Element establishes the “City of Villages” smart growth strategy, which targets growth 

into mixed-use activity centers that are pedestrian-friendly districts linked to an improved 

regional transit system. In coordination with the general plan, community plans outline 

various policies to improve neighborhood quality of life and to ensure compatible 

development. In general, the community plans within the Mid-Coast Corridor share the 

following primary goals and objectives as they relate to the project: 

 Facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation by supporting light rail transit 

(LRT) 

 

2

 The 2050 RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy Final Environmental Impact Report (SANDAG, 2011c), which 

is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge, was also consulted for informational purposes, but its analysis was 

not relied upon in the SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-7 

 Support the provision of efficient and high-level public transportation (e.g., LRT) 

 Support the provision of a comprehensive access network of transit stations and 

supportive uses that enhance regional accessibility to high-activity and high-density 

areas 

Located in the northern portion of the corridor, UCSD also has developed provisions for 

its campus-wide land use decisions. Development on the UCSD campus is guided by 

the UCSD Master Plan (UCSD, 1989), the UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan

(UCSD, 2004a), and various neighborhood plans. These plans anticipate future campus 

growth and emphasize the importance of using alternative transportation, including LRT. 

For this analysis, the land use study area consists of the area 500 feet on each side of the 

project alignment (the corridor area) and the areas within one-half mile around the project 

stations (the station areas). The land use impact assessment evaluated project compatibility 

with surrounding land uses and consistency with land use plans and policies. 

4.1.2 Affected Environment 

As identified in Section 1.2.2, the Mid-Coast Corridor is a major regional destination with 

many key activity centers. The corridor contains two large urban nodes—Downtown 

San Diego in the southern end and University City3

 in the northern end—each of which 

includes a mix of office, commercial, and multifamily residential uses. Downtown San 

Diego has the highest employment density in San Diego County, followed by University 

City. Regional hospitals, universities, shopping centers, and parks also are located in 

the corridor, as shown in Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1.0. 

Governmental agencies typically classify land uses into several general categories, 

including residential (either single-family or multifamily), commercial, office, industrial, 

public, and recreation. These general categories are broken down into more specific 

land use categories. Figure 4-1 shows existing land uses within one-half mile of 

proposed station areas, which vary widely in character and density. Figure 4-2 provides 

a more detailed breakdown of existing land uses in each proposed station area by 

percentage of total land use. Portions of the land use study area along the project 

alignment are located within the Coastal Zone, including the portions of the project within 

the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) right-of-way between the San Diego River and 

Balboa Avenue. In addition, small sections of the UCSD West and UCSD East Campus 

areas west of Interstate (I-) 5 and north of Voigt Drive on the UCSD campus are also in 

the Coastal Zone. The portions of project development that are within the Coastal Zone 

would require a CDP from the CCC as it retains permit jurisdiction within these areas. 

Demonstrating consistency with specific Coastal Act policies must be satisfied for 

issuance of a CDP, including policies related to public access and recreation, habitat 

protection, visual resources, and water quality, among others. 

 

3

 The name “University City” is commonly used to refer to the entire University community planning area; however, 

University City also is a defined neighborhood within the University community planning area. Within this 

document, the term “University City neighborhood” will be used, as appropriate, to distinguish the neighborhood 

from the community. As with other community planning areas, University City is located within the City of San 

Diego. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-8 September 2014

Figure 4-1. Existing Land Uses 

Source: SANDAG, Current Land Use Shapefile, 2009; SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-9 

Figure 4-2. Existing Land Uses within One-half Mile of Refined Build Alternative Stations 

Source: SANDAG, Current Land Use Shapefile, 2009; SANDAG, 2014 

Note: The VA Medical Center Station is less than 1 mile from adjacent stations—the UCSD West and the 

Nobel Drive Stations. Land uses within one-half mile of the VA Medical Center Station are very similar to 

land uses around these adjacent stations. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-10 September 2014

As mapped in 2009, at the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue station 

areas, transportation land uses, including I-5 and the MTS right-of-way, comprise 

approximately 30 to 38 percent of total land use. At the UCSD West and UCSD East 

station areas, 49 and 27 percent of total land use is school use, as these stations are 

located on the UCSD campus (note: the half-mile station areas extend beyond the 

campus boundaries). The Nobel Drive and University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center 

station areas have a large share of multifamily residential uses (43 and 42 percent, 

respectively), while multifamily and office uses each comprise approximately 25 percent of 

the Executive Drive station area. The VA Medical Center Station is near the Nobel Drive 

and UCSD West station areas and is largely comprised of school and hospital uses. 

Outside these station areas and within the corridor area, the project alignment mostly 

would be located within the existing railroad right-of-way, with adjacent uses including, 

but not limited to, transportation (e.g., I-5), light industrial, commercial, residential, and 

park uses. In Rose Canyon, the project alignment would be located within the existing 

MTS right-of-way. 

The land uses permitted on privately owned properties are dependent on the zoning 

designations for each parcel. Zoning typically regulates the uses allowed, height and 

setback of buildings, and the amount of parking that must be provided. Accordingly, 

zoning also was evaluated to assess existing and future development in the corridor. 

Overlay zones can alter the requirements of a zoning designation, often to either ease or 

restrict development based on broader community goals; for instance, a transit overlay 

would reduce the amount of parking that a private property would be required to provide 

because transit is a viable option. Overlay zones have been implemented for the five 

existing San Diego Trolley (Trolley) Blue Line station areas from the Santa Fe Depot to 

the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) to attract higher density development that is 

consistent with transit-oriented development (TOD). Most areas adjacent to the 

proposed new stations are permitted to develop at the highest development intensity 

within the Mid-Coast Corridor, transitioning to lower-density uses (e.g., single-family 

residential) in the areas farther from the proposed stations. Plans for the UCSD campus 

anticipate future growth and development supported by LRT. 

4.1.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the compatibility of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives 

with surrounding land use and development, and consistency with local land use plans 

and policies. 

4.1.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes implementation of transportation improvements 

included in the 2030 RTP, except implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project. Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would 

not be constructed and service on bus Route 150, which operates between Downtown 

San Diego and the University area, would be continued and enhanced. The No-Build 

Alternative assumes regional growth and development consistent with the 2030 RTP. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, buses would operate on existing or planned roadways, 

and no physical improvements would be required for improving transit services other 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-11 

than the minor construction associated with new bus shelters within existing rights-ofway. Enhanced bus service typically would not result in land use changes. No adverse 

impacts to land use compatibility would be expected to occur under the No-Build Alternative. 

The No-Build Alternative would not require ground disturbance and would not result in 

impacts to biological resources; therefore, the No-Build Alternative would be consistent with 

the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan (City of San Diego, 1997). 

The 2030 RTP includes the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Under the No-Build 

Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be implemented; therefore, 

the No-Build Alternative would be inconsistent with the 2030 RTP. The No-Build 

Alternative also would be inconsistent with local land use goals and policies. Most of the 

identified transportation and land use goals and policies in the Mid-Coast Corridor aim to 

reduce automobile usage, increase intensity of development along transit corridors, seek 

cooperation and joint-development opportunities, enhance regional connectivity, 

minimize environmental impacts, and maximize transit ridership. Since the mid-1980s, 

communities in the study area have been identifying the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project in their plans and have been planning for its implementation. Additionally, 

SANDAG has designated the project station areas as smart growth opportunity areas, 

and the City of San Diego has developed the “City of Villages” strategy of integrating 

land use and transit to address potential growth. The transit improvements in the MidCoast Corridor associated with the No-Build Alternative are inconsistent with these 

strategies. This inconsistency with local plans and policies is considered an adverse 

impact. 

Land use policies of the Coastal Act are not impacted by the No-Build Alternative because it 

would not trigger any new development within the Coastal Zone. The No-Build Alternative 

would conflict with the UCSD goals and policies that envision expanding alternative forms of 

transportation on campus. Therefore, an adverse impact would occur related to UCSD 

goals and policies, but no adverse effects would occur related to conflict of the No-Build 

Alternative with the Coastal Act. 

4.1.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The project alignment under the Refined Build Alternative would be located primarily 

within the existing MTS right-of-way from the Santa Fe Depot to Gilman Drive, which 

generally runs parallel to I-5. North of Gilman Drive, the alignment would be located 

adjacent to I-5, on the UCSD campus, and within existing roadway rights-of-way. The 

alignment would be in proximity to residential, commercial, and institutional uses. In 

addition, south of State Route (SR) 52, the alignment, located within the MTS right-ofway, is adjacent to open space areas that are designated MHPA as part of the city’s 

MSCP subarea. Open space and designated MHPA also occur within the San Diego 

River floodplain. 

The Refined Build Alternative would be consistent and/or compatible with each of the goals, 

objectives, policies, and plan recommendations of the 2030 RTP, the RCP, the general plan,

and community plans because the project would reduce automobile use, provide transit 

stations in areas supportive of TOD, enhance regional connectivity, minimize environmental 

impacts, and maximize transit ridership. Opportunities for the corridor to develop in a more 

sustainable way would be enhanced by the project. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-12 September 2014

The Refined Build Alternative would be consistent with the Coastal Act because it supports 

important policies regarding water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reduction in VMT, 

public access, and public transit, and on balance, is more protective of coastal resources 

than the No-Build Alternative. Specifically, the Refined Build Alternative would be consistent 

with the policies of the Coastal Act that provide for preservation and enhancement of 

visual resources, water quality, air quality, energy conservation, reductions in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT), public access, and public transit. However, because a small 

portion of project development would involve fill of coastal wetlands and impacts to a 

potential environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), the project creates a potential 

conflict between the allowable use tests of the wetland and ESHA policies (Section 

30233(a) and (c) and 30240(a)) on the one hand, and water quality, air quality, energy 

conservation, VMT reduction, public access, and public transit policies (Sections 30231, 

30232, 30253(a)(c) and (d), 30254, 30210, 30212.5, and 30252) on the other. Section 

30007.5 of the Coastal Act requires the CCC to resolve such conflicts in a manner that 

on balance is most protective of coastal resources. 

The project has been designed to minimize wetland impacts to the maximum extent 

practicable, and would include off-site restoration, creation, and enhancement activities 

that mitigate the project’s impacts and result in an overall increase in wetland habitat. 

Further, the impacts to the potential ESHA would be mitigated through off-site 

restoration, creation, and enhancement activities that would increase higher-quality 

habitat for the species affected. Additionally, implementation of the project would 

improve water and air quality, conserve energy, reduce VMT, and improve public access 

and public transit, benefits which would not be feasible absent the project. These 

benefits of the project, combined with the minimization and mitigation measures, support 

a finding that proceeding with the project would be most protective of coastal resources 

and would be consistent with the conflict resolution requirements of Section 30007.5. 

Therefore, inconsistencies with the coastal wetlands and ESHA policies would not be 

considered adverse, and the project is consistent with the Coastal Act. A final 

determination on the project’s consistency with the Coastal Act will be made by the CCC 

as part of the CDP process. 

The Refined Build Alternative also would be consistent with the MSCP Subarea Plan 

(City of San Diego, 1997). There would be 0.26 acre of long-term impacts to biological 

resources (i.e., wetlands and Tier II vegetation communities4

) within the MHPA. 

However, these impacts would be confined primarily to the existing railroad right-of-way, 

are relatively small areas, and would not represent the expansion of existing or the 

introduction of new land uses within the MHPA. Therefore, although limited impacts 

would occur within the MHPA, the project would not be inconsistent with the MSCP, and 

impacts would not be considered adverse. Refer to Section 4.8 for additional details 

regarding impacts related to the MHPA. 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in land use incompatibility. Within the study 

area, adverse impacts would be avoided or mitigated with the exception of construction 

impacts. As described in Section 3.4.2, operation of the Refined Build Alternative would 

result in adverse and unavoidable impacts on traffic. As described in Sections 3.4.7 and 

 

4

 Wetland vegetation communities include Disturbed Wetlands and Riparian and Bottomland Habitat. Tier 

II vegetation communities include Scrub and Chaparral. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-13 

4.17, construction of the Refined Build Alternative would result in short-term transportation, 

air quality, and noise impacts, which would remain adverse and unavoidable. However, 

these impacts are not considered adverse land use impacts. 

The existing station areas, which have been supporting Trolley service since 1996, have 

been and would continue to be compatible with this high-capacity transit system. Land 

uses in these areas include high-density residential and office uses, destination-oriented 

uses such as the Old Town San Diego State Historic Park, commercial uses, and light 

industrial uses. The Refined Build Alternative would not introduce a new land use within 

the corridor and/or new station areas (with the exception of the UCSD West Station) and 

would be compatible with existing land use and zoning. While the UCSD West Station 

would introduce a new campus land use, the UCSD Master Plan (UCSD, 1989) and the

University Center/Sixth College Neighborhoods Planning Study (UCSD, 2004b) anticipate 

this transportation facility and have proposed compatible adjacent land uses. 

Based on the maps from the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 

Program, the Refined Build Alternative would not impact prime farmland, unique 

farmlands, or farmlands of statewide importance. The Refined Build Alternative would 

result in the elimination of a temporary urban farm located on the UCSD campus in 

Pepper Canyon. However, it is not located on prime or unique farmland or farmland of 

statewide importance. The temporary urban farm was approved by the UCSD Physical 

Planning Department in September 2010. The authorization stated that an 8,800-

square-foot area in Pepper Canyon could be used temporarily for an urban farm until 

construction of the planned Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project or for a period not to 

exceed three years (UCSD, 2010). This small area is not illustrated on the state's 

farmland maps and is a temporary use that is to cease operation once the project begins 

construction. The alignment would be elevated over 60 feet at this location. In 

summary, no adverse impacts to farmlands identified by the State of California Farmland 

Mapping and Monitoring Program would result from the Refined Build Alternative. 

4.1.4 Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures for impacts to coastal wetlands and ESHA are described in Section 

4.8.4 and Section 4.17.3.2 under the “Ecosystems and Biological Resources” heading. 

The Refined Build Alternative would be compatible and consistent with all applicable 

land use plans and policies. 

4.1.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.1.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-14 September 2014

Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an 

agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, 

specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of 

avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). As stated in Section 4.1.3.1, under the NoBuild Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be implemented, 

which would be inconsistent with the land use plans and policies that have identified 

future Trolley service and envision and encourage additional public transit and TOD. 

The continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 would not be sufficient to provide 

the level of transit service defined in the local and regional land use and transportation 

plans. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would conflict with applicable land use plans, 

policies, and regulations and would result in a significant land use impact. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not conflict with applicable regional and local land use plans, goals, objectives, 

policies, or regulations, including, but not limited to, UCSD and SANDAG plans and 

policies. As described in Section 4.1.3.2, the Refined Build Alternative is consistent with 

the Coastal Act because it supports important policies regarding water quality, air quality, 

energy conservation, reduction in VMT, public access, and public transit, and on balance, is 

more protective of coastal resources than the No-Build Alternative. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project has been anticipated in several plans, and 

implementation of the project would facilitate regional plans and policies that envision 

and encourage additional public transit and TOD, particularly regional plans for smart 

growth at major activity centers. In addition, the Refined Build Alternative would be 

consistent with SANDAG’s regional goals and policies identified in the RCP and the 

2030 RTP. Therefore, no impacts would occur under the Refined Build Alternative. 

Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 

community conservation plan? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction 

near biological resources, and thus would not be inconsistent with the MSCP. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not conflict with the MSCP. Refined Build Alternative impacts on biological 

resources within the MHPA would be confined primarily to the existing railroad right-ofway and would not represent the expansion of existing, or the introduction of new, land 

uses within the MHPA. Therefore, although limited impacts would occur within the 

MHPA, the project would not be inconsistent with the MSCP, and impacts would not be 

considered significant. For a more detailed description of these impacts and mitigation, 

refer to Section 4.8 of this document and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014u). 

Would the project result in incompatible land uses? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not result in any new 

land uses that that have the potential to create an incompatibility. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-15 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As explained in Section 4.1.3.2, 

although the Refined Build Alternative may influence surrounding land use and 

development, the project would not be incompatible with existing or planned land uses. 

Would the project convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide 

importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use, or 

conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not affect prime 

farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As stated in Section 4.1.3.2, the Refined Build 

Alternative would not affect prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide 

importance. 

4.1.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

The Refined Build Alternative would be compatible and consistent with applicable land 

use plans and policies. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-16 September 2014

4.2 Community and Neighborhoods 

This section evaluates the impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

communities and neighborhoods. The analysis presented in this section relies on the analysis 

presented in the separate Land Use (Section 4.1), Visual (Section 4.4), Air Quality (Section 

4.5), Noise (Section 4.7), Safety (Section 4.13), Transportation (Section 3.4), and 

Socioeconomic (Section 4.3) sections within this document. For additional information, refer 

to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents concluded that the project would not substantially 

alter community cohesion and character and would not result in an adverse impact. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that the Genesee Avenue Design Option would 

substantially change the character of Genesee Avenue within the University City 

neighborhood and thus would result in an adverse impact under NEPA and a significant 

impact under CEQA. 

This section has been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to reflect the refinements to the 

alignment within the La Jolla community and the University City neighborhood, as well as 

the elimination of the Genesee Avenue Design Option. Additionally, the summary of 

moderate noise impacts has been revised based on the updated noise analysis (as 

documented in Section 4.7 of this Final SEIS/SEIR). The Refined Build Alternative does not 

include the Genesee Avenue Design Option. As a result, the impacts associated with the 

Genesee Avenue Design Option have been eliminated. This section concludes that the 

Refined Build Alternative would not substantially alter community cohesion and character 

and would not result in an adverse impact under NEPA or a significant impact under CEQA. 

Additionally, revisions were made to Chapter 5.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014e) to reflect the refinements to the Build Alternative within the La Jolla community 

and the University City neighborhood. The impacts within these communities either 

decreased or did not change significantly with the project refinements, and the 

evaluation concludes that with mitigation the Refined Build Alternative would not result in 

new or increased impacts to the La Jolla community or the University City neighborhood. 

The Preface of the Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report 

further summarizes the changes made to the technical report since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

4.2.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The City of San Diego is divided into a series of community planning areas, or communities; 

each community has its own land use plan that guides decisions about future land use, 

transportation, and community facilities. Community and neighborhood development within 

the City of San Diego is guided by zoning and policies contained in the general plan and 

various community plans, as described in Section 4.1. On the UCSD campus, the UCSD 

Master Plan (UCSD, 1989) continues the vision of the original long-range development plan, 

prepared for UCSD in 1963, which envisioned UCSD as a campus of neighborhoods. 

The study area used to determine impacts of the project focused on the communities and 

neighborhoods within one-half mile of the project alignment. Although there are no adopted 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-17 

neighborhood areas (except within Downtown San Diego), the San Diego Geographic 

Information Source (SanGIS) provides the most comprehensive breakdown of 

neighborhoods within the city. These SanGIS neighborhood boundaries were slightly 

reconfigured to match the most recent 2010 U.S. Census block group boundaries so that 

data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the 2006–2010 American Community Survey (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2012a; 2012b) were representative of the geographical depictions of the 

neighborhoods. Geographic information system datasets from SanGIS and Esri supplied 

further information regarding public services and recreational facilities in the study area. 

The analysis approach of the impacts on community cohesion and character was derived 

from the Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation (FHWA, 

1996). The analysis determined whether the project would create physical, social, or 

perceived barriers within an established community or neighborhood; disrupt access to 

community assets; or displace community assets or institutions. The analysis also 

determined whether impacts would occur to vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, 

children, veterans, and persons with disabilities. The level of an environmental impact can 

be greater for members of vulnerable populations than it would be for the general public; for 

example, children and the elderly may be more sensitive to localized air quality emissions. 

Any land use, visual, air quality, noise, safety, transportation, and socioeconomic 

impacts were reviewed to determine which community or communities would be 

affected. The long-term direct and indirect impacts on each of the communities in the 

study area were evaluated, describing qualitative—and where possible, quantitative—

impacts associated with the changes to these communities. 

4.2.2 Affected Environment 

This section describes the existing population, housing, and employment in the overall 

Mid-Coast Corridor based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. It also describes the 

communities and neighborhoods (including demographics), and community, park, and 

recreational facilities within the study area. 

4.2.2.1 Population, Housing, and Employment 

As shown in Table 4-1, in 2010, the Mid-Coast Corridor had 385,600 people and 366,100 

jobs, which is 29 and 42 percent of the city total, respectively. This population and 

employment are distributed throughout the city’s communities and neighborhoods, although 

they are more concentrated in some communities. The population density in the corridor is 

approximately 4,800 persons per square mile. Figure 4-3 presents 2010 housing, 

population, and employment densities in the corridor, which is concentrated in University 

City and Downtown San Diego. 

Table 4-1. Population, Housing, and Employment—2010 

Area Population Housing Employment 

Mid-Coast Corridor 385,600 170,300 366,100 

City of San Diego 1,342,500 490,000 879,500 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-18 September 2014

Figure 4-3. Population, Housing, and Employment Density 

in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-19 

In 2010, the corridor contained approximately 170,300 housing units, which is 35 percent 

of the city’s housing stock. The corridor has a higher proportion of renters than the city 

(60 percent versus 54 percent) and therefore a lower proportion of owner-occupied 

housing units. The corridor has an average median household income of $70,183. 

The corridor also contains a racially and ethnically diverse population, with 

approximately 35 percent of the population identified as a racial or ethnic minority. Refer 

to Section 4.20 and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Environmental Justice 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014t) for a description of minorities and low-income 

populations within the corridor. Within the corridor, the elderly (age 65 and older) 

comprise 13 percent; children comprise 21 percent; persons with disabilities comprise 17 

percent; and veterans comprise 13 percent of the population. 

As identified in Section 1.2.1, according to forecasts from the SANDAG Series 11 Travel 

Demand Forecasting Model (Series 11 model), the population within the Mid-Coast 

Corridor is forecast to increase by 19 percent by 2030, with the residential population in 

Downtown San Diego predicted to almost double by 2030. Employment in the corridor is 

predicted to increase 12 percent by 2030. 

4.2.2.2 Communities and Neighborhoods 

Within the Mid-Coast Corridor, there are 14 community planning areas. In some cases, 

communities are comprised of smaller neighborhoods. In other cases, communities have 

no identified neighborhoods; therefore, the entire community is treated as a single 

neighborhood. The study area for the project contains 10 communities, within which 17 

neighborhoods have been defined. A neighborhood can be defined by shared 

perceptions or attitudes, behavior patterns and daily social interactions, the use of local 

facilities, participation in local organizations, and involvement in activities that satisfy the 

population’s economic and social needs. The identification of neighborhoods within 

these community planning areas provides a more accurate description of where impacts 

from the project would occur in regard to populations and local businesses. 

The 17 neighborhoods located within the study area are shown in Figure 4-4, and the 

demographic profiles for these neighborhoods are provided in Table 4-2. Figure 4-1 and 

Figure 4-2 in Section 4.1 present the existing land uses within one-half mile of each 

proposed station. Neighborhoods in the study area are summarized below by 

community and are described in more detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e). 

Centre City Community (Downtown San Diego) (Neighborhoods: Civic/Core, Columbia, 

Horton/Gaslamp, Little Italy, and Marina) 

The Centre City community is located on the southern end of the Mid-Coast Corridor; it 

is a business, cultural, and civic center, supported by a convention center, Petco Park, 

and hotels. There are five neighborhoods within the study area: Civic/Core, Columbia, 

Horton/Gaslamp, Little Italy, and Marina. Two existing Trolley stations—Santa Fe Depot 

and the County Center/Little Italy Station—are located within this community. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-20 September 2014

Figure 4-4. Communities and Neighborhoods within One-half Mile 

of the Project Alignment 

Source: SANDAG, 2004d; SanGIS, 2009 

Note: Mission Bay Park is located within the study area but is not a neighborhood. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-21 

Table 4-2. Summary Comparison of Demographics for Potentially Affected 

Mid-Coast Corridor Neighborhoods 

Neighborhood Population 

Percent 

Residential

Population 

Density 

(Pop/sq mi)

Median 

Income 

Percent 

OwnerOccupied 

Percent Residing 

in Same 

Residence > 

7 years 

Centre City Community (Downtown San Diego)

Civic/Core 4,060 3 17,480 $47,392 30 48 

Columbia 2,439 17 12,476 $47,392 30 48 

Horton/Gaslamp 6,807 4 24,079 $47,392 30 48 

Little Italy 2,725 22 8,735 $71,905 20 46 

Marina 796 <1 3,684 $47,392 30 48 

Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community

Midway 13,034 14 4,548 $46,143 25 70 

Uptown Community

Park West 8,305 19 12,639 $47,899 22 69 

Midtown 2,237 17 6,494 $72,833 39 75 

Mission Hills 9,038 55 6,302 $73,192 55 85 

Old Town San Diego Community

Old Town 2,569 14 1,793 $30,553 15 84 

Mission Valley Community

Mission Valley West 2,221 2 1,864 $62,371 62 76 

Linda Vista Community

Morena 7,570 42 6,135 $55,108 48 76 

Clairemont Mesa Community

Bay Park 15,309 62 5,439 $69,746 57 91 

Bay Ho 11,870 56 4,619 $74,647 66 80 

Pacific Beach Community

Pacific Beach 41,766 55 9,561 $70,270 31 80 

La Jolla Community

La Jolla 30,156 53 3,950 $108,674 63 82 

University Community

University City 61,294 31 5,239 $81,607 42 82 

Source: SANDAG, 2014e 

Note: Pop/sq mi = population per square mile 

Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor Community (Neighborhood: Midway) 

This community is primarily comprised of commercial and industrial uses, but contains a 

few small pockets of multifamily residential development. Commercial uses include large 

region-serving retail establishments, such as groceries, drugstores, and general and 

discount stores. There is also a wide variety of institutional uses, including the County 

Health Services complex on Rosecrans Street and the San Diego Fire-Rescue 

Department (SDFD) Fire Station #20. 

Uptown Community (Neighborhoods: Park West, Midtown, and Mission Hills) 

The Uptown community contains some of the oldest neighborhoods in San Diego (Park 

West, Midtown, and Mission Hills) that have a variety of historic architectural types and 

abundant landscaping. The Park West and Midtown neighborhoods are primarily 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-22 September 2014

commercial and industrial, while the Mission Hills neighborhood is primarily residential. 

The Washington Street and Middletown Trolley Stations are located within the Midtown 

neighborhood. 

Old Town San Diego Community (Neighborhood: Old Town) 

As the first European settlement in present-day California, the Old Town San Diego 

community is the city’s oldest settled area. Old Town encompasses 27 historic buildings 

and sites. Old Town San Diego State Historic Park and Presidio Park are located on the 

National Register of Historic Places. This community also includes the existing OTTC, 

which serves as a key intermodal connection to the existing Trolley Green and Trolley 

Blue Lines, several MTS bus lines, the COASTER, and Amtrak. The project would 

extend Trolley service north from the OTTC. 

Mission Valley Community (Neighborhood: Mission Valley West) 

Mission Valley is primarily an employment center, with numerous retail establishments, 

office buildings, and hotels located along Friars Road and the I-8 corridor. The 

community is served by the Trolley Green Line and has three regional shopping centers 

(Fashion Valley, Hazard Center, and Westfield Mission Valley), the Riverwalk Golf 

Course, and Qualcomm Stadium. The project alignment is located in the western edge 

of this community and would provide connections to this community from points north via 

the Old Town San Diego community. 

Linda Vista Community (Neighborhood: Morena) 

Linda Vista overlooks Mission Bay to the west and Mission Valley to the south. The 

University of San Diego campus is a major focal point for the community, with the dome 

of the Immaculata Church providing a distinctive landmark on the San Diego skyline. 

Tecolote Canyon Park is located on the northern portion of the neighborhood within onehalf mile of the project alignment and the Tecolote Road Station. The project alignment 

and the Tecolote Road Station would be located along the western edge of the Morena 

neighborhood. 

Clairemont Mesa Community (Neighborhoods: Bay Park and Bay Ho) 

Clairemont Mesa is an urbanized, residential community characterized by automobileoriented commercial centers, educational facilities, and recreational areas. The area is 

largely defined by its prominent topography: developed land is located primarily atop 

mesas interspersed between several major canyon systems. The project alignment and 

the Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue Stations would be located along the western 

edge in the Bay Park neighborhood, which is primarily residential. The Bay Ho 

neighborhood is within one-half mile of the project alignment and consists generally of 

industrial parks, commercial uses, and some residential areas. 

La Jolla Community and Neighborhood 

La Jolla is set along the coastal bluffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean, and this scenic 

oceanfront setting is the main focus of the community. The La Jolla Village Square 

shopping center is in the center of the neighborhood and contains a variety of stores, 

restaurants, and apartments and two movie theaters. Congregation Adat Yeshurun 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-23 

includes a portion of an eruv, an enclosure comprised of existing boundaries and, where 

these are lacking, filament line, around a designated area extending the private domain 

of Jewish households into public areas. Activities that are normally forbidden in public 

on the Sabbath are allowed within the eruv. The Nobel Drive Station would be located 

on the southeastern corner of this neighborhood. 

University Community (Neighborhood: University City) 

The University community is located in the northern end of the Mid-Coast Corridor and 

functions as a regional education, research, health service, and office park center with 

numerous activity centers. The University community is commonly referred to as 

University City. However, this is also the name of a neighborhood within the community. 

Two distinct parts of the University City neighborhood are divided by Rose Canyon, 

which features the Rose Canyon Open Space preserve and the existing railroad tracks 

located within the MTS right-of-way. The older part of University City lies south of Rose 

Canyon while the newer part of University City lies to the north. The project alignment; 

the VA Medical Center, UCSD West, UCSD East, and the Executive Drive Stations; and 

the UTC Transit Center would be located in this community. 

4.2.2.3 Community, Park, and Recreational Facilities 

Within the Mid-Coast Corridor, fire protection is provided by the SDFD; police protection 

is provided primarily by the San Diego Police Department and the UCSD campus police; 

and emergency medical services are provided by several major hospitals. Within onehalf mile of the project alignment, there are five SDFD stations, one fire station with 

equipment maintained by the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, two divisions of the 

San Diego Police Department, and six hospitals or medical facilities. Additionally, there 

are 26 churches, 18 schools, 20 parks, and 3 bike paths. Community facilities and parks 

within the study area are identified by name and location in Figure 4-5. 

4.2.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

communities and neighborhoods. Factors that may adversely impact community 

cohesion and character include the creation of a perceived or physical barrier, impacts 

on the environmental resources and transportation network in the community, and 

whether access to community and recreational facilities is impaired or eliminated. 

4.2.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be built 

and bus Route 150, which operates between Downtown San Diego and the University 

area, would be continued and enhanced. These changes and other changes associated 

with the No-Build Alternative would not result in barriers, disruption, or displacement in a 

community or neighborhood. The operation of Route 150 would not impact 

environmental resources or the existing transportation networks within a community, 

alter or block access to community assets, displace on- or off-street parking spaces, or 

impact economic development or population and employment. Therefore, the No-Build 

Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to communities and neighborhoods. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-24 September 2014

Figure 4-5. Community, Park, and Recreational Facilities within One-Half Mile 

of the Project Alignment 

Sources: City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department, 2011; California State Parks, 2011; 

Google Earth Pro mapping software; Esri 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-25 

4.2.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative would be located within or along existing transportation 

rights-of-way (i.e., MTS, I-5, and Genesee Avenue) for most of its length, and is 

consistent with the existing character of these transportation corridors. The proposed 

new Trolley stations would be designed to be consistent with the existing character of 

the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, and would support existing 

development. Planned or future development and redevelopment near project stations, 

although not part of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, would be required to adhere 

to local land use plans and zoning designations and ordinances, which already 

anticipate development of the project. The project would provide the infrastructure to 

accommodate TOD, which would provide housing and a mix of uses within walking 

distance to public transportation. Therefore, no change in population and employment 

related to land use development is anticipated under the Refined Build Alternative 

beyond what is forecast in the community plans. However, as discussed in Sections 4.3 

and 4.17, operation and construction of the project would generate new jobs, resulting in 

a positive impact on the regional economy. As identified in Section 4.3, a single 

business would be displaced and receive relocation assistance in compliance with the 

Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, as 

amended (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 24) (Uniform Act), the California 

Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, as amended (California Government Code Section 

7260 et seq.) (California Act), and SANDAG Board Policy No. 021. 

As discussed in Chapter 3.0, there are eight grade crossings in the corridor. Grade 

crossings are locations where Trolley, Amtrak, COASTER, and freight trains cross a 

roadway, stopping vehicular and pedestrian movements crossing the tracks. These 

crossings are located in the Columbia, Little Italy, Midtown, and Old Town 

neighborhoods and may represent an existing perceived intermittent barrier for those 

who must cross the tracks. However, the intermittent effect is not substantially different 

than what is experienced at major roadway intersections throughout the city. Because 

the Trolley Blue Line and other trains currently operate through these neighborhoods, 

continued operation under the Refined Build Alternative, although more frequent, would 

not divide a community and would not represent an adverse impact. Under the Refined 

Build Alternative, minor increases in congestion would occur in the Bay Park/Bay Ho and 

Mission Bay Park neighborhoods (see Section 3.4.2.2 for a description of traffic 

impacts). Additionally, in the Little Italy neighborhood, a stop-controlled intersection 

adjacent to the Beech Street grade crossing would operate at an unacceptable level of 

service that cannot be mitigated. As stated in Section 3.4.2.3, when a train clears the 

crossing and the gates rise, the queue of traffic on westbound Beech Street is released and 

then arrives at the Pacific Highway and Beech Street intersection all at once. Vehicles that 

arrive under normal conditions (i.e., not immediately after a train travels through the grade 

crossing) are not expected to experience any adverse delay. While an unmitigated impact 

would occur at this location, it would be limited in scope and would not substantially alter 

community cohesion or character. Therefore, the impact would not adversely affect the 

Little Italy neighborhood. 

One business in the Bay Park neighborhood near the Tecolote Road Station would be 

displaced but, as addressed in Section 4.3, this is not considered an adverse impact. 

The displaced business is a nursery and may relocate nearby; furthermore, there is 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-26 September 2014

another nursery within 1.85 miles that would continue to serve the community. 

Therefore, loss of this business would not result in an adverse impact to neighborhood 

character. Other full and partial acquisitions identified in Section 4.3 would not result in 

the displacement of businesses or residences. 

The elimination of some outdoor advertising (billboards) from rail right-of-way identified 

in Section 4.3 would make the area consistent with the City of San Diego Sign 

Ordinance. Removal of these billboards would improve the aesthetic character of the 

neighborhood. 

As identified in Section 4.4, the Refined Build Alternative would result in visual changes 

in the University City neighborhood. The project would be most noticeable where a 

portion of the project alignment would be on an elevated structure through the UCSD 

campus and through the surrounding office and commercial area along Genesee 

Avenue. However, because this section of the project alignment would be located in an 

area dominated by multi-story institutional, office, and commercial buildings, the contrast 

of this new visual element would be moderate and the change to the overall character of 

this community would not be adverse. 

Within the UCSD campus, the project alignment would travel through Pepper Canyon, and 

the UCSD West Station would be located on the north side of the canyon adjacent to the 

Matthews Apartments. As described in Section 4.1, the urban farm at UCSD in Pepper 

Canyon was planned as a temporary use that would cease operation once project 

construction begins; thus, there would be no adverse impact to this temporary use. 

Because the alignment would be on an elevated structure on the UCSD campus, 

motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be able to cross under the facility, and the 

project would not create a physical barrier in this area. As such, this visual change 

would not affect neighborhood cohesion. However, the elevated structure would 

introduce a new visual element that would affect the physical and visual character of the 

adjacent Matthews Apartments, resulting in a localized adverse impact to the Matthews 

Apartments. The elevated structure would obstruct some private west-facing views but 

not public views of the ocean or other scenic coastal areas. Design of the UCSD West 

Station would be completed in coordination with UCSD to visually integrate the station 

with the Matthews Apartments, thus minimizing potential visual impacts. With respect to 

neighborhood character, this visual change as observed from the Matthews Apartments 

is not expected to result in an adverse impact. Section 4.4 provides additional 

information regarding visual impacts from the project. 

Implementation of the project would improve accessibility and connectivity as a result of 

the new transit service. The benefits to transit users include increased transit options, 

improved mobility, proximity to transit links, and access to employment and activity 

centers. These benefits would be realized by all communities. Nine new stations would 

provide substantially increased opportunities to access the transit system for the 

communities and neighborhoods within the study area. 

As travelers shift from automobiles to transit, the number of auto trips would decline, 

which would reduce pollutant emissions and benefit air quality (Section 4.5). The 

addition of an LRT system also would provide the infrastructure to accommodate TOD, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-27 

which can improve quality of life by providing housing and a mix of uses within walking 

distance to public transportation, as well as provide additional benefits to the 

environment, such as an increased sense of identity for communities. 

Although the project would improve mobility and access to communities in accordance 

with adopted transportation and land use plans, it would not introduce a new population 

to these areas that could increase demand for parks, schools, hospitals/medical 

facilities, libraries, or affect response times for fire, ambulance, and police services. In 

addition, the project alignment would not disrupt or impair access to community facilities 

and services, as described in Section 4.13. Portions of the project located outside of the 

existing transportation rights-of-way would require some property acquisitions and 

easements; however, community facilities would not be displaced (see Section 4.3 for 

more detail on property acquisitions and easements). 

The project alignment would cross over the San Diego River and would require the 

placement of bridge support columns within the river. These bridge support columns 

would not diminish the function and enjoyment of the San Diego River area. Similarly, 

there would be no adverse impacts to Warren Field on the UCSD campus from the 

placement of aerial structure support columns, which would require a permanent 

easement of approximately 0.38 acre on the northwestern and northeastern corners of 

Warren Field. It is likely that the area immediately under the structure (0.25 acre) would 

not be usable for athletic activities because of the height limitations and bridge pile 

placement; however, the loss of these small portions along the perimeter of Warren Field 

would not diminish the usability and function of the field for various activities and 

therefore would not be considered an adverse impact. Implementation of the project 

also would require an adjustment in the alignment of the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path; 

however, the realigned facility would provide the same amenities as the current facility, 

and the project would not diminish the function, enjoyment, or capacity of this 

recreational facility. 

Implementation of the project is not expected to affect environmental conditions that 

could affect the quality of life in Mid-Coast Corridor communities. The Refined Build 

Alternative would result in moderate noise impacts requiring mitigation in the Little Italy 

neighborhood to the Camden Tuscany Apartments and in the University City 

neighborhood to single-family residences in the La Paz condominium complex on La 

Jolla Colony Drive (two locations), the Loft Apartments at the Shops at La Jolla, and the 

Sheraton La Jolla Hotel. There would be no noise impacts in these locations with 

implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 4.7.4. Section 4.7 

provides additional information regarding noise impacts from the project. 

The project alignment would cross portions of the La Jolla Eruv5

 at the La Jolla Village 

Square shopping center, Nobel Drive, and La Jolla Village Drive. Impacts to the La Jolla 

Eruv would occur primarily during project construction and are described in more detail 

in Section 4.17.3. 

 

5

 An eruv is a ritual enclosure around a designated area that creates and denotes the boundaries of a 

symbolic walled courtyard in which the private domain of Jewish households is extended into public areas; 

this permits activities within it that are normally forbidden in public on the Sabbath, such as carrying 

children and belongings across a property line. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-28 September 2014

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

The proposed new Trolley stations would be designed to be consistent with the existing 

character of the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, and would support 

existing development. 

Design of the UCSD West Station would be completed in coordination with UCSD to 

visually integrate the station with the Matthews Apartments, thus minimizing potential 

visual impacts. 

4.2.4 Mitigation Measures 

The visual mitigation measures identified in Section 4.4.4 would mitigate visual impacts 

to the University community. Noise impacts would be mitigated with implementation of 

Mitigation Measure N1, which would fully mitigate the noise impact in the Little Italy 

neighborhood, and implementation of Mitigation Measures N2 through N4 for the 

University City neighborhood, as described in Section 4.7.4. 

With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Refined Build Alternative would 

not result in an adverse impact to communities and neighborhoods. 

4.2.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.2.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would the project physically divide an established community? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the No-Build 

Alternative would not divide any community or neighborhood. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in Section 

4.2.3.2, elements of the Refined Build Alternative would create the potential for an 

increase in perceived barriers (e.g., grade crossings and elevated structures), but not to 

a degree that would divide any community or neighborhood. 

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the 

provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically 

altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant 

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or 

other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police 

Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-29 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the No-Build 

Alternative would not result in adverse physical impacts as a result of social effects. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in Section 

4.2.3.2, the Refined Build Alternative would not increase the corridor-wide demand for or 

accessibility of parks; schools; hospitals/medical facilities; libraries; or fire, ambulance, or 

police services in the corridor, and would not require the provision of new or physically 

altered facilities. The project would introduce new facilities, such as stations and parkand-ride facilities, which would require police and fire protection; however, the project 

would not significantly affect response times or exceed the capacity of existing service 

providers. 

Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other 

recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would 

occur or be accelerated? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the No-Build 

Alternative would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or 

other recreational facilities. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in Section 

4.2.3.2, the Refined Build Alternative would not increase population in the corridor, 

although it could redistribute a portion of existing travel and attract some transit users to 

major nearby community and recreational facilities within one-half mile of stations, such 

as Mission Bay Park. The corridor is primarily an urban environment and has many 

community facilities. Any minor redistribution in facility use associated with more 

convenient transit access as a result of the project is not expected to substantially 

increase or decrease the overall use of facilities. 

Would the project significantly impact a vulnerable population? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not impact a 

vulnerable population. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would adjust signal phasing for grade crossings, which could increase pedestrian delays 

and add a level of inconvenience for pedestrians, including those with mobility 

impairments, as Trolleys travel through grade crossings. However, because pedestrian 

crossings would still provide sufficient time for all users to cross safely and the increased 

frequency of crossing delays would not affect overall pedestrian access to community 

services and facilities, the additional inconvenience to vulnerable populations would be 

very limited and is not considered significant. 

Would the project adversely impact existing religious or sacred uses? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the No-Build 

Alternative would not alter community assets, including existing religious or sacred uses. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-30 September 2014

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to religious facilities (e.g., churches and 

temples), as the project would not impede access to these facilities and would not 

require property acquisition that would alter the use of any land by a religious institution. 

No long-term impacts would occur to the La Jolla Eruv. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Archaeological Resources Survey Report (SANDAG, 2013e) states that the 

archaeological reviews for the project did not identify any sacred sites. Coordination 

with Native American groups was conducted in accordance with the Section 106 

process. 

4.2.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

Impacts from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project related to physical barriers within 

communities, public service response times and facilities, community facilities, 

recreational facilities, and religious and sacred uses would be less than significant. 

Therefore, under CEQA, mitigation is not required because the Refined Build Alternative 

would not result in any significant impacts on communities and neighborhoods. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-31 

4.3 Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts 

This section evaluates the socioeconomic and fiscal impacts of the No-Build and Refined 

Build Alternatives, including property acquisitions. Socioeconomic impacts include 

changes to the community and regional economy resulting from implementation of the 

project. Such impacts could consist of job growth, changes in government tax revenues, 

and increased business near Trolley stations. Property acquisition impacts could include 

displacements and relocation of existing land uses. For additional information, refer to 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Economic and Fiscal Impacts Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014f); the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014o); the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, 

Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e); and the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Land Use Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014d) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents determined that the project would require 

approximately 34 acres for the I-5 alignment or 16 acres for the Genesee alignment. No 

relocations or displacements were required except for right-of-way from the 

Weiss/Mandell-Eastgate City Park. A potential displacement and relocation was 

identified as a result of the Tecolote Road Station, although it was uncertain if the 

displacement would be required. 

The analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that the Build Alternative would still 

require full and partial property acquisitions. However, the project alignment has been 

modified since completion of the prior environmental documents. Unlike the LRT 

alternatives in the prior environmental documents, the Build Alternative would not require 

right-of-way from the Weiss/Mandell-Eastgate City Park, but would require the 

displacement of one business located at the Tecolote Road Station. The project would 

require the partial and full acquisition of approximately 20.1 acres. Similar to the previous 

environmental documents, the analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that the project 

would have a positive impact on the regional economy through the creation of new jobs. 

Together, these jobs and operation and maintenance expenditures associated with the 

project would have a positive economic impact on the San Diego region. 

This section has been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to reflect the updated property 

acquisitions required by the Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative 

would require approximately 20.6 acres of partial and full acquisitions, an increase of 

approximately 0.5 acre from what was described in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Refined 

Build Alternative reduces the number of partial acquisitions required by 1 (for a total of 

35 partial acquisitions) and does not change the number of full acquisitions (4). The 

property tax revenue and job creation figures presented in this section were updated 

based on changes to the property acquisitions and updated operating and maintenance 

costs associated with the Refined Build Alternative. Although the number of acquisitions 

changed since the Draft SEIS/SEIR was released for public review, the impacts did not 

change, and the Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse or significant 

socioeconomic or fiscal impacts. The Prefaces of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Economic and Fiscal Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014f) and the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Property Acquisitions Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014o) 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-32 September 2014

further summarize the changes made to these technical reports since the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. 

4.3.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Federal, state, and regional governments regulate property acquisition for transportation 

projects. The Uniform Act requires all federal agencies to meet certain standards for fair 

and equitable treatment of property owners and persons displaced by federally supported 

actions. Compliance with the California Act is required if a public entity undertakes a 

project requiring private property acquisition for public use. The SANDAG Board Policy 

No. 021 ensures consistency in implementing public projects complying with Section 

14085 et seq. of the California Government Code and with USDOT requirements. 

Implementation of the project would require the acquisition of property. This would occur 

in locations where the existing railroad or street right-of-way is too narrow to 

accommodate the project alignment and facilities or where the alignment and facilities 

are outside of the existing railroad right-of-way. Along Genesee Avenue, the Refined 

Build Alternative would require widening the median, which would shift automobile travel 

lanes outward, requiring additional right-of-way. 

Full acquisitions were assumed to occur when the amount of property required could 

result in an uneconomic remnant to the property owner, including displacement of the 

primary structure or elimination of access. 

In comparison, partial acquisitions were assumed if the project required only a limited 

portion of the property, leaving the remainder of the site economically viable (e.g., 

acquisitions of narrow slivers of land adjacent to the existing right-of-way that affect only 

unimproved or landscaped areas or limited areas of parking). In these cases, the 

landowner of the property would not be relocated. 

Permanent easements were assumed if the required right-of-way would be maintained 

indefinitely. The landowner would retain title to the property, but the easement would 

grant exclusive rights to MTS or SANDAG to access the easement area during project 

operations. For example, a surface easement may be needed for aerial structures. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 2: Plan Set (Final 

SEIS/SEIR Plan Set) was used to identify parcels or portions of parcels that would be 

acquired. Land used for the project located within existing public rights-of-way owned by 

the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the City of San Diego, UCSD, the 

federal government (the VA Medical Center), and MTS is not included in the property 

acquisitions. The County of San Diego tax assessor office provided the assessed value of 

affected properties that was used to estimate impacts on property tax revenues. 

The number of jobs generated by operation of the project was calculated using the 

estimated operations and maintenance expenditures for the project (as described in 

Chapter 6.0 of this document) and economic multipliers obtained from the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis Regional Input-Output Modeling System for San Diego County. 

Additionally, property tax losses were estimated based on the assessed value of the 

parcel and property tax rates obtained from the San Diego County Assessor records. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-33 

4.3.2 Affected Environment 

San Diego County is home to several major corporations, the North Island Naval Air 

Station/Naval Base, several major universities, and health care facilities. Sections 4.1 and 

4.2 describe the land uses and demographics in the Mid-Coast Corridor. The project 

alignment would pass through or be adjacent to major commercial and industrial areas 

within the City of San Diego, including the key activity centers identified in Figure 1-1. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics reported county unemployment to be 9.6 percent in 2009. 

The city derives a substantial portion of its revenue from property and sales tax revenues. 

The fiscal year 2012 adopted budget reported more than one-third of revenues, or 

approximately $380 million, from property taxes. The next largest source is sales tax 

revenue at $211.6 million. Together, these revenues comprise more than half of the city’s 

general revenue fund. 

4.3.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section analyzes the socioeconomic and fiscal impacts of the No-Build and Refined 

Build Alternatives. 

4.3.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

implemented, and service on bus Route 150 would be continued and enhanced. No 

physical improvements would be required for the improved transit services other than the 

minor construction associated with new bus shelters within existing rights-of-way. No 

property acquisition affecting residents or businesses would be necessary. Local 

government property tax revenues would not be affected. 

With no major transportation improvement, there would be no impacts on public 

expenditures, employment opportunities, accessibility, or retail sales in established business 

districts. The No-Build Alternative would thus have no economic or fiscal impacts. 

4.3.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The impacts of the Refined Build Alternative would be associated with the acquisition of 

property (either full or partial) and any displacements or relocations required. 

The Refined Build Alternative would require full and partial acquisitions, estimated at 

approximately 20.6 acres (4 parcels/6.0 acres for full acquisitions and 35 parcels/14.5 

acres for partial acquisitions), as summarized in Table 4-3. The general locations of the 

full and partial acquisitions are shown in Figure 4-6. The specific locations, ownership, 

and area of the individual property acquisitions are shown on the right-of-way plans in 

the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. 

All property acquisitions would occur north of the OTTC. Improvements to the south 

would be located at existing Trolley system facilities and/or on public property. As such, 

no property acquisitions would be required south of the OTTC. Additional temporary 

construction easements that would be required are discussed in Section 4.17.3.2. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-34 September 2014

Figure 4-6. Refined Build Alternative—Full and Partial Property Acquisitions 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-35 

Table 4-3. Summary of Property Acquisitions—Refined Build Alternative 

Ownership and 

Use 

Full Acquisition Partial Acquisition 

Right-of-way Acquisition 

(Permanent Easement) 

Acres 

No. of

Parcels Acres 

No. of

Parcels Acres 

No. of

Parcels 

Residential 0 0 2.33 8 0 0 

Commercial 4.87 2 4.12 21 5.87 17 

Places of worship 0 0 0.11 1 0 0 

School – private 0 0 0.14 1 0 0 

Hospital – private 0 0 0 0 0.35 1 

Undeveloped 1.17 2 1.76 2 0 0 

Private Subtotal 6.04 4 8.46 33 6.22 18 

Hospital – public 0 0 0 0 2.03 3 

UCSD 0 0 0 0 6.84 4 

Public other 0 0 6.07 2 2.70 6 

Public Subtotal 0 0 6.07 2 11.57 13 

Total 6.04 4 14.53 35 17.97 31 

Source: SANDAG, 2014o 

Note: UCSD = University of California, San Diego 

Full parcel acquisitions would affect four properties—one vacant commercial property, 

two undeveloped parcels zoned as open space, and one property occupied by a retail 

business (a retail nursery and garden center). This business also leases adjacent 

property for outdoor nursery use as part of its business activity. There would be a 

displacement of this retail business located near the Tecolote Road Station (identified as 

number 6 on Figure 4-6). The retail business is estimated to employ up to 25 workers 

and is located on approximately 1.27 acres. As the business currently has use of 

adjacent public right-of-way to the rear of the property, replacement property would need 

to be somewhat larger than the current property. 

The vacant commercial lot is a 3.60-acre property. As there are no buildings on this 

parcel, no businesses or employees would be displaced. 

Implementation of the project would require the termination of several uses of public 

rights-of-way. Within the Mid-Coast Corridor, a number of existing spur tracks have 

historically provided freight railroad access to adjacent businesses that no longer have 

any connection to commercial rail use. The project alignment crosses an existing spur 

track on the east side of the right-of-way that currently provides railroad access to two 

properties. Neither property is using the connection for the commerce of rail freight. 

One property is a storage facility at Buenos Street that houses a privately owned railroad 

car that is only used for recreational purposes. The other property on Anna Avenue 

served by the spur is the former distribution facility of the former San Diego Union 

Tribune. This property was sold to another entity and no longer takes freight service. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, the spur rail track would be removed. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-36 September 2014

In addition, agreements associated with several outdoor advertising signs (i.e., 

billboards) would be terminated. Clear Channel Outdoor has two one-sided billboards 

along the south side of Friars Road on the east and west sides of the San Diego River 

Bridge and a two-sided billboard on MTS property on the west side of the MTS rail tracks 

between Friars Road and Anna Avenue under a license agreement. CBS Outdoor has 

two billboards located on MTS property between West Morena Boulevard and the MTS 

rail tracks near Knoxville Street under a lease agreement. With the exception of the 

billboard south of Friars Road and west of the San Diego River Bridge, the remaining 

billboard structures would be displaced. Although relocation of these billboards in the 

City of San Diego would not be possible because the City of San Diego Sign Ordinance 

does not permit new off-site billboards, the underlying agreements provide for 

termination if required for construction of additional rail facilities, with no compensation 

due to the billboard companies. 

Overall, the permanent full acquisition impacts would not be adverse because only one 

business would be displaced. The remaining permanent full acquisitions consist of 

vacant land, unoccupied property, or publicly owned land. Property and business 

owners affected by acquisitions and displacements would be compensated consistent 

with the Uniform Act, the California Act, and SANDAG Board Policy No. 021. Therefore, 

there would not be an adverse impact. 

Additionally, beneficial impacts would result from increases in property values and 

station-area activity, and the resulting increases in retail sales and increased 

employment. Businesses and business districts near the proposed Trolley stations are 

expected to benefit as a result of increased sales from pedestrian and vehicular traffic as 

people arrive and depart from transit stations. Proximity to the stations likely would 

stimulate additional business development consistent with planned higher density and 

transit-oriented land uses in these station areas. This would result in a beneficial impact. 

While many of the property acquisitions needed for the Refined Build Alternative are 

public right-of-way, some of the parcels needed are privately owned and generate 

property taxes. When these taxable parcels are converted to a transportation purpose, 

the parcels become government owned and tax exempt, and property tax revenue is 

lost. 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 approximately 0.02 

percent of total city general fund revenues). Therefore, no adverse impacts to 

government revenue would occur under the project. 

The Refined Build Alternative could increase property values and associated property 

tax revenues as a result of higher-density development around some of the proposed 

stations, as well as from the effects of improved mobility and accessibility on station-area 

properties. Such development is encouraged by Smart Growth Center designations. 

Property values also could rise as a result of increased foot traffic at commercial 

properties within walking distance of stations. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-37 

Operation of the expanded Trolley Blue Line would create an estimated 33 direct jobs 

and 130 total jobs when indirect and induced employment are included. Together, these 

jobs and operation and maintenance expenditures associated with the extension of the 

Trolley Blue Line would have a beneficial economic impact on the San Diego region. 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in an adverse impact. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

Property and business owners affected by acquisitions and displacements would be 

compensated consistent with the Uniform Act, the California Act, and SANDAG Board 

Policy No. 021. 

4.3.4 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse socioeconomic and fiscal 

impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. 

4.3.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above and the CEQA threshold of significance and additional analysis 

below. 

4.3.5.1 Significance Criteria and Significance Criteria Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed a CEQA threshold of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would the project displace substantial numbers of people or dwelling units necessitating 

the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not require any 

property acquisition and, thus, there would be no impact on residents or businesses. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would result in less-than-significant impacts. The project would displace one business, 

affecting the business owner and an estimated 25 employees. The project would not 

displace any dwelling units, necessitate construction of replacement housing, or displace 

a substantial number of people who would need to seek employment outside of the local 

employment area. 

4.3.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

The project would result in less-than-significant impacts; therefore, no mitigation 

measures are required. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-38 September 2014

4.4 Visual Resources and Aesthetics 

This section describes the existing visual environment and scenic resources in the study 

area, and includes a discussion of impacts on these resources that could result from the 

No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. For additional information, refer to the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014j) 

prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents identified adverse impacts along several sections of 

the alignment. Adverse impacts were identified between I-5 and Charmant Drive in La 

Jolla Colony, near the UCSD student housing and La Jolla Colony Drive, and between 

Regents Road and Judicial Drive. The prior environmental review also identified impacts 

from retaining walls and substations between Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue, 

which would be visible from Mission Bay Park. Additionally, the prior environmental 

review identified a visual impact at Jutland Drive from a proposed park-and-ride facility. 

Since publication of the previous environmental documents, visual and scenic resources 

generally have not changed. The Jutland Drive park-and-ride facility is no longer part of 

the project. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified adverse impacts along several sections of the alignment 

and concluded that there would be moderate and moderately high visual changes at 

eight locations before mitigation. Under the Build Alternative and the Build Alternative 

with the VA Medical Center Station Option, no adverse impacts would occur with 

mitigation. With mitigation, the visual changes would be reduced to low to moderate at 

all locations with an adverse impact. The Draft SEIS/SEIR also concluded that under 

the Genesee Avenue Design Option, impacts at two locations would be considered 

adverse under NEPA and significant under CEQA. 

This section has been revised based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and 

updated analysis as a result of the refinements made to the Build Alternative. Specifically, 

the simulation of the I-5 crossing (Key View 26) has been revised to reflect the new 

crossing design that does not include straddle bents. Additionally, this Final SEIS/SEIR 

includes additional project measures to avoid or minimize visual impacts related to 

station lighting and traction power substations (TPSSs) based on comments received on 

the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Refined Build Alternative does not include the Genesee 

Avenue Design Option. As a result, the impacts associated with that option have been 

eliminated. The conclusions in this section and for the visual impacts analysis remain 

unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. With mitigation, the visual changes from the 

Refined Build Alternative would be reduced to low or moderate at all locations with an 

adverse impact. 

Additionally, revisions were made to Chapter 5.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014j). A new appendix (Appendix 

D) was added to this technical report documenting the additional visual analysis that was 

completed for Rose Canyon Open Space Park and Marian Bear Memorial Park. 

Appendix D also includes potential key views from trails within both parks and two visual 

simulations illustrating the location and scale of the project as seen from trails within 

Rose Canyon Open Space Park. These visual simulations and additional analysis were 

completed in response to comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and to confirm the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-39 

conclusions presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR regarding the visual impacts to these 

areas. The analysis concluded that the project would not contrast with the existing 

visual character or quality, and no adverse or significant impacts would occur. 

Therefore, the conclusions presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR regarding no adverse or 

significant visual impacts to Rose Canyon Open Space Park remain unchanged in this 

Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Chapter 5.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report 

(SANDAG, 2014j) was also revised to reflect changes to the project design under the 

Refined Build Alternative. Project design changes were noted at the following Key 

Views: 14, 15, 16, 24, and 28; however, at each of these key views, impact conclusions 

remain unchanged. An updated simulation was prepared for Key View 28. Chapter 5.0 

was also revised to reflect changes to the design of retaining and sound walls under the 

Refined Build Alternative. A discussion of safety walls also was added. With mitigation, 

there would not be adverse visual impacts as a result of retaining, sound, or safety walls. 

Refer to the Preface in the Visual Impacts Technical Report for additional information on 

the revisions to the visual analysis and technical report since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

4.4.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The following sections describe the regulatory background and methodology used to 

determine visual impacts. 

4.4.1.1 Regulatory Background 

The FTA Circular 9400.1A, Design and Art in Transit Projects, contains policies to 

promote livable communities in and around transit systems by providing positive design 

and art elements to create vibrant spaces. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271–1287) was created in 1968 to preserve 

certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing 

condition. The act is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers. 

As stated in Section 4.1.1, portions of project development in the vicinity of Voigt Drive 

and the portions within the MTS right-of-way between the San Diego River and Balboa 

Avenue are located within the Coastal Zone and are subject to additional regulations 

under the Coastal Act and the federal CZMA. The Coastal Act provides the standard of 

review for the portions of the project within the Coastal Zone and includes specific policies 

that require consideration and protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas.. 

Refer to Section 4.1 for additional information on Coastal Act and CZMA requirements. 

The City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) includes policies to create 

multi-modal solutions, provide public art, promote sustainable development, prevent pollution, 

create vibrant public spaces, and support infrastructure development. Many policies focus on 

the visual character, major landmarks, and important scenic views and corridors within each 

community area. The community plans are part of the City of San Diego General Plan and 

provide specific policies relating to visual quality of each community. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-40 September 2014

4.4.1.2 Methodology 

For purposes of assessing visual and aesthetic impacts, the FTA applies the FHWA 

guidelines. The FHWA assessment methodology is presented in the Visual Impact 

Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA, 1988), which is applicable to many types of 

transportation projects. The methodology considers the level of change in visual quality 

and character (context of impact) and then applies the viewer experience (intensity of 

impact), which represents typical local values and goals. The assessment methodology 

includes the following components: 

 Define the project setting and viewshed 

 Determine who has project views 

 Identify key views for visual assessment 

 Analyze changes in existing visual resources and expected viewer response 

 Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives 

 Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives 

 Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts 

“Visual impact” is defined as a change in visual character and quality of a visual 

resource and viewer response to that change, such as: 

 Features are altered, introduced, made less visible, or are removed, such that the 

resultant effect is out of character with the existing visual environment. Changes 

seem out of place, discordant, or distracting. 

 Views are substantially diminished or eliminated by screening or by blocking of the 

affected view, and/or physical access to public views is substantially restricted or 

eliminated. 

 Locally important visual or scenic resources are removed, reduced, or changed to 

the extent that it results in a dramatic change in the visual character or quality of a 

viewing scene. 

This evaluation uses the following terms—none or not applicable, low, moderate, 

moderately high, and high—to describe the level of visual change based on contrast, design 

quality, visibility, view duration, viewer response, and conformance to adopted plans. A 

visual change that is moderately high or high following mitigation could be adverse. 

4.4.2 Affected Environment 

The following resources along the project alignment represent important scenic 

resources, dominant landforms, highly valued viewing scenes, landmark architecture, or 

intact natural resources: 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-41 

 Michael Graves architecture 

(Aventine Mixed Use 

Development) (Figure 4-7): 

Landmark along the I-5 corridor 

in University City 

 Mission Bay: A local and 

regional landmark within the 

Coastal Zone (Figure 4-8 and 

Figure 4-9) 

Figure 4-8. Views to Mission Bay from the Bay Park Neighborhood 

 

Source: KTU+A, 2012 

Figure 4-9. Overview of Mission Bay 

 

Source: KTU+A, 2012; Eagle Aerial, 2009 

Figure 4-7. Unique Forms of Michael Graves 

Building (Hyatt Regency) 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-42 September 2014

 San Diego California Church 

of Jesus Christ, Latter Day 

Saints Temple (Mormon 

Temple) (Figure 4-10): A 

distinctive visual landmark for 

the University City 

community 

 UCSD: Recreational sports 

fields, university-related 

educational and medical 

facilities, Pepper Canyon 

 University Towne Centre/ 

University City area: 

Shopping center and several 

high-end multistory office 

buildings and commercial 

complexes 

 San Diego River corridor 

(Figure 4-11): Riparian 

habitat 

 Tecolote, San Clemente, and 

Rose Canyons: Riparian 

habitat 

 La Jolla Colony landscaping 

in the University City area: 

Screens residences and 

provides a landscaped 

vehicular corridor for 

commuters 

 Mature eucalyptus trees providing a vegetative buffer between I-5 and the 

neighborhoods and commercial districts of Clairemont, and jacaranda trees providing 

visual interest along Morena Boulevard 

Because the project is visible from a large area and there are many possible vantage points, 

representative viewpoints were identified and evaluated. As detailed in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014j), 94 potential 

key views were evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, representing different visual resources, 

such as regional landmarks, designated view corridors, and natural open spaces. These 94 

potential key views were narrowed down to 32 candidate key views, identified as those 

views most clearly displaying the visual effects of the project. Figure 4-12 shows the 

locations of the 32 candidate key views. The candidate key views were refined based on 

screening, and 18 final key views were selected for detailed analysis, as described in 

Section 4.4.3.2. 

There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

Figure 4-10. Mormon Temple 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Figure 4-11. San Diego River 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-43 

Figure 4-12. Candidate Key View Photo Locations 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-44 September 2014

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the visual impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.4.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

constructed, and service on bus Route 150 would be continued and enhanced. Buses 

would operate on existing or planned roadways, with limited physical improvements, such as 

new bus shelters within existing rights-of-way. Enhancement of Route 150 would not impact 

the existing visual quality, view quality, visual resources, or visual character of the corridor. 

Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not have an adverse visual impact. 

4.4.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

This section describes the impacts of the Refined Build Alternative with respect to key 

views and visual resources. 

Impacts to Key Views 

Of the 32 view locations originally evaluated for impacts in support of the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR, 18 final key views were selected for simulation and evaluation of project 

impacts. The final key views most clearly display the project’s visual impacts and 

represent areas of high visual quality, regionally important views, and/or sensitive viewer 

groups. These final key views represent areas where the project could have an adverse 

impact to the visual setting for any of the following reasons: 

 They are seen by a moderate-to-high number of viewers 

 They are within areas of moderate-to-high visual quality 

 They are in areas with a high level of sensitivity to change 

 They include project elements that are visually prominent and likely to contrast with 

the visual setting where they are located 

Two additional simulations were prepared in support of the Final SEIS/SEIR that 

illustrate the location and scale of the project as seen from trails within Rose Canyon 

Open Space Park. These visual simulations were completed in response to comments 

received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and to confirm the conclusions presented in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR regarding the visual impacts to these areas. The analysis concluded that the 

project would not contrast with the existing visual character or quality, and no adverse or 

significant impacts would occur. These simulations are included in Appendix D of the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014j). 

Table 4-4 summarizes project-related impacts for the final key views. Moderate, moderately 

high, and high levels of visual change have the potential to result in adverse impacts. 

Moderately High Visual Changes 

Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14 show the two locations where the Refined Build Alternative 

would result in moderately high visual changes; at one location, impacts would be 

adverse without mitigation, and at the other, impacts would not be adverse. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-45 

Table 4-4. Summary of Impacts for Final Key Views 

Key Views Description 

Visual Change Adverse 

Impact 

Without 

Mitigation 

Adverse 

Impact 

With 

Mitigation

Visual 

Quality

Visual 

Resource

Viewer 

Response

View 

Quality 

Key Views 30 

and 31 

Looking southwest from Morena 

Blvd to Mission Bay N N L L No No 

Key View 32 Looking east from I-5 to Santa 

Fe St M L M M Yes No 

Key View 8 Looking southwest on La Jolla 

Colony Dr near Gilman Dr and 

I-5 

M MH M L Yes No 

Key View 27 Looking north on La Jolla 

Colony Dr and I-5 northbound 

on-ramp 

L L L L No No 

Key View 23 Looking north on I-5 north of La 

Jolla Colony Dr M M M L Yes No 

Key View 7 Looking south at private HOA 

dog park from Charmant Dr M M M L Yes No 

Key View 10 Looking northeast from 2nd floor 

at La Jolla Village Square L N M L No No 

Key View 26 Looking southbound on I-5 

south of Nobel Drive MH L MH N No No 

Key View 24 Looking north on I-5 north of La 

Jolla Village Dr M L M N Yes No 

Key View 12 Looking east into Pepper 

Canyon from UCSD residence 

halls 

M M M L Yes No 

Key View 14 Looking west on Voigt Dr toward 

bridge on I-5 L L L N No No 

Key View 15 Looking northeast in stands 

from UCSD baseball field L L L L No No 

Key View 28 Looking west along Voigt Dr 

toward I-5 L L L N No No 

Key View 16 Looking northwest from UCSD 

east commuter lot L L L N No No 

Key View 18 Looking south from intersection 

of Executive Dr and Genesee 

Ave 

M L M M Yes No 

Key View 20 Looking north at intersection of 

Genesee Ave and La Jolla 

Village Dr 

M L M M Yes No 

Key View 19 Looking north from Westfield 

UTC along Genesee Ave L L L L No No 

N None L Low M Moderate MH Moderately High 

Source: SANDAG, 2014j 

Note: HOA = homeowners association; UCSD = University of California, San Diego; UTC = University Towne Centre 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-46 September 2014

Figure 4-13. Key View No. 8 

(Looking southwest on La Jolla Colony Drive near Gilman Drive and I-5) 

Existing Conditions 

Proposed Conditions Unmitigated 

Note: This simulation represents an approximate rendering of project elements. The simulation shows the tops of the 

catenary poles, lines, and the concrete retaining walls. The simulation also reflects removal of existing landscaping, 

including several trees. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-47 

Figure 4-14. Key View No. 26 

(Looking southbound on I-5 south of Nobel Drive) 

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions Unmitigated 

Note: This simulation represents an approximate rendering of project elements. The simulation illustrates the 

aerial structure as it crosses over the I-5 corridor with columns and catenary catenary wires and poles as the 

primary visible project features. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-48 September 2014

 Southwest at La Jolla Colony Drive near Gilman Drive and I-5 (Key View No. 8): 

Removal of prominent trees would reduce unity and intactness, and introduction of a 

retaining wall and fencing would contrast with the existing setting. This impact would 

be adverse without mitigation. 

 Southbound on I-5 south of Nobel Drive (Key View No. 26): The support columns 

and massive scale of the I-5 crossing would contrast with the setting. No noteworthy 

visual resources would be removed. Given the impact location within an existing 

transportation corridor, the presence of other bridges and large structures throughout 

the I-5 corridor, and the low sensitivity and limited duration of exposure of viewer 

groups, this impact would not be considered adverse. 

Moderate Visual Changes 

The project would result in moderate visual impacts at the following locations; these 

impacts would be adverse without mitigation: 

 East across Santa Fe Street from the northbound lanes of I-5 (Key View No. 32): 

Addition of retaining walls would contrast with visual setting of Rose Canyon. 

 Northbound on I-5 north of La Jolla Colony Drive (Key View No. 23): Alteration of a 

landform and removal of mature trees would affect an existing visual resource and 

contrast with the existing visual setting. 

 South to southwest toward the dog park along Charmant Drive (Key View No. 7): 

Removal of trees would affect an existing visual resource, and view of aerial 

structure would affect view quality and viewer response. 

 North on I-5 north of La Jolla Village Drive (Key View No. 24): View of retaining wall 

at VA Medical Center and aerial structure leading away from wall would contrast 

strongly with setting. 

 Pepper Canyon at UCSD (Key View No. 12): Loss of trees and vegetation within 

visual resource and view of aerial structure would affect an existing visual resource. 

 South at the intersection of Executive Drive and Genesee Avenue (Key View No. 

18): Aerial structure would be out of character with scale of street. 

 North on Genesee Avenue at La Jolla Village Drive (Key View No. 20): Aerial 

structure would contrast with scale of street and buildings. 

Impacts to Visual Resources 

The following sections compare project features to visual resources along the alignment. 

Visually prominent features of the project include aerial structures, catenaries, bridges, 

retaining walls, topographic and grading changes, tree and vegetation removal, shade 

shelters, passenger platform areas, and station area parking lots and parking structures. 

If these visually prominent features affect highly sensitive and high quality visual 

environments, changes could result in a visual impact. Sensitive areas with visual 

resources within the corridor are described below. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-49 

San Diego River 

The project calls for construction of a new bridge over the San Diego River. Project 

features would include a new aerial structure with tracks and catenary lines. This bridge 

would be located near several other existing bridges. Some removal of riparian 

vegetation would be required for the support columns, but the biological impact 

assessment has identified compensatory mitigation for permanent losses. The visual 

simulation of proposed improvements indicates the project features would neither 

contrast with the setting nor seem out of character with other elements in the area. 

Therefore, no adverse impacts would occur to this visual resource. 

Mission Bay 

A portion of the project alignment is located adjacent to Mission Bay and would include 

new rail lines, ballast, retaining walls, grading, and catenaries in this location. The 

catenaries would be a visually prominent feature for views from Morena Boulevard 

toward the water, but would not result in a dramatic change to the visual character or 

quality of the viewing scene. 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, would 

not be affected. The Balboa Avenue Station and associated improvements would be 

located at a higher elevation. However, based on the station location, none of these 

improvements would block existing views of the bay. Therefore, no adverse impacts 

would occur. 

Rose Canyon West and Rose Canyon North 

Within Rose Canyon West and Rose Canyon North, project features would include tracks 

and catenaries. Project construction would entail limited grading, tree removal, and retaining 

walls. It would be built primarily within the existing MTS right-of-way where railroad tracks 

and other equipment already exist. 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 the removal of trees and vegetation. 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. 

UCSD 

At UCSD, project features include elevated structures, two stations, new rail lines, 

ballast, retaining walls, grading, catenary lines, and poles. The visual environment of the 

campus includes dense vegetation, including mature large trees interspersed with largescale buildings that are often prominent in the surrounding landscape. Facilities 

associated with the project in this area would partially obstruct some existing views, and 

removal of some mature trees and vegetation may be required within Pepper Canyon. 

However, project features would not contrast substantially with the surrounding visual 

quality or character. The project would have a low-to-moderate visual change on the 

visual resources at UCSD that would not constitute an adverse impact. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-50 September 2014

The elevated structure would introduce a new visual element that would affect the 

physical and visual character of the adjacent Matthews Apartments, resulting in a 

localized adverse impact to the Matthews Apartments. This aerial structure would 

obstruct west-facing views. However, the obstructed views are not of the coast or of 

other scenic public view corridors. Coordination with UCSD would occur to implement 

station design features that would visually integrate the station with the Matthews 

Apartments, thus minimizing potential visual impacts. The project would have a low 

visual impact on the Matthews Apartments. 

University Towne Centre/University City Area 

The UTC and University City area contain architecture and mature landscaping with 

distinct visual character. The Refined Build Alternative includes an overhead structure 

with columns in the center of the Genesee Avenue median with two straddle bents on 

Genesee Avenue. One straddle bent would be located west of Regents Road where the 

alignment would enter Genesee Avenue, and the second straddle bent would be located 

at the intersection of Executive Square and Genesee Avenue to support the tracks and 

the station platform. The Refined Build Alternative would have a moderate adverse 

impact. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

This section describes project measures to avoid or minimize visual impacts. 

Stations 

The proposed new Trolley stations would be designed to be consistent with the existing 

visual character of the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, and would support 

existing development. 

Design of the UCSD West Station would be completed in coordination with UCSD to visually 

integrate the station with the Matthews Apartments, thus minimizing potential visual impacts. 

Traction Power Substations 

All TPSS enclosures located in highly urbanized and/or heavily traveled (vehicular or 

pedestrian) areas would 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. 

All TPSS enclosures located in sensitive natural or public open space areas would also 

be screened from public view. Where appropriate, in sensitive natural open space 

areas, screening material would consist of native vegetation and would not use any nonnative invasive species or noxious weeds. Screening vegetation for TPSS enclosures 

located near public open space areas, such as parks or public rights-of-way, and 

maintained by others would use ornamental plant material that is consistent with the 

surrounding or adjacent vegetation. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-51 

Lighting 

At project stations and station areas, exterior lighting would include light fixtures for 

pedestrian safety, security, and signage. This lighting would be directed down and 

would minimize light trespass or spill-over into sensitive areas, such as residential 

neighborhoods, hotels, or medical facilities, using shielding where appropriate. Lighting 

levels would not exceed 2 foot-candles or more from the project area into the adjacent 

residential uses or other sensitive receptors. The project lighting would be designed to 

illuminate specific areas of the project site and station platforms, and the low level of 

lighting that would be visible from off-site locations would blend with the overall ambient 

glow that is associated with the immediate urban environment. 

4.4.4 Mitigation Measures 

The following mitigation measures, as implemented by SANDAG, would avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts. Mitigation measures would consist of design elements 

and/or landscaping. Examples of design elements and landscaping are provided in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014j), Chapter 6.0, Section 6.1.2 in Table 6-2 and Table 6-3. The following mitigation 

measures would incorporate design elements to minimize impacts: 

VR1 The design of structures such as bridge columns, retaining walls, and sound walls 

within or adjacent to the Caltrans right-of-way would be compatible with Caltrans 

Design Guidelines, including those prepared for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project. 

VR2 Other structure elements beyond walls and columns would take into account 

contextual design principles. New architectural features, such as stairs, ramps, 

elevators, aerial structures, support columns, screen walls, bridge rail, and 

station design elements, would be similar to or compatible with the visual 

character and quality of the surrounding area. 

VR3 Design plans developed for the project would include structure architectural 

design elements such as pilasters, recessed or raised concrete surfaces, and 

concrete surface treatments such as formliner textures and integrated colored 

concrete to reduce visual impacts associated with these elements. 

The following mitigation measures would incorporate landscaping to minimize impacts: 

VR4 Landscape design plans would be developed for the project by a qualified 

landscape architect and coordinated with local agencies and property owners. A 

plant establishment period would be included in construction documents 

developed for the project. 

VR5 Where ornamental vegetation associated with maintained landscaped areas is 

affected, it would be replaced in-kind or with similar vegetation types and 

quantities contingent on the approval of the land owner. 

VR6 Where the project requires removal of trees and the removal results in adverse 

visual impacts, a tree replacement ratio of 2:1 for trees larger than 6 inches in 

diameter at chest height and a 1:1 ratio for trees smaller than 6 inches in diameter at 

chest height would be implemented contingent on the approval of the land owner. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-52 September 2014

Specific tree replacement sizes, use of appropriate tree species, and consideration 

of native and low maintenance requirements would be determined by SANDAG in 

consultation with a qualified landscape architect and affected property owners. 

VR7 All new plantings, regardless of location, would not include invasive plants or noxious 

weeds, but would include native and/or drought-resistant plants wherever 

appropriate. Replacement trees would not be planted in locations where their 

growth is likely to block a view corridor of a regionally important viewing scene. 

A summary of impacts by level and type of mitigation for each of the key view locations 

is presented in Table 4-5. The effectiveness of the mitigation was evaluated to 

determine whether the severity of impacts could be reduced. As shown in the table, with 

mitigation at these key view locations, no adverse impacts would occur. Several of the 

measures above would apply to elements of the project regardless of the level of impact 

identified at key views. 

4.4.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.4.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative assumes development within 

the study area that would occur by 2030 with or without the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project. The principal change that would result from the No-Build Alternative is 

continuation and enhancement of Route 150 bus service between Downtown San Diego 

and the University City area. The modification of Route 150 would not reduce the 

existing visual quality, view quality, visual resources, or visual character of the corridor. 

The No-Build Alternative, therefore, would not have a significant visual impact and, 

accordingly, is not discussed further under the CEQA thresholds below. 

Would the project substantially block a view of the coast and from the coast through a 

designated public view corridor as shown in an adopted community plan, the General 

Plan, or the Local Coastal Program? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not cause significant impacts because it would not substantially block coastal 

views or public view corridors. Drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and area residents using 

Morena Boulevard would perceive a visual change with the addition of catenary poles 

and lines. The degree to which catenary poles and lines affect a view is dependent on 

the viewer’s location and sensitivity. Although the catenary lines and poles do not block 

a high percentage of the view, their presence is visually dominant because of the views 

of the park and bay in the background. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-53 

Table 4-5. Summary of Mitigation Measures and Impacts for Final Key Views 

(Before and After Mitigation) 

Key Views 

Mitigation Visual Changes Impact

Design Landscape

Visual 

Quality 

Visual 

Resource 

Viewer 

Response

View 

Quality 

Adverse 

(NEPA)

Significant 

(CEQA) 

Key View 7 M M M L Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L L L No No 

Key View 8 M MH M L Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L L L No No 

Key View 10 L N M L No No 

With Mitigation √ √ L N L L No No 

Key View 12 M M M L Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L L L No No 

Key View 14 L L L N No No 

With Mitigation √ L L L N No No 

Key View 15 L L L L No No 

With Mitigation √ L L L N No No 

Key View 16 L L L N No No 

With Mitigation √ L L L N No No 

Key View 18 M L M M Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L L M No No

Key View 19 L L L L No No 

With Mitigation √ √ L L L L No No 

Key View 20 M L M M Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L M M No No

Key View 23 M M M L Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L M M L No No 

Key View 24 M L M N Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L L N No No 

Key View 26 MH L MH N No No

With Mitigation √ M L M N No No 

Key View 27 L L L L No No 

With Mitigation √ √ L L L L No No 

Key View 28 L L L N No No 

With Mitigation √ L L L N No No 

Key View 30 & 31 N N L L No No 

With Mitigation √ N N L L No No 

Key View 32 M L M M Yes Yes

With Mitigation √ √ L L L L No No 

Legend: N = No Impact; L = Low Impact; M = Moderate Impact; MH = Moderately High Impact 

Source: SANDAG, 2014j 

Notes: Rows shaded in grey indicate the visual change and level of impact prior to mitigation. Rows in white 

indicate the visual change and level of impact with mitigation. 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-54 September 2014

The number of viewers using Morena Boulevard is small and the duration in which views 

would be affected is short, lasting only a few seconds for motorists. In addition the 

elevation difference between Morena Boulevard and the existing grade of the tracks to 

the west would limit the extent to which the catenary lines and poles are expected to 

cross the viewer’s line of sight. This would occur within a small segment of the corridor, 

about 300 feet of the 3,000-foot-long corridor (10 percent of the view corridor) where the 

alignment is parallel to Morena Boulevard. Therefore, the visual effects of the catenary 

lines and poles are considered less than significant. 

At UCSD, the elevated structure would introduce a new visual element that would affect 

the physical and visual character of the adjacent Matthews Apartments, resulting in a 

localized significant impact to the Matthews Apartments. However, with implementation 

of the project measure described in Section 4.4.3.2 under the heading “Project 

Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts”, this impact would not be significant. This aerial 

structure would obstruct west-facing views, but these views are not of the coast or of 

public view corridors, and the impact would not be significant. 

Would the project substantially block a view from a public viewing area of a public 

resource (such as the ocean) that is considered significant by the applicable community 

plan? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not cause significant impacts. The project would not block views to the ocean. 

The previous threshold addressed the partial obstruction of views of Mission Bay and 

views from the Matthews Apartments at UCSD. From La Jolla Village Square, the 

project would affect views of significant local landmarks (the Mormon Temple and the 

Hyatt Regency Aventine Hotel). These views would be seen from the La Jolla Village 

Square surface parking lots, adjacent roads, walkways, and outdoor dining areas. The 

views would be partially obstructed by the aerial structure and station platform. 

However, as seen from this viewpoint, the obstruction would be similar to that presented 

by existing mature trees, and the landmarks would remain visible. The affected viewer 

groups would include retail workers and customers whose viewing duration and 

sensitivity to visual changes would be moderate. Views of the Mormon Temple and 

Hyatt Regency Aventine Hotel are not identified as significant public resources by the 

local community plan. Therefore, the impact to these views is considered less than 

significant. 

Would the project strongly contrast with the surrounding development or natural 

topography through excessive height, bulk, signage, or architectural projections? 

The Refined Build Alternative would cause some significant impacts. As a transit 

project, the project does not significantly conflict with the height, bulk, or coverage 

regulations of the applicable zoning ordinance. However, there are elements of the 

project that were evaluated for bulk, height, and scale from a visual perspective. Some 

walls, the aerial structure on I-5 south of Nobel Drive, and the aerial structures along 

Genesee Avenue are very large and would be out of scale with some features in the 

surrounding environment. The significance of these project features is discussed below. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-55 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed in Section 

4.4.3.2, impacts related to the aerial structure over I-5 south of Nobel Drive are 

considered less than significant because of the expected low level of view contrast, low 

sensitivity to change, the location of the impact within the I-5 corridor, the presence of 

bridges and similar structures throughout the I-5 corridor, and the limited duration of 

viewer exposure. 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project includes several walls higher 

than 6 feet and longer than 50 feet that would result in strong visual contrast and 

significant impacts (i.e., considering wall visibility, viewer sensitivity, and viewer 

exposure), including seven retaining walls and one sound wall. The retaining wall in 

Rose Canyon, within the existing MTS right-of-way and east of the Rose Canyon Bicycle 

Path, would change the visual character from the path. The view, which provides longdistance views of Rose Canyon hillsides, would be blocked by the retaining wall, which 

would contrast sharply with the existing view/setting, with exposure of the wall instead of 

long-distance views occurring for a moderate duration of time. The five retaining walls 

and one sound wall along I-5 near La Jolla Colony Drive would significantly change the 

character of the existing setting due to the height and length of the walls and the larger 

number of viewers. The retaining wall along I-5 near the VA Medical Center would 

contrast strongly with the existing setting, which would be a significant impact. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The other proposed retaining 

and sound walls would be partially visible and/or smaller than the walls described above, 

resulting in a lower view contrast and less-than-significant impacts. These walls would 

be seen by a moderate number of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians along La Jolla 

Colony Drive, the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, and miscellaneous Rose Canyon trails. 

Under CEQA, the level of impact would not be considered significant given the setting of 

these walls and the fact that the number of viewers from parks, recreation areas, or 

other public spaces and rights-of-way would be small. The remaining retaining walls 

would allow LRT trains to use open trenches where the topography changes, thereby 

avoiding or minimizing visual impacts associated with more extensive landform changes 

that would otherwise be required. 

Would the project significantly alter the natural landform in a manner that substantially 

degrades the visual character of the surrounding area? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not cause significant impacts. The project would not disturb steep hillsides and 

would not result in major topographic changes. The project design does not include 

mass terracing of natural slopes with cut or fill slopes to construct flat-pad structures. 

Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on landform quality. 

Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 

and its surroundings? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). With the exception of the loss 

of trees, discussed below, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause a significant 

impact. The project is generally located within a transportation corridor and would not 

create a disorganized appearance. The project elements are visually well organized, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-56 September 2014

consisting generally of very simple and well-designed forms and surface treatments. 

The project has been designed, engineered, and planned by engineers, architects, 

landscape architects, and planners, all with the intent to provide a positive design 

aesthetic while minimizing impacts to the environment and meeting the project’s purpose 

and need. 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The loss of riparian trees and vegetation 

in both Rose Creek and Rose Canyon, and segments of the proposed project footprint 

from Gilman Drive to the I-5 crossover point south of Nobel Drive, through Pepper 

Canyon at UCSD, and along Voigt Drive to Genesee Avenue, would change the existing 

visual character of the project corridor. Therefore, the project would have a significant 

impact on these visual resources and the visual character of the project corridor within 

this area. 

Several existing stands of trees along the alignment are noteworthy in size and quantity, 

are visually prominent, and contribute to the area’s character. Their removal would 

contrast with the current setting that is composed of moderate-to-high-quality landscape 

units, including Rose Canyon North, La Jolla, University City Central, La Jolla Village, 

and University City North, that have a moderate-to-high sensitivity to change. A 

moderate to very high number of viewers would be affected by the removal of these 

trees. Although some viewers would have limited view durations, others would see this 

visual change for significant parts of the day. Therefore, the project would have a 

significant impact on these visual resources and the visual character of the project 

corridor within this area. The impacts of retaining walls and aerial structures to visual 

character and quality were discussed above. 

Would the project emit or reflect a significant amount of light and glare that would 

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would result in 

less-than-significant impacts with respect to light and glare and views in the area. In 

response to comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, project measures have been 

incorporated to further minimize light and glare, as described in Section 4.4.3.2 under 

the heading “Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts.” The project lighting would 

be designed to illuminate specific areas of the project site and station platforms, and the 

low level of lighting that would be visible from off-site locations would blend with the 

overall ambient glow that is associated with the immediate urban environment. 

Lighting associated with light rail vehicles (LRVs) on the aerial structures around the 

northern edge of the UCSD East Campus baseball stadium would be visible to ball 

players and spectators. However, this impact is expected to be less than significant. 

4.4.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

Several significant environmental impacts discussed above would require mitigation to 

lessen the impacts. The mitigation measures for these impacts are described in Section 

4.4.4. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-57 

The mitigation measures would be effective in reducing the impacts associated with the 

VA Medical Center wall and the aerial structure in the center of Genesee Avenue to a 

less-than-significant impact. 

Walls identified as having a significant visual character impact under CEQA would 

require mitigation to improve their aesthetic quality. With implementation of aesthetic 

design treatments, as described in Section 4.4.4, the significant visual character impact 

would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. 

The effects on visual character include the loss of visual resources, including riparian 

trees and vegetation in and near Rose Creek and Rose Canyon and non-native tree 

groves along I-5 from Sea World Drive north to Balboa Avenue, and from Gilman Drive 

north through UCSD to Genesee Avenue. With implementation of design treatments, as 

described in Section 4.4.4, the significant visual impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant impact. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-58 September 2014

4.5 Air Quality 

This section evaluates the air pollutant emissions that would occur under the No-Build 

and Refined Build Alternatives. Air pollution is a general term that refers to one or more 

chemical substances that degrade the atmosphere’s quality. Air quality describes the 

amount of pollution in the air. Individual air pollutants affect the atmosphere by reducing 

visibility, damaging property, reducing the productivity or vigor of crops or natural 

vegetation, or adversely affecting human or animal health. For more information, refer to 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Air Quality Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014q) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

Similar to the findings of the prior environmental documents, the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

concluded that implementation of the project would reduce regional emissions of nearly 

all air pollutants. Similarly, results of the previous carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot 

analysis at intersections also concluded there would not be adverse impacts at 

intersections. The current analysis does not change any of the previous conclusions 

regarding regional emissions of air pollutants or CO hot spots. Both the prior 

environmental documents and this SEIS/SEIR include the heavily congested 

intersections of Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue and an intersection along 

Genesee Avenue in the hotspot analysis and concluded that no CO exceedances would 

result. The project would have lower emissions burdens for all pollutants in the study 

area compared to the No-Build Alternative. Regionally, all pollutants except for 

particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) would 

decrease under the project. PM10 would remain essentially unchanged. Overall, the 

project would have a beneficial air quality impact under NEPA. The project also was 

found to conform to the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) (40 CFR 51) and the Final 

Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93). 

Comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did 

not require any modifications to this section of the SEIS/SEIR, other than the minor 

editorial changes described in Section 4.0. The conclusions in this section and for the 

air quality analysis remain unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. Overall, the 

Refined Build Alternative would have a beneficial air quality impact, would conform to 

CAAA and the Final Transportation Conformity Rule, and would have no significant air 

quality impacts. 

4.5.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The Clean Air Act and CAAA require states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to 

prepare air quality plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas that include 

strategies for attaining and maintaining the federal standards (referred to as State 

Implementation Plans [SIP]). 

As required by the CAAA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been 

established for six major air pollutants. Known as criteria pollutants, these include CO, 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and particulate matter equal 

to or smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). 

In addition to these criteria pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

regulates air toxics and mobile source pollutants. Toxic air pollutants are those known 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-59 

or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health impacts. Mobile Source Air Toxics 

are not generated by LRT projects, such as the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

According to 40 CFR Part 93.102, conformity determinations are required for projects in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas that require federal approval or funding. The 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would be required to comply with the EPA 

Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93). 

The State of California also has established ambient air quality standards that are either 

the same or more stringent than the corresponding federal standards. California 

imposes standards for additional pollutants that are not generated by LRT projects. 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for ensuring implementation 

of the California Clean Air Act and adherence to its requirements, including development 

of a SIP to attain and maintain NAAQS. In addition, CARB oversees the functions of local 

air pollution control districts, which have primary responsibility for issuing permits for 

stationary sources, and air quality management districts, which administer air quality 

activities at the regional and county levels. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District 

(SDAPCD) is responsible for permitting, monitoring air quality, planning, and implementing 

and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality 

standards. The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, which encompasses all of 

San Diego County. The San Diego Air Basin’s latest federal O3 attainment plan (SDAPCD, 

2007) continues commitments in its previous SIPs to reducing O3 emissions. Locally, the 

City of San Diego also has adopted air quality standards. 

CARB provided the existing (monitored) air quality levels; existing and future traffic 

conditions were obtained from the Series 11 model. Vehicular emission factors were 

obtained from CARB’s EMission FACtor program, EMFAC2007, the EPA-approved 

emission inventory model for calculating mobile source emission factors for vehicles 

operating on state roads. The program used San Diego County input parameters. 

The regional emissions analysis of a project determines a project’s overall impact on air 

quality. For the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, analyses were conducted for the 

study area and for the entire region. The analysis was based on estimates of regional 

VMT and vehicle hours traveled. 

A CO hotspot analysis was performed following guidance provided in the EPA-approved 

Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (UCD-ITS-RR-97-21) developed by 

Caltrans and the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis 

(December, 1997) to assess impacts from congestion near project-area intersections and 

park-and-ride lots. The analysis considers the project’s location, nearby receptors, traffic 

volumes, and level of service and air quality conditions for existing and future years. 

4.5.2 Affected Environment 

This section includes a description of the existing air quality conditions and an analysis of 

applicable criteria pollutants (O3, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, Pb, and SO2). As shown in Table 

4-6, the EPA classifies San Diego County as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a 

maintenance area for CO. San Diego County is a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, 

and PM2.5. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-60 September 2014

Table 4-6. Regional Air Quality Attainment Status 

Pollutant State Federal 

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment/Maintenance 

Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Attainment 

All others Attainment Attainment 

Source: CARB, 2012a 

CARB compiles ambient air quality data from monitoring stations, but none are located 

within the study area (Figure 4-15). Data collected from the monitoring stations nearest 

to the study area (San Diego–Overland and San Diego–Beardsley) from 2008 through 

2010 were used as an estimate of background air quality concentrations (CARB, 2008–

2010). Table 4-7 presents the number of exceedances and the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for the measurement intervals at these stations. 

Figure 4-15. Regional Air Quality Monitoring Sites 

Source: CARB, 2012b 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-61 

Table 4-7. Ambient Air Quality Monitored Data, 2008–2010 

Air 

Pollutant 

Standard/ 

Exceedance*

Overland Avenue

San Diego 

1110 Beardsley Street

San Diego 

2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

(CO) 

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 

Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 

# days>federal 1-hour std. of >35 ppm 

# days>federal 8-hour std. of >9 ppm 

# days>California 8-hour std. of >9.0 ppm 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

3.5 

2.6 

0 

0 

0 

4.0 

2.8 

0 

0 

0 

2.8 

2.2 

0 

0 

0 

Ozone 

(O3) 

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 

Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 

# days>federal 8-hour std. of >0.075 ppm 

# days>California 1-hour std. of >0.09 ppm 

# days>California 8-hour std. of >0.07 ppm 

0.100 

0.093 

5 

4 

12 

0.105 

0.082 

1 

2 

3 

0.100 

0.073 

0 

2 

3 

0.087 

0.073 

0 

0 

1 

0.085 

0.063 

0 

0 

0 

0.078 

0.066 

0 

0 

0 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 

Annual average (ppm) 

# days>California 1-hour std. of >0.18 ppm 

0.077 

0.014 

0 

0.060 

0.014 

0 

0.073 

0.013 

0 

0.091 

0.019 

0 

0.078 

0.017 

0 

0.077 

0.015 

0 

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 

Annual average (ppm) 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

NM 

0.007 

0.003 

0.006 

0.001 

0.002 

0.000 

Suspended 

Particulates 

(PM10) 

Maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3

) 

#days>federal 24-hour std. of>150 μg/m3

#days>California 24-hour std. of>50 μg/m3 

State annual average(μg/m3) 

41.0 

0 

0 

23.8 

50.0 

0 

0 

24.9 

33.0 

0 

0 

18.7 

58.0 

0 

4 

29.3 

59.0 

0 

3 

29.4 

40.0 

0 

0 

23.4 

Suspended 

Particulates 

(PM2.5) 

Maximum 24-hour concentration (μg/m3) 

State annual average(μg/m3

) 

#days>federal 24-hour std. of>35 μg/m3

National annual average (μg/m3

) 

27.2 

* 

0 

* 

25.1 

10.5 

0 

10.5 

18.7 

8.7 

0 

8.7 

42.0 

10.7 

3 

13.7 

52.1 

11.8 

3 

11.7 

29.7 

* 

0 

10.4 

Sources: CARB, 2008–2010; EPA, 2012 (for 1-hour and 8-hour CO only) 

Notes: μg/m3

 = micrograms per cubic meter; NM = not measured; ppm = parts per million; std = standard 

 * = Insufficient data available to determine value 

4.5.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes air quality impacts, including results from a regional emissions 

analysis, under the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. Additionally, the local 

impacts and hotspot assessments and a conformity assessment are provided for the 

Refined Build Alternative. The analysis uses existing traffic data and forecasted traffic 

data for 2030 to allow for a comparison of the project’s impact on existing and future 

year conditions. Air quality is based on the VMT and average network speed. Table 4-8 

presents the criteria pollutant emission burdens for roadways based on VMT and 

EMFAC2007 emission rates for both the study area and the region. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-62 

Table 4-8. Existing and Projected Criteria Pollutant Emission Burdens, 2010 and 203

Alternative 

Roadway VMT1

CO

(kg/day) 

TOG

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

SO2

(kg/day) 

PM

(kg/

Study Area Region 

Study 

Area Region

Study 

Area Region

Study 

Area Region

Study 

Area Region 

Study 

Area 

2010Existing Conditions 10,693,438 82,485,102 37,915 269,451 2,204 14,588 9,321 71,595 52 363 621 Existing Conditions with Refined Build Alternative2

10,628,469 

(<1%) 

82,329,327 

(<1%)

37,235 

(-1.8%)

268,955 

(<1%)

2,197 

(<1%)

14,562 

(<1%)

9,369 

(<1%) 

71,457 

(<1%)

52 

(0%)

362 

(<1%)

612 

(-1.4%)

2030No-Build Alternative3 12,472,150 103,645,716 15,318 115,883 1,053 6,883 3,581 26,965 63 451 651 Refined Build Alternative4

12,407,490 

(<1%) 

103,512,567

(<1%)

15,239 

(<1%)

115,109 

(<1%)

1,047 

(<1%)

6,857 

(<1%)

3,553 

(<1%) 

26,825 

(<1%)

63 

(0%)

451 

(0%)

647 

(<1%)

Sources: CARB, 2008–2010; SANDAG, 2014q Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; kg = kilograms; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 microns i

particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 microns in diameter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; TOG = total organic gases; VMT = v

1 Includes on-road VMT, including bus transit 2 Number in parenthesis is the percent change relative to existing conditions. Values less than 1 percent (<1%) are within the 

modeling software; therefore, conditions are considered essentially unchanged. 3 Emission burdens for the No-Build Alternative are associated with the assumed implementation of projects and growth characNo measurable increase is associated with continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150. 

 4 Number in parenthesis is the percent change relative to the No-Build Alternative. Values less than 1 percent (<1%) are within 

modeling software; therefore, conditions are considered essentially unchanged. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-63 

4.5.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be built 

and service on bus Route 150 would be continued and enhanced. Continuation and 

enhancement of bus Route 150 would not measurably add to the emission burdens for 

the study area and region, but VMT would increase under the No-Build Alternative. 

Table 4-8 presents estimated roadway VMT and regional pollutant emission burdens for 

the study area and region in 2030 under the No-Build Alternative. 

The No-Build Alternative has the highest projected roadway VMT. However, emissions of 

CO, total organic gases (TOG), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) would be lower under the NoBuild Alternative when compared to existing conditions as a result of improved fuel efficiency 

and pollution controls on future automobiles with respect to these pollutants. Levels of SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5 would be higher in 2030 under the No-Build Alternative compared to 

existing conditions. This is a result of increased VMT within the study area and the region 

under the No-Build Alternative. As a result, the No-Build Alternative would have an 

adverse impact on air quality. 

4.5.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The following sections describe the results of the air quality analysis for the Refined Build 

Alternative, as compared to the No-Build Alternative, in 2030. The project was included in 

the 2030 RTP, which was determined by the USDOT to conform to the SIP on October 4, 

2004 and May 20, 2005. Subsequently, SANDAG adopted the 2050 RTP as the current 

Regional Transportation Plan, which was determined by the USDOT to conform to the SIP 

on December 2, 2011. 

Local and Regional Emissions 

Emissions burdens in the study area for all pollutants would be lower under the Refined 

Build Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative. Regionally, all pollutants except for 

PM10 would decrease under the Refined Build Alternative. PM10 levels would remain 

essentially unchanged on a regional basis.6

 Therefore, impacts would not be adverse and 

would be beneficial to the study area and region. 

Microscale Carbon Monoxide Analysis 

Because San Diego County is a maintenance area for CO, the EPA requires a CO hotspot 

analysis for intersections likely to worsen to level of service E or F in 2030. Three 

intersections representing the locations where the maximum impact of the Refined Build 

Alternative is expected to occur were evaluated. The analyses of the maximum 1-hour 

CO concentrations and maximum 8-hour CO concentrations revealed no violations of the 

NAAQS would occur under the Refined Build Alternative; therefore, no adverse impacts 

would occur. 

 

6

 Pollutant emission burden calculations are sensitive to small changes in forecast VMT and average 

speeds. As a result, calculated changes of less than 1 percent fall within the uncertainty of the calculation 

and are considered to be the same at a regional level. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-64 September 2014

Transportation Conformity Analysis 

SANDAG used the latest planning assumptions in conjunction with EMFAC2007 for the 

purpose of preparing the regional conformity analyses. SANDAG adopted the 2030 RTP 

on November 30, 2007. Additionally, SANDAG adopted the 2010 Regional 

Transportation Improvement Program (SANDAG, 2010h) on September 24, 2010, which 

was approved by FHWA/FTA on December 14, 2010 as conforming to the SIP. The 

project is also included in the 2050 RTP, which was determined by the USDOT to conform 

to the SIP on December 2, 2011. Thus, it is a regionally conforming project. The 

California Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (UCD-ITS-RR-97-21) 

was used to conduct a CO analysis to determine whether the project conforms at the 

local level. Based on the results of the CO analysis, the project is not predicted to cause 

or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS. Therefore, the project conforms to the CAAA 

and the Final Transportation Conformity Rule. 

The Refined Build Alternative would have lower emissions burdens in the study area for 

all pollutants compared to the No-Build Alternative. Regionally, all pollutants except for 

PM10, which would remain essentially unchanged, would decrease under the Refined 

Build Alternative. As such, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is a conforming 

project from a regional viewpoint. 

4.5.4 Mitigation Measures 

Operation of the Refined Build Alternative is not expected to measurably increase 

regional emissions. Most criteria pollutants would decrease under the Refined Build 

Alternative, with the exception of PM10, which would remain essentially unchanged. As 

such, operational activity would be generally beneficial to air quality, and mitigation 

measures are not required. 

4.5.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.5.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality 

plan? 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would conflict with 

plans to lower levels of SO2, PM10, and PM2.5, which would be higher under the No-Build 

Alternative compared to the Refined Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, the 

benefits of the Refined Build Alternative in terms of decreased VMT within the study area 

and the region would not be realized and, consequently, air emissions for SO2, PM10, and 

PM2.5 would be higher (see Table 4-8 and Section 4.5.3.1 for additional information). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-65 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would not conflict 

with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project is included in the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP, both of which were approved 

by FHWA and FTA as conforming to the SIP. 

Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 

existing or projected air quality violation? 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). Levels of SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would be higher 

under the No-Build Alternative compared to the Refined Build Alternative because of an 

increase in VMT within the study area and the region that would result from not 

implementing the project. Because San Diego does not meet air quality standards for PM10

and PM2.5, the No-Build Alternative would contribute to future violations of air quality 

standards (see Table 4-8 and Section 4.5.3.1 for additional information). 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would have no 

impact and would provide a benefit as it would reduce or have no effect on pollutants 

(see Table 4-8 and Section 4.5.3.2 for additional information). On a regional basis, all 

pollutants except for PM10 would decrease under the project, as compared to the 

existing conditions in 2010 and the No-Build Alternative in 2030. PM10 would be 

essentially unchanged. 

Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

No Impact (No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives). No significant impact would occur 

under the No-Build or Refined Build Alternatives. Congested intersections could expose 

sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations if CO concentrations exceed 

NAAQS standards, resulting in a CO hotspot. The greatest amount of intersection 

congestion would occur in 2030. A CO hotspot analysis was conducted, and no NAAQS 

violations are predicted at the intersections representing the maximum project impact 

level under the No-Build or Refined Build Alternatives (see Sections 4.5.3.1 and 4.5.3.2 

for additional information). . 

Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would not result in a 

significant impact because it would not create changes that would cause objectionable 

odors. 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Operation of the Refined Build Alternative would 

not result in a significant impact because the Trolley system would operate on electric 

power and would not produce odors. 

4.5.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

No significant impacts would occur as a result of the Refined Build Alternative. As such, 

mitigation measures are not required. Overall, the project would be beneficial to air 

quality. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-66 September 2014

4.6 Climate Change 

This section discusses the global climate change issue related to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions for the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives and the associated regulatory 

background and methodology. For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Air Quality Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014q). The global climate 

change issue of sea level rise is addressed in Section 4.9 and the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Water Impact Analysis Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014m) prepared in 

support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

Climate change issues were not discussed in previous environmental documents. The 

analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that no adverse long-term impacts related to 

GHG emissions would occur. The project would be beneficial under NEPA and less than 

significant under CEQA. Other than the editorial changes described in Section 4.0, 

comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did 

not require any changes to this section of the SEIS/SEIR. The conclusions in this 

section and for the climate change analysis remain unchanged for the Refined Build 

Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative would be beneficial under NEPA and would have 

no impacts under CEQA. 

4.6.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Although climate change and reductions in GHG emissions are a concern at the federal 

level, no federal regulations currently exist regarding transportation projects. 

Additionally, legislation has not been enacted at the project level. The EPA, the FTA, 

and the FHWA have not promulgated explicit guidance or methodology to conduct 

project-level GHG analysis. 

USDOT has four strategies to reduce climate change impacts, which also relate to 

California’s efforts to deal with transportation and climate change: improved transportation 

system efficiency, cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles, and a reduction in the growth of VMT. 

On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding 

GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act: 1) that current and projected 

concentrations of atmospheric GHGs threaten public health and welfare of current and 

future generations, and 2) that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor 

vehicles and engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health and 

welfare. These findings were followed on May 7, 2010, with publication in the Federal 

Register of final Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.

At the state level, California launched an innovative and proactive approach to dealing 

with GHG emissions and climate change through the passage of several pieces of 

legislation, including State Senate Bills (SB), Assembly Bills (AB), and Executive Orders. 

The Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 (AB 32), Executive Order S-3-05, and 

AB 1493 outline California’s major initiatives for reducing GHG emissions. 

Implementation of AB 32 has given rise to legislation, such as SB 375, that requires 

CARB to set regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles for 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-67 

2020 and 2035. The targets apply to the regions covered by California’s 18 metropolitan 

planning organizations, including SANDAG. In 2010, as required by SB 97, the CEQA 

Guidelines were amended to address GHG emissions. 

The 2030 RTP identified that the region is affected by global climate change and 

identified two approaches to reducing the region’s GHG emissions: a reduction in VMT 

and the use of cleaner vehicles when traveling. The 2030 RTP stated that smart growth 

and demand management choices are integral to reducing energy and GHG emissions. 

As part of the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy for the 2050 RTP, 

and in compliance with SB 375, SANDAG followed a regional Climate Action Strategy to 

identify land use, transportation, and related policy measures and investments that could 

reduce GHGs from passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Policy measures are also 

identified for buildings and energy use, protecting transportation and energy 

infrastructure from climate impacts, and to help SANDAG and local jurisdictions reduce 

GHGs from their operations. 

The impact of the project on roadway traffic is reflected in changes in the region’s VMT 

and associated vehicular speeds. This methodology is in agreement with draft inventory 

guidance being developed by the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder 

Working Group No. 9 and presented at its working group meeting on March 19, 2009. 

The roadway GHG emission burdens were estimated based on the on-road fleet’s GHG 

emission factors and VMT. To estimate on-road GHG mobile source emission factors, 

CARB’s modeling tool called EMFAC2007 was used, which is based on speed, vehicle 

mix, and analysis year. The model predicted fuel economy factors that are forecast to 

improve only slightly between 2008 and 2035. Thus, the model and associated 

conclusion do not reflect recent regulatory actions that should result in substantial future 

improvements in fuel economy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission factors; therefore, 

future emissions should be less than predicted in this analysis. 

GHG emissions resulting from additional power requirements for the project were calculated 

using EPA’s Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database emission factors for 

California. Future GHG emissions were projected using the same mixture of electricity 

generation currently in use. Any shift to renewable energy sources for electricity generation 

would reduce predicted future GHG emissions associated with electricity. 

4.6.2 Affected Environment 

The GHG analysis includes emissions from roadways based on VMT and EMFAC2007 

emission rates, as well as emissions from the Trolley, based on the energy use of the 

system. GHG emissions, shown as CO2 equivalent, for both the Mid-Coast Corridor 

study area and the San Diego region in 2010 are presented in Table 4-9. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-68 September 2014

Table 4-9. Existing and Projected Greenhouse Gas Emission Burdens, 2010 and 2030 

Alternative 

Roadway VMT1 

Roadway CO2e

(metric 

tons/day) 

Trolley CO2e 

(metric 

tons/day) 

Total CO2e 

(metric 

tons/day) 

Percent 

Change in 

CO2e from 

Existing/ 

No-Build 

Study 

Area Region 

Study 

Area Region

Study 

Area Region

Study 

Area Region 

Study 

Area Region

2010 

Existing Conditions 10,693,438 82,485,102 5,296 37,382 20 56 5,316 37,439 - -

Existing Conditions 

with Refined Build 

Alternative 

10,628,469 82,329,327 5,271 37,313 37 74 5,308 37,387 -0.2% -0.1%

2030 

No-Build Alternative2 12,472,150 103,645,716 6,490 46,179 19 64 6,509 46,243 - -

Refined Build 

Alternative 

12,407,490 103,512,567 6,457 45,919 37 81 6,494 46,000 -0.2% -0.6%

Source: SANDAG, 2014q 

Notes: Totals may not sum because of rounding. CO2e = CO2 equivalent; VMT = vehicle miles traveled 1 Includes on-road VMT, including bus transit 2 Emission burdens for the No-Build Alternative are associated with the assumed implementation of projects 

and growth characterized in the 2030 RTP. No measurable increase is associated with continuation and 

enhancement of bus Route 150.

4.6.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes GHG impacts under the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.6.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be built and 

bus Route 150 would be continued and enhanced. Continuation and enhancement of bus 

Route 150 would not measurably add to GHG, but GHG emissions related to additional 

VMT would increase under the No-Build Alternative. Table 4-9 presents roadway VMT and 

GHG emissions expressed as metric tons of CO2 equivalent for roadways and the Trolley in 

2030. As shown, total GHG emission burdens would increase by 2030 with the No-Build 

Alternative as a result of the increase in VMT; however, GHG emissions related to Trolley 

energy use would decrease in the study area. The net reduction in GHG emissions that 

would occur under the Refined Build Alternative would not be realized under the No-Build 

Alternative, which is an adverse impact. 

4.6.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Refined Build Alternative would have lower 

roadway GHG emissions because of projected decreases in VMT associated with the 

project (Table 4-9). However, the Refined Build Alternative would have increased GHG 

emissions from Trolley energy use in the study area and at the regional level compared 

to the No-Build Alternative. This increase would be offset by the decrease in roadway 

GHG emissions, and total GHG emissions would decrease overall. This is considered 

beneficial. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-69 

4.6.4 Mitigation Measures 

As shown in Table 4-9, operation of the Refined Build Alternative is expected to 

decrease GHG emissions in the study area by about 0.2 percent. Regionally, GHG 

emissions would decrease 0.6 percent under the Refined Build Alternative. As such, the 

project would have a beneficial effect on GHG emissions, and mitigation measures 

would not be required. 

4.6.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.6.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a 

significant impact on the environment? 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). GHG levels would be higher under the NoBuild Alternative compared to the Refined Build Alternative because of increased VMT 

within the study area and the region. This is because the planned reductions in GHG 

emissions that would result from implementation of the project would not be realized 

(see Table 4-9 and Section 4.6.3 for additional information). 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would have no 

impact because it would reduce GHG emissions when compared to existing conditions 

or the No-Build Alternative in 2030 (see Table 4-9 and Section 4.6.3.2 for additional 

information). The lower GHG emissions result from projected decreases in VMT with the 

project. The increased energy requirements of the Trolley would increase GHG 

emissions at both the study area and regional levels. However, this increase is offset by 

the decrease in roadway-related GHG emissions, resulting in a net overall decrease in 

total GHG. This would be a beneficial effect on GHG emissions. 

Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the 

purpose of reducing GHG emissions? 

Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would result in a 

significant impact because it is not consistent with the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP, which 

include implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project as one method of 

reducing GHG emissions. 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would have no 

impact because it is consistent with policies in the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP that are 

designed to reduce GHG emissions. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-70 September 2014

4.6.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

The project would have beneficial impacts with respect to GHG emissions and would not 

conflict with an applicable adopted plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, no mitigation 

measures are required and the Refined Build Alternative would have no significant impact 

on GHG emissions. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-71 

4.7 Noise and Vibration 

This section describes the noise and vibration impacts under the No-Build and Refined 

Build Alternatives. The federal, state, and city criteria used to determine impacts and 

measures for mitigation also are described. For more information, refer to the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014p) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents evaluated noise and vibration impacts for the project 

alignment north of the OTTC; no noise or vibration analysis was conducted for the area 

south of the OTTC. The prior environmental documents identified noise impacts at four 

locations and proposed a noise barrier at Balboa Avenue and Morena Boulevard to 

reduce noise from the change in traffic circulation. The prior environmental documents 

also proposed noise barriers at four other locations, including the La Paz condominium 

complex. The prior environmental documents concluded that with implementation of 

mitigation, there would be no significant noise impacts as a result of the project. No 

vibration impacts were identified in the prior environmental documents and, therefore, 

vibration mitigation was not proposed. 

Since the prior environmental documents were completed, development and 

redevelopment in the corridor have been concentrated primarily in the Downtown San 

Diego and University City areas, although increases in ambient noise have occurred 

throughout the corridor. Analysis of noise impacts south of the OTTC is included in the 

analysis presented in the SEIS/SEIR. Two impacts identified in the prior environmental 

documents were eliminated by changes to the alignment reflected under the Build 

Alternative in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified impacts that required 

mitigation at seven locations, including one south of the OTTC. Two of these locations 

were identified in the prior environmental documents (a multifamily unit and a hotel), and 

five locations were new. Based on detailed analysis of the roadway and station design 

at Balboa Avenue and Morena Boulevard, no noise impact was identified at that location 

in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As a result, no noise barrier at Balboa Avenue and Morena 

Boulevard was proposed. The Draft SEIS/SEIR incorporated mitigation measures 

similar to those described in the prior environmental documents, modified as appropriate 

to address the location of noise impacts associated with the Build Alternative alignment. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that with implementation of the mitigation measures, 

there would be no significant noise impacts as a result of the project. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified one vibration impact under the Build Alternative and the 

Build Alternative with the VA Medical Center Station Option and two vibration impacts 

under the Genesee Avenue Design Option that would be considered impacts under 

NEPA and significant impacts under CEQA. Mitigation was identified for these vibration 

impacts. The Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that with implementation of the mitigation 

measures, there would be no significant vibration impacts as a result of the project. 

This section has been revised based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the 

elimination of the Genesee Avenue Design Option, and the updated analysis for refinements 

made to the Build Alternative. Because the Refined Build Alternative does not include the 

Genesee Avenue Design Option, the two vibration impacts associated with that option have 

been avoided (i.e., Clusters 88 and 89 La Jolla Country Day School and La Jolla Canyon 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-72 September 2014

Apartments). One vibration impact under the Refined Build Alternative is still identified in 

this Final SEIS/SEIR, and mitigation is proposed for this impact that reduces it to a lessthan-significant level. 

Refinement to the project design eliminated three of the seven noise impacts requiring 

mitigation that were identified in the Draft SEIS/SEIR (i.e., moderate noise impacts at 

Cluster 56b Marian Bear Memorial Park, Cluster 79 Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla 

[Scripps Hospital], and Cluster 83 La Jolla Vista Townhouses were eliminated). A new 

location for noise impacts was identified for apartments at Cluster 71 (Loft Apartments at 

the Shops at La Jolla Village shopping center) due to a change in the location of special 

trackwork, bringing the total locations requiring mitigation to five; mitigation is proposed 

for all five locations. The mitigation identified reduces the five impacts below the 

moderate noise threshold under NEPA and to less than significant under CEQA. 

In response to comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, additional noise analysis within Rose 

Canyon Open Space Park was completed. The results of this analysis are summarized 

in Section 4.7.3.2 of this Final SEIS/SEIR and detailed in Chapter 5.0 of the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014p). Also in response to comments, additional noise measurements were taken and 

analysis completed near UCSD residences; the conclusions in the Draft SEIS/SEIR for 

the UCSD residences remain unchanged for the Final SEIS/SEIR. Refer to the Preface 

in the Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report for additional information on the 

changes to the noise analysis since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

In summary, the conclusions in this section and for the noise and vibration analyses 

remain unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. Without mitigation, the Refined 

Build Alternative would result in noise and vibration impacts caused by LRV operations 

on the proposed LRT alignment. With implementation of the mitigation measures, there 

would be no significant noise or vibration impacts as a result of the Refined Build 

Alternative. Under CEQA, noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant 

with mitigation. 

4.7.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The following sections describe the regulatory background and methodology used to 

analyze noise impacts. 

4.7.1.1 Regulatory Background 

The noise and vibration analysis was conducted in compliance with federal, state, and 

local regulations. FTA has developed guidelines and criteria for assessing noise 

impacts related to transit projects. These criteria, outlined in the Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual (FTA, 2006) (FTA Guidance Manual), 

are based on community reactions to noise. The criteria reflect changes in noise 

exposure using a sliding scale where the higher the level of existing noise, the smaller 

the increase in total noise exposure is allowed. Some land use activities are more 

sensitive to noise than others, such as parks, churches, and residences, as compared to 

industrial and commercial uses. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-73 

The FTA Guidance Manual states that the FHWA noise abatement criteria may be the 

appropriate criteria to use when a project involves transit as part of new highway 

construction or modifications to existing highways. The project could affect traffic noise 

between I-5 and Charmant Drive between Gilman and Nobel Drives because the project 

would modify the existing terrain both within and outside the I-5 right-of-way. The FHWA 

criteria and procedures included in 23 CFR 772 (FHWA, 2010) are the basis for 

evaluation of noise impacts from this project-created change to the topography along I-5, 

as described further in Section 4.7.3.2. 

For traffic noise, Caltrans provides guidelines for application of the FHWA traffic noise 

analysis procedures and criteria in its Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway 

Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects (Caltrans, 2011) (Noise 

Protocol). Detailed technical guidance for the evaluation of highway traffic noise is 

provided in the Technical Noise Supplement (Caltrans, 2009a) to the protocol. 

Guidance for transportation-related vibration is provided in the Transportation and 

Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, 2004). The Caltrans 

guidance applies to locations where the project could affect traffic noise and require 

consideration of the FHWA criteria. 

The City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) provides land use 

compatibility guidelines for development in the city. The city also addresses noise 

abatement and control in Article 9.5 of the San Diego Municipal Code (City of San 

Diego, 2010b). 

4.7.1.2 Methodology 

Environmental noise is composed of many frequencies, each occurring simultaneously 

at its own sound pressure level. The range of magnitude, from the faintest to the loudest 

sound the ear can hear, is so large that sound pressure is expressed on a logarithmic 

scale in units called decibels (dB). The commonly used frequency weighting for 

environmental noise is A-weighting (dBA), which simulates how an average person 

hears sound. 

Environmental noise is commonly described using the equivalent sound level (Leq). 

Leq is a measure of total noise—a summation of all sounds during a period of time. 

Leq measured over a one-hour period is the hourly Leq. The day/night noise level (Ldn) is 

a descriptor of the daily (24-hour) Leq, which incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for all sound 

occurring during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This penalty translates 

into noise during this late night period being assessed as if it were 10 dBA higher than 

the actual Leq. Ldn is used by the EPA and FTA to evaluate noise levels in residential 

areas. The Community Noise Equivalent Level is an average sound level during a 24-

hour period, with a similar purpose to the Ldn. It is used for noise planning in California 

and is well approximated by the Ldn. 

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. The root mean square (RMS) 

amplitude is most frequently used to describe the impact of vibration on the human body. 

The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. 

Vibration decibel (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-74 September 2014

The FTA Guidance Manual outlines methods for identifying sensitive receivers, 

determining existing conditions, and developing prediction models. The study area for 

the analysis of noise and vibration impacts included all areas containing residences, as 

well as other receivers potentially sensitive to noise and vibration from the project. 

Existing noise levels within the study area provided a baseline for the evaluation of noise 

impacts. Measurements were taken at representative noise-sensitive locations along 

the proposed alignments. Predictions of the LRV noise were based on measurements of 

the noise generated by LRT operations on the existing Trolley Orange and Trolley Green 

Lines, where the Trolley vehicles are the same as, or similar to, Trolley vehicles that 

would be used for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. TPSSs also could cause 

noise impacts. A typical modern TPSS unit produces noise levels less than 45 dB at a 

distance of 50 feet. 

The FHWA Traffic Noise Model® Version 2.5 was used to predict traffic noise levels in 

areas where the project would affect traffic noise levels. Key inputs to the traffic noise 

model included roadway locations; shielding features, such as topography and buildings; 

noise barriers; and receiver locations and elevations. 

The vibration prediction models were based on the procedures in the FTA Guidance 

Manual, the vibration propagation test results along the project alignment, and force 

density measurements (the quantity of vibration force transferred into the surrounding 

ground) at three sites on the existing Trolley system. 

4.7.1.3 Impact Criteria 

The impact criteria used in the noise and vibration analysis have been established by 

FTA and FHWA, as described in the following sections. 

FTA Noise Impact Criteria 

Table 4-10 presents the FTA land use impact categories for noise and the applicable 

noise metrics. 

The FTA defines two levels of noise impact: moderate and severe. Severe noise 

impacts are significant within the context of NEPA or CEQA. Severe noise impacts 

require the evaluation of alternative locations/alignments or other mitigation measures to 

avoid severe impacts altogether. Mitigation measures must be considered and 

incorporated into the project to avoid severe impacts unless there are truly extenuating 

circumstances that prevent it. Moderate noise impacts are not necessarily significant 

within the context of NEPA and CEQA, but also require consideration and adoption of 

mitigation measures when it is reasonable. One consideration is the extent to which the 

predicted noise level exceeds the moderate impact threshold. For the SEIS/SEIR, if the 

predicted noise level equals, but does not exceed, the FTA moderate impact threshold, 

the impact is less than significant within the context of NEPA and CEQA and mitigation 

measures are not proposed. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-75 

Table 4-10. FTA Noise Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics 

Land Use 

Category 

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor 

Leq(h)1 A tract of land where quiet is an essential element of its intended purpose. This 

category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land uses as 

outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as national historic landmarks 

with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls. 

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings in which people sleep. This category includes homes, 

hospitals, and hotels, where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of 

utmost importance. 

3 Outdoor 

Leq(h)1 Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes 

schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such 

activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for 

meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, 

campgrounds, and recreational facilities can be considered to be in this category. 

Certain historical sites and parks also are included. 

Source: FTA, 2006 

Note: 1

 Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity 

dBA = A-weighted decibels; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; Ldn = day-night sound level; Leq(h) = 

hourly equivalent sound level 

Figure 4-16 presents the FTA noise impact criteria. As existing noise levels increase, 

the amount of allowable increase in total future environmental noise levels, including 

noise exposure caused by the project, decreases. The future noise levels would be the 

combination of the existing noise levels and the additional noise exposure caused by a 

transit project. 

FHWA Noise Impact Criteria 

The Caltrans Noise Protocol defines a substantial noise increase as being at least 

12 dBA over existing conditions. It also specifies that a sound level is considered to 

approach the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) level when the sound level is within 1 dB 

of the NAC identified in 23 CFR 772 (FHWA, 2010) (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to 

approach the NAC of 67 dBA, but 65 dBA is not). Table 4-11 summarizes NAC as it 

corresponds to various land use activity categories. 

FTA Vibration Impact Criteria 

Table 4-12 presents the FTA general assessment criteria for groundborne vibration from 

rail transit systems. If the general assessment concludes that there may be a vibration 

impact, the FTA Guidance Manual recommends completing a detailed assessment using 

state-of-the-art tools to characterize how localized soil conditions affect levels of 

vibration. The assessment includes a vibration propagation test to measure how 

vibration is transmitted from the light rail tracks, through the ground, and into foundations 

of nearby buildings at the test site. Figure 4-17 presents detailed descriptions of the 

vibration impact criteria. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-76 September 2014

Figure 4-16. FTA Noise Impact Criteria 

Source: FTA, 2006 

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; Ldn = day-night sound level; Leq(h) = 

hourly equivalent sound level 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-77 

Table 4-11. FHWA/Caltrans Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria 

Activity 

Category 

Activity 

Leq(h)1 Evaluation Location Description of Activities 

A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve 

an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is 

essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose 

B 67 Exterior Residential 

C 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day 

care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places 

of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional 

structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, 

schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings 

D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of 

worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio 

studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. 

E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, 

properties, or activities not included in A–D or F 

F N/A N/A Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, 

maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, 

shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and 

warehousing 

G N/A N/A Undeveloped lands that are not permitted 

Source: Caltrans, 2011 

Notes: 1

 The Leq(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise 

abatement measures. All values are A-weighted decibels (dBA). 

Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; FTA = Federal Transit Administration; Leq(h) = hourly 

equivalent sound level; N/A = not applicable 

Table 4-12. FTA Vibration Impact Criteria 

Vibration Land Use Category 

Groundborne Vibration

(VdB Re 1 micro inch/sec) 

Frequent 

Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 

Typical land uses include vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing, 

hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research 

operations. 

65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB 

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 

Source: FTA, 2006 

Notes: 1 Frequent events are defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. 2 Occasional events are defined as between 30 and 70 events per day. 3 Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 events per day. 

FTA = Federal Transit Administration; sec = second; VdB = vibration decibel 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-78 September 2014

Figure 4-17. Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis 

Source: FTA, 2006 

If existing rail traffic near the project alignment could cause an existing impact, it must be 

considered in the analysis. Based on the FTA Guidance Manual, the impact thresholds 

for the corridor sections with existing rail traffic are as follows: 

 Existing Trolley Blue Line LRT: Impacts were assessed if there was a significant 

increase in the number of vibration events (approximately doubling the number of 

events) or if vibration from additional Trolley Blue Line trains would exceed vibration 

from existing trains by 3 VdB or more and the predicted vibration exceeds the 

applicable criteria in Figure 4-17. 

 COASTER Commuter Rail and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Freight: There 

are fewer than five freight trains per day, and the existing commuter trains do not 

exceed the FTA impact threshold. Therefore, thresholds presented in Figure 4-17, 

rather than the existing train traffic, were used to assess impacts of vibration. 

4.7.2 Affected Environment 

This section describes the existing noise and vibration conditions and provides an 

analysis of predicted noise and vibration levels. In the study area, there are no noise 

Category 1 land uses (i.e., land where quiet is an essential element of its intended 

purpose), but there are many noise Category 2 (i.e., residences where people normally 

sleep) and noise Category 3 (i.e., institutional land uses with primarily daytime and 

evening use) land uses. (Land uses are described in Table 4-10). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-79 

4.7.2.1 Existing Noise Levels 

Between March 7 and March 16, 2011, noise and vibration measurements were 

conducted to document existing conditions (Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19). Additional 

measurements were taken in 2013. The primary existing noise sources in the study area 

are vehicular traffic on local roads and I-5, freight and passenger rail traffic, aircraft 

overflights, and typical community noise from sources such as landscaping equipment. 

Existing freight, passenger, and Trolley operations are the dominant noise sources between 

the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC. Aircraft activity associated with Marine Corps Air 

Station Miramar and San Diego International Airport is also part of the existing environment 

at some locations within the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

The ambient noise measurements consisted of long-term unattended measurements for 

a minimum of 24 hours and short-term attended measurements ranging from 30 minutes 

to 1 hour. Short-term noise levels ranged from 48 dBA Leq at multiple locations, 

including the UCSD Student Housing, to 78 dBA Leq at the Hampton Inn on Beech 

Street. Long-term noise levels ranged from 55 dBA Ldn at the UCSD Student Housing to 

84 dBA Ldn at the Hampton Inn. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise and 

Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014p) provides a detailed discussion of 

existing noise levels and measurement locations. 

4.7.2.2 Existing Vibration Levels 

Several major existing sources of vibration are located near the project alignment. The 

Trolley, COASTER, and freight traffic cause vibration in the existing corridor between the 

Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC. COASTER and freight traffic also cause vibration for the 

portion of the alignment that parallels Morena Boulevard. Vehicular traffic on freeways 

and major arterial and intermittent construction activities also generate vibration along 

the entire project alignment. Maximum vibration levels ranged from 47 VdB at the 

Matthews Apartments on the UCSD campus on Eleanor Roosevelt Lane to 69 VdB at 

the Las Flores Apartments on Charmant Drive. Average vibration levels ranged from 32 

VdB at the Matthews Apartments to 42 VdB at multiple receptors, including the Las 

Flores Apartments. 

4.7.3 Environmental Impacts 

The following sections describe noise and vibration impacts under the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.7.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the project would not be constructed and the continuation 

and enhancement of Route 150 would occur. The buses would operate on existing or 

planned roadways, and no physical improvements would be required for improving transit 

services other than the minor construction associated with new bus shelters within existing 

rights-of-way. The increased bus frequency would not noticeably change the existing noise 

environment. Route changes would follow major arterials already experiencing substantial 

bus and truck volumes. Accordingly, the No-Build Alternative would not include any projectrelated improvements that could increase noise or vibration levels. Therefore, the No-Build 

Alternative would not result in an impact related to noise or vibration. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-80 September 2014

Figure 4-18. Noise Measurement and Impact Locations (South) 

Source: SANDAG, 2014p 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-81 

Figure 4-19. Noise Measurement and Impact Locations (North) 

Source: SANDAG, 2014p 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-82 September 2014

4.7.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative analysis includes an assessment of LRT noise and 

vibration, traffic noise, and TPSS noise. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Noise 

and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014p) contains additional 

information on impacts. Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19 show the locations where 

operation of the Refined Build Alternative would result in noise impacts. 

Light Rail Transit Noise Levels 

Noise from LRT trains would add to the existing noise sources, including I-5 and 

passenger and freight rail, in the project corridor. Noise levels were evaluated at 

clusters of residences and other sensitive uses shown in Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19. 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in moderate impacts under the FTA criteria at 

seven clusters, as described in the following sections. Noise levels that would equal, but 

not exceed, the moderate impact threshold would not require mitigation. Therefore, only 

five of these clusters were evaluated for mitigation (Table 4-13). 

Table 4-13. Noise Impacts Evaluated for Mitigation 

Cluster 

No. Description 

Near 

Track 

Distance 

(ft) 

Design 

Speed 

(mph) 

Noise 

Meas. 

Site 

Sound Level (dBA) No. of 

Impacts 

Existing

Impact Threshold1

Project2 Mod. Severe Mod. Severe

9 MFR 15 55 LT1 88 Ldn 66 Ldn 75 Ldn 67 Ldn 4 -- 

57 MFR 25 55 LT10 67 Ldn 63 Ldn 67 Ldn 66 Ldn 4 -- 

59 MFR 80 55 LT10 62 Ldn 59 Ldn 64 Ldn 61 Ldn 7 -- 

71 MFR 325 44 LT12 59 Ldn 58 Ldn 63 Ldn 63 Ldn 8 -- 

72 Hotel 115 44 LT12 66 Ldn 62 Ldn 67 Ldn 67 Ldn 20 -- 

Source: SANDAG, 2014p 

Notes: 1“ FTA impact threshold for Category 2 (Ldn) or Category 3 (Leq) receivers in terms of project noise. 2 “ Project” is the noise created by the new LRT operations in the existing rail corridor, including the noise of 

warning bells at grade crossings. 

dBA = A-weighted decibel; ft = feet; Ldn = day-night sound level; Leq(h) = hourly equivalent sound level; 

MFR = multifamily residence; mph = miles per hour 

Santa Fe Depot to the OTTC 

The existing Trolley Blue Line operations between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC 

consist of 79 trains per day in each direction (158 trains total). The expected increase in 

train traffic as a result of the project is 49 trains per day in each direction for a total of 128 

trains per day in each direction (256 trains total). The predicted levels of LRT operational 

noise and associated impacts from warning signals used for grade crossings are 

presented in Table 4-13. All predicted impacts relative to the FTA criteria would occur to 

noise Category 2 land uses. No impacts were identified at noise Category 3 land uses, 

and no noise Category 1 land uses were identified along this section of the alignment. A 

moderate noise impact from the warning bells at the Cedar Street grade crossing would 

occur at four apartment units in the Camden Tuscany Apartment complex at 1670 

Kettner Boulevard (Cluster 9) (Figure 4-18). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-83 

North of the OTTC 

The proposed operating plan on the Trolley Blue Line north of the OTTC provides for 

128 LRT trains per day in each direction by 2030. Table 4-13 and Figure 4-19 show the 

predicted levels of LRT operational noise and associated impacts for sensitive receivers 

in the vicinity of the project alignment north of the OTTC. Moderate impacts from the 

project are predicted at 23 single-family residences in the La Paz condominium complex 

at Rosenda Court along La Jolla Colony Drive (Clusters 57, 59, and 61), 8 multifamily 

units above the Shops at La Jolla Village (Cluster 71), 20 rooms at the Sheraton La Jolla 

Hotel at 3299 Holiday Court (Cluster 72), and 12 multifamily residences at the UCSD 

Matthews Apartments (Cluster 77). At two of these locations representing 24 residences 

(Clusters 61 and 77), the project-generated noise level would equal but not exceed the 

moderate impact threshold. Therefore, mitigation would not be required for these 2 

clusters, but would be required at the other 5 clusters representing 19 residential units 

and 20 hotel rooms. 

Areas of frequent human recreational use within Marian Bear Memorial Park and Rose 

Canyon Open Space Park are considered in this analysis to be noise-sensitive noise 

Category 3 land use receivers. Noise levels within the park would not exceed the city’s 

General Plan noise level compatibility standards or the FTA’s moderate or severe noise 

impact criteria for noise Category 3 land use, nor would the project result in a perceptible 

increase in the existing noise levels experienced within the park. 

Stationary Source Noise Levels 

Noise analysis was conducted for each sensitive receiver in the vicinity of a planned TPSS 

unit. No stationary source noise impacts caused by TPSS units would occur with the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

Traffic Noise Levels 

The project alignment has a separate right-of-way from vehicular traffic and would result 

in minimal changes in traffic patterns. However, traffic noise was analyzed at Charmant 

Drive between Gilman Drive and the I-5 crossing because substantial changes to the 

existing terrain to accommodate the LRT tracks could affect the transmission of traffic 

noise. The analysis examined the effects of the Refined Build Alternative on receivers 

on La Jolla Colony Drive and Charmant Drive with and without the expansion of I-5 (one 

lane in each direction), which would be implemented as a separate project by Caltrans. 

Using the FHWA noise model and guidance, the resulting analysis indicated that the 

Refined Build Alternative, with or without the I-5 widening, would not substantially 

increase incremental traffic noise levels at Charmant Drive or La Jolla Colony Drive, or 

cause levels to exceed or approach the NAC. Therefore, traffic activity would not result 

in an impact related to noise. 

The impacts of the project’s retaining wall on traffic noise reflections to receivers on the west 

side of I-5 also were considered. If during final design, the height of the retaining wall on the 

east side of I-5 becomes greater than one-tenth the distance to the nearest receivers on the 

west side of I-5, a sound-absorptive finish to the wall would be incorporated into the project 

design to eliminate or substantially reduce traffic noise reflections. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-84 September 2014

Light Rail Transit Vibration Levels 

Santa Fe Depot to the OTTC 

In cases of heavily used rail corridors (more than 12 trains per day), the FTA Guidance 

Manual indicates that a project would cause a vibration impact only if the project 

substantially increases the number of vibration events that exceed the vibration impact 

criteria. Approximately doubling the events is required for a significant increase. If there 

is not a substantial increase in vibration events, there would be additional impact only if 

the project vibration would exceed the detailed assessment criteria and the existing 

vibration levels by 3 VdB or more. 

Between Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, the Trolley Blue Line would use existing LRT 

tracks, which are adjacent to the existing tracks used for COASTER commuter rail 

trains, Amtrak passenger trains, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight trains. The 

number of LRT trains would increase by 98 from 158 trains per day under existing 

conditions to 256 trains per day under the Refined Build Alternative in 2030. This 

increase in LRT trips of approximately 62 percent would not be a significant increase in 

vibration events (per FTA criteria described above, an approximate doubling of events is 

required) and would not generate vibration levels above existing conditions. The project 

would use LRT vehicles similar to those that already operate between the Santa Fe 

Depot and the OTTC. Therefore, project vibration would not exceed existing LRT 

vibration levels and would not cause any significant vibration impacts in this area. 

North of the OTTC 

In the sections of the project alignment that are adjacent to existing freight and 

passenger tracks, the number of vibration events would increase from approximately 24 

trains per day in both directions (22 passenger trains and 2 freight trains) to 284 trains 

per day (260 LRT trains, 22 passenger trains, and 2 freight trains). Three vibration 

Category 1 land uses are located north of the OTTC: the VA Medical Center, the UCSD 

Structural and Mechanical Engineering Building, and Scripps Hospital XiMed Building. 

Detailed vibration analyses indicated that vibration levels from the Refined Build 

Alternative in all vibration Category 1 locations would be below vibration impact criteria. 

A vibration analysis for vibration Category 2 and vibration Category 3 land uses 

indicated that vibration levels could exceed the General Assessment impact threshold at 

two clusters (numbers 57 and 59), both multifamily residences in the La Paz 

condominium complex. Because the general assessment criteria were triggered, a 

detailed assessment was completed for these two sites. The detailed assessment 

predicted vibration levels that exceed the FTA criteria for residential land uses at Cluster 

57 but not at Cluster 59 (Figure 4-20). Therefore, without mitigation, LRT operations 

north of the OTTC would result in an impact related to vibration at Cluster 57. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

If during final design the height of the retaining wall on the east side of I-5 becomes greater 

than one-tenth the distance to the nearest receivers on the west side of I-5, a soundabsorptive finish to the wall would be incorporated into the project design to eliminate or 

substantially reduce traffic noise reflections. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-85 

Figure 4-20. Vibration Impact Location 

Source: SANDAG, 2014p 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-86 September 2014

4.7.4 Mitigation Measures 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, five noise-sensitive receiver clusters representing 

19 residential units and 20 hotel rooms are predicted to experience moderate noise 

impacts at least 1 dBA greater than the impact threshold or an increase in the 

cumulative environmental noise level of more than 3 dBA. Implementation of the noise 

mitigation measures presented in Table 4-14 would eliminate noise impacts at these 

locations. The warning bell referenced in Mitigation Measure N1 currently operates at a 

sound volume above the minimum level allowed by the California Public Utilities 

Commission (CPUC). Therefore, lowering the volume for the warning bell would be 

feasible. 

Table 4-14. Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures 

Identification Impact Location Mitigation Location

Noise Mitigation 

N1 Cluster 9, 

Camden 

Tuscany 

Apartments 

Lower the sound level of the grade crossing bells by at 

least 2 dBA or to the lowest level allowed by the CPUC, 

resulting in a mitigated noise level of 64 dBA Ldn. 

West Cedar St grade 

crossing 

N2 Cluster 57, 

La Paz 

Condominiums 

Install a sound wall (minimum 8 ft above top of rail) in 

front of the residential land use, resulting in a mitigated 

noise level of 56 dBA Ldn. 

Station 572+60 to 

574+90 (230 ft) 

N3 Cluster 59, 

La Paz 

Condominiums 

Install a sound wall (minimum 8 ft above top of rail) in 

front of the residential land use, resulting in a mitigated 

noise level of 51 dBA Ldn. 

Station 577+50 to 

580+80 (330 ft) 

N4 Cluster 71, Loft 

Apartments at 

the Shops at La 

Jolla Village 

shopping center 

and Cluster 72, 

Sheraton La 

Jolla Hotel 

Install a sound wall on the aerial structure in front of the 

Sheraton La Jolla Hotel such that the top of the sound 

wall is at least 4 ft higher than the highest point of rail 

activity, and the wall is sufficiently long to reduce impacts 

at the Loft Apartments at the Shops at La Jolla Village. 

This would result in a mitigated noise level of 51 dBA Ldn

at the Loft Apartments and 55 dBA at the hotel. 

Station 630+00 to 

637+50 (750 ft) 

Vibration Mitigation 

VIB1 Cluster 57, 

La Paz 

Condominiums 

Install floating slab trackwork or similar measure in front 

of the residential land use for both northbound and 

southbound tracks. A minimum 10-VdB reduction would 

be achieved at 25 hertz, fully mitigating the impact. 

Station 571+90 to 

575+50 (360 ft) 

Source: SANDAG, 2014p 

Note: CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; dBA = A-weighted decibel; ft = feet; Ldn = day-night noise 

level; TPSS = traction power substation; VdB = vibration decibel 

Mitigation Measure VIB1 would eliminate the vibration impact by installing floating slab 

trackwork or a similarly effective measure. Refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014p) for additional 

information. With the implementation of this measure, there would be no remaining 

vibration impacts. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-87 

4.7.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination, which is based upon the 

analysis summarized above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional 

assessment below. 

4.7.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As stated previously, the No-Build Alternative would 

not include any project-related improvements that could increase noise or vibration 

levels. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not result in a significant impact and, 

accordingly, the thresholds below address only the Refined Build Alternative. 

Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in existing ambient noise 

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). With mitigation, 

the project would not result in an increase of more than 3 dBA compared to existing ambient 

noise levels at any location; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Levels at 

the Loft Apartments at the Shops at La Jolla Village (Cluster 71) would increase by more 

than 3 dBA; however, with mitigation, these noise impacts would be less than significant, 

with an increase of not more than 1 dBA relative to existing levels. 

Would the project expose people to noise levels that exceed the city's adopted noise 

ordinance or expose existing land uses to noise levels that are considered incompatible 

under the city’s Noise Land Use Compatibility Chart? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). No stationary source noise 

impacts caused by TPSS units would occur with the Refined Build Alternative. Therefore, 

noise levels would not exceed the applicable noise ordinance or create levels incompatible 

to the Noise Land Use Compatibility Chart. 

Would the project expose people to future transportation noise levels that exceed FTA 

Guidance Manual definition of severe impacts? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not cause any severe impacts under the FTA impact criteria. 

Would the project expose people to current or future transportation noise levels that 

exceed the Caltrans Noise Protocol definition of a substantial noise increase which is at 

least 12 dBA over existing conditions? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Transportation noise levels 

would not increase by 12 or more dBA at any location. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-88 September 2014

Would the project result in vibration that is 3 vibration decibel (VdB) or more above 

existing conditions, and would the predicted vibration exceed the applicable FTA 

criteria? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact With Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). The vibration 

impact threshold criteria would be exceeded at Cluster 57, which would result in a significant 

impact without mitigation. However, a mitigation measure has been identified that would 

reduce the vibration impact to less than significant. 

4.7.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

After implementation of the noise and vibration mitigation measures identified in Table 

4-14, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-89 

4.8 Ecosystems and Biological Resources 

This section evaluates the impact of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

biological resources in the study area. These resources include vegetation communities, 

plants and wildlife, and their habitats. For additional information, including maps showing 

the location of these resources, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological 

Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014u) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

This section has been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to reflect 2014 focused survey 

results, circulation of the Supplement regarding the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 

sandiegonensis), formal Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act, a formal determination of the 

Coastal Zone boundary between the San Diego River and Balboa Avenue, comments 

received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and updated analysis for the impact footprint of the 

Refined Build Alternative. The classification of vegetation communities according to the City 

of San Diego Habitat Tiers system has been corrected to apply only to upland vegetation 

communities. Calculations of impacts and mitigation have been updated to reflect the 

impact footprint for the Refined Build Alternative. These revisions are described in greater 

detail as follows. 

The prior environmental documents determined that the project would result in the loss of 

habitat for special-status species. Similarly, the analysis presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

concluded that four special-status species with the potential to occur in the study area 

require consultation with the USFWS. The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila 

californica californica) and the San Diego fairy shrimp were identified to occur in the project 

area. The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trailii extimus) were not recorded during the 2010 focused surveys or any other 

biological surveys conducted prior to the Draft SEIS/SEIR; however, two least Bell’s vireos 

were detected in 2014 in separate locations (one in the Rose Creek area, the other in 

the San Diego River area). The observations of single male least Bell’s vireos are 

assumed to not represent breeding pairs. No southwestern willow flycatchers have been 

observed. Although least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher were not 

observed nesting in the study area, the loss of suitable riparian habitat could impact these 

species if either occupies the area prior to construction. 

Wet season surveys for vernal pool branchiopods (fairy shrimp) for the 2013–2014 rainy 

season identified San Diego fairy shrimp within an ephemeral basin that would be 

directly affected by the Refined Build Alternative (Basin II). This impact was not identified 

in the Draft SEIS/SEIR; therefore, the Supplement was circulated to allow for review and 

comment on this impact (Chapter 1.0, Section 1.1 provides additional information on the 

Supplement). Formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS was initiated on June 12, 

2014 (refer to Appendix C for a copy of the initiation letter). The USFWS issued a 

Biological Opinion on September 5, 2014, which is included in Appendix C of this Final 

SEIS/SEIR. This section has been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to address the 

detection of San Diego fairy shrimp within Basin II and mitigation for the impacts to this 

species (Mitigation Measure BIO5), comments received on the Supplement, and formal 

Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Refer to Chapter 8.0, Section 8.7 for additional 

information on the comment period for the Supplement and comments received on that 

document. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-90 September 2014

Since circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris 

levipes) was determined to have a moderate potential to forage within the San Diego River, 

and text in this section has been revised accordingly. Additionally, comments received on 

the Draft SEIS/SEIR indicated the occurrence of the coastal California gnatcatcher on 

UCSD property. Therefore, this section now identifies these prior observations of the 

coastal California gnatcatcher on the UCSD campus. Updated 2014 focused surveys for 

coastal California gnatcatcher included suitable habitat adjacent to the project on the 

UCSD campus but did not result in the observation of new coastal California gnatcatcher 

locations. The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified the loss of habitat for special-status species 

and direct and indirect impacts to biological and ecological resources. Impacts were 

determined to be not adverse under NEPA and less than significant under CEQA with 

the incorporation of mitigation. These conclusions remain unchanged for this Final 

SEIS/SEIR. 

In May 2014, the CCC provided a formal Coastal Zone boundary determination (included 

in Appendix C of this document). The determination concluded that the portion of the 

project within MTS right-of-way from the San Diego River to Balboa Avenue falls within 

the Coastal Zone and, therefore, construction of this portion of the project would require 

a CDP from the CCC. This section of the document has been revised since the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR to note when impacts are within the Coastal Zone boundary identified by the 

CCC. 

This section has also been revised based on comments received on the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR and to reflect updated analysis for the Refined Build Alternative. The 

classification of Tier I through IV vegetation communities according to the San Diego 

Municipal Code Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego, 

2012b) was corrected throughout this section to apply only to upland vegetation 

communities. Wetlands are not included in the city’s Habitat Tiers system and are 

therefore categorized separately. Calculations of impacts to biological resources were 

updated to reflect the impact footprint for the Refined Build Alternative, as identified in 

the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set, and mitigation was updated accordingly. Following the 

review and comment period for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the mitigation available at Mast 

Park has been applied to other projects. Furthermore, the CCC preliminarily indicated 

that mitigation at Mast Park may not be acceptable for project-related impacts within the 

San Diego River. Therefore, references to Mast Park as a wetland mitigation site for the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project have been removed from this section. 

Refer to the Preface of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014u) for additional information on the changes to the 

biological resources analysis and technical report since publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

The conclusions in this section and for the biological resources analysis remain 

unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. Impacts were determined to be not 

adverse under NEPA and less than significant under CEQA with the incorporation of 

mitigation. 

4.8.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The following sections discuss the regulatory background and methodology used to 

determine impacts on biological resources. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-91 

4.8.1.1 Regulatory Background 

Federal Regulations 

The Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.) is administered by the USFWS 

for most plant and animal species and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National Marine Fisheries Service for certain marine species. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703–712) protects more than 1,000 

species of migratory birds, including most native birds. 

The project would be required to comply with Executive Orders 13112 and 11990. 

Executive Order 13112 ensures that federal programs and activities prevent and control 

the spread of invasive species. Executive Order 11990 states that measures should be 

taken to avoid to the extent possible adverse impacts associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands and to avoid new construction in wetlands wherever there is a 

practicable alternative.

State Regulations 

The California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any 

person to “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or 

use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake” without 

first notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of that activity. 

The Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.) 

authorizes the California Fish and Game Commission to designate rare and endangered 

native plants and provide specific protection measures for these listed species. 

Executive Order W-59-93 established state policy guidelines for wetlands conservation. 

Its primary goal is to ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long-term net gain in 

the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage in California. 

The CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and 

Game Code, Section 2050 et seq.), which prohibits the take of plant and animal species 

designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as endangered or threatened 

in the state. 

The CCC, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of 

land and water in the Coastal Zone. Under the Coastal Act, Section 30107.5, ESHAs 

are areas within the Coastal Zone boundary that are “designated based on the presence 

of rare habitats or areas that support populations of rare, sensitive, or especially 

valuable species or habitats.” In addition, the CCC regulates impacts to coastal 

wetlands defined in Section 30121 of the Coastal Act as, “lands within the coastal zone 

which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include 

saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, 

swamps, mudflats, and fens.” The Coastal Act requires that most development avoid 

and buffer coastal wetland resources in accordance with Sections 301231 and 30233, 

including limiting the filling of wetlands to certain allowable uses. Refer to Section 4.1.1 

for additional information on the Coastal Act and CDP process. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-92 September 2014

Regional and Local Regulations 

The City of San Diego has responsibility for biological resources at the local level. The City 

of San Diego’s overall MSCP Plan addresses habitat and species conservation within 

southwestern San Diego County (County of San Diego, 1998). The program establishes a 

preserve system designed to conserve large blocks of interconnected habitat having high 

biological value that are delineated in the MHPA (City of San Diego, 1997). 

UCSD is responsible for protecting biological resources and mitigation for impacts to 

special-status species and vegetation communities on its lands (UCSD, 2004a). 

Other local documents related to management of biological resources include, but are 

not limited to, the Draft 2010 San Diego River Park Master Plan (City of San Diego, 

2010a), the Marian Bear Memorial Park Natural Resources Management Plan (City of 

San Diego, 1994b), and the Draft San Diego River Natural Resources Management Plan 

(City of San Diego, 2006a). 

The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, approved countywide by 

voters in November 2004, includes an Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP), which 

is a funding allocation category for the costs to mitigate habitat impacts for regional 

transportation projects. The EMP goes beyond traditional mitigation for transportation 

projects by including annual funding allocations for habitat acquisition, management, and 

monitoring activities as needed to help implement the regional habitat conservation 

plans. This funding allocation is tied to mitigation requirements and the environmental 

clearance approval process for projects outlined in the Regional Transportation Plan. 

On March 19, 2008, SANDAG, Caltrans, the USFWS, and the CDFW entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines the roles and commitments of these 

organizations regarding the implementation of the TransNet EMP. The MOA outlines 

the commitment to implement a conservation and mitigation strategy that would: (1) 

identify conservation opportunities for habitat acquisition, creation, and restoration that 

promote regional habitat conservation planning; and (2) align these opportunities in such 

a way to fully mitigate the range of wildlife habitat, natural communities, fisheries, and 

sensitive species impacts resulting from transportation projects. 

4.8.1.2 Methodology 

The study area for biological resources generally included all areas within 500 feet of the 

alignment from the OTTC north to the UTC Transit Center. Exceptions existed for studyarea boundaries for special-status plants and jurisdictional aquatic resources7

. In these 

instances, the study area was limited to within 100 feet of the alignment. It excluded the 

area of the corridor between the Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC because this area is 

located entirely within urbanized and developed areas and does not support specialstatus biological resources that likely would be affected by the project. Where it was 

determined that physical impacts could impact resources outside of the defined study 

 

7

 As described in Chapter 2.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014u), features that convey or hold water are regulated by multiple agencies. Federal, state, and 

local agencies have different definitions and terminology for these types of features. Within this Final SEIS/SEIR, 

water-dependent resources regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the City of San Diego, and/or the California Coastal 

Commission are collectively referred to as jurisdictional aquatic resources. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-93 

area (e.g., protected nesting birds and roosting bats), impacts and mitigation measures, 

if appropriate, were identified. 

The biological analyses included a literature review, field reconnaissance and focused 

surveys, and a jurisdictional delineation of the study area. Limited biological field 

surveys were conducted in 2009, including focused surveys for special-status upland 

plant species in Rose Canyon and the UCSD campus; for least Bell’s vireo and 

southwestern willow flycatcher in Rose Canyon and on the UCSD campus; and for 

Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) at the San Diego 

River. Additional biological surveys were conducted in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014. 

The 2011 surveys included a focused survey for San Diego fairy shrimp and Riverside 

fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), additional surveys for selected special-status 

plant species, and a formal wetland and waterways delineation. Additional focused 

surveys for California gnatcatcher and fairy shrimp (2011–2012 wet season) were 

conducted in 2012. In order to update the status of special-status species prior to 

construction, an additional year of surveys was conducted in 2014 for coastal California 

gnatcatcher, fairy shrimp, least Bell’s vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Additional information, including maps showing the locations of surveys, is provided in 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014u). 

4.8.2 Affected Environment 

The study area covers a cross-section of habitats, including riparian, marsh, open water, 

upland scrub and chaparral, and grasslands. Table 4-15 shows the vegetation 

communities and land covers in the study area (within 500 feet of the alignment), 

including wetlands. In the City of San Diego, sensitive vegetation communities include 

wetlands and those listed as Tier I through Tier III in the San Diego Municipal Code Land 

Development Code—Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego, 2012b) (as identified in 

Table 4-15). Refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014u) for figures showing the distribution of vegetation 

communities and land covers mapped within 500 feet of the alignment and additional 

information on each of these communities. 

During the rare plant surveys, vegetation mapping, and jurisdictional delineations, 223 

species of vascular plants were observed. During focused surveys for special-status 

species, 122 wildlife species were observed—4 amphibians, 5 reptiles, 1 fish, 85 birds, 

14 mammals, and 13 invertebrates. The diversity of observed wildlife generally reflects 

the location of the project adjacent to highly urbanized areas. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-94 September 2014

Table 4-15. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers 

General Vegetation 

Community/Land Cover 

Category 

General Vegetation Type 

(Holland/Oberbauer Code) Tier* Acres 

Percent 

of Study 

Area 

Disturbed and Developed Areas 

(10000) 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) N/A 11.5 0.7%

Disturbed Habitat (11300) IV 57.3 3.7%

Ornamental (N/A) IV 117.9 7.5%

Urban/Developed (12000) IV 1,092.2 69.9%

Disturbed and Developed Areas Total 1,278.9 81.9%

Scrub and Chaparral (30000) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) II 71.1 4.6%

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) II 36.4 2.3%

Southern Mixed Chaparral (37120) IIIA 4.5 0.3%

Scrub and Chaparral Total 112.0 7.2%

Grasslands, Vernal Pools, 

Meadows, and Other Herb 

Communities (40000) 

Non-Native Grassland (42200) IIIB 28.6 1.8%

Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and Other Herb Communities Total 28.6 1.8%

Bog and Marsh (50000) Cismontane Alkali Marsh (52310) N/A 1.4 0.1%

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) N/A 0.5 <0.1%

Disturbed Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410) N/A <0.01 <0.1%

Herbaceous Wetland (52510) N/A 0.3 <0.1%

Disturbed Herbaceous Wetland (52510) N/A 0.1 <0.1%

Bog and Marsh Total 2.3 0.1%

Riparian and Bottomland Habitat 

(60000) 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) N/A 48.0 3.1%

Disturbed Southern Riparian Forest (61300) N/A 2.0 0.1%

Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest (61310) N/A 2.9 0.2%

Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest (61320) N/A 0.2 <0.1%

Southern Riparian Scrub (63300) N/A 1.4 0.1%

Mulefat Scrub (63310) N/A 1.2 0.1%

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) N/A 8.8 0.6%

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) N/A 7.7 0.5%

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) N/A 1.1 0.1%

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) N/A 3.0 0.2%

Riparian and Bottomland Habitat Total 76.3 4.9%

Woodland (70000) Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) IV 63.7 4.1%

Woodland Total 63.7 4.1%

Total 1,561.8 100.0%

Sources: Holland, 1986; Oberbauer and Buegge, 2008; City of San Diego, 2012b 

Note: * Tiers represent the sensitivity status of upland vegetation as defined by the City of San Diego, with Tier I 

being most sensitive and Tier IV being least sensitive. Those vegetation communities without a tier 

classification are considered wetlands and, as such, are sensitive. 

 N/A = not applicable 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-95 

4.8.2.1 Special-Status Species 

No state or federally listed plant species were identified during the study area surveys, 

and none are expected to occur. The surveys did identify six special-status plant 

species in the study area and two special-status plant species with the potential to occur 

in the study area, as listed below: 

 San Diego sagewort (Artemisia palmeri), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)8

 List 

4.2 species 

 Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), a CRPR List 1B.1 species 

 Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. 

decumbens), a CRPR List 1B.2 species 

 San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana), a CRPR 

List 2.2 species 

 Southern California black walnut (Juglans 

californica), a CRPR List 4.2 species 

 Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus spp. 

Leopoldii), a CRPR List 4.2 species 

 Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum

var. robinsonii), a CRPR List 1B.2 species 

(moderate potential to occur) 9

 Bottle liverwort (Sphaerocarpos drewei), a 

CRPR List 1B.1 species (moderate potential to 

occur) 

Three federally listed wildlife species were observed 

in the study area: (1) coastal California gnatcatcher 

(Figure 4-21), federally listed as threatened and an 

MSCP Covered Species; (2) San Diego fairy shrimp 

(Figure 4-22), federally listed as endangered; and 

(3) least Bell’s vireo, federally and state listed as 

endangered. In addition, seven other special-status 

wildlife species were observed during the surveys: 

 Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), a CDFW 

Watch List species and MSCP Covered Species 

 

8

 CRPR designations: 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere; 2: Plants 

Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; 4: Plants of Limited 

Distribution—A Watch List 

Threat Ranks: 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat); 0.2: Fairly 

threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) 9

 Moderate potential to occur means that based on habitat, elevation, and soils the species has a potential to occur 

within the project area. Because this species is difficult to observe, presence in the study area cannot be ruled 

out despite the negative results of the focused survey. 

Figure 4-21. California 

Gnatcatcher 

Source: Mock, 2004

Figure 4-22. San Diego Fairy 

Shrimp 

Source: Chaparral Lands 

Conservancy, 2012 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-96 September 2014

 Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), a CDFW Watch List species 

 Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), a CDFW Species of Special Concern 

and MSCP Covered Species 

 Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), a CDFW Species of Special Concern 

 Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), a CDFW Species of Special Concern 

 White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a Fully Protected Species 

 Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), an MSCP Covered Species 

Coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the study area during focused surveys 

conducted in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Two gnatcatcher pairs were observed during the 

2010 focused survey, and a single male gnatcatcher, considered to represent a third 

gnatcatcher pair in the study area, was observed during the 2012 focused survey. 

Although the 2010 and 2014 surveys did not identify coastal California gnatcatcher 

within the upper portion (i.e., within 500 feet of the project alignment) of the finger 

canyon to the north of Voigt Drive on the UCSD campus (within the Ecological Reserve 

on West Campus), coastal California gnatcatcher was recorded in contiguous habitat 

immediately to the north in 2001 and 2004 surveys (UCSD, 2004a and Leonard, 2004). 

For purposes of the analysis, it is assumed that suitable coastal sage scrub habitat to 

the north of Voigt Drive is occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher. No new coastal 

California gnatcatcher locations were identified during the 2014 focused survey. 

Although San Diego fairy shrimp were not observed during the focused surveys in 2010–

2011, two males were detected on one occasion during the beginning of the second wet 

season surveys in 2011–2012 in Basin BB. This basin is approximately 72 feet from the 

project alignment (centerline of the southbound track), immediately adjacent to I-5. In 

addition, three males and one female San Diego fairy shrimp were collected from Basin 

II during the 2013–2014 wet season surveys. Basin II is approximately 76 feet long and 

5.5 feet wide, and is located approximately 25 feet to the east of the existing Los Angeles–

San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) tracks. 

Ten special-status wildlife species have a high potential to occur in the study area: 

 Belding’s orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi) 

 Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) 

 Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) 

 Coronado Island skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis) 

 Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) 

 Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

 Dulzura (California) pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis) 

 Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-97 

 Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) 

 San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) 

Of these ten special-status wildlife species, four are MSCP Covered Species and nine 

are California Species of Concern as designated by CDFW. 

Eighteen other special-status species that were not observed but have a moderate 

potential to occur in the study area are as follows: 

 Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondi) 

 Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) 

 Two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii)

 Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)

 Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

 Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli) 

 Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus) 

 California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) 

 Merlin (Falco columbarius) 

 American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

 Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

 White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi)

 Light-footed clapper rail—foraging only

 Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax)

 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) 

 San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii)

 Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) 

 Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis)

Although least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher were not observed during 

focused surveys in 2009–2010, a single male least Bell’s vireo was observed within the 

project area during preconstruction nesting bird surveys and protocol focused surveys 

conducted in 2014.  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. In addition to focused surveys, weekly surveys 

were conducted following the initial detection to determine if the individual had 

established a breeding territory. No nesting behavior was observed during any of the 

surveys, and the individual was not observed in the area after May 13; therefore, it was 

assumed that the detection did not represent a breeding pair. The least Bell’s vireo and 

southwestern willow flycatcher could occupy potentially suitable riparian habitat in the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-98 September 2014

study area prior to construction. Least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher 

are federally and state-listed as endangered and MSCP Covered Species. Light-footed 

clapper rail may forage within the study area along the San Diego River; however, it is 

unlikely to nest in the area due to the marginal suitability of the habitat. Additionally, preconstruction surveys and focused surveys for light-footed clapper rail were conducted in 

the fall 2013 and spring 2014, respectively, in support of geotechnical activities for the 

LOSSAN San Diego River Bridge Double Track Project that crosses the San Diego 

River immediately to the west of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Those surveys 

were negative (Merkel & Associates, 2014). 

4.8.2.2 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages 

Wildlife corridors are linear features connecting large patches of natural open space and 

provide for animal dispersal or migration, as well as plant dispersal. Although areas 

north and south of the San Diego River are highly urbanized, the river corridor, which is 

part of the MHPA, provides a sheltered and relatively continuous corridor for fish and 

wildlife movement between coastal and inland habitats. The San Diego River ultimately 

links open space to the east of I-15 at Mission Trails Regional Park to the Pacific Ocean, 

and serves as a regional and local wildlife corridor and habitat linkage. 

Rose Creek provides an avenue for local wildlife movement in a north–south direction 

between the portion of Rose Canyon to the east of I-5 and San Clemente Canyon. 

However, to the south, Rose Creek is generally surrounded by highly urbanized areas. 

Rose Canyon and San Clemente Canyon connect to undeveloped lands on Marine Corps 

Air Station Miramar located to the east of I-805; however, these corridors do not connect 

to larger patches of natural open space to the south. Therefore, the riparian corridor along 

Rose Creek within the study area does not function as a regional wildlife corridor or habitat 

linkage, but does act as a local corridor between Rose Canyon and San Clemente Canyon 

and connects upstream and downstream portions of Rose Creek. While the majority of 

Rose Creek includes riparian habitat that provides resources such as water, food, and 

cover in some capacity, an approximately 700-foot-long portion of the creek at the SR 52 

and I-5 interchange is an open concrete-lined channel. The concrete channel offers no 

habitat cover for local wildlife use, but along with adjacent uplands that consist of disturbed 

areas, including the realigned Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, may support occasional wildlife 

movement, primarily by nocturnal species (e.g., coyotes, raccoons, and skunks). Because 

of the limited flow in the channel during the majority of the year, and because the channel 

lacks a natural bottom suitable for aquatic or semi-aquatic species, the potential use of the 

channel by fish and other aquatic or semi-aquatic species is considered to be low. 

The portion of Tecolote Creek within the study area is a concrete-lined channel in a 

highly urbanized setting and has very limited value for wildlife movement with no 

connectivity to large, natural open space areas. This portion of Tecolote Creek is also of 

limited value to resident animals due to the lack of native habitat cover. In the study 

area, Tecolote Creek has limited potential to function as a local or regional wildlife 

corridor or habitat linkage. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-99 

4.8.3 Environmental Impacts 

The following sections discuss impacts on biological resources from the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.8.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

constructed and bus Route 150 service would be continued and enhanced. Physical 

changes associated with the No-Build Alternative would not result in direct or indirect 

impacts to biological resources, including impacts to special-status species, specialstatus vegetation communities, or jurisdictional aquatic resources. 

4.8.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

Implementation of the project is not expected to introduce invasive plant species. 

Although landscaping likely would be incorporated at stations and related facilities, these 

areas are not near or adjacent to natural open space areas that are susceptible to the 

introduction of invasive plant species. Therefore, implementation of the project would 

not result in invasive plant species being introduced into natural open space areas. 

Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities—Direct 

Coastal California gnatcatcher, San Diego fairy shrimp, and least Bell’s vireo were 

observed in the study area. No other wildlife species listed or proposed as federally 

threatened or endangered were observed in the study area. In addition, no critical 

habitat for wildlife species listed as federally threatened or endangered, including coastal 

California gnatcatcher and San Diego fairy shrimp, occurs in the study area. Although 

focused surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher were negative and the single male 

least Bell’s vireo observed did not establish a breeding territory within the project area, 

these species could move into the area prior to construction. 

Implementation of the project would result in long-term loss of 5.99 acres of coastal sage 

scrub (potentially suitable coastal California gnatcatcher habitat); however, impacts would 

occur along the project alignment and would not directly affect the three observed 

California gnatcatcher pairs. In total, 5.99 acres of coastal sage scrub (including 

disturbed) out of 107.5 acres present in the study area would be affected long-term. 

These impacts would be adverse and would occur primarily from the time site work begins 

until the time suitable habitat is established in mitigation areas. These impacts would be 

mitigated as described in Section 4.8.4, which would offset the long-term loss of habitat. 

In addition, breeding season restrictions would be implemented for construction activities 

within the MHPA. Therefore, after mitigation the project would not result in adverse 

impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher. 

During the 2011–2012 wet season survey, San Diego fairy shrimp were observed in the 

study area outside of the disturbance footprint of the project alignment (referred to as 

Basin BB). Because of the location of the project on the opposite side of the existing 

tracks (i.e., to the east), and the position of the occupied fairy shrimp basin below and to 

the west of the existing tracks, the occupied fairy shrimp basin and basin watershed are 

not expected to be affected by erosion and/or runoff. Therefore, this location of San 

Diego fairy shrimp would not be directly affected. During the 2013–2014 wet season 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-100 September 2014

surveys, San Diego fairy shrimp were observed within the study area to the east of the 

existing tracks and within the disturbance footprint of the project alignment (referred to 

as Basin II). The project would result in the loss of this ephemeral basin occupied by 

San Diego fairy shrimp as a result of improvements within the existing MTS right-of-way 

associated with new track construction. In addition to the basin area itself, the basin 

watershed would be directly impacted by grading and other improvements associated 

with new track construction. Since Basin II is located within the Coastal Zone boundary 

and contains San Diego fairy shrimp, it could potentially be considered an ESHA under 

Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act; therefore, impacts to this ephemeral basin would be 

subject to review by the CCC during the CDP process. This impact would be considered 

adverse without mitigation. 

Implementation of the project would result in 0.68 acre of long-term direct impacts to 

potentially suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher in the San Diego River, Rose Creek, and on the UCSD campus. Potentially 

suitable riparian habitat includes southern riparian forest and southern willow scrub 

(including disturbed), as well as contiguous areas of mulefat scrub, disturbed wetlands, 

and Arundo-dominated riparian. The majority of long-term direct impacts would occur to 

areas located within or immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way. These 

impacts would be mitigated as described in Section 4.8.4, which would offset the longterm loss of habitat. In addition, breeding season restrictions would be implemented for 

construction activities in suitable habitat areas if either of these species occupies the 

area prior to construction. Therefore, after mitigation the project would not result in 

adverse impacts to least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Coordination with the USFWS has been ongoing since February 25, 2013. On this date, 

SANDAG, in cooperation with FTA, requested to initiate informal Section 7 consultation 

with the USFWS regarding the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher 

and the federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, 

and San Diego fairy shrimp. The request included pertinent project information and 

presented the basis for the preliminary finding made by the FTA and SANDAG that the 

proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the four species for 

which Section 7 consultation was requested. Upon receipt of the consultation request, 

Lauren Kershek was identified as the USFWS contact. On March 20, 2013, Ms. 

Kershek contacted SANDAG to request additional project-related information and 

subsequently indicated that the USFWS did not have any concerns regarding the project 

at this time. At SANDAG’s request, Ms. Kershek agreed to keep the consultation open 

until the Draft SEIS/SEIR has been circulated for public review to ensure that any 

concerns regarding the project are adequately addressed. 

On November 7, 2013, SANDAG spoke with Ms. Kershek to provide information to the 

USFWS regarding the current status of the project. Topics addressed included the close 

of the comment period, incorporation of refinements to the project engineering design, 

ongoing efforts to respond to comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and efforts to 

update the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014u). Ms. Kershek also requested that the federally listed endangered 

light-footed clapper rail be included in the list of species subject to Section 7 consultation 

at this time. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-101 

On April 30, 2014, SANDAG and FTA discussed the positive survey findings with the 

USFWS and the need for formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. On May 6, 

2014, SANDAG and FTA hosted a field visit with the USFWS to review the location of 

impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp and the proposed mitigation location. Formal Section 

7 consultation was initiated with the USFWS on June 12, 2014 (refer to Appendix C for 

the consultation initiation letter). SANDAG and FTA continued to provide information as 

requested by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. On September 5, 

2014, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion concurring with the FTA’s determination 

that the project is not likely to adversely affect coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s 

vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, light-footed clapper rail, or critical habitat for these 

species. While the project would directly affect San Diego fairy shrimp, the Biological 

Opinion concludes that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the San Diego fairy shrimp, and included authorization for incidental take of San Diego 

fairy shrimp. The Biological Opinion is included in Appendix C of this Final SEIS/SEIR; 

the Biological Assessment is included as an appendix to the Supplement. 

Special-status wildlife species not listed or proposed as federally threatened or 

endangered could be adversely affected by the project as a result of the long-term loss 

of 8.29 acres of riparian, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland 

(wetlands and Tiers II and III) that provide foraging habitat, including seven specialstatus wildlife species known to occur in the study area (i.e., Cooper’s hawk, doublecrested cormorant, long-billed curlew, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, whitetailed kite, and mule deer), as well as others with a moderate or high potential to occur 

in the study area. 

The long-term loss of 0.68 acre of wetlands and 1.43 acres of Tier III non-native 

grassland could remove nesting and/or foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk, yellow 

warbler, white-tailed kite, yellow-breasted chat, and long-billed curlew, as well as other 

special-status species that use these habitats. Double-crested cormorant and lightfooted clapper rail may forage within aquatic and wetlands habitat at the San Diego 

River, but are unlikely to nest within the study area because of a lack of suitable habitat. 

Impacts to wetlands also could affect several other special-status species that were not 

observed but have a moderate potential to occur in the study area, including western 

spadefoot toad, silvery legless lizard, Coronado Island skink, and two-striped garter 

snake. Impacts to wetlands include the long-term loss of potentially suitable nesting 

habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Impacts to Tier III grassland also could affect several other special-status species, including 

grasshopper sparrow and California horned lark, and raptors that forage in grasslands such 

as northern harrier, merlin, and loggerhead shrike. 

The long-term loss of 5.99 acres of Tier II Diegan coastal sage scrub (including 

disturbed) would reduce potentially suitable habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher 

and other special-status species that use coastal sage scrub, including Belding’s 

orange-throated whiptail, coast horned lizard, red-diamond rattlesnake, Bell’s sage 

sparrow, loggerhead shrike, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Dulzura 

California pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego black-tailed 

jackrabbit, and San Diego desert woodrat. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-102 September 2014

Impacts to wetlands, Tier II Diegan coastal sage scrub, and Tier III grassland also could 

affect area bats. Loss of riparian habitat would reduce potential roosting and foraging 

habitat for the western red bat, and loss of foraging habitat for the spotted bat, western 

mastiff bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, and big free-tailed bat. 

The long-term loss of vegetation communities associated with implementation of the 

project would occur in relatively narrow linear areas and would not substantially affect 

the viability of adjacent habitat to support special-status species. New tracks and 

stations proposed outside of existing MTS right-of-way would be located in urbanized 

areas where habitat for special-status species is limited. There would be a long-term 

loss of habitat for special-status species, which would primarily occur along the outer 

edges of existing habitat. As stated above, the majority of impacts to coastal sage scrub 

would occur immediately along the existing right-of-way and are not expected to 

substantially affect the use of adjacent habitat occupied by the coastal California 

gnatcatcher and other special-status species. The two-striped garter snake was not 

observed within the study area during surveys; however, it has a high potential to occur 

in aquatic habitat within the active flow channel and adjacent wetlands of the San Diego 

River and Rose Creek. Bridge piers and abutments at these locations would be located 

outside of the active flow channel, and long-term impacts to potential habitat for the twostriped garter snake and other aquatic and semi-aquatic species would be limited. No 

special-status fish species are expected to occur within these areas. Therefore, no 

adverse impacts to special-status species would occur as a result of vegetation loss. 

Implementation of the project would result in the overall long-term loss of 8.29 acres of 

breeding and/or foraging habitat for special-status wildlife species. Affected areas would be 

limited to locations within or immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way where 

comparatively large areas of native habitats remain available for breeding and foraging. In 

addition, impacts to vegetation communities would be mitigated, as described in Section 

4.8.4 (Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21). As a result, impacts to special-status wildlife 

species due to a reduction of foraging and/or breeding habitat would not be adverse. 

Special Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities—Indirect 

Four plant species considered special-status based on CRPR listings of 1B through 4 

occur within the footprint of the proposed bridges over Rose Creek and the San Diego 

River and would be subject to long-term indirect impacts associated with shading: San 

Diego sagewort, decumbent goldenbush, San Diego marsh elder, and southwestern 

spiny rush. However, because these plants lie within areas that would be impacted by 

vegetation clearing, falsework construction, and other activities during construction, it is 

assumed that the affected plants would be removed during construction and long-term 

indirect impacts due to shading would not be relevant. 

Indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources could result from adverse edge effects 

that can occur along the development–preservation interface. Although the Refined 

Build Alternative would introduce LRT train activity and add new tracks within the 

existing MTS right-of-way, the project would not introduce new land uses within or 

adjacent to the MHPA. Because portions of the project that are within or adjacent to the 

MHPA are entirely within existing MTS right-of-way, these areas are already subject to 

potential adverse edge effects that may include noise, vibration, and lighting associated 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-103 

with current heavy rail, passenger rail, and commuter rail service operations. Although 

the frequency of LRT train activity would be greater than the frequency of current rail 

traffic along portions of the alignment adjacent to the MHPA to the north and south of SR 

52, the potential increase in associated noise, vibration, and lighting is not expected to 

be a substantial increase over current conditions. 

A comparison of existing noise levels and future noise levels with the Refined Build 

Alternative is included in Chapter 7.0, Table 7-1 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014p). Along portions of the 

project adjacent to the MHPA to the north and south of SR 52, projected noise levels 

would not change from current levels in most cases and would only increase 3 dBA 

adjacent to Marian Bear Memorial Park. 

According to the FTA Guidance Manual, locomotive-powered passenger or freight 

activity generates substantially greater vibration levels than light rail vehicles. For 

example, at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline and at 50 miles per hour, 

locomotive-powered passenger or freight trains generate a vibration level of 85 VdB and 

light rail vehicles generate a vibration level of 73 VdB. 

Because stations are not proposed adjacent to the MHPA, potential sources of lighting 

from the project would be limited to train headlights moving along the alignment. Train 

headlights would be directed straight ahead, however, and would not substantially 

increase the extent of lighting in adjacent habitat areas in the MHPA; thus, edge effects 

related to lighting are not expected to be adverse. Therefore, indirect noise, vibration, 

and lighting impacts on listed, proposed, and other special-status wildlife species are 

not considered adverse. 

Long-term indirect impacts from elevated project structures would affect 1.24 acres of 

wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities. The wetland communities subject to 

shading include disturbed wetland, mulefat scrub, southern willow scrub (including 

disturbed), Arundo-dominated riparian, and non-vegetated channel or floodway. Tier II 

communities include Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed). Tier III 

communities affected by shading include non-native grassland. 

Of the 0.89 acre of wetland communities and land covers subject to potential shading 

effects, 0.10 acre comprises non-vegetated channel or floodway that lack vegetation 

entirely and would not be adversely affected by shading. The remaining 0.79 acre of 

wetland communities is comprised of 0.25 acre of mulefat scrub and southern willow 

scrub, and 0.54 acre of disturbed southern willow scrub, disturbed wetland, and Arundodominated riparian areas that may be sensitive to changes in sunlight availability to 

varying degrees. However, the presence and condition (i.e., species cover and 

composition) of wetland communities in similar conditions beneath existing crossings 

over the San Diego River and Rose Creek suggest that while the project would result in 

reduced levels of available sunlight, sufficient sunlight would be available to support 

wetland communities. In the San Diego River, cismontane alkali marsh, mulefat scrub, 

southern willow scrub (including disturbed), and Arundo-dominated riparian communities 

are present beneath the Mission Valley West Trolley line and the LOSSAN tracks, and 

disturbed wetlands and southern willow scrub communities are present beneath the 

LOSSAN crossings over Rose Creek. Based on the presence of these communities in 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-104 September 2014

shaded situations similar to those expected under the proposed bridges over the San 

Diego River and Rose Creek, a decrease in sunlight availability is not expected to have 

an adverse effect on community type. Certain communities such as southern willow 

scrub, for example, may be sufficiently affected by reduced growth and productivity that 

the typical progression toward a late seral tree-dominated community structure may not 

occur. Therefore, while shading is not expected to result in type conversion of existing 

wetland communities, the potential decrease of growth and productivity in certain 

wetland communities could have an adverse impact. 

Elevated structures would shade 0.28 acre of coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) 

considered potentially suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. The entire 

0.28-acre impact area is located beneath the proposed UCSD West Station. Although 

certain areas of coastal sage scrub near the outer edges of the elevated structures 

would have at least partial sunlight, areas located more centrally beneath the elevated 

station platforms would have little to no exposure to sunlight. Because germination and 

seedling growth of primary constituent species such as California sagebrush are 

sensitive to shade, even areas with partial sunlight may be adversely affected. 

In addition, approximately 0.76 acre of potentially suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s 

vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher in the San Diego River, Rose Creek, and on the 

UCSD campus would be affected by shading. 

However, because adverse impacts to wetlands and Tier II vegetation communities 

would be mitigated, as described in Section 4.8.4, effects to sensitive natural 

communities from long-term shading impacts would not be adverse. 

As non-native grassland commonly occurs in partially shaded situations in natural and 

urbanized settings, and because proposed elevated structures at the Balboa Avenue 

crossing and UCSD West Station are expected to only partially reduce available sunlight, 

indirect shading impacts on 0.07 acre of Tier III non-native grassland would not be adverse. 

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources 

The project would result in long-term impacts to wetland and non-wetland waters under 

the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (RWQCB), streambed and riparian areas under the jurisdiction of 

the CDFW, wetlands under the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego, and coastal 

wetlands under the jurisdiction of the CCC. Table 4-16 and Table 4-17 present impacts 

by vegetation type and watershed, respectively. The jurisdictional aquatic resources 

affected are illustrated in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Biological Resources Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014u). 

As shown in Table 4-16 and Table 4-17, long-term direct impacts to wetland and nonwetland waters under USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction total 0.37 acre (0.17 acre of 

wetland and 0.19 acre of non-wetland waters). Including the construction and shading 

impacts, the total impacts to wetland and non-wetland waters under USACE and 

RWQCB jurisdiction is 3.01 acres. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-105 

Table 4-16. Impacts to Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources by Vegetation Type 

Jurisdictional 

Aquatic 

Resource 

General Vegetation Type 

(Holland/Oberbauer Code) Long-Term 

(Acres)

Long-term

Construction 

Indirect 

Shading 

(Acres)

Short-term 

Construction

(Acres)

Total 

(Acres)

USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction 

Wetland Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.02 0.28 0.18 0.47

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.03 — 0.05 0.08

Mulefat Scrub (63310) < 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.12 0.07 0.38 0.56

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) < 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.39

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) < 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07

Wetland Subtotal 0.17 0.59 0.92 1.68

NonWetland 

Waters 

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) 0.13 0.10 0.29 0.52

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete Lined 0.06 0.03 0.64 0.73

Disturbed Wetland (11200) - Riprap — — 0.08 0.08

Non-Wetland Waters Subtotal 0.19 0.13 1.0 1.33

USACE/RWQCB Total 0.37 0.72 1.92 3.01

CDFW and City of San Diego Jurisdiction 

Riparian 

Areas 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.02 0.28 0.18 0.47

Disturbed Herbaceous Wetland (52510) — — 0.01 0.01

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.48 — 0.89 1.37

Mulefat Scrub (63310) < 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.16 0.16 0.66 0.98

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) < 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.39

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.22

Riparian Areas Subtotal 0.68 0.75 2.12 3.55

Streambed Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) 0.13 0.1 0.29 0.52

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete Lined 0.06 0.03 0.64 0.73

Disturbed Wetland (11200) - Riprap — — 0.15 0.15

Streambed Subtotal 0.19 0.13 1.08 1.40

CDFW and City of San Diego (Wetlands) Total 0.87 0.88 3.20 4.95

CCC Jurisdiction 

Wetlands Disturbed Habitat (11300) 0.18 — — 0.18

Disturbed Wetland (11200) < 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.15

Mulefat Scrub (63310) < 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.10

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) < 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) < 0.01 0.11 0.10 0.22

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) < 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.06

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.08

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete Lined < 0.01 0.01 — 0.01

CCC Total1 0.22 0.47 0.18 0.88

Source: City of San Diego, 1997; Holland, 1986; Oberbauer and Buegge, 2008 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 Acreages may vary slightly based on final design, and mitigation would be based on actual impacts. 1

 CCC jurisdictional areas include 0.18 acre of ephemeral basins within uplands in the impact area that 

could be considered coastal wetlands based on hydrology; this determination will be made during the 

Coastal Development Permit process. 

CCC = California Coastal Commission; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = 

Regional Water Quality Control Board; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-106 September 2014

Table 4-17. Impacts to Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources by Watershed 

Watershed Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource 

LongTerm 

(Acres) 

Long-term

Construction 

Indirect 

Shading 

(Acres) 

Short-term 

Construction 

(Acres) 

Total 

(Acres) 

USACE/RWQCB 

Carroll Creek Wetland — <0.01 0.01 0.01 

Non-Wetland Waters — — — — 

Carroll Creek Subtotal — <0.01 0.01 0.01 

Rose Creek Wetland 0.17 0.15 0.33 0.65 

Non-Wetland Waters 0.08 0.06 0.93 1.07 

Rose Creek Subtotal 0.26 0.21 1.26 1.73 

Tecolote Creek Wetland — — — — 

Non-Wetland Waters 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.16 

Tecolote Creek Subtotal 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.16 

San Diego River Wetland <0.01 0.44 0.59 1.03 

Non-Wetland Waters — 0.03 0.04 0.08 

San Diego River Subtotal <0.01 0.47 0.63 1.11 

USACE/RWQCB Total 0.37 0.72 1.92 3.01 

CDFW and City of San Diego 

Carroll Creek Riparian Areas — 0.06 0.15 0.21 

Streambed — <0.01 0.01 0.01 

Carroll Creek Subtotal — 0.06 0.16 0.22 

Rose Creek Riparian Areas 0.67 0.25 1.46 2.39 

Streambed 0.08 0.06 0.93 1.07 

Rose Creek Subtotal 0.76 0.31 2.39 3.46 

Tecolote Creek Riparian Areas — — — — 

Streambed 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.16 

Tecolote Creek Subtotal 0.11 0.03 0.02 0.16 

San Diego River Riparian Areas <0.01 0.44 0.59 1.03 

Streambed — 0.03 0.04 0.08 

San Diego River Subtotal <0.01 0.47 0.63 1.11 

CDFW and City of San Diego Wetlands Total 0.87 0.88 3.20 4.95 

CCC Jurisdiction 

Tecolote Creek Wetlands 0.22 0.01 — 0.23 

San Diego River Wetlands < 0.01 0.47 0.18 0.65 

CCC Total1 0.22 0.49 0.18 0.88 

Source: City of San Diego, 1997; Holland, 1986; Oberbauer and Buegge, 2008 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

1

 CCC jurisdictional areas include 0.18 acre of ephemeral basins in uplands within the impact area that 

could be considered coastal wetlands based on hydrology; this determination will be made during the 

Coastal Development Permit process. 

 CCC = California Coastal Commission; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = 

Regional Water Quality Control Board; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-107 

CDFW regulates rivers, streams, lakes, and associated riparian habitat under state 

jurisdiction. Areas that meet the City of San Diego’s definition of wetlands coincide with the 

areas under the jurisdiction of CDFW. Long-term direct impacts to areas under CDFW and 

City of San Diego jurisdiction total 0.87 acre. This total is inclusive of the majority of the area 

subject to USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction. When added to the temporary construction and 

long-term shading impacts, the total impact to streambed and riparian areas under CDFW 

and wetlands under City of San Diego jurisdiction is 4.95 acres. 

The CCC provided SANDAG with a Coastal Zone boundary determination that concluded 

that the portion of the project within MTS right-of-way from the San Diego River to 

Balboa Avenue is within the Coastal Zone. The CCC asserts jurisdiction over aquatic 

features and vegetation not necessarily regulated by other agencies pursuant to the 

Coastal Act. CCC only requires evidence of a single parameter—wetland vegetation, 

hydric soils, or hydrology—to delineate wetlands. All areas within the Coastal Zone that 

meet one of these parameters are considered a coastal wetland under the Coastal Act. 

The acreages of CCC wetlands within the project area are shown in Table 4-17. Long-term 

direct impacts to CCC jurisdictional wetlands within the Coastal Zone total 0.22 acre. 

Including the construction and shading impacts, the total impact to CCC wetlands is 0.88 

acre. Impacts to coastal wetlands under CCC jurisdiction would be subject to review 

and approval by the CCC during the CDP process. 

The majority of long-term impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources are associated with 

replacing an approximately 700-foot-long concrete-lined open channel portion of Rose 

Creek located at the SR 52 interchange with a narrower concrete-lined open channel and 

installing associated channel improvements immediately upstream and downstream. 

Other long-term direct impacts are associated with the concrete piers and abutments of five 

bridge crossings (one over San Diego River, one over Tecolote Creek, and three over Rose 

Creek). Long-term impacts to Rose Creek north and south of SR 52 also would result from 

grading and/or retaining walls necessary to accommodate the proposed double-track LRT 

alignment alongside the existing main line within the MTS right-of-way. 

Shading from elevated project structures could have long-term indirect impacts to 0.59 acre 

of wetland and 0.13 acre of non-wetland waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the 

RWQCB, and 0.88 acre under CDFW and City of San Diego jurisdiction. Based on the 

presence of similar wetland communities in shaded situations beneath the existing Mission 

Valley West Trolley line and the LOSSAN tracks in the San Diego River and along Rose 

Creek as those that would be subject to shading under the Refined Build Alternative, 

shading is not expected to substantially change species composition or community type and 

the affected areas are assumed to be capable of supporting wetland communities. Although 

shading could decrease growth and productivity in certain wetland communities, such as 

southern willow scrub, potentially adverse effects would be mitigated through the design and 

configuration of restored areas following construction. In addition, shading effects are not 

expected to have adverse impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources lacking vegetation. 

Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources from long-term shading impacts would 

not be adverse. 

Coordination with the USACE for the issuance of a Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permit 

is ongoing. As long-term impacts to areas under USACE jurisdiction do not exceed 0.5 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-108 September 2014

acre within any of the affected watersheds, it is anticipated that the project would be 

authorized under Section 404 through the Nationwide Permit program. Although the 

Nationwide Permits appropriate for the activities associated with the proposed project 

would be determined by the USACE as part of the permitting process, potentially 

applicable Nationwide Permits include Nationwide Permit 3 (Maintenance), Nationwide 

Permit 12 (Utility Line Activities), Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation), and 

Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering). As shown in 

Table 4-17, long-term impacts to the Carroll Creek, Rose Creek, Tecolote Creek, or San 

Diego River watersheds under the jurisdiction of the USACE would be less than 0.5 acre. 

Section 4.22 describes the anticipated permitting requirements. Chapter 8.0 describes 

the consultation to date with the USACE with respect to impacts to wetland and nonwetland waters. In May 2014, SANDAG requested, and was provided, a Coastal Zone 

boundary determination for the area between the San Diego River and Balboa Avenue. The 

determination identified that the Coastal Zone boundary extends to the eastern edge of the 

MTS right-of-way from the San Diego River to Balboa Avenue. Refer to Appendix C for a 

copy of the Coastal Zone boundary determination letter. A CDP would be obtained for the 

portions of the project within the Coastal Zone. 

Additional requirements may be identified by regulatory agency staff during the permitting 

process, which would be implemented. With proposed mitigation, there would be no 

adverse long-term impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources. 

Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages 

Rose Creek may provide limited function as a local corridor and habitat linkage for wildlife 

movement in a north–south direction, while the San Diego River is a regional wildlife corridor 

between inland and coastal habitats. Long-term direct impacts along portions of Rose 

Creek that are inside the MHPA and identified as biological cores and linkage areas would 

be limited to the loss 0.19 acre of narrow slivers of riparian habitat from installation of new 

tracks and associated structures along the existing MTS right-of-way. In addition, during 

construction, an approximately 700-foot-long concrete-lined open channel portion of Rose 

Creek at the SR 52 and I-5 interchange would limit access to the channel and portions of the 

adjacent upland areas. However, adjacent upland disturbed areas, including the realigned 

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, still would support occasional wildlife movement, primarily by 

nocturnal wildlife species, such as coyote, raccoon, and skunk. In addition, a path along 

the east side of the open concrete-lined Rose Creek channel under SR 52 would remain 

and continue to allow for north–south wildlife movement along the east side of the open 

channel. The existing concrete-lined channel provides minimal vegetative cover and does 

not contribute to regional connectivity. As such, the long-term function of Rose Creek as a 

local wildlife corridor would not be substantially affected. In the San Diego River, long-term 

direct impacts from the project would be limited to the loss of up to 0.01 acre of riparian 

habitat associated with the installation of concrete piers for the proposed bridge crossing. 

Based on the small overall impact footprint, and the presence of several existing bridges in 

the vicinity with similar structures in the river that do not appear to impede wildlife 

movement, the project would not impact the existing function of the San Diego River as a 

regional wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors and 

habitat linkages would not be adverse. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-109 

Edge Effects 

Indirect impacts to biological resources could result from adverse edge effects, which 

typically occur along the development–preservation interface and result from lighting, 

noise, and invasive species. Edge effects adjacent to wildlife corridors and habitat 

linkages could further constrain these resources. As stated, the portion of Rose Creek 

within the study area provides limited function as a local corridor for wildlife movement in 

a north–south direction, while the San Diego River represents a regional wildlife corridor 

between inland and coastal habitats. However, portions of the project located outside of 

existing rail right-of-way, such as sections of the alignment north of La Jolla Colony Drive, 

are in urbanized areas with little or no native habitat, and the majority of the alignment in 

new MTS right-of-way is either aerial or along I-5. Therefore, 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. About 92 percent of the existing 

wetland and Tier II–III vegetation communities within the study area would remain, and 

direct impacts to wetland and Tier II-III vegetation would be mitigated as described in 

Section 4.8.4. Therefore, indirect impacts related to edge effects would not be adverse. 

Regional Resource Planning 

The study area is located within the “urban area” of the MSCP Subarea Plan (City of San 

Diego, 1997). Urban habitat areas within the MHPA include existing designated open space 

(such as Mission Bay Park and Marian Bear Memorial Park) and a variety of smaller canyon 

systems. Portions of the study area in Rose Canyon and south along the slopes above the 

existing railway on the east side of I-5 south to SR 52 are designated MHPA. These areas 

are within Rose Canyon and Marian Bear Memorial Park. Habitat within the San Diego 

River in the southern portions of the project area also is designated MHPA. The Refined 

Build Alternative would not represent the expansion of existing—or the introduction of new—

land uses within the MHPA. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the MSCP Plan 

and would be consistent with the regional conservation objectives of the MSCP Plan. 

Portions of the project alignment along the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose 

Creek would be located within the MHPA, within which long-term impacts to wetland and 

Tier II vegetation communities would total 0.26 acre (Table 4-18). Of the 0.26 acre of 

permanent impacts, 0.01 acre of southern riparian forest is categorized as a “gain” in the 

HabiTrak system. HabiTrak is a set of tools developed by CDFW and USFWS, in 

conjunction with other agencies, that provides a standardized process for tracking and 

reporting on habitats conserved and lost over time. SANDAG would provide 

documentation to the city so that this 0.01 acre of impact would be subtracted from the 

HabiTrak “gain” as recorded by the City of San Diego’s annual MSCP report. In 

addition, SANDAG would provide documentation to the city to allow mitigation areas 

(described in Section 4.8.4 and Chapter 6.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Biological Resources Technical Report [SANDAG, 2014u]) to be tracked as “gain” in the 

HabiTrak system, where appropriate. There would be no impacts to Tier III vegetation 

within the MHPA. Long-term impacts within the MHPA would be limited in extent and 

mitigated as described in Section 4.8.4. They would not affect the function of identified 

cores or linkages. Therefore, impacts to regional resource planning efforts would not be 

adverse. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-110 September 2014

Table 4-18. Impacts to Wetland and Tier II Vegetation Communities/ 

Land Covers within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

Vegetation 

Community/ 

Land Cover 

General Vegetation Type 

(Holland/Oberbauer Code) 

Total 

Impacts 

(acres) 

Impacts within Multi-Habitat Planning Area (acres)

LongTerm Shading and 

Construction Construction 

Wetland 

Disturbed and 

Developed 

Areas (10000) 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.38 <0.01 0.14 0.24 

Riparian and 

Bottomland 

Habitat 

(60000) 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.78 0.18 — 0.60 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) 0.09 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.28 0.01 0.06 0.21 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub 

(63320) 

0.39 <0.01 0.11 0.27 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) 0.07 <0.01 0.04 0.02 

Non-Vegetated Channel or 

Floodway (64200) 

0.16 — 0.03 0.13 

Wetland Total 2.14 0.19 0.47 1.48 

Tier II 

Scrub and 

Chaparral 

(30000) 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) 0.23 <0.01 — 0.23 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub (32500) 

0.06 0.06 — — 

Tier II Total 0.30 0.06 — 0.23 

Total 2.44 0.26 0.47 1.71 

Source: City of San Diego, 1997; Holland, 1986; Oberbauer and Buegge, 2008 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 Acreages may vary slightly based on final design, and mitigation would be based on actual impacts. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

During final design, the project’s footprint would be further reviewed and, where 

possible, the footprint would be minimized to reduce impacts to wetlands and vegetation. 

In response to comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, additional project measures 

were identified that would reduce impacts to bats and wildlife movement. Specifically, 

features would be added to the San Diego River Bridge to make it more “bat friendly.” 

Several methods may be used to make the bridge more conducive to bat use as roosting 

and maternity colony sites. Potential add-on structures could include add-on panels, 

add-on collars, capped-edge drains, wooden-backed signs, and bat houses. The 

appropriate add-on structures would be selected based on consultations between a 

qualified bat biologist and bridge structural engineers with consideration given to 

site-specific conditions, maintenance and inspection accessibility, and safety. A 

qualified bat biologist would monitor the add-on structures annually for three years postconstruction to ensure the add-on structures remain intact and to determine if the add-on 

structures are being used as bat roosts. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-111 

The concrete-lined channel has been designed with a slight inclination toward the center of 

the channel. During the dry season when the flows would be limited to irrigation runoff, the 

outer segments of the channel bottom would carry limited amounts of runoff and would 

continue to facilitate wildlife movement. The majority of riprap placed at the upstream and 

downstream ends of the proposed channel would not be grouted, which would allow 

sediment to fill gaps, creating a more natural surface for wildlife to cross. 

4.8.4 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative would include mitigation that is consistent with the MSCP 

Plan (County of San Diego, 1998) and therefore would require mitigation for impacts to 

special-status vegetation communities (wetlands and Tier II–III). Mitigation would 

reduce the overall biological impacts from a project through the restoration and/or 

conservation of vegetation communities. Often the mitigation ratios are higher than 1:1, 

which accounts for temporary losses and may increase net habitat area. Mitigation 

through the TransNet EMP, described in Section 4.8.1.1, would provide an equivalent 

level of protection and benefit to biological resources. SANDAG is the responsible 

agency for mitigation of project impacts to biological resources. Impacts to wetlands and 

Tier II–III vegetation communities would be mitigated in accordance with the ratios 

shown in Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21. Long-term impacts to wetland 

communities would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, including a minimum 1:1 ratio of wetlands 

creation to achieve no net loss, based on the vegetation community and subject to 

approval of resource agencies with jurisdiction. Additional mitigation may be required by 

resource agencies with jurisdiction over the affected area. 

Table 4-19. Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Wetland Vegetation Communities

Vegetation Community/ 

Land Cover 

Impacts and Mitigation Ratios 

Long-Term Construction Total Mitigation 

Acres Ratio Acres Ratio Required (Acres) 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.07 3:1 1.3 1:1 1.51 

Disturbed Herbaceous Wetland (52510) — 3:1 0.01 1:1 0.01 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.48 3:1 0.89 1:1 2.33 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) <0.01 3:1 0.11 1:1 0.11 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.16 3:1 0.82 1:1 1.30 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) <0.01 3:1 0.39 1:1 0.39 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) 0.02 3:1 0.20 1:1 0.26 

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway (64200) 0.13 3:1 0.39 1:1 0.78 

Total 0.87 — 4.11 — 6.69 

Source: City of San Diego, 2012b 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 Acreages may vary slightly based on final design, and mitigation would be based on actual impacts. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-112 September 2014

Table 4-20. Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Tier II and Tier IIIB 

Vegetation Communities within the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

Vegetation Community/Land Cover 

Impacts and Mitigation Ratios 

Long-Term

Short-term 

Construction Total Mitigation 

Required 

Acres Ratio Total Acres Ratio Total (Acres) 

Mitigation Located Inside the MHPA 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed) 

(32500) 

0.06 1:1 0.06 0.23 1:1 0.23 0.29 

Mitigation Located Outside the MHPA 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed) 

(32500) 

0.06 2:1 0.12 0.23 1:1 0.23 0.35 

Source: City of San Diego, 2012b 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 Acreages may vary slightly based on final design, and mitigation would be based on actual impacts. 

MHPA = Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

Table 4-21. Proposed Mitigation for Impacts to Tier II and Tier IIIB 

Vegetation Communities Outside the Multi-Habitat Planning Area 

Vegetation Community/ 

Land Cover 

Impacts and Mitigation Ratios 

Long-Term Short-term Construction Total Mitigation 

Acres Ratio Total Acres Ratio Total Required (Acres)

Mitigation Located Inside the MHPA 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

(32500) 

1.88* 1:1 1.88 1.92 1:1 1.92 3.81 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub (32500) 

4.37* 1:1 4.37 0.65 1:1 0.65 5.03 

Non-Native Grassland (42200) 1.43 0.5:1 0.72 0.21 0.5:1 0.11 0.83 

Total 7.68 — 6.97 2.78 — 2.68 9.67 

Mitigation Located Outside the MHPA 

Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 

(32500) 

1.88 1.5:1 2.82 1.92 1.5:1 2.88 5.70 

Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage 

Scrub (32500) 

4.37 1.5:1 6.56 0.65 1.5:1 0.98 7.54 

Non-Native Grassland (42200) 1.43 1:1 1.43 0.21 1:1 0.21 1.65 

Total 7.68 — 10.81 2.78 — 4.07 14.89 

Source: City of San Diego, 2012b 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 Acreages may vary slightly based on final design, and mitigation would be based on actual impacts. 

 * Long-term impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub include 0.15 acre of long-term indirect shading impacts. 

Long-term impacts to disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub include 0.12 acre of long-term indirect 

shading impacts. 

 MHPA = Multi-Habitat Planning Area 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-113 

For Tier II long-term impacts within the MHPA (Table 4-20), 0.12 acre of mitigation is 

required if the mitigation occurs outside the MHPA, and 0.06 acre of mitigation is 

required if the mitigation occurs within the MHPA. For Tier II and Tier IIIB long-term 

impacts outside the MHPA (Table 4-21), 10.81 acres of mitigation is required if the 

mitigation occurs outside the MHPA, and 6.97 acres of mitigation is required if the 

mitigation occurs within the MHPA. 

One location has been identified for potential off-site mitigation for impacts to wetlands, 

Rose Canyon/San Clemente Canyon in the Rose Creek watershed. For impacts to 

uplands, one off-site mitigation location (i.e., the Sage Hill site) has been identified; 

additional sites for upland mitigation may be identified during project permitting. The 

Sage Hill site is in northern San Diego County near Harmony Grove and is identified as 

a Core Gnatcatcher Conservation Area. Agency consultation regarding mitigation, 

including the identification of off-site mitigation areas, will continue throughout the 

permitting process. Additional on- and off-site options may be identified to satisfy 

mitigation requirements for the Refined Build Alternative. Mitigation for impacts to 

wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities is currently proposed as listed below: 

For impacts to wetland vegetation communities, proposed mitigation includes 

implementing a portion of the restoration and creation opportunities identified in the 

Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian and Water Quality Restoration Opportunities 

Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012). As noted above, additional sites may be 

identified during the permitting process. 

Additional mitigation for impacts to wetland vegetation communities, if required, as well as 

mitigation for impacts to Tier II–III vegetation communities, would be provided through the 

SANDAG TransNet EMP using one or more of the following mitigation approaches, in 

accordance with the ratios specified in Table 4-19, Table 4-20, Table 4-21, and Table 4-22: 

BIO1 On-site Mitigation: To the extent feasible, disturbed lands within or adjacent to 

the existing MTS right-of-way would be revegetated with wetland and Tier II–III 

vegetation communities. Revegetated areas would be maintained and monitored 

for approximately five years to ensure successful reestablishment of vegetation 

communities. 

BIO2 Off-site Mitigation: Where mitigation requirements cannot be accommodated 

within existing disturbed lands in the study area, impacts to wetlands and Tier II–

III vegetation communities would be mitigated inside or outside of MHPA lands 

elsewhere within the County of San Diego (e.g., Sage Hill site). Off-site mitigation 

may include creation (establishing wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation 

communities in areas that are currently disturbed, developed, or supporting nonnative vegetation communities) or enhancement (improving the quality of existing 

areas of wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities through removal of nonnative species, establishment of native species, restoration of prior impacts, and 

protection from future disturbance). 

BIO3 Mitigation Credits: In addition to on-site and off-site mitigation, impacts to 

wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities may be mitigated through the 

purchase of mitigation credits. The purchase of mitigation credits result in the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-114 September 2014

long-term preservation of vegetation communities within established mitigation 

banks where these communities have been created and/or enhanced and are 

maintained in perpetuity. 

Mitigation for temporary impacts (e.g., restoration of temporarily disturbed areas) would 

occur on site; refer to Section 4.17.3.2 for additional information and mitigation measures for 

construction-related impacts. Mitigation for permanent impacts likely would occur outside of 

the MTS right-of-way to minimize future direct or indirect impacts to mitigation areas 

associated with use of right-of-way. The location and type of mitigation for impacts to 

Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) and non-native grassland would be 

determined prior to construction through the TransNet EMP. Mitigation for impacts to 

Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) and non-native grassland would occur at 

the Sage Hill site and would consist of creation, preservation, or enhancement. Table 4-22 

lists the impact acreages and applicable ratios for mitigation. 

Table 4-22. Proposed Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to 

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources 

Vegetation Community/ 

Land Cover

Impacts and Mitigation Ratios

Long-Term Short-term Construction Total 

Mitigation 

Proposed 

Acres Ratio Total Acres Ratio Total (Acres)

USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction 

Wetland

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.02 3:1 0.06 0.45 1:1 0.45 0.51 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.03 3:1 0.09 0.05 1:1 0.05 0.14 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) <0.01 3:1 <0.01 0.11 1:1 0.11 0..11 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.12 3:1 0.36 0.44 1:1 0.44 0.80 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub 

(63320) 

<0.01 3:1 <0.01 0.39 1:1 0.39 0.39 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) <0.01 3:1 <0.01 0.07 1:1 0.07 0.07 

Wetland Subtotal 0.17 3:1 0.51 1.51 1:1 1.51 2.02 

Non-Wetland Waters

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway 

(64200) 0.13 3:1 0.39 0.39 1:1 0.39 0.78 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete 

Lined 0.06 3:1 0.18 0.67 1:1 0.67 0.85 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) - Riprap — 3:1 — 0.08 1:1 0.08 0.08 

Non-Wetland Waters Subtotal 0.19 3:1 0.57 1.14 1:1 1.14 1.71 

USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction Total 0.37 — 1.11 2.64 — 2.64 3.75 

CDFW and City of San Diego Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources 

Riparian Areas

Disturbed Wetland (11200) 0.02 3:1 0.06 0.45 1:1 0.45 0.51 

Disturbed Herbaceous Wetland (52510) — 3:1 — 0.01 1:1 0.01 0.01 

Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.48 3:1 1.44 0.89 1:1 0.89 2.33 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) <0.01 3:1 <0.01 0.11 1:1 0.11 0.11 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-115 

Table 4-22. Proposed Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to 

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources (continued) 

Vegetation Community/ 

Land Cover

Impacts and Mitigation Ratios

Long-Term Short-term Construction Total 

Mitigation 

Proposed 

Acres Ratio Total Acres Ratio Total (Acres)

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.16 3:1 0.48 0.82 1:1 0.82 1.31 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) <0.01 3:1 <0.01 0.39 1:1 0.39 0.39 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) 0.02 3:1 0.06 0.20 1:1 0.20 0.26 

Riparian Areas Subtotal 0.68 3:1 2.04 2.86 1:1 2.86 4.9 

Streambed

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway 

(64200) 0.13 3:1 0.39 0.39 1:1 0.39 0.78 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete 

Lined 0.06 3:1 0.18 0.67 1:1 0.67 0.85 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Riprap — 3:1 — 0.15 1:1 0.15 0.15 

Streambed Subtotal 0.19 3:1 0.57 1.21 1:1 1.21 1.78 

CDFW and City of San Diego Total 0.87 — 2.61 4.08 — 4.08 6.69 

CCC Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) < 0.01 3:1 < 0.01 0.14 1:1 0.14 0.14 

Mulefat Scrub (63310) < 0.01 3:1 < 0.01 0.10 1:1 0.10 0.10 

Southern Willow Scrub (63320) < 0.01 3:1 < 0.01 0.09 1:1 0.09 0.09 

Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub (63320) < 0.01 3:1 < 0.01 0.22 1:1 0.22 0.22 

Arundo-Dominated Riparian (65100) < 0.01 3:1 < 0.01 0.06 1:1 0.06 0.06 

Non-Vegetated Channel or Floodway 

(64200) 

0.04 3:1 0.12 0.04 1:1 0.04 0.16 

Disturbed Wetland (11200) – Concrete 

Lined 

< 0.01 3:1 < 0.01 0.01 1:1 0.01 0.01 

CCC Total 0.04 — 0.12 0.66 — 0.66 0.78 

Source: City of San Diego, 2012b; Holland, 1986; Oberbauer and Buegge, 2008 

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 Mitigation may include creation, enhancement, or restoration. Acreages also may vary slightly based on 

final design, and mitigation would be based on actual impacts. 

CCC = California Coastal Commission; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; RWQCB = 

Regional Water Quality Control Board; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Implementation of the project would result in the long-term loss of jurisdictional aquatic 

resources. The project would avoid and minimize these impacts to the extent practicable. 

As discussed above, one wetland mitigation site has been identified through the TransNet

EMP, the Rose Creek watershed. Additional mitigation requirements may be identified by 

the CCC for impacts to CCC wetlands during the CDP permitting process. The requirement 

for a CDP for the project is presented in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.22. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-116 September 2014

Mitigation to impacts on jurisdictional aquatic resources would be fulfilled through the 

following: 

BIO4 Any impacts that cannot be mitigated on-site or at the identified off-site mitigation 

sites, SANDAG will implement a combination of one or more of the following 

mitigation alternatives: mitigation bank credits; in-lieu fee program credits; onsite creation, restoration, or enhancement; and off-site creation, restoration, or 

enhancement. 

Mitigation for temporary impacts (e.g., restoration of temporarily disturbed areas) is 

expected to occur on-site. Mitigation for permanent impacts likely would occur outside of 

the MTS right-of-way to minimize future direct or indirect impacts to mitigation areas 

associated with use of the right-of-way. As shown in Table 4-22, project impacts, 

including long-term and short-term construction impacts, would affect 3.01 acres of 

USACE/RWQCB wetland and non-wetland waters and 4.95 acres of CDFW riparian areas 

and streambed/City of San Diego wetlands. This would require 10.44 acres of mitigation 

(3.75 acres of USACE/RWQCB and 6.69 acres of CDFW/City of San Diego jurisdictional 

resources). Long-term and short-term construction impacts would also affect 0.88 acre 

of CCC wetlands, which would require 1.32 acres of mitigation. Impacts and mitigation 

for each agency are calculated separately but include areas of overlapping jurisdiction. 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin II would be mitigated through the following 

mitigation measure. Should future surveys identify San Diego fairy shrimp in additional 

basins impacted by the project, impacts also would be mitigated in accordance with the 

following mitigation measure: 

BIO5 Impacts to ephemeral basins occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp, including 

Basin II, would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio through restoration and/or 

enhancement of vernal pools within west Otay Mesa on the 40-acre Anderprizes 

parcel, which was previously acquired for future mitigation of vernal pools and 

which has been approved by the USFWS for mitigation of impacts to San Diego 

fairy shrimp, or within another approved mitigation area acceptable to the 

USFWS. Restoration would be conducted at a minimum 1:1 ratio to achieve a 

no-net-loss of San Diego fairy shrimp habitat; a combination of restoration and 

enhancement would make up the remaining mitigation. Restoration would be 

conducted in accordance with a vernal pool restoration plan to be developed by 

SANDAG and subject to approval by the USFWS prior to project construction. 

The 40-acre Anderprizes parcel has sufficient mitigation areas to offset the impacts 

associated with the project. However, in the event that other mitigation locations are 

identified, mitigation at such sites also would include the implementation of a vernal pool 

restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation plan subject to the approval of the 

USFWS prior to project construction. SANDAG would ensure that the mitigation areas 

would be conserved in perpetuity, including providing financial assurances and/or 

securing conservation easements, as necessary for USFWS approval. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-117 

As stated in Section 4.8.3.2, due to the presence of San Diego fairy shrimp, Basin II 

could potentially be considered an ESHA subject to CCC regulation. The CCC may 

impose additional conditions related to impacts to ESHA during the permitting process 

for the CDP. The requirement for a CDP for the project is presented in Sections 4.1.1 

and 4.22, including the need to satisfy Coastal Act policies relating to habitat protection. 

Regardless of any additional permit requirements for the CDP, with implementation of 

Mitigation Measure BIO5, impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp would not be adverse. 

With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

would not have any adverse impacts. 

4.8.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.8.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and the 

City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 2011a), 

SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating the impacts 

of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project to the biological resources discussed below. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As described in Section 4.8.3.1, the No-Build 

Alternative would not result in short-term or long-term impacts to biological resources. 

Thus, the analysis below focuses on the Refined Build Alternative. 

Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat 

modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special-status 

species in the MSCP or other local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the 

CDFW or the USFWS? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative would have 

significant impacts on special-status species and species identified in the MSCP Plan 

(County of San Diego, 1998), both through direct effects on species themselves and through 

the loss of potentially suitable habitat. Long-term impacts—including direct impacts, 

indirect impacts such as shading, and habitat loss—to special-status species are 

discussed in Section 4.8.3.2. However, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these 

impacts to below significance, as described in Section 4.8.4. 

Would the project have a substantial adverse10 effect on any Tier I Habitats, Tier II 

Habitats, Tier IIIA Habitats, or Tier IIIB Habitats, as identified in the San Diego Municipal 

Code Land Development Code—Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego, 2012b) or other 

sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, 

or by the CDFW or the USFWS? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Direct and indirect impacts to sensitive 

natural communities are discussed by tier level in Sections 4.8.3.2. However, mitigation 

 

10 Impacts of less than 0.1 acre are not considered significant (City of San Diego, 2011a). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-118 September 2014

measures have been proposed to reduce these impacts to below significance under CEQA, 

as described in Section 4.8.4. 

Would the project have a substantial adverse11 impact on wetlands (including, but not 

limited to, marsh, vernal pool, riparian, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological 

interruption, or other means? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Direct and indirect impacts to waters and 

wetlands are discussed in Section 4.8.3.2. However, mitigation measures have been 

proposed to reduce these impacts to below significance under CEQA, as described in 

Section4.8.4. 

Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or 

migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife 

corridors, including linkages identified in the MSCP, or impede the use of native wildlife 

nursery sites? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As stated in Section 4.8.3.2, 

although limited impacts would occur to local wildlife movement corridors, there would 

not be any direct or indirect impacts to regional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. 

Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, 

natural conservation community plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat 

conservation plan, either within the MSCP area or in the surrounding region? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would be 

consistent with adopted plans, as discussed in Section 4.8.3.2. 

Would the project introduce land use within an area adjacent to the MHPA that would 

result in adverse edge effects? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Impacts related to edge 

effects are discussed in Section 4.8.3.2. 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. 

Would the project introduce invasive species of plants into a natural open space area? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Implementation of the project 

is not expected to introduce invasive plants into natural open space areas. Although 

landscaping likely would be incorporated at stations and related facilities, these locations 

are not near or adjacent to natural open space areas that would be susceptible to the 

introduction of invasive plant species. Therefore, implementation of the project would 

not introduce invasive plant species into natural open space areas and a less than 

significant impact would occur. 

 

11 Substantial adverse impacts on wetlands include any direct loss of wetlands. Total wetland impacts less than 

0.01 acre are not considered significant, except for vernal pools or wetlands within the Coastal Zone (City of San 

Diego, 2011a). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-119 

4.8.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) would be mitigated according 

to the mitigation ratios found in Table 4-20 and Table 4-21. Therefore, with mitigation, 

impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would be less than significant. 

Impacts to potentially suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher would be mitigated according to the mitigation ratios found in Table 4-19. 

Therefore, with mitigation, impacts to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, 

should the two species occupy the area prior to construction, would be less than significant. 

Impacts to areas occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp (Basin II) and the surrounding 

watershed would be mitigated according to Mitigation Measure BIO5. Should future 

surveys identify San Diego fairy shrimp in additional basins impacted by the project, 

impacts would be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 in accordance with Mitigation 

Measure BIO5 through restoration and/or enhancement of vernal pools within the 

Anderprizes property or within another approved mitigation area acceptable to the 

USFWS and CCC. Therefore, with mitigation, impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp would 

be less than significant. 

Long-term significant impacts to wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities would be 

mitigated according to the ratios found in Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21. 

Therefore, with mitigation, impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than 

significant. 

Indirect shading impacts to vegetation communities could substantially affect riparian and 

wetland habitats and other sensitive natural communities identified by the City of San Diego 

(2011a). These impacts would be considered significant. However, shading impacts would 

occur entirely within areas temporarily impacted during construction and would be mitigated 

in conjunction with mitigation for temporary construction impacts. Therefore, with mitigation, 

impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, 

would result in a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-120 September 2014

4.9 Water Resources 

This section describes existing water resources and impacts of the No-Build and Refined 

Build Alternatives on water resources, including surface waters and water quality, 

floodplains, and ground water. It also identifies measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

water quality impacts. For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Water Impact Analysis Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014m) prepared in support 

of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The analysis conducted for the prior environmental documents concluded that the LRT 

alignments would not result in significant impacts on water resources. Despite these 

findings, the AA/DEIS/DEIR included mitigation, including construction of new storm 

drain facilities, development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, monitoring of 

non-point source pollution, and construction of bridges during the dry season. The 2001 

FEIS concluded the LRT alignment would increase storm-water runoff, but would not 

result in significant impacts to other water resources. Mitigation was proposed, similar to 

the measures included in the AA/DEIS/DEIR. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that there would be no adverse impacts to water 

resources under the project because features incorporated into the project would 

minimize impacts. 

This section has been revised based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and 

updated analysis as a result of the refinements made to the Build Alternative. Specifically, 

revisions were made regarding study area acreages from impervious surfaces associated 

with the Refined Build Alternative. Additionally, in response to comments received on the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR, revisions were made in Section 4.9.5.1 to clarify or expand impact 

discussions related to the nature and treatment of contaminants. The Preface in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Water Impact Analysis Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014m) contains additional information on changes to the analysis and technical report 

since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The conclusions in this section and the water resources 

analysis remain unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. 

In summary, the Refined Build Alternative would result in water quality impacts; 

however, to reduce these impacts, the project would include BMPs and other project 

measures. Overall, the project would not have an adverse impact under NEPA and 

would have a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. 

4.9.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The following sections describe the regulatory background and methodology used to 

analyze hydrology and water quality impacts. 

4.9.1.1 Regulatory Background 

The federal Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 

1987, establishes the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into Waters of the 

U.S. Section 401 requires a State Water Quality Certification to show that the project will 

comply with state water quality standards for any activity that results in a discharge to a water 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-121 

body. Section 404 requires a permit from the USACE when a discharge of dredged or fill 

material into wetlands and Waters of the U.S. occurs. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 401-403) protects navigable 

waters and prohibits obstructing or altering U.S. navigable waters. For any work 

performed in, over, or under U.S. navigable waters, the owner must obtain a Section 10 

Permit from the USACE or, in certain circumstances, from the U.S. Coast Guard. The 

EPA designates the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek as navigable 

waters. 

Under Executive Order 11988, federal agencies must avoid, to the extent possible, direct 

adverse impacts associated with modifying floodplains. 

Any alteration to the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake first requires the 

CDFW, to issue a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, as required by Section 

1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. 

The CCC, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of 

land and water in the Coastal Zone. The CZMA (16 USC 1451–1464) was passed in 

1972 to encourage coastal states to develop and implement coastal zone management 

plans to protect, preserve, and enhance the coastal zone. The CCC implements the 

CZMA via the federal consistency review process. Refer to Sections 4.1 and 4.8 for 

additional information on the CCC and CZMA. 

Sea Level Rise, California Executive Order S-13-08, requires agencies that are planning 

construction in areas vulnerable to sea level rise to consider a range of scenarios for the 

years 2050 and 2100 to assess vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected 

risks. Other state regulations related to water resources include, but are not limited to, 

the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Toxics Rule, and the State 

Antidegradation Policy. 

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) is responsible for 

implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting 

process at the regional level, for issuing Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 

401 of the Clean Water Act, and for implementing the State Porter-Cologne Water 

Quality Control Act in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego 

Basin (SDRWQCB, 1994). Additionally, the County of San Diego is responsible for 

watershed management and implementing the Storm Water Quality Management 

Program. 

The City of San Diego has responsibility for flood control, water resource management, 

and permitting at the local level. The city’s overall Storm Water Program incorporates 

the Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program, Jurisdictional Urban Runoff 

Management Program, and other needed programs to comply with waste discharge 

requirements. UCSD also is responsible for protecting water quality and for storm-water 

management within its jurisdiction. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-122 September 2014

4.9.1.2 Methodology 

Hydrology and water-quality impacts resulting from the project were evaluated based on 

data gathered on hydrology, drainage patterns, surface- and ground-water quality, and 

floodplains; beneficial uses in watersheds in the study area; and applicable water-quality 

regulations. 

The study area for the floodplain and ground-water analysis was defined as the watershed 

boundaries within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The study area for the drainage and waterquality analysis was defined as the area within 100 feet of the right-of-way for the project 

alignment, including the project’s physical ground disturbance footprint (e.g., stations, 

tracks, equipment storage areas, substations, and temporary construction areas). 

4.9.2 Affected Environment 

This section describes existing water resources within the study area. 

4.9.2.1 Surface-Water Hydrology 

Figure 4-23 illustrates how the study area discharges to multiple receiving surface waters 

designated as navigable waters by EPA and thus considered Waters of the U.S. under 

USACE jurisdiction. Table 4-23 lists the hydrologic units, hydrologic areas, hydrologic 

subareas, watershed management areas, and receiving water bodies in the study area. 

Table 4-23. Study Area Hydrologic Unit Classification 

Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic Area 

Hydrologic 

Subarea 

Hydrologic 

Unit/Hydrologic 

Subarea Number

Watershed 

Management 

Area 

Receiving/

Affected 

Water Body2

San Diego Lower San Diego Mission San Diego 907.11 San Diego River San Diego River 

Peñasquitos Tecolote None Identified1 906.50 Mission Bay Tecolote Creek 

Peñasquitos Miramar None Identified1 906.40 Mission Bay Rose Creek 

Peñasquitos Miramar Reservoir None Identified1 906.10 Los Peñasquitos Soledad Canyon 

Creek 

Pueblo San Diego San Diego Mesa Lindbergh 908.21 San Diego Bay None 

Source: SANDAG, 2014m 

Notes: 1

 There are no Hydrologic Subareas listed within the Peñasquitos Hydrologic Unit. 2

 The receiving water bodies within the study area are classified as perennial streams. 

Within the study area, these receiving water bodies include the San Diego River, Tecolote 

Creek, Rose Creek, Soledad Canyon Creek, Mission Bay, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and 

the Pacific Ocean. The majority of these receiving water bodies are unlined, natural 

streambeds, with the exception of one concrete-lined, trapezoidal channel at Tecolote 

Creek (the lower portion of the creek adjacent to the residential neighborhood, which 

empties into Mission Bay) and three concrete-lined, trapezoidal channels along Rose 

Creek (from La Jolla Colony Drive in the north, down to Santa Fe Street in the south). 

4.9.2.2 Drainage and Water Quality 

The study area includes portions of Caltrans, City of San Diego, MTS, and Regents of 

the University of California (UCSD lands) rights-of-way and property. Within the MTS 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-123 

Figure 4-23. Study Area Hydrologic Units, Areas, and Subareas 

Source: SANDAG, 2014m 

Notes: Los Peñasquitos Lagoon is not shown on the map. 

 HA = hydrologic areas; HAS = hydrologic subareas; VA = Veterans Administration 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-124 September 2014

right-of-way, the predominant feature is the railroad track; as such, the amount of 

impervious surface area is minimal (ballasted track). Both Caltrans and the City of San 

Diego have higher impervious surface quantities in their respective rights-of-way. 

Soils in the study area generally belong to groups C or D12, which provide poor 

infiltration. However, small patches of group A and B soils occur throughout the study 

area. The MTS right-of-way contains soils with properties that minimize storm-water 

infiltration. Hence, storm water has a short infiltration period before it begins to sheet 

flow as runoff. 

The SDRWQCB developed beneficial uses and water-quality objectives for water bodies 

in the study area, as listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin 

(SDRWQCB, 1994). The San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, Rose Creek, Soledad 

Canyon Creek, Mission Bay, and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon fail to meet the water-quality 

standard for beneficial uses. As a result, they are included on the 303(d)13 list of Water 

Quality Limited Segments, which lists surface-water bodies that do not meet waterquality standards even after discharges of wastes from point sources are treated. In 

addition to the constituents of concern identified in Table 4-24, the SDRWQCB set an 

Indicator Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load requirement for the San Diego region, 

establishing discharge limits and monitoring requirements for the San Diego River, Tecolote 

Creek, and Rose Creek. A Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load requirement also was 

established for Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. 

Table 4-24. Section 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies 

Section 303(d) Impaired Water 

Body 

Hydrologic Unit/Hydrologic 

Subarea Number Constituents of Concern 

San Diego River (lower) 907.11 Enterococcus, fecal coliform, low dissolved 

oxygen, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, 

total dissolved solids, and toxicity 

Tecolote Creek 906.50 Cadmium, copper, indicator bacteria, lead, 

nitrogen, phosphorus, selenium, toxicity, 

turbidity, and zinc 

Rose Creek 906.40 Selenium and toxicity 

Soledad Canyon Creek 906.10 Sediment toxicity and selenium 

Mission Bay (area at mouth of 

Tecolote Creek only) 

 Eutrophic and lead 

Mission Bay (area at mouth of 

Rose Creek only) 

 Eutrophic and lead 

Los Peñasquitos Lagoon 906.10 Sedimentation/siltation 

Source: SWRCB, 2010 

 

12 Soils of the U.S. are placed into four groups: A, B, C, D. Group A consists of soils with low runoff potential; 

Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted; Group C soils have slow infiltration 

rates even when thoroughly wetted; and Group D soils have high runoff potential. 13 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states, territories, and authorized tribes to develop a list of water 

quality impaired segments of waterways. The 303(d) list includes water bodies that do not meet water quality 

standards for the specified beneficial uses of that waterway. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-125 

4.9.2.3 Flood-Related 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps generated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

([FEMA], 1997, 2012) show that the project alignment would cross several floodplains 

(i.e., San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek) and one floodway associated 

with the San Diego River. Table 4-25 lists water bodies within the project study area and 

their associated flood zones. Figure 4-24 shows the associated FEMA flood zones and 

flood insurance risk zone designations for waters within the study area. High flood risks 

exist within the study area at the San Diego River Bridge crossing, the Tecolote Creek 

Bridge crossing, and along Rose Creek. 

Table 4-25. FEMA Flood Zones and Associated Waters within the Study Area 

Water Body Flood Insurance Rate Map No. Associated Zone

San Diego River 06073C1614 G AE, X 

Tecolote Creek 06073C1614 G AE, AO, X 

Rose Creek 06073C1603 G 06073C1601 G AE, X 

Sources: FEMA, 2012 

Notes: FEMA Flood Zone Designations: 

 A = High risk: Areas outside the 1% annual chance floodplain and no base flood elevations or depths are 

shown. 

 AE = High risk: Areas with a 1% chance of flooding where base flood elevations are derived from detailed 

analyses and shown at selected intervals on Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 

 AO = High risk: River or stream flood-hazard areas and areas with a 1% or greater chance of shallow 

flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth of 1 to 3 feet. Average flood 

depths are derived from detailed analyses and shown within these zones. 

 VE = High risk: Coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard 

associated with storm waves; no base flood elevations are shown within these zones. 

 X = Low to moderate risk: Areas outside the 1% annual chance flooding and no base flood elevations or 

depths are shown within this zone; or shaded X which equals a 1% change of flooding to a depth of less 

than 1 foot, or a 0.2% chance of flooding. 

FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Over the past century, the sea level in the San Diego area has risen by just under 1 inch per 

decade, on average. Mission Bay is the closest water body to the project, ranging from 350 

to 1,300 feet west of the project alignment. In the Mission Bay area, a rise in sea level 

would cause coastal flooding that would reach farther inland and occur more frequently. 

The San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek could be vulnerable to a rise in sea 

level because of their topography, elevation, and proximity to Mission Bay. 

4.9.2.4 Ground Water 

All major drainage basins in San Diego contain ground-water basins, which are relatively 

small in area and usually shallow. To obtain information on the condition of ground 

water along and near the project alignment, data from borings were collected. For areas 

south of La Jolla Colony Drive, these borings typically encountered ground water at a 

depth of less than 25 feet below the ground surface. Ground water was not encountered 

in borings north of La Jolla Colony Drive; ground water in this area is expected to be at 

depths greater than 80 feet below the ground surface. Ground-water levels are subject 

to change based on tidal and seasonal effects, irrigation, and rainfall. Ground water in 

the project area contains calcium and sodium cations (positive ions) and bicarbonate 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-126 September 2014

Figure 4-24. Study Area Associated FEMA Flood Zones 

Source: SANDAG, 2014m 

Note: See Table 4-25 for FEMA Flood Zone Designations. Flood insurance risk zone designations for 

the 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard and Open Water zones are not defined by FEMA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-127 

and sulfate anions (negative ions). The analysis found local impairments due to nitrate, 

sulfate, and total dissolved solids. There are no private or commercial ground-water 

wells within the project study area. 

4.9.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the hydrology and water quality impacts under the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.9.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

implemented, and service on bus Route 150 would be continued and enhanced. 

Physical improvements would be limited to installing bus shelters at some bus stops. 

Bus shelters would not increase impervious surfaces or alter flow patterns because they 

would be generally located in urban areas and along existing streets where many 

surfaces already are paved or impervious. In addition, they would be built in compliance 

with regulations that require new construction to limit increases and adverse impacts of 

surface runoff though project and BMP measures. Therefore, any change in stormwater runoff quantities from the No-Build Alternative would be negligible, and its impact 

on water quality would not be adverse. 

4.9.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

This section presents the results of the analysis of the Refined Build Alternative on 

drainage and water quality, floodplains, and ground water. 

Drainage and Water Quality 

New impervious surfaces would be created where project elements are constructed on 

unimproved lands. Such features would include stations, bridges, depressed section 

structures, roadway improvements (e.g., roadway widening, minor realignment, bus 

turnouts and new driveways, median modification, and Americans with Disabilities Act 

and pedestrian access ramps at station locations), and support facilities (e.g., 

substations and station parking). The estimated new net impervious area is 

approximately 18 acres for the project. 

The additional impervious surfaces would alter flow patterns and incrementally reduce 

natural soil surfaces available for rainfall and runoff infiltration. This could increase 

storm-water runoff that discharges through the existing drainage network during storms. 

In addition, increases in impervious surface and surface-water runoff could increase the 

discharge of non-point source pollutants. Such contaminants would degrade the quality 

of receiving water bodies (e.g., San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, Rose Creek, and 

Soledad Canyon Creek). The proposed BMPs, as identified below, would treat the 

increase in contaminated runoff caused by increased impervious surfaces to the 

maximum extent practicable, consistent with applicable water quality regulations; 

therefore, there would be no adverse impact. Accordingly, the Refined Build Alternative 

would not result in any adverse drainage or water quality impacts. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-128 September 2014

Flood-Related 

The goal in designing the proposed drainage systems is to use the existing systems to 

the maximum extent practicable to minimize impacts to existing drainage facilities and to 

eliminate increases in discharge flow rates downstream of the study area. Project 

measures include a storm drainage network developed on a site-specific basis according 

to local flood-control requirements and design criteria. The system would safely and 

efficiently convey the estimated runoff from the 100-year storm through the study area. 

Although the project would not affect structures at existing bridge sites, portions of the 

project alignment would be within the 100-year flood zone and are located downstream of 

existing reservoirs. Therefore, the project would increase the potential to obstruct or 

exacerbate floodwaters during a major storm event. The project includes bridge supports 

designed to minimize the effect of blockage from waterway debris, thereby reducing 

obstructions and elevated upstream flood levels. 

Proposed drainage management measures (e.g., channel stabilization, low impact 

development [LIDs], etc.) would avoid or accommodate any increase in peak runoff, and 

proposed structures, channel modifications, and longitudinal encroachments would not 

raise the 100-year water surface elevation (WSEL) more than 1 foot. The minimal 

floodway increase would not affect existing buildings, structures, or other beneficial 

uses. Additionally, the project would document any impacts through the FEMA 

Conditional Letter of Map Revision approval process, as well as meet the requirements 

of the SDRWQCB, as applicable. 

Under the high 2100 extreme event condition, a scenario evaluated to comply with the 

Sea Level Rise Executive Order, an increase in WSEL of 0.01 and 0.11 feet could occur 

at the San Diego River and Tecolote Creek Bridges, respectively. There would be no 

increase in the low and medium 2100 extreme event conditions. Although projections 

show an increase in WSEL at these locations, sufficient freeboard (more than 1 foot) 

exists above the projected 2100 sea-level rise plus the 100-year storm flows to handle 

the increase in WSEL. Hydrologists expect no sea-level rise impacts on the Rose Creek 

structures. Although the potential exists for sea-level rise, the consequences (i.e., 

flooding) at the San Diego River and Tecolote Creek resulting from a rise in sea level 

would be low and would not result in an adverse impact. 

Accordingly, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in any adverse flood-related 

impacts. 

Section 4.11 discusses the impact analysis for tsunami, seiche, and mudflow 

(mudslides), as evaluated in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Geotechnical, 

Geologic, and Seismic Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014i). 

Ground Water 

Project features that result in new impervious surfaces could reduce rainwater infiltration 

and ground-water recharge. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. 

The potential for reducing ground-water recharge along the project alignment is low 

because stations, street improvements, and support facilities (e.g., substations and 

station parking) are generally located in urban areas and along existing streets where 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-129 

many surfaces already are paved or impervious. In addition, extensive storm-drainage 

systems in these areas currently intercept rainfall and runoff, thus limiting the amount of 

ground-water recharge that occurs. These storm-drainage systems do not currently 

allow for direct percolation within the underlying ground-water basins. Therefore, there 

would be no substantial reduction in ground-water recharge due to increased impervious 

surfaces. Additionally, the use or extraction of ground water for project operations is not 

expected. Accordingly, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in any adverse 

ground-water impacts. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

BMPs would be included as part of project design to reduce the amount of contaminants 

added to the 303(d) listed waters identified above, and to eliminate potential increases in 

surface runoff that could otherwise impact existing downstream facilities. SANDAG 

would implement BMPs where site constraints, soil characteristics, and expected 

pollutants justify their use. General site BMPs and control measures incorporated into 

the project design would include, but not be limited to, conserving natural areas, 

protecting slopes and channels, and minimizing impervious areas. Treatment-control 

BMPs may include the use of vegetated swales and buffers, detention basins, and 

infiltration basins. The project would incorporate LIDs and hydromodification 

approaches into site design and storm-water management to maintain the site’s predevelopment runoff rates and volumes. The LID measures and techniques would be 

selected and implemented depending on site location/size and storm-water treatment 

needs. All proposed treatment BMPs, LIDs, and hydromodification measures would be 

located within the project study area and would be implemented to target project-specific 

constituents of concerns. Table 4-26 identifies the general treatment efficiencies of 

various devices. 

Table 4-26. Proposed BMPs and Treatment Efficiencies 

Treatment BMP 

Measure Treatment Efficiency

LID HM 

Sediment/

TSS/TDS Nutrients

Trash/

Litter Metals

Bacteria/ 

Pathogens 

Oil/ 

Grease Organics

Infiltration Devices Y Y H H H H H H H 

Detention Devices Y Y H M H H H H H 

Biofiltration Devices Y Y M L L M L M M 

Media Filters N N H L H H H H H 

Source: City of San Diego, 2011c; Caltrans, 2010c 

Notes: BMP = Best Management Practice; H = High; HM = Hydromodification Management; L = Low; LID = 

Low Impact Development; M = Medium; N = No; TDS = Total Dissolved Solids; TSS = Total 

Suspended Solids; Y = Yes 

4.9.4 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative incorporates project measures and long-term BMPs, as 

identified in Section 4.9.3.2, into the design of the project to avoid or minimize impacts 

on water resources; therefore, no mitigation measures would be required and there 

would be no remaining adverse impacts. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-130 September 2014

4.9.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional discussion 

below. 

4.9.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

significant impacts on water resources of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As described in Section 4.9.3.1, the continuation and 

enhancement of Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would not affect drainage or 

water quality, flooding, or ground water. Therefore, the discussion below focuses only 

on the Refined Build Alternative. 

Would the project comply with the City‘s Storm Water Standards? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would conform to 

regulatory standards for water quality, as identified in Section 4.9.1, during planning, 

design, and construction activities (Storm Water Standards Manual [City of San Diego, 

2011c] and Storm Water Quality Handbook: Project Planning and Design Guide 

[Caltrans, 2010c]). These measures would include, but not be limited to, the BMPs 

listed in Table 4-26. 

Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). BMPs proposed for 

incorporation into the project (including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4-26), 

in compliance with applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements 

identified in Section 4.9.1, would treat the increased runoff caused by increased 

impervious surfaces. Therefore, no violations of water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements would result with incorporation of the identified water quality 

requirements. 

Would the project substantially deplete ground-water supplies or interfere substantially 

with ground-water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a 

lowering of the local ground-water table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 

nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned 

uses for which permits have been granted)? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Project elements, such as 

stations, street improvements, and support facilities (e.g., substations and station 

parking) would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration 

and groundwater recharge. The project does not anticipate use/extraction of ground 

water for operations. In addition, the potential for a reduction in ground-water recharge 

along the project alignment would be low because the project elements generally are 

located in urban areas and along existing streets where many of the surfaces already 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-131 

are paved or impervious. Extensive storm drainage systems in these areas currently 

intercept rainfall and runoff waters, thus limiting the amount of ground-water recharge 

that occurs. In addition, existing storm-water drainage systems do not currently allow for 

direct percolation within the underlying ground-water basins. Therefore, the project 

would not substantially deplete ground-water supplies or interfere with ground-water 

recharge. 

Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would 

result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Drainage management 

measures proposed for incorporation into the project would negate the increase in runoff 

caused by increased impervious surfaces that could otherwise result in an increase in 

erosion or siltation. Therefore, the impacts to drainage, erosion, and siltation on or offsite as a result of the project would be less than significant. 

Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area 

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially 

increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding 

on- or off-site? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Drainage management 

measures proposed for incorporation into the project would avoid or accommodate any 

increase in runoff caused by increased impervious surfaces that could otherwise result in 

flooding. Therefore, the impacts to drainage patterns, surface-water runoff, and flooding 

would be less than significant. 

Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of 

existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional 

sources of polluted runoff? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The proposed storm drainage 

network has been designed to safely and efficiently convey the anticipated runoff from 

the 100-year storm event through the study area. BMPs proposed for incorporation into 

the project would reduce potential increases in surface runoff that could overwhelm 

existing downstream facilities, would treat the increased runoff caused by increased 

impervious surfaces, and avoid substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 

Would the project result in discharges into receiving waters listed on the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board 303(d) Impaired Water Body List? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed in Section 

4.9.3.2, BMPs proposed for incorporation into the project would treat runoff caused by 

increased impervious surfaces and remove contaminants to the maximum extent 

practicable, consistent with applicable water quality regulations. All proposed treatment 

BMPs, LIDs, and hydromodification measures would be implemented to target projectspecific constituents of concerns. Therefore, the impacts to water quality for receiving 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-132 September 2014

waters listed on the 303(d) Impaired Water Body List, as a result of the discharge of 

contaminants, would be less than significant. 

Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed in Section 

4.9.3.2, project BMPs would treat and remove contaminants, to the maximum extent 

practicable, from water runoff caused by increased impervious surfaces. Therefore, the 

impacts to water quality as a result of the discharge of contaminants would be less than 

significant. 

Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would 

impede or redirect flood flows? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed in Section 

4.9.3.2, portions of the project elements would be within the 100-year flood zone. 

However, the project would be designed and constructed in a manner that does not 

impede or redirect flood flows, and the impacts to flooding as a result of changes to the 

floodplain from project structures would be less than significant. 

Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death 

involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed in Section 4.9.3.2, 

the flood-related impacts associated with implementation of the project are not expected 

to be adverse, as the proposed structures and longitudinal encroachments would not 

raise the 100-year WSELs more than 1 foot and the increase in the floodway 

(approximately 0.02 foot) would not impact existing buildings, structures, or other 

beneficial uses and would be documented through the FEMA Conditional Letter of Map 

Revision approval process, as well as the requirements of the SDRWQCB, when 

applicable. Additionally, channel modifications would not cause headwaters to rise 

above an elevation that would result in objectionable backwater depths or outlet 

velocities that would impact existing buildings, structures, or other beneficial uses. 

Therefore, the exposure of structures and people to the consequences of flooding as a 

result of changes to the floodplain from structures would be a less-than-significant 

impact. 

The project does not include ground-disturbing or other activities that would encroach on 

existing USACE-certified levees. In the vicinity of the San Diego River, the project alignment 

is within an identified dam inundation zone, and the potential exists for additional people to 

be exposed to the consequences of flooding at the San Diego River Bridge as a result of 

upstream dam failure. However, the potential of dam failure would be extremely low, the 

duration of exposure limited, and the probability of dam failure further reduced by proactive 

preventative action on the part of the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services 

Organization and the Unified Disaster Council through implementation of the San Diego 

County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of San Diego, 2010). This plan 

includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures such as emergency 

response (post-disaster), repairs and modifications, periodic safety inspections, and 

enforcement. The project would comply with all applicable avoidance, minimization, and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-133 

mitigation measures of the plan. Therefore, the exposure of structures and people to dam 

or levee failure would be less than significant. The project would not increase the likelihood 

of upstream dam failure, and the incremental increase in exposure to the risk is not 

significant given that the project would not expose people to risks in any one location along 

the alignment for a substantial amount of time and no stations are proposed within the dam 

inundation zone. 

Would the project expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 

mudflow? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Seiche) (Refined Build Alternative). The potential for the 

project to be affected by a seiche is low. The only nearby source for a seiche is Mission 

Bay, which is 350 to 1,300 feet from the project alignment. Because of the distance and 

topography between the project alignment and Mission Bay, it is unlikely that structures 

and people would be exposed to a seiche event. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Tsunami) (Refined Build Alternative). Tsunami hazards 

are low along the project alignment except at the Tecolote Creek Bridge, where the 

tsunami hazard is considered low-to-moderate because it lies near the edge of the State 

of California Tsunami Inundation Map (California Department of Conservation, 2009). 

Project measures would reduce the potential exposure of structures and people to the 

consequences of a tsunami hazard at the Tecolote Creek Bridge to a less-thansignificant impact. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Mudflow) (Refined Build Alternative). The impact with 

respect to mudflow (mudslides) over most of the project alignment is considered low or 

low-to-moderate. Where a potential for mudflow/mudslide exists, the incorporation of 

project measures would reduce the potential for inundation caused by mudflow 

(mudslide) to a less-than-significant impact. 

Section 4.11 provides additional impact analysis for tsunami, seiche, and mudflow 

(mudslides). 

4.9.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required. The project would have a less-than-significant impact 

on water resources. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-134 September 2014

4.10 Hazardous Materials 

This section describes the presence of hazardous materials within or near the No-Build 

and Refined Build Alternatives, particularly near the alignment and stations, as well as 

impacts on the alternatives from such hazardous materials. Short-term impacts related 

to these sites and project construction are addressed in Section 4.17. This section 

addresses the long-term direct and indirect adverse impacts of operation of the Refined 

Build Alternative. For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Hazardous Materials Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014h) prepared in support of 

the SEIS/SEIR. 

The analysis of impacts in the prior environmental documents concluded that operation 

of the LRT would have no adverse impacts from hazardous materials. Minor impacts 

could occur from utility poles within the MTS right-of-way, but impacts could be mitigated 

and would not be adverse. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified 36 sites of environmental concern along the project 

alignment, particularly near the existing TPSSs south of the OTTC and in the portion of 

the corridor north of the OTTC where new rail tracks would be installed. Operation of 

the Build Alternative would neither require regular use of substantial amounts of 

hazardous materials nor would it result in ground-disturbing activities that would expose 

people or the environment to hazardous materials. The Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that 

there would not be adverse or significant impacts. 

This section has been revised as a result of refinements to the Build Alternative, which 

changed the location of some property acquisitions required for the project. This 

resulted in the identification of two new sites of concern (sites 34 and 35 on Figure 4-25). 

However, three sites of concern were removed from the study area due to the relocation 

of the TPSS that was previously proposed near the Wright Street Yard. Therefore, 35 

sites of concern are identified within this Final SEIS/SEIR, 1 less than what was 

identified in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. A TPSS previously identified near the OTTC was 

eliminated; however, the sites of concern near this TPSS are also within 1,000 feet of 

the roadway modifications proposed at Taylor Street/Rosecrans Street and Pacific 

Highway and therefore, they were not removed from the study area. The Preface in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Hazardous Materials Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014h) contains additional information on changes to the analysis and technical report 

since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The conclusions in this section and for the analysis remain 

unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. There would be no adverse or significant 

impacts from hazardous materials as a result of the Refined Build Alternative. 

4.10.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

A variety of laws govern acquisition, cleanup, and use of potentially contaminated 

properties, construction protocols (e.g., excavation, storage, transport, and disposal), 

and operation and maintenance practices that may affect the environment and worker 

and public health resulting from the presence or accidental release of hazardous 

materials. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-135 

Figure 4-25. Study Area Sites of Environmental Concern 

Source: SANDAG, 2014h 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-136 September 2014

Applicable federal laws include the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (49 

USC 5101 et seq.), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 

USC 6901 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 USC 2601 et seq.), 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

known as “Superfund” (42 USC 103), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 

Act of 1986 (42 USC 9601 et seq.), and the Emergency Planning and Community RightTo-Know Act (1986) (42 USC 300 et seq.). 

Because California is a fully authorized state according to RCRA, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) Title 22, particularly Division 4.5, Environmental Health Standards for 

the Management of Hazardous Waste, includes most RCRA regulations. California also 

has compiled regulations related to hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and toxics 

found in Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 of the CCR into one consolidated 

section—Title 26 (Toxics). Numerous state, regional, and local agencies have 

responsibility for implementing these regulations. 

To investigate the potential contamination risks in the Mid-Coast Corridor, a review of 

public documents and environmental databases of properties with known or suspected 

hazardous materials releases was performed to identify a list of initial properties of 

concern. Historical aerial and land use maps of the corridor were examined; geologic 

and hydrologic information was reviewed; and field investigations were conducted from 

public access areas. In the historically industrial portion of the corridor between the 

Santa Fe Depot and the OTTC, investigations extended 1,000 feet from the existing 

TPSSs at Olive Street, Bean Street, and the Wright Street Yard. Between the OTTC 

and the UTC Transit Center where land uses are primarily residential and commercial, 

investigations were limited to approximately 700 feet from the project alignment and 

project stations. 

4.10.2 Affected Environment 

The review of public documents and environmental databases identified 35 sites of 

environmental concern within the study area (Figure 4-25). Three sites are within 1,000 

feet of the Olive Street TPSS; two sites are within 1,000 feet of the Bean Street TPSS; 

six sites are within 1,000 feet of the Wright Street Yard; and two sites are within 1,000 

feet of the roadway modifications near the OTTC. From the OTTC to University City, 

there are 19 sites between the OTTC and Clairemont Drive, 1 site located just north of 

Balboa Avenue, and 2 sites located in University City east of I-5. 

A large number of the sites within the study area are characterized by known petroleum 

hydrocarbon-affected soil and ground water, while others were formerly occupied by 

gasoline stations or other uses that generated hazardous materials that could have 

affected soil and ground water. 

Portions of the study area encompass existing public rights-of-way that are likely 

contaminated as a result of previous and ongoing transportation and railroad uses. The 

I-5 right-of-way likely has elevated concentrations of Pb from the former use of leaded 

gasoline, as well as other metals likely present in adjacent soils. Residual hydrocarbon 

concentrations may have collected in runoff channels along I-5. In addition, the existing 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-137 

railroad right-of-way is expected to have elevated concentrations of metals, petroleum 

hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds from historic railway operations. 

4.10.3 Environmental Impacts 

The following sections describe impacts from hazardous materials under the No-Build 

and Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.10.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

implemented and service on bus Route 150, which operates between Downtown San 

Diego and the University area, would continue and be enhanced. No other projectrelated changes would result from the No-Build Alternative. The buses would operate on 

existing or planned roadways and would not result in the release of hazardous materials. 

No physical improvements would be required for improving transit services other than 

the minor construction associated with new bus shelters within existing rights-of-way, 

and such improvements are not anticipated to result in exposure or release of hazardous 

materials. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not result in adverse impacts from 

hazardous materials. 

4.10.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

Operation and maintenance of the Refined Build Alternative would not involve the regular 

use of hazardous materials. Trolley operation and power distribution from the TPSSs would 

not require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. The LRVs would use 

small volumes of oil and diesel for operation but would not transport hazardous materials. 

LRVs would be maintained at existing maintenance facilities and would not require any new 

or different maintenance activities at these facilities. 

People would not be exposed to contamination from current or historical uses of 

hazardous materials in the corridor during operation and maintenance of the Refined 

Build Alternative. Operation of the project would not involve ground-disturbing or other 

activities that would expose contaminated soil or ground water. Therefore, operation of 

the Refined Build Alternative would not create an adverse hazardous materials impact to 

the public or the environment. 

4.10.4 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures would be required because no adverse impacts are expected 

from operation of the Refined Build Alternative. 

4.10.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional discussion 

below. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-138 September 2014

4.10.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the hazardous materials impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative does not propose any 

ground-disturbing activities or the handling or transportation of hazardous materials and, 

as described in Section 4.10.3.1, would not result in adverse impacts related to 

hazardous materials. Thus, there would be no impact under CEQA with respect to the 

thresholds below. 

Would the project result in hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter-mile of an existing or 

proposed school? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Ten schools were identified 

within one-quarter mile of the project alignment and station areas, of which eight are in 

close proximity to the existing rail corridor where the Trolley already operates. In those 

eight locations, the project is a continuation of an existing use. Project operations and 

maintenance would not involve regular use of hazardous materials. The LRVs would 

use small volumes of oil and diesel for operation but would not transport hazardous 

materials. The amount of oil and fuel used would be limited, and potential exposure to 

emissions would be limited in occurrence and duration within close proximity of existing 

or planned schools. 

Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites 

compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a 

significant hazard to the public or environment? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The analysis determined that 

the study area for the project includes 35 sites with environmental concern. Some sites 

contain registered underground storage tanks, leaking underground storage tanks, and 

other facilities that fall under Government Code Section 65962.5. The existing I-5 and 

railroad rights-of-way also are expected to be contaminated as a result of previous and 

ongoing transportation and railroad uses. Operation and maintenance of the project 

would not require ground-disturbing or other activities that would expose contaminated 

soil or ground water. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the Refined Build 

Alternative would not create a significant hazard to workers, the public, or the 

environment. 

Would the project expose people to toxic substances, such as pesticides and herbicides, 

some of which have long-lasting ability, applied to the soil during previous agricultural 

uses? 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Based on a review of historical documents, the 

Refined Build Alternative alignment would not be located within an area used for 

agricultural purposes. Therefore, there would be no exposure to toxic substances and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-139 

no impacts as a result of the previous use of agricultural-related chemicals. Within 

UCSD, the alignment would cross the recently established, temporary urban farm in 

Pepper Canyon. This area supports organic farming activities; thus, no toxic substances 

or agricultural chemicals are expected at this location. Therefore, no impacts are 

expected as a result of the project because people would not be exposed to toxic 

substances related to agriculture. 

Would the project result in excavation, which would disturb contaminated soils, 

potentially resulting in the migration of hazardous substances? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Operation and maintenance of 

the Refined Build Alternative would not include ground-disturbing activities that would 

expose contaminated soil or ground water that is present at past hazardous materials 

sites. Operation and maintenance of the project would not disturb contaminated soils 

that could migrate; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 

4.10.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

Operation and maintenance of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would result in a 

less-than-significant impact on hazardous materials under CEQA, and no mitigation is 

required. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-140 September 2014

4.11 Geotechnical and Seismic Conditions 

This section evaluates the geotechnical and seismic hazard impacts of the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. The geologic conditions assessed included the following: 

fault rupture and earthquakes; liquefaction and seismic settlement; lateral spread; 

tsunami and seiche; landslides, mudslides, and slope stability; compressible soils; 

subsidence; corrosive soils; expansive soils; and erosion potential. These conditions 

could adversely affect public safety or cause substantial structural damage. For 

additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Geotechnical, 

Geologic, and Seismic Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014i) prepared in support 

of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents found that the project would not result in any 

adverse geotechnical or seismic hazard impacts. Consistent with these findings, the 

analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR determined that implementation of the project would not 

result in any adverse geotechnical or seismic hazard impacts. By following the design 

standards of the California Building Code (CBC), the American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials, Caltrans, and SANDAG, and taking into account the 

design concept adopted specifically for the project, the project would not expose people 

or structures to substantial risk of loss or injury resulting from existing geotechnical, 

geologic, or seismic hazards. Other than the editorial changes described in Section 4.0, 

comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did 

not require any changes to this section of the SEIS/SEIR. However, this section and the 

technical report have both been updated to reflect the results of the geologic field study 

in the vicinity of the Balboa Avenue Station site. The conclusions in this section and for 

the geotechnical and seismic analyses remain unchanged for the Refined Build 

Alternative. Implementation of the Refined Build Alternative would not result in any 

adverse or significant geotechnical or seismic hazard impacts. 

4.11.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Enacted in 1975 and amended in 1993, the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act (A-PA), 

provides policies and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in exercising 

their responsibility to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human 

occupancy across the strand of active faults. An active fault is one that has undergone 

movement within the past 11,000 years (the Holocene geologic period). The A-PA 

addresses only the hazards of surface fault rupture and does not address other 

earthquake hazards. The intent of the A-PA is to provide citizens with increased safety 

and to minimize the loss of life during and immediately following earthquakes, according 

to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment—Peak Ground Acceleration. 

(California Geological Survey, 2003). 

Primarily as a result of the Northridge earthquake of 1994, the California Legislature 

enacted the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act in April 1997 ([Public Resources Code] PRC 

Sections 2690–2699.6). This act requires the creation and publication of maps showing 

areas where earthquake-induced liquefaction or landslides could occur. 

Identification of geologic hazards in the study area was conducted through a review of aerial 

photographs, geologic and topographic maps, research literature, project plans, and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-141 

previous consultant reports. The initial review and analysis of these data were followed by a 

field reconnaissance of the study area to assess the initial findings. Following the field 

reconnaissance, the data were revisited and an assessment made on the geologic 

conditions to adversely impact public safety or cause substantial structural damage. 

The California Building Standards Commission published a series of amendments to the 

International Building Code in 2010 to further protect structures from damage and failure 

during seismic events or other natural disasters. Known as the CBC, this is the building 

code used throughout California. Local codes may be more restrictive than the CBC, but 

are required to be no less restrictive. 

4.11.2 Affected Environment 

This section describes existing geotechnical, geologic, and seismic conditions within the 

study area. 

4.11.2.1 Fault Rupture and Earthquakes 

Geologically, the project area is composed of two distinct terrains, divided into southern 

and northern sections near the I-5/Gilman Drive interchange. The geologic variation of 

these sections is largely distinguished by active faulting along the Rose Canyon Fault 

Zone in the southern section. This fault zone stretches north from offshore of Imperial 

Beach through Coronado, into Downtown San Diego, and northward along the I-5 

corridor, where it continues into southern Rose Canyon, then crosses Mount Soledad, 

and finally passes offshore just south of the La Jolla Beach and Tennis Club. The 

sections in Coronado, Downtown San Diego, and between the north end of Mission Bay 

(near De Anza Cove) and the coast in La Jolla are designated within the active AlquistPriolo Fault Zone. The section north of Downtown San Diego to De Anza Cove has not 

been designated as an active fault zone. Although there are many faults in the northern 

section (e.g., north of SR 52), they ceased their activity sometime before about 11,000 

years ago and thus are not considered active. Figure 4-26 shows the portion of the 

project alignment affected by active faulting within the corridor. 

4.11.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement 

Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed sandy or silty materials saturated with water 

are shaken hard enough to lose strength and stiffness, resulting in soil behaving like a 

liquid. Soil liquefaction can cause substantial damage during an earthquake depending 

on the extent and amount of liquefaction. Seismic settlement is the settling (e.g., 

becoming more compact and typically lower) of the ground surface due to densification 

of soils during earthquake-induced ground shaking. Seismic settlement does not result 

in a hazard if the ground over a large area settles uniformly. However, if more seismic 

densification occurs beneath one area than beneath an adjacent area, differential levels 

of seismic settling can occur, which could damage structures, pavement, and utilities. 

Liquefaction and seismic settlement hazards exist within the Mid-Coast Corridor, as 

shown in Figure 4-27. An area of potentially high liquefaction hazard is associated with 

the area of deep alluvium between Washington Street and the Morena Boulevard/West 

Morena Boulevard intersection, particularly in and around the San Diego River channel. 

An area of low-to-moderate liquefaction hazard exists within Rose Canyon, where the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-142 September 2014

Figure 4-26. Faults and Tsunami Inundation Area 

Sources: California Department of Conservation, 2009; SanGIS, 2003a 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-143 

Figure 4-27. Geologic Hazards 

Source: SanGIS, 2003b 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-144 September 2014

project alignment follows the drainage course of Rose Creek. North of Rose Canyon, 

the liquefaction potential is nominal because of the presence of consolidated material 

that is not prone to liquefaction. 

4.11.2.3 Lateral Spread 

Lateral spread is a liquefaction-related phenomenon in gently sloping areas or areas 

having a free-face condition, such as the slope of a riverbank. Lateral spread horizontally 

displaces large masses of soil, often as intact or broken-up blocks, because of 

earthquake-induced liquefaction. The northern section of the project corridor faces no

substantial hazard in regard to lateral spread. In the southern section, lateral spread 

poses a potential hazard in several areas of the Rose Canyon drainage basin.

4.11.2.4 Tsunami and Seiche 

Tsunamis are large sea waves that are most often generated by earthquakes or 

underwater landslides. A seiche is an oscillatory wave that develops in an enclosed or 

partially enclosed water body, such as a bay or lake, in response to seismic shaking 

from an earthquake. Tsunami hazards are low along the project alignment except at the 

Tecolote Creek Bridge, where the tsunami hazard is considered low-to-moderate since 

the proposed bridge lies near the edge of the potential inundation zone, as indicated on 

the State of California Tsunami Inundation Map (California Department of Conservation, 

2009). The tsunami inundation area is shown in Figure 4-26. The only nearby source 

for a seiche is Mission Bay, which is 350 to 1,300 feet from the project alignment. 

4.11.2.5 Landslides, Mudslides, and Slope Stability 

Landslides occur when the stability of the slopes underlain by soil or bedrock is 

decreased during prolonged rainfall or by other factors, such as earthquakes. 

Landslides can damage structures both above and below the slide mass. A mudslide is 

a type of slope failure that typically consists of a relatively rapid fluid flow of saturated 

sediments or soil. A mudslide often results from failure of saturated soils on slopes 

during periods of heavy rainfall or from saturation that is due to over irrigation. Slope 

stability is a measure of the resistance to sliding of an inclined ground surface to failure, 

such as a landslide. Areas most prone to landslides are steep slopes composed of 

materials with high clay content. 

Because landslide locations near the project alignment were graded during previous 

construction in the area, soils within the corridor are now more stable. Mudslides are 

considered a hazard because of the steep slopes north of Rose Canyon. Mudslides are 

not likely to occur in the southern section because of its flatter terrain. 

4.11.2.6 Compressible Soils 

Compressible soils are materials that are prone to a reduction in volume when subjected 

to loading. Compressible soils are likely to occur in areas of alluvial soils, including the 

area extending from Washington Street to the Morena area and from the Rose Creek 

South Bridge to Gilman Drive, with isolated zones occurring in the Morena area to 

Clairemont Drive. Areas of large settlement can damage or, in extreme cases, destroy 

structures. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-145 

4.11.2.7 Subsidence 

Subsidence is the reduction of pore space in the ground that was formerly occupied by a 

fluid, such as oil or water, or in some cases, organic materials. When subsidence 

occurs, the ground elevation becomes lower and, if there is differential subsidence 

between two adjacent areas, it can undermine the structural support of structures 

between these two areas. Subsidence is not a hazard along the project alignment since 

no large-scale ground-water pumping exists within this region and this area has no 

known petroleum resources. 

4.11.2.8 Corrosive Soils 

The corrosivity of soils is related to several key features, including pH level. Typically, 

the most corrosive soils are those with the lowest pH and the highest concentrations of 

chlorides and sulfates. Low pH and/or low-resistivity soils corrode buried or partially 

buried metal structures. Corrosive soils are expected to occur at various locations within 

the project alignment. Soils within the project segment from Old Town to Gilman Drive 

have a low-to-moderate corrosion potential. Soils north of Gilman Drive have a 

moderate-to-high corrosion potential. 

4.11.2.9 Expansive Soils 

Expansive soils are soils subject to fluctuations in volume in response to changes in 

moisture content (wetting and drying). Expansive soils contain a substantial amount of 

clay particles, which can both release water (shrink) or absorb and hold water (swell). 

The resultant changes in soil volumes can exert stress on structural foundations resting 

upon them. Expansive soils likely are to be encountered in an isolated area just north of 

the Tecolote Road Station. Expansive soils also could occur halfway between SR 52 

and Gilman Drive to the UCSD West Station in areas of soil with high clay content. 

4.11.2.10 Erosion 

Six areas of severe erosion potential exist within the project study area as a result of 

soils with loam, escarpment soil, and Altamont clay on steep slopes. The southernmost 

area is an approximately 500-foot-long area one-quarter mile south of Clairemont Drive. 

Within Rose Canyon, there are three approximately 1,500-foot-long areas, one 

straddling the Rose Creek South Bridge, another north of Jutland Drive, and the third 

approximately 1,000 feet north of SR 52. Another area approximately 200 feet long is 

located approximately 300 feet east of the proposed UCSD East Station. The longest 

area of severe erosion potential is a nearly continuous stretch of approximately 8,200 

feet extending between Gilman Drive and La Jolla Village Drive. 

The Altamont clay on moderate slopes has a slight erosion potential, and Salinas clay 

loam has a slight-to-moderate erosion potential. One area of moderate erosion potential 

exists along an approximately 1,500-foot-long stretch just north of Tecolote Road. The 

majority of soils with erosion potential in the project corridor are south of Gilman Drive.

4.11.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the geotechnical and seismic hazard impacts of the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-146 September 2014

4.11.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

implemented and service on bus Route 150, which operates between Downtown San 

Diego and the University area, would be continued and enhanced. Route 150 buses 

would operate on existing or planned roadways, and minimal physical improvements 

would be required (e.g., new bus shelters within existing rights-of-way). The No-Build 

Alternative would not result in project-related geotechnical or seismic hazard impacts, 

including those related to slope stability and settlement potential. 

4.11.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The geotechnical and seismic hazard impacts of the Refined Build Alternative are 

described in the sections below. 

Fault Rupture and Earthquakes 

During moderate-to-large earthquakes, the fault slip usually creates breaks (or ruptures) 

in the ground. Fault surface rupture is a substantial hazard for the southern section of 

the project alignment between Downtown San Diego and the I-5/SR 52 interchange. As 

shown in Figure 4-26, this is because this segment lies within the area of influence of the 

active Rose Canyon Fault Zone and within the active Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 

Zone between Clairemont Drive and Jutland Drive (just south of SR 52). 

As a result, substantial surface displacements from fault rupture are possible at certain 

locations. Fault rupture could expose structures along the project alignment to sudden 

differential displacements during a strong earthquake. This could damage or destroy 

structures and expose people to harm. South of SR 52, eight locations have been 

identified where suspected active faults may affect the project alignment. Three 

locations are at or near proposed Trolley stations; two locations cross at-grade track 

sections; and the remaining three locations are within or near proposed bridge sites. 

The Balboa Avenue Station is located within both an active State of California 

Earthquake Fault Zone and a potentially active City of San Diego Fault Zone. As stated 

in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.4.2, parking demand would exceed the planned capacity of 

the proposed surface parking facility, which could be alleviated by the construction of a 

parking structure. Standards established in the CCR prohibit the construction of 

habitable structures, including parking structures, within 50 feet of an active fault. 

A geologic field investigation was performed in the summer and fall of 2013 to assess 

the presence and activity of faulting in the Balboa Avenue Station area. While the work 

was specifically undertaken to evaluate faulting for a bridge that would span Balboa 

Avenue, the Trolley tracks and approximately the western half of the Balboa Avenue 

Station site also were included in the study area. The study concluded that active 

faulting is present just east of and approximately parallel to the tracks. No other active 

faulting was observed in the western half of the station area. A potentially active fault 

has been mapped in the eastern half of the station site, and additional field investigation 

would be required to confirm that this fault is not active. The location of the active fault 

east of the tracks would preclude construction of a parking structure on the western half 

of the station site. Since active faulting could be present within the eastern station site, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-147 

and to account for worst-case conditions, parking at this station is assumed to be limited 

to surface parking. For additional information on the geologic field investigations, refer 

to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Earthquake Fault Rupture Field Investigation 

(Kleinfelder, 2014). 

Strong seismic shaking from a local event on the Rose Canyon Fault or another regional 

fault is a project hazard. The Rose Canyon Fault and other faults near the project 

alignment could generate large magnitude earthquakes that could affect project 

structures and the alignment as a result of strong seismic ground shaking. Without 

proper design, structures could be damaged or destroyed, and people could be harmed, 

during a major seismic event. The project would incorporate design standards to 

prevent structural collapse at these locations and reduce the exposure of people to harm 

from fault rupture hazards. All project structures would be designed in accordance with 

current seismic design standards, as found in the CBC (2010), the latest version of the 

Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (2010b), and Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-10, 

“Surface Fault Rupture Displacement Hazard Investigations” (Caltrans, 2007). 

Therefore, structures are expected to remain standing during a strong earthquake, 

although they may be subject to damage that results in their closure or replacement. 

The combination of project measures and seismic design criteria would reduce the 

exposure of people to harm from fault rupture hazards such that there would not be an 

adverse impact. 

The region north of SR 52 does not lie within a recognized area of active faulting, and no 

active faults have been observed in the vicinity of the project alignment. Because of the 

long period of non-activity, the exposure of structures and people to surface fault rupture 

north of SR 52 would not be an adverse impact. 

Project structures are expected to remain standing during a strong earthquake; 

therefore, the exposure of people or structures to harm from strong ground shaking 

hazards would be minimized such that there would not be an adverse impact. 

Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement 

The potential liquefaction impacts to engineered structures include loss of bearing 

capacity, buoyancy forces on underground structures, ground oscillations, increased 

lateral earth pressure on retaining walls, post-liquefaction settlement, and “flow failures” 

in slopes that could damage or destroy structures and harm people. 

Since project measures would include design to reduce the exposure of people and 

structures to hazards from seismic risk associated with liquefaction and seismic 

settlement, there would not be an adverse impact due to liquefaction with 

implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Lateral Spread 

Lateral spread poses a hazard in several areas of the Rose Canyon drainage basin 

where the project alignment is close to creek banks. The alignment is closest in the 

section between the Rose Creek South and Rose Creek North Bridges. Lateral 

spreading is considered moderate-to-high in the area extending from Old Town to 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-148 September 2014

Clairemont Drive. Lateral spreading displacements could damage or destroy structures 

or harm people. 

Since project measures would reduce impacts on structures and exposure of people or 

structures to harm there would not be an adverse impact due to lateral spread with 

implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Tsunami and Seiche 

The potential impacts of tsunami inundation on the Tecolote Creek Bridge would be 

addressed in accordance with Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-13, “Tsunami Hazard 

Guidelines” (Caltrans, 2010a). The reduced exposure of structures and people to the 

consequences of a tsunami hazard at the Tecolote Creek Bridge would not be an 

adverse impact. 

Impacts on the project by a seiche are low. The only nearby source for a seiche is 

Mission Bay, which is 350 to 1,300 feet from the project alignment. Because of the 

distance between the project alignment and Mission Bay—and given the existing 

topography—it is unlikely that structures and people would be exposed to the 

consequences of a seiche. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse impact. 

Landslides, Mudslides, and Slope Stability 

Because landslide locations near the project alignment were graded during previous 

construction in the area, soils within the corridor are now more stable. As a result, the 

potential for a landslide near the project is low and the exposure of structures and people 

to the consequences of a landslide in this area would not be an adverse impact. 

Mudslides are considered a hazard because of the steep slopes north of Rose Canyon. 

Mudslides are not likely to occur in the southern section because of its flatter terrain. 

Loss of slope stability can damage structures both above and below the resulting landor mudslide mass. Structures above the slide would be damaged by the undermining of 

foundations, and areas below the slide would be damaged or destroyed by being 

covered or crushed by land- or mudslide material. People in the slide path could be 

harmed. Slope stability is not an issue along the alignment between Old Town and 

Clairemont Drive because it is relatively flat, as well as the area east of I-5, where the 

topography is flat. 

Slope stability is a hazard along several segments of the alignment, however. The area 

extending from north of Clairemont Drive to the Rose Creek South Bridge poses a 

moderate risk in regard to slope stability. Segments with low-to-moderate risk extend 

from the Rose Creek South Bridge to Gilman Drive; north of Gilman Drive to the UCSD 

West Station; and from the UCSD West Station to the I-5 crossing. Because several 

segments of the alignment pose a moderate risk of slope failure, the potential for a slide 

would be moderate, resulting in exposure of structures and people to the consequences 

of a landslide or mudslide. 

State and federal design codes adopted for the project require that slopes be designed 

for adequate stability. Between Clairemont Drive and the Rose Creek South Bridge, the 

cuts would be supported by retaining walls that would be designed for slope stability and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-149 

would limit risk. North of Gilman Drive, most of the slopes would have favorable 

geologic structure with respect to slope stability. All slopes and retaining walls would 

comply with project and state design and safety requirements. Since these project 

measures would reduce the potential damage to structures and exposure of people to 

harm from inadequate slope stability, there would not be an adverse impact with 

implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Compressible Soils 

The presence of compressible soils throughout the Mid-Coast Corridor poses a hazard 

to structures and people. Design codes require that structures be designed to reduce 

the impact of compressible soils. Meeting the design code would reduce the exposure 

of people or structures to this hazard such that there would not be an adverse impact 

with implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Subsidence 

Subsidence is not a hazard along the project alignment since no large-scale groundwater pumping exists within this region and this area has no known petroleum 

resources. Therefore, the exposure of structures and people to the consequences of 

subsidence would be low and would not result in an adverse impact with implementation 

of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Corrosive Soils 

The impacts of corrosive soils include the corrosion of concrete, which results in 

incomplete curing and reduces concrete strength, as well as corrosion of buried or 

partially buried metal components and structures. The weakening of structures from 

corrosive soils could result in some structural damage or failure of underground utilities, 

which could expose people to harm. Therefore, the presence of corrosive soils at 

various project locations poses a potential hazard to structures and people. 

Design standards, according to the previously described codes, require that structures 

be designed to minimize impacts from corrosive soils. These project measures, or a 

combination thereof, would reduce the impact of corrosive soils such that there would 

not be an adverse impact with implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Expansive Soils 

Lightly loaded structures are more susceptible to damage by expansive soils, and 

expansive soils can damage or, in extreme cases, destroy structures. Expansive soils at 

specific project locations pose a potential hazard to structures and people. 

Design standards, according to the previously described codes, require that structures 

be designed to reduce the impact of expansive soils. These project measures, or a 

combination thereof, would reduce the impact of expansive soils such that there would 

not be an adverse impact with implementation of the Refined Build Alternative. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-150 September 2014

Erosion 

Grading for the project could increase erosion. Approved BMPs, as identified below, 

would be used to minimize impacts from erosion along the project alignment. Therefore, 

the Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse erosion impacts. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

The design of the project would comply with design standards to avoid adverse 

geotechnical, geologic, and seismic impacts to people and structures. This would be 

reflected in applicable project plan sets and other project construction specifications. 

To prevent structural collapse, the project would incorporate design standards such as 

using a continuous superstructure over intermediate support locations, isolating the 

superstructure from the substructure, and increasing support widths. Single-column 

bents are preferred over multicolumn bents to prevent differential displacements. In 

addition, all project structures would be designed in accordance with current seismic 

design standards, as found in the CBC (2010), the latest version of the Caltrans Seismic 

Design Criteria (2010b), and Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-10, “Surface Fault Rupture 

Displacement Hazard Investigations” (Caltrans, 2007). 

Design measures to reduce liquefaction and seismic settlement impacts include groundimprovement techniques such as in-situ densification or solidification, load transfer to 

underlying bearing layers (which are non-liquefiable), and over-excavation (removal and 

replacement with compacted engineered fill). 

The impact of lateral spreading would be reduced through design measures, such as insitu ground-improvement methods of densification or solidification, designing the 

foundation to resist horizontal permanent ground displacement, or installation of 

subsurface barrier walls. 

The Tecolote Creek Bridge would be designed in accordance with Caltrans Memo to 

Designers 20-13, “Tsunami Hazard Guidelines” (Caltrans, 2010a). Primary design 

measures include the use of deep foundations (cast-in-drilled-hole piles) to protect from 

scour and tie-down anchors to alleviate buoyancy effects. 

Methods that could be used to increase slope stability include, but are not limited to, 

retaining walls, remedial grading, soil nails, soldier pile walls, tiebacks, and rock bolts. 

Mudslide impacts also could be reduced by using debris flow walls. 

Compressible soils would be addressed through the specification of in-situ densification 

of compressible soils, transferring the load to underlying non-compressible layers (i.e., 

by using pile or drilled shaft foundations), and surcharging or over-excavation (removal 

and replacement with compacted engineered fill) as appropriate. 

Design standards incorporated to minimize impacts from corrosive soils include the use 

of a low water-to-cement ratio to decrease the permeability of concrete and the use of 

sulfate-resistant cement. Cathodic protection can minimize the impacts of corrosive 

soils on steel structures. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-151 

The risks of expansive soils would be addressed through drainage measures such as 

drainage-control devices to limit water infiltration near foundations, over-excavation 

methods to remove and replace soil with compacted engineered fill, and support of 

structures on piles designed to counter expansive soil impacts. BMPs to limit erosion 

would include hydroseeding of slopes and the use of plantings, mulch, bonded fiber 

matrix, geosynthetics, and fiber rolls. 

4.11.4 Mitigation Measures 

The Refined Build Alternative incorporates project measures and BMPs, as identified in 

Section 4.11.3.2, into the project to avoid or minimize geotechnical, geologic, and 

seismic impacts. No mitigation would be required and the project would not result in any 

adverse geotechnical, geological, or seismic impacts. 

4.11.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional discussion 

below. 

4.11.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

significant geotechnical, geological, and seismic impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As stated in Section 4.11.3.1, under the No-Build 

Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be constructed and bus 

Route 150 would be continued and enhanced, which would not result in geologic and 

seismic impacts with respect to the thresholds below. Thus, the discussion below is 

limited to impacts of the Refined Build Alternative. 

Would the project expose people or structures to geologic hazards involving 

earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failures, or similar hazards? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in Section 

4.11.3.2 under the headings “Fault Rupture and Earthquakes”; “Liquefaction and 

Seismic Settlement”; “Lateral Spread”; and “Landslides, Mudslides and Slope Stability”; 

the Refined Build Alternative has the potential to expose people or structures to geologic 

hazards without the project measures described in Section 4.11.3.2 under the heading 

“Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts” and would result in a significant impact 

without these measures. However, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in a 

significant impact because, as described in Section 4.11.3.2, project measures would 

comply with design criteria to reduce exposure of people and structures to the 

consequences of geologic hazards, including strong seismic events, to a less-thansignificant impact. 

Would the project be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-152 September 2014

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Seiche) (Refined Build Alternative). The potential for the 

project to be impacted by a seiche is considered low. The only nearby source for a 

seiche is Mission Bay, which is 350 to 1,300 feet from the project alignment. Because of 

the distance between the project alignment and Mission Bay and existing topography, 

the potential exposure of structures and people to the consequences of a seiche would 

be a less-than-significant impact. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Tsunami) (Refined Build Alternative). Tsunami hazards 

are low for the project alignment, except at the Tecolote Creek Bridge where the tsunami 

hazard is considered low to moderate because it is near the edge of the State of 

California Tsunami Inundation Map (Figure 4-26). As shown in Figure 4-26, a maximum 

tsunami event would not reach the project alignment except at the Tecolote Creek 

Bridge location. Without the project measures described in Section 4.11.3.2, there 

would be the potential for inundation caused by a tsunami at the location of the Tecolote 

Creek Bridge, which would result in a significant impact. However, the effects of tsunami 

inundation on the Tecolote Creek Bridge would be addressed in accordance with the 

Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-13, “Tsunami Hazard Guidelines.” Primary design 

measures include the use of deep foundations (cast-in-drilled-hole piles) to protect from 

scour and tie-down anchors (if warranted) to alleviate buoyancy effects. These project 

design measures would reduce the potential hazard associated with the exposure of 

structures and people to the consequences of a tsunami at Tecolote Creek to a lessthan-significant impact. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Mudflow) (Refined Build Alternative). As described in 

Section 4.11.3.2 under the heading “Landslides, Mudslides and Slope Stability”, the 

Refined Build Alternative has the potential for inundation caused by mudflow and would 

result in a significant impact. However, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in 

a significant impact because, as described in Section 4.11.3.2, the impacts with respect 

to mudflow (mudslides) over most of the project alignment are considered low or low-tomoderate. Where a potential for mudflow/mudslide exists, the incorporation of project 

measures described in Section 4.11.3.2 under the heading “Project Measures to Avoid 

or Minimize Impacts” would reduce the potential for inundation caused by mudflow 

(mudslide) to a less-than-significant impact. 

Would the project result in a substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or 

off the site? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would not result in a significant impact because the project would conform to standards 

for soil conservation during planning, design, and construction activities (National 

Engineering Handbook [Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1983] Sections 2.0 

and 3.0). Approved BMPs would be used to minimize impacts from erosion along the 

project alignment. 

Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become 

unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral 

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-153 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described in Section 

4.11.3.2 under the headings “Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement”; “Lateral Spread”; 

and “Landslides, Mudslides and Slope Stability”; the Refined Build Alternative has the 

potential to result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, 

or collapse, and would result in a significant impact. However, the Refined Build 

Alternative would not result in a significant impact because, as described in Section 

4.11.3.2 under the heading “Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts”, where 

project features are located in areas with unstable soil, the project would incorporate 

design features and comply with design standards to prevent conditions that could lead 

to on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. 

4.11.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

Project measures, including compliance with design standards and implementation of 

BMPs, as described in Section 4.11.3.2, would result in the avoidance and/or 

minimization of direct or indirect geotechnical, geologic, or seismic impacts. No 

mitigation is required. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-154 September 2014

4.12 Energy 

This section describes the transportation energy impacts under the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. This includes fuel consumed by buses, electricity used to 

power LRVs, and additional power used for signals, lighting, and maintenance activities. 

For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Energy 

Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014g) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR (this 

report has not been revised since circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR). 

The previous environmental documents had a 2005 planning horizon and stated that 

regional VMT would decrease by 55,000 or 58,000, depending on the LRT alignment, 

compared to the No-Build Alternative. The previous review concluded that there would 

not be a net change in energy use as the increase in energy needed for the expanded 

Trolley service and extra bus service proposed for the LRT alignment would not be offset 

by the decrease in VMT. Since the previous environmental review was completed, the 

project has been refined, and the project includes only minimal changes to bus routes. 

The analysis conducted for the Draft SEIS/SEIR found that the 2030 regional VMT would 

decrease by approximately 133,000 for the Build Alternative; bus VMT largely would 

remain unchanged. While the Build Alternative would increase energy usage as a result 

of the expanded Trolley services, the shift to transit would decrease overall energy 

demand because of reduced VMT in both the study area and the region. Other than the 

editorial changes described in Section 4.0, comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

and refinements to the Build Alternative did not require any changes to this section of the 

SEIS/SEIR. 

The conclusions in this section and for the energy analysis remain unchanged for the 

Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative would decrease overall energy 

use and result in a beneficial energy impact compared to the No-Build Alternative. 

4.12.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

In recent years, federal, state, and regional government agencies have been addressing 

long-term energy policy issues. The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 USC 15801) 

sets new policies to improve energy efficiency and promote efficient investment in 

energy sectors. Additionally, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards specify 

fuel consumption efficiency standards for new passenger vehicles sold in the United 

States. 

In California, the primary energy policy and planning agency is the California Energy 

Commission (CEC). It is responsible for keeping historical energy data and forecasting 

future energy needs. In 2011, the CEC adopted California’s 2010 Integrated Energy 

Policy Report Update (CEC, 2011), which requires the CEC to prepare a biennial 

integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing 

California’s transportation fuel sectors. 

Regionally, SANDAG has sought ways to use energy more efficiently and expand 

transportation fuel choices. SANDAG updated its Regional Energy Strategy in 2009, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-155 

establishing goals of increased energy efficiency and enhanced regional energy 

infrastructure to meet growing demand. 

Changes in VMT and vehicle speeds affect the amount of fuel, or energy, used by 

vehicles. To calculate changes in vehicular energy use, CARB’s EMFAC2007 program 

was used. The amount of fuel used—and, therefore, the amount of energy consumed—

on roadways was estimated by applying the specific miles per gallon factors (for 

estimated vehicular speeds), calculated through the EMFAC2007 program to 

corresponding estimated VMT developed for the project alternatives. 

The project would require electrical power for the Trolley propulsion, station operation, 

and maintenance. Estimates of the project’s electrical power requirements and the cost 

of these requirements were based on electrical billing and usage information for the 

existing transit system. 

4.12.2 Affected Environment 

California’s energy consumption continues to be dominated by passenger vehicle 

growth. Almost 40 percent of the state’s energy consumption is related to transportation 

(U.S. Department of Energy, 2009) and includes petroleum, natural gas, electricity, 

liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, and biofuels such as ethanol. Table 4-27 presents 

total daily energy use expressed in million British thermal units (mBtus) for roadways 

and the Trolley system. 

Table 4-27. Existing and Projected Future Daily Energy Use (mBtus) 

Scenarios 

Total Energy

(mBtu) 

Percentage Change in Energy Use 

from Existing/No-Build Alternative 

Study Area Region Study Area Region 

2010 

Existing Conditions 62,200 434,700 - - 

Existing Conditions with Refined 

Build Alternative 

61,800 434,100 -0.5% -0.1% 

2030 

No-Build Alternative 74,700 527,500 - - 

Refined Build Alternative 74,500 524,700 -0.3% -0.5% 

Source: SANDAG, 2014g 

Notes: Numbers rounded to nearest hundred; totals may not sum due to rounding. 

 mBtu = million British thermal units 

4.12.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the results of the analysis of energy use under the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. Vehicle types and numbers, extent of their use (in VMT), and 

their fuel economy (in miles per gallon) determine energy use. Table 4-27 presents daily 

energy use expressed in million mBtu. VMT is presented in Table 4-8 in Section 4.5. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-156 September 2014

4.12.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would result in the largest increase in VMT compared to existing 

conditions because of the area’s projected growth. This increase in VMT would occur 

because few auto trips would shift to transit trips without the project. The No-Build 

Alternative would result in the lowest Trolley energy use (Table 4-27); however, this 

energy savings from the Trolley system would not offset the energy increase from 

additional roadway VMT. 

4.12.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative would decrease roadway energy use as a result of 

decreased roadway VMT in the study area and region. This is due to projected mode 

shifts from roadway vehicles to the Trolley system. The Refined Build Alternative would 

increase Trolley energy use because of increased demand for energy associated with 

operation and maintenance of the expanded Trolley system. In 2030, LRT operations 

under the Refined Build Alternative are expected to require approximately 54 megawatt 

hours (183 mBtus) of electrical energy above the No-Build Alternative. In 2010, the 

demand for electrical energy in San Diego County was about 19 million megawatt hours. 

Because the demand of the project for electrical energy is a small fraction of the regional 

energy use, the project would not cause an adverse effect to the supply of electric power 

and would not require construction of new electrical substations; however, modification 

to existing substations may be required. The increase in Trolley energy use is less than 

the projected energy decrease resulting from VMT reductions in the study area and 

region. As such, the Refined Build Alternative would decrease overall energy use 

compared to the No-Build Alternative, and, therefore, would result in a beneficial energy 

impact (Table 4-27). 

4.12.4 Mitigation Measures 

Operation of the Refined Build Alternative would result in beneficial effects related to 

energy consumption. Mitigation measures would not be required. 

4.12.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis above 

and the CEQA threshold of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.12.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on Appendix F and Appendix G (the Environmental Checklist) of the CEQA 

Guidelines, and the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds

(City of San Diego, 2011a), SANDAG has developed a CEQA threshold of significance 

for use in evaluating the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Would the project place a substantial demand on the regional energy supply or require 

significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak- and base-period electricity 

demand? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (No-Build Alternative). The continuation and enhancement 

of bus Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would not place a substantial demand 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-157 

on energy use. Under the No-Build Alternative, the energy demand reduction 

associated with implementation of the Refined Build Alternative would not be realized. 

However, the resulting increase in regional energy consumption would not place a 

substantial demand on the regional energy supply or require significant additional 

capacity. Further, there would not be a significant increase in peak- or base-period 

electricity demands. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would reduce overall energy consumption (Table 4-27). This reduction in energy use 

would be consistent with CEQA’s energy conservation goals. In 2030, the Refined Build 

Alternative is expected to increase daily Trolley electricity demand by 54 megawatt 

hours above the No-Build Alternative, or by 51 megawatt hours above existing 

conditions. In 2010, the demand for electrical energy in San Diego County was about 19 

million megawatt hours. The demand of the project for electrical energy would be small 

compared to regional energy use, and the project would not require construction of new 

electrical substations. The project would not place a substantial demand on the existing 

regional energy supply and does not significantly increase peak and base period 

electrical demand. No mitigation would be required, and impacts would be beneficial. 

4.12.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

The project would reduce energy use, thus resulting in a beneficial impact. No mitigation 

measures are required, and the project would result in a beneficial impact under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-158 September 2014

4.13 Safety and Security 

This section describes the safety and security impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives. Safety relates to the prevention of unintentional harm, such as from 

accidents, to the public and employees during operation of the transit system. Security 

relates to the protection of people and property from intentional acts that could injure or 

harm them. For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Safety and Security Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014n) prepared in support of 

the SEIS/SEIR (this report has not been revised since circulation of the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR). 

The prior environmental documents found that the project would be designed to provide for 

the safety and security of passengers, transit employees, and the public in the vicinity of the 

transit facilities, and would be operated in accordance with MTS standard operating 

procedures, operator rules, and the emergency plan; therefore, the project would not have 

an adverse impact on the safety and security of passengers and employees. 

The analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR also determined that the project would not result in any 

adverse or significant safety or security impacts under NEPA or CEQA. This section was 

revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

which requested additional information on safety and crime prevention at Trolley stations. 

The conclusions in this section and for the safety and security analysis remain 

unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative would not 

result in any adverse or significant safety or security impacts under NEPA or CEQA. 

4.13.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Federal, state, and local standards, laws, and regulations govern the design and safety 

and security of mass transit systems, which are described in detail in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Safety and Security Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014n). The project is being designed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and 

local laws and regulations, including applicable FTA regulations, Federal Railroad 

Administration and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) regulations, CPUC General Orders, California Division of Industrial 

Safety Orders, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and regional and local regulations 

promulgated by SANDAG, MTS, and the City of San Diego. 

The safety analysis considered impacts on the safety of passengers on board transit 

vehicles, and pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists in locations where they would cross the 

track, enter stations, or encounter hazards in the vicinity of other transit facilities, such as 

TPSSs. The analysis also considered impacts on emergency response services in the 

community through review of grade crossing operation and emergency response times. 

The analysis of security issues and crime prevention focused on the potential for crime 

on or near the transit system. The security analysis considered crime prevention, 

including Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), law enforcement, 

and protection against terrorism. The assessment followed the general guidelines 

outlined in Public Transportation System Security and Emergency Preparedness 

Planning Guide (FTA, 2003). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-159 

4.13.2 Affected Environment 

MTS operates bus and rail transit services throughout the study area and is responsible for 

the safety and security for operations and maintenance of transit services. MTS provides 

transit security at existing transit facilities and on board Trolley vehicles through a 

contract service of armed, uniformed officers. The officers issue citations to violators of 

rules of the transit system; however, they do not have the authority to make arrests. If 

Trolley officers witness a crime, the local police are called. MTS also has roving 

uniformed code enforcement or compliance inspectors that patrol Trolley vehicles and 

stations and are responsible for fare inspection. Code enforcement or compliance 

inspectors are responsible for enforcing all ordinances and laws approved by the San 

Diego MTS Board of Directors. Each Trolley station is equipped with closed-circuit 

television cameras, a public address system, telephones, shelters, accessible ramps, 

protective fencing where required, warning devices such as truncated domes (tactile paving) 

at platform edges, and lighting.14

There are 11 existing grade crossings in the Mid-Coast Corridor, all of which are located 

south of San Diego River where the LOSSAN tracks operate next to the existing Trolley 

tracks. Of these grade crossings, the Trolley tracks are grade-separated from the 

roadway at three locations (Hawthorne, Grape, and Laurel Streets). The remaining eight 

grade crossings are equipped with automatic crossing gates, flashing light signals, and 

signs and markings. These eight grade crossings are located at Ash, Beech, Cedar, 

Palm, Sassafras, Washington, Noell, and Taylor Streets. MTS implements guidelines 

established by the CPUC, which has jurisdiction over the safety of the crossings. The 

COASTER, Amtrak, and freight trains operate on the existing LOSSAN tracks within the 

corridor. The COASTER is operated by the North County Transit District (NCTD), and 

freight trains are operated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe. 

The accident rate on the Trolley system is approximately one-half of the national rate for 

LRT systems. For 2010, the nationwide average accident rate for LRT systems was 

approximately 16.0 per million revenue service miles, compared to 8.0 for the San Diego 

Trolley System. Accident data are provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Safety and Security Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014n). There were 21 total 

accidents on the Trolley system in 2010, of which 3 were at a grade crossing and 18 

were other incidents (e.g., slips and falls). There were no accidents associated with 

trespassing. There were 10 injuries and no fatalities during that year, with most of the 

injuries occurring in accidents between Trolley vehicles and auto passengers or 

pedestrians (SANDAG, 2014n). 

Within the Mid-Coast Corridor, police services are provided by the City of San Diego 

Police Department and fire protection and emergency medical services are provided by 

the SDFD. Ambulance services are provided by several private companies operating in 

the corridor. UCSD has an on-site fire marshal to ensure code compliance, but 

assistance from the SDFD is required for fire–rescue services. The UCSD Police 

Department is responsible for safety and security on the university campus and for a 

 

14 Truncated domes are the federally legislated standard design requirement for detectable warnings that enable 

people with visual disabilities to determine the boundary between the sidewalk and street. Because truncated 

domes have a unique design, they can be detected underfoot and by sound on cane contact. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-160 September 2014

1-mile area surrounding the campus. Figure 4-5 in Section 4.2 shows the locations of 

fire stations, police stations, and hospitals within one-half mile of the project alignment. 

Emergency response services are provided from these facilities. 

4.13.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

safety and security in the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

4.13.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, service on bus Route 150 would be continued and 

enhanced. In particular, bus frequency would be improved. This enhanced bus service 

would operate in accordance with current MTS safety and security program procedures and 

would have no adverse impacts on the safety and security of the public or MTS employees. 

4.13.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

This section describes the impacts of the Refined Build Alternative on the safety of the 

transit system, grade crossings, pedestrians and bicyclists, trespassing, rail safety and 

transport of hazardous materials, crime prevention and security, community emergency 

response services, and seismic safety. 

Transit System Safety 

The project is being designed to provide for the safety and security of passengers, transit 

employees, and the public in or near MTS transit vehicles and facilities. The FTA requires 

a Safety and Security Certification Plan for the project that addresses design, construction, 

testing, and initiation into revenue service. The CPUC must certify that the project is safe 

and secure before the project can be placed in revenue service. Following construction of 

the project, the project would operate in accordance with MTS standard operating 

procedures, operator rules, and the emergency plan. Therefore, the project would not 

have an adverse direct impact on the safety of passengers and employees of the system 

and the public in the vicinity of stations, station parking facilities, and TPSS sites. 

Grade-Crossing Safety 

The project would use the existing Trolley tracks for approximately 3.5 miles, from the Santa 

Fe Depot to a point just north of the OTTC and south of the San Diego River. The Trolley 

Blue Line trains would share these existing tracks with the Trolley Green Line trains. 

The number of trains traveling through the eight existing grade crossings between Santa 

Fe Depot and the San Diego River would increase with implementation of the project, as 

shown in Table 3-24 in Chapter 3.0. The traffic-control devices at these crossings 

provide the level of advanced warning and protection from an oncoming train required by 

the CPUC and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 

(Caltrans, 2012). These grade crossings currently meet the requirements of the CPUC 

and the California MUTCD. The project would not modify the existing grade crossing 

devices and would not require the approval of the CPUC. As noted in Chapter 2.0, gate 

operation at these grade crossings would be optimized to accommodate the increased 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-161 

number of activations. North of the San Diego River, the alignment would be separated 

from roadways and would not introduce any new grade crossings. 

Therefore, there would be no impact on the safety of grade crossings under the Refined 

Build Alternative. 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 

As discussed in Sections 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.3.2, many Trolley passengers would walk or 

bike to or from the new transit stations. All new track constructed for the project would 

be in exclusive right-of-way; therefore, it would not conflict with pedestrians and 

bicyclists using existing sidewalks and roads. Although the number of pedestrians and 

bicyclists at station entrances and in station areas would increase under the Refined 

Build Alternative, this would not create unsafe conditions or adversely affect pedestrians 

and bicyclists. The exit capacity of existing sidewalks in the vicinity of new transit 

stations would be checked against the requirements of National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail 

Systems (NFPA, 2010) to ensure that they would be able to accommodate the increase 

in pedestrian activity and in conformance with the most recent California Fire Code. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists would cross the tracks and adjacent intersections near the 

existing grade crossings. The traffic-control devices at these grade crossings would 

continue to provide the level of advanced warning and protection from an oncoming train 

required by the CPUC and California MUTCD. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative 

would not adversely affect pedestrian and bicycle safety at these crossings or at 

adjacent intersections. 

To reduce passenger walk access time, aerial stations within or near roadways would 

include pedestrian bridges that connect to public sidewalks. Such pedestrian bridges 

are proposed over Voigt Drive and Genesee Avenue and are incorporated into the aerial 

structural design. Exit capacity from each station would meet the safety requirements of 

NFPA 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems (NFPA, 

2010) and would not result in an adverse safety impact to pedestrians and bicyclists and 

would be in conformance with the most recent California Fire Code. 

At the Clairemont Drive Station, the platforms would be separated from the parking 

facilities by Morena Boulevard. Access between the platforms and the parking lot would 

be provided by a pedestrian crosswalk at the existing signalized intersection at Ingulf 

Street and Morena Boulevard. The pedestrian capacity of the signalized intersection is 

sufficient to serve passenger demand. Direct connection of the parking lot and the 

station platforms via a pedestrian bridge is not possible due to lack of available right-ofway at the platforms. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not adversely affect 

pedestrian and bicycle safety. 

Trespassing 

To reduce the risk of trespassing into the existing MTS right-of-way north of the San 

Diego River, the project would include access-control measures, such as fencing, 

signage, and retaining walls. The project is primarily on an aerial structure north of 

SR 52, and access to the guideway would be limited because of this vertical separation. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-162 September 2014

The Refined Build Alternative would not increase or encourage trespassing; therefore, it 

would not result in an adverse impact. 

Rail Safety and Transport of Hazardous Materials 

The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway operates freight service in the LOSSAN corridor 

within the study area. Hazardous materials could be transported on the LOSSAN corridor 

tracks. Based on the accident history of the study area, the potential for derailment and 

subsequent exposure of Trolley passengers to hazardous materials is low. If a derailment 

were to occur, the derailment would be communicated to all rail operators and any safety 

measures and cleanup would be under the control of city emergency responders with 

assistance from rail operators. In the event of a derailment, Trolley service would be 

suspended and passengers would be bused to their destination. 

The potential exists for Trolley vehicles to derail along the alignment. However, 

derailment is very rare and no derailments have occurred since 2009. In case of a 

derailment, the accident would be communicated to the MTS dispatcher and all rail 

operators in the area, and Trolley service would be terminated and passengers would be 

safely evacuated in accordance with MTS policies and procedures. Any derailment of 

the Trolley that could impact the LOSSAN tracks would be communicated to the 

LOSSAN dispatcher, and all LOSSAN services would be terminated until the operating 

entities cleared the tracks for operation. Therefore, the project would have no adverse 

impact on passenger safety resulting from the transport of hazardous materials on 

freight rail or from a Trolley derailment. 

Crime Prevention and Security 

Each station would have closed-circuit security cameras, roving code enforcement or 

compliance inspectors, and a transit security force. The code enforcement inspectors 

and transit security force would be expanded as required to serve the new Trolley 

stations within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The station designs would incorporate the 

principles of CPTED, such as open visible platforms with lighting and security cameras. 

Additionally, signs with phone numbers would be posted at stations for use if transit 

patrons or the general public observe suspicious activity within the station area. 

Consistent with current MTS policy, anyone observed by the roving code enforcement 

inspectors in a fare paid area without proof of a paid fare would be asked to leave the 

premises. It is anticipated that the project would incorporate design features, such as 

benches, that do not allow people to lie down comfortably, consistent with current MTS 

practice. 

Research conducted for the Mission Valley East Trolley extension found that the 

extension did not substantially affect crime around stations (SANDAG, 2007b); the 

results were used to assess potential impacts of the Trolley Blue Line extension into the 

Mid-Coast Corridor. The results of the study indicate that the Trolley Green Line 

extension has not negatively impacted crime rates in the Mission Valley Corridor, and it 

concluded that it is unlikely that the Trolley Blue Line extension would significantly 

impact crime rates in the Mid-Coast Corridor. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative 

would not have an adverse impact on the security of neighborhoods around stations. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-163 

Mass transit systems could be a target for terrorists because of the potential to inflict 

mass casualties and cause substantial damage or disrupt critical infrastructure. Project 

design would meet all requirements of the TSA to reduce the risk of terrorist attack. The 

potential for a terrorist attack on the system would not increase with implementation of 

the project. The potential of a terrorist attack on the system because of the project is low 

and would be reduced through compliance with the requirements of the TSA. The 

project would not create conditions that facilitate criminal activity or create an opportunity 

for terrorism with a moderate-to-high likelihood that such an act would be perpetrated. 

Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have an adverse security impact due to 

criminal activity or terrorism. 

Community Emergency Response Services 

An adverse impact on fire and police services would occur if operation of the Refined Build 

Alternative were to increase emergency response times in the community or require 

additional emergency or safety personnel. Independent of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project, a new fire station is under construction on the west side of the tracks at Pacific 

Highway and Cedar Street to address existing service delays related to grade crossings 

(Figure 4-28). This new fire station will eliminate any concerns regarding emergency service 

delay for accidents on either side of the alignment. Fire and emergency medical services 

personnel also use live mapping software that alerts drivers of any activities that may 

impede travel times to and from the scene of an emergency. Emergency responders are 

able to see which roadways are experiencing delays caused by construction, accidents, 

or other events, and would be able to take alternate routes by using Grape, Hawthorn, 

and Laurel Streets, which all are grade separated from the Trolley tracks, or another 

grade crossing. Locations of police stations and hospitals within the corridor are shown 

in Figure 4-5 in Section 4.2. 

Although no new grade crossings would be created, the gates at existing grade 

crossings would be activated more frequently under the Refined Build Alternative 

compared to the No-Build Alternative. To minimize the impact to traffic from the 

additional trains, gate down times would be optimized for Trolleys at all grade crossings 

and for the northbound COASTER and Amtrak trains traveling through the Taylor Street 

grade crossing. These improvements, which would be included in the project, would 

decrease the average and maximum times that the gates are down. Under the Refined 

Build Alternative, maximum gate down times could be half the maximum gate down 

times experienced under the No-Build Alternative. This improvement in gate operation 

would benefit emergency responders traveling near and through the grade crossings. 

As noted in Section 4.13.2, accidents and injuries on the existing Trolley system are 

infrequent and less than national rates for LRT systems. Additionally, the Refined Build 

Alternative would be in exclusive right-of-way north of the San Diego River and would be 

operated in accordance with MTS standard operating procedures, operator rules, and 

the emergency plan. The rate of accidents and injuries under the Refined Build 

Alternative is not expected to increase compared to the No-Build Alternative and would 

not substantially increase demands on emergency service providers. No adverse impact 

is expected on hospitals and other emergency medical facilities or responders in the 

study area as a result of the project. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-164 September 2014

Figure 4-28. Location of Fire Stations Relative to Grade Crossings 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-165 

Seismic Safety 

The stations, aerial structures, cut-and-cover undercrossing, and bridges constructed as 

part of the project could be susceptible to ground shaking, seismically induced 

settlement, and fault rupture. During the Engineering phase of the project, studies will 

be conducted to determine the exact location of potential fault ruptures so that bridges 

can be designed to meet current seismic design standards of SANDAG and Caltrans. 

With the structural design measures for seismic safety included in the project, as 

described in Section 4.11 and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Geotechnical, 

Geologic, and Seismic Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014i), no adverse direct 

safety impacts would occur as a result of the Refined Build Alternative. Additionally, 

MTS has established operating procedures in case of a seismic event during operating 

hours. Therefore, no adverse direct safety impacts are expected under the project. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

The project measures noted in the previous sections would avoid or minimize the impacts of 

the Refined Build Alternative. These project measures are summarized as follows: 

 Development of a Safety and Security Certification Plan and compliance with the 

plan 

 Safety certification by CPUC 

 Construction of all new tracks in exclusive right-of-way without any new grade 

crossings, and installation of access control features, such as fencing, along the 

right-of-way 

 Compliance with NFPA 130 requirements (NFPA, 2010) 

 Installation of pedestrian bridges at aerial stations that would be located near or 

within public streets, thereby reducing the number of passengers that would cross 

the streets at crosswalks 

 Incorporation of security features at stations, such as closed circuit televisions and 

roving security forces 

 Incorporation of the principles of CPTED in station design 

 Compliance with the requirements of the TSA 

 Code compliance in design of bridges and other major structures for seismic events 

4.13.4 Mitigation Measures 

Safety and security measures would be incorporated into the design of the project. 

Therefore, the project would avoid adverse impacts to the safety and security of Trolley 

system employees; the general public, including Trolley system passengers; and 

vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic in the vicinity of the stations and grade 

crossings during long-term operations. As a result, no mitigation would be required by 

the project. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-166 September 2014

4.13.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above and the CEQA threshold of significance and additional discussion 

below. 

4.13.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed a CEQA threshold of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project on safety and security. 

Would the project substantially limit delivery of community safety services, such as 

police, fire, or emergency services, to locations along the proposed alignment? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would have no impact 

because, as discussed in Section 4.13.3.1, it would not alter conditions within the 

community in a manner that would affect the delivery of community safety services, nor 

would it generate demand for any increase in staff or new facilities. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed in Section 

4.13.3.2, the Refined Build Alternative would not substantially limit the delivery of 

community safety services. Although no new grade crossings would be created, the 

gates at existing grade crossings would be activated more frequently with the additional 

trains under the Refined Build Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative. To 

minimize the impact of the additional trains, gate down times would be optimized as part 

of the project for Trolleys at all grade crossings and for the northbound COASTER and 

Amtrak trains traveling through the Taylor Street grade crossing. Traffic mitigation 

measures (as described in Section 3.4.2.3) would include optimization of traffic signals 

and lane modifications at some intersections adjacent to several grade crossings; these 

measures would reduce vehicular delay. The improved gate operation and the traffic 

mitigation measures would reduce delay for all vehicles, including emergency service 

vehicles. 

To address the existing emergency response delays resulting from gate down times, a 

new fire station is under construction on the west side of the tracks at Pacific Highway 

and Cedar Street. This new fire station will eliminate potential emergency service delay 

for accidents on either side of the alignment. In addition, emergency responders would 

be able to use streets with Trolley grade separations to respond to emergencies. 

4.13.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

Impacts of the Refined Build Alternative would be less than significant, and no mitigation 

would be required for the project. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-167 

4.14 Electromagnetic Interference 

This section describes impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

exposure to electric and magnetic fields, known as electromagnetic fields (EMFs). It 

also identifies measures to minimize or mitigate EMF impacts. For additional 

information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Electromagnetic Field 

Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014r) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents concluded there would be no adverse impacts from 

electromagnetic interference (EMI). The analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR stated that land 

uses have been identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor that contain equipment sensitive to 

interference from EMF produced by Trolley operations. Equipment that is very sensitive, 

such as electron microscopes, could be adversely impacted by EMF fluctuations caused 

by the project and could require mitigation through incorporation of additional design 

features into the project or mitigation at the receptor location. The Draft SEIS/SEIR 

concluded that with the implementation of mitigation, impacts would not be adverse 

under NEPA and would be less than significant under CEQA. 

This section has been revised based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

refinements to the Build Alternative, and coordination with stakeholders. During the 

comment period for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, comment letters were received from project 

stakeholders indicating their concern over potential EMF impacts. Specifically, UCSD 

and Scripps Hospital both have facilities that house equipment and instruments sensitive 

to magnetic field perturbation in the vicinity of the alignment. As a result, additional 

analysis was conducted to determine whether the mitigation measures identified in the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR would be sufficient to avoid impacts to equipment at these facilities. It 

was determined that mitigation at the source would be sufficient to avoid impacts to 

sensitive equipment in the UCSD Structural and Materials Engineering (SME) Building; 

however, even with mitigation at the source, the project could affect sensitive equipment 

located in the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building. Based on these findings, and comments 

from Scripps Hospital, a refinement to the Build Alternative was developed that shifts the 

LRT alignment to the south side of Voigt Drive. With the shift, the project-related EMI at 

the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building would be substantially reduced, and mitigation at 

the source would be sufficient to avoid impacts to equipment. As a result of the updated 

analysis, the mitigation measures that were presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR were 

refined. Refer to the Preface of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Electromagnetic 

Field Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014r) for additional information on the changes 

to the EMF analysis and technical report since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The conclusions in 

this section remain unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. With the mitigation as 

refined, there would not be adverse or significant impacts as a result of EMF interference 

under the Refined Build Alternative. 

4.14.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

EMFs are produced by voltages and currents wherever wires distribute electric power 

and electrical equipment is used. Federal and state governments have not set EMF 

exposure standards for health and safety. The International Commission on NonIonizing Radiation Protection and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists have set guidelines for alternating current magnetic fields, but these are 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-168 September 2014

much higher than the levels that occur near the Trolley system. There is no consensus 

in the scientific and regulatory communities in regard to whether low-level EMF exposure 

adversely impacts human health, and no scientific evidence that the extremely low levels 

of EMFs that would be produced by the Refined Build Alternative could result in adverse 

health impacts. The City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds

(City of San Diego, 2011a) direct that evaluations be conducted in accordance with 

CEQA Section 15145, which summarizes the known information without reaching a 

conclusion of significance. The city’s CEQA thresholds state that a statement or 

conclusion of CEQA significance for EMF health impacts would be speculative. 

Fluctuations in EMFs may temporarily interfere in a measurable way with the operation 

of sensitive equipment, which can include, but may not be limited to, electron 

microscopes, nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, and magnetic resonance 

imaging equipment used for medical diagnostic purposes. The thresholds at which a 

change in the static levels of EMF could impact sensitive instruments are identified in 

Table 4-28. The thresholds are expressed in milligauss (mG), which is a unit of 

magnetic field strength. The most sensitive equipment can be affected by a fluctuation 

of 0.5 mG in the background levels of EMF. Electronic household items are generally 

not impacted by fluctuations in EMF and they generate their own EMFs that could affect 

sensitive equipment at close distances. 

Table 4-28. Static Magnetic Field Thresholds for Sensitive Instruments 

Instrument Static Field Change Threshold, mG

Research nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer 0.5 

Research mass spectrometer 0.5 

Magnetic resonance imaging 4 

Electron microscopes and X-ray analyzers 

(Hitachi and JEOL) 

1 mG/5 min, 

(0.3 mG/5 min ac)1

Scanning electron microscope 

(FEI–Philips) 

1 mG @ dc and other low frequencies 

(3 mG @ 60 Hz) 

Source: Bracken, 2000 

Notes: 1 Rate of change to the magnetic field over a 5-minute period at 60 Hz 

 ac = alternating current; dc = direct current; Hz = hertz; mG = milligauss; min = minutes 

 Static Field Change = The change in the background levels of electromagnetic fields 

The study area for analysis of EMF impacts included all areas that may have sensitive 

equipment that could be impacted by EMF in the vicinity of the project alignment and 

TPSSs. The distance at which equipment could be impacted by EMF varies by the type, 

sensitivity, location, and sometimes the orientation of the equipment employed at a 

particular site. Very sensitive equipment, such as electron microscopes, could be 

impacted by changes in the levels of EMF generated by the project at distances several 

hundred feet away from the tracks. 

EMF levels generated by the project were estimated from a three-dimensional (3-D) 

computer model developed to calculate magnetic field densities. The model was 

developed for areas identified to contain facilities with equipment sensitive to the EMI 

from Trolley operations. It was then calibrated based on the data collected from a field 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-169 

survey of the magnetic fields from existing Trolley operations, and populated with 

currents from a computerized load-flow simulation program. Magnetic fields at various 

distances from the Trolley were determined, and contour plots of the density of magnetic 

fields surrounding the project alignment were generated. The model assumed a typical 

standard traction power distribution system employed elsewhere on the Trolley system 

where the electrical current is supplied to each vehicle from a substation to the overhead 

messenger wire, then to the overhead contact wire, through the pantograph, and then 

returned back to the substation via the wheels and steel rails. This configuration creates 

a magnetic field that decreases inversely with the square of the distance from the tracks. 

The 3-D model was used to calculate project-induced magnetic fields for areas of the 

project alignment with sensitive equipment. Potential impacts to sensitive equipment 

were estimated under a worst-case condition with the highest magnetic fields. The 

highest magnetic fields were found to occur when the light-rail trains accelerate away 

from a station, so the worst-case condition would occur when trains occupying both sets 

of tracks accelerate away from a station. To determine whether equipment sensitive to 

EMF would be affected, the magnetic field contours at the location of the equipment 

were compared to the threshold levels at which the functionality of the equipment could 

be affected. The results of the modeling are presented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014r). 

4.14.2 Affected Environment 

EMF-sensitive equipment is used in research, manufacturing, medical, and military 

facilities. Many facilities use tools and equipment dependent upon the Earth’s steady 

geomagnetic field for reliable operation. EMF levels in areas surrounding the existing 

MTS tracks south of the San Diego River already are subject to substantial fluctuations 

in EMF levels as a result of existing Trolley operations. The Refined Build Alternative 

would change the characteristic of the EMF levels through the addition of TPSS stations, 

increased frequency of service, and more frequent use of longer (four-car) trains. These 

changes could affect the frequency of EMF fluctuation events and may increase the 

frequency of higher magnitude EMF fluctuation events. However, this is not expected to 

impact sensitive equipment that is already operating in the area, as the area is subject to 

similar levels of EMF fluctuations from the existing Trolley service. For this reason, the 

assessment of EMI impacts on sensitive equipment focused on areas north of the San 

Diego River. 

Based on a review of existing land uses, it was determined that the following areas near 

the Mid-Coast Corridor alignment could have facilities with EMF-sensitive equipment: 

 University City: Existing land uses possibly affected by project EMFs include office 

buildings and medical facilities near Genesee Avenue and Voigt Drive. These 

facilities are located as close as 70 feet from the centerline of the nearest track. No 

facilities were identified in this area during public review of the Draft SEIS/SEIR or as 

part of ongoing outreach efforts as housing equipment that could be affected by 

Trolley-generated EMFs. 

 UCSD: The newly constructed SME Building and its future extension could house 

equipment that could be affected by Trolley-generated EMFs. The existing building 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-170 September 2014

is located about 100 feet from the nearest track, and the future extension would be 

located as close as 37 feet from the nearest track. No other existing facilities on the 

UCSD campus were identified during coordination to house equipment that could be 

affected by Trolley-generated EMFs. 

 Regional Hospitals: Hospitals in proximity to the Trolley line that could be affected 

by EMFs include the VA Medical Center and Scripps Hospital. Both facilities are 

proposing expansions that would bring their footprints closer to the Trolley line. 

Scripps Hospital identified that the XiMed Building houses medical equipment that 

could be affected by Trolley-generated EMFs. These facilities are located between 

100 and 300 feet from the nearest track. No other regional hospital facilities were 

identified during coordination to house equipment that could be affected by Trolleygenerated EMFs. 

 Balboa Avenue Station: Several medical offices are located near Balboa Avenue. 

The closest is within 500 feet of the tracks, along the west side of I-5. No facilities 

were identified in this area during public review of the Draft SEIS/SEIR or as part of 

ongoing outreach efforts as housing equipment that could be affected by Trolleygenerated EMFs. 

Coordination with stakeholders identified sensitive equipment located in buildings 

adjacent to the project alignment on the UCSD West Campus and at Scripps Hospital 

adjacent to the project alignment on Voigt Drive. The VA Medical Center does not have 

any sensitive equipment within the vicinity of the alignment that could be affected by EMI 

from Trolley operations. 

On the UCSD West Campus, a nanoengineering facility is located in the far west end of 

the SME Building located northwest of the proposed UCSD West Station. The facility 

houses a suite of instruments, including several transmission and scanning electron 

microscopes. The electron microscopes at UCSD generally have an operating threshold 

of 1.0 mG, beyond which the functionality of the instruments could be adversely affected. 

This equipment is more than 400 feet from the nearest LRT track. 

The Scripps Hospital XiMed Building on the north side of Voigt Drive and east of I-5 

contains several magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units. SANDAG established an 

operating threshold of 4.0 mG for the MRI equipment in the Scripps Hospital XiMed 

Building based on the referenced threshold in Table 4-28. The building is 168 feet from 

the edge of the aerial structure for the project alignment. 

4.14.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the EMF impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives 

on sensitive equipment. There are no conclusive findings regarding the health effects of 

low-level EMF typical of electrically powered rail vehicles. Magnetic fields from the 

planned direct current traction system for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would 

be transient in nature and low frequency. Further, EMF levels produced by the project, 

under all anticipated conditions, would be well below the threshold limits specified by 

voluntary guidelines to prevent short-term adverse health effects from EMF exposure 

across a wide range of frequencies. Therefore, a conclusion regarding health impacts 

from EMF would be speculative. EMF levels experienced by passengers and individuals 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-171 

near the Trolley system would be substantially less than criteria established by the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (2002), which are frequency-dependent 

and range between 2,290 mG and 180,100 mG in the range of 1 hertz to 3 kilohertz. For 

this reason, the analysis of EMF impacts was limited to adverse impacts of EMF on 

sensitive equipment. 

4.14.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

constructed and the only physical change would be the continuation and enhancement 

of service on bus Route 150. The enhanced bus service would be located on existing or 

proposed roads using standard (non-electrified) vehicles, and would not change EMF 

levels. Therefore, no adverse impacts would result under the No-Build Alternative. 

4.14.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative would be powered by electricity from a traction power 

distribution system fed from TPSSs located along the project alignment. The power 

system generates electromagnetic emissions as well as the movement of transit vehicles 

that disturbs the earth’s naturally occurring magnetic field. The latter is referred to as 

geomagnetic or ferromagnetic perturbation. The power system would generate 

emissions with frequencies in the range of 0 to 3 kilohertz. Levels of EMF generated at 

any one location by the flow of electricity depend on the configuration of the traction 

power distribution system, the locations of TPSSs and passenger stations, and the 

movement of transit vehicles relative to the sensitive receptor and the equipment of 

concern. 

To determine the potential for adverse impacts on sensitive equipment at the UCSD 

SME and Scripps Hospital XiMed Buildings as a result of the project, site-specific 3-D 

modeling was conducted for the project alignment from the VA Medical Center Station 

north through the UCSD campus and then along Voigt Drive near Scripps Hospital to 

Genesee Avenue. The model was used to calculate project-induced magnetic field 

fluctuation contours over an area covering both the UCSD SME and Scripps Hospital 

XiMed Buildings. 

The magnetic field fluctuation contour plots for trains accelerating away from the UCSD 

West Station showed the UCSD SME Building to be within magnetic field contours of 5 

to 50 mG. These levels, although they are within the range of the ambient fluctuations 

observed at some exterior locations at UCSD, would exceed the threshold of 1.0 mG for 

electron microscopes operating in the UCSD SME Building, and the instruments would 

be adversely affected by Trolley operations under worst-case conditions. The magnetic 

field contour plots for trains accelerating away from the UCSD East Station showed the 

Scripps Hospital XiMed Building to be within magnetic field fluctuation contours of 20 to 

50 mG. These EMF fluctuations would exceed the threshold of 4.0 mG for MRI 

machines operating in the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building. Under these conditions, the 

MRI machines could be adversely affected by Trolley operations. 

In addition to the modeling of the worst-case condition from the traction power system 

for each sensitive equipment location, a model run was conducted to determine impacts 

of combined ferromagnetic fields with electromagnetic fields on sensitive equipment in 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-172 September 2014

the UCSD SME and Scripps Hospital XiMed Buildings. Ferromagnetic field impacts are 

generated by metallic objects, such as trains and vehicles, moving through the Earth’s 

magnetic field. The analysis determined that the impact of ferromagnetism due to the 

motion of the trains does not materially affect the maximum field disturbance. 

4.14.4 Mitigation Measures 

Because the project-generated levels of EMF could adversely affect sensitive 

equipment, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce EMF levels when 

necessary to avoid adversely impacting sensitive equipment. SANDAG considered a 

range of potential mitigation strategies to eliminate EMI impacts to sensitive equipment. 

These included implementing design measures to reduce EMF fluctuations at the 

source, as well as measures that would reduce EMI impacts at the receptor (that is, at 

the location of the sensitive equipment). The evaluation of mitigation for adverse 

impacts on the UCSD SME and Scripps Hospital XiMed Buildings as a result of the 

project focused first on mitigation at the source. The Draft SEIS/SEIR also included 

mitigation measures at the receptor, such as the use of active magnetic field cancelation 

and passive shielding, as well as the potential relocation or reoriented of sensitive 

equipment. These would have been required if mitigation at the source was not fully 

effective in reducing EMI impacts. 

Mitigation considered at the source consisted of modifications in the design and 

configuration of the project’s traction power supply. The project design provides for a 

standard power configuration. The 

modification in the configuration of the 

project’s traction power supply would 

consist of replacing the overhead 

catenary system (OCS) messenger 

wire located above the contact wire 

with a parallel feeder cable located 

below each track but connected to 

the OCS wire intermittently with cable 

risers at OCS poles (Figure 4-29). 

The modified electrical system would 

create a quadrupole, which is an 

electrical system composed of two 

dipoles of equal but oppositely 

directed electric current. This design 

is known as a split-power (or more 

specifically a high-low, single-split) 

system and has been used 

successfully on other projects to 

reduce the magnitude of the 

magnetic fields in areas where 

sensitive equipment is located. 

The effectiveness of the split-power 

configuration system was modeled 

within the UCSD West and UCSD East 

Figure 4-29. Modified Electrical System 

with Parallel Feeder Cable Below Tracks 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-173 

Station areas to estimate peak magnetic fields at the UCSD SME Building and the 

Scripps Hospital XiMed Building under a worst-case condition when the light rail trains 

occupying both sets of tracks are accelerating away from a station. The results of the 

modeling found that the EMF fluctuations would be below 1 mG at the location of 

sensitive equipment identified at the UCSD SME Building and would be below 4 mG at 

the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building. Therefore, EMI impacts would not be adverse. 

SANDAG has incorporated the mitigation specified in EMF1 below into the project 

design. 

EMF1 Project impacts to identified equipment that is sensitive to EMI at the UCSD 

SME Building and the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building would be mitigated 

through the use the split-power configuration system with a parallel feeder cable 

located below each track connected to the OCS wire intermittently with cable 

risers at OCS poles, rather than using the overhead messenger wires, in the 

areas near these buildings. In these areas, the feeder cables would be located 

in line with the centerline of the track (single-split power supply) in order to get 

feeder cable and return current (the rails) as close as possible and reduce the 

magnetic fields. 

This modeling confirms that mitigation at the source can be implemented to minimize 

potential magnetic field effects on identified sensitive equipment or instruments located 

in proximity to the project alignment. Therefore, no additional mitigation (e.g., mitigation 

at the receptor) is required. 

4.14.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA threshold of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.14.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has determined that with regard to health impacts, in accordance with 

CEQA Guideline Section 15145, the known information regarding EMF and health 

impacts has been summarized without reaching a conclusion of significance. SANDAG 

has determined that a statement or conclusion of CEQA significance for EMF health 

impacts would be speculative. 

With regard to significant EMF impacts to sensitive equipment, SANDAG has adopted 

the following CEQA threshold of significance: 

Would the project create fluctuations in EMF levels that could affect the operation of 

EMF-sensitive equipment? 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). The No-Build Alternative would have no impact 

because it would not create fluctuations in EMF levels. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined 

Build Alternative would result in a significant impact because, as described in Section 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-174 September 2014

4.14.3.2, it could create fluctuation in EMF levels where sensitive equipment is located 

and affect the operation of the equipment. Mitigation would reduce interference from 

project-generated EMF to below impact criteria. 

4.14.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

As described in Section 4.14.4, a split-power distribution system would reduce 

interference from project-generated EMF to below impact criteria (1.0 mG for electron 

microscopes operating in the UCSD SME Building and 4.0 mG for MRI machines 

operating in the Scripps Hospital XiMed Building). This measure has been effectively 

implemented to reduce the levels of EMF for other transit systems. With mitigation, 

impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. No significant impacts would 

remain. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-175 

4.15 Historic Architectural, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources 

This section describes the effects of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives on 

historic architectural, archaeological, and paleontological resources and any required 

mitigation measures to minimize effects. The resources are collectively referred to as 

cultural resources. For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report (SANDAG, 2013c) 

and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Effects Report (SANDAG, 

2014k). The analysis in this section is also based upon information contained in the 

following confidential reports: the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological 

Resources Survey Report (SANDAG, 2013e), the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Supplemental Research Report (SANDAG, 2013d), the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation 

Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a), and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l)15. Correspondence with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is provided in Appendix C. 

The prior environmental documents identified direct and indirect impacts to 14 historic 

architectural and archaeological resources in the corridor. Of the 14 identified resources, 10 

were listed, or potentially eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), and the analysis in those documents determined that the project would avoid or 

minimize impacts to the identified resources. The prior environmental documents concluded 

that no adverse effects to cultural resources would occur during operation and maintenance 

of the project. 

A new survey was conducted for the Draft SEIS/SEIR because the previous surveys were 

conducted in 1991, 1992, and 1998, and required updating. The analysis in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR also concluded that there would be no adverse effects to cultural resources 

during operation and maintenance of the project. However, during construction of the 

project, it was assumed that there would be adverse effects to four archaeological sites that 

were preliminarily determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, subject to verification during 

the Extended Phase I investigations, as described in Section 4.17 of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

This section has been revised based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

additional coordination with the SHPO, and results of the Extended Phase I 

investigations conducted subsequent to the distribution of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. As 

evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the FTA preliminarily determined five historic 

architectural properties and four archaeological sites within the Area of Potential Effects 

(APE) to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and the California Register of Historical 

Resources (CRHR). The four archaeological sites were preliminarily determined eligible 

for listing in the NRHP subject to verification during the Extended Phase I investigations. 

In a letter dated August 2, 2013, the SHPO concurred that the five historic architectural 

properties were eligible for listing in the NRHP, but stated that further consultation would 

be needed to determine NRHP eligibility of the four archaeological sites. As 

documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources 

Extended Phase I Investigation Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a), 

archaeological deposits associated with the four archaeological sites were not identified 

 

15 Note, this report has not been revised since circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-176 September 2014

or detected within the archaeological APE during the Extended Phase I investigations; 

therefore, the project would not result in impacts on previously recorded archaeological 

resources. Based on prior analysis conducted for the Draft SEIS/SEIR and results of the 

Extended Phase I investigations, the FTA made a determination of “no historic 

properties affected” with respect to archaeological resources and a finding of “no 

adverse effect” on the five historic architectural properties pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). On April 9, 2014, the SHPO concurred with 

the FTA’s finding of “no adverse effect” for the undertaking. Comments received on the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did not require any changes to 

the evaluation of the five paleontologically sensitive geologic units within the Mid-Coast 

Corridor in this section of the SEIS/SEIR. The conclusions in this section have changed 

from the conclusions in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Based upon the additional investigation 

conducted and consultation, this section now concludes that the Refined Build Alternative 

would not result in any adverse or significant impacts to cultural resources under NEPA or 

CEQA, and there would be no adverse effect to historic properties under Section 106. 

4.15.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

This section describes the federal, state, and local historic architectural, archaeological, and 

paleontological resources preservation laws, regulations, and requirements and how they 

were applied for the analysis of effects of the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.15.1.1 Regulatory Background 

The project is subject to compliance with the NHPA of 1966, as amended. Section 106 

of the NHPA requires federal agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed undertaking to 

consider the undertaking’s effect on historic properties (consisting of any prehistoric or 

historic district, site, building, structure, or object) eligible for inclusion or listed in the 

NRHP. The lead federal agency, in consultation with the SHPO and/or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer, is responsible for determining eligibility for the NRHP listing and for 

the finding of effect. The federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may 

participate in the consultation process. 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 also applies to historic 

properties. Section 4(f) is addressed in Chapter 5.0 of this document. 

According to CEQA, historical resources include any resource listed, or determined to be 

eligible for listing, in the CRHR. The CRHR automatically includes properties listed in or 

determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, such as those identified in the Section 106 

process. This automatically makes all “historic properties” under federal preservation law 

“historical resources” under state preservation law. Historical resources also are presumed 

significant if they are included in a local register of historical resources or identified as 

significant in a qualified historical resources survey. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA 

Guidelines sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining significant historical 

resources and a project’s effects on such resources. The City of San Diego has regulations 

and guidelines to protect, preserve, and—if damaged—restore historical resources. The city 

has defined CEQA significance criteria for properties eligible for the San Diego Register of 

Historical Resources (SDRHR). If a property is determined to be NRHP or CRHR eligible 

and SHPO concurs, it will automatically meet Criterion E of the SDRHR, which states: a 

property that “is listed or has been determined eligible by the National Park Service for listing 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-177 

on the [NRHP] or is listed or has been determined eligible by the State Historical 

Preservation Office for listing on the State Register of Historical Resources.” 

Paleontological resources are not considered historic properties and generally are not 

evaluated under the Section 106 process. The American Antiquities Act and NEPA 

protect paleontological resources on federal lands; however, as none of the right-of-way 

for the project is on federal land, paleontological resources are not evaluated under 

NEPA for this project. 

CEQA categorizes paleontological resources as cultural resources and requires an 

impact evaluation for such resources. California Code—Chapter 1.7: Archaeological, 

Paleontological, and Historical Sites, protects paleontological resources (PRC 5097.5). 

4.15.1.2 Methodology 

This section describes the methodology for identification and consultation with interested 

parties in compliance with Section 106; identification of the APE; criteria for identification and 

evaluation of historic architectural, archaeological, and paleontological resources; research 

and survey efforts undertaken to identify historic architectural, archaeological, and 

paleontological resources within the APE; and assessment of effects on historic properties. 

Identification and Consultation with Interested Parties 

Section 106 regulations require federal agencies to identify all historic properties within 

the APE and to evaluate historic properties by gathering information from consulting 

parties, applying the NRHP criteria, and seeking concurrence from SHPO or Native 

American tribes, as appropriate. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.3, the FTA 

initiated the Section 106 process with SHPO and personnel from the Office of Historic 

Preservation on October 6, 2011, via a notification letter. The results of the consultation 

efforts are documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property 

Survey and Eligibility Determination Report (SANDAG, 2013c). 

SANDAG made an extensive effort to identify, contact, and consult with groups who 

have demonstrated interest relating to historic architectural, archaeological, and 

paleontological resources within the APE. Local historical societies, archaeological 

societies, and museums were contacted to identify historic properties and/or cultural 

resources within the APE. None of the contacted organizations identified historic 

properties, but the San Diego Archaeological Center offered to curate any 

archaeological artifacts that might be found. 

The FTA also consulted with federally recognized Native American Tribes, as 

documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Survey 

Report (SANDAG, 2013e). In response to consultation and as part of Draft SEIS/SEIR 

comments, the Native American Heritage Commission and tribal representatives 

identified areas of potential resources in the vicinity of the project. The Draft SEIS/SEIR 

comments and responses can be found in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final 

SEIS/SEIR—Volume 3: Comments and Responses. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-178 September 2014

Identification of Area of Potential Effects 

A project’s APE is "the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause 

changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist" (36 CFR 

800.2(c)). For the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, the FTA defined a project-specific 

APE in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.16(d) and the SHPO concurred with the APE on 

October 28, 2011. The APE is shown on maps in Appendix A of the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report (SANDAG, 

2013c). The project’s APE was delineated to ensure the identification of significant historic 

architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources that may be directly or indirectly affected 

by the project and that are listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. 

The archaeological APE includes areas that could be affected by the maximum extent of 

project-related ground disturbance, including construction of new tracks, stations, and 

TPSSs; modification of existing public or private facilities, including existing TPSSs proposed 

for equipment upgrades; use of temporary construction easements, temporary 

encroachments, and construction staging areas; grading; and utility trenching. Additionally, 

the historic architectural APE also includes additional areas that the project could directly or 

indirectly affect. Direct effects include physical changes to historic architectural resources. 

Indirect effects include visual effects or effects caused by noise or vibration. 

Criteria for Identification and Evaluation of Historic Architectural, Archaeological, and Paleontological 

Resources 

This section describes the criteria for identification and evaluation of historic 

architectural, archaeological, and paleontological resources. 

Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources 

The NRHP criteria (36 CFR 60.4) assess whether properties that would be 50 years or older 

at project completion would meet the eligibility requirements for listing in the NRHP. For 

listing, a property must meet one of the NRHP criteria for evaluation, as described below: 

 Criterion A: A resource associated with events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history 

 Criterion B: A resource associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 

 Criterion C: A resource that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, 

period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses 

high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction 

 Criterion D: A resource that has yielded or may be likely to yield information 

important in prehistory or history 

In addition, Criterion G allows a property of exceptional importance that is less than 50 

years old and meets one of the above criteria to be considered for the NRHP. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-179 

Under California law, generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 

“historically significant” if the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing on the 

CRHR (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), including the following: 

 Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage 

 Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important in our past 

 Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or 

method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or 

possesses high artistic values 

 Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history 

If a property does not qualify for listing in the CRHR, it still may be considered historically 

significant at the local level. In the City of San Diego, the Guidelines for the Application 

of Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria (City of San Diego Historical 

Resources Board, 2011), state the following: ...any improvement, building, structure, 

sign, interior element and fixture, site, place, district, area, or object may be designated a 

historical resource by the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board if it meets one or 

more of the following criteria: 

 Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s, a community’s, or a 

neighborhood‘s, historical, archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, 

aesthetic, engineering, landscaping or architectural development 

 Identifies with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history 

 Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of 

construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or 

craftsmanship 

 Represents notable work of a master builder, designer, architect, engineer, 

landscape architect, interior designer, artist, or craftsman 

 Listed or has been determined eligible by the National Park Service for listing on the 

NRHP or is listed or has been determined eligible by the State Historical 

Preservation Office for listing on the State Register of Historical Resources 

 Represents a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly 

distinguishable way or is a geographically definable area or neighborhood containing 

improvements which have a special character, historical interest, or aesthetic value 

or which represent one or more architectural periods or styles in the history and 

development of the city

The above described federal and state criteria were used to evaluate the APE’s pre1966 historic architectural and archaeological resources. Properties listed on the 

SDRHR were evaluated. Furthermore, if a property is determined to be NRHP or CRHR 

eligible and SHPO concurs, it will automatically meet Criterion E of the SDRHR. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-180 September 2014

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources include fossilized plants and animals. Paleontologists assign 

geologic units a high, low, or undetermined sensitivity as it relates to the potential to 

contain paleontological resources (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable 

Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee, 1995). 

A paleontological resource may be significant because of its rarity and the scientific 

information it provides if it meets any of the following criteria (Scott and Springer, 2003): 

 Provides data on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among 

organisms, both living and extinct 

 Provides data useful in determining the age(s) of the geologic unit or stratigraphy, as 

well as timing of associated geological events 

 Provides information pertaining to past biological community development and 

zoological/botanical biota interaction 

 Demonstrates unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life 

 Is not abundant or found in other geographic locations and may be in danger of 

being depleted or destroyed by the elements or vandalism 

 Is considered a type or topotype (taken from its normal habitat) specimen 

CEQA does not define what constitutes “a unique paleontological resource or site.” 

However, Section 21083.2 does define unique archaeological resources and states the 

following: As used in this section, “unique archaeological resources” means an 

archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, 

without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it 

meets any of the following criteria: 

 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and 

that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information 

 Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best 

available example of its type 

 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized import prehistoric or historic 

event 

CEQA Section 15064.5 (a)(3)(D) also indicates “generally, a resource shall be 

considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information 

important in prehistory or history.” 

Research and Survey Efforts to Identify Historic Architectural, Archaeological, and Paleontological 

Resources 

This section summarizes the research and survey efforts undertaken to identify historic 

architectural, archaeological, and paleontological resources within the APE. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-181 

Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources 

To identify known and potential historic architectural and archaeological resources, a 

variety of research methods was used, including the following: 

 Records searches, including, but not limited to, a review of South Coastal 

Information Center, NRHP, CRHR, and state and local historical landmarks records, 

as well as previous cultural resource studies 

 Consultation with federally recognized Native American tribes who may have 

knowledge of archaeological resources or sites of Native American concern within 

the APE 

 Archival research, including, but not limited to, a review of historic aerial 

photographs, historic maps, building and facility permits and construction dates, 

online databases, and reports documenting the area’s history 

 Contact of parties who may have information or knowledge of historic properties 

within the APE 

Field surveys and investigations were conducted to verify previously recorded 

information and to identify and document previously unrecorded historic architectural 

and archaeological resources within the APE. Historic architectural resources more than 

45 years of age (pre-1966) were recorded on California Department of Parks and 

Recreation 523 forms. 

Paleontological Resources 

To identify known and potential paleontological resources, paleontologists conducted 

background research that included the following: 

 A paleontological records search through the San Diego Natural History Museum 

 A review of published documents describing area geology and paleontological 

resources 

 A review of published geologic maps 

This research helped determine the corridor’s paleontologically sensitive geologic units. 

Through identification of these sensitive geologic units and a formation’s past fossil 

productivity, the likelihood of where fossils may be found was predicted. Field 

investigations also were conducted to determine the likelihood of deposits being 

exposed at the ground surface. 

Assessment of Effects on Historic Properties 

As mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA, federal agencies must consider the effects of 

their undertakings on historic properties, assess these effects, and seek ways to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on such properties (36 CFR 800.1[a]). According 

to federal regulations, “Effect means alteration to the characteristics of a historic property 

qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register” (36 CFR 800.16[i]). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-182 September 2014

For identified historic properties within the APE, the agency shall apply the criteria of 

adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5[a]): 

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any 

of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the 

National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, 

including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation 

of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in 

time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. (36 CFR 800.5[a][1]). 

When the effects of the proposed undertaking do not meet the criteria of adverse effect, 

then a finding of “no adverse effect” may be proposed (36 CFR 800.5[b]). If an “adverse 

effect” is found, the agency shall act pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6 (36 CFR 800.5[d][2]) to 

resolve the adverse effect by developing and evaluating alternatives or modifications to 

the undertaking that “could avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects on historic 

properties” (36 CFR 800.6[a]). 

The above criteria were used to evaluate the effects under Section 106 of the project on 

identified historic properties in the project APE. 

4.15.2 Affected Environment 

This section summarizes the historic architectural, archaeological, and paleontological 

resources and conditions associated with the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

4.15.2.1 Historic Architectural Resources 

Historians divide San Diego’s history into four periods: the Spanish, Mexican, Early American, 

and American periods. The following discussion emphasizes the American Period since the 

resources expected to be encountered and evaluated in the APE would be from this period. 

American Period Historic Context 

From the 1860s to 1880s, San Diego’s development shifted from its initial location in Old 

Town to approximately 3 miles south along San Diego Bay in an area called New Town 

(present-day Downtown San Diego). Despite New Town’s development, the area 

encompassed by the APE was not settled until several decades later. 

The southern portion of the APE (present-day Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor) became a 

major transportation artery, lacking residential and commercial development. In 1882, the 

California Southern Railroad (a subsidiary of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad) 

was completed. In the decades that followed, roads were paved, electric streetcars began 

operation, and scattered industrial properties were developed within the area. 

Residential developments in the APE were first proposed in the late 1800s and spanned 

the length of Mission Bay (approximately between Balboa Avenue and Tecolote Road). 

The Morena Subdivision and Eureka Lemon are the earliest examples of residential 

development in the APE. These developments contained a scattering of wood-framed, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-183 

single-family residences constructed before the citywide real estate boom ended around 

1888. One such residence is the Stough-Beckett Cottage, listed in the NRHP, CRHR, 

and SDRHR. Significant residential development in the APE did not occur until the mid1930s and 1940s when the newly formed Federal Housing Administration developed 

specifications for smaller homes that featured more traditional architectural designs. 

The military’s presence in San Diego began at the turn of the 19th century and expanded in 

the 1920s. In the northern portion of the APE (present-day University City), the Marine Rifle 

Range La Jolla, renamed Camp Calvin B. Matthews in 1942, was established. It is bounded 

by present-day Regents Road to the east, Voigt Drive (formerly Miramar Road) to the north, 

Gilman Drive (formerly Coast Highway) to the west, and present-day La Jolla Village Drive 

to the south. In the 1950s, local residents became concerned about the rifle range’s 

proximity to civilian neighborhoods. The camp was closed in 1964 and the area eventually 

became the UCSD East Campus. 

During World War II, industrial development in 

the APE along Pacific Highway increased 

dramatically. As a result, military personnel and 

defense workers poured into the city to work at 

military installations and defense factories. This 

population influx resulted in the construction of 

large-scale tracts of workers’ housing. The Linda 

Vista housing project (Figure 4-30), the city’s 

largest wartime residential development, is an 

early example of the planned residential and 

commercial development that shaped San Diego 

in the post-war period. 

In the 1950s, development of the Clairemont 

Mesa neighborhood began pushing the city’s limit 

farther north. This subdivision included amenities 

for suburban living and featured curvilinear (curved) streets that rejected the traditional street 

grid system and took advantage of scenic views. The homes were typically Minimal 

Traditional or Ranch style, with the most significant example within the APE located at 

4875–4883 Naples Street. This property consists of four small dwelling units arranged 

around a central court and is exceptional for the degree and detail of design integrity 

retained from the historic period. 

Historic Architectural Properties within the Historic Architectural APE 

In a letter dated August 2, 2013, the SHPO concurred with the FTA’s determination that, 

within the APE, five historic architectural properties are eligible for listing in the NRHP 

and therefore are also eligible to be listed in the CRHR: 2750 Kettner Boulevard, 4875–

4883 Naples Street, 2335 Morena Boulevard, 3435 Morena Boulevard, and the Camp 

Calvin B. Matthews Sentry Booth (UCSD East Campus Regents Road parking lot). The 

five properties determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are hereafter referred to as 

“historic properties.” These properties are listed by address, type, date of construction, 

criteria for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, and California Historical Resources status 

code in Table 4-29 and shown by location in Figure 4-31. 

Figure 4-30. Linda Vista 

Housing Project 

Source: Photo courtesy of San Diego History 

Center (1941)
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-184 September 2014

Table 4-29. Historic Architectural Properties Eligible for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR 

within the Historic Architectural APE 

Photo of Property Property Address

Property 

Name/Type 

Construction 

Date 

NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria 

CHR

Status Code

2750 Kettner Blvd Light industrial 

building 

ca. 1959 NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria C/3, 

SDRHR Criterion E 

2S2, 1CL 

4875–4883 Naples 

St 

Multifamily 

residence 

ca. 1953 NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria C/3, 

SDRHR Criterion E 

2S2, 1CL 

2335 Morena Blvd Old Trieste 

Restaurant 

1952; 1963 NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria A/1 and 

C/3, SDRHR 

Criterion E 

2S2, 1CL 

3435 Morena Blvd Single-family 

residence 

1904 NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria A/1, 

SDRHR Criterion E 

2S2, 1CL 

UCSD Regents Rd 

East Parking Lot 

Camp Matthews 

Sentry Building 

ca. 1943–1944 NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria A/1 and 

C/3, SDRHR 

Criterion E 

2S2, 1CL 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: APE = Area of Potential Effects; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; CHR = California Historical 

Resource; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; SDRHR = San Diego Register of Historical 

Resources; UCSD = University of California, San Diego 

NRHP Criteria: A = Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

our history; C = Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 

 CRHR Criteria: 1 = Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

California's history and cultural heritage; 3 = Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, 

region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses 

high artistic values. 

 CHR Status Codes: 2S2 = Individual property determined eligible for NRHP by a consensus through 

Section 106 process. Listed in the CRHR; 1CL = Automatically listed in the CRHR. 

 SDRHR Criterion E: As a result of SHPO concurrence with the FTA’s determination of NRHP eligibility, the 

five above-listed resources became City of San Diego Landmarks under Criterion E. The city’s guidelines 

for the application of Historic Resources Board (HRB) designation criteria state: “resources identified as 

significant by the State or Federal Government with SHPO concurrence through listing or determinations of 

eligibility for listing on the California or National Registers are eligible for designation by the HRB under 

Criterion E.” 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-185 

Figure 4-31. Historic Architectural Properties Eligible for Listing in the NRHP and CRHR 

within the Historic Architectural APE 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-186 September 2014

Coordination with the SHPO in February 2013 indicated the potential presence of two 

historic districts within the APE that needed to be evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Both are 

located within San Diego’s Bay Park neighborhood: one along Morena Boulevard and one 

along McGraw Street. The Morena Boulevard Postwar Commercial District does not appear 

to hold together as a potential historic district because there are numerous recent out-ofscale intrusions and altered historic-era buildings that compromise its integrity of design, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, setting, association, and its ability to convey its period of 

significance. Within the potential Vista Bahia Unit No. 1 District on McGraw Street, some 

intact buildings remain. However, the street contains numerous two-story intrusions that 

visually affect the street’s low-lying west shoulder. Many extant houses have been altered 

through re-stuccoing, exterior re-styling, and window replacements. These alterations have 

substantially diminished McGraw Street’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, 

association, and feeling from its historic late-1950s era construction period. Neither district 

appears to have NRHP or CRHR eligibility under any of the four criteria. 

4.15.2.2 Prehistoric and Archaeological Resources 

The Mid-Coast Corridor lies within the ethnographic territory of the Yuman-speaking 

Kumeyaay who inhabited the San Diego area prior to 1769. Their territory encompassed 

the area between the San Luis Rey River to the north, the Sand Hills to the east, the area 

south of Ensenada, Mexico, to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Library 

research of the Sacred Lands File indicated the presence of Native American cultural 

resources within the APE and in the Old Town, Pacific Beach, and La Jolla areas. 

As documented in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources 

Survey Report (SANDAG, 2013e), the records search identified 329 previously 

conducted cultural resource studies within a quarter-mile of the project alignment. Sixtythree of these studies are at least partially within the archaeological APE. The search 

identified nine previously recorded archaeological sites within the archaeological APE, 

including a protohistoric village site, prehistoric lithic and shell scatters, and a prehistoric 

habitation site with midden deposit. Additionally, a pedestrian archaeological survey of 

the archaeological APE identified and recorded three new archaeological resources (i.e., 

two historic sites and one prehistoric isolate). 

Of these 12 previously or newly recorded archaeological resources, 7 archaeological 

sites (P-37-032491, CA-SDI-20616, CA-SDI-53, CA-SDI-54, CA-SDI-9288, CA-SDI13761H, and CA-SDI-17689H) have been destroyed or lack integrity for listing in the 

NRHP, CRHR, or SDRHR. Likewise, the isolated artifact (P-37-032493) is considered a 

non-significant resource type. The Draft SEIS/SEIR considered the remaining four 

archaeological sites (CA-SDI-41, CA-SDI-12453/H, CA-SDI-12557, and CA-SDI-12558) 

as having the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits within the archaeological 

APE, and preliminarily determined these archaeological resources to be eligible for 

listing in the NRHP and CRHR. However, following distribution of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

Extended Phase I investigations were completed, verifying extensive ground disturbance 

and the absence of archaeological deposits in the vicinity of the four archaeological sites 

within the archaeological APE. As shown in Table 4-30, these four archaeological sites 

were not detected within the archaeological APE and were not assigned a California 

Historical Resource Status Code. The NRHP/CRHP criteria could not be applied to 

these sites within the APE as no resources were detected. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-187 

Table 4-30. Determinations of Eligibility for Archaeological Resources 

within the Archaeological APE 

Resource No. Resource Type Resource Description Sites in APE 

CHR Status 

Code 

NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria 

P-37-032491 Historic site Concrete foundation Yes 6Z Ineligible 

CA-SDI-20616 Historic site Formed concrete 

culvert 

Yes 6Z Ineligible 

CA-SDI-41 Prehistoric site Possible habitation 

site 

Previously recorded in 

APE, 

not identified or detected

in APE during Extended 

Phase I 

N/A N/A 

CA-SDI-53 Prehistoric site Possible campsite Previously recorded, but 

no longer extant 

6Z Ineligible 

CA-SDI-54 Prehistoric site Prehistoric dump Previously recorded, but 

no longer extant 

6Z Ineligible 

CA-SDI-9288 Prehistoric site Lithic and shell scatter Previously recorded, but 

no longer extant 

6Z Ineligible 

CA-SDI12453/H Multi-component 

site 

Lithic and shell scatter 

with historic glass 

Previously recorded, 

not identified or detected

in APE during Extended 

Phase I 

N/A N/A 

CA-SDI-12557 Prehistoric site Habitation site with 

midden deposit, 

previous study 

evaluated as CRHReligible property 

Previously recorded and 

excavated adjacent to 

APE, 

not identified or detected 

in APE during Extended 

Phase I 

N/A N/A 

CA-SDI-12558 Prehistoric site Shell scatter Previously recorded and 

tested, 

not identified or detected 

in APE during Extended 

Phase I 

N/A N/A 

CA-SDI13761H Historic site Foundry trash dump Previously recorded, but 

no longer extant in APE

6L 

(formerly 5S3) 

Ineligible 

CA-SDI17689H Historic site Residential trash 

dumps 

Previously recorded, but 

no longer extant in APE

6Z Ineligible 

P-37-032493 Prehistoric 

isolate 

Primary, rhyolite flake Yes 6Z Ineligible 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: APE = Area of Potential Effects; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of 

Historical Resources; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places 

 CHR Status Codes: 

5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation 

6L: Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government process; may warrant special 

consideration in local planning 

6Z: Found ineligible for NRHP, CRHR, or local designation through survey evaluation 

(Appendix C of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Survey Report (SANDAG, 2013e) 

contains a complete list of the CHR Status Codes) 

N/A = Not applicable; resource was not detected within the APE during Extended Phase I investigations; therefore, 

eligibility criteria could not be applied.
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-188 September 2014

4.15.2.3 Paleontological Resources 

The City of San Diego lies in the Coastal Plain province, which is composed of 

dissected, mesa-like terraces that transition inland into rolling hills. Sedimentary rocks 

composed mainly of sandstone, shale, and conglomerate beds underlie the terrain. A 

sequence of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock units that record portions of the 

last 140 million years of earth history lies beneath the province. 

Five paleontologically sensitive geologic units underlie the Mid-Coast Corridor. These 

are, from oldest to youngest, the Ardath Shale, Scripps, San Diego, Lindavista, and Bay 

Point Formations. Within the archaeological APE, these formations have a high 

paleontological resource sensitivity rating. 

The Ardath Shale Formation has yielded diverse and well-preserved assemblages of 

marine microfossils, macroinvertebrates, and vertebrates. The formation extends along 

the project alignment from the Clairemont Drive Station to the Executive Drive Station. 

The Scripps Formation is known to be potentially full of fossils consisting of the remains 

of marine organisms, land mammals, and well-preserved pieces of fossil wood. This 

formation was identified along the project alignment from the Clairemont Drive Station to 

the UTC Transit Center. 

The San Diego Formation is a marine sedimentary deposit that contains rich fossil beds 

that have yielded extremely diverse assemblages of marine organisms. In addition, rare 

remains of terrestrial mammals, fossil wood, and leaves have been recovered from this 

formation. The formation was identified in the direct vicinity of the project alignment from 

the Middletown Station to the Washington Street Station, as well as northeast of the 

Balboa Avenue Station. 

The Lindavista Formation represents a marine and/or non-marine terrace deposit that 

accumulated on the sea floor during a period of sea-level decline. Today, the Lindavista 

Formation forms extensive mesa surfaces. Portions of the formation with high 

paleontological resource sensitivity were identified directly in the project alignment in an 

area extending from the Executive Drive Station to the UTC Transit Center. 

The Bay Point Formation is a near shore marine sedimentary deposit that has produced 

a large and diverse amount of well-preserved marine invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. 

This formation was identified along the project alignment from the Santa Fe Depot to the 

Balboa Avenue Station. Additionally, during the field survey, paleontologists observed a 

fossil shell hash layer in the formation west of the intersection of Morena Boulevard and 

McGraw Street, indicating the surface presence of paleontological resources. 

The San Diego Natural History Museum identified 88 recorded locations of fossil finds 

within one-quarter mile of the project alignment. These fossils included various marine 

invertebrates (e.g., bryozoans, barnacles, ostracods, pectens, chitons, tusk shells, 

foraminifers, brachiopods, worms, shrimp, crabs, snails, clams, oysters, and sea 

biscuits), marine vertebrates (e.g., fish, sharks, and rays), and plants (e.g., almond trees, 

sycamore, willows, and horsetails). Although none of the previously recorded fossil 

localities is located in the archaeological APE, they fall within the identified 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-189 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units. Each of the five geologic units could yield 

additional important paleontological resources. 

4.15.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section summarizes the long-term impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives (i.e., impacts from ongoing operation and maintenance) on the five historic 

architectural properties that were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. No NRHPeligible archaeological resources were identified or detected within the APE. Project 

operation and maintenance activities would not result in ground disturbances that would 

impact paleontological resources. Short-term construction impacts are discussed in 

Section 4.17. 

The remaining analysis in this section focuses on historic architectural resources (i.e., 

historic architectural properties or historic properties), which could be affected during 

operation and maintenance. 

Historic Properties 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of 

their undertakings on historic properties. According to 36 CFR 800.16(i), “Effect means 

alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or 

eligibility for the National Register.” 

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the project would not be constructed; bus service on 

Route 150, which operates between Downtown San Diego and the University area, 

would be continued and enhanced. The buses would operate on existing or planned 

roadways, and no physical improvements would be required for enhancing transit 

services other than the minor construction associated with new bus shelters within 

existing rights-of-way. 

There would be no effect on historic architectural properties within the APE as a result of 

enhancing bus Route 150 because no new construction or use would occur, other than 

operation of the buses and improvements to bus stops within existing rights-of-way. 

Refined Build Alternative 

Although the Refined Build Alternative would include modifications to existing facilities 

and the construction of new track and facilities, there would be no adverse effect on 

historic architectural properties within the APE. The location and operation of these 

project facilities would not physically alter, relocate, or demolish historic architectural 

properties within the architectural APE or meet any other of the adverse effect criteria. 

 2750 Kettner Boulevard (Property No. 3): The improvements to the existing Olive 

Street TPSS site (i.e., replacement of the existing TPSS and the addition of a second 

TPSS on the same site), would be approximately 150 feet to the north across West 

Olive Street. The property is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion C for its 

mid-century Modern architectural characteristics. The project would not affect any of 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-190 September 2014

the property’s defining characteristics, including the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

 4875–4883 Naples Street (Property No. 30): The new at-grade track, the Tecolote 

Road Station, and TPSS No. 6 would be approximately 400 feet to the southwest 

across West Morena Boulevard. The new Tecolote Creek Bridge would be 

approximately 650 feet west across the intersection of Tecolote Road and West 

Morena Boulevard. The property is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion C 

for its distinctive architectural characteristics and exceptional integrity. The project 

would not affect any of the property’s defining characteristics, including the property’s 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

 2335 Morena Boulevard (Property No. 64): The new at-grade track would be 

approximately 100 feet to the west across Morena Boulevard. The building, erected 

in 1952 and known as the Old Trieste Restaurant since 1963, represents an 

increasingly rare example of a Continental-style fine-dining restaurant along a once 

major highway. As such, the property is eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its association with the broad pattern of postwar fine dining in San 

Diego, and under Criterion C as an excellent example of a rare property type. The 

project would not affect any of the property’s defining characteristics, including the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

 3435 Morena Boulevard (Property No. 120): The new at-grade track would be 

approximately 100 feet to the west across Morena Boulevard. The property is 

eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the prePacific Highway agricultural land use of the area. The project would not affect any of 

the property’s defining characteristics, including the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

 Camp Matthews Sentry Booth (Property No. 161): The new aerial track would be 

approximately 174 feet to the north across Voigt Drive. The property is eligible for 

listing on the NRHP under Criterion A and under Criterion C as an example of a 

World War II-era military structure. The project would not affect any of the property’s 

defining characteristics, including the property’s location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not alter any of the characteristics of 

these historic architectural properties that qualify them for inclusion in the NRHP in a 

manner that would diminish the integrity of their location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. There would be no adverse effects on historic 

architectural properties. The SHPO concurred with the FTA finding of “no adverse 

effect” in a letter dated April 9, 2014 (Appendix C).

4.15.4 Mitigation Measures 

No adverse impacts on historic architecture, archaeological, and paleontological 

resources would occur during project operation and maintenance; therefore, no 

mitigation is necessary. Although no archaeological resources were identified within the 

archaeological APE, the potential for unanticipated discoveries still exists within the 

archaeological APE. Specific mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and treat adverse 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-191 

or significant impacts on historic archaeological, and paleontological resources during 

construction are included in Section 4.17.3. 

4.15.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional discussion below. 

4.15.5.1 Significance Criteria and Significance Criteria Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). Operation and maintenance of the No-Build Alternative 

would have no impact on historic architectural, archaeological, or paleontological resources. 

Thus, there would be no impact under CEQA with respect to the thresholds below. 

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical 

resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Operation and maintenance of the Refined Build 

Alternative would have no impact because such activities would not physically impact 

the five historic architectural properties in the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 

archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Operation and maintenance of the Refined Build 

Alternative would have no impact because such activities would not physically impact 

significant archaeological resources identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site 

or unique geologic feature? 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Operation and maintenance of the Refined Build 

Alternative would have no impact because such activities would not physically impact 

paleontological resources. 

Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal 

cemeteries? 

No Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Operation and maintenance of the Refined Build 

Alternative would have no impact because such activities would not disturb any human 

remains. 

4.15.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

No mitigation is required because there would be no impacts during operation and 

maintenance of the Refined Build Alternative. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-192 September 2014

4.16 Utilities 

This section evaluates impacts on utilities under the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives. Temporary utility relocations for this project are identified in Section 4.17.3. 

For additional information, refer to the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. 

Prior environmental documents included a limited description of utility impacts that 

emphasized short-term construction-related impacts and did not address operational 

impacts to utilities. The analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR considered short-term 

construction and long-term operational impacts to utilities and determined that the Build 

and No-Build Alternatives would have no adverse impacts under NEPA and less-thansignificant impacts under CEQA. Based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

additional information related to water supply needs has been incorporated into this 

section. Other than the editorial changes described in Section 4.0, refinements to the 

Build Alternative did not require any changes to this section of the SEIS/SEIR. The 

conclusions in this section remain unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. The 

Refined Build Alternative would have no adverse utility impacts under NEPA and lessthan-significant impacts under CEQA. 

4.16.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the interstate transmission of 

electricity, natural gas, and oil, including siting and abandoning natural gas pipelines and 

storage facilities. The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, 

telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation 

companies. The San Diego Municipal Code contains laws and regulations to promote 

and protect public peace, health, safety, and welfare, while guiding growth and 

development in the city. 

The Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, amended by the Clean Water Act and Water 

Quality Act, requires states to set standards protecting water quality, including regulating 

storm water and wastewater discharge during facility construction and operation. 

This analysis divides utilities into two categories: wet and dry utilities. Wet utilities 

include sewer, water, and oil lines; dry utilities include gas, electric, telephone, television, 

and other telecommunications lines. The project’s design was reviewed to determine if it 

would require expansion of utility service and where it would affect existing utilities, 

which could result in an impact. 

4.16.2 Affected Environment 

Both public and private utilities lie on and/or adjacent to the project alignment and station 

areas. The city provides many urban services, including wastewater and water services. 

The city manages its own water supply, providing drinking water to its residents. San 

Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to residential and 

business customers. A variety of cable and telecommunication companies provide 

services, including Cox Communications, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Verizon, and 

AT&T. The City of San Diego owns and operates the nearest landfills. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-193 

Many utilities and associated infrastructure are located in the study area. The three 

primary underlying property owners where these utilities are located are MTS (railroad 

right-of-way), the city (roadway right-of-way), and UCSD (campus). 

Within the MTS right-of-way, generally all water and wastewater pipelines crossing 

perpendicular to the project alignment have been placed in a steel sleeve under the 

adjacent corridor tracks. In addition, an aviation fuel line owned and operated by the 

U.S. Department of the Navy, gas pipelines, electrical conduit, and telecommunication 

facilities are also located within the MTS right-of-way. 

Within the UCSD property boundary, most wet and dry utilities are owned by UCSD, but 

some wet utilities are owned by the City of San Diego and some dry utilities are owned 

by various other companies. 

The city’s street right-of-way along Genesee Avenue contains numerous wet and dry 

utilities. Regarding wet utilities, with the exception of a large-diameter water main 

adjacent to the project alignment, the majority of pipelines are of small diameter and 

serve smaller areas. The majority of the dry utilities are located near the edges of the 

roadway and are mostly local communication lines supplying power and communications 

services to businesses along Genesee Avenue. 

4.16.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes impacts to utilities under the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives. Utility relocation activities during construction include both wet and dry 

utilities. For a more detailed discussion of utility relocations, refer to Section 4.17.3.2. 

4.16.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would continue and enhance service of bus Route 150 but 

would not include construction of new facilities outside existing rights-of-way. This 

alternative would not conflict with existing utilities or require the construction of new 

utilities. No adverse impact would result. 

4.16.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

Water supply needs for the project are anticipated to be minimal (approximately 0.01 

percent of the total regional water usage) compared to development of housing units or 

commercial and industrial land uses, and would be limited to irrigation (e.g., 

landscaping) and maintenance (e.g., platform and vehicle cleaning) activities. 

Additionally, the project is consistent with the assumptions of the City of San Diego’s 

2010 Draft Urban Water Management Plan (City of San Diego, 2011d) and would be 

well within available water supply capabilities outlined in that plan. As the project 

represents a negligible fraction of the City of San Diego’s water supply demand, the 

project would not have an adverse impact on water supply. Where feasible, reclaimed 

water would be used for construction and irrigation activities. The project’s water supply 

needs would be coordinated with the City of San Diego. 

Utility relocations could begin as early as 2014. The project would result in the 

construction of TPSSs in several locations along the project alignment, necessitating 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-194 September 2014

additional electricity for operation of the Trolley system. However, this additional 

electricity would not exceed system-operating capacity but may require upgrades to 

existing SDG&E electrical substations. During the Engineering phase, coordination with 

SDG&E would occur and upgrades to its substations, if any, would be identified. These 

upgrades would be performed within the existing footprint of SDG&E’s electrical 

substations. Feeder conduits from SDG&E substations to the TPSSs would be required. 

The routing of these feeder cables would be identified during the Engineering phase. 

Transit stations would require utility services, including water, electricity, and telephone 

services. Most electrical use at the stations would be at night when electricity is plentiful. 

Other utilities would be used intermittently, such as water for landscaping and washing 

of the stations. Hence, the project would not have an adverse impact on these utilities. 

Routing of utilities to substations, transit stations, and other facilities along the guideway 

are expected to utilize existing utility corridors, public right-of-way, and public properties. 

4.16.4 Mitigation Measures 

Because there would be no adverse impacts, no mitigation measures are required. 

4.16.5 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based upon the analysis 

above and the CEQA thresholds of significance and additional analysis below. 

4.16.5.1 Significance Criteria and Application 

Based on the CEQA Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and 

the City of San Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 

2011a), SANDAG has developed CEQA thresholds of significance for use in evaluating 

the utility impacts of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

No Impact (No-Build Alternative). As stated in Section 4.16.3.1, the continuation and 

enhancement of Route 150 under the No-Build Alternative would not impact utilities. 

Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would have no impact with respect to the thresholds 

below, and the discussion below focuses only on the Refined Build Alternative. 

Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 

Water Quality Control Board? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The Refined Build Alternative 

would generate very little wastewater. The Trolley cars would not generate wastewater, 

but some wastewater would be generated at stations, depending on final design. The 

small amounts of wastewater from the project would be routed to a City of San Diego or 

UCSD sanitary sewer system and would be treated by a wastewater treatment facility. 

Impacts would be less than significant. 

Would the project result in a need for new natural gas, water, wastewater, storm drain, 

communications, electrical supply or solid waste disposal systems, or require substantial 

alterations to existing utilities, the construction of which would create physical impacts? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-195 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would have 

nominal natural gas, water, wastewater, communications, and solid waste disposal 

system needs, which would not exceed the capacity of existing services. Hence, the 

impact to these facilities would not be significant. 

Operation of the project would require electrical power. The electrical distribution 

infrastructure for operation of the project would be constructed as part of the Refined 

Build Alternative, connecting the project’s TPSSs to the existing electrical grid. The 

environmental impacts of these connections, including the TPSSs, have been addressed 

within this Final SEIS/SEIR and are not anticipated to cause significant impacts. The 

operation of the Refined Build Alternative is expected to require approximately 54 

megawatt hours of electrical energy daily above the No-Build Alternative. In 2010, the 

demand for electrical energy in San Diego County was about 19 million megawatt hours. 

Because the demand of the project for electrical energy is a small fraction of the regional 

energy use, the project would not cause an adverse effect to the supply of electric power 

and would not require construction of new electrical substations; however, modification 

to existing substations may be required. These modifications would occur within the 

existing footprint of SDG&E’s electrical substations and would not be substantial. 

Hence, the impact to the electrical supply would be less than significant. 

Would the project result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 

serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s 

projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would not exceed 

regional wastewater treatment requirements nor require the construction or expansion of 

water or wastewater treatment facilities; therefore, the impact would be less than 

significant. 

Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 

accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Nominal amounts of solid 

waste resulting from maintenance of stations and vehicles would be generated by 

operation of the project. These nominal amounts of trash and other solid wastes 

generated by the project would not exceed landfill capacity; therefore, the impact would 

be less than significant. 

Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to 

solid waste? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would comply with 

all solid waste regulations; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 

4.16.5.2 Significance after Mitigation 

No mitigation measures are required, and the project would result in a less-thansignificant impact under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-196 September 2014

4.17 Construction Impacts 

This section evaluates the construction impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives and describes project and mitigation measures proposed to minimize 

adverse impacts. Section 3.4.7 in Chapter 3.0 summarizes construction impacts on 

traffic and the transportation system separately from this section. For additional 

information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014s) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The CEQA determination is provided for each environmental discipline. CEQA 

thresholds of significance were developed by SANDAG based on the CEQA 

Environmental Checklist (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and the City of San 

Diego CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of San Diego, 2011a). 

The prior environmental documents concluded that there would be impacts as a result of 

construction in the topical areas of neighborhoods (localized air quality, dust, traffic, and 

noise/vibration impacts, particularly in the Clairemont Mesa and University City 

neighborhoods), hazardous wastes (utility poles in the corridor containing creosote and 

tacky oils), air quality (short-term localized impacts), water (increased erosion, 

sedimentation, and drainage impacts), economic development (disruption of access and 

activities for residents and businesses and interruptions of rail freight service in the south 

segment), utilities (disruption of utilities), paleontological (destruction of resources), and 

geotechnical (alluvial soils subject to settlement). All construction impacts could be 

mitigated to below CEQA significance through a combination of measures included in 

project design, mitigation measures, compliance with regulations, and BMPs. 

The analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that with project measures or mitigation, 

impacts from construction would not be adverse under NEPA or significant under CEQA, 

with the exception of temporary parking impacts to businesses in University City and on 

the UCSD campus, nighttime construction noise in some locations, and air quality 

impacts due to emissions from construction equipment, which would exceed significance 

thresholds for NOX, CO2, and TOGs. These conclusions largely remain unchanged, but 

the analysis was updated as described below (under the Refined Build Alternative, 

emissions of TOGs would not exceed significance thresholds). 

This section has been revised based on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and 

to reflect refinements to the Build Alternative, including elimination of the Genesee 

Avenue Design Option. Revisions were made to Section 4.17.2 reflecting two new 

segments of aerial structure north of La Jolla Colony in place of a retaining wall (i.e., 

Charmant North and South Bridges), and changes to the number and location of 

construction staging areas. 

Additionally, updates were required to the following environmental topical areas: 

Land Use, Socioeconomic and Fiscal, and Noise. The analysis was updated to more 

clearly identify significant nighttime construction and corresponding noise near the 

residences on the west side of I-5 (northeast corner of the Cape La Jolla Gardens 

housing complex). This information was added to the Land Use, Socioeconomic and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-197 

Fiscal, and Noise sections. Mitigation Measure CON2 was updated to include these 

residences. 

Community and Neighborhoods. Community and neighborhood impacts were revised to 

address homeless encampments that may be located within the construction area and to 

provide a project measure in the event that encampments near construction activity are 

found. 

Socioeconomic and Fiscal. The temporary construction easements and employment 

and earnings analysis were updated in the Socioeconomic and Fiscal section based on 

the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set and revised construction schedule and construction costs. 

The change in the construction schedule also required updates to the Air Quality and 

Energy sections. 

Air Quality. The air quality analysis was updated based on changes to the construction 

schedule. As a result, TOG emissions would not exceed significance thresholds. 

Ecosystems and Biological Resources. The categorization of vegetation communities has 

been revised to be consistent with the San Diego Municipal Code Land Development 

Code—Biology Guidelines (City of San Diego, 2012b). Wetlands are excluded from the 

city’s vegetation community tier system and are categorized separately. Calculations of 

impacts and mitigation to biological resources were updated to reflect the impact footprint 

of the Refined Build Alternative, consistent with the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. Two new 

project measures were added—the use of a biological monitor during construction work 

and the maintenance of a movement corridor for the light-footed clapper rail. Mitigation 

Measure CON8 was expanded to include exclusionary methods for the western mastiff 

bat. Mitigation Measure CON14 was added to address potential impacts to foraging lightfooted clapper rail. Construction impacts to CCC wetlands were quantified based on the 

Coastal Zone boundary determination provided by the CCC, which concluded that the 

portion of the project within MTS right-of-way from the San Diego River to Balboa 

Avenue is located within the Coastal Zone. 

Archaeological Resources. The section on archaeological resources was revised based 

on the completed Extended Phase I investigations. Whereas the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

preliminarily determined four archaeological sites (CA-SDI-41, CA-SDI-12453/H, CASDI-12557, and CA-SDI-12558) would be eligible for listing in the NRHP, the new field 

investigations did not detect archaeological deposits associated with these four 

archaeological sites within the project’s APE. As such, the determination was revised to 

“no historic properties affected” with respect to archaeological resources and a finding of 

“no adverse effect” for the undertaking was made. Mitigation was revised to address 

“the possibility of unanticipated discoveries” (Mitigation Measure CON17). 

Refer to the Preface of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014s) for additional information on the changes to the 

construction schedule, analysis, and technical report since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-198 September 2014

4.17.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

All federal, state, regional, and local regulations and guidelines pertinent to construction 

of the Mid-Coast Corridor Project would be followed. While some regulations specifically 

address construction activities, other regulations focus more generally on protecting 

environmental resources and human health and safety. For additional regulatory 

information, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014s). 

The analysis of construction impacts considers the anticipated construction activities and 

phasing, and identifies where construction staging could occur. Impacts are evaluated 

based on the type of equipment and activities associated with each major phase or 

construction element on each portion of the site as well as the duration for each phase. 

4.17.2 Construction Activities 

This section describes the anticipated construction activities and schedule for the 

project. It includes construction of at-grade and elevated guideway, several bridges and 

grade separations, at-grade and elevated station platforms, station-related facilities, a 

cut-and-cover structure, retaining walls, and trackwork. Utility relocations and 

installation of specialty systems, such as traction power, communication, and signaling 

equipment, also would be required. 

4.17.2.1 Overview of Construction Activities 

During the construction period, the following activities would occur: 

 Relocate, modify, or protect in-place existing utilities 

 Remove or relocate structures along the proposed guideway, at construction staging 

sites, and the area around station parking areas 

 Prepare and secure construction staging and work areas 

 Relocate, modify, or protect in-place existing drainage facilities 

 Construct the at-grade guideway, including grading operation, surface and 

subsurface drainage systems, underground duct banks for the electrical power 

feeds, and the OCS pole foundations 

 Construct the at-grade guideway on retained cut or fill, including retaining walls, 

grading operation, surface and subsurface drainage systems, underground duct 

banks for the electrical power feeds, and the OCS pole foundations 

 Construct the grade-separated crossings and bridges at the San Diego River 

Bridge/Friars Road, Tecolote Creek, Balboa Avenue, three crossings over Rose 

Creek, where the most northerly Rose Creek crossing also crosses over the 

realigned LOSSAN tracks, and crossings of two canyons north of La Jolla Colony 

Drive 

 Construct the elevated guideways along I-5, UCSD, and Genesee Avenue, including 

foundations, abutments, support columns, girders, and deck slabs 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-199 

 Construct a cut-and-cover structure at La Jolla Colony Drive and the approach 

U-sections, including drainage features, duct banks, and OCS pole foundations 

 Reconstruct the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path at various locations between the 

northerly terminus of Santa Fe Street and La Jolla Colony Drive 

 Construct streets and bike lanes at several locations to accommodate the guideway 

 Construct the at-grade stations on West Morena Boulevard at Tecolote Road, on 

Morena Boulevard at Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue, along I-5 at the VA 

Medical Center, including canopies, station finishes, furniture, and other 

appurtenances 

 Construct the elevated stations at Nobel Drive, the UCSD West and East Campuses, 

and on Genesee Avenue at Executive Drive and near Esplanade Court/UTC 

Driveway (UTC Transit Center), including stairs, elevators, pedestrian bridges, 

canopies, finishes, furniture, and other appurtenances 

 Construct the at-grade parking facilities at the Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and 

Balboa Avenue Stations, including driveways, associated street improvements, bus 

bay facilities, perimeter retaining walls, stairs, and ramps 

 Construct a parking structure at the Nobel Drive Station 

 Construct the tracks, including special trackwork at various locations along the 

alignment; prepare the track bed; and install the ballast and concrete ties, direct 

fixation fasteners, rail welding, and rail fasteners 

 Construct the TPSSs with electrical power feeds at various locations between Santa 

Fe Depot and the UTC Transit Center 

 Construct the traction power, communications, and signaling systems for train 

operations, including OCS poles and wires, and ancillary rooms at various locations 

between Santa Fe Depot and the UTC Transit Center 

 Conduct system integration testing, simulated revenue operation test runs between 

Santa Fe Depot and the UTC Transit Center, and final system commissioning 

4.17.2.2 Construction Activities and Schedule 

The project would use conventional construction techniques and equipment typical to the 

Southern California region and would follow all applicable federal, state, and local laws 

for building and safety. Working hours would vary to meet special circumstances and 

restrictions. Customary local practices consistent with all applicable laws would be used 

to control traffic, noise, vibration, erosion, and dust during construction, as described 

further in Section 4.17.3. Design and construction would include project measures and 

mitigation commitments. Generally, construction would be divided into a series of often 

overlapping activities to minimize the duration of construction and associated impacts. 

Figure 4-32 depicts a potential construction schedule for construction of this project. 

Construction activities are estimated to take 4.5 years, although the duration of activities 

at specific locations along the alignment is anticipated to be substantially shorter, as 

described further in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-200 September 2014

Figure 4-32. Typical Construction Sequence and Average Construction Time 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014s). Construction is assumed to begin in 2015, 

although some activities, such as utility relocations, could begin in 2014. 

Construction equipment would include graders, bulldozers, cranes, drill rigs, excavators, 

concrete-batching equipment, pumping equipment, concrete trucks, flat bed trucks, 

dump trucks, and rail-mounted equipment. 

At-Grade Guideway Construction 

Figure 4-33 shows the elements in a typical at-grade guideway. Earth surrounding the 

tracks would be cut and filled as needed to ensure a relatively consistent grade, with 

only minor sloping for 

drainage. Where right-ofway impacts are determined 

to be substantial, a retaining 

wall likely would be needed 

and the walls would be 

constructed prior to 

completing the grading of 

the trackbed. 

Other work items related to 

the at-grade guideway 

would include duct banks to 

carry communication and 

signaling conduits, 

foundations for the OCS 

poles, a drainage system, 

Figure 4-33. Typical At-Grade Guideway 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-201 

and relocation of utilities. The station improvements could include site clearing, grading, 

paving (including subbase material), new utilities, concrete walkways and surfaces, and 

landscaping. 

Elevated Guideway and Bridge Construction 

Figure 4-34 shows a typical elevated 

guideway that would be constructed 

for portions of the alignment. Seven 

bridges are needed to cross over 

existing waterways and roadways. 

From south to north, they are as 

follows: 

 San Diego River Bridge 

 Tecolote Creek Bridge 

 Balboa Avenue Underpass (LRT 

Overpass) 

 Rose Creek South Bridge 

 Rose Creek North Bridge 

 Charmant Drive South Bridge 

 Charmant Drive North Bridge 

The bridge structures for the project would be areas of major construction. Typical 

construction methods would involve several stages of work, beginning with below ground 

work and terminating with completion of the superstructure. These steps include 

construction of the foundation, columns and abutments, and the girders and deck. For 

the San Diego River Bridge, the southerly 130 feet would be in conflict with the existing 

Trolley Green Line Bridge. The westerly curb along the Trolley Green Line Bridge would 

be removed, and the two bridges would be separated by a longitudinal expansion joint 

for this stretch. 

There are three elevated guideways along the alignment; the last one has been divided 

into two parts (UCSD and Genesee), with Genesee Avenue as the approximate division 

point, for ease of presentation and discussion. As with bridge structures, construction of 

elevated guideways and viaducts would require intensive construction activity. From south 

to north, they are as follows: 

 Rose Creek LRT Overhead 

 Nobel Viaduct 

 UCSD Viaduct 

 Genesee Viaduct 

Figure 4-34. Typical Elevated Guideway 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-202 September 2014

The Genesee Viaduct requires columns placed in the center of Genesee Avenue and 

street widening to preserve travel lanes. 

Cut-and-Cover Structure Construction 

The La Jolla Colony Drive Overhead would separate the LRT line from vehicular traffic 

on La Jolla Colony Drive with a cut-and-cover structure that would be a cast-in-place 

concrete-box structure. The structure would be constructed in two stages, and vehicular 

traffic on La Jolla Colony Drive would be maintained in each direction during each stage. 

For each stage, the structure would be constructed in several phases starting with 

temporary shoring work and completing with construction of the roof slab. 

Contractor Staging Areas 

Construction staging areas would need to provide adequate space for construction 

equipment, construction materials, temporary spoil storage, materials stockpiling and 

transfer, parking, and other construction-related activities. A total of 12 construction 

staging areas have been identified, as shown on Figure 4-35. Some of these are 

located at future park-and-ride lots, station areas, and existing parking lots. Vacant 

areas near the project alignment also have been identified as staging areas. In addition, 

contractors and construction managers would establish field offices in existing office 

space near work areas or in temporary jobsite trailers at the staging areas. 

Traffic Diversions and Handling 

Construction activities would temporarily interfere with the normal flow of traffic, resulting in 

some lanes and streets, including I-5, being closed to vehicles for various durations, as 

shown in Table 3-33 in Chapter 3.0. These roadways would require traffic handling during a 

majority of the construction period and would require temporary full or partial closures during 

various construction activities, as identified in the table. Other cross streets also could be 

temporarily closed. Access to adjacent properties would be maintained during business 

hours. In addition to traffic impacts, Section 3.4.7 also identifies impacts to transit, 

bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking, and freight. The specific locations of 

construction staging sites are shown in the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set. 

In preparing the construction maintenance of traffic plans, the project team would meet 

with individual businesses to identify business usage, delivery, shipping patterns, and 

critical times for business activities. This information would be used to develop 

construction requirements and worksite traffic control plans, and identify alternative 

access routes and requirements to maintain critical business activities. 

4.17.3 Construction Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and California Environmental Quality Act 

Determination 

The following sections describe construction impacts for each environmental topic 

addressed in Chapter 4.0 of this document. Where feasible, project and/or mitigation 

measures have been identified to minimize or mitigate construction impacts. Mitigation 

measures would be the responsibility of SANDAG. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-203 

Figure 4-35. Construction Staging Areas 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-204 September 2014

4.17.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be 

implemented, and construction activities associated with the continuation and 

enhancement of bus Route 150 would be limited to installation of shelters at bus stops. 

Work primarily would occur within existing right-of-way. Construction work would be 

minor and all federal, state, and local laws and requirements would be observed. As a 

result, no adverse construction-related impacts to any environmental resource would 

occur under NEPA, and there would be no significant impacts under CEQA. 

4.17.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The following sections discuss temporary impacts from construction of the Refined Build 

Alternative organized by environmental discipline. Project and/or mitigation measures 

have been identified as applicable. The CEQA determination also is provided. 

Land Use Plans and Policies Impacts 

Construction would not result in any adverse changes to land uses along the project 

alignment or in areas immediately adjacent to the proposed stations. Construction 

activities between the Santa Fe Depot and La Jolla Colony Drive would not have 

adverse impacts to existing land uses because activities would occur within existing 

right-of-way (MTS, City of San Diego, or Caltrans) and would not require extensive longduration construction activities. 

Although substantial nighttime work may be required between the OTTC and La Jolla 

Colony Drive to reduce impacts to the LOSSAN tracks, most construction activities 

would occur during the day. Limited nighttime construction activities would be required 

near residential units in this area, which would not require temporary relocation of 

residents; thus, these impacts would not be adverse. Daytime construction activities 

near businesses, residences, and Marian Bear Memorial Park would increase ambient 

noise levels. However, the increase in noise levels would not be adverse. 

North of La Jolla Colony Drive, the Refined Build Alternative alignment would be located 

outside of existing MTS right-of-way, with some portions within Caltrans right-of-way, 

some portions on the UCSD campus, and some portions within City of San Diego street 

rights-of-way (e.g., Genesee Avenue). In this segment, some construction activities, such 

as construction truck traffic, would temporarily impact nearby land uses, such as 

residences, schools, medical facilities, offices, and retail commercial uses. These 

temporary impacts typically would include constraints on vehicular access and parking, 

intermittent noise, and localized dust and particulate emissions. Construction of the aerial 

guideway across I-5 and along Genesee Avenue would require some nighttime roadway 

closures for construction. Nighttime construction work could result in adverse noise 

impacts during particularly loud activities, such as erecting falsework. This construction 

activity would occur on a limited number of nights near residents on Charmant Drive and 

at the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5, with a 

longer duration of nighttime construction activity anticipated along Genesee Avenue. 

These impacts are not anticipated to substantially alter or change existing land uses. 

Noise and air quality impacts and project measures and mitigation are described under the 

relevant headings in this section; transportation impacts are described in Section 3.4.7. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-205 

Construction staging areas would be needed throughout the study area, as shown on 

Figure 4-35. Temporary construction easements or rights-of-use would be required for 

approximately 2 years (3 years for the UCSD East Campus site); however, these 

temporary encroachments would not change existing land uses and thus would not 

result in an adverse impact. Upon completion of construction, contractors would vacate 

temporary staging areas and return them to their original uses. No businesses, 

residences, or other uses would be removed or displaced. As such, construction staging 

sites would not have an adverse impact on existing land uses. Figure 4-36 under the 

heading “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts” shows the total estimated temporary 

encroachment acreage by land use type. Table 4-31 summarizes the temporary 

construction easements by number of parcels and acreage. The specific location, 

existing use, and size of the temporary construction easements are shown in the Final 

SEIS/SEIR Plan Set on the right-of-way plan sheets. 

Table 4-31. Refined Build Alternative Temporary Construction Easements

Property Number of Parcels Acres

Refined Build Alternative 

Private Property

Residential Subtotal 8 1.23 

Commercial Subtotal 23 10.36 

Places of Worship Subtotal 1 0.04 

School – Private Subtotal 1 0.11 

Hospital – Private Subtotal 1 0.40 

Undeveloped Subtotal 1 0.35 

Private Subtotal 35 12.49

Public Property

Hospital – Public Subtotal 3 0.31 

Open Space Subtotal 1 0.95 

UCSD Subtotal 4 13.98 

Public – Other Subtotal 4 0.80 

Public Subtotal 12 16.04

Total for Refined Build Alternative 47 28.53

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: 1

 “Parcel Size” is generally based on data in the parcel list from Parcel Quest dated April 10, 2012. In 

some cases, however, the Parcel Quest data did not provide information about the total size of the 

parcel. In these cases, the size was estimated using GIS. 2

 The data are consistent with the Final SEIS/SEIR Plan Set, which includes right-of-way plans. 

 GIS = Geographic Information System; SEIS/SEIR = Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report; UCSD = University of California, San Diego 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-206 September 2014

Mitigation Measures 

Project construction would not result in adverse land use impacts; therefore, no 

mitigation is required. Project measures and mitigation for air quality and noise impacts 

are described under their respective sections below, while project measures and 

mitigation for transportation impacts are discussed in Section 3.4.7. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction substantially alter existing or planned land uses in the MidCoast Corridor? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described above, 

construction would not substantially alter land uses in the corridor and therefore impacts 

would be less than significant. 

Community and Neighborhoods Impacts 

Construction-related activities would be in close proximity to residential uses: Morena 

Boulevard between Clairemont Drive and Balboa Avenue; at La Jolla Colony Drive and 

Charmant Drive; at the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex 

along the west side of I-5; at the Sixth College area of UCSD; and along the east side of 

Genesee Avenue between Campus Point Drive and Eastgate Mall. The project’s 

Transportation Management Plan would be designed to avoid detours that would 

encourage drivers to travel through adjacent communities and neighborhoods. A 

comprehensive Community Outreach Program would be developed prior to the start of 

construction activities to keep the community informed of construction activities. The 

program would also provide mechanisms (e.g., phone number and/or email address) for 

the community to comment on construction activities and directly report problems 

regarding construction activities. The nighttime noise impact in the University City 

community would remain adverse. 

Construction activities would require the temporary relocation of the La Jolla Eruv 

boundary16. The La Jolla Eruv currently extends along the east side of the I-5 right-ofway and, because the project alignment crosses over I-5 and into the La Jolla Village 

Square shopping center parking lot, temporary relocation of the fencing along the rightof-way that serves as the eruv boundary likely would be required. In addition, the 

Refined Build Alternative would cross both Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Drive in 

areas where monofilament line is used to demarcate the eruv boundary. To 

accommodate construction activities at these locations, poles and monofilament line 

representing the eruv boundary would be relocated temporarily in cooperation with 

representatives from Congregation Adat Yeshurun. As the boundary would be relocated 

in cooperation with the congregation, there would not be an adverse impact. 

The use of a portion of Warren Field on the UCSD West Campus for construction 

staging would temporarily impact the use of that portion of the sports field. This would be 

a temporary impact to a portion of Warren Field. However, because of the limited and 

 

16 An eruv is an enclosure or boundary that traditionally observant Jewish communities construct in their 

neighborhoods as a way to permit the transference of objects from one domain type to another during the 

Sabbath, when the Jewish Torah prohibits carrying between public and private domains. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-207 

temporary nature of this impact and the availability of the remainder of the field for use, it is 

not considered adverse. 

As described in Section 3.4.7.3, construction activities would require the temporary 

closure of several bicycle facilities, including the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path. With 

Mitigation Measure TCON1, this bike path would be re-routed on a temporary path 

around construction activities but may be temporarily subject to periodic closures of up 

to two weeks during certain phases of work on La Jolla Colony Drive and in the vicinity 

of SR 52. Notice of bike path closures would be made through the public outreach 

program, and detours would be signed. Additionally, the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

would be closed for several nights for the erection and removal of falsework for the San 

Diego River Bridge. During construction of the bridge, cyclists would need to dismount 

and walk their bikes below the falsework as there would be reduced vertical clearance. 

No detours of the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path are anticipated. Thus, impacts would 

result in some inconvenience, but connectivity of the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path and the 

Ocean Beach Bicycle Path would be maintained during the majority of the construction 

period and no adverse impact would occur with mitigation. 

In the San Diego River and near other undeveloped areas along the alignment, 

homeless encampments may be located within the construction area. Typically these 

encampments do not contain large groups of people and are limited to individuals or 

small family groups. Due to the nature of these transient populations, it is not possible to 

predict the exact locations of these encampments, if they exist at all within the area 

affected by construction. Therefore an impact avoidance and minimization measure has 

been incorporated into the project in the event that the area of construction activity would 

require the removal of homeless encampments (as described in the following section). 

The measure would facilitate the provision of appropriate services or shelter, and there 

would not be an adverse impact. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

To the extent possible, detours would not route non-local traffic through local streets in 

communities and neighborhoods that are adjacent to construction zones. Additionally, 

portions of the La Jolla Eruv boundary would be relocated temporarily in cooperation 

with representatives from Congregation Adat Yeshurun such that the ritual enclosure 

around the designated area would be maintained. The limits of the staging area on 

Warren Field would be fenced to ensure that activities within the staging area would not 

impact the remainder of the field. 

Prior to the start of construction, a comprehensive Community Outreach Program would 

be developed with input from community members. Key elements would include a 

project website and newsletter and periodic meetings with community members to 

discuss construction activities. 

The project would include fencing, natural barriers, and/or signs to preclude 

encroachments into the construction area. Any person or persons camped within the 

construction area would be notified to vacate and, if needed, removed. Persons 

requiring temporary shelter and/or social services would be directed to the City of San 

Diego Homeless Administrator regarding the city’s Homeless Services program. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-208 September 2014

SANDAG would coordinate with the city prior to construction to advise them of the need 

for temporary shelter and services for homeless individuals within the project 

construction zone. Such services may be provided by the City of San Diego or an 

affiliate agency. 

Mitigation Measures 

With implementation of the project measures described above and the traffic control and 

public involvement plans and Mitigation Measure TCON1 as described in Section 3.4.7, 

construction would not result in adverse social, community, or neighborhood impacts. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction physically divide an established community? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Project construction would not 

physically divide an established community. Construction work primarily would occur in 

existing rights-of-way. Vehicular and pedestrian detours would be provided and access 

to businesses, residences, and community facilities would be maintained, allowing 

individuals to continue to travel to destinations within each community. 

Would project construction significantly impact a vulnerable population? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described under the Air 

Quality section below, construction of the project would result in significant impacts on 

air quality that cannot be mitigated. These air quality impacts could affect vulnerable 

members of the community, depending on their proximity to construction sites. 

However, the impacts would not be disproportionate in scope or severity with regard to 

vulnerable populations. Given the limited and regional nature of air quality impacts, they 

are not considered a significant impact to a vulnerable population. 

Would project construction adversely impact existing religious or sacred uses? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As stated above, construction 

of the project would require the temporary relocation of the La Jolla Eruv boundary. The 

eruv boundary would be relocated temporarily in cooperation with representatives from 

Congregation Adat Yeshurun. Without this project measure, project construction has the 

potential to adversely impact existing religious or sacred uses because the La Jolla Eruv 

boundary could be removed, which could result in a significant impact. However, with 

the identified project measure, project construction would result in less-than-significant 

impacts on existing religious or sacred uses. 

Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts 

Property Acquisitions 

Construction activities would require temporary encroachment on 47 parcels involving 

approximately 28.53 acres; 35 parcels are privately owned, totaling about 12.49 acres 

and the remainder are public (Table 4-31). The publicly owned parcels include those 

from the City of San Diego, the VA Medical Center, and UCSD. Figure 4-36 shows the 

total estimated temporary encroachment acreage by land use type. These parcels 

would return to their prior use upon expiration of the temporary use agreement or 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-209 

Figure 4-36. Temporary Encroachment by Land Use Type 

 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

easement. The project has been designed to minimize the number of temporary 

encroachments needed during construction. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Property Acquisitions Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014o) contains a detailed 

list of affected parcels. 

Access and parking impacts to properties are discussed in Section 3.4.7. Businesses 

affected by temporary encroachments would be compensated, as appropriate, 

consistent with federal, state, and local regulations. 

No adverse impact with respect to property acquisition is anticipated. 

Fiscal 

Construction impacts also include socioeconomic and fiscal effects. The U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis Regional Input-Output Modeling System multipliers were used to 

estimate the direct and indirect impacts of project construction spending. By generating 

short-term employment, this spending would have a substantial beneficial effect on the 

regional and local economy. Table 4-32 provides the jobs impact of the Refined Build 

Alternative in person-years (i.e., the equivalent to the full-time employment of 1 person 

for 1 year; as an example, 50 person-years could be 25 people each working for 2 

years, 10 people employed for 5 years, or 100 people working for 6 months). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-210 September 2014

Table 4-32. Employment, Earnings, and Output Generated by 

Construction-Phase Expenditures 

Impact Category Refined Build Alternative 

Total Capital Cost 

(excluding right-of-way and finance) 

$ 1,340,262 

Jobs Created (in person-years of employment) 

 Direct 8,508 

 Indirect and Induced 9,266 

 Total 17,774

Earnings (in thousands of 2013$) 

 Direct $ 498,723 

 Indirect and Induced $ 400,096 

 Total $ 898,819 

Output (in thousands of 2013$) 

 Direct $ 1,340,262 

 Indirect and Induced $ 1,347,239 

 Total $ 2,687,500

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: All dollar amounts are in thousands of 2013 dollars and are not inflation-adjusted for year of 

expenditure. 

 Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

The average annual wage for jobs created by construction expenditures would be 

approximately $58,619 (in 2013 dollars). This is higher than the San Diego County 

mean annual wage of $50,800 (in 2011 dollars) (equivalent to approximately $52,636 in 

2013 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator). Overall, 

the average wage for all jobs created (direct, indirect, and induced) would be 

approximately $50,570 (in 2013 dollars). The indirect fiscal impacts associated with the 

project’s wage generation during construction would include sales and income tax 

revenue increases. Therefore, there would be beneficial socioeconomic effects. 

Construction would temporarily impact some commercial and industrial businesses, 

particularly those near or adjacent to construction sites. Impacts that could have an 

adverse economic impact include traffic disruption, reduced parking, increased noise 

and dust, and modified vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns. Sidewalks may be 

obstructed temporarily and pedestrian traffic rerouted, thereby reducing direct access to 

businesses. Other business impacts could include reduced visibility of commercial signs 

and business locations. In particular, construction of the aerial guideway along the west 

side of I-5 and along Genesee Avenue would affect commercial signs on the La Jolla 

Village Square, the Shops at La Jolla Village, Costa Verde, and Westfield UTC shopping 

centers. At these locations, the contractor would be required to install temporary 

signage for businesses open during the construction period, as well as signage to direct 

vehicles to parking and/or access and provide pedestrian access routes. Additionally, 

construction traffic control plans would be designed to provide access to businesses 

during construction and would provide adequate signage to shopping centers and 

businesses. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-211 

As described in Section 3.4.7.4, a large number of parking spaces would be removed 

temporarily at the La Jolla Village Square shopping center and the UCSD campus, and 

temporary replacement parking may not be available to offset all the parking removed. 

Therefore, as described in Section 3.4.7.4, parking impacts would remain adverse at 

these locations. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

To the extent possible, construction plans would minimize temporary encroachments and 

temporary impacts to parking spaces. Property owners would be compensated for 

temporary encroachments and associated business impact costs. Property and business 

owners affected by acquisitions and displacements would be compensated consistent with 

the Uniform Act, the California Act, and SANDAG Board Policy No. 021. Prior to 

termination of a temporary encroachment agreement or easement, the portions of 

properties acquired for temporary use would be returned to the condition prior to the start 

of construction activities or as agreed in the temporary use agreement. 

In particular, construction of the aerial guideway along the west side of I-5 and along 

Genesee Avenue would affect commercial signs at the La Jolla Village Square, the 

Shops at La Jolla Village, Costa Verde, and Westfield UTC shopping centers. Along the 

west side of I-5 and along Genesee Avenue, the contractor would be required to install 

temporary signage for businesses open during the construction period, as well as 

signage to direct vehicles to parking and/or access and provide pedestrian access 

routes. However, as stated in Section 3.4.7.4, a large number of parking spaces would 

be removed temporarily during construction at the La Jolla Village Square shopping 

center. There is the likelihood that temporary replacement parking would not be 

available to offset all the parking removed. In these situations, parking impacts would 

remain adverse. 

To minimize impacts on businesses during construction, the construction traffic control plans 

would be designed to provide access to businesses during construction and would provide 

adequate signage to shopping centers and businesses. 

Mitigation Measures 

Since no adverse property acquisition or fiscal impacts would occur with the 

incorporation of project measures, as discussed above, no mitigation measures are 

required. Refer to Section 3.4.7.4 for a discussion of project and mitigation measures 

that would minimize parking impacts. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would the project construction result in the temporary displacement of occupants of 

either residential or commercial buildings? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would require night-time 

construction and generate noise throughout the corridor. Nighttime construction would 

occur periodically for the Nobel Viaduct near residences along Charmant Drive and in the 

northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5. Nighttime 

construction near residences along Genesee Avenue may continue intermittently for up to 

three years. Mitigation Measure CON2 would provide temporary relocation to an 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-212 September 2014

approved hotel during nights where construction activities are anticipated to generate 

noise levels that exceed the ambient noise levels for that area by 5 dBA after 

implementation of project measures and other mitigation measures. This could constitute 

a temporary displacement. The relocation of residents to mitigate the noise impact would 

be less than significant because of its voluntary and temporary nature and because the 

relocation is not due to the temporary acquisition of properties. The construction noise 

impact is discussed further in the Noise and Vibration section below. 

Visual Resources and Aesthetics Impacts 

Construction activities would result in short-term visual impacts along the project 

alignment. Although these impacts would occur over the entire construction period, 

visual impacts would be localized to the areas of active construction and staging. 

Viewer responses to the construction activities are expected to differ from viewer 

responses to the completed structures. Construction activities are typically perceived as 

temporary, with the expectation that unsightly elements such as scaffolding and bulky 

equipment will be removed upon completion. Therefore, impacts associated with 

construction activities focus on the removal of visual resources, obstruction of vistas or 

scenic views, and introduction of sources of light and glare. 

Construction would not result in adverse impacts on scenic resources or obstruct vistas or 

scenic views from a public place. Short-term visual impacts of the Refined Build Alternative 

would occur along the alignment right-of-way and at construction staging areas. Staging 

areas along the alignment north of La Jolla Colony Drive would produce new localized 

sources of light and glare. Nighttime work would 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 would be removed, which would temporarily change the 

visual quality of the area until replacement vegetation is planted. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

Project specifications would 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; minimizing light and glare 

into the night sky above the construction zone and staging areas; and restoring 

vegetated areas to previous conditions or as otherwise coordinated with property owners 

once those areas area no longer needed for construction. 

Mitigation Measures 

As project construction would not result in adverse visual impacts, mitigation is not 

required. Implementation of the design measures listed above would further reduce 

visual impacts during construction. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 

of the site and its surroundings? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-213 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As described above, 

construction activities are typically perceived as temporary, with the expectation that 

unsightly elements will be removed upon completion. During construction, many of the 

activities and temporary materials used may appear unsightly. In addition, highly visible 

construction equipment, such as cranes, would be visible along roadways, including 

from residential areas. The temporary falsework system would appear to be more 

visually prominent than the final form of the aerial structure or walls. These impacts 

would be less than significant; however, project specifications have been identified to 

further minimize temporary visual impacts. 

Would project construction create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Nighttime construction 

activities would create new sources of light and glare and result in a significant impact on 

nighttime views in the area. However, project specifications would require shielding of 

light at construction zones and staging areas in residential areas and areas adjacent to 

native habitat areas. Additionally, the project would not introduce a new source of 

substantial light or glare during the day. With the identified project measures, project 

construction would result in less-than-significant impacts on day or nighttime views in the 

area. 

Air Quality Impacts 

The major sources of air pollutants during construction are emissions from diesel-fueled 

construction equipment, dust generated by mechanical disturbance, and windblown dust 

from exposed soil. The air pollutant generated in the largest quantity is particulate 

matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). Particulate matter is a component of both construction 

dust and equipment exhaust, and is the primary air pollutant of concern during 

construction because of possible annoyances to the public. Particulate matter is also of 

concern because the project is located in a state nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5. 

Construction emissions were estimated based on the construction schedule, equipment 

usage (type and quantity), hours of operation, equipment horsepower, load factors, and 

utilization rates. Emissions from worker trips and material hauling, as applicable, were 

also quantified. Emission burdens from each activity were combined based on the 

construction schedule and compared to the applicable threshold levels. Emission 

factors from the CARB Off-Road 2011 Emission Database and from CARB’s 

EMFAC2007 program were used to estimate air quality emissions generated from 

construction. 

Table 4-33 and Table 4-34 present annual and daily estimated construction emissions, 

respectively. As shown in Table 4-34, thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 would not be 

exceeded. However, the project would exceed the daily SDAPCD and South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance threshold for NOX for the years 

2014 through 2018. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-214 September 2014

Table 4-33. Annual Construction Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Alternative Year NOX TOG PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Refined Build Alternative 2014 7 0.5 0.3 0.3 674 

2015 44 3.0 1.9 1.9 4,199 

2016 88 5.9 3.7 3.6 8,230 

2017 115 7.9 5.1 4.9 10,687

2018 69 4.8 3.1 3.0 6,421 

SCAQMD Significance 

Threshold 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000* 

Source: SANDAG, 2014s 

Notes: * The greenhouse gas threshold is an interim threshold adopted by SCAQMD to apply to 

industrial facilities; as thresholds have not been adopted for transportation projects, this 

threshold was used (http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf) 

Values in bold are over SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 

N/A = not applicable (annual thresholds have not been established); CO2 = carbon dioxide; 

NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 microns in 

diameter; PM10 = particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 microns in diameter; 

SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; TOG = total organic gases 

Table 4-34. Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) 

Alternative Year NOX TOG PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Refined Build Alternative 2014 155 11 7 7 15,312 

2015 332 23 15 14 31,811 

2016 667 44 28 27 62,348 

2017 873 60 38 37 80,962 

2018 519 36 24 23 48,646 

SCAQMD Significance Threshold 100 75 150 55 -- 

SDAPCD Significance Threshold 250 137 100 55 -- 

Source: SANDAG, 2014s 

Notes: Values in bold are over SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 

 Values in bold and italics are over both SDAPCD and SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 

CO2 = carbon dioxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter equal to or smaller than 2.5 

microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 microns in diameter; 

SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution 

Control District; TOG = total organic gases 

Construction operations also are a source of GHG17 emissions, typically as a result of 

construction equipment and increased traffic congestion. Annual emissions of CO2, a 

GHG, would exceed SCAQMD thresholds in 2017 for the Refined Build Alternative. 

Construction of the project is therefore expected to have adverse, although temporary, 

regional impacts, as NOx emissions are of concern due to their role in regional ozone 

formation. Although considered adverse, air quality and GHG emissions during 

 

17 GHG include methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and CO2. These gases act as a shield that traps heat in the earth’s 

atmosphere and are thought to contribute to global climate change. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-215 

construction are temporary and would be offset by the overall reduction in air and GHG 

emissions that would result through implementation of the project. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

During construction, the project would be required to comply with regional rules, which 

would help minimize substantial short-term air pollutant emissions. The regional and 

state rules and regulations include the following: 

 SDAPCD Rule 12—Registration of Specified Equipment: Requires specific 

equipment to be registered and operated using specific fuels, equipment, and 

operating procedures (SDAPCD, 2011) 

 SDAPCD Rule 54, Prohibition—Dust and Fumes: Requires that a person would not 

discharge in any one hour into the atmosphere from any source dust or fumes in 

excess of the amounts established under Rule 54 (SDAPCD, 2011) 

 SDAPCD Rule 361.145—Asbestos Standard for Demolition or Renovation: Requires 

specific measures during the demolition or renovation of asbestos-containing 

buildings and structures (SDAPCD, 2011) 

 CARB’s Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation: Imposes limits on idling, buying older 

off-road diesel vehicles, and selling vehicles; and institutes gradual requirements to 

clean up fleets by getting rid of older engines, using newer engines, and installing 

exhaust retrofits 

 SANDAG would consult with SDAPCD regarding measures to minimize air pollutant 

emissions from construction. 

Additionally the project would include the following BMPs: 

 Minimize idle times of construction equipment 

 Maintain equipment in good condition 

 Control construction dust through watering of earthwork during grading activities 

Detailed measures, such as minimizing equipment idle times, maintenance of 

equipment, and watering of earthwork to control dust, would be specified in the 

construction contract documents. The Construction Manager and SDAPCD would 

oversee and monitor the contractor’s compliance with construction mitigation measures, 

rules, and regulations. 

Mitigation Measures 

The project measures and BMPs stated above would minimize air quality impacts during 

construction. However, even with these project measures and BMPs, emissions of NOX

and CO2 would continue to exceed significance thresholds. No feasible mitigation has 

been identified beyond the project measures and BMPs and, therefore, depending on 

timing, emissions of NOX would exceed SCAQMD and SDAPCD significance thresholds 

while CO2 would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, adverse impacts 

on air quality during construction would remain after mitigation. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-216 September 2014

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would the project during construction conflict with the adopted air quality plan and cause 

air quality to exceed regulatory thresholds? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction of the project is expected to 

have significant, although temporary, impacts on air quality. Project measures and 

BMPs would minimize construction emissions. However, even with these measures, the 

SCAQMD and SDAPCD significance thresholds for NOX and the SCAQMD significance 

thresholds for CO2 are expected to be exceeded and the impacts would be considered 

significant and unavoidable.

Noise and Vibration Impacts 

Project construction would require the use of heavy earth-moving equipment, pneumatic 

tools, generators, concrete pumps, and similar equipment. In most areas, construction 

noise would occur for a limited period of time as the construction progresses along the 

linear corridor. At stations, park-and-ride lots, and major structures, including bridges 

and elevated viaducts, construction activities would be concentrated in the same area for 

longer periods of time. In the case of the Genesee Viaduct, which is the area that would 

experience the longest period of construction disturbance, construction noise would 

occur regularly over a period of approximately 3 years. 

The majority of construction work would occur during daytime hours; however, as 

described in Section 3.4.7, substantial nighttime construction work would also be 

required to minimize impacts to vehicular and rail traffic. The duration of nighttime 

construction work would vary based on the construction activity, but would be longest 

along Genesee Avenue and through the LOSSAN corridor. 

An assessment of the short-term construction noise and vibration impacts was 

conducted. The distance of the noise impact during construction would be dependent on 

a variety of factors—ambient noise, the type of construction activity, amount of shielding 

at the construction site, the nature of the environment in that location (amount and height 

of buildings, open space), and the time of day or night. In some places, construction 

noise may only affect sensitive receivers within 100 feet of the construction activity 

where in other places it could be more than 1,000 feet. Because general daytime 

construction activity would occur within 150 feet of sensitive land uses (e.g., student 

housing near Sixth Lane, La Jolla Country Day School, UCSD, and the Preuss School), 

daytime construction noise would result in an impact where construction noise levels 

exceed the City of San Diego Noise Ordinance average sound level limit of 75 dBA 

during the 12-hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

Nighttime construction activity also would result in impacts because of the sensitivity of 

nearby persons in residences, nursing homes, hospitals, and similar land uses with 

nighttime sleep activities. Therefore, in locations where nighttime construction activity is 

required near sensitive land uses, this construction activity would result in increased 

noise levels and adverse impacts. Nighttime construction would occur at some locations 

in close proximity to existing residences. Because of heavy traffic or rail volumes, the 

construction activity within the LOSSAN corridor and for the I-5 crossing and Nobel 

Viaduct, UCSD Viaduct, and Genesee Viaduct would all include periods of nighttime 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-217 

construction work over their construction schedules. When nighttime construction 

activity would exceed the noise level limit of 45 dBA established by the City of San 

Diego, the contractor would obtain a noise permit from the city. 

Nighttime construction noise caused by traffic and construction activities would have 

impacts to residences along the north and east sides of Genesee Avenue, the east side 

of Charmant Drive, and in the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing 

complex adjacent to I-5. Nighttime construction along segments of Genesee Avenue in 

close proximity to residential units is expected to take up to three years, while nighttime 

construction activity near the residences along I-5 would occur intermittently for up to 30 

nights. To the extent practicable, temporary sound walls would be constructed to reduce 

noise levels. 

The project specifications would require the contractor to take all feasible and 

reasonable measures to reduce any construction noise during nighttime hours, such as 

temporary noise barriers, low emission construction equipment, and alternative 

construction methods that would generate lower noise levels. The contractor would be 

required to obtain a noise permit from the City of San Diego. 

Construction activity can generate varying degrees of vibration, depending on the 

construction procedure and the construction equipment used. The primary concern 

regarding construction vibration relates to the risk of building damage. Activities that can 

result in damage include demolition and drilling in close proximity to sensitive structures. 

Construction vibration would result in an adverse impact without mitigation. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

The following measures would be undertaken by SANDAG or the contractor to avoid or 

minimize noise impacts: 

 Comply with all applicable noise regulations, including the City of San Diego Noise 

Ordinance (City of San Diego, 2010b). This may require that the contractor install 

temporary noise barriers at various locations along the rail track alignment and 

around station construction zones. 

 Use specialty equipment with enclosed engines or high-performance mufflers when 

feasible. 

 Locate equipment and staging areas away from noise-sensitive receivers and install 

temporary noise barriers where practicable. 

 Limit unnecessary equipment idling. 

 Follow the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) and reroute construction-related 

truck traffic away from residential streets to the extent allowable by local regulations. 

 Establish the position of noise disturbance coordinator. The noise disturbance 

coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about 

construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of 

the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would be required 

to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-218 September 2014

Documentation of noise complaints and resolution of the complaint would be 

provided to SANDAG. 

 Provide public notice to nearby residents prior to nighttime construction. 

 Coordinate with the site administrators of nearby schools and other sensitive noise 

receptors to discuss construction activities that generate high noise levels. 

Coordination between the site administrators and the construction contractor would 

continue on an as-needed basis throughout the construction period to address 

potentially disruptive noise levels. 

Mitigation Measures 

Even with implementation of the project measures listed above, noise and vibration 

impacts would remain. The following mitigation measures are proposed to further 

minimize noise and vibration impacts: 

CON1 The contractor would develop and implement a Noise Control Plan, approved by 

SANDAG prior to initiating construction. The plan would demonstrate how the 

contractor would reduce noise levels near sensitive noise receptors consistent 

with the city’s Noise Ordinance. The plan would include analysis of construction 

noise based on measured background noise levels, a list of the major pieces of 

construction equipment that would be used, and predictions of the noise levels at 

the closest sensitive receivers (including residences, hotels, schools, churches, 

temples, and similar facilities where either outdoor or indoor activities would be 

sensitive to noise levels). The Noise Control Plan would include noise 

attenuation features as necessary, such as temporary sound walls, mufflers, and 

locating noisy equipment away from sensitive land uses. In addition, the plan 

would consider alternative construction methods when relevant. 

CON2 To reduce nighttime noise impacts to sensitive receivers on Charmant Drive, in 

the Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5, and along Genesee 

Avenue, the contractor would provide noise-reducing curtains or noise-masking 

machines where appropriate and approved by the occupant. Temporary lodging 

in an approved hotel would be offered by SANDAG to residents if, after 

implementation of noise-reducing measures, nighttime construction noise is 

predicted to exceed the ambient noise levels for that area by 5 dBA. 

In areas where construction noise levels are less than 5 dBA above the ambient noise 

level for that area, noise-reducing curtains would eliminate the impact. For levels 

between 5 and 10 dBA above the ambient noise level for that area, a combination of 

curtains and noise-masking machines would be effective at reducing sleep disturbance 

for most residents. If residents are voluntarily relocated under CON2, no construction 

noise impacts would remain after mitigation. Implementation of project and mitigation 

measures would reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant at 

all locations, except for nighttime noise impacts for residents who do not temporarily 

relocate. 

CON3 During final design, and where permission can be obtained, a qualified structural 

engineer would survey the existing foundation and other structural aspects of 

buildings located within close proximity (25 to 100 feet depending on construction 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-219 

activity and structure type) of the construction zone boundaries. Potholing or 

other non-destructive testing of the below-grade conditions may be necessary to 

establish baseline conditions. Depending on anticipated construction activities, 

the survey report would identify buildings that could be affected by construction 

vibration. The qualified structural engineer would document in the survey report 

baseline conditions at all buildings that may be affected by construction vibration. 

The survey report would provide a shoring design to protect identified buildings from 

potential vibration damage. Alternatively, the structural engineer may recommend 

alternative construction methods that would produce lower vibration levels. Such 

measures would be implemented by the contractor at the direction of SANDAG 

and with the permission of the property owner. 

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CON3, vibration generated during 

construction would not result in damage risk to buildings. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction result in a substantial increase in existing ambient noise 

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Some short-term impacts during 

construction would be significant. The noise levels generated by construction equipment 

would vary depending on several factors, including the type of equipment and the 

operation being performed. The Refined Build Alternative construction period is 

estimated to be approximately 4.5 years. Impacts associated with construction would be 

temporary and would occur in various locations within the corridor as construction 

progresses. Construction activities generally would be limited to an area within 50 feet 

of the tracks and stations, and would include various pieces of heavy equipment and 

numerous workers. 

The construction of LRT guideways requires the use of heavy earth-moving equipment, 

pneumatic tools, generators, concrete pumps, and similar equipment. Construction 

activity typically would generate a noise level of approximately 86 dBA at 50 feet. The 

project would require drilled piles for foundation support. The typical noise level during 

drilling operations would be 85 dBA at 50 feet. The majority of construction activity 

would occur during the day or away from noise-sensitive land uses. Nevertheless, 

daytime construction activity would temporarily and intermittently increase ambient noise 

levels well above existing conditions at some residences within 150 feet of construction 

activity and at noise-sensitive land uses along Genesee Avenue (e.g., Preuss School). 

Nighttime construction also would be required for some construction activities near 

Charmant Drive, the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex 

adjacent to I-5, and along Genesee Avenue. These activities would have the potential to 

disturb residents. Construction activities would result in a substantial increase above 

existing ambient noise levels without implementation of project and mitigation measures, 

thus constituting a significant impact. 

Would project construction expose people to noise levels that exceed the city's adopted 

noise ordinance or expose existing land uses to noise levels that are considered 

incompatible under the city’s Noise Land Use Compatibility Chart? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-220 September 2014

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Some short-term impacts during 

construction would be significant. According to Section 21.04 of the San Diego 

Municipal Code, construction noise levels measured at or beyond the property lines of 

any property zoned residential should not exceed an average sound level higher than 75 

dBA during the 12-hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, construction 

activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise is prohibited between 

7:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, or on legal holidays as 

specified, with the exception of Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday, or on 

Sundays. Construction noise that would exceed the above limits would result in 

significant impacts without implementation of project or mitigation measures. The 

construction contractor would be required to obtain a City of San Diego Construction 

Noise Permit and abide by the limits of the permit. 

For some daytime construction activities, the 75-dBA standard could be exceeded at 

receivers located 150 feet or less from the noise source. Some nighttime construction 

could occur at some locations in close proximity to existing residences. The contractor 

would obtain a Construction Noise Permit, granted by the City of San Diego Noise 

Abatement and Control Administrator, for construction activities occurring after 7:00 p.m. 

The permit would require that the contractor take all feasible and reasonable efforts to 

reduce construction noise during nighttime hours. Construction noise levels that exceed 

the average sound level limits of 75 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and any 

construction noise after 7:00 p.m. that exceeds the nighttime limits would result in a 

significant impact. New track construction would occur in close proximity to various 

schools, including UCSD and the Preuss School. School uses are sensitive to increased 

noise levels. Because typical construction activities would exceed 75 dBA, noise could 

interfere with learning activities and examinations. Construction noise at schools would 

result in significant impacts without implementation of the project and mitigation 

measures. 

Would the project result in temporary construction noise that would interfere substantially 

with normal business communication or affect sensitive receptors, such as day-care 

facilities? 

Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Some short-term impacts during daytime 

construction would be significant if business communications are conducted outdoors. 

Although it varies with distance, background noises approaching 70 dBA typically make 

normal conversation difficult. Land uses within 300 feet could experience outdoor 

construction-related noise levels that exceed 70 dBA. In addition, construction noise 

would affect sensitive receptors such as residences and schools (e.g., Preuss School). 

Construction noise could interfere with normal business communication that must be 

conducted outdoors or affect outdoor educational activities and would result in significant 

impacts without implementation of the project and mitigation measures.

In summary, short-term construction noise impacts would result in significant impacts 

throughout the corridor. However, implementation of project and mitigation measures 

would reduce short-term construction noise impacts to less than significant at all 

locations except for nighttime construction noise impacts at Charmant Drive, in the 

northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5, and along 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-221 

Genesee Avenue. At these three locations, the impact would be significant when the 

noise levels could not be fully mitigated through the use of noise-reducing curtains 

and/or noise-masking machines, or temporary voluntary relocation of residents to a 

hotel. At other locations, there would be no significant impact. 

Ecosystems and Biological Resources Impacts 

Special-Status Plants 

Short-term construction activities would result in the following impacts to special-status 

plant species:

 Removal of 107 of 600 individual San Diego sagewort, 11 of 56 individual 

southwestern spiny rush, and 2 of 456 individual decumbent goldenbush 

 Loss of 2.85 acres of potentially suitable coastal sage scrub habitat for Robinson’s 

pepper-grass and bottle liverwort 

Because the majority of the observed individual San Diego sagewort (82 percent) and 

southwestern spiny rush (80 percent) in the study area would not be affected directly by 

construction and because these species have a relatively low level of rarity (CRPR 4), 

their removal as a result of construction would not have an adverse impact on the 

environment. 

Construction impacts to 2 decumbent goldenbush individuals out of the 456 observed in 

the study area would not be adverse. Although decumbent goldenbush is a CRPR 1B.2 

species, the number of individuals impacted relative to those that would be avoided within 

the study area is negligible. 

Vegetation clearing during construction would remove coastal sage scrub (including 

disturbed coastal sage scrub) considered to be potentially suitable habitat for Robinson’s 

peppergrass (CRPR List 1B.2 species, moderate potential to occur) and bottle liverwort 

(CRPR List 1B.1 species, moderate potential to occur). However, the majority of the 

affected habitat would be located within the existing MTS right-of-way or immediately 

adjacent to it, where substantial populations of either species are unlikely to occur given 

existing levels of disturbance, and where larger patches of adjacent habitat would not be 

impacted. Impacts to coastal sage scrub would be limited to narrow strips along the 

MTS right-of-way, in the vicinity of Rose Creek. The removal of potentially suitable 

habitat for Robinson’s pepper-grass and bottle liverwort, and the potential loss of 

individuals that could occur, would not have an adverse impact. 

During construction, dust, erosion, and runoff could indirectly affect special-status plant 

species observed or with a moderate potential to occur in adjacent habitat areas, 

including decumbent goldenbush, San Diego sagewort, southwestern spiny rush, and 

Southern California black walnut, a CRPR 4.2 species. However, standard construction 

BMPs would be implemented to minimize these effects. Specific BMPs and mitigation 

measures associated with construction dust, erosion, and runoff are described in detail 

below. Therefore, dust, erosion, and runoff generated by construction of the project 

would not have an adverse impact on plants. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-222 September 2014

No plant species listed or proposed as federally threatened or endangered would be 

affected as a result of construction. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

Construction would result in the following short-term impacts to special-status wildlife:

 Temporary loss of 7.16 acres of habitat (4.1 acres of wetlands, 2.85 acres of Tier II, 

and 0.21 acre of Tier III vegetation) used by a number of special-status wildlife 

species would occur (Section 4.8 provides additional information on these vegetation 

communities and special-status plant and wildlife species). 

 Coastal sage scrub areas that may support coastal California gnatcatcher and other 

special-status species would be temporarily impacted during construction. These 

areas are located entirely within or along the existing MTS right-of-way or on the 

UCSD campus and surrounded by developed land uses. Temporary impacts include 

approximately 0.23 acre of coastal sage scrub within the MHPA along Rose Creek to 

the north and south of SR 52. 

 Impacts to 2.13 acres of potentially suitable riparian habitat for least Bell’s vireo and 

southwestern willow flycatcher could occur if either species occupies the area prior to 

construction. 

 During the nesting season, generally between February 15 through August 31 for 

most species, and January 15 through August 31 for raptors, vegetation clearing, 

ground-disturbing activities, and disturbance of non-native or man-made nesting 

habitats associated with construction could directly impact nesting special-status 

birds (Cooper’s hawk, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, and yellow-breasted chat) 

and other species protected under the federal MBTA. 

 Modification of approximately 130 feet of the existing bridge for the Trolley Green 

Line adjacent to the southern abutment at the San Diego River could directly impact 

roosting western mastiff bats, a California species of special concern, if present 

within cracks and weep holes along the underside of the bridge. The western mastiff 

bat has the potential to occur in the area and is known to use man-made structures. 

After mitigation, which includes avoidance of the breeding season (if feasible), 

installation of temporary and humane exclusionary devices, a pre-construction 

survey, and implementation of a 300-foot buffer from active maternity roosts if found, 

impacts to roosting western mastiff bat and potential roost sites would be not be 

adverse. 

 Effects could occur to observed species nesting in the study area and additional 

special-status bird species with a moderate potential to occur in the study area. 

 Vegetation clearing activities within riparian habitat could directly impact roosting 

western red bat, a California species of special concern. However, there is a low 

probability that breeding females roosting with young would occupy the project area. 

Construction activities are not expected to cause vibration impacts to foraging, nesting, 

or reproductive activities. Vibration-causing activities, if any, would persist for a short 

duration and would occur near bridges during the initial stages of construction. Dust, 

erosion, and runoff would be controlled by implementation of project BMPs and are not 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-223 

expected to have an adverse impact on special-status wildlife. Construction would result 

in short-term noise impacts in adjacent habitat areas, which can disrupt foraging, 

nesting, and reproductive activities in breeding birds. Native habitat areas adjacent to the 

project alignment with the potential to support special-status breeding bird species are 

present in the San Diego River, in Rose Creek, and in upland areas adjacent to Rose Creek. 

Existing ambient noise levels associated with freeway traffic and other nearby sources at 

these locations are relatively high. 

Where habitat occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, or 

southwestern willow flycatcher is present within 500 feet of construction, constructionrelated noise could have substantial adverse impacts on these species during the 

breeding season. However, potential indirect impacts from construction noise would be 

mitigated through breeding season avoidance if feasible, and by maintaining constructionrelated noise in occupied habitat within 500 feet of project construction at or below 60 dBA 

Leq, or existing ambient conditions, whichever is greater. If necessary, noise attenuation 

measures, such as temporary sound walls, would be implemented. With these proposed 

measures, potential indirect impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s 

vireo, and southwestern willow flycatcher from noise during construction would not be 

adverse. Additionally, with mitigation, construction-related noise levels in the adjacent 

areas would not substantially increase ambient noise levels during the breeding season; 

therefore, potential indirect impacts to most special-status wildlife species from noise during 

construction would not be adverse. 

During construction, dust could indirectly impact the pool in which two male San Diego 

fairy shrimp were observed (Basin BB). However, this pool is located outside of the 

disturbance footprint of the project, approximately 72 feet west of the project alignment 

(centerline of the southbound track), and the pool would not be directly impacted. 

Because of the location of the project on the opposite side of the existing tracks (i.e., to 

the east), and the position of the occupied fairy shrimp basin below and to the west of 

the existing tracks, the occupied fairy shrimp basin and basin watershed are not 

expected to be affected by erosion and/or runoff during construction. 

During construction, replacement of the existing 700-foot-long concrete-lined channel 

portion of Rose Creek at the SR 52 and I-5 interchange would limit access to the 

channel and portions of the adjacent upland areas. As a result, the occasional use of 

the area for wildlife movement by nocturnal species, such as coyote, raccoon, and 

skunk, could be affected. However, the adjacent disturbed upland areas would remain 

accessible during construction and would allow limited wildlife movement through the 

area. With the use of shielded lights for nighttime security lighting in the area, the 

occasional use of the area by coyote and other species is not expected to be 

substantially affected. In addition, because the potential for aquatic or semi-aquatic 

species to use the existing concrete-lined channel is low, project construction is not 

expected to affect aquatic or semi-aquatic species that may occur in Rose Creek. Shortterm construction impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat linkages, therefore, would not 

be adverse. 

Although some individuals could be directly affected and all or portions of some 

territories and home ranges could be temporarily lost, the number of individuals within 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-224 September 2014

the 7.16 acres of affected habitat would represent a small percentage of the local 

population. The 7.16 acres of affected habitat consists predominantly of small patches 

along the edges of existing MTS, LOSSAN, and I-5 rights-of-way and urbanized areas. 

In addition, the overall temporary impacts to 2 percent of the wetlands, Tier II, and Tier 

III vegetation communities within the study area would be small relative to the available 

habitat in the study area. For these reasons, impacts to ground-dwelling special-status 

wildlife species and their habitats would be not be adverse. 

Because of the small percentage of habitat affected, special-status wildlife would not be 

adversely affected with implementation of the mitigation measures to avoid construction 

activities during the breeding season if nesting birds are found (as described below) and 

the implementation of BMPs. 

Vegetation Communities 

Project construction would result in the temporary loss of 7.16 acres of wetlands, Tier II, 

and Tier III vegetation communities, considered sensitive natural communities by the 

City of San Diego (2011a). The affected vegetation communities would be confined to 

areas immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way and on the UCSD campus 

and would represent a temporary loss of vegetation communities in the study area. This 

impact would be adverse because it would affect riparian and wetland habitats and other 

sensitive natural communities identified by the city. 

Construction activities would cause the temporary loss of the following sensitive natural 

communities, including wetland and riparian communities: 

 Wetlands: 4.1 acres of construction impacts 

 Tier II: 2.85 acres of construction impacts 

 Tier III: 0.21 acre of construction impacts 

Construction impacts to sensitive vegetation communities could result from adverse 

“edge effects,” which occur along the development–preservation interface. Edge effects 

could include dust, which could disrupt adjacent plant vitality in the short-term, or soil 

erosion and surface-water runoff. Implementation of project BMPs to control dust and 

erosion would reduce impacts to vegetation communities such that any impacts would 

not be adverse. 

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources 

The project would result in construction-related impacts to wetland and non-wetland 

waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the RWQCB pursuant to the federal 

Clean Water Act, and streambed and associated riparian areas under the jurisdiction of 

the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, 

the project would impact CCC-defined coastal wetlands. A total of 2.64 acres of USACE 

and RWQCB jurisdictional areas (1.51 acre of wetland and 1.13 acre of non-wetland 

waters) 4.08 acres of CDFW and City of San Diego jurisdictional areas (2.87 acres of 

riparian areas and 1.21 acres of streambed), and 0.66 acre of coastal wetlands would be 

affected temporarily by construction-related ground disturbance or vegetation removal of 

long, narrow strips along the project alignment at the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-225 

and Rose Creek, including Arundo-dominated riparian, southern willow scrub (including 

disturbed), southern riparian forest, disturbed wetland, mulefat scrub, nonvegetated 

channel or floodway, and disturbed herbaceous wetland. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

During final design, the project’s construction footprint would be further reviewed and, where 

possible, the footprint would be minimized to reduce impacts to wetlands and vegetation. 

Where construction occurs adjacent to sensitive biological resources, the limits of 

construction would be visibly delineated through brightly colored fencing or other highly 

visible means. Construction crews would be directed not to encroach beyond the limits of 

construction. BMPs, as described under the “Air Quality” and “Water Resources” sections, 

would minimize dust, erosion, and runoff generated by construction activities. To reduce 

impacts to nocturnal species, nighttime construction activity would be minimized whenever 

feasible and shielded lights would be used for nighttime security lighting in the area. 

During construction, a biological monitor would be present to assist in the avoidance of 

impacts to native vegetation, jurisdictional aquatic resources, special-status plants and 

wildlife, and nesting birds. Activities and impacts would be recorded in a daily 

monitoring log. Specific biological monitoring and/or mitigation measures for nesting 

birds, bats, vegetation communities, and jurisdictional aquatic resources are described 

below. In addition to the specific biological monitoring requirements and mitigation 

measures outlined below, general biological monitoring would include verifying that the 

contractor has covered all steep-walled trenches or excavations used during 

construction at all times, except when being actively used. If trenches or excavations 

cannot be covered, the monitor would verify that the contractor has installed 

exclusionary fencing (e.g., silt fence) around the trenches or excavation areas, if 

feasible, to prevent entrapment of wildlife (e.g., reptiles and mammals). Open trenches, 

or other excavations that could entrap wildlife, would be inspected periodically by the 

biological monitor. If animals are encountered within any trenches or excavated areas, 

they would be removed by the biological monitor, if possible, or provided with a means of 

escape (e.g., a ramp or sloped surface) and allowed to disperse. In addition, the 

biological monitor would provide training to construction personnel to increase 

awareness of the possible presence of wildlife beneath vehicles and equipment and use 

best judgment to avoid killing or injuring wildlife. The biological monitor would be 

available to assist with moving wildlife, if necessary. 

The light-footed clapper rail has not been observed in the study area and available 

suitable habitat in the project study area within the San Diego River is of marginal 

quality. However, during construction, a movement corridor for light-footed clapper rail 

would be maintained along the San Diego River main channel to allow clapper rails to 

move through the construction area, if present. The movement corridor would include 

exclusionary fencing along the project limits on both sides of the flow channel to prevent 

clapper rails from entering construction areas, if present. 

Indirect construction impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp in Basin BB would be 

avoided through the designation of a buffer. The buffer, to be developed in consultation 

with the USFWS and CCC, would be established to prevent construction from indirectly 

affecting the pool and its associated watershed. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-226 September 2014

To prevent the introduction of invasive plant species, construction vehicles and 

equipment would be washed prior to working in areas where sensitive vegetation 

communities are present adjacent to the project. 

Mitigation Measures 

With incorporation of the construction mitigation measures described below, there would 

be no adverse impacts. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

CON4 Biologists would conduct nesting bird surveys not more than 72 hours prior to 

initiating construction-related ground-disturbing activities (i.e., grading or groundclearing activities) during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31 

for most species, and January 15 through August 15 for raptors, or as 

determined by a qualified biologist). Biologists would determine if active nests of 

special-status birds or bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the California 

Fish and Game Code 3503 are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet 

(500 feet for raptors) of the disturbance zone during the nesting/breeding season 

of native bird species potentially nesting on the site. Despite the lack of native 

habitat, similar pre-construction nesting bird surveys would be conducted at the 

four TPSSs located outside of the biological study area to the south of the OTTC 

to ensure the avoidance of native birds potentially nesting in urbanized areas. If 

ground-disturbing activities are delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys 

would be conducted such that no more than 72 hours would have elapsed 

between the survey and the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. 

CON5 If biologists find an active nest of a native bird species, then vegetation clearing, 

ground-disturbing activities, and construction equipment that generates high 

noise or vibration levels would cease and be postponed or halted at the 

discretion of the biologist in consultation with the CDFW. This work cessation 

would be effective within a buffer area from the nest at a distance appropriate to 

the sensitivity of the species and the distribution of the surrounding habitat 

(typically 300 feet for most species, up to 500 feet for raptors—the area may vary 

depending on the types of vegetation surrounding the nest). Construction work 

would not resume until the biologist has determined that the nest is no longer 

active, the juveniles have fledged, and there is no evidence of a second attempt 

at nesting. Alternatively, a qualified biological monitor would be present full-time 

while construction is occurring within the buffer area to observe the nesting birds 

and would have the authority to halt or redirect construction if the birds exhibit 

signs of distress. Limits of construction around active nests would be established 

in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction 

personnel would be informed about the sensitivity of nest areas. The biologist 

would serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction 

activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent 

impacts to nesting birds occur. 

CON6 Vegetation clearing within suitable western red bat habitat would be avoided 

during the maternal roost season (May through August, or as determined by a 

qualified biologist) where feasible. Pre-construction surveys for roosting western 

red bat would be conducted within suitable habitat if construction would occur 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-227 

within or adjacent to suitable roost sites during the maternal roost season. If a 

roost is detected, passive exclusion would include monitoring the roost for three 

days to determine if the roost is vacated. If the roost is determined to support a 

reproductive female with young, the roost would be avoided until it is no longer 

active. If the roost remains active within the three monitoring days and supports 

a dispersing male but no breeding female or young, the foliage of the tree would 

be trimmed after the male has left the roost at dusk. The tree would be 

monitored again the following evening after the foliage has been trimmed to 

determine if any activity remains at that roost location. If there is no activity, the 

tree would be removed. If it cannot be determined whether an active roost site 

supports breeding females or males, the roost site would not be disturbed and 

construction within 300 feet would be postponed or halted until the roost is 

vacated and the young are volant. 

CON7 Focused surveys for the western mastiff bat maternity roosts would be conducted 

in the summer (May through August, or as determined by a qualified biologist) 

prior to construction, if feasible. 

Pre-construction surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist no earlier 

than 30 days prior to initiation of bridge modification activities if summer surveys in 

advance of construction are infeasible, Pre-construction surveys would include the 

bridge section planned for modification and would be conducted using visual 

search and ultrasonic recording devices to determine if active roosts of the western 

mastiff bat are present on or within 300 feet of the bridge section subject to 

modification. These surveys would concentrate on the periods when roosting bats 

are most detectable (i.e., when leaving the roost between one hour before sunset 

and two hours after sunset) and take place over a period of three to five days. 

CON8 Temporary and humane exclusionary devices would be installed in the fall 

(September or October) preceding construction at those locations where summer 

surveys detected an active maternity roost for the western mastiff bat to avoid 

potential direct impacts. Prior to any exclusion measures being implemented to 

prevent bats from using an existing roost habitat, a qualified bat biologist would 

survey (e.g., visually and using an ultrasonic device to record bat calls in concert 

with sonogram analysis software) and identify nearby alternative maternity colony 

roost sites. If any supplemental measures must be implemented to ensure 

successful exclusion of bats from an existing roost and/or the identification of 

alternative roosting habitat, all related assessments and monitoring must be 

conducted by a qualified bat biologist, with biological monitoring reports and 

findings provided to the CDFW. 

If construction activities must occur during the summer and pre-construction 

surveys have identified an active western mastiff bat maternity roost, the roost 

would not be disturbed and construction within 300 feet would be postponed or 

halted until the roost is vacated and juveniles have fledged. 

If construction activities must occur when bats are active and pre-construction 

surveys have identified non-breeding bat hibernacula in portions of the Trolley 

Green Line Bridge subject to disturbance from bridge modification activities, the 

individuals would be safely evicted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist 

using appropriate means acceptable to the resource agencies (e.g., installation 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-228 September 2014

of one-way doors, foam filling of roosting locations when bats are not present, or 

plastic sheeting hung vertically). In situations requiring one-way doors, a 

minimum of one week would pass after doors are installed prior to concluding 

that the roost has been vacated. During this time, temperatures should be 

sufficiently warm for bats to leave the roost because bats do not typically leave 

their roost daily during winter months or on unseasonably cold nights in southern 

coastal California. In situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary 

in the judgment of the qualified bat biologist, roosts that need to be removed 

would first be disturbed at dusk by various means at the direction of the bat 

biologist to allow bats to escape during the darker hours and access to the roost 

site would be excluded the next day (i.e., there would be one night between initial 

disturbance and exclusion of the roost site). 

These actions should allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their 

chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight (Bat 

Conservation International, 2009). 

Vegetation Communities 

CON9 Temporary impacts to wetland vegetation communities would be mitigated at a 

1:1 ratio, as shown in Section 4.8, Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21. The 

location and configuration of wetland vegetation communities within restoration 

areas in the San Diego River and Rose Creek would be adjusted to ensure that 

restored areas beneath bridges are limited to wetland communities that can 

tolerate reduced sunlight availability. 

Based on the presence of wetland vegetation communities under existing bridges 

over the San Diego River and Rose Creek, similar communities, including 

cismontane alkali marsh, mulefat scrub, and in some cases southern willow 

scrub, would be planted under the proposed bridges. Restored areas adjacent to 

the proposed bridges and that are not subject to long-term shading would be 

revegetated primarily with southern willow scrub. 

For temporary construction impacts to wetland vegetation communities, 4.11 acres of 

mitigation are proposed that would involve restoring construction areas to pre-existing 

contours and vegetation communities. Of the 4.11 acres of mitigation for short-term 

construction impacts to wetland vegetation communities, approximately 0.89 acre of the 

restored areas would be located beneath the proposed bridge crossing in the San Diego 

River and three crossings over Rose Creek. 

CON10 Impacts to Tier II (coastal sage scrub) and Tier IIIB (non-native grasslands) 

vegetation communities would be mitigated according to the mitigation ratios 

shown in Section 4.8, Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21. 

For short-term construction impacts to Tier II and Tier IIIB vegetation communities within 

the MHPA, 0.23 acre of mitigation is proposed. For short-term impacts to Tier II and Tier 

IIIB vegetation communities outside the MHPA, 4.13 acres of mitigation are proposed if 

the mitigation occurs outside the MHPA, and 2.68 acres of mitigation are proposed if the 

mitigation occurs within the MHPA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-229 

Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources 

CON11 Temporary impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be mitigated at a 

minimum 1:1 ratio through on-site restoration, subject to approval by the USACE, 

RWQCB, CCC, and CDFW during the permitting process. On-site restoration 

would include the restoration of pre-existing contours, elevations, and vegetation 

communities within areas temporarily disturbed as a result of construction 

activities in the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek. The location 

and configuration of wetland communities within restoration areas in the San 

Diego River and Rose Creek would be adjusted to ensure that restored areas 

beneath bridges are limited to wetland communities that can tolerate reduced 

sunlight availability. 

Based on the presence of wetland communities under existing bridges over the 

San Diego River and Rose Creek, similar communities, including cismontane 

alkali marsh, mulefat scrub, and in some cases southern willow scrub, would be 

planted under the proposed bridges. Restored areas adjacent to the proposed 

bridges and that are not subject to long-term shading would be revegetated 

primarily with southern willow scrub. 

A total of 2.64 acres of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional wetland and non-wetland waters, 4.08 

acres of CDFW and City of San Diego jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian areas, 

and 0.66 acre of CCC wetlands would be restored as mitigation for temporary impacts, as 

shown in Table 4-22. 

Indirect Construction Impacts to Coastal California Gnatcatcher

CON12 Construction-related noise levels in coastal California gnatcatcher occupied 

habitat within 500 feet of construction activity would not exceed 60 dBA Leq or 

pre-construction ambient noise levels, whichever is greater, during the breeding 

season. Project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat would occur 

outside of the breeding season if possible. If necessary, construction activities 

during the breeding season would be managed to limit noise levels in occupied 

habitat within 500 feet of the project, or noise attenuation measures, such as 

temporary sound walls, would be implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 

dBA Leq or below existing ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 

Indirect Construction Impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

CON13 To avoid potential adverse impacts to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow 

flycatcher from construction-related noise, project construction within 500 feet of 

occupied habitat would be timed to occur outside of the breeding season if 

feasible. If project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat must occur 

during the breeding season, construction-related noise within the occupied 

habitat areas would not exceed 60 dBA Leq or pre-construction ambient noise 

levels, whichever is greater. If necessary, construction activities during the 

breeding season would be managed to limit noise levels in occupied habitat 

within 500 feet of the project or noise attenuation measures would be 

implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq or below existing ambient 

noise levels, whichever is greater. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-230 September 2014

Light-footed Clapper Rail 

CON14 To avoid potential adverse impacts to light-footed clapper rail from constructionrelated noise, project construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat would be 

timed to occur outside of the breeding season if possible. If project construction 

within 500 feet of occupied habitat must occur during the breeding season, 

construction-related noise within the occupied habitat areas would not exceed 60 

dBA Leq or pre-construction ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. If 

necessary, construction activities during the breeding season would be managed 

to limit noise levels in occupied habitat within 500 feet of the project or noise 

attenuation measures would be implemented to reduce noise levels below 60 

dBA Leq or below existing ambient noise levels, whichever is greater. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction result in short-term substantial adverse effect, either directly 

or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 

special-status species? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). Habitat 

modifications during construction would have significant impacts, but they would be 

reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 

Special-Status Plants 

Construction activities would result in the direct removal of CRPR 4.2 San Diego 

sagewort and CRPR 4.2 southwestern spiny rush and potentially suitable habitat for 

CRPR 1B.2 Robinson’s pepper-grass and CRPR 1B.1 bottle liverwort. No plant species 

listed or proposed as federally threatened or endangered would be affected as a result 

of construction activities. Because the majority of the observed individuals of San Diego 

sagewort and southwestern spiny rush would not be directly impacted from construction 

activities and they have a relatively low level of rarity, impacts would be less than 

significant. Additionally, there would be less-than-significant impacts on Robinson’s 

pepper-grass and bottle liverwort because the affected habitat is located within the 

existing MTS right-of-way or immediately adjacent to it, where substantial populations of 

either species are unlikely to occur. 

During construction, dust, erosion, and runoff could indirectly impact special-status plant 

species observed or with a moderate potential to occur in adjacent habitat areas. 

However, construction BMPs and mitigation measures would be implemented to 

minimize these significant impacts. For this reason, indirect impacts to the species listed 

above would be less than significant. 

Special-Status Wildlife 

During construction, the project would require the direct removal of 4.1 acres of wetland 

vegetation, 2.85 acre of Tier II vegetation, and 0.21 acre of Tier III vegetation, resulting in 

a temporary loss of habitat for special-status wildlife species. Construction activities 

involving ground disturbance and vegetation clearing in wetlands, Tier II, and Tier III 

vegetation communities also could directly impact special-status ground-dwelling 

species (e.g., rodents, reptiles, and amphibians). Impacts to ground-dwelling special-
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-231 

status wildlife species would be less than significant because the number of individuals 

within the 7.16 acres of affected habitat would represent a small percentage of the local 

population and the overall temporary impacts to 2 percent of the wetlands, Tier II, and 

Tier III vegetation communities within the study area would be small relative to the 

available habitat in the study area. 

Ground improvements associated with bridge construction at the San Diego River and in 

Rose Creek would result in short-term construction vibration in adjacent native habitat 

areas that could affect ground-dwelling special-status species. Impacts would be less 

than significant since the extent and duration of vibration would be limited to the 

immediate vicinity of construction and would persist for only a short duration. 

During the bird-breeding season, construction activities could directly impact nesting 

special-status birds and species protected under the federal MBTA. Mitigation measures, 

including breeding season avoidance and pre-construction surveys during the nesting 

season, would minimize or avoid impacts and, therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be 

less than significant with mitigation. 

Vegetation clearing activities within riparian habitat also could directly impact roosting 

western red bat, a California species of special concern. However, there is a low 

probability that breeding females roosting with young would occupy the project area. 

Modification of approximately 130 feet of the existing bridge for the Trolley Green Line at 

the San Diego River could impact bats potentially roosting within cracks in the structure. 

The western mastiff bat has potential to occur in the area and is known to use manmade structures. After mitigation, which includes a pre-construction survey and a 300-

foot buffer around active maternity roosts if found, impacts to western mastiff bats would 

be reduced to less than significant. 

Implementation of the project would result in construction noise in adjacent habitat areas, 

which can disrupt foraging, nesting, and reproductive activities in special-status breeding 

birds. However, given existing ambient noise levels, short-term indirect impacts from 

construction-related noise during the breeding season would be less than significant. 

Project construction in the vicinity of occupied habitat may have adverse indirect impacts on 

the coastal California gnatcatcher if construction occurs during the breeding season from 

February 15 through August 31 for most species, and January 15 through August 15 for 

raptors. However, with the implementation of breeding season avoidance, noise minimization, 

and/or noise attenuation measures, potential short-term indirect impacts to the coastal 

California gnatcatcher as a result of construction noise would be less than significant. 

Because the ephemeral Basin BB in which San Diego fairy shrimp were observed and 

the associated microwatershed are located outside the disturbance footprint of the 

project, implementation of the project would have no impact on San Diego fairy shrimp. 

Would project construction result in short-term substantial adverse effects on Tier I, Tier 

II, Tier IIIa, or Tier IIIb habitats, or other sensitive natural community? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-232 September 2014

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). Project impacts 

during construction would have significant impacts, but they would be reduced to less 

than significant with mitigation. 

Construction access and staging areas, installation of falsework, and the completion of 

ground improvements at bridge crossings and elevated portions of the alignment would 

require the direct removal of 7.16 acres of wetlands, Tier II, and Tier III vegetation 

communities. According to the CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds (City of 

San Diego, 2011a), lands containing wetlands, Tier II, and Tier III vegetation 

communities are considered sensitive habitats. The affected vegetation communities 

would be confined to areas immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way and 

would represent a temporary loss of vegetation communities in the study area. As 

project construction is anticipated to occur over a 4.5-year period, the duration of 

temporal loss of vegetation communities could be 4.5 years or longer depending on the 

time required to restore vegetation to pre-construction conditions. Impacts to these 

resources would be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Therefore, with the 

implementation of mitigation, short-term impacts to sensitive natural communities during 

construction would be less than significant. 

Would project construction result in a short-term substantial adverse impact on 

wetlands? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). Project impacts 

during construction would have potentially significant impacts, but they would be 

reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Construction would impact jurisdictional 

aquatic resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE and RWQCB, the CDFW, the City 

of San Diego, and the CCC. During construction, temporary impacts to jurisdictional 

aquatic resources would result from falsework installation, ground improvements, 

staging areas, and haul routes associated with bridge construction. A total of 2.64 acres 

of USACE and RWQCB jurisdictional areas, 4.08 acres of CDFW-only/City of San Diego 

jurisdictional areas, and 0.66 acre of CCC wetlands would be affected temporarily, 

including Arundo-dominated riparian, southern willow scrub (including disturbed), 

southern riparian forest, disturbed wetland, mulefat scrub, and non-vegetated channel or 

floodway, and disturbed herbaceous wetland. Construction impacts to jurisdictional 

aquatic resources would be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio through restoration of 

affected areas to pre-construction vegetation and contours. Therefore, with 

implementation of mitigation, construction impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources 

would be less than significant. 

Would project construction result in a short-term substantial interference with the 

movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or their wildlife 

corridors? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). During construction, installation of 

the proposed concrete-lined open channel and removal of the existing 700-foot-long 

concrete-lined trapezoidal channel portion of Rose Creek at the SR 52 and I-5 interchange 

would limit access to the channel and portions of adjacent upland areas. As a result, the 

occasional use of the area for wildlife movement by nocturnal species such as coyote, 

raccoon, and skunk could be affected. However, the Rose Creek Bicycle Trail and adjacent 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-233 

disturbed upland areas would remain accessible during construction and would allow limited 

wildlife movement through the area. Without the project measures described above, 

impacts to nocturnal species due to nighttime construction activities could be significant. 

However, by minimizing nighttime construction activity whenever feasible and using shielded 

lights for nighttime security lighting in the area, the use of the area by nocturnal species is 

unlikely to be significantly affected and would be less than significant. In addition, because 

the potential for aquatic or semi-aquatic species to use the existing concrete-lined channel is 

low, project construction is not expected to affect aquatic or semi-aquatic species that may 

occur in Rose Creek. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat linkages would be 

less than significant. 

Would the project construction result in adverse edge effects? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction impacts to 

sensitive vegetation communities could result from adverse "edge effects," which occur 

along the development–preservation interface. During construction, edge impacts could 

result from dust, which could disrupt adjacent plant vitality in the short-term, from soil 

erosion and water runoff, or the introduction of invasive plant species via the transport of 

seeds or other plan propagules on construction vehicles and equipment. Because 

portions of the project are entirely within existing MTS right-of-way, these areas already 

are subject to adverse edge effects that may include noise and lighting associated with 

current rail service operations. Standard construction BMPs and construction mitigation 

measures to control dust, erosion, and runoff would be implemented. In addition, to 

prevent the introduction of invasive plant species, construction vehicles and equipment 

would be washed prior to working in areas where sensitive vegetation communities are 

present adjacent to the project. Therefore, short-term construction impacts related to 

edge effects would be less than significant. 

Water Resources Impacts 

Earth-disturbing construction activities (e.g., surface grading and removal of existing 

vegetation) could increase soil erosion in disturbed areas and deposition of sediments in 

water bodies. The total disturbed area during construction of the Refined Build Alternative 

is estimated to be approximately 151 acres. The project would be required to comply 

with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the Statewide Storm Water Permit 

and incorporate their requirements into construction plans and specifications. 

Construction activities also would be performed consistent with other federal, state, and 

regional water quality regulations and permits as identified in Chapter 2.0 of the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014s). Construction activities would not alter 100-year floodways, except as approved 

through project review and permitting, and required design features would comply with 

conditions included in permits issued under Sections 404 and 401 of the federal Clean 

Water Act. 

There are no known municipal and domestic water supply wells along the project 

alignment where deep foundations are located near water tables. If dewatering is 

required, such activity is covered under the NPDES Construction General Permit. If it is 

deemed that the volume is greater than the Construction General Permit allows, the 

contractor would obtain coverage under an NPDES Low Threat Discharge and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-234 September 2014

Dewatering Permit from the SDRWQCB. The NPDES Low Threat Discharge and 

Dewatering Permit would require water from the dewatering operation to be treated prior 

to discharge to any local waterway. 

With the implementation of BMPs and compliance with regulatory requirements, the 

project would not result in adverse impacts on water resources during construction. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

Temporary erosion control plans would be prepared in accordance with the NPDES 

Construction General Permit and the Caltrans NPDES Statewide Permit and would 

require implementation of BMPs to manage water quality and runoff from disturbed 

areas and to prevent uncontrolled storm-water flows, except as allowed for discharge in 

a public storm-water system. It is anticipated that the project may employ measures 

including, but not limited to, the construction site BMPs listed in Table 4-35. 

Table 4-35. Temporary Construction Site BMPs 

Purpose BMP 

Temporary Soil 

Stabilization 

BMPs 

Scheduling (e.g., sequencing of construction activities with the implementation of construction site BMPs) 

Preservation of existing vegetation 

Hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, and soil binders 

Geotextiles, plastic covers, and erosion-control blankets/mats 

Straw and wood mulch 

Streambank stabilization 

Temporary 

Sediment 

Control BMPs 

Silt fence 

Fiber rolls 

Gravel bag berm 

Street sweeping and vacuuming 

Storm drain inlet protection 

Tracking 

Control BMPs 

Stabilized construction entrance/exit 

Stabilized construction roadway 

Non-StormWater 

Management 

BMPs 

Dewatering operations 

Paving and grinding operations 

Clear water diversion 

Illicit connection/illegal discharge detection and reporting 

Vehicle and equipment cleaning, fueling, and maintenance 

Waste 

Management 

and Material 

Pollution 

Control BMPs 

Material delivery, storage, and use 

Stockpile management 

Spill protection and control 

Solid waste and hazardous waste management 

Concrete waste management 

Sanitary/septic waste management 

Source: Caltrans, 2003 

Note: BMP = best management practices 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-235 

Additionally, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared for 

construction activities that impact water quality (e.g., surface grading and removal of 

existing vegetation). The SWPPP has two major objectives: (1) to help identify the 

sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm-water 

discharges, and (2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or 

eliminate sediment and other pollutants in storm-water and non-storm-water discharges. 

Prior to construction, spill prevention and control measures would be identified and 

implemented as part of the project. In addition, in accordance with the SWPPP, a Spill 

Prevention, Containment, and Counter-Measure Plan would be prepared to avoid and 

minimize accidental contamination of water resources. 

For additional details regarding BMPs and regulatory requirements, refer to the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014s). 

Mitigation Measures 

Since no adverse impacts would occur with the incorporation of BMPs and compliance 

with regulatory requirements, no mitigation measures are required. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction violate applicable water-quality standards or waste-discharge 

requirements; deplete ground-water supplies or interfere with recharge areas; alter 

drainage patterns resulting in erosion or siltation on- or off-site; create or contribute 

runoff exceeding capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or 

provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). The project would not violate 

any regulations or standards regarding water quality or waste discharge. The project 

would comply with all requirements, implement a SWPPP, and employ BMPs. Thus, 

construction of the project would have a less-than-significant impact on water quality. 

Construction would not rely on ground water and would not require substantial 

dewatering. Therefore, the impact of the project on depletion of ground water would be 

less than significant. There are no known ground water recharge areas, and 

construction would not impact existing ground-water recharge sites. 

During construction, it may be necessary to temporarily reroute a water course or a pipe 

around the construction zone. However, the downstream connection point would be the 

same as existing conditions and flows would not be diverted to other streams or water 

courses. Together with implementation of BMPs, the project would have a less-thansignificant impact on erosion or siltation due to alteration of drainage patterns. 

With the incorporation of BMPs and compliance with regulatory requirements, 

construction impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. 

Hazardous Materials Impacts 

Within and adjacent to the I-5 right-of-way, elevated levels of Pb and other metals, as 

well as residual hydrocarbons, are likely present as a result of previous and ongoing 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-236 September 2014

transportation uses. An investigation was conducted to assess known or suspected 

contaminated properties within or near the anticipated construction zone. There are 35 

sites of environmental concern within the study area and within 1,000 feet of substations 

south of the OTTC (Figure 4-25). Of the identified hazardous material sites, one known 

site and three potential sites are specifically noted for Pb-contaminated soil. 

In addition to the properties that were evaluated, relocation of underground utilities may 

require removal and disposal of buried asbestos-cement pipe. The Final SEIS/SEIR 

Plan Set shows some of the major utilities that may require relocation as part of the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

Construction activities could require excavation of contaminated soils. In addition, 

construction would involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials (e.g., 

fuel and oil) associated with construction equipment. Construction activities would be 

unlikely to result in accidents involving the release of hazardous materials or waste. The 

volumes of hazardous materials that would be used during construction would be small, 

and these materials would be handled according to applicable regulations. The project 

would prepare a site-specific safety plan to address potential hazards that could be 

encountered during construction. All hazardous materials, soils, drums, trash, and 

debris would be removed and disposed of in accordance with state and federal 

regulatory guidelines at a licensed Class I, II, or III disposal facility depending on the 

amount and type of material encountered. 

A portion of the alignment is in an area of documented use as a Camp Matthews' rifle 

and pistol range. Live or spent ammunition, as well as metals (particularly Pb), could be 

present. Within the I-5 right-of-way, elevated concentrations of Pb and other metals, as 

well as residual hydrocarbon concentrations, likely may be present as a result of 

previous and ongoing transportation uses. In addition, the existing railroad right-of-way 

is expected to have elevated concentrations of metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and 

volatile organic compounds from historic railway operations. Safety precautions would 

be taken prior to excavation activities in these areas. 

With the incorporation of project measures noted below, such as BMPs, handling of 

contaminated materials, and adherence to a project-specific safety plan, the project 

would not have an adverse construction impact relative to hazardous materials. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

A number of standard BMPs would be incorporated to minimize impacts from hazardous 

materials. A Spill Prevention, Containment, and Counter-Measures Plan would be 

prepared for all construction zones and staging areas to minimize potential spills of 

hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances. The plan would require approval of 

SANDAG and would be developed by each contractor for the staging areas and work 

zones that fall within their responsibility. The plan would identify measures to reduce the 

risk of accidental spills of hazardous materials and would document procedures for 

containment of spills, if any. If a spill should occur that releases a hazardous material, 

the San Diego County Environmental Health Department would be notified and an 

Emergency Release Follow-up Notice Reporting Form would be submitted no more than 

30 days following the release. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-237 

Additionally, a site-specific Health and Safety Plan would be prepared to address 

potential environmental hazards that may be encountered during construction activities. 

An Air Quality Monitoring Plan would be prepared to address potential exposure hazards 

pertaining to airborne dust in areas of contamination. The Air Quality Monitoring Plan 

would be adhered to during construction and site remediation activities. 

Prior to ground-disturbing activities, samples would be gathered to evaluate potential soil 

and ground water contamination at sites of concern. Stained soils and above-ground 

storage tanks would be disposed of safely in accordance with all applicable regulations. 

If unidentified underground storage tanks or undocumented areas of contamination are 

encountered during construction, work would halt in that area until appropriate health 

and safety procedures have been implemented. A contingency plan would be prepared 

to address contractor procedures for such an event. 

Samples would be collected within the MTS and I-5 rights-of-way; soils within the I-5 

right-of-way would be tested for aerially deposited Pb. Within the railroad corridor, 

sampling would be performed to assess the potential environmental concerns from 

historical railroad use. This sampling can include, but is not limited to, hazardous 

materials associated with potential hydrocarbon releases (oil and diesel fuel) near or 

within the right-of-way where excavation of such material is anticipated. Ballasts, 

railroad ties, and wooden poles identified as contaminated with hydrocarbons or other 

hazardous materials would be removed and disposed of properly at an off-site facility. 

A portion of the alignment area is in an area of documented use as a Camp Matthews rifle 

and pistol range. The possibility exists that live or spent ammunition, as well as metals 

(particularly Pb), may be present. Prior to drilling and during project excavation activities, 

metal detectors and ground-penetrating radar would be used near the historic rifle and 

pistol range to locate the presence of metallic objects. If unexploded ordnance is 

encountered during construction, then appropriate actions would be taken by specialists to 

remove it in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. To ensure worker and 

public safety, construction workers would be provided with training to identify ordnance 

prior to the start of construction activities. If unexploded ordnance is discovered during 

construction, then work in the vicinity would immediately be stopped, access to the area 

would be controlled, and the onsite engineer would be notified to initiate steps for proper 

removal and disposal. The U.S. Department of Defense, through the Marine Corps Air 

Station Miramar Public Affairs Office and/or Explosive Ordnance Disposal, would be 

contacted for guidance and direction if unexploded ordnance is encountered on the former 

Camp Matthews Naval Reserve in the vicinity of the UCSD campus. 

If asbestos-cement pipes are encountered during construction, then appropriate actions 

would be taken by specialists to remove asbestos-cement pipes in accordance with 

local, state, and federal regulations. To ensure worker and public safety, removal and 

disposal of asbestos-cement pipes would follow the requirements of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration as stated in 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 

1926.1101. Removal must also follow worker protection rules as stated in 40 CFR Part 

763 Subpart G, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution, as specified 

under Rule 40, CFR 61, Subpart M, and the Clean Air Act as required under USC 7401 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-238 September 2014

et seq. Asbestos cement pipe removal would require sealing the pipe prior to removal in 

order to minimize exposure. 

In areas identified as contaminated or where soil contamination is suspected and cannot 

be used on site, the contaminated soil would be disposed of properly at an off-site 

facility. Imported fill soils would be characterized to verify that they are not 

contaminated. 

Mitigation Measures 

Because no adverse impacts would occur with the incorporation of project measures and 

compliance with regulatory requirements identified above, no mitigation measures would 

be required. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction result in excavation, which would disturb contaminated soils, 

potentially resulting in the migration of hazardous substances? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Project construction has the 

potential to include excavation of soils that are identified as contaminated with 

hazardous materials. Should contaminated soil be encountered during construction, the 

soil would be disposed of off-site at an appropriate disposal facility; proper agencies 

would be notified; and an Emergency Release Follow-up Notice Reporting Form would 

be submitted no more than 30 days following the release. Without these project 

measures, project construction has the potential to result in migration of hazardous 

substances that would result in a significant impact. However, because of requirements 

for proper disposal of hazardous materials and the implementation of project measures 

to avoid and minimize impacts (as described above), construction would not result in 

migration of hazardous substances. Therefore, construction of the project would not 

have a significant impact on migration of hazardous materials. 

Geotechnical, Geologic, and Seismic Impacts 

Project construction would not result in geotechnical, geologic, or seismic effects. 

Similarly, construction activities would not be affected by compressible, corrosive, or 

expansive soils. Geotechnical and geologic studies would continue to be conducted 

through final design of the project, and these studies would verify locations of potentially 

unstable soils, including areas susceptible to landslide and subsidence. Additional 

geotechnical and geologic analysis would be conducted and additional soil borings 

would be made, especially in areas near planned bridges, the aerial guideway, retaining 

walls, and stations. The information obtained would be used to develop detailed design 

and construction plans. The construction plans and specifications would incorporate this 

information to minimize risks. Additionally, the worker health and safety plan would 

reduce risks associated with naturally occurring disasters. 

Construction activities could cause short‐term increased soil erosion and decreased soil 

stability. 

Excavation could decrease soil stability. The stability of temporary excavations is 

governed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-239 

recommendations from a geotechnical engineer. These recommendations would be 

developed during the final design of the project. 

The infrequency of earthquakes with magnitudes sufficient to trigger seismic hazards 

(fault surface rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, seismic settlement, lateral 

spread, tsunami, and seiche) and the relatively short 4.5-year construction period means 

that the risk of a seismic-related hazard occurring during construction would be 

extremely low. 

With the implementation of the project features listed below, and adherence to 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, there would be no adverse 

impacts on regional geologic or seismic conditions as a result of project construction. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

The design of the project would include establishment and implementation of stormwater BMPs, including, but not limited to, the construction site BMPs listed in Table 4-35,

for those areas with potentially unstable soils that are susceptible to landslide and 

subsidence. Adherence to these requirements would prevent substantial on-site erosion 

and minimize soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Implementation of BMPs would reduce 

potential impacts to not adverse. Additionally, a Job Safety Analysis (JSA) would be 

prepared; the JSA would contain emergency procedures to cover a number of events 

that may occur at or near the project site by natural causes, equipment failure, or by 

human mistake, with earthquakes being one of these events. 

Geotechnical and geologic studies would continue to be conducted through final design 

of the project, and these studies would verify locations of potentially unstable soils, 

including areas susceptible to landslide and subsidence. Additional geotechnical and 

geologic analysis would be conducted and additional soil borings would be made, 

especially in areas near planned bridges, the aerial guideway, retaining walls, and 

stations. 

Mitigation Measures 

Since there would be no adverse impacts, no mitigation measures are required. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would the project construction result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As discussed under the Water 

Resources Impacts subheading above, soil erosion would be controlled by using 

erosion-control devices. Construction site BMPs also would be identified. Prior to 

construction, a SWPPP would be developed to identify how the contractor plans to 

comply with all regulatory requirements. Without these project measures, project 

construction has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion that would result in a 

significant impact. However, with the identified project measures, including the 

implementation of BMPs, the SWPPP, and compliance with all regulatory requirements, 

the project would have a less-than-significant impact on soil erosion. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-240 September 2014

With the implementation of BMPs, noting that the project is located in urbanized areas 

where the top soil has been disturbed, and that no significant farm land has been 

identified along the corridor, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to loss 

of topsoil. However, to the extent practical, the project would remove and store duff and 

topsoil from existing areas that would be disturbed and would use them along the 

corridor in areas that would be revegetated as part of the project. Duff and topsoil from 

areas dominated by invasive species would not be removed and stored. Without these 

project measures, project construction has the potential to result in the loss of topsoil 

that would result in a significant impact. However, with the identified project measures, 

including the incorporation of project features and adherence to the NPDES 

requirements, such as the BMPs and the SWPPP noted above, impacts of the project 

would be less than significant. 

Energy Impacts 

Energy use for construction of the Refined Build Alternative was estimated. Annual 

construction-related energy requirements for the project are less than 0.1 percent of the 

region’s annual energy demand. Construction vehicles and equipment would use fuel, 

but construction energy use would not be substantial and would not require construction 

of new facilities or major modification to existing facilities. Project construction would not 

result in an adverse impact to energy. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

Project construction would not result in adverse energy impacts; however, the following 

project measures would be implemented to conserve energy: project specifications 

would require contractors to minimize idle times of construction equipment and maintain 

equipment per manufacturers’ specifications, and energy-efficient lighting would be used 

in all construction zones and staging areas. 

Mitigation Measures 

The project would not have an adverse impact to energy and would not require 

mitigation measures. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would the project construction use excessive amounts of power, fuel, or energy or would 

require the construction of new systems or substantial modifications to existing systems? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As stated previously, annual 

construction energy requirements for the project are less than 0.1 percent of the region’s 

annual energy demand. Therefore, construction of the project would not use excessive 

amounts of energy or require the construction of new systems. 

Safety and Security Impacts 

Construction of the project could affect public and worker safety and security; however, 

all construction work would be performed consistent with federal, state, and local laws 

and regulations. Safety measures in construction zones would include fencing, signage, 

barricades, lighting, staging area night patrols, detours, and safety officers. Prior to any 

construction activity, contractors would be required to prepare a JSA for each work 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-241 

activity and work site, taking into account the proximity of schools, community centers, 

and other public facilities. Contractors would be required to comply with MTS and NCTD 

safety procedures while working in the MTS right-of-way. 

Construction would require temporary closure of traffic lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and 

routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes. Closures would meet the requirements of 

the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans, 2012) and changes in 

access and mobility would be signed with advanced notice given to the public. Changes 

to routes would be identified in the project plans and, when required, adequate detours 

would be provided. The TMP would identify the requirements and procedures for 

coordination with area emergency responders to ensure adequate access is maintained at 

all times within the community and that construction zone and evacuation routes are not 

impeded. Additional information on the TMP is provided in Section 3.4.7.2. 

Some on-street emergency access areas would be restricted for the duration that traffic 

controls are in place. These areas are identified by red curbs and provide for 

emergency parking near fire hydrants. Prior to construction, coordination would occur 

with local fire departments regarding these temporary closures to avoid an adverse 

impact at these fire hydrant locations. Longer emergency response times for medical 

assistance and law enforcement could occur during construction. All lane closures and 

full roadway closures would be coordinated with the SDFD, law enforcement, and other 

emergency response providers. Coordination with these responders and agencies 

would identify alternate routes that would not be affected by construction and would 

provide the required response time. Provisions would be made for emergency response 

providers and law enforcement to have access through specific zones within 

construction areas that may otherwise be prohibited to the general public. 

With implementation of a TMP, JSA, coordination with emergency providers and law 

enforcement, and maintenance of emergency access, no adverse safety and security 

impacts are expected. Additional information regarding emergency access during 

construction is provided in Section 3.4.7.4. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

For the duration of all construction activities, the contractor would have a designated 

safety officer to oversee construction work and compliance with federal, state, and local 

regulations, as well as the project’s contract specifications related to both worker and 

public safety. Additionally, as described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2, access to all 

police and fire stations as well as area hospitals would be maintained at all times during 

construction. All construction zones and staging areas would be secured using fencing, 

lighting, and/or night patrols to prevent unauthorized persons from entering these areas. 

Prior to any construction activity, a JSA would be prepared to protect construction 

workers and ensure public safety. A JSA would be developed for each significant 

construction activity. 

Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required since there would be no adverse impacts with the 

incorporation of project measures, a TMP (described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4.7.2), a 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-242 September 2014

JSA, coordination with emergency providers and law enforcement, and compliance with 

regulatory requirements. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction interfere with emergency response plans or emergency 

evacuation plans? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction of the project 

would require major construction activities on residential streets, major roadways, and 

on I-5. Therefore, construction activities could interfere with emergency response plans 

and emergency evacuation plans. However, construction activities would be 

coordinated with all emergency responders, and emergency response times would not 

be significantly affected. As such, construction activities would have a less-thansignificant impact on emergency response plans. Emergency evacuation plans may 

require modification to account for reduced lane widths and number of lanes on some 

streets, such as implementation of alternate or additional evacuation routes. Through 

coordination with the appropriate agencies, such as the County Office of Emergency 

Services, such modifications would be identified and implemented as appropriate 

throughout the construction period. Therefore, construction activities would have a lessthan-significant impact on evacuation plans. With coordination and the maintenance of 

emergency access, safety and security impacts during construction would be less than 

significant. 

Electromagnetic Interference Impacts 

EMF levels generated by power tools, such as cordless drills and table saws, would be 

similar to those found inside many buildings that are generated by devices such as 

refrigerators, televisions, and florescent lights. However, power tools used for the 

project are expected to be farther away from buildings than EMF-generating devices 

typically found within a building. Therefore, EMF generated by construction activities 

would not affect existing buildings beyond the levels that are generally experienced in a 

building. Hence, construction activities would not cause adverse levels of EMF. 

System integration tests would generate EMF levels similar to those generated during 

LRT operations. Impacts of EMF during system testing are not treated as a construction 

impact because the testing replicates operation of the system. For a description of the 

methodology for analysis of EMF impacts and impacts during operations, refer to the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report

(SANDAG, 2014r). 

Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are required as project construction would not generate adverse 

EMF impacts. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Project construction activities would not generate adverse EMF impacts. Therefore, no 

significant impacts would occur. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-243 

Historic Architectural Resources Impacts 

In a letter dated August 2, 2013, the SHPO concurred with FTA’s determination that five 

historic architectural resources are eligible for listing in the NRHP and therefore are 

considered “historic properties” for the purposes of Section 106/NEPA: 2750 Kettner 

Boulevard, 4875–4883 Naples Street, 2335 Morena Boulevard, 3435 Morena Boulevard, 

and the Camp Matthews Sentry Booth. Properties that are determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP are automatically eligible for listing in the CRHR; therefore, these five historic 

properties are considered “historical resources” under CEQA. All five historic properties 

would be located more than 100 feet from construction activity and thus vibration caused by 

construction of the project would not result in damage to the buildings. Modifications to the 

Olive Street TPSS would occur approximately 150 feet north of the 2750 Kettner Boulevard 

property. New at-grade track, the Tecolote Road Station, Tecolote Road Bridge, and a 

TPSS would be located approximately 400 feet southwest of the 4875–4883 Naples Street 

property across Morena Boulevard. New at-grade track would be located more than 100 

feet west of the 2335 and 3435 Morena Boulevard properties across Morena Boulevard and 

approximately 170 feet north of the Camp Matthews Sentry Booth, across Voigt Drive. 

Proposed construction activities generally would require conventional earthwork 

equipment (e.g., cranes; tractors; and haul, concrete, and pick-up trucks). Drill rigs and 

similar vibration-generating equipment also would be used near the latter two sites. The 

distances between the construction equipment and the five historic properties would be 

greater than 25 feet; therefore, construction vibration or other activities would not have 

any adverse effect on the properties as a result of vibration or other activity that could 

affect the structural integrity of these buildings. As a result, construction activities would 

not diminish the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association of these historic properties. Short-term construction activities would not 

result in an adverse effect to these historic properties. 

Mitigation Measures 

During project construction, there would be no adverse effect on the five historic 

architectural properties determined eligible for listing in the NRHP; therefore, no 

mitigation is required. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would the project construction cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 

a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 (e.g., if inadvertent physical contact 

or damage from vibration affects the property)? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction of the project 

would not have a significant impact. The five historic properties determined eligible for 

listing in the NRHP are automatically eligible to be listed in the CRHR and therefore are 

considered “historical resources” under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 

Construction would not have a significant impact on these resources and no mitigation 

would be required. In each case, the distances between the construction equipment and 

the historical resources would be sufficient to avoid any risk of inadvertent physical 

damage to the five historical resources. As a result, construction activities would not 

diminish the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-244 September 2014

association of these historic properties. Hence, project construction would not cause a 

substantial adverse change in the significance of these historical resources under 

CEQA.

Archaeological Resources Impacts 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in construction-related ground disturbances, 

including grading related to station preparation activities, utility relocations, cut-andcover structure excavation, and construction of new track north of the San Diego River in 

the vicinity of four archaeological sites (CA-SDI-41, CA-SDI-12453/H, CA-SDI-12557, and 

CA-SDI-12558). Extended Phase I investigations were completed, verifying extensive 

ground disturbance and the absence of archaeological deposits in the vicinity of the four 

archaeological sites within the archaeological APE. Therefore, the project would not 

result in impacts on previously recorded archaeological resources. The FTA made a 

determination of “no historic properties affected” with respect to archaeological 

resources pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). During project 

construction, there would be no effect on previously recorded archaeological resources 

because no resources eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR have been identified or 

detected within the APE; however, there remains a low potential that the project could 

result in the physical destruction of unknown archaeological resources discovered during 

construction (unanticipated discoveries). Such impacts could include damage to or 

removal of important resources, as well as impacts to the context and integrity, limiting 

the ability to recover important data. To account for the possibility of an unanticipated 

discovery of archaeological resources during project-related ground disturbance, 

Mitigation Measures CON15, CON16, and CON17 would be implemented, as described 

below. These construction-related measures are described in the confidential Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation 

Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a) and outlined in greater detail in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Monitoring Plan (SANDAG, 2014c) and 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cultural Resources Discovery Plan (SANDAG, 

2014b). 

Mitigation Measures 

CON15 Construction Monitoring: No archaeological resources eligible for listing in the 

NRHP or CRHR were identified or detected within the archaeological APE during 

Extended Phase I investigations; however, there exists a low potential to 

encounter unknown cultural materials given the landform context and depth of 

construction. As such, monitoring for both prehistoric and historic archaeological 

deposits would be conducted during ground-disturbing construction activities in 

designated monitoring areas of the project archaeological APE. 

Monitoring would occur under the supervision of a Designated Project 

Archaeologist (DPA) who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualifications Standards. The DPA and archaeological monitors would be 

subject to the approval of SANDAG and/or the FTA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-245 

Full-time cultural resources monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities within 

the archaeological APE would occur within 500 feet south of the San Diego 

River; within 500 feet north of the San Diego River; in designated portions of the 

Rose Canyon corridor; and in the portion of the archaeological APE located on 

the UCSD campus. Specific information regarding full-time monitoring areas is 

detailed in the confidential Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological 

Resources Extended Phase I Investigation Results and Effects Assessment

(SANDAG, 2014a). Spot-check monitoring would occur within the archaeological 

APE in two areas: from the north bank of the San Diego River to 1,100 feet north 

of Sea World Drive, and in the Rose Canyon Corridor between Balboa Avenue 

and La Jolla Colony Drive. If the FTA determines that full time or spot-check 

monitoring is needed in additional portions of the archaeological APE, monitoring 

would be provided in these additional areas. 

In areas where full-time monitoring is designated, “full-time monitoring” is defined 

as follows: A qualified archaeological monitor is required during the entire work 

day on a daily basis during all ground disturbance throughout the course of the 

project until a sufficient depth of excavation has been reached at which it is 

unlikely to encounter buried resources. The DPA will determine the actual depth 

of excavation at which monitoring may cease based on soil conditions observed 

in the field. “Spot-check monitoring” is defined as part-time monitoring to be 

conducted by a qualified archaeological monitor throughout the duration of 

project-related ground disturbance. Spot-check monitoring will include inspection 

of open excavations, grubbed areas, and excavation spoils. The frequency and 

duration of the spot checks will be based on field observations of exposed soils 

at the discretion of the DPA. 

In the event an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources occurs 

during construction, the following measures would be implemented immediately 

following the discovery: 

 The archaeological monitor would halt all construction within a 50-foot radius 

of the find until the DPA can assess the significance of the find. 

 If the discovery is determined to be significant or potentially significant by the 

DPA, the following tasks would be undertaken: 

– Discussion with project engineers to determine if impacts can be 

avoided/minimized, including consideration of preservation in place 

– Recovery and analysis of archaeological material and associated data 

– Preparation of a data recovery report or other reports 

– Accessioning recovered archaeological material to an accredited 

archaeological repository, such as the San Diego Archaeological Center 

Archaeological monitor qualification requirements, detailed approaches to 

archaeological monitoring of various project elements, and the procedures to 

follow in the event that unanticipated archaeological resources or human remains 

are discovered would be defined in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-246 September 2014

Construction Monitoring Plan (SANDAG, 2014c) and the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Cultural Resources Discovery Plan (SANDAG, 2014b) and would 

be submitted to SHPO for review and concurrence prior to the start of 

construction activities. 

A Native American monitor would be present at all areas designated for full-time 

and spot-check monitoring. This monitoring would occur on an as-needed basis 

and would be intended to ensure that Native American concerns are considered 

during the construction process. Native American monitors would be retained 

from Tribes who have expressed interest in the project and have participated in 

the Section 106 consultation process. Roles and responsibilities of the Native 

American monitors would be detailed in the Construction Monitoring Plan 

prepared for the project. 

CON16 Cultural Resource Awareness Training: Prior to, and for the duration of, ground 

disturbances, SANDAG would provide cultural resource awareness training to 

construction workers in accordance with the requirements listed in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Survey Report (SANDAG, 

2013e). The training would describe appropriate measures for treatment and 

protection of cultural resources in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and would include a 

discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law, and samples or visual 

representations of artifacts that might be found in the project vicinity. The 

training would outline the steps that must be taken if cultural resources are 

encountered during project construction, including the authority of archaeological 

monitors to halt construction in the area of a discovery to an extent sufficient to 

ensure that the resource is protected from further impacts. 

The training would be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. A hard copy 

summary of cultural resource laws, discovery procedures, and contact 

information would be provided to all construction workers. It may be necessary 

to conduct the training in English and another language, particularly Spanish. If 

so, an individual proficient in both languages would be present to translate the 

training. Hard-copy training summary cards would be produced in applicable 

languages to be distributed to all construction personnel. 

CON17 Treatment of Human Remains: In the unlikely event that human remains are 

uncovered during ground disturbances, California Health and Safety Code 

Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbances occur until the County 

Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to 

PRC Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, 

the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which would 

determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. The FTA, SANDAG, NCTD, 

and/or MTS would be notified immediately. Procedures to follow for the 

discovery of human remains would be included in the Discovery Plan. The plan 

would include provisions for preferred removal techniques, storage, and reinternment to the extent feasible. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-247 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 

archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As documented in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation 

Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a), no archaeological resources were 

identified or detected within the archaeological APE during Extended Phase I 

investigations; therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to 

a known archaeological resource. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). To account for 

the possibility of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during projectrelated ground disturbance, mitigation would be implemented, as described above. 

Would the project construction disturb human remains, including interments outside 

former cemeteries? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). As documented in the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation 

Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a), no human remains were identified 

or detected within the archaeological APE; therefore, the project would not result in a 

significant impact to known burials. 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). To account for 

the possibility of an unanticipated discovery of human remains during project-related ground 

disturbance, mitigation would be implemented, as described above. 

Paleontological Resources Impacts 

Geologic units assigned a high paleontological sensitivity rating are located at the study 

area surface. Ground-disturbing activities during construction could cause significant 

impacts on paleontological resources. In accordance with the City of San Diego 

Paleontological Guidelines (City of San Diego, 2007), a significant impact may occur for 

areas rated with a high sensitivity if grading exceeds 1,000 cubic yards and is 10 feet 

deep or more. There is no impact when grading in fill material. Although such ground 

disturbance would be a comparatively short-term activity, the loss of fossil remains, 

unrecorded fossil localities, associated specimen data, and corresponding geologic and 

geographic locality data would be a permanent adverse impact. 

Mitigation Measures 

With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, there would not be an 

adverse impact. 

CON18 Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP): Prior to 

final design and as a measure to protect significant paleontological resources, 

SANDAG would authorize a PRMMP to be prepared and implemented during 

construction. The PRMMP would be developed in accordance with the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-248 September 2014

guidelines and requirements listed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l). 

 Paleontological Awareness Training. Paleontological Awareness Training would 

be provided to construction workers involved in earthwork (excavation and 

grading) and foundation activities prior to the start of work on the project. 

Training would include a discussion of the laws protecting paleontological 

resources, the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered, 

and the procedures to be followed if a paleontological resource were 

discovered. 

 Paleontological Monitoring. Paleontological resources monitoring is 

recommended because of the potential for impacts on paleontologically 

sensitive geologic units and, therefore, potentially significant paleontological 

resources, during construction activities. Detailed procedures regarding 

monitoring would be presented in the PRMMP. 

– Monitoring between the Santa Fe Depot and the Nobel Drive Station. Full-time 

paleontological monitoring of project ground disturbance would be required 

between the Santa Fe Depot and the Nobel Drive Station because of the 

presence of highly sensitive geologic units. Paleontological monitoring for this 

area would be conducted as described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated into 

the PRMMP. 

– Monitoring between the Nobel Drive Station and the UTC Transit Center. Part-time 

paleontological monitoring of excavations would be conducted between the 

Nobel Drive Station and the UTC Transit Center. In the event that any 

unanticipated discoveries of significant fossils are made, full-time monitoring 

in this area would be required. Paleontological monitoring for this area would 

be conducted as described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated into the 

PRMMP. 

 Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources. If an unanticipated 

discovery of paleontological resources occurs during construction anywhere 

along the alignment, the procedures described in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) would be 

followed as incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Data Recovery. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, 

fossil specimens must be properly collected and sufficiently documented to 

be of scientific value. Data recovery would be conducted as described in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 

2014l) as incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Technical Reporting. In the event that paleontological resources are 

discovered, a data recovery report would be prepared that documents the 

methods and results of monitoring and provides an analysis of the nature and 

significance of fossils recovered. The report would contain the contents as 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-249 

described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Paleontological Survey 

Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated into the PRMMP. 

 Curation of Recovered Fossils. After the data recovery report is prepared, the 

fossil material recovered during project monitoring activities would be 

accessioned for curation to a recognized paleontological repository, such as 

the San Diego Natural History Museum. Arrangements to accession fossil 

material should be made with such a repository before monitoring begins so 

that the repository can inform the qualified monitoring paleontologist of 

requirements necessary to accession the fossil material (Society of 

Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines 

Committee, 1995). The data recovery report (see above) also will be 

submitted to the repository at which the fossils are curated. Curation would 

be conducted as described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Paleontological Survey Report (SANDAG, 2014l) as incorporated into the 

PRMMP.

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would project construction cause substantial damage to, or destruction of, significant 

paleontological resources? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (Refined Build Alternative). Project impacts 

during construction would have significant impacts, but they would be reduced to less 

than significant with mitigation. Five geological units with a high sensitivity for 

paleontological resources were identified. Excavations would have a significant effect 

on paleontological resources unless mitigation measures are employed. With mitigation, 

the impact of the project on paleontological resources would be less than significant. 

Geologic units assigned a high paleontological sensitivity rating are found at the surface 

in the study area. Mitigation measures, including those discussed above, would allow 

data recovery for affected paleontological resource localities affected by construction. 

This would reduce significant construction-related impacts on paleontological resources 

to a less-than-significant level. These measures are based on the Society of Vertebrate 

Paleontology guidelines (1995) and CEQA requirements, and are consistent with those 

used throughout California, with results that protect paleontological resources in areas of 

high paleontological sensitivity. Significant impacts can be mitigated by collection, 

preservation, and curation of a representative sample of a fossil assemblage and its 

geologic information in the study area where ground disturbances are proposed. 

Utilities Impacts 

Construction of the project would require relocation of electric, gas, cable, gasoline, 

water, sewer, and communication utility services. Gas and electric utilities are provided 

by SDG&E. Construction activities also would include installation of new service lines at 

stations (water, electric, telephone, and communication), along the guideway (water and 

electric), and at substations (electric). Construction activities would require relocation or 

installation of both aerial and buried utilities. Utility poles along the guideway would 

require relocation or other modification, such as raising overhead lines, to avoid conflict 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-250 September 2014

with the alignment. Relocation of poles along the guideway may require relocation of 

other poles in the vicinity of the alignment. 

Project Measures to Avoid or Minimize Impacts 

A Utilities Relocation Plan would be developed as part of project design and would identify 

all required utility relocations, temporary routing, and reconstruction. The plan would also 

include a construction approach to minimize disruption. SANDAG would coordinate with 

affected utility companies. In developing the utilities relocation plan, SANDAG would include 

consultation with and reviews by affected utility providers. The plan would identify 

requirements for temporary rerouting of utilities where feasible. In addition, when service 

must be temporarily disconnected, it would be scheduled for a time when the service is least 

likely to be required and property owners would be notified of this temporary lack of service. 

With implementation of project measures to avoid or minimize impacts, no adverse impacts 

on utilities would occur as a result of short-term construction impacts. 

Mitigation Measures 

Because no adverse impacts would occur with the incorporation of temporary utility 

routings and public notices, no mitigation measures are required. 

California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

Would the project construction use excessive amounts of power, fuel, or energy or 

require the construction of new systems or substantial modifications to existing systems? 

Less-Than-Significant Impact (Refined Build Alternative). Construction of the project 

would not use excessive amounts of power, fuel, or energy or require construction of 

new systems or substantial modifications to existing systems; therefore, impacts would 

be less than significant. As stated previously under the Energy section, annual 

construction energy requirements for the project are less than 0.1 percent of the region’s 

annual energy demand. The amount of utility services expected to be used during 

construction would not be substantial and would not require the construction of new or 

modified utility facilities. Project construction would include implementation of the 

temporary utility relocation plan and public notices described under environmental 

impacts above, and in more detail in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction 

Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014s). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-251 

4.18 Growth-Inducing Impacts 

This section evaluates the long-term growth-inducing impacts of the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. Growth-inducing impacts are changes in the location, 

magnitude, or pace of future development as a result of changes in accessibility by a 

project. 

The prior environmental documents concluded that because the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project has been included in all major planning documents prepared for the area 

as part of planned growth, it would not contribute to growth-inducing impacts. 

Specifically, the AA/DEIS/DEIR stated that “...any of the alternatives being considered 

would not induce the growth projected to occur in the Mid-Coast Corridor. There may be 

a readjustment in growth because of the increased access but it is not expected to be 

significant...” Similarly, the Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that overall, the project would 

have no adverse growth-inducing impacts under NEPA and less-than-significant impacts 

under CEQA. Other than the editorial changes described in Section 4.0, comments 

received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did not require 

any changes to this section of the SEIS/SEIR. The conclusions in this section remain 

unchanged for the Refined Build Alternative. The Refined Build Alternative would have 

no adverse growth-inducing impacts under NEPA and less-than-significant impacts 

under CEQA. 

4.18.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

The CEQ established regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Section 1500 et 

seq.), which requires an evaluation of indirect impacts that may occur at some distance 

from a proposed action or at some time in the future (40 CFR 1508.8). Such impacts 

include changes in housing, population density, and employment—all components of 

growth. As such, NEPA evaluates growth as an indirect impact. 

CEQA requires consideration of how a “proposed project could foster economic or 

population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, 

and how that growth would affect the environment.” “It must not be assumed that growth 

in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the 

environment” (CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15126.2(d)). An important consideration 

is whether the growth is consistent with adopted regional land use plans. Growth 

inducement would result in a significant impact if the growth is not consistent with land 

use plans and policies for the affected area. Alternatively, growth-inducing impacts are 

generally not significant when a project accommodates growth anticipated and 

considered in the General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 

affected area. 

The RCP is the adopted regional planning framework for coordinated housing, land use, 

transportation, and sustainability planning. The RCP uses the Smart Growth Concept 

Map (updated in January 2012) as a key implementation tool. The map identifies 

approximately 200 existing, planned, and potential Smart Growth Opportunity Areas 

within the San Diego region. The 2030 RTP guides the development of regional 

transportation infrastructure and transit services with consideration of how best to 

support the smart growth policies and the integration of transit and land use. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-252 September 2014

The City of San Diego Strategic Framework Element (City of San Diego, 2002a) and the 

City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) support mixed-use, transitsupportive development. The latter document focuses growth into mixed-use villages 

linked to the transit system and transportation corridors. 

The analysis of growth-inducing impacts considers whether the project would foster land 

use, density, population, or growth rate changes that are inconsistent with adopted plans 

and forecast land use changes. 

4.18.2 Environmental Impacts 

The following sections evaluate growth-inducing impacts of the No-Build and Refined 

Build Alternatives.

4.18.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in growth-inducing impacts. Under the NoBuild Alternative, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not be built, and bus 

Route 150 would be continued and enhanced. These changes would not induce growth 

and could result in less development in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas that would 

have been served by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

4.18.2.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The nine new Trolley stations included as part of the Refined Build Alternative would 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. In addition, the Morena and University City 

areas are subregional employment areas and can support additional medium- to highdensity residential and mixed-use development. As such, the Refined Build Alternative 

would remove an existing barrier (the lack of access to Trolley service) to planned 

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, as discussed in Section 4.1. 

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. Because the project is 

consistent with adopted land use plans and implements the Smart Growth Strategy, the 

Refined Build Alternative would not result in unanticipated growth or related impacts to 

the environment. To the extent that growth occurs along the alignment and within Smart 

Growth Opportunity Areas around the stations, it is desired as a regional goal and would 

therefore be beneficial. 

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures 

Because the Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse growth-inducing 

impacts, no mitigation measures are required. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-253 

4.18.4 California Environmental Quality Act Determination 

This section presents the CEQA significance determination based on the analysis 

summarized above. 

A significant growth-inducing impact would occur if the project induced growth that is not 

consistent with land use and growth management plans for the affected areas. 

The Mid-Coast Transit Corridor Project would not result in a significant growth-inducing 

impact. The project would not foster additional population growth. The project would 

provide a transit option for the population growth that is projected for the region. As 

described in Section 4.18.2.2, the project would facilitate growth within transit station 

areas. This growth would include construction of additional housing and additional 

business growth and would be consistent with adopted land use plans and existing 

zoning regulations of the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 2008a) and 

the regional goals of smart growth in the RCP as stated in Section 4.1. The project 

would also be consistent with the City of San Diego Strategic Framework Element (City 

of San Diego, 2002a) and the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 

2008a), which support mixed-use, transit-supportive development. The latter document 

focuses growth into mixed-use villages linked to the transit system and transportation 

corridors. The environmental impacts of the transit-related growth that would be 

fostered by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project have been considered in the certified 

EIRs for the RCP and the city’s planning documents. The project would neither 

stimulate nor contribute to growth in the Mid-Coast Corridor beyond what is envisioned 

in the adopted plans. Further, it would facilitate smart growth that is designed to reduce 

regional impacts by increasing use of transit in lieu of automobiles. As a result, the 

growth-inducing impact of the project would be less than significant. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-254 September 2014

4.19 Cumulative Impacts 

This section evaluates the cumulative impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives based on the impact analyses for each resource as summarized in the 

previous sections of this chapter. For additional information, refer to the technical 

reports prepared for each resource area in support of the SEIS/SEIR. 

The prior environmental documents concluded that no adverse or significant cumulative 

impacts would result from the project. The Draft SEIS/SEIR concluded that no 

significant, long-term environmental cumulative impacts would result from the project, 

but identified the potential for cumulative short-term construction impacts from the Build 

Alternative. Although mitigation is proposed, the Draft SEIS/SEIR found that the 

following cumulative impacts from construction would remain: 

 Localized cumulative community impacts to UCSD and University City would be 

adverse under NEPA and significant and cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 

 Air quality construction impacts would be cumulatively adverse under NEPA and 

cumulatively considerable under CEQA. Although considered adverse, impacts to 

air quality and GHG emissions during construction would be temporary and would be 

offset by the overall reduction in emissions that would result through implementation 

of the project. 

 Some damage or destruction of paleontological resources in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

could occur during the course of recovery. As a result, the combined impact to 

paleontological resources from the Build Alternative and other reasonably 

foreseeable projects located throughout the geologic units in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

could result in adverse cumulative impacts. The Build Alternative’s contribution 

would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and 

unavoidable impact under CEQA. 

Refinements to the Build Alternative, comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, and 

updates to the analysis as presented in the preceding sections of Chapter 4.0 did not 

require any updates to this section. However, the discussion of historic architectural and 

archaeological resources under the “Construction” heading was revised based on 

additional coordination with SHPO and FTA, as well as the results of the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Extended Phase I Investigation Results and Effects Assessment

(SANDAG, 2014a). The conclusions in this section remain unchanged for the Refined 

Build Alternative. 

4.19.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Although NEPA and CEQA define the term cumulative impact similarly, their definitions 

and analysis of the issue are slightly different. The NEPA definition of a cumulative 

impact comes from the CEQ, which defines a cumulative impact as the following: 

...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-255 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR §1508.7). 

Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following definition and guidance: 

Cumulative impacts refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered 

together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental 

impacts. 

(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a 

number of separate projects. 

(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other 

closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future 

projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant projects taking place over a period of time. 

CEQA generally requires the following: 

(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is 

cumulatively considerable. 

(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and 

their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great a 

detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion 

should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. 

In determining the cumulative impacts of a proposed project with other area projects, the 

cumulative analysis contained in the SEIS/SEIR includes an analysis of both of the 

following: 

(1) past, present, and probable future projects, which are either approved or being 

considered for approval by SANDAG, the City of San Diego, UCSD, and various 

agencies (or anticipated to be submitted for consideration, including projects in 

the design phase or under construction) 

(2) growth projections set forth in regional plans, including regional modeling plans 

The combined effect of more than one action may be greater than the effects resulting 

from the individual actions. The timing and duration of each activity also is important 

when evaluating the cumulative effects of activities, as some impacts may occur only for 

a limited period, such as during construction. In such cases, a cumulative effect may 

occur only when two or more of the activities happen simultaneously and/or near each 

other. 

An evaluation of cumulative effects is based on resource sensitivity, quality, and 

quantity. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-256 September 2014

Under NEPA, the cumulative analysis identifies the aggregate or total impacts that result 

when the incremental impacts of the project are added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions. Under CEQA, once a cumulatively significant impact 

has been identified, a determination must be made regarding whether the project’s 

incremental contribution to the significant impact is cumulatively considerable, and thus, 

significant. 

The study areas for the cumulative impacts analysis vary depending on the context of 

these environmental impacts. For example, built environment effects generally examine 

impacts on adjacent and nearby communities and neighborhoods, whereas cumulative 

impact analyses for natural resources may consider the entire natural resource system, 

such as the water basin or the habitats of special-status species. 

Various related environmental documents and regional plans were consulted and used 

in the cumulative analysis and included, but were not limited to, the following: 

 Final EIR for the 2030 RTP (SANDAG, 2007c) 

 Final EIR for the 2050 RTP (SANDAG, 2011c)18 

 Final Program EIR for the RCP (SANDAG, 2004b) 

 University of California San Diego 2004 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR

(UCSD, 2004c) 

 Los Angeles to San Diego Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements (LOSSAN) Final 

Program Environmental Impact Statement/EIR (Federal Railroad Administration and 

Caltrans, 2007) 

Of the documents listed above, both the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP EIRs evaluated the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in the Revenue Constrained Scenario. Thus, the 

analyses in these documents were most applicable to evaluation of the project. 

The construction cumulative impact analysis included projects anticipated to be under 

construction during the same timeframe as the Refined Build Alternative, which are 

either approved or being considered for approval by SANDAG, the City of San Diego, 

UCSD, and various agencies (or anticipated to be submitted for consideration, including 

projects in the design phase or under construction). The assessment of cumulative 

construction impacts examines the compounding of construction impacts due to the 

construction of one or more other projects during the anticipated construction period for 

the Refined Build Alternative (2014 to 2019). The exact timing of construction for these 

projects is uncertain. It is unlikely that all of these projects would be constructed at the 

same time; therefore, the analysis represents a worst-case scenario. 

 

18 The Final EIR for the 2050 RTP (SANDAG, 2011c), which is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge, was 

consulted for informational purposes, but its analysis was not relied upon in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-257 

4.19.2 Affected Environment 

The affected environment for each resource is described in other sections of Chapter 4.0 

under each resource heading. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, 

and the planning documents which include growth projections, are discussed in 

Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 and included in the documents listed in Section 4.19.1. 

4.19.3 Environmental Impacts 

The following sections evaluate the cumulative long-term and construction impacts of the 

No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives. 

4.19.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative includes all existing highway and transit services and facilities, 

and assumes the implementation of the committed highway and transit projects in the 

Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 RTP, with the exception of the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project. Under the No-Build Alternative, no new infrastructure would be 

built within the Mid-Coast Corridor except for the projects currently under construction or 

projects funded for construction, environmentally cleared, and planned to be operational 

by 2030. The No-Build Alternative includes continuation and enhancement of bus Route 

150, as described in Chapter 2.0. The proposed physical changes resulting from the NoBuild Alternative would be limited to minor improvements, such as installation of shelters 

at bus stops. Work primarily would occur within existing transportation rights-of-way. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The provision of new and enhanced transportation projects consistent with the RCP, 

2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP under the No-Build Alternative would increase mobility and 

provide opportunities for local land use development, including TOD. 

The region-wide environmental impact analysis conducted in the Final Program 

Environmental Impact Report for the RCP for the San Diego Region (SANDAG, 2004b), 

a CEQA document, identified cumulatively considerable impacts from growth and future 

development within the region. These included significant cumulative impacts on 

aesthetic and visual resources, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological 

resources, cultural resources, land use, geologic/soils/mineral resources, hazardous 

materials, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, energy, recreation, 

transportation, and water supply. The RCP EIR also concluded that mitigation measures 

are not feasible to reduce all of the identified cumulative impacts to below a level of 

CEQA significance due to the magnitude of the population increase. 

The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to the cumulative adverse impacts 

identified in the EIR for the RCP, with the exception of energy and air quality. The 

cumulatively significant land use impact under CEQA identified in the RCP EIR concerns 

the conversion of open space and farmland. The No-Build Alternative has a significant 

land use impact, but it is due to inconsistency with plans for transit development, not 

conversion of open space and farmland. 

The cumulatively significant air impacts under CEQA identified in the RCP EIR concern 

localized CO hotspots. The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to localized CO 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-258 September 2014

hotspots, but it would contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts on a 

regional basis. When compared to the Refined Build Alternative, the No-Build Alternative 

has the highest projected roadway VMT. As a result, levels of CO2, TOG, NOX, PM10, and 

PM2.5 would be higher in 2030 under the No-Build Alternative (Table 4-8). Because the San 

Diego region is in a non-attainment status for PM10 and PM2.5, this is a cumulatively 

adverse and cumulatively considerable impact. 

The No-Build Alternative would contribute to the cumulatively significant energy impact 

under CEQA identified in the RCP EIR, which is based on future population growth and 

energy demands. The No-Build Alternative would increase energy consumption due to 

increased VMT. This is a cumulatively adverse and cumulatively considerable impact. 

The region-wide environmental impact analysis conducted in the Final EIR for the 2030 

RTP (SANDAG, 2007c) identified cumulatively considerable impacts from growth and 

future development within the region. Significant cumulative impacts with respect to land 

use, air quality, noise, biological resources, energy, cultural resources, hazards and 

hazardous materials, global climate change, water resources, and visual resources 

under CEQA were identified in the Final EIR even with implementation of identified 

mitigation measures. 

The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to the cumulative adverse impacts 

identified in the Final EIR for the 2030 RTP, with the exception of air quality, energy, and 

global climate change. The cumulatively significant land use impact identified in the 

Final EIR for the 2030 RTP concerns the conversion of open space and farmland. The 

No-Build Alternative has a significant land use impact, but it is due to inconsistency with 

plans for transit development, not conversion of open space and farmland. 

The cumulatively significant air quality impacts identified in the Final EIR for the 2030 

RTP concern on-road PM10 and off-road NOX and PM2.5 emissions. The No-Build 

Alternative would not contribute to these emissions directly, but it would contribute to 

cumulatively significant air quality impacts on a regional basis. When compared to the 

Refined Build Alternative, the No-Build Alternative has the highest projected roadway VMT. 

As a result, levels of on-road PM10, PM2.5, and NOX would be higher in 2030 under the NoBuild Alternative. Because the San Diego region is in a non-attainment status for PM10, this 

is a cumulative adverse and cumulatively considerable impact. The increased VMT also 

would have a corresponding increase in energy use and GHG, which would contribute to 

the regional energy demand and global climate change on a cumulative basis. 

The region-wide environmental impact analysis conducted in the Final EIR for the 2050 

RTP (SANDAG, 2011c) identified cumulatively considerable impacts from growth and 

future development within the region. The 2050 RTP EIR identified significant 

cumulative impacts with respect to: 

 Aesthetics (blocking of panoramic views, alterations of scenic highways, and added 

elements of urban character) 

 Agriculture/forest resources (changes in land use and reduction of available 

agricultural and forest land) 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-259 

 Biological resources (disturbance or elimination of sensitive vegetation, special 

status species, and wildlife corridors) 

 Cultural resources (disturbance or elimination of cultural and paleontological 

resources) 

 Geology and mineral resources (loss of mineral resource extraction locations) 

 Hazards (increased wildfire risk) 

 Population and housing (substantial population growth) 

 Public services and utilities (solid waste disposal impacts) 

 Recreation (loss of park lands) 

 Air quality (increases in NOx, PM2.5, Toxic Air Contaminants, and other air pollutants) 

 GHG emissions (contribution to global climate change) 

 Hydrology and water quality (changes in water quality, drainage patterns, floodrelated hazards, and tsunami) 

 Land use (incompatibilities in planned land use) 

 Transportation (inability to accommodate increased growth and resulting demand) 

 Noise (temporary and permanent ambient noise increases) 

 Energy (increase in demand) 

The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to the cumulative adverse impacts 

identified in the EIR for the 2050 RTP, with the exception of energy, air quality, and GHG 

emissions. The cumulatively significant land use impact identified in the 2050 RTP EIR 

concerns land use compatibility and the potential for future development to be 

inconsistent with existing plans and policies. The No-Build Alternative would result in 

land use incompatibility. However, the No-Build Alternative would not necessarily result 

in development that is inconsistent with plans and policies, but is itself inconsistent with 

plans and policies for the region. 

The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to air quality emissions directly, but it 

would contribute to cumulatively significant air quality impacts on a regional basis. 

When compared to the Refined Build Alternative, the No-Build Alternative has the highest 

projected roadway VMT. As a result, levels of CO2, TOG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be 

higher in 2030 under the No-Build Alternative. The increased VMT also would have a 

corresponding increase in energy use and GHG emissions, which would contribute to 

the regional energy demand and global climate change on a cumulative basis. 

Construction Impacts 

The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP identified cumulative constructionrelated impacts for certain resource areas. The 2030 RTP identified cumulative 

construction-related impacts on the social environment (relocation and/or displacement 

impacts), from noise, and on water resources. The 2050 RTP identified cumulative 

construction-related impacts for biological resources, cultural resources (including 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-260 September 2014

historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources), geotechnical constraints, and 

water quality (through soil erosion and loss of topsoil). However, because no major 

construction activities are required for the enhancement of bus Route 150, the No-Build 

Alternative would not result in adverse or significant project-related cumulative 

construction impacts. 

4.19.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative generally would include the same land use and 

transportation projects as the No-Build Alternative, except that Route 150 would be 

eliminated as planned under the 2030 RTP, and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

would be implemented, as described in Chapter 2.0. The following sections discuss 

cumulative long-term and construction impacts under the Refined Build Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The discussion of direct and indirect cumulative impacts in the following sections 

examines the long-term impacts of the Refined Build Alternative in the context of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. For a more detailed discussion of 

the direct and indirect impacts of the Refined Build Alternative, refer to each resource 

section in this chapter (Chapter 4.0). 

Transportation. Refer to Chapter 3.0 for a detailed description of the cumulative impacts 

of the Refined Build Alternative on the transportation system. 

Land Use Plans and Policies. The Refined Build Alternative would not create or add to 

adverse or significant land use impacts. Current community plans, policies, and zoning 

relevant to the Refined Build Alternative already identify the project alignment and the 

station locations and reflect appropriate nearby land uses and future development 

projects to avoid adverse or significant impacts. The EIRs for the RCP and the 2030 

RTP identified a cumulative impact to land use regarding the conversion of agricultural 

or open space lands to urban uses. However, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

convert agricultural or open space lands to urban uses as it would be located primarily in 

existing transportation rights-of-way. The EIR for the 2050 RTP identified a cumulative 

impact with regard to the potential deterioration of community character, particularly for 

transportation improvements in rural areas; however, the Refined Build Alternative is not 

located in a rural area. As a result, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause or 

contribute to an adverse or significant cumulative land use impact and would not result in 

a cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Community and Neighborhoods. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative impacts with regard to communities and neighborhoods. The 

Refined Build Alternative would not create or add to adverse or significant community 

and neighborhood impacts. 

Future projects in the study area would be served and connected to a larger regional 

transportation network. At a minimum, the Refined Build Alternative, along with the 

anticipated transportation projects identified in the 2030 RTP, would reduce traffic 

congestion in the region and improve air quality, thus benefitting the region. The 

Refined Build Alternative would contribute to these beneficial community and 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-261 

neighborhood impacts. As a result, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an 

adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Socioeconomic and Fiscal. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative socioeconomic and fiscal impacts. The Refined Build Alternative 

would not create or add to adverse socioeconomic or fiscal impacts. Because the 

project alignment is largely within existing right-of-way, property acquisitions would be 

minimal. Property acquisitions from other projects or developments are not anticipated 

to combine to create adverse impacts. As a result, the Refined Build Alternative would 

not cause or add to an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a 

cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Visual Resources and Aesthetics. The EIR for the RCP identified cumulative visual impacts 

with respect to nighttime views and loss of significant landscape features and land 

forms. The EIR for the 2030 RTP identified cumulative visual impacts related to view 

blockage of oceans, bays, or visual resources; noise walls intruding into important vistas 

along roadways; or changing the scale, character, or quality of scenic highway corridors. 

The EIR for the 2050 RTP identified cumulative view impacts with respect to blocking 

panoramic views or significant landscape features or landforms. The EIR for the 2050 

RTP also identified cumulative visual impacts regarding adding an urban visual element 

to rural and open space areas. 

The additional traffic lanes and retaining walls associated with the construction of highoccupancy vehicle lanes on I-5 and the Voigt Drive direct-access ramps could combine 

to create a cumulatively significant impact on the visual quality and character of the I-5 

corridor. The Refined Build Alternative would add an additional urban element within a 

coastal transportation corridor and open space area, and would result in the removal of 

some landscaping. However, the landscaping would be replaced through mitigation and 

the additional project features would not be considered visually important because they 

would be adjacent to existing tracks, buildings, and above-ground utilities. Review of the 

proposed design treatments for these projects, however, indicates that the LRT bridge 

and the Voigt Drive direct-access ramps would not contrast with the area’s visual 

character and would not result in a cumulative impact. Another proposed project in the 

I-5 corridor is the Gilman Drive Bridge to the north of the VA Medical Center. The 

proposed bridge would cross under the Trolley’s aerial structure; however, it would not 

cumulatively increase the impacts described in the Draft SEIS/SEIR related to the VA 

Medical Center wall and bridge abutments. All three projects would include design 

treatments compatible with the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Combined, these 

projects would not change the overall character of the area. The catenaries would be 

visible in views of Mission Bay for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists traveling on Morena 

Boulevard. Existing residential areas along the east side of Morena Boulevard are at 

lower elevations, and residents do not have views of the bay because of freeway and 

ancillary landscape and berm features. At higher elevations, the line of sight of Mission 

Bay from residences would be above any of the project features and would not be 

affected by the project features. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-262 September 2014

In addition to the transportation projects described above, future private development in 

the corridor may result in a cumulative visual impact. Expansion of the Westfield UTC 

shopping center is anticipated over the next several years and would include new 

residential, employment, and commercial spaces. Impacts from this project, in 

conjunction with impacts from the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, could cumulatively 

affect the visual environment. However, given the urban and heavily developed context 

of the area, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant 

visual cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact 

under CEQA. 

Air Quality. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP all identified cumulative air 

quality impacts due to future growth in the region. The Refined Build Alternative would 

not create or add to cumulatively significant air quality impacts. The analysis for the 

Refined Build Alternative included forecasts for future growth in population, employment, 

and travel within the region. The analysis, therefore, assumed the future air quality 

impacts from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Refined 

Build Alternative would have lower study area emissions burdens for all pollutants in 

2030. Therefore, air quality would be better in 2030 with the Refined Build Alternative 

than without. On a regional basis, all pollutants would decrease under the Refined Build 

Alternative as compared to the No-Build Alternative, except for PM10, which would 

increase by less than 1 percent. The increase in PM10 from the Refined Build Alternative 

is considered negligible and thus would not be adverse. As such, the Refined Build 

Alternative would not contribute to a cumulative impact on air quality and would be 

beneficial under NEPA and less than significant under CEQA. Therefore, the Refined 

Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would 

not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Climate Change. The EIR for the RCP did not address climate change, but the EIRs for 

the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP both identified cumulative climate change impacts due to 

future growth in the region, which would increase GHG emissions. The Refined Build 

Alternative would be beneficial because it would reduce GHG emissions and associated 

climate change impacts. The analysis for the Refined Build Alternative included 

forecasts for future growth in population, employment, and travel within the region. The 

analysis, therefore, assumed the future GHG impacts from all past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although GHG emissions are forecast to 

increase in the region by 2030 due to growth in the region, GHG emissions would be 

less in 2030 with the Refined Build Alternative than without. The projected GHG 

emissions are predicted to decrease compared to the No-Build Alternative, resulting in 

beneficial climate change effects. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Noise and Vibration. The EIR for the RCP and the 2050 RTP identified cumulative noise 

impacts caused by the increase in traffic volumes regionally and the increased 

operational activity in transportation corridors and increased operations of stationary 

sources, such as power plants. Noise levels decrease as the distance from the noise 

source to the receiver increases. Therefore, only noise sources in the immediate vicinity 

of the alignment would have the potential to combine with the Refined Build Alternative 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-263 

to cause a cumulative noise impact. Additionally, within the Mid-Coast Corridor, 

implementation of future transportation improvements would deteriorate the existing 

noise and vibration environment. 

Although the 2030 RTP EIR found that implementation of future transportation networks 

described in the 2030 RTP would deteriorate the existing noise environment and result 

in significant cumulative noise impacts, the project’s contribution to this cumulative 

condition is not cumulatively considerable, as the major source of future noise impacts is 

roadway vehicle noise, not LRT noise. 

To the extent that any cumulatively significant impact would occur, the project's 

contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. More specifically, traffic noise 

levels would increase as a result of the projected increase in traffic and as part of a 

planned future expansion of I-5 to include additional lanes (one in each direction). The 

existing terrain along the Charmant Drive segment of the project would be modified by 

the Refined Build Alternative to accommodate an additional lane being added at some 

point in the future on each side of the freeway. Where the LRT alignment crosses I-5 

along Charmant Drive between Gilman Drive and the I-5 crossing, the Refined Build 

Alternative includes grading, topographic changes, and installation of retaining walls that 

would maintain or improve the noise-shielding effect between I-5 and sensitive receivers 

compared to the existing terrain. As such, the Refined Build Alternative would not result 

in a moderate or severe noise impact. 

Additionally, double tracking of the LOSSAN tracks would occur near Cluster 56 (a 

recreational vehicle park between I-5 and Ariane Drive). The addition of LOSSAN tracks 

in this area could increase noise; however, the Refined Build Alternative would not result 

in a moderate or severe noise impact in this area. All project impacts would be mitigated 

to below significance. Mitigation measures for the project also would reduce the noise 

levels that would otherwise result from the I-5 widening project. 

Furthermore, other projects, including the future I-5 widening and LOSSAN double 

tracking, would be required to undergo appropriate approval processes to minimize the 

potential for incompatible noise and vibration environments. 

Vibration impacts of the Refined Build Alternative are localized and not likely to combine 

with vibration impacts of other projects. In addition, the vibration of project LRT vehicles 

would not increase or compound vibration from freight or passenger trains. Other 

foreseeable development that could contribute to cumulative noise or vibration levels 

would be more distant and attenuated from the project and, as such, less likely to result 

in combined noise or vibration impacts. Further, the vibration impacts of the Refined 

Build Alternative would be fully mitigated to no impact under NEPA and less than 

significant under CEQA. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an 

adverse or significant cumulative noise or vibration impact and would not result in 

cumulatively considerable impacts under CEQA. 

Ecosystems and Biological Resources. The EIR for the RCP identified cumulative biological 

impacts due to the loss of sensitive habitats from development and indirect air, noise, 

light, and water impacts to sensitive wildlife. The EIR for the RCP noted that although 

San Diego has an MSCP that is designed to mitigate for cumulative biological impacts, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-264 September 2014

not all other areas have a completed MSCP. The EIR for the 2030 RTP identified 

cumulative biological impacts from growth and conversion of undeveloped lands to 

urban uses. The EIR for the 2030 RTP noted that, in some cases, mitigation measures 

for these impacts would be infeasible and the remaining unavoidable significant impacts 

would contribute to cumulative biological impacts. The EIR for the 2050 RTP also 

identified cumulative biological impacts from growth, and noted the potential for 

transportation projects to conflict with approved habitat conservation plans. 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in cumulative biological impacts. The 

Refined Build Alternative is primarily located within a transportation corridor, does not 

conflict with the approved habitat conservation plan, and does not result in significant 

and unavoidable biological impacts. The MSCP was designed to compensate for the 

regional loss of biological resources throughout the region. Projects that are consistent 

with the MSCP mitigation ratios as specified by the Subarea Plan (City of San Diego, 

1997) and implementing ordinances (City of San Diego, 2012b) are not expected to 

result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those biological resources adequately 

covered by the MSCP. These resources include the vegetation communities identified 

as wetlands and Tiers I through IV and the MSCP Covered Species, including coastal 

California gnatcatcher. The Refined Build Alternative would include mitigation that is 

consistent with the Subarea Plan and therefore would require mitigation for impacts to 

special-status vegetation communities (wetlands and Tier II–III). Mitigation would 

reduce the overall biological impacts from a project through the restoration and/or 

conservation of vegetation communities. Often the mitigation ratios are higher than 1:1, 

which accounts for temporary losses and may increase net habitat area. Mitigation 

through the TransNet EMP, described in Section 4.8.1.1, would provide an equivalent 

level of protection and benefit to biological resources. Other foreseeable projects also 

would undergo environmental review and permitting and are expected to be consistent 

with the MSCP. 

Although the San Diego fairy shrimp was observed in the study area, the affected basin 

is located within the existing MTS right-of-way in an otherwise developed area with 

limited long-term conservation value for the species. The San Diego fairy shrimp is not 

covered by the MSCP. The hydrology of the occupied basin consists solely of 

accumulated precipitation (storm-water runoff) from the 0.71-acre watershed. With 

implementation of the proposed mitigation, habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp would be 

restored in areas with greater long-term conservation value. As such, the project would 

not result in or contribute to cumulative impacts on San Diego fairy shrimp within the 

corridor and the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant 

cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under 

CEQA. 

Water Resources. The EIR for the RCP did not identity cumulative impacts to water 

resources. The EIR for the 2030 RTP found that regional growth and transportation 

improvements would result in cumulative impacts to water quality. The EIR for the 2030 

RTP found that even with conformance to existing federal, state, and local regulations 

for grading and the protection of water quality, combined with the implementation of 

BMPs and mitigation measures, there would be a residual cumulative impact. The EIR 

for the 2050 RTP did not find cumulative impacts for water quality, floodplain, or flood 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-265 

hazards based on compliance with existing regulations, which are more stringent that 

the regulations in place when the EIR for the 2030 RTP was certified. The EIR for the 

2050 RTP also identified the site-specific impacts to alterations of drainage patterns, 

which, depending on the severity, may not be fully mitigated by compliance with existing 

regulations, resulting in a cumulative impact to drainage. 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in cumulative impacts to water resources. 

Regulations have been adopted since the EIR for the 2030 RTP that fully mitigate 

cumulative impacts to water resources. Without BMPs, the Refined Build Alternative 

and other foreseeable transportation and urban development projects would increase 

impervious surface, degrade the quality of surface-water runoff, and negatively affect 

ground water and floodways. However, the Refined Build Alternative would implement 

appropriate BMPs. Other projects also would undergo their own environmental review 

and permitting processes, and BMPs and mitigation measures would be required for 

these projects to avoid and minimize adverse cumulative impacts. The Refined Build 

Alternative would not contribute to long-term cumulative impacts on water resources. 

Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant 

cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under 

CEQA. 

Hazardous Materials. The EIR for the RCP did not identify cumulative hazardous materials 

impacts. The EIR for the 2030 RTP and the 2050 RTP both identified the potential for 

people to be exposed to hazardous materials during transport, or from materials on 

industrial or former agricultural lands. The EIR for the 2050 RTP also identified the 

potential for people to be exposed to hazardous materials during an accidental release. 

The Refined Build Alternative would not result in cumulative hazardous materials 

impacts. Operations and maintenance of the Refined Build Alternative would not involve 

regular use or transport of hazardous materials and thus would not contribute to adverse 

cumulative hazardous materials impacts. Additionally, future development projects 

would be subject to the laws and requirements related to hazardous materials and would 

be required to mitigate any existing or potential hazards to the environment or public that 

could occur from future development. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Geotechnical, Geologic, and Seismic. The EIRs for the RCP and 2030 RTP did not find 

cumulative geotechnical impacts. The EIR for the 2050 RTP found cumulative impacts 

to geology with regard to the loss of mineral resources; however, the EIR did not identify 

any cumulative impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The Refined Build 

Alternative would not result in cumulative geotechnical, geologic, or seismic impacts 

because the project does not contribute to the loss of mineral resources or have impacts 

related to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows. The Refined Build Alternative would 

incorporate project measures to avoid adverse geotechnical impacts on people and 

structures and thus would not contribute to adverse cumulative geotechnical, geologic, 

or seismic impacts. Additionally, future development along the corridor would be subject 

to development and building standards designed to protect public safety in accordance 

with state and local laws and codes. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-266 September 2014

cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Energy. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP all identified cumulative energy 

impacts due to future growth in the region. The analysis for the Refined Build Alternative 

included forecasts for future growth in population, employment, and travel within the 

region. The analysis, therefore, assumed the future energy usage from all past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although energy usage is projected to 

increase due to growth in the region, the Refined Build Alternative is projected to reduce 

overall energy use and costs in both the study area and the region, as compared to the 

No-Build Alternative, thus being beneficial. Furthermore, the demand of the Refined 

Build Alternative for electrical energy would be less than 0.0001 percent of the regional 

energy use. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or 

significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact 

under CEQA. 

Safety and Security. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not identify 

cumulative safety and security impacts. The Refined Build Alternative, when combined 

with other foreseeable highway and transit improvement projects, would result in lower 

VMT and more miles traveled by rail. Rail travel is statistically safer than travel on 

streets and would have a positive impact on safety. Security in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

would be improved by a project design that incorporates security measures, the use of a 

dedicated security force, and remote monitoring of the project’s facilities. Therefore, the 

Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact 

and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Electromagnetic Interference. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative EMF impacts. The known information regarding EMF and health 

impacts has been summarized in Section 4.14. SANDAG has determined that a 

statement or conclusion of cumulative EMF health impacts would be speculative at this 

time. 

Impacts related to EMF interference with sensitive equipment are site-specific. 

Therefore, the geographical area within which cumulative EMF impacts could occur is 

limited to each project and the directly adjacent areas. The likelihood that any 

combination of projects would result in cumulative EMF impacts is remote because there 

are no reasonably foreseeable projects within the Mid-Coast Corridor that would create 

EMF in proximity to the project alignment. Additionally, EMF impacts generated by the 

Refined Build Alternative would be mitigated. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative 

would not cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a 

cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Historic Architectural, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources. The EIR for the RCP 

identified cumulative impacts from the loss of cultural resources. The EIRs for the 2030 

RTP and 2050 RTP identified cumulative impacts from alteration or demolition of historic 

buildings and the loss of archaeological and paleontological resources. Operation of the 

Refined Build Alternative would not have a cumulative impact on historic architectural, 

archaeological, or paleontological resources. Cumulative construction impacts to these 

resources are identified under the Construction subheading, below. Therefore, the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-267 

Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact 

and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Utilities. The EIR for the RCP and the 2030 RTP did not identify cumulative utility 

impacts. The EIR for the 2050 RTP identified cumulative utility impacts with regard to 

solid waste. The Refined Build Alternative would not result in cumulative utility impacts 

because the Refined Build Alternative would generate very little solid waste. Therefore, 

the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant cumulative 

impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Construction Impacts 

The assessment of cumulative construction impacts considers Refined Build Alternative 

construction impacts combined with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the MidCoast Corridor that are planned for construction during the same period, which are 

described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Construction Impacts Technical 

Report (SANDAG, 2014s). These construction impacts, by nature, would be temporary 

and intermittent between 2014 and 2019. An assessment of each resource area is 

provided below. 

Transportation. Refer to Chapter 3.0 for a detailed description of cumulative impacts of the 

Refined Build Alternatives on the transportation system. 

Land Use Plans and Policies. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative land use impacts from construction. The majority of the project 

alignment is located within an existing transportation corridor. However, temporary 

construction impacts such as noise, light and glare, and dust and particulates would 

negatively affect some land uses, particularly outdoor activities. Construction of other 

reasonably foreseeable projects could result in similar adverse impacts, which could 

combine to impact adjacent land uses. However, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

result in any adverse changes to land uses and, in general, construction impacts from 

other projects would not change any land uses or result in adverse land use impacts. As 

a result, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant 

cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under 

CEQA. 

Community and Neighborhoods. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative community and neighborhood impacts from construction. 

Construction of the Refined Build Alternative could disrupt communities and 

neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Such impacts 

generally would be temporary in nature. With the implementation of project measures 

and mitigation, these construction impacts would not generally cause an adverse or 

significant impact. However, cumulative construction impacts would occur in UCSD and 

University City because of other planned projects that would be under construction 

concurrent with the Refined Build Alternative; these impacts are related to noise, air 

quality, and transportation, and are also identified under those topics. Even with project 

measures and mitigation, localized cumulative impacts to UCSD and University City 

would be adverse under NEPA and significant and cumulatively considerable under 

CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-268 September 2014

Socioeconomic and Fiscal. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not identify 

cumulative socioeconomic and fiscal impacts from construction. Cumulative 

construction impacts such as traffic congestion and modified access that could have an 

economic impact on businesses are expected to occur at UCSD and University City 

because of other planned projects that would be under construction concurrent with the 

Refined Build Alternative. Even with implementation of coordinated BMPs, such as 

business signage and traffic management, there would be a cumulative adverse impact 

under NEPA and cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA from concurrent 

construction. 

Visual Resources and Aesthetics. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative visual impacts from construction. Temporary impacts during 

construction of the Refined Build Alternative, including increased dust, the stockpiling of 

construction-related materials, the presence of heavy equipment, temporary barriers, 

and light and glare from staging areas, would result in a negative impact on the visual 

environment. However, because of the temporary nature of these impacts, they are not 

considered adverse. Combined with similar construction impacts in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor from other foreseeable projects, the combined impacts generally would not be 

cumulatively adverse or significant because of their localized and temporary nature. The 

Refined Build Alternative would not result in an adverse or significant cumulative impact 

and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Air Quality. The EIR for the RCP did not identify a cumulative air quality impact from 

construction, but the EIRs for the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP both identify localized 

cumulative air quality impacts from construction. Construction air quality impacts such 

as dust and particulates tend to be localized to the construction area and the areas 

immediately adjacent. Emissions of other pollutants, such as NOX and TOGs, are 

generally an impact on a cumulative basis only when combined with emissions from 

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable other projects. Air quality regulations and 

general BMPs to reduce construction site dust, particulates, and emissions have been 

developed by regulatory agencies to reduce the cumulative air quality impacts of 

construction. Compliance with these air quality regulations and implementation of BMPs 

and project-specific measures would reduce impacts on air quality from constructionrelated emissions. However, even with project measures, construction of the Refined 

Build Alternative would result in exceedances of NOX and CO2 (a GHG). As a result, air 

quality construction impacts would be cumulatively adverse under NEPA and 

cumulatively considerable under CEQA. Although considered adverse, impacts to air 

quality and GHG emissions during construction are temporary and would be offset by 

the overall reduction in emissions that would result through implementation of the 

project. 

Climate Change. The EIR for the RCP did not address climate change. The EIRs for the 

2030 RTP and 2050 RTP both identify cumulative GHG impacts from construction. 

Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would release GHGs (i.e., methane, 

chlorofluorocarbons, and CO2). However, the short-term increase in GHG would be 

offset by the overall reduction in GHG emissions as a result of project implementation. 

Thus, the project’s contribution would not be an adverse impact and would not be 

cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-269 

Noise and Vibration. The EIR for the RCP and 2030 RTP identified short-term cumulative 

noise impacts from construction. However, the EIR for the 2050 RTP did not identify 

cumulative noise impacts from construction. Construction of the Refined Build 

Alternative would have daytime and nighttime noise impacts. Cumulative construction 

impacts could occur at UCSD and University City because of other planned projects that 

could be under construction concurrent with the Refined Build Alternative. These other 

projects are not expected to require nighttime construction in proximity to the locations 

where the Refined Build Alternative would have nighttime noise impacts; thus, there 

would be no adverse or significant cumulative noise impact from nighttime construction 

work. 

During the day, most construction activities would be permitted. Concurrent projects 

would have construction work during the day. Concurrent construction of improvements 

to the LOSSAN tracks could have adverse cumulative impacts to businesses along the 

MTS right-of-way. Additionally, construction of other projects within UCSD and 

University City together with the Refined Build Alternative could cause a significant 

cumulative impact under CEQA. However, the Refined Build Alternative includes project 

measures and mitigation that would minimize noise impacts during construction and, 

thus, there would not be a significant cumulative impact or a cumulatively considerable 

impact under CEQA to sensitive receptors in that vicinity, such as the Preuss School. 

Vibration impacts from construction of the Refined Build Alternative are localized. 

Cumulative impacts would only occur in locations where other construction activity would 

occur in the immediate vicinity of the Refined Build Alternative construction zones. The 

Refined Build Alternative includes project and mitigation measures to minimize vibration 

impacts. Similarly, other projects would be required to implement similar measures. 

Therefore, there would not be a significant cumulative impact or a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Ecosystems and Biological Resources. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP all 

identified cumulative biological impacts from construction, which results in the loss of 

habitat and sensitive species, and indirect impacts from noise, light, and glare. 

Construction would result in some localized impacts on ecosystems and biological 

resources. The Mid-Coast Corridor encompasses open space areas, and the project 

alignment, located within the existing MTS right-of-way, is near Rose Canyon Open 

Space and Marian Bear Memorial Park. The Refined Build Alternative also crosses the 

San Diego River. Limited grading and habitat removal would be required within these 

open space areas, adjacent to existing developed transportation rights-of-way. With 

mitigation, no adverse or significant impacts would occur. Regulations, BMPs, 

construction permits, and mitigation would require that affected resources be replaced 

and mitigated via restoration and preservation of additional habitat. It is reasonable to 

assume that other projects that would impact ecosystems and biological resources in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor also would mitigate their impacts and would be consistent with the 

MSCP. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or 

significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact 

under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-270 September 2014

Water Resources. The EIR for the RCP did not identity cumulative impacts to water 

resources. The EIR for the 2030 RTP found that even with conformance to existing 

federal, state, and local regulations for grading and the protection of water quality, 

combined with the implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures, there would be a 

residual cumulative impact. The EIR for the 2050 RTP did not find cumulative impacts 

for water quality, floodplain, or flood hazards based on compliance with existing 

regulations, which are more stringent than the regulations in place when the EIR for the 

2030 RTP was certified. Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would comply with 

existing regulations and requirements, as well as site-specific BMPs. As a result, no 

adverse impacts are expected. All other projects under construction at the same time as 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project also would be required to implement BMPs. As a 

result, cumulative construction impacts due to the Refined Build Alternative on water 

resources, with the implementation of site-specific BMPs, would not cause an adverse or 

significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact 

under CEQA. 

Hazardous Materials. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not identify 

cumulative hazardous materials impacts from construction. The EIR for the 2050 RTP 

identified the potential for people to be exposed to hazardous materials during an 

accidental release, which could occur during construction. Although there is a potential 

for cumulative hazardous materials impacts during construction if the Refined Build 

Alternative is constructed at the same time as other reasonably foreseeable projects, 

impacts related to hazardous materials are site-specific. Therefore, the geographical 

area within which cumulative hazardous materials impacts could occur is limited to the 

construction limits of each project and directly adjacent areas. The likelihood that any 

combination of projects would result in a cumulative hazardous materials impact is 

extremely remote. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse 

or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable 

impact under CEQA. 

Geotechnical, Geologic, and Seismic. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did 

not identify cumulative geotechnical, geologic, seismic, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 

impacts from construction. Although there is a potential for cumulative geotechnical, 

geologic, or seismic impacts during construction if the Refined Build Alternative is 

constructed at the same time as other reasonably foreseeable projects, the potential is 

very low because these impacts are very site specific. Further, project measures for 

geotechnical, geologic, and seismic impacts are included to eliminate the project’s 

potential to add to such impacts. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Energy. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP all identified cumulative energy 

impacts from construction as a result of the use of fossil fuels. Construction of the 

Refined Build Alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects would expend 

energy, but even combined, the energy expended for construction is a small portion of 

total energy used in the region. Section 4.17 describes the energy demand for 

construction activities for the Refined Build Alternative. Annual construction-related 

energy requirements for the Refined Build Alternative are less than 0.1 percent of the 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-271 

region’s annual energy demand. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not 

cause an adverse or significant cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively 

considerable impact under CEQA. 

Safety and Security. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not identify 

cumulative safety and security impacts. The construction zone for the Refined Build 

Alternative would be in close proximity to other projects that would be constructed 

concurrently, particularly near UCSD and University City; therefore, cumulative 

construction impacts could occur at these locations. All projects would provide detours 

to ensure safe travel by motorists and pedestrians while also ensuring that emergency 

response times are not adversely affected. These measures would be coordinated with 

other projects in the vicinity. Consequently, adverse safety and security impacts would 

be avoided. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or 

significant cumulative impact with respect to safety and security and would not result in a 

cumulatively considerable impact under CEQA. 

Electromagnetic Interference. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not 

identify cumulative EMI impacts. Construction activities for the Refined Build Alternative 

would involve the use of some electrically powered equipment; however, the levels of 

EMFs during construction would be very low and would not be adverse or significant. 

Additionally, any EMF impacts would be localized such that they would not combine with 

EMF levels from construction equipment at other construction sites to affect the 

operation of nearby equipment or machinery sensitive to background levels of EMF. As 

a result, construction of the Refined Build Alternative would not result in adverse or 

significant cumulative EMF impacts and would not be cumulatively considerable under 

CEQA. 

Historic Architectural, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources. The EIR for the RCP 

identified cumulative impacts from the loss of cultural resources, which generally occurs 

during construction. The EIRs for the 2030 RTP and 2050 RTP identified cumulative 

impacts from alteration or demolition of historic buildings and the loss of archeological 

and paleontological resources. Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would not 

physically alter, relocate, or demolish historic architectural properties. The Refined Build 

Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant cumulative construction impact to 

historic architectural properties and would not be cumulatively considerable under 

CEQA. The FTA has made a determination of “no adverse effect” for historic 

architectural properties. 

During the Extended Phase I Investigations, no NRHP-eligible archaeological resources 

were identified or detected within the project APE. Therefore, the FTA has made a 

determination of “no historic properties affected” for archaeological resources pursuant 

to Section 106 of the NHPA. Three mitigation measures (construction monitoring, 

worker cultural resources awareness training, and treatment of discoveries consisting of 

archaeological or human remains) were recommended to be implemented during the 

construction phase of the project to address the possibility of unanticipated 

archaeological resource discoveries. Accordingly, the Refined Build Alternative would 

not cause an adverse or significant cumulative construction impact to archaeological 

resources and would not be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-272 September 2014

Paleontological resources within the Mid-Coast Corridor are finite and are viewed on a 

regional scale. Cumulatively, any ground disturbances associated with the construction 

of projects that are located in the Mid-Coast Corridor could result in cumulative impacts 

to the same formations. Impacts to paleontological resources would be mitigated for the 

Refined Build Alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects, so the majority of 

paleontological resources would be recovered. However, even with mitigation, some 

damage or destruction of paleontological resources in the Mid-Coast Corridor during the 

course of recovery could occur. As a result, the combined impact to paleontological 

resources from the Refined Build Alternative and other reasonably foreseeable projects 

located throughout the geologic units in the Mid-Coast Corridor could result in adverse 

cumulative impacts. The Refined Build Alternative’s contribution would be considered 

cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact under 

CEQA. 

Utilities. The EIRs for the RCP, 2030 RTP, and 2050 RTP did not identify cumulative 

utility impacts. Impacts to utilities as result of concurrent construction activities in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor, particularly near UCSD and University City, would be reduced 

through on-going coordination with utility companies. With the implementation of project 

measures, the Refined Build Alternative would not cause an adverse or significant 

cumulative impact and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact under 

CEQA. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-273 

4.20 Environmental Justice 

This section evaluates the environmental justice (EJ) impacts of the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives. The analysis identifies study area EJ populations and 

determines whether disproportionately high and adverse impacts from the project would 

be experienced by minority and/or low-income populations, defined as EJ populations. 

Mitigation measures also are identified. For additional information, refer to the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Environmental Justice Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014t) prepared in support of the SEIS/SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.3, property 

displacements would not be adverse; therefore, they are not discussed in this section. 

An EJ analysis was not conducted during any of the prior environmental studies for the 

Mid-Coast Corridor. The Draft SEIS/SEIR identified disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts in University City with the Genesee Avenue Design Option and mitigation was 

proposed specific for this option. 

This section has been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR based on refinements to the 

Build Alternative, elimination of the Genesee Avenue Design Option, and the updated 

analysis presented in Chapter 3.0 and the preceding sections in this chapter. The 

Refined Build Alternative does not include the Genesee Avenue Design Option. As a 

result, the project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts and 

mitigation specific for EJ communities is not required. Additionally, the short-term 

construction-related noise impacts and location of haul routes were revised within this 

section and a discussion of public outreach during the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period 

was added. 

Chapter 5.0 of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Environmental Justice Technical 

Report (SANDAG, 2014t) was revised based on refinements to the Build Alternative and 

the corresponding updates to the long-term noise analysis, temporary parking impacts, 

haul route locations, and construction-related noise impacts. Refer to the Preface of the 

Environmental Justice Technical Report for additional information on the changes to the EJ 

analysis and technical report since the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Under the Refined Build 

Alternative, none of the adverse impacts to EJ populations would be disproportionately 

high and adverse. 

4.20.1 Regulatory Background and Methodology 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, and USDOT Order 5610 direct federal 

agencies to take appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts of their projects on the health or 

environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable 

and permitted by law. Executive Order 12898 directs federal actions, including 

transportation projects, to use existing law to avoid discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin, and to avoid disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. These often are referred to as EJ populations. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-274 September 2014

FTA Circular 4703.1, Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for FTA Recipients (FTA, 

2012), effective August 15, 2012, builds upon existing orders and authorities to 

incorporate EJ principles into plans, projects, and activities that receive funding from the 

FTA. The guiding EJ principles that are followed by the USDOT and FTA, contained in 

FTA Circular 4703.1, are as follows: 

 To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental impacts, including social and economic impacts, on minority and lowincome populations 

 To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the 

transportation decision-making process 

 To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by 

minority and low-income populations 

The EJ analysis starts by identifying EJ populations that could be affected by the project. 

It then determines if any EJ populations would be adversely affected by the project. This 

is followed by a determination of whether adverse impacts to EJ populations would be 

disproportionately high and adverse. 

FTA Circular 4703.1 defines adverse effect as follows: 

...the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental 

effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but 

are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; air, noise, and water 

pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural 

resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of 

community cohesion or a community’s economic vitality; destruction or disruption of 

the availability of public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse 

employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or non-profit 

organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of 

individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial 

of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of DOT [U.S. 

Department of Transportation] programs, policies, or activities. 

FTA Circular 4703.1 defines low-income as “a person whose median household income 

is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.” 

In lieu of the department’s poverty guidelines, the circular encourages the use of locally 

developed thresholds. 

Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (Council 

on Environmental Quality, 1997) states that “minority populations should be identified 

when either: (a) the minority population of the affected area is 50 percent or (b) when 

the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis.” The City of San Diego was selected as the unit of geographical 

comparison because it is the most representative urban environment and contains 

approximately 67 percent of the Trolley stations in the region. The minority population 

percentage in the City of San Diego is 54.9 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-275 

Therefore, for this analysis, minority populations in the affected area are defined when 

they comprise 50 percent of the population or more, which includes populations that are 

meaningfully greater than minority populations in the City of San Diego (54.9 percent). 

Additionally, the percentage of persons living below poverty in the City of San Diego, 

used to identify low-income populations for this analysis, is 17.4 percent (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2012a). To analyze regional transit service benefits, 2010 Census data for the 

County of San Diego also were used (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). 

The analysis identifies minority and low-income populations within one-half mile of the 

project alignment for long-term impacts and within 350 feet of the project alignment for 

construction impacts. These distances represent the area that is most likely to be 

directly affected by the proposed project (e.g., ridership, access, traffic, parking, noise, 

vibration, and visual effects). 

According to FTA Circular 4703.1, a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 

minority and low-income populations is defined as an adverse impact that (1) is 

predominately borne by a minority population and/or low-income population, or (2) will 

be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is appreciably 

more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse impact that will be suffered by the 

non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. 

FTA Circular 4703.1 specifies a process for making determinations of disproportionately 

high and adverse effects that take into consideration mitigation and enhancement 

measures that will be incorporated into the project. The effects to EJ and non-EJ 

populations should be compared as a basis for determining disproportionality. The EJ 

analysis should include a review of the totality of circumstances before determining 

whether there will be disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations. 

Determinations regarding whether potential impacts to EJ populations would be 

disproportionately high and adverse are made by considering the following questions: 

 Would the project result in adverse effects predominately borne by an EJ population? 

 Would adverse effects on an EJ population be appreciably more severe or greater in 

magnitude than adverse effects that would be suffered by non-EJ populations? 

 Would mitigation and enhancement measures be taken to lessen impacts on an EJ 

population? 

 Would any adverse effects impact a resource that is especially important to an EJ 

population? 

 What are the offsetting benefits to an EJ population that could help to balance 

substantial adverse impacts? 

4.20.2 Affected Environment 

The analysis identified nine geographic areas within the Mid-Coast Corridor as having 

EJ populations because of their high proportion of minority and/or low-income (below the 

poverty level) populations when compared to the city as a whole. These geographic 

areas include: 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-276 September 2014

 Little Italy (low-income populations greater than city average) 

 Civic/Core (minority populations greater than 50 percent) 

 East Village (minority populations greater than 50 percent) 

 Mission Beach/Mission Bay Park (low-income populations greater than city average) 

 Old Town (low-income populations greater than city average) 

 Linda Vista (minority populations greater than 50 percent, low-income populations 

greater than city average) 

 La Jolla Village (low-income populations greater than city average) 

 Park West (low-income populations greater than city average) 

 University City (low-income populations greater than city average) 

Figure 4-37 shows the EJ populations within the corridor and Table 4-36 provides a 

demographic profile of the corridor, including the nine EJ populations. 

Five of the nine geographic areas are within one-half mile of the project alignment: Little 

Italy, Civic/Core, Old Town, La Jolla Village, and University City. The remaining four 

geographic areas (Linda Vista, East Village, Mission Beach/Mission Bay Park, and Park 

West) are not within one-half mile of the project alignment and would not be affected by 

the project. 

4.20.3 Environmental Impacts 

This section describes the adverse impacts of the No-Build and Refined Build 

Alternatives on EJ populations in the Mid-Coast Corridor. 

The characterization of impacts for NEPA analysis, where impacts are described in 

terms of beneficial, not adverse, or adverse, has been modified to address impacts 

specific to EJ populations or communities for which the FTA requires supplemental 

analysis. This modification requires additional analysis of adverse impacts—whether 

adverse impacts to EJ populations are high and substantial and, further, if adverse 

impacts are disproportionately high and adverse (i.e., an adverse impact that is 

predominately borne by an EJ population or is appreciably greater in magnitude to EJ 

populations than to non-EJ populations). 

4.20.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative includes the continuation and enhancement of service along 

bus Route 150, operating between Downtown San Diego, the OTTC, and University 

City. The enhancement of bus services for this route would not require new transit 

infrastructure and, therefore, would not result in physical impacts or changes to existing 

land uses within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The No-Build Alternative would not result in 

adverse impacts; therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on EJ populations. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-277 

Figure 4-37. Mid-Coast Corridor EJ Populations 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-278 September 2014

Table 4-36. 2010 Demographic and Socioeconomic Data—Mid-Coast Corridor 

Geographic Area EJ Population

Percent Aggregate 

Minority

Percent of Population 

Below Poverty Level

City of San Diego 54.9 17.4 

Thresholda 50.0 17.4

Mid-Coast Corridor 34.7 14.6 

Little Italy Yes 29.4 17.8

 Columbia No 27.8 15.2b

 Cortez No 34.6 10.4 

Civic/Core Yes 66.0 10.4b

 Horton/Gaslamp No 31.6 10.4b

 Marina/Convention Center No 16.5 10.4b

East Village Yes 54.0 36.2

Park West Yes 29.7 19.6

 Hillcrest No 29.8 12.2 

 Midtown No 29.9 11.9 

 Point Loma Heights No 18.8 6.1 

 Midway No 39.3 14.9 

 Loma Portal No 26.1 11.0 

 Sunset Cliffs No 13.3 3.4 

 Roseville–Fleetridge No 11.8 3.8 

 La Playa No 11.4 7.5 

 Ocean Beach No 18.3 12.4 

 Mission Hills No 19.7 6.5 

Old Town Yes 36.0 26.7

Mission Beach/Mission Bay Park Yes 14.7 20.5

 Mission Valley West No 31.7 4.7 

Linda Vista Yes 68.7 20.1

 Morena No 32.7 11.6 

 Clairemont Mesa West No 29.9 10.7 

 Clairemont Mesa East No 48.2 9.1 

 North Clairemont No 40.1 8.7 

 Pacific Beach No 20.9 12.7 

 Bay Park No 26.8 8.7 

 Bay Ho No 30.0 12.5 

 La Jolla No 17.3 4.0 

 La Jolla Village Yes 33.1 23.0

 University City Yes 48.2 23.0

 Torrey Pines No 18.5 3.2 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b 

Notes: a

 A community is identified as an EJ population (bold) if the total minority population is greater than 50 

percent or if the percentage of persons below poverty level is greater than the City of San Diego 

average (17.4 percent). b

 Data available at census tract level and the data for the one census tract represent the combination of 

the Columbia, Civic/Core, Gaslamp, and Marina/Convention Center neighborhoods. 

 EJ = Environmental Justice 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-279 

4.20.3.2 Refined Build Alternative 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in adverse long-term impacts and short-term 

construction impacts for the following transportation and environmental topics: traffic, 

transit (adverse short-term construction impacts only), parking (adverse short-term 

construction impacts only), air quality (adverse short-term construction impacts only), 

and noise and vibration. These effects would occur in four of the nine EJ communities 

within the Mid-Coast Corridor—Little Italy, Old Town, La Jolla Village, and University 

City. The Civic/Core, East Village, Park West, Mission Beach/Mission Bay Park, and 

Linda Vista EJ communities would not be affected by these adverse long-term and shortterm construction impacts. These adverse impacts are discussed in Chapter 3.0 and 

Sections 4.7 and 4.17. This section evaluates adverse impacts remaining after the 

implementation of project measures, BMPs, and mitigation measures discussed in these 

sections and assesses the potential of high and substantial adverse impacts to cause 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to EJ populations. 

Adverse Impacts Remaining After Mitigation 

After mitigation, adverse impacts would remain for the following elements of the 

environment: 

 Noise (short-term construction impacts) 

 Transportation—Transit (short-term construction impacts), traffic (long-term impacts 

and short-term construction impacts), and parking (short-term construction impacts) 

Adverse Noise Impacts Remaining after Mitigation 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, adverse short-term construction noise impacts to EJ 

populations would remain after mitigation; however, these impacts would be temporary. 

Noise impacts would occur when nighttime construction is required to avoid other 

impacts, which would create noise levels that exceed the ambient noise levels for that 

area. Mitigation measures would be implemented as required by the Noise Control Plan 

(Mitigation Measure CON1), the details of which are described in Section 4.17.3.2. In 

addition to the project-wide mitigation approach, the contractor would provide noisereducing curtains or noise-masking machines where appropriate and approved by the 

occupant. Temporary lodging in an approved hotel would be offered by SANDAG to 

residents if, after implementation of the noise-reducing measures, nighttime construction 

noise is predicted to exceed the ambient noise level for that area by 5 dBA (Mitigation 

Measure CON2). These measures, which are also described in Section 4.17.3.2, would 

minimize adverse short-term construction noise impacts. 

The Noise Control Plan would be developed prior to the start of construction to manage 

construction noise throughout the corridor. The Noise Control Plan would demonstrate 

how the contractor would reduce noise levels near sensitive noise receptors consistent 

with the City of San Diego Noise Ordinance. The plan would include an analysis of 

existing noise levels based on actual background noise levels, a list of the major pieces 

of construction equipment that would be used, and predictions of the noise levels at the 

closest sensitive receivers (including residences, hotels, schools, churches, temples, 

and similar facilities where either outdoor or indoor activities would be sensitive to noise 

levels). The Noise Control Plan would include noise attenuation features as necessary, 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-280 September 2014

such as temporary sound walls and mufflers, and locating noisy equipment away from 

sensitive land uses. 

Adverse Transportation Impacts Remaining after Mitigation 

As described in Section 3.4.7, under the Refined Build Alternative, adverse short-term 

construction transit impacts to local bus services in University City and to the operation 

of the Trolley Green Line from the Morena/Linda Vista Station to the OTTC would remain 

after mitigation. Project measures would be incorporated to reduce these effects, and, 

although temporary, these impacts would remain adverse. 

As described in Section 3.4.2, under the Refined Build Alternative, adverse long-term 

traffic impacts at the following three locations would remain after mitigation: 

 Beech Street and Pacific Highway 

 Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue 

 Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp to the I-5 northbound off-ramp 

These adverse impacts would affect EJ populations in Little Italy and non-EJ populations 

in Pacific Beach. The adverse impact in Little Italy is at the stop-controlled intersection 

of Beech Street and Pacific Highway adjacent to the Beech Street grade crossing. 

When a train clears the crossing and the gates rise, all the backed-up traffic that had been 

waiting along westbound Beech Street is released, which arrives at the Beech Street and 

Pacific Highway intersection at one time. Because this is a stop-controlled approach, only 

one vehicle can be served at a time, resulting in greater delays for all vehicles in the queue. 

Vehicles that arrive under normal conditions (i.e., not immediately after a train travels 

through the grade crossing) are not expected to experience an adverse delay. Therefore, 

while an unmitigated impact would occur at this location, the impact on EJ populations in 

Little Italy would not be disproportionately high and adverse. 

As described in Section 3.4.7, under the Refined Build Alternative, adverse short-term 

construction traffic and parking impacts to EJ and non-EJ populations would remain after 

mitigation; however, these impacts would be temporary. The volume of truck traffic 

would increase during construction of the project along haul routes. Truck volumes 

would be greatest at staging and station areas, depending on the amount of excavation 

and foundations required. There is one location within University City where haul truck 

activity would occur close to residences (the Matthews Apartments on Sixth Lane on the 

UCSD campus). Adverse impacts from construction staging and station areas would 

occur to four non-EJ populations. 

Adverse Impacts that are Disproportionate to EJ Populations 

Adverse impacts remaining after mitigation were assessed to determine if they would be 

disproportionate, that is predominately borne by an EJ population or appreciably greater 

in magnitude to EJ populations than to non-EJ populations. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, the adverse noise impacts from construction would 

occur in an urban environment with an existing Ldn noise measurements ranging 

between 55 and 84 dBA. The noise impacts would be temporary and not extend beyond 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-281 

the end of the construction period. Daytime construction noise levels could exceed the 

City of San Diego noise limit of 75 decibels averaged over the 12-hour period from 7 a.m. 

to 7 p.m. when construction is allowed. Because it would be temporary, would be 

mitigated to the extent practicable, and would occur similarly throughout the corridor, 

construction noise impacts would not be disproportionate and adverse for sensitive 

receptors beyond 100 feet of the alignment. 

Nighttime construction noise would cause adverse impacts at sensitive receptors within 

the project area. The majority of the elevated guideway portion of the alignment is 

located within University City, and nighttime construction, particularly along Genesee 

Avenue, would be required to limit road closures and maintain access to local 

businesses during normal business hours. Therefore, the majority of nighttime noise 

construction impacts would be concentrated in this community, which contains EJ 

populations. Mitigation Measure CON2, described in Section 4.17.3.2, would implement 

noise-control features to reduce nighttime construction noise effects to residents within 

the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens and along Charmant Drive and Genesee 

Avenue in University City. When noise from planned construction activities is anticipated 

to exceed the ambient noise levels for that area, which would result in a temporary 

adverse noise impact, residents would be offered noise-reducing measures or temporary 

lodging in an approved hotel if, after implementation of the noise-reducing measures, the 

ambient noise levels for that area are exceeded by 5 dBA. This additional mitigation 

offered when adverse impacts are predicted would reduce nighttime noise impacts such 

that impacts for relocated residents would not be adverse. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, the adverse long-term traffic impacts would not be 

disproportionate because they would occur in communities with EJ and non-EJ 

populations. With implementation of mitigation measures, long-term adverse traffic 

impacts to EJ populations in Little Italy would be eliminated in the p.m. peak hour and 

reduced to the greatest extent feasible in the a.m. peak hour, resulting in a 0.6 second 

greater delay than under the No-Build Alternative. As stated previously, vehicles that 

arrive at Beech Street and Pacific Highway under normal conditions (i.e., not immediately 

after a train travels through the grade crossing) are not expected to experience an adverse 

delay. There were no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the long-term traffic 

impacts to non-EJ populations within Pacific Beach. With implementation of mitigation, 

the remaining long-term traffic impacts would be greater in magnitude for the non-EJ 

populations within Pacific Beach. Therefore, the impacts on EJ populations would not 

be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects on non-EJ 

populations. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, the adverse transportation impacts from 

construction would not be disproportionate. With implementation of mitigation 

measures, construction-related adverse transportation impacts would be reduced for 

adjacent commercial areas, residential neighborhoods, and transit riders. Although 

increases in delay for transit riders would occur for local bus routes and UCSD shuttles 

in University City and for patrons of the Trolley Green Line from the Morena/Linda Vista 

Station to the OTTC, operation of these routes would be maintained and would result in 

minor inconveniences. Although temporary closures, detours, and changes in access 

points may occur during construction, access to businesses and residences would be 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-282 September 2014

maintained. With mitigation in place, these construction-related transportation impacts 

would remain adverse, but they would not be disproportionately high with regard to EJ 

populations. The distribution of construction transit, traffic, and parking impacts shows 

that adverse impacts would not be predominately borne by EJ populations. Further, 

impacts on EJ populations would not be appreciably more severe or greater in 

magnitude than effects on non-EJ populations. The magnitude of construction transit, 

traffic, and parking impacts would be approximately the same for all populations. 

Additionally, under the Refined Build Alternative, no important social, religious, or 

cultural resources would be permanently altered or disturbed by the proposed project. 

Therefore, under the Refined Build Alternative, there would be no adverse impacts on 

resources that serve an especially important social, religious, or cultural function for an 

EJ population. 

For more information on community facilities, see Section 4.2 of this chapter and the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts 

Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e). 

Effects: Without considering offsetting benefits of the project, there would not be any 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts for low-income populations. 

The totality of environmental effects, which includes offsetting benefits, is presented in 

Section 4.20.7. 

4.20.4 Benefits 

Transportation effects from the project are expected to be beneficial because of the 

improved accessibility and connectivity provided by the new transit service. The benefits 

to transit users include improved access to employment and activity centers. Traffic and 

transit performance would improve within the Mid-Coast Corridor, and these benefits 

would be realized by all populations. Nine new stations are proposed for the project, of 

which six are located in neighborhoods containing EJ populations. The project also 

would provide parking at five stations, in both EJ and non-EJ populations. As a result, 

these EJ populations would have the opportunity to access the corridor transit system as 

well as the region-wide transit system. 

Using regional performance measures, ridership, mode of access, fare costs, and travel 

time, it is possible to assess the transportation benefits of the project. These 

performance measures were compared to the No-Build Alternative to identify a 

difference in time savings based on hours, referred to as a user benefit. The Trolley 

Blue Line extension under the Refined Build Alternative would benefit transit users by 

providing shorter travel times and more reliable transit service compared to travel by 

bus. The benefits of the Refined Build Alternative would be reflected by increases in 

transit ridership when compared to the No-Build Alternative. A reduction in regional 

VMT would reduce pollutant emissions and benefit air quality throughout San Diego 

County. The Refined Build Alternative also would provide transit infrastructure to 

accommodate TOD, which can improve quality of life by providing housing and a mix of 

uses within walking distance to public transportation and providing additional benefits to 

the environment, such as an increased sense of identity for communities. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-283 

Although all users within the corridor, including EJ populations, would benefit from the 

project, it also is important to determine if impacts would occur to users outside of the 

Mid-Coast Corridor who typically access the area. The vast majority of users would 

experience improved travel times, which would be a benefit resulting from project 

implementation. Travel time savings also would extend beyond the Mid-Coast Corridor 

throughout San Diego County. 

The Refined Build Alternative would distribute station amenities, parking, improved jobs 

and housing access, and other beneficial project features in both EJ and non-EJ 

populations. Therefore, there would not be a denial, reduction, or delay in benefit to EJ 

communities with respect to access to the benefits of the project. 

The elevated viaduct through University City, especially along Genesee Avenue, 

provides a substantial travel speed, reliability, safety, and long-term benefit to the 

community. Compared to at-grade LRT, the elevated line would have no roadway 

crossings, thereby eliminating conflicts with motor vehicles. Between stations, 

pedestrians would not be able to access the tracks either intentionally or inadvertently, 

eliminating the potential for pedestrian accidents between stations. In addition, LRT 

horn noise would be eliminated outside of stations, and the elevated guideway would 

provide some shielding of wheel noise. 

4.20.5 Mitigation Measures 

The temporary nighttime construction noise impacts to residents along Charmant Drive 

and Genesee Avenue and in the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing 

complex would affect EJ populations in University City. CON2, as described in Section 

4.17.3.2, would reduce nighttime construction noise impacts to EJ populations in 

University City to the greatest extent feasible. 

Effects after Additional Mitigation: No disproportionately high and adverse unavoidable 

impacts would occur 

4.20.6 Public Outreach 

To provide transit infrastructure that meets the needs of the community, public outreach 

and engagement approaches would be used. Public outreach would provide meaningful 

opportunities for populations to provide input, including EJ populations. 

Previous public outreach targeted EJ populations. For CEQA scoping, four of the five 

meetings were located in EJ communities (i.e., all but the meeting in the Clairemont 

community). Additionally, many members of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Working Group are affiliated with University City. 

Similar to CEQA scoping, three of the four public meetings and the public hearing for the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR were located in EJ communities (i.e., all but the Clairemont meeting). 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Working Group continues to have members 

affiliated with the University City community. Of the approximately 1,420 comments 

received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 5 were related to the topic of EJ. However, none of 

these raised any issues that would require additional analysis or mitigation or outreach 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-284 September 2014

to EJ populations. The comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and responses to 

comments are provided in Volume 3 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Additional details on public outreach are provided in Chapter 8.0. 

4.20.7 Summary of Environmental Justice Analysis 

Given the totality of the environmental effects, which includes offsetting benefits, there 

would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to EJ populations under the 

Refined Build Alternative. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-285 

4.21 Other National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality 

Act Considerations 

This section describes several other considerations required under NEPA and CEQA, 

including an evaluation of the relationship between short-term uses of the environment 

and long-term productivity, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, and 

mandatory findings of CEQA significance. 

Other than the editorial changes described in Section 4.0, comments received on the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did not require any changes to 

this section of the Final SEIS/SEIR. 

4.21.1 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity and 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

This section describes the relationship of local short-term impacts and resources use, as 

well as maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for both the No-Build 

and Refined Build Alternatives. It also describes the Refined Build Alternative’s 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. 

NEPA and CEQA consider “irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources” (40 

CFR Part 1502.16) during the construction and operation of the project that may be 

significant irreversible environmental changes. In addition, irreversible damage can 

result from environmental accidents associated with a project (CEQA Guidelines

15126(e)). Irretrievable commitments of resources are to be evaluated to ensure that 

such current consumption is justified. 

NEPA also requires the discussion of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

Part 1502.16). Primary and secondary impacts, such as the dedication of right-of-way to 

transportation uses, typically commit future generations to similar uses. Another 

example is the conversion of open space to urban uses, which should include a 

discussion of the loss of the long-term value of the land. 

The 2030 RTP includes the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. This plan considers the 

need for present and future transportation requirements within the context of present and 

future land use development in the San Diego region. As determined in the 2030 RTP EIR 

(SANDAG, 2007c), implementation of projects in the 2030 RTP, such as the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, commit land to urban uses and would involve the consumption of 

energy derived from nonrenewable sources, such as petroleum and natural gas. In addition, 

the fuel and electricity consumed for projects in the 2030 RTP would release GHG into the 

atmosphere where they will remain for hundreds of years. Building materials could be 

considered permanently consumed, although these might be recyclable in part at some 

future date. Transportation improvements associated with the 2030 RTP would result in 

substantial land alterations and the introduction of substantial structures into the visual 

environment. These new elements would represent irreversible changes. Finally, the 2030 

RTP EIR found that the 2030 RTP works to meet the region’s long-term mobility needs, to 

better connect transportation and land use policy decisions, and to create a transportation 

network that would serve the region through 2030. The project does not attempt to meet 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-286 September 2014

short-term goals but rather designs a plan that would continually improve the San Diego 

region’s transportation system as it is implemented. The conclusions in this SEIS/SEIR are 

consistent with the analysis in the EIR for the 2030 RTP. 

The Refined Build Alternative would include both short-term losses and benefits. One 

such loss would result from the displacement of 1 business, which supports about 25 

employees, and the loss of off-street parking spaces from other businesses (as shown in 

Chapter 3.0, Table 3-30). These impacts would not result in displaced employees 

needing to look for a new job outside the region, as it is expected that the business 

would relocate and similar businesses are located within the corridor. Another shortterm loss would include the removal of vegetation, which would be replaced through 

revegetation and compensatory mitigation. Short-term benefits would include increased 

jobs and the sales and income tax revenues generated during construction. 

Long-term losses associated with the Refined Build Alternative would include the use of 

construction materials and energy, and the commitment of electrical energy to support 

ongoing Trolley operations. 

Long-term gains include an improved transit network; increased access to regional and 

local activity centers, including a reduction in the number of transfers, which would 

increase transit ridership; improved transit reliability with more passengers riding in 

exclusive rights-of-way; better support for the region’s goals for livability, sustainability, 

and equity; and increased jobs and economic activity through expanded transit services. 

The project alignment and stations would be located in areas with existing and planned 

land uses conducive to transit use and in areas that have the greatest potential to 

develop transit-supportive land uses. Therefore, the Refined Build Alternative would 

enhance local and regional long-term productivity. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, no new project-related infrastructure would be built within the 

corridor; thus, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable 

resources. Construction of the Refined Build Alternative would entail the one-time 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, such as energy (fossil 

fuels used for construction equipment) and construction materials (such as lumber, sand, 

gravel, and metals). Additionally, labor and natural resources would be used to produce 

construction materials. These natural resources generally are not retrievable. However, 

they are not in short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect upon the 

continued availability of these resources. Land used for staging areas to construct the 

proposed facilities is not considered an irreversible commitment. After construction is 

completed, construction staging areas would be available for other uses. The project would 

commit the land used for the alignment and stations to transportation land use. Project 

elements are generally located within transportation rights-of-way, and would not require a 

substantial land commitment. However, although the EIR for the 2030 RTP found that some 

projects in the 2030 RTP could result in substantial encroachments to lands designated for 

conservation in regional habitat conservation plans and that such encroachment would be 

irreversible, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project does not involve substantial 

encroachment into lands designated for conservation. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-287 

The project’s commitment of long-term land resources is consistent with city policies 

promoting transit-oriented uses, and with UCSD plans, which anticipate the Trolley 

system to support planned campus growth. 

The consumption of nonrenewable resources related to the Refined Build Alternative 

includes petroleum products and electricity. During construction, contractors would use 

fossil fuels to transport workers and materials, and the Trolley system would use 

electricity and fuel for LRVs, station and maintenance operations, and worker vehicles. 

The resource amounts consumed and the utilization rate would not result in significant 

environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of such resources 

because they would facilitate increased transit use (which increases energy efficiency) 

and decreased automobile dependence (which uses fossil fuels). Because the project 

would use existing maintenance facilities, the incremental increase in the use of cleaning 

supplies and maintenance materials (e.g., oil, solvents, and other materials) would not 

be significant and would be within the existing facility’s capacity. 

Project benefits would include improved mobility, transit accessibility, travel time 

savings, and reliability; reduced VMT and GHG emissions; and increased energy 

savings compared to the No-Build Alternative. The resource commitment and 

consumption for the Refined Build Alternative are appropriate because regional and local 

residents and visitors would benefit from improved transit services. This, in turn, would 

result in an overall decrease in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

nonrenewable resources. For example, transportation sources account for nearly 40 

percent of California’s energy consumption. The project is expected to remove 

automobile traffic from the regional roadway network, easing the increase in VMT and 

the accompanying fossil fuel usage that would occur between 2010 and 2030. 

Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Refined Build Alternative would reduce 

regional VMT by 137,977 miles daily and reduce daily regional roadway energy usage 

by 3,100 mBtus. Therefore, the project could decrease the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources compared to the No-Build Alternative. 

4.21.2 Mandatory Findings of California Environmental Quality Act Significance 

Under Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a CEQA finding of significance is 

required if certain conditions would occur as a result of a project. As summarized in 

Table S-2, this Final SEIS/SEIR discloses environmental impacts, the level of CEQA 

significance prior to mitigation, project requirements that are otherwise required by law 

or are incorporated as part of the project description, feasible mitigation measures, and 

the level of CEQA significance after the incorporation of mitigation measures. This 

section discusses whether the project would result in any conditions that trigger 

mandatory findings of significance under CEQA. 

Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; 

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife 

population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 

community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare 

or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California 

history or prehistory? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-288 September 2014

No. As described in Section 4.8, the project would not substantially degrade the quality 

of the environment. Although impacts would occur to habitat for fish and wildlife species, 

these impacts would be relatively minor and would be mitigated in accordance with the 

MSCP. No fish or wildlife species would drop below self-sustaining levels, and no plant 

or animal community would be eliminated. The project would not substantially reduce 

the number or restrict the range of any endangered, rare, or threatened species. Minor 

impacts would be mitigated, as outlined in Section 4.8. 

As described in Section 4.15, the project would not eliminate important examples of 

major periods of California history or prehistory. 

Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the 

disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 

No. The project does not attempt to meet short-term goals but rather would advance longterm environmental goals to reduce VMT, with corresponding reductions in emissions of 

criteria pollutants and GHG. Long-term gains include an improved transit network; 

increased access to regional and local activity centers, including a reduction in the number 

of transfers; improved transit reliability with more passengers riding in exclusive rights-ofway; increased transit ridership; better support for the region’s goals for livability, 

sustainability, and equity; and increased jobs and economic activity through expanded 

transit services. The project alignment and stations would be located in areas with existing 

and planned land uses conducive to transit use and in areas that have the greatest potential 

to develop transit-supportive land uses. Project benefits would include improved mobility, 

transit accessibility, travel time savings, and reliability; reduced VMT and GHG emissions; 

and increased energy savings compared to the No-Build Alternative. The project is 

consistent with city policies promoting transit-oriented uses, and with UCSD plans, which 

anticipate the LRT to support planned campus growth. 

Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively 

considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 

project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the 

effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 

Yes. As described in Sections 3.4.6.2 and 3.4.7.7, the project would result in long-term 

cumulative impacts resulting from localized traffic impacts and short-term cumulative 

impacts on the transportation system. Additionally, as stated in Section 4.19, the project 

would result in cumulative impacts during construction in the following areas: 

 Community and neighborhoods 

 Socioeconomic and fiscal 

 Air quality 

 Paleontological resources 

Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects 

on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-289 

No. The majority of impacts would be mitigated to below CEQA significance through a 

combination of appropriate project measures, BMPs, and/or mitigation measures. The 

project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic. However, this 

impact would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 

indirectly. 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-290 September 2014

4.22 Anticipated Permits 

This section lists the permits and approvals that would be needed for the Refined Build 

Alternative. California statutes charge SANDAG with implementing regional transit 

improvements and coordinating with other agencies, such as the USACE and Caltrans, 

and with local jurisdictions, such as the City of San Diego. The Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project would comply with all applicable permits identified in Table 4-37. 

Comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements to the Build Alternative did 

not require any substantive changes to this section of the Final SEIS/SEIR. The table 

footnote describing the jurisdiction of the CCC has been clarified. 

Table 4-37. Applicable Project-related Permits and Agreements 

Issuing Agency Permit Name 

Required

Yes No

California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit X1

California Coastal Commission Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency 

Determination X2

 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 

California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake or 

Streambed Alteration Agreement X 

California Department of 

Transportation 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Statewide Permit X3

California Department of 

Transportation 

Joint Use Agreement X 

California Department of 

Transportation 

Encroachment Permit X 

California Public Utilities 

Commission 

Approval of Grade Separations/Crossings X 

City of San Diego Construction Noise Permit X4 

City of San Diego Traffic Control Permit X4 

City of San Diego No-Fee Tree Permit X4 

City of San Diego Public Right-of-Way Permit X4 

Metropolitan Transit System/ 

North County Transit District 

Right-of-Entry Permit X 

San Diego Association of 

Governments 

Section 149 Streets and Highways Code Approval X 

San Diego Air Pollution Control 

District 

Air Quality Conformity Determination—Confirm 

Transportation Improvement Program inclusion X 

San Diego Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certification X 

San Diego Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

Dewatering Permit X 

San Diego Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

Stormwater Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 

Permit X5

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 4-291 

Table 4-37. Applicable Project-related Permits and Agreements (continued) 

Issuing Agency Permit Name 

Required

Yes No

State Water Resources Control 

Board 

Clean Water Act 402 Construction General Permit X 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit X 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit X6

U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 Bridge Permit X 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

Review/Consultation X 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Notes: 1 For development within the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit would be required by the 

California Coastal Commission for the portions of the alignment within the Coastal Zone. 2 A Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission may, in some instances, 

satisfy the requirement of a consistency review. 3 Project would be covered under the State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water Act 402 

Construction General Permit. 4 Permit would be acquired by the construction contractor. 5 Project would be covered under the San Diego County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit; 

project site-specific permit is not anticipated. 6 Any work performed in, over, or under navigable waters of the United States must obtain a Section 10 

Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, if the river is subject to tidal influence, then the 

U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for granting permission for any bridges that cross navigable waters. The 

provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Act would apply to construction of bridges across navigable waters, 

potentially including the San Diego River. 

 
Chapter 4.0 – Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4-292 September 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-1 

5.0 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

5.1 Introduction 

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) will seek federal transit-funding 

grants and discretionary approvals for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project through the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA); therefore, a determination of compliance with Section 4(f) by the FTA is required. 

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. Federal regulations that implement Section 4(f) are found in 23 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 774). 

The FTA may not approve the use of a Section 4(f) property as defined in 23 CFR 

774.17 unless the FTA determines the following: 

 There is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of land from the property, 

 The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

property resulting from the use, or 

 The administration determines that the use of the property, including any measures 

to minimize harm committed by the applicant, will have a de minimis impact, as 

defined in Section 774.17 on the property. 

This Section 4(f) evaluation describes whether and how the project would use Section 

4(f) resources. The analysis identified strategies that would avoid, minimize, and/or 

mitigate impacts on or—in the case where avoidance is not possible and the use is not 

de minimis (as described below in Section 5.2)—minimize the use of Section 4(f) 

resources. For such resources, a brief description of the resource and an overview of 

the Section 4(f) use, if any, is provided, which is followed by a description of avoidance 

alternatives (where there would be a direct use) and measures to minimize and mitigate 

any harm. 

The Section 4(f) evaluation that was released with the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives 

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report 

(Metropolitan Transit Development Board, 1995a) in 1995 identified a use of Section 4(f) 

resources as a result of the need to acquire right-of-way from the Weiss/MandellEastgate City Park. The Section 4(f) evaluation in the Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) identified that 

the project would not require right-of-way from the Weiss/Mandell-Eastgate City Park. 

Therefore, there would be no use of this Section 4(f) resource. 

The Section 4(f) evaluation in the SEIS/SEIR determined that the project would have a 

de minimis direct use of Marian Bear Memorial Park, a Section 4(f) protected resource, 

and a temporary occupancy of three Section 4(f) resources during construction: Marian 

Bear Memorial Park, the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, and Mission Valley Preserve Open 

Space. These temporary occupancies were stated to be minor and that they would 

qualify for an exemption under Section 774.13. As these Section 4(f) resources are 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-2 September 2014 

under the purview of the City of San Diego, the city provided preliminary concurrence on 

the Section 4(f) determinations in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. This Final SEIS/SEIR 

documents the city’s final concurrence on the Section 4(f) findings and determinations. 

5.1.1 Public Review and Comment 

During the Draft SEIS/SEIR comment period, several comments were received 

regarding Section 4(f) resources under the purview of the City of San Diego Park and 

Recreation Department, including Mission Valley Preserve, Marian Bear Memorial Park, 

and Rose Canyon Open Space Park. One comment entry was received regarding the 

use of Section 4(f) resources under the purview of the City of San Diego Transportation 

and Storm Water Department (i.e., the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path). All comments and 

responses related the Draft SEIS/SEIR, including those related to Section 4(f) resources, 

are contained in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 3: 

Comments and Responses. 

Comments were received from individuals, organizations, and agencies, including the 

Friends of Rose Creek, the Friends of Rose Canyon, the San Diego River Park 

Foundation, the Marian Bear Natural Park Recreation Council, the University Community 

Planning Group, City of San Diego Councilmember Sherri Lightner, and the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

5.1.1.1 Mission Valley Preserve 

One comment submission, a letter from the San Diego River Park Foundation, included 

comments related to the Mission Valley Preserve. The comments related to this 

resource concerned the following: 

 Visual impacts related to the addition of a bridge over the San Diego River 

 Noise and vibration impacts and mitigation within the preserve 

 The presence of sensitive species and the function of the river as an urban wildlife 

corridor, and the corresponding importance of mitigating impacts to the river at nearby 

locations 

 Temporary and permanent impacts to City of San Diego dedicated parkland, as well as 

proposed mitigation 

The SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical studies document the evaluation of each of 

these topics. The comments do not raise any new issues that would affect the 

conclusion presented in this Final Section 4(f) Analysis regarding the temporary 

occupancy of the Mission Valley Preserve. As noted above, specific responses to each 

comment in this letter are presented in the Final SEIS/SEIR: Volume 3. 

5.1.1.2 Marian Bear Memorial Park and Rose Canyon Open Space Park 

The remaining comments pertaining to Section 4(f) resources relate to the Rose Canyon 

area, and specifically to Marian Bear Memorial Park and the Rose Canyon Open Space 

Park. The majority of the comments concerned the following topics: 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-3 

 Requests to preserve habitat, particularly old-growth trees, in Rose Canyon, Rose 

Creek, and Marian Bear Memorial Park 

 Requests to avoid placing Rose Creek underground or expanding the limits of concrete 

lining in the creek 

 Concerns that the proximity of the alignment would result in indirect impacts (visual, 

noise, lighting) to park users and wildlife within Rose Canyon Open Space Park 

 Concerns that the project would reduce the function of Rose Creek as a wildlife corridor 

and result in corresponding impacts to wildlife in Rose Canyon and San Clemente 

Canyon 

 Recommendation of mitigation measures, such as construction of earthen berms, to 

reduce potential indirect noise, visual, and lighting impacts, as well as provide benefits to 

wildlife by serving as a buffer or barrier 

As documented in this chapter of the SEIS/SEIR, Rose Canyon Open Space Park was 

evaluated as a potentially protected resource under Section 4(f), and it was concluded 

that there would be no direct use, temporary occupancy, or constructive use within the 

park. As such, no further evaluation is required. 

The project will not physically encroach into Rose Canyon Open Space Park. 

Elimination of Light Rail Transit Alternative 3 after scoping in 2010 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 and is located within the existing Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) right-of-way. 

The two existing Los Angeles–San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency tracks 

within the MTS right-of-way currently support freight, COASTER, and Amtrak services, 

and the project alignment is separated from the park by these two tracks. No project 

features would be located within the park. The additional project features would be 

adjacent to existing tracks and the Interstate (I-) 5 transportation corridor, where noise 

and visual impacts are less intrusive to recreational users and biological resources. The 

SEIS/SEIR concluded that although adverse and significant visual impacts to 

recreational users could occur, these impacts would be reduced to below significance 

through incorporation of mitigation measures related to project design and landscaping. 

The Draft SEIS/SEIR and supporting technical studies document the evaluation of 

indirect impacts resulting from noise, vibration, visual changes, and lighting, and the 

effects of the project on local wildlife movement. Mitigation and avoidance measures are 

proposed to reduce and compensate for impacts, including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

 Minimizing impacts to sensitive resources during construction 

 Restoring temporarily affected areas 

 Providing mitigation for permanent impacts to wetlands within Rose Canyon by 

implementing a portion of the restoration and creation opportunities identified in the 

Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian and Water Quality Restoration 

Opportunities Analysis (San Diego Earthworks, 2012) 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-4 September 2014 

 Conducting public outreach to park users during construction 

 Maintaining access to park trails during construction 

With incorporation of the avoidance and mitigation measures identified in this 

SEIS/SEIR, no significant direct or indirect impacts would occur to biological resources 

or park users in Rose Canyon Open Space Park or Marian Bear Memorial Park. 

In response to the comments related to this issue, SANDAG conducted additional 

analysis regarding noise and visual impacts to park users and wildlife within Rose 

Canyon Open Space Park. The analysis confirmed the conclusions presented in the 

SEIS/SEIR: indirect noise and lighting impacts would be less than significant, visual 

impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures 

related to landscaping and design, and biological resources impacts would be less than 

significant with incorporation of mitigation related to avoiding impacts, restoring 

temporary impact areas, and providing compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts. 

Several comments recommended that noise and visual impacts to the Rose Canyon 

Open Space Park be mitigated through construction of a vegetated earthen berm along 

the east side of the alignment from approximately La Jolla Colony to State Route (SR) 

52. The avoidance and mitigation measures included in this SEIS/SEIR effectively avoid 

any visual impacts, and there are no adverse noise impacts. The following information is 

provided related to the potential to construct an earthen berm. Typically, construction of 

a 6-foot-tall earthen berm with a 2:1 slope would require a minimum width of 24 feet on 

level ground. In the specific case of Rose Creek, the construction of a berm of this 

height adjacent to the project alignment would not only require use of land outside the 

designated railway corridor (MTS right-of-way), it would also physically extend into Rose 

Creek. Construction of earthen berms to serve as light shielding or to reduce noise or 

visual impacts would result in substantial temporary impacts to habitat and permanent 

impacts to aquatic resources, and would have minimal value for noise attenuation. 

Furthermore, a vegetated berm is not expected to serve as an effective buffer to protect 

wildlife unless fencing was also incorporated, which would result in additional visual 

impacts. The impacts associated with berms adjacent to the railroad corridor outweigh 

the potential benefits, particularly as no significant noise or visual impacts have been 

identified in this area. 

With respect to maintaining wildlife movement along Rose Creek between Rose Canyon 

Open Space Park and Marian Bear Memorial Park, the project includes several features 

that would continue to provide a local connection for wildlife movement. Wildlife 

movement supports the wildlife preservation attributes of both Rose Canyon Open 

Space Park and Marian Bear Memorial Park. The existing multi-use path will continue to 

provide north–south connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. A path along the east 

side of the open concrete-lined Rose Creek channel under SR 52 would remain and 

continue to allow for north–south wildlife movement along the east side of the open 

channel. Additionally, in response to comments by the California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife and others, design features have been incorporated into the project to 

continue to allow wildlife to move through the area using the concrete-lined open 

channel below SR 52. These design features would allow the concrete-lined channel to 

concentrate low flows toward the center of the channel, leaving the outer portions dry 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-5 

during typical conditions to allow for wildlife movement. In addition, the majority of riprap 

placed at the upstream and downstream ends of the proposed channel would not be 

grouted, which would allow sediment to fill gaps, creating a more natural and even 

surface for wildlife to cross. 

5.1.1.3 Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

The San Diego River Park Foundation discussed impacts to the Ocean Beach Bicycle 

Path. The initial comment reflects a misunderstanding regarding the naming of the path; 

this SEIS/SEIR refers to this facility as the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, whereas the 

organization referred to the same facility as the San Diego River Park Trail. The 

foundation’s comments requesting an evaluation of impacts and mitigation related to the 

San Diego River Park Trail can be resolved by directing them to the analysis of the 

Ocean Beach Bicycle Path contained within this SEIS/SEIR. With respect to this facility, 

the foundation requested that the document consider noise and vibration impacts along 

the trail, impacts associated with the proposed traction power substation south of the 

river and north of I-8, visual impacts, and the need for mitigation. The foundation also 

requested notification of temporary closures of, or bicycle disembark requirements for, 

the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, and the placement of signage in the event that a detour 

is required. This SEIS/SEIR considers each of these impacts as they relate to the 

Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, and the comment does not raise any new issues with 

respect to the analysis. 

5.1.1.4 Conclusion 

The comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR do not raise any new issues that would affect 

either the conclusions presented in this Final Section 4(f) Analysis regarding the de 

minimis direct use or the temporary occupancy of Marian Bear Memorial Park, Ocean 

Beach Bicycle Path, and Mission Valley Preserve, or that there would be no use under 

Section 4(f) of Rose Canyon Open Space Park. 

5.2 Regulatory Background 

As defined in 23 CFR 774.17, the “use” of a protected Section 4(f) property occurs when 

any of the conditions described below are met. 

A direct use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when Section 4(f) land is permanently 

incorporated into a transportation facility (23 CFR 774.17). This may occur as a result of 

partial or full acquisition of the Section 4(f) property or permanent easements1

. 

A temporary occupancy of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when there is a temporary 

occupancy of a property that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist 

purpose of the Section 4(f) statute. Under FTA regulations (23 CFR Section 774.13), a 

temporary occupancy of a property does not constitute a use of a Section 4(f) resource 

when all the following conditions are satisfied: 

 

1

 In cases where temporary easements are proposed for a substantial duration, they may be considered to 

be a direct use. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-6 September 2014 

 The duration is temporary (i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the 

project), and there is no change in ownership of the land. 

 The scope of work is minor (i.e., both the nature and magnitude of the changes to 

the Section 4(f) property are minimal). 

 There are neither anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts nor interference 

with the protected activities, features, or attributes of the property on either a 

temporary or permanent basis. 

 The land being used will be restored fully (i.e., the property must be returned to a 

condition that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project). 

 There must be documented agreement of the official(s) having jurisdiction2

 over the 

Section 4(f) resource regarding the previous conditions. 

A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when a transportation project does 

not permanently incorporate land from a resource, but the proximity of the project results 

in effects (e.g., noise, vibration, visual, and property access) so severe that the protected 

activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f) 

are substantially impaired. Substantial impairment occurs only if the protected activities, 

features, or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished as described in the 

regulations (23 CFR 774.15). 

Some uses of Section 4(f) resources are minor in nature and may be determined to 

result in a de minimis impact. The requirements of Section 4(f) would be considered 

satisfied if it is determined that a transportation project use would have only a de minimis

impact on the Section 4(f) resource. This provision allows for the consideration of 

avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures in making the de 

minimis determination. Agencies with jurisdiction must concur in writing with the 

determination. 

De minimis impact is defined in 23 CFR 774.17 as follows: 

 For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact 

occurs when the transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any 

impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures 

incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and 

attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 

 For historic sites, de minimis impact means that the FTA has determined, in 

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, that no historic property is affected by the project 

or the project would have “no adverse effect” on the property in question. 

 

2

 In the case of historic properties potentially affected by the project, the official with jurisdiction is the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); in the case of public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, the official(s) with jurisdiction are the official(s) of the agency or agencies that own or 

administer the property in question and who are empowered to represent the agency on matters related to 

the property. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-7 

5.3 Description of Section 4(f) Properties 

This section describes Section 4(f) properties that were considered for evaluation. 

Properties subject to Section 4(f) consideration include historic resources of local, state, 

or national significance, whether privately or publicly owned, as well as publicly owned 

parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national or local 

significance. 

5.3.1 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources 

This section identifies historic architectural and archaeological resources listed or eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that may be subject to 

Section 4(f) and describes the features that form the basis of the evaluation. Prior to 

completing this Section 4(f) evaluation, a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

analysis identified historic architectural and archaeological resources in the historic 

architectural and archeological Area of Potential Effects (APEs) to determine their 

significance. For more detailed information on this process, refer to the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report

(SANDAG, 2013c); the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Effects 

Report (SANDAG, 2014k); the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological 

Resources Survey Report (SANDAG, 2013e)3

; the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Supplemental Research Report (SANDAG, 2013d)3

; and the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I 

Investigation Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a) 3; and their 

appendices. 

With regard to Section 4(f), when a historic architectural or archaeological resource was 

identified within the APE that is listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, the resource was 

evaluated for use. Under 23 CFR 774.13(b), impacts to archaeological resources that 

are important primarily because of what can be learned by data recovery and have 

minimal value for preservation in place are considered to be an exception and do not 

require approval under Section 4(f). Historic and archival research was undertaken to 

determine the presence of previously identified historical and archaeological properties 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition, historic and archaeological surveys were 

completed for the APE to further identify and evaluate properties that may be historically 

significant and meet the criteria for eligibility for listing on the NRHP. 

As evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the FTA preliminarily determined five historic 

architectural properties and four archaeological sites to be eligible for listing in the NRHP 

and assumed project impacts, pending verification of archaeological deposits within the 

archaeological APE during Extended Phase I Investigations. In a letter dated August 2, 

2013, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the FTA’s 

determination that the five historic architectural properties were eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. These five historic architectural properties are 2750 Kettner Boulevard, 4875–

4883 Naples Street, 2335 Morena Boulevard, 3435 Morena Boulevard, and the Camp 

Calvin B. Matthews Sentry Booth (University of California, San Diego [UCSD] East 

 

3

 This document contains sensitive information regarding the location of archaeological sites and is not 

available to the public or other unauthorized persons. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-8 September 2014 

Campus Regents Road parking lot). The five properties determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP are hereafter referred to as “historic properties.” In a letter dated April 9, 

2014, the SHPO concurred with the “no adverse effect” finding for the project. For 

additional details on the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 analysis, 

refer to Sections 4.15 and 4.17. 

5.3.1.1 Historic Properties 

Under Section 106, when a federally funded project will affect a historic property, the agency 

must apply the criteria of adverse effect to determine if the effect will be adverse or negative. 

Adverse effect is defined in 36 CFR Section 800.5(a)(1) as an action that may: 

“... alter, directly or indirectly any of the characteristics that qualify the property for 

inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking 

that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.” 

Adverse effects include, but are not limited to, demolition, alteration, removal of a 

property from its original setting, neglect, and abandonment; or the introduction of visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements. 

Properties within the APE determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP as a result of 

the Section 106 process are summarized in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report (SANDAG, 2013c), which 

describes historic properties identified within the historic architectural APE. The report 

also includes properties that have a determination of eligibility for the NRHP by prior 

studies. The architectural distinctions, known associations with important historic 

persons or events, and other historic features of each property preliminarily determined 

to be eligible are discussed in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property 

Survey and Eligibility Determination Report (SANDAG, 2013c). 

Properties were determined to be eligible if they met at least one of the following NRHP 

criteria: 

 The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad patterns of our history. 

 The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. 

 The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic 

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components 

may lack individual distinction. 

 The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. 

Within the APE, the five historic properties determined eligible for the NRHP are identified in 

Table 5-1. Section 4.15 of this Final SEIS/SEIR provides additional information regarding 

these historic architectural properties. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-9 

Table 5-1. Historic Properties Eligible for Listing in the NRHP 

within the APE 

Primary Number 

(Assigned by 

SCIC) 

Property 

Name/Type 

Property 

Address 

Construction 

Date 

CHR 

Status 

Code 

NRHP/CRHR 

Criteria 

None Light industrial 

building 

2750 

Kettner Blvd

ca. 1959 2S2, 1CL NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3 

None Multifamily 

residence 

4875–4883 

Naples St 

ca. 1953 2S2, 1CL NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3 

None Old Trieste 

Restaurant 

2335 

Morena Blvd

1952;1963 2S2, 1CL NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3 

None Single-family 

residence 

3435 

Morena Blvd

1904 2S2, 1CL NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 

None Camp Matthews 

Sentry Building 

UCSD 

parking lot 

ca. 1943–

1944 

2S2, 1CL NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and C/3 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Notes: APE = Area of Potential Effect ; CHR = California Historical Resource; CRHR = California Register of 

Historical Resources; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; SCIC = South Coastal Information 

Center; UCSD = University of California, San Diego 

NRHP Criteria: A = Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

our history; C = Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction 

 CRHR Criteria: 1 = Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

California's history and cultural heritage; 3 = Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, 

region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses 

high artistic values 

 CHR Status Codes (Appendix G of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Survey and 

Eligibility Determination Report [SANDAG, 2013c] contains a complete list of CHR Status Codes): 2S2 = 

Individual property determined eligible for NRHP by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the 

CRHR; 1CL = Automatically listed in the CRHR. 

5.3.1.2 Archaeological Resources 

As evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, the FTA preliminarily determined four 

archaeological sites (CA-SDI-41, CA-SDI-12453/H, CA-SDI-12557, and CA-SDI-12558) 

to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and assumed project impacts, pending further 

investigations. Following the preliminary determination, Extended Phase I Investigations 

were completed, verifying extensive ground disturbance and the absence of 

archaeological deposits in the vicinity of the four archaeological sites within the 

archaeological APE. The findings of the investigations are documented in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation 

Results and Effects Assessment (SANDAG, 2014a). Based on these findings, the FTA 

determined that the project would not result in impacts on previously recorded 

archaeological resources. The FTA made a determination of “no historic properties 

affected” with respect to archaeological resources pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Based on the landform context of the area, there remains a low potential for the 

unanticipated discovery of previously unrecorded archaeological resources; therefore, 

mitigation measures have been identified to address this potential impact. Additional 

information on archaeological resources is provided in Sections 4.15 and 4.17. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-10 September 2014 

5.3.2 Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges 

The project is located in proximity to several publicly owned parks and recreational 

areas. Some of the parks also have value as wildlife or waterfowl refuges, in addition to 

recreational value. Public parks and recreational areas within one-half mile of the 

alignment and stations are shown on Figure 5-1 and listed in Table 5-2, which includes 

all publicly owned parks and recreational facilities and all schools and recreational 

facilities available for public use. Twenty-three public parks and recreational areas are 

adjacent to, or within one-half mile of, the project alignment or a station. A more detailed 

description is provided in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and 

Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e). 

Of the 23 public parks and recreational areas, two resources, Rose Canyon Bicycle Path 

and UCSD Park, do not require further evaluation with respect to Section 4(f) use. The 

Rose Canyon Bicycle Path is located within California Department of Transportation 

right-of-way. The path is used for both recreational and commuter bicycling, in addition 

to walking and in-line skating. The implementing regulations for Section 4(f), as 

amended, of the USDOT Act include exceptions (23 CFR Section 774.13). According to 

Sections 774.13(f)(3) and 774.13(f)(4), Section 4(f) approval is not required for “trails, 

paths, bikeways, and sidewalks that occupy a transportation facility right-of-way without 

limitation to any specific location within that right-of-way, so long as the continuity of the 

trail, path, bikeway, or sidewalk is maintained;” or for “trails, paths, bikeways, and 

sidewalks that are part of the local transportation system and which function primarily for 

transportation.” Both exceptions apply to the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path. 

The Rose Canyon Bicycle Path is part of the local transportation system, and its primary 

function is transportation. The portion impacted by the project also is located in a 

transportation facility right-of-way and with implementation of the detour to keep the bike 

path open during construction (see Section 3.4.7.3), continuity would be maintained. As 

the conditions in 23 CFR Section 774.13(f)(3) and 774.13(f)(4) apply to the Rose 

Canyon Bicycle Path, further evaluation with respect to Section 4(f) use is not required. 

UCSD Park is owned by the University of California, which is a state entity. Although the 

park is publicly owned, the property is not open to the public without the express 

permission of UCSD. Because access is limited to students, faculty, and staff, it is not 

considered open to the public. As such, UCSD Park is not considered a Section 4(f) 

resource. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-11 

Figure 5-1. Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of Project 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-12 September 2014 

Table 5-2. Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of Project 

Map 

# 

Park or Recreational 

Feature Location 

Distance from 

Alignment 

(miles) Nearest Station 

1 UCSD Park Hopkins Dr at Genesee Ave Adjacent UCSD West 

2 Mandell-Weiss Eastgate 

City Park 

Eastgate Mall at Regents Rd 0.01 Executive Dr 

3 Doyle Community Park Decoro Street at Cargill Ave 0.43 Nobel Dr 

4 Villa La Jolla 

Neighborhood Park 

Between Via Mallorca and Via Martin 0.20 Nobel Dr 

5 Rose Canyon Open Space Between I-5 and Genesee Ave, 

adjacent to SR 52 

Adjacent Nobel Dr 

6 Soledad Natural Park Between La Jolla Scenic Dr and I-5 0.07 Nobel Dr 

7 Marian Bear Memorial Park I-5 at SR 52 Adjacent Balboa Ave 

8 Cadman Park and 

Recreation Center 

Moraga Ave at Avati Dr 0.37 Balboa Ave 

9 Mission Bay Athletic Area 

(McEvoy Fields) 

2639 Grand Ave at Mission Bay Dr 0.42 Balboa Ave 

10 Mission Bay Park 2688 East Mission Bay Dr 0.20 Clairemont Dr and 

Tecolote Rd 

11 Western Hills Park Garfield Road at Arnold St 0.48 Clairemont Dr 

12 Tecolote Recreation 

Center/Community Park 

4675 Tecolote Rd 0.48 Tecolote Rd 

13 Presidio Park Taylor St and Jackson St 0.26 Old Town Transit Center 

14 Old Town San Diego State 

Historic Park 

4002 Wallace St 0.01 Old Town Transit Center 

15 Heritage Park 2454 Heritage Park Row 0.29 Old Town Transit Center 

16 Mission Hills Park and 

Open Space 

1521 Washington Pl 0.29 Washington St 

17 Horton Plaza Park Broadway at 4th Ave 0.46 Santa Fe Depot 

18 Amici Park 350 West Date St 0.25 County Center/Little Italy 

19 Pantoja Park 524 G St 0.22 Santa Fe Depot 

20 Mission Valley Preserve 

Open Space (part of San 

Diego River Park) 

Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

Open space: western portion of 

Mission Valley 

Bike Path: from Dog Beach to Hotel 

Circle Place along south side of San 

Diego River 

Alignment 

crosses near I-5/ 

I-8 interchange 

Old Town Transit Center 

and Tecolote Rd Station 

21 County Administration 

Center Waterfront Park 

Harbor Dr between Ash and Grape Sts 

(under development) 

0.20 Santa Fe Depot 

22 Rose Canyon Bicycle Path North dead-end of Santa Fe St to 

Gilman Dr/La Jolla Colony Dr exit (I-5) 

Adjacent Nobel Dr 

23 Mission Bay Golf Course 2702 North Mission Bay Dr 0.25 Clairemont Dr and 

Tecolote Rd 

Sources: City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department (2011); California State Parks (2011); Google Earth 

Pro mapping software 

Notes: Map # corresponds to Figure 5-1 

 UCSD = University of California, San Diego 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-13 

5.4 Use of Section 4(f) Properties 

As described in Section 5.2, a use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when land is 

permanently or temporarily incorporated into a transportation facility (23 CFR 774.17) or 

when there is a constructive use. Incorporation may occur as a result of partial or full 

acquisition of the Section 4(f) property, permanent easements, or temporary easements 

(23 CFR 774.17). Constructive use occurs when the land is not incorporated into the 

project, but the project’s proximate impacts are so severe that the attributes of the 

Section 4(f) resource are substantially impaired. 

5.4.1 Historic Properties and Archaeological Resources 

This section discusses the Section 4(f) use of historic properties and archaeological 

resources. 

5.4.1.1 Historic Properties 

As discussed in Section 5.3.1.1, five historic properties within the APE were determined 

eligible for listing in the NRHP (Table 5-1): 

 2750 Kettner Boulevard 

 4875–4883 Naples Street 

 2335 Morena Boulevard 

 3435 Morena Boulevard 

 Camp Matthews Sentry Booth 

Impacts to the five historic properties would be completely avoided by the project, and 

there would be no impairments to the properties caused by noise, vibration, or visual 

quality; therefore, there is no use under Section 4(f) (Table 5-3). For further discussion 

of these historic properties, refer to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic 

Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report (SANDAG, 2013c) and the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Effects Report (SANDAG, 2014k). 

Table 5-3. Section 4(f) Use of Historic Properties within the APE 

Property Name/Type Property Address 

Direct Use or 

Temporary 

Occupancy Constructive Use 

Light industrial building 2750 Kettner Blvd None None 

Multifamily residence 4875–4883 Naples St None None 

Old Trieste Restaurant 2335 Morena Blvd None None 

Single-family residence 3435 Morena Blvd None None 

Camp Matthews Sentry Building UCSD parking lot None None 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Notes: APE = Area of Potential Effect; UCSD = University of California, San Diego 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-14 September 2014 

5.4.1.2 Archaeological Resources 

According to the USDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Section 4(f) Policy 

Paper (FHWA, 2012): 

“Section 4(f) applies to archaeological sites that are on or eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register and that warrant preservation in place, including those sites 

discovered during construction. Section 4(f) does not apply if FHWA determines, 

after consultation with the SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), 

federally recognized Indian tribes (as appropriate), and the [Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation] ACHP (if participating) that the archaeological resource is 

important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery (even if it is 

agreed not to recover the resource) and has minimal value for preservation in place, 

and the SHPO/THPO and ACHP (if participating) does not object to this 

determination (23 CFR 774.13(b)).” 

Although the Section 4(f) Policy Paper was developed by FHWA, FTA and other modal 

administrations generally follow the guidance, where appropriate and applicable to 

transit projects and other proposals. 

As discussed in Section 4.15, based on the results of Extended Phase I Investigations, 

the FTA made a finding of “no historic properties affected” with respect to archaeological 

resources pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. However, during construction, 

unknown archaeological resources (unanticipated discoveries) determined eligible for 

listing in the NRHP could be encountered, including those warranting preservation in 

place, such as human burials or sacred sites. For such archaeological resources, 

preservation of resources in place through avoidance will be accomplished whenever 

feasible. To the extent preservation in place is not feasible and data recovery is 

implemented, no Section 4(f) use would occur because the importance of a resource is 

primarily due to what can be learned by data recovery and not preservation in place 

(thus, impacts to the resources would be considered an exception pursuant to 23 CFR 

774.13(b)). To account for the possibility of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological 

resources during project-related ground disturbance, mitigation measures (i.e., CON15, 

CON16, and CON17) described in Section 4.17, would be implemented. Accordingly, at 

this time, no use of Section 4(f) historic properties or archaeological resources is 

anticipated. 

5.4.2 Parklands, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges 

The project is located in proximity to 21 publicly owned parks and recreational areas that 

are subject to Section 4(f). As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path 

and UCSD Park do not require further evaluation with respect to Section 4(f) use. Public 

parks and recreational areas within one-half mile of the alignment that are subject to 

Section 4(f) are listed in Table 5-4. Some of these areas also provide value as wildlife 

refuges or preserves, particularly those that include large areas of open space (e.g., 

Mission Valley Preserve Open Space, Rose Canyon Open Space, Soledad Natural 

Park, and Marian Bear Memorial Park). The Mission Valley Preserve Open Space and 

the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path are both features of the larger San Diego River Park, 

although they are managed by different departments in the City of San Diego. 
Chapter 5.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f) Use of Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of the Alignmen

Map 

# Resource Name Location 

Publicly 

Owned? 

Major Purpose for Park or 

Recreational Activities, 

Features, or Attributes? Size 

Distance 

from 

Alignment Use 

2 Mandell-Weiss 

Eastgate City Park 

Eastgate Mall at Regents Rd 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park contains lighted tennis courts, multi-sports fields, a swimming pool, children’s play area, and sand volleyball lots. 

10.5 acres 

0.01 mile None No

nouspa

3 Doyle Community 

Park 

Decoro St at Cargill Ave 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park includes a recreation center, children’s play areas, multi-sports field, picnic areas, and sand volleyball courts. 

24 acres 

0.43 mile None No

nouspa

4 Villa La Jolla 

Neighborhood Park 

Between Via Mallorca and Villa Martin 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park contains a playground structure, swings, picnic tables, and open grass areas. 

5.6 acres 

0.20 mile None No

nouspa

5 Rose Canyon 

Open Space Park 

Between I-5 and SR 52 interchange and I-805 southeast of railroad right-ofway 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park provides wildlife protection, and hiking and biking trails. Park is within San Diego’s 

MHPA.

312 acres 

Adjacent None No

nouspawi

6 Soledad Natural 

Park 

Between La Jolla Scenic Dr and I-5 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park is comprised of hiking and cycling trails and views. A memorial cross is dedicated to U.S. veterans. 

277 acres 

0.07 mile None No

nouspa
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-16 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f) Use of Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of the Alignment and St

Map 

# Resource Name Location 

Publicly 

Owned? 

Major Purpose for Park 

or Recreational 

Activities, Features, or 

Attributes? Size 

Distance 

from 

Alignment Use 

7 Marian Bear 

Memorial Park 

South of SR 52 between I-5 and Genesee Ave 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park provides wildlife protection, hiking trails, parking, picnic areas, and restroom facilities. Park is within San Diego’s 

MHPA.

467 acres 

Adjacent Permanent occupancy o

approximately 32 square feet (0.0007 acre) of riprap associated with one storm drain outlet along the MTS right-ofway. Temporary occupancy from remedial grading and construction access (approximately 1 acre total) associated with the following: realignment of existing city sewer line within the park; construction of a shoofly and temporary and permanent retaining wallwithin the MTS right-ofway; and construction of a replacement lined open channel in Rose Creek north of the park boundary. 

8 Cadman Park and 

Recreation Center 

4280 Avati Dr Yes, City of 

San Diego 

Yes. Facilities include two softball fields, baseball field, tot lot, offleash dog park, tennis court, basketball court, horseshoe pit, and picnic areas. 

8.4 acres 

0.37 mile None 
Chapter 5.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f) Use of Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of the Alignment and St

Map 

# Resource Name Location 

Publicly 

Owned? 

Major Purpose for Park 

or Recreational 

Activities, Features, or 

Attributes? Size 

Distance 

from 

Alignment Use 

9 Mission Bay 

Athletic Area (McEvoy Fields) 

2639 Grand Ave Yes, City of 

San Diego 

Yes. Facilities include athletic fields and tennis courts. 

10.7 acres 

0.42 mile None 

10 Mission Bay Park 2688 E Mission 

Bay Dr 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. This is a multi-use park for bicycling, walking, jogging, swimming, wind surfing, water skiing, fishing, sailing, and motor boating. Additionally, the park contains playgrounds, basketball courts, and picnic areas with fire rings. 

4,235 acres 

0.20 mile None 

11 Western Hills Park Garfield Rd at 

Arnold St 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. Features include playground, basketball courts, and walking paths. 

12.8 acres 

0.48 mile None 

12 Tecolote 

Recreation Center/ Community Park 

4675 Tecolote Rd Yes, City of 

San Diego 

Yes. This park contains five baseball fields, one flag football field, outdoor basketball courts, and picnic areas. 

7.8 acres 

0.48 mile None 

13 Presidio Park Taylor St and 

Jackson St 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. This park contains picnic tables, restrooms, gathering places, and the Serra Museum. 

40+ acres 

0.26 mile None 

14 Old Town San 

Diego State Historic Park 

4002 Wallace St Yes, State 

of California

Yes. This park contains several historic buildings and landmarks, a visitor center, and a museum. 

22 acres 0.01 mile None 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-18 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f) Use of Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of the Alignment and St

Map 

# Resource Name Location 

Publicly 

Owned? 

Major Purpose for Park 

or Recreational 

Activities, Features, or 

Attributes? Size 

Distance 

from 

Alignment Use 

15 Heritage Park 2454 Heritage 

Park Row

Yes, San Diego County 

Yes. The park includes seven historic residences, which provide examples of Italianate, Queen Anne, and Classic Revival architecture. 

7.8 acres 

0.29 mile None 

16 Mission Hills Park 

and Open Space 

1521 Washington Pl 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. Facilities include picnic areas, tennis courts, an event venue, and open space. 

6.79 acres 

0.29 mile None 

17 Horton Plaza Park Broadway at 4th 

Ave 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The park is a historic park and event venue. 

1.5 acres 

0.46 mile None 

18 Amici Park 350 West Date St Yes, City of 

San Diego 

Yes. The park provides facilities for bocce ball, open space, a small amphitheater, and a large green playing field. 

1.4 acres 

0.25 mile None 

19 Pantoja Park 524 G St Yes, City of 

San Diego 

Yes. The historic park features a large grassy area, mature fig trees, shrub planting, public art, and a perimeter walkway.

2.2 acres 

0.22 mile None 
Chapter 5.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f) Use of Parks and Recreational Areas within One-Half Mile of the Alignment and St

Map 

# Resource Name Location 

Publicly 

Owned? 

Major Purpose for Park 

or Recreational 

Activities, Features, or 

Attributes? Size 

Distance 

from 

Alignment Use 

20* Mission Valley 

Preserve Open Space (part of San Diego River Park) 

Western portion of Mission Valley

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The preserve supports passive recreation (wildlife viewing, walking, cycling), and is within San Diego’s 

MHPA. 

52 acres On small 

portion near I-5/I-8 interchange

Temporary occupancy during construction of bridge across river near I-5/I-8 interchange. Requires temporary construction area within Mission Valley Preserve Open Space. 

 Ocean Beach 

Bicycle Path 

From Dog Beach to Hotel Circle Pl along south side of San Diego River

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. The Ocean Beach Bicycle Path provides recreational access along the south side of the San Diego River and provides a connection between areas in Mission Valley and areas in Ocean Beach and Old Town. 

5 miles On small 

portion near I-5/I-8 interchange

Temporary occupancy would occur to Ocean Beach Bicycle Path userfrom reduced vertical clearance below bridge falsework 

21 County 

Administration Center Waterfront Park 

Harbor Drive Between Ash St and Grape St 

Yes, San Diego County 

Yes. Greens, play area, garden rooms, and interactive fountain. 

12 acres 500 feet None. 

23 Mission Bay Golf 

Course 

2702 North Mission Bay Dr 

Yes, City of San Diego 

Yes. Golf. 46 acres None None. No direct use of 

golf course. 

Sources: SANDAG, 2014; City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department (2011); California State Parks (2011); City of San Diego (Notes: * Map #20 depicts the location of both the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space and the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path. Both are 

Diego River Park; however, they are managed by different entities. 

MHPA = Multi-Habitat Planning Area; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System 

 As the conditions in 23 CFR Section 774.13(f)(3) and 774.13(f)(4) apply to the Rose Canyon Bicycle Path, further evaluation with res

not required.
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-20 September 2014 

As identified in Table 5-4, of the 21 Section 4(f) resources, impacts to 19 parks and 

recreational areas are completely avoided by the project. The project would not 

physically encroach into these 19 parks and recreational areas, disrupt access, 

perceptibly increase noise, or introduce visual changes to these parks and recreational 

areas that would diminish the use and enjoyment of the parks; therefore, there is no use 

of these 19 areas under Section 4(f). For additional information, refer to the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 

2014p), the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Visual Impacts Technical Report 

(SANDAG, 2014j), and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Social, Community, and 

Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report (SANDAG, 2014e). 

Of the remaining parks and recreational areas—Marian Bear Memorial Park, Mission 

Valley Preserve Open Space, and the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path —there would be no 

constructive use, but construction activities would occur on portions of the resources. 

The construction activities at Marian Bear Memorial Park, the Ocean Beach Bicycle 

Path, and Mission Valley Preserve Open Space would be characterized as temporary 

occupancy and would be subject to an exception under Section 774.13. The direct use 

of Marian Bear Memorial Park is considered to be a de minimis use. Use of the 

resources is described in more detail below. 

5.4.2.1 Marian Bear Memorial Park 

Description and Significance of Property 

Marian Bear Memorial Park, a City of San Diego open space park, is located south of SR 52 

and east of I-5. Open space parks are used for purposes such as preservation of natural 

resources, passive outdoor recreation, and scenic and visual enjoyment. The park consists 

of 467 acres and access is provided from Regents Road and Genesee Avenue. It is a 

natural park with hiking trails, parking, picnic areas, and restroom facilities. There are more 

than 3 miles of mostly flat trails along the canyon with more challenging trails in the finger 

canyons. Biking is permitted on the maintenance roads in the canyon. The park is part of 

the Tri-Canyon Parks, which comprise 1,500 acres of open space. The park is located 

within San Diego’s Multi-Habitat Planning Area and provides an avenue for local wildlife 

movement and functions as a local wildlife corridor and habitat linkage. 

Description of Use 

Construction activities would occur along the western edge of Marian Bear Memorial 

Park, as shown in Figure 5-2, and would include realignment of an existing City of San 

Diego sewer line along the western side of the park boundary; grading and construction 

access associated with construction of a temporary retaining wall, a shoofly, and a 

permanent retaining wall within the MTS right-of-way; grading and construction access 

associated with construction of a replacement concrete-lined open channel in Rose 

Creek north of the park boundary; and placement of riprap associated with one storm 

drain outlet adjacent to the park. 
Chapter 5.0 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Figure 5-2. Construction Activities in Marian Bear Memorial Park 

Source: SANDAG, 2014
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-22 September 2014 

Permanent features within the park would be limited to the placement of small areas of 

riprap along the western edge of the park associated with a storm drain outlet (a total of 

approximately 32 square feet within the park for the one area). The riprap is needed to 

prevent scour at the outlet of a storm drain system and would reduce localized erosion 

within the park. The riprap would consist of angular rock in various sizes. The riprap 

areas needed at the outlet of the storm drain would partially lie within Marian Bear 

Memorial Park—approximately 32 square feet. The outlet, as well as the remaining 

areas of riprap, would be located outside the park boundary. 

Of the 467 acres of parkland, the area of remedial grading for all activities is approximately 

1 acre. Once project construction is completed, the graded areas would be revegetated with 

native plant species. The area of permanent impacts from riprap would be approximately 

32 square feet. The riprap would accommodate vegetation and would not appreciably 

change the quality of the habitat adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. There would be no 

loss of recreational land or features after construction is complete. 

Direct Use 

Direct use would occur as a result of construction of a storm drain outlet requiring 

placement of up to 32 square feet of riprap in one location on the western side of the 

park boundary. As shown on Figure 5-2 and described above, the outlet would be 

located south of the park boundary and the area required for riprap would encroach 

approximately 32 square feet into the park. The outlet would not change the quantity of 

storm-water runoff conveyed to Rose Creek. There would be no change in the 

underlying land ownership as a result of the project. 

Riprap placement would affect a small area (approximately 32 square feet total) and 

would not interrupt any park activities or public access. Because the project would 

minimally use a portion of the park’s edge and would not disrupt access, perceptibly 

increase noise, or introduce visual changes that would diminish the use and enjoyment 

of the park or disturb wildlife or habitat, the use would not adversely affect the features, 

attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) and would 

result in a de minimis impact. SANDAG has received concurrence with this finding from 

the City of San Diego. 

Temporary Occupancy 

Temporary occupancy would occur during several activities: the realignment of the 

sewer line that is located within the park, construction of the open channel adjacent to 

and north of Marian Bear Memorial Park, construction of the temporary shoofly and 

retaining wall west of and adjacent to the park, and construction of the permanent 

retaining wall adjacent to and west of the park. These activities would encroach upon 

the park as a result of construction access and temporary grading (including trenching 

during the sewer realignment) and would result in the temporary occupancy of two areas 

(approximately 1 acre total), as shown in Figure 5-2. 

Because construction would use a relatively small portion of the park’s edge and would 

not disrupt access, perceptibly increase noise, or introduce visual changes that would 

diminish the use and enjoyment of the park or disturb wildlife or habitat (refer to the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report, SANDAG, 

2014u), the temporary occupancy is not considered adverse in terms of the statue’s 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-23 

preservation purpose. The use would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or 

activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) and, as described in 

more detail below, meets the conditions for temporary occupancy and therefore qualifies 

as an exception under Section 774.13. The temporary occupancy is an exception 

because it meets the following conditions: 

The duration is temporary (i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project), and 

there is no change in ownership of the land. 

 Construction at this location is expected to take approximately 36 months out of the 

overall 4.5-year construction schedule for the project. The ownership of the land 

would remain unchanged. 

The scope of work is minor (i.e., both the nature and magnitude of the changes to the Section 

4(f) property are minimal). 

 The work at the northwesterly corner of the park consists of grading to accommodate 

the outlet of the open channel. The channel and its riprap energy dissipater would 

be in the MTS and California Department of Transportation rights-of-way, but an area 

of approximately 33,000 square feet within the park would be affected by grading 

and construction access. The area would be revegetated with native plant species 

following completion of construction activities at this location. 

 The work at the southerly construction area (along the western edge of the park 

boundary) would include excavation and regrading associated with realigning an 

existing City of San Diego sewer line that currently lies within and under the park, as 

well as construction access to build a temporary retaining wall and shoofly and 

ultimately a permanent retaining wall within the MTS right-of-way. After completion 

of the construction activities, the approximately 9,000-square-foot area would also be 

revegetated and returned to its pre-construction state. 

There are neither anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts nor interference with the 

protected activities, features, or attributes of the property on either a temporary or permanent 

basis. 

 Except as described above for the direct use associated with the storm drain outlet, 

there would be no new above- or below-ground structures within the park that would 

remain upon completion of construction. The city’s sewer line that exists within and 

beneath the park would be realigned slightly but would remain in essentially the 

same location below ground near the western edge of the park. Temporary grading 

would affect a total of approximately 1 acre along the boundary of the 467-acre park. 

The activity would not affect existing trails or user access, nor would it impact a 

substantial area of habitat. Mitigation measures would be implemented to avoid impacts 

to nesting birds and to bats. Therefore, there would be no permanent or temporary 

adverse physical impacts or interference with the protected activities, features, or 

attributes of the property. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-24 September 2014 

The land being used will be restored fully (i.e., the property must be returned to a condition 

that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project). 

 Upon completion, all areas would be contour graded and re-vegetated with 

appropriate native species, consistent with existing conditions. Mitigation for 

temporary impacts to natural vegetation communities would include restoration of the 

impact area, which is described in more detail in Section 4.17. With restoration, the 

condition of the property would be fully restored as a result of mitigation (restoration 

of natural vegetation communities). 

There must be documented agreement of the official(s) having jurisdiction over the Section 

4(f) resource regarding the previous conditions. 

 Documentation of the Section 4(f) evaluation has been submitted to the City of San 

Diego, which has provided concurrence with the requirements for the temporary 

occupancy exception. 

Constructive Use 

Constructive use occurs when a project results in proximity effects so severe that they 

impact the protected activities, features, and attributes of the resources that qualify it for 

Section 4(f) protection. 

The project would result in the construction of additional tracks within the existing rail 

corridor at the western boundary of Marian Bear Memorial Park. The environment at this 

location is affected by noise from the existing rail line and by its proximity to I-5 and 

SR 52. Significant noise impacts are not anticipated within the park as a result of the 

addition of Trolley operations in the existing rail corridor, as noise from operation of the 

Trolley would not appreciably change the existing noise characteristics. Placing the new 

light rail tracks within the existing corridor avoids and minimizes other potential 

adjacency impacts, such as visual impacts, vibration, and property access. The 

presence of the project is not anticipated to diminish the protected activities, features, or 

attributes of Marian Bear Memorial Park. 

In addition, construction activities would not result in constructive use of the park. 

Construction activities would not result in noise, visual, or vibration impacts that would 

substantially impair the activities and attributes of the resource. 

5.4.2.2 Mission Valley Preserve Open Space (Part of the San Diego River Park) 

Description and Significance of Property 

The Mission Valley Preserve Open Space is located on the western end of Mission 

Valley extending on each side of the MTS right-of-way where the alignment crosses over 

the San Diego River. Mission Valley Preserve Open Space is one component of the 

larger San Diego River Park. The preserve is located within San Diego’s Multi-Habitat 

Planning Area. The San Diego River provides a sheltered and relatively continuous 

avenue for wildlife movement between coastal and inland habitats, and functions as a 

regional wildlife corridor and habitat linkage. Recreational trails are located within the 

preserve, which provide passive recreational use. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-25 

The Draft 2010 San Diego River Park Master Plan (City of San Diego, 2010a) envisions a 

string of parks linked by open space, pathways, and green corridors along the river. The 

park will be a multi‐layered system that will serve a variety of needs, offering recreational, 

environmental and habitat benefits. The City of San Diego is now completing its 

environmental review of the plan. 

The San Diego’s River Park’s planning area is generally defined as a corridor extending 

one‐half mile on each side of the river from the headwaters near Julian to the Pacific 

Ocean at Ocean Beach; for 17.5 miles it is within the boundaries of the City of San 

Diego extending from the Pacific Ocean to the city limits shared with the City of Santee. 

Much of the land along the river is in private ownership. Efforts are underway to work 

with the owners of these properties to open the river corridor to public access, either 

through acquisition of key parcels or by establishing public access easements. The park 

provides recreational opportunities in areas that serve the multiple functions of historic 

preservation, water management, habitat preservation, and recreational resource. The 

San Diego River Park Trail will offer a connected trail for bicycles and pedestrians along 

the length of the park. The San Diego River Park Trail is located on the Ocean Beach 

Bicycle Path within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space. 

Description of Use 

Construction areas within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space, as shown in Figure 

5-3, would consist of temporary use of an approximately 40-foot-wide area adjacent to 

and east of the MTS right-of-way at the existing heavy rail bridge (less than 0.5 acre). This 

area would provide construction access and facilitate construction activities associated 

with the proposed bridge over the San Diego River. Once the bridge is completed, the 

area would be revegetated and returned to its pre-construction state. There would be no 

loss of wildlife or recreational use after construction and restoration are complete. 

Direct Use 

None of the area within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space would be permanently 

incorporated into the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. There would be no change in 

the underlying land ownership as a result of the project. Therefore, there would be no 

direct use of this resource. 

Temporary Occupancy 

Within the San Diego River corridor, the project would include a bridge across the river 

within existing MTS right-of-way, which would require five support piers within the river. 

All piers would be within MTS right-of-way; no permanent structures would be located 

within the preserve. Construction activities within the preserve would consist of site 

access and temporary use by construction equipment. 

Because the construction would only occupy a small portion of the preserve and would 

not disrupt access, perceptibly increase noise, or introduce visual changes that would 

diminish the use and enjoyment of the park or disturb wildlife or habitat (refer to the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project Biological Resources Technical Report, SANDAG, 

2014u), the temporary occupancy is not adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation 

purpose. The use would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities 

qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) and, as described in more detail 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-26 

Figure 5-3. Construction Areas in Mission Valley Preserve Open Space and the Ocean Beach B

Source: SANDAG, 2013
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-27 

below, meets the conditions for temporary occupancy and therefore qualifies as an 

exception under Section 774.13. The temporary occupancy is an exception because it 

meets the following conditions: 

The duration is temporary (i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project), and 

there is no change in ownership of the land. 

 Construction at this location is expected to take approximately 24 months out of the 

overall 4.5-year construction schedule for the project. The ownership of the land 

would remain unchanged. 

The scope of work is minor (i.e., both the nature and magnitude of the changes to the Section 

4(f) property are minimal). 

 Within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space, project activities would result in 

temporary impacts within an approximately 40-foot-wide area adjacent to and east of 

the MTS right-of-way. Following construction, the area would be fully restored. No 

permanent impacts would occur within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space. 

There are neither anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts nor interference with the 

protected activities, features, or attributes of the property on either a temporary or permanent 

basis. 

 The project would include a bridge across the San Diego River within existing MTS 

right-of-way, which would require five support piers within the river and one at Friars 

Road. In MTS right-of-way in the San Diego River, long-term direct project impacts 

would be limited to the loss of not more than 0.01 acre of native riparian habitat 

associated with the installation of concrete piers for the proposed bridge crossing. 

Bridge piers and abutment placement would be within the MTS right-of-way and 

outside of the active flow channel; long-term impacts to aquatic and semi-aquatic 

species habitat would be limited. Impacts to vegetation would be mitigated. Based 

on the small overall footprint of permanent impacts (0.01 acre) and the presence of 

several existing bridges in the vicinity with similar structures in the river, the project 

would not interrupt any recreational activities or public access to the Mission Valley 

Preserve Open Space nor its function as a regional wildlife corridor or habitat 

linkage. 

 For 24 months, construction activities would occur within MTS right-of-way and within 

a temporary easement extending across the river approximately 40 feet east into the 

Mission Valley Preserve Open Space. Short-term impacts to vegetation would be 

mitigated through on-site restoration. Impacts to wildlife would be minimized through 

measures to protect nesting birds and roosting bats, reduce dust and noise, minimize 

lighting in native habitat areas, protect water quality, and allow wildlife passage 

through the construction site. Impacts to recreation would be avoided and minimized 

by maintaining access to the area via trails and the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

throughout construction (except for a brief period during installation and removal of 

falsework). All areas within the preserve would be restored following construction. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-28 September 2014 

The land being used will be restored fully (i.e., the property must be returned to a condition 

that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project). 

 All temporary impact areas would be restored with appropriate native vegetation 

following completion of construction. As stated above, no permanent impacts would 

occur within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space. Permanent impacts within 

the adjacent MTS right-of-way would be limited to less than 0.01 acre as a result of 

the support piers. These permanent impacts would be subject to mitigation within 

the San Diego River watershed or, if acceptable to regulatory agencies, within the 

neighboring Rose Creek watershed. Temporary impacts within MTS right-of-way 

would also be restored with appropriate native vegetation. All mitigation would be 

subject to the approval of applicable regulatory agencies, including the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California 

Coastal Commission, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

There must be documented agreement of the official(s) having jurisdiction over the Section 

4(f) resource regarding the previous conditions. 

 Documentation of the Section 4(f) evaluation has been submitted to the City of San 

Diego, which has provided concurrence with the requirements for the temporary 

occupancy exception. 

Constructive Use 

Within the San Diego River corridor, the project would include a bridge across the river 

within existing MTS right-of-way, which would require five support piers within the river. 

Based on the small overall footprint of permanent impacts (0.01 acre) and the presence 

of several existing bridges in the vicinity with similar structures, the project would not 

interrupt any park activities or public access of the San Diego River Park or affect 

Mission Valley Preserve’s function as a regional wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. The 

project would not appreciably alter existing noise, vibration, or visual conditions at this 

location, as the new bridge would be located adjacent to existing rail bridges. No 

changes to property access would occur. Therefore, placement of the bridge would not 

result in a constructive use of the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space. The City of San 

Diego has indicated its concurrence with this finding. 

5.4.2.3 Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

Description and Significance of Property 

The Ocean Beach Bicycle Path extends from the Sefton Field Neighborhood Park east 

of Morena Boulevard in Mission Valley to Ocean Beach. It includes 3,000 feet of Class I 

bike path and 1,200 feet of Class III bike lane that is shared with baseball field users and 

maintenance vehicles. It provides non-vehicular traffic with a travel route from Ocean 

Beach and Old Town to the Mission Valley area. It also forms the San Diego River Trail 

within the Mission Valley Preserve Open Space and is located on the south side of the 

San Diego River. 

The Draft 2010 San Diego River Park Master Plan (City of San Diego, 2010a) envisions a 

string of parks linked by open space, pathways, and green corridors along the river. The 

San Diego’s River Park’s planning area extends one‐half mile on each side of the river 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-29 

from the headwaters near Julian to the Pacific Ocean at Ocean Beach. The San Diego 

River Park Trail, which is part of the larger San Diego River Park, will offer a connected 

trail for bicycles and pedestrians along the length of the park. 

Description of Use 

The project alignment crosses this facility east of I-5, adjacent to the Mission Valley 

Preserve Open Space. Project activities include construction of a bridge over the San 

Diego River within existing MTS right-of-way and adjacent to the existing rail bridge. 

The proposed project bridge over the San Diego River, as shown in Figure 5-3, would 

cross over both the river and Friars Road, which parallels the river on the north side. 

The southerly 130 feet of this bridge would be connected with the existing Trolley Green 

Line Bridge, requiring removal of the westerly curb along the existing bridge. The 

proposed bridge would be supported on single-column piers and concrete abutments. 

The concrete superstructure would be constructed using falsework. Limits of impact 

along the bridge would be limited to the area under the bridge and a 40-foot-wide strip, 

adjacent and parallel to the east side. 

Direct Use 

The Ocean Beach Bicycle Path would remain open and in use during construction and 

would not be altered in the long-term as a result of the project. No direct use would occur. 

Temporary Occupancy 

Within the San Diego River corridor, the project would include a bridge across the river 

within existing MTS right-of-way. During construction of the bridge over the San Diego 

River (7 to 12 months), cyclists would need to dismount and walk for a short distance as 

a result of the reduced vertical clearance of the falsework. The vertical clearance during 

construction would be as low as 6.75 feet for approximately 35 linear feet (Figure 5-4). 

Nighttime closures of the path would be required for construction of falsework. The path 

would be reopened once the falsework is complete; however, cyclists would need to 

dismount to cross the construction site as the overhead clearance would be reduced. 

Advance warning signs would be provided on both sides of the construction site advising 

riders of the need to dismount. Construction of the bridge would take between 7 and 12 

months, at which time the falsework would be removed. This is anticipated to take 

approximately one night. The temporary impact area, including the bike path, would be 

restored to pre-project conditions. 

Because the construction would occupy only a small portion of the path and access 

disruption would be minimal, the temporary occupancy is not adverse in terms of the 

statute’s preservation purpose. The use would not adversely affect the features, 

attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) and, as 

described in more detail below, meets the conditions for temporary occupancy and 

therefore qualifies as an exception under Section 774.13. The temporary occupancy is 

an exception because it meets the following conditions: 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-30 September 2014 

Figure 5-4. Clearance at Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

The duration is temporary (i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project), and 

there is no change in ownership of the land. 

 Construction at this location is expected to take between 7 and 12 months out of the 

overall 4.5-year construction schedule for the project. The ownership of the land 

would remain unchanged. 

The scope of work is minor (i.e., both the nature and magnitude of the changes to the Section 

4(f) property are minimal). 

 Within the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, project activities would result in temporary 

impacts (reduced overhead clearance) within an approximately 35-foot-long stretch. 

Following construction, the area would be restored to pre-project conditions. No 

permanent impacts would occur to the path. 

There are neither anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts nor interference with the 

protected activities, features, or attributes of the property on either a temporary or permanent 

basis. 

 The Ocean Beach Bicycle Path is a multi-use path that supports transportation and 

recreation, and there would be an effect during construction on cyclists requiring 

them to dismount, the effect is minimal. Based on the limited extent of temporary 

impacts (35 linear feet), the project would not substantially interfere with any 

recreational or transportation activities or public access to the path. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-31 

The land being used will be restored fully (i.e., the property must be returned to a condition 

that is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project). 

 Following the removal of the bridge falsework, the area would be restored to preproject conditions. No permanent impacts would occur to the path. 

There must be documented agreement of the official(s) having jurisdiction over the Section 

4(f) resource regarding the previous conditions. 

 Documentation of the Section 4(f) evaluation has been submitted to the City of San 

Diego, which has provided concurrence with the findings. 

As described above, the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path would remain open and in use 

during construction—with the exception of brief closures to install and remove 

falsework—and would not be altered in the long-term as a result of the project. During 

the 7 to 12 months of construction across this portion of the San Diego River Bridge, 

cyclists would need to dismount and walk for a short distance as a result of reduced 

vertical clearance. However, as construction would not adversely affect the features, 

attributes, or activities qualifying the bike path for protection under Section 4(f), the 

project would result in a temporary occupancy. The City of San Diego has indicated its 

concurrence with this finding. 

Constructive Use 

Constructive use occurs when the project results in proximity effects that are so severe 

that they impact the protected activities, features, and attributes of the resource that 

qualify it for Section 4(f) protection. The construction of an additional bridge over the 

San Diego River would have no adverse effects on the use of the Ocean Beach Bicycle 

Path as a recreational resource. Therefore, no constructive use would occur. The City 

of San Diego has indicated its concurrence with this finding. 

5.5 Determinations of Section 4(f) Uses 

Of the 21 Section 4(f) historic, parks, or recreational properties within the Mid-Coast 

Corridor, Marian Bear Memorial Park, Mission Valley Preserve Open Space, and the Ocean 

Beach Bicycle Path would be affected by the project. A summary of the Section 4(f) 

properties affected by the project and determinations of use are presented in Table 5-5. 

Marian Bear Memorial Park would have a de minimis direct use as a result of the 

encroachment and placement of riprap near one storm drain outlet. Temporary 

occupancy would occur on Marian Bear Memorial Park, the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path, 

and Mission Valley Open Space Preserve; these occupancies qualify for an exception 

under Section 774.13 and do not constitute “use” under Section 4(f). 

The analysis conducted subsequent to public review of the Draft SEIS/SEIR confirms that 

there would be no constructive use under Section 4(f) of Rose Canyon Open Space Park. 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-32 September 2014 

Table 5-5. Summary of Section 4(f) Uses of Resources 

Marian Bear Memorial Park 

Mission Valley Preserve 

Open Space Ocean Beach Bicycle Path 

Location South of SR 52 between I-5 and 

Genesee Ave 

Western portion of Mission 

Valley, within the San Diego 

River Park 

From Dog Beach to Hotel 

Circle Pl along south side of 

San Diego River 

Major Activities, 

Features, or 

Attributes 

The park provides wildlife 

protection, hiking trails, parking, 

picnic areas, and restroom 

facilities. Park is within San 

Diego’s MHPA. 

The preserve features 

natural areas, trails, 

informational signage, and 

kiosk. The preserve is 

within San Diego’s MHPA. 

Provides recreational access 

along the south side of the 

San Diego River and a 

connection between areas in 

Mission Valley and areas in 

Ocean Beach and Old Town 

Size 467 acres 52 acres 5 miles 

Direct Use Approximately 32 square feet 

(0.0007 acre) of riprap associated 

with two storm drain outlets along 

the MTS right-of-way. Property 

would not change ownership. 

None None 

Temporary 

Occupancy 

Remedial grading and 

construction access 

(approximately 1 acre total) 

associated with the following: 

realignment of existing city sewer 

line within the park; construction 

of a shoofly and temporary and 

permanent retaining walls within 

the MTS right-of-way; and 

construction of a replacement 

lined open channel in Rose Creek 

north of the park boundary; 

activities qualify for an exception 

under Section 774.13 

Bridge construction within 

the MTS railroad right-ofway across the San Diego 

River near I-5/I-8 

interchange; temporary 

construction area within 

approx. 0.3 acre of 

preserve; activities qualify 

for an exception under 

Section 774.13 

Bridge construction for 7 to 

12 months, requiring cyclists 

to dismount and walk for 

approximately 35 feet as a 

result of reduced vertical 

clearance below bridge 

falsework; closure of the path 

during installation and 

removal of bridge falsework 

Constructive 

Use None None None 

De minimis Use Approximately 32 square feet 

(0.0007 acre) of riprap 

None None 

Sources: SANDAG, 2014; City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department (2011); California State Parks 

(2011); City of San Diego (2010a) 

Notes: MHPA = Multi-Habitat Planning Area; MTS = Metropolitan Transit System 

5.6 Agency Coordination and Consultation 

For parklands, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, FTA and SANDAG 

are coordinating with the City of San Diego. Documentation of final concurrence from 

the City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department and the Transportation and 

Storm Water Department is included in Appendix C. Consultation will continue as 

needed with local agencies, jurisdictions, and historical societies and preservation 

groups, including the following: 

 San Diego History Center 

 San Diego Archaeological Center 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5-33 

 North Park Main Street 

 Boosters of Old Town San Diego State Historic Park 

 Friends of Rose Canyon 

 Save Our Heritage Organisation 

 Little Italy Association of San Diego 

 Pacific Beach Town Council 

 La Playa Trail Association 

 La Jolla Historical Society 

 The Committee of One Hundred

Additional discussion of coordination is provided in Chapter 8.0 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

 
Chapter 5.0 - Section 4(f) Evaluation 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

5-34 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-1 

6.0 COST AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 

This chapter presents the capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates 

and financial plans for the Refined Build Alternative. The chapter also presents the risks 

and uncertainties associated with the cost and revenue estimates and describes several 

mitigation strategies that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) could 

consider to address these risks. 

This chapter has been updated from the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) to focus on the 

Refined Build Alternative and to reflect updates to the project capital cost estimate 

resulting from design refinements, updated escalation rates, and an updated project 

implementation schedule. The capital financial plan presented in this chapter reflects 

revisions to the sources and uses of funds for the SANDAG systemwide capital plan, 

including the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and other SANDAG and Metropolitan 

Transit System (MTS) projects. Similarly, the O&M cost financial plan has been updated 

to reflect revisions to the sources and uses of funds for MTS systemwide operations, 

including the project when it is completed and opened for operations. 

Unless otherwise specified, all costs and revenues in this chapter are presented in yearof-expenditure (YOE) dollars. Additionally, all costs and revenues are presented on the 

basis of the SANDAG fiscal year (FY), which runs from July 1 through June 30. For 

example, FY 2013 refers to the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

6.1 Cost Estimate Methodology 

This section describes the methodology used to develop the capital and O&M cost 

estimates. 

6.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate Methodology 

The capital cost estimates are based on the engineering and station plans contained in 

the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Volume 2: Plan Set (Final 

SEIS/SEIR Plan Set). The estimates were developed in conformance with Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines for estimating capital costs for New Starts 

projects. Capital cost estimates were prepared and reported using the latest version of 

the FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCC) Workbook. Further information on the 

capital cost estimate methodology can be found in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Capital Cost Methodology and Estimate Report (SANDAG, 2014z). 

For each project component, quantities were estimated based on the preliminary 

engineering drawings, and these quantities were multiplied by estimated unit costs. The 

results were then summed at the SCC level. Allowances for contingencies were added 

separately to the base cost for each of the SCC line items, with an additional amount 

assumed for unallocated contingency. All construction costs were estimated in base 

year (2013) dollars, including contingencies, and were then escalated to YOE dollars 

based on assumed annual cost escalation rates and the proposed project 

implementation schedule. The cost escalation rates were determined using a 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-2 September 2014 

comprehensive analysis of inflation forecasts, supplemented by interviews with industry 

suppliers and manufacturers. Further information on the cost escalation rates can be 

found in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cost Escalation Forecast (2014 to 2023)

(SANDAG, 2014x). As the project advances through the New Starts project 

development stage into Engineering, SANDAG will continue to review and refine the 

capital cost estimates. 

6.1.2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate Methodology 

An O&M cost model was developed for the project based on a resource build-up 

approach that fully allocates O&M costs based on transit level-of-service variables. Unit 

costs were developed and calculated in 2012 dollars because 2012 was the most 

recently completed reporting period for the National Transit Database at the time of 

development of the estimates. These costs were then escalated to 2013 dollars and 

inflated to YOE dollars by applying different inflation rates. Inflated unit costs were then 

multiplied by the level-of-service variables taken from the transit operating plan to 

calculate total O&M costs. Additional information on the project’s O&M cost model and 

estimates can be found in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Operating and 

Maintenance Cost Methodology and Estimate Report (SANDAG, 2014aa). 

The O&M cost estimates for the project represent only MTS operations since MTS would 

be responsible for operating and maintaining the project. The analysis does not include 

the costs and revenues for the North County Transit District (NCTD) operations because 

NCTD would not operate or maintain the project and because MTS and NCTD have 

separate operating budgets. 

6.2 Capital Plan 

This section presents the capital cost estimates developed for the Refined Build 

Alternative in base year (2013) and YOE dollars, and identifies the proposed capital 

funding sources. This section also discusses SANDAG’s ability to implement the project 

while maintaining the existing and planned transit system in a state of good repair. 

Additional information on the capital plan can be found in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Financial Plan (SANDAG, 2014y). 

6.2.1 Capital Cost Estimate for Refined Build Alternative 

Table 6-1 summarizes the total capital cost estimate for the Refined Build Alternative in base 

year (2013) dollars. As shown in the table, the capital cost estimate without finance charges 

or capital cost escalation is $1,489 million. Table 6-1 also presents the total capital cost 

estimate for the Refined Build Alternative in YOE dollars. The proposed project 

implementation schedule assumes that the project would open for revenue operations in 

May 2019, which is near the end of SANDAG’s FY 2019. As shown in the table, the 

capital cost estimate, including finance charges and capital cost escalation, is $2,112 

million. 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-3 

Table 6-1. Capital Cost Estimates by Standard Cost Category 

Standard Cost Categories 

Base Year (2013) 

Dollars, Millions

YOE Dollars, 

Millions 

10 - Guideway and track elements 332 381 

20 - Stations, stops, terminals, intermodal 104 122 

30 - Support facilities: yards, shops, administration 

buildings 

- - 

40 - Sitework and special conditions 188 214 

50 - Systems 130 152 

60 - Right-of-way, land, existing improvements 146 155 

70 - Vehicles 170 196 

80 - Professional services 290 319 

90 - Unallocated contingency 129 148 

Capital cost 1,489 1,688 

Finance charges - 424 

Total cost 1,489 2,112 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding; base year (2013) cost estimates do not include finance 

charges or capital cost escalation. 

 YOE = year-of-expenditure 

The capital cost estimate in Table 6-1 includes cost contingencies to cover unknown 

conditions that could lead to cost increases, consistent with FTA’s recommendations for 

transit projects in this stage of project development. Contingency amounts were 

allocated to each SCC based on currently available information about project risks. In 

addition, a prudent amount of unallocated contingency (9.5 percent) was also added to 

cover unanticipated events. Together, allocated and unallocated amounts make up the 

total contingency estimate. Table 6-2 shows the total amount of contingency that is 

included in the cost estimates. The project’s 33 percent level of contingency is 

conservative at this stage of its development. 

Table 6-2. Total Allocated and Unallocated Contingencies (2013$, Millions) 

Standard Cost Category Amount

Allocated contingency $243 

Unallocated contingency $129 

Total contingency $372 

Total contingency as a percent of total capital cost estimate without contingency 33% 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

6.2.2 Proposed Capital Funding Sources for Refined Build Alternative 

SANDAG proposes to use a mix of federal and local sources to fund the project. The 

project’s capital plan assumes federal Section 5309 New Starts funds in an amount 

equal to 49.4 percent of the total project cost. The remaining 50.6 percent of project 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-4 September 2014 

cost is assumed to be funded from SANDAG’s TransNet sales tax program. Table 6-3 

summarizes the proposed capital sources of funds for the Refined Build Alternative. 

Table 6-3. Proposed Capital Funding Sources (YOE$, Millions) 

Funding Source Amount

FTA New Starts funds $1,043 

 Federal share (percent) 49.4% 

TransNet bond proceeds $935 

TransNet capital revenues $134 

Total sources of funds $2,112 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

 YOE$ = year-of-expenditure dollars 

6.2.2.1 Federal Section 5309 New Starts Funds 

Section 5309 New Starts funds are awarded by FTA on a discretionary basis to new 

fixed-guideway transit projects. To be eligible, projects must meet the New Starts 

criteria established in law and regulation. When the FTA approved the project into 

Preliminary Engineering (PE) in 2011, FTA determined that the project met those criteria 

and was likely to continue to meet the criteria as it was further developed. Subsequently, 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) altered the New Starts 

process and criteria, and FTA has issued new rules and guidance on the criteria. FTA 

will rate the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project using the new criteria before approving 

the project into the next phase, Engineering, and recommending it for funding. The 

availability of funding for this project will depend upon further authorizing legislation and 

appropriations by Congress (see Section 6.5.2.1). 

As shown in Table 6-3, SANDAG intends to request federal funds in an amount equal to 

49.4 percent of the total capital cost (including finance charges). This proposed federal 

share results in a total federal contribution of $1,043 million, starting in FY 2016. Based 

on guidance received during FTA’s assessment of the project’s PE financial plan, the 

annual amount of New Starts funds is currently assumed to be limited to a maximum of 

$100 million. In order to offset the timing gap between the receipt of these funds and the 

project’s cash flow needs during peak construction activities, the capital plan assumes 

that SANDAG would issue Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) as a form of debt that would 

be repaid by New Starts funds as they are received. The remaining amount of annual 

New Starts funds net of annual GANs principal repayment would then be used toward 

project capital costs. Additional information on GANs is provided in Section 6.4. 

6.2.2.2 Local TransNet Sales Tax Program 

Revenues collected through SANDAG’s TransNet sales tax program, approved by San 

Diego County voters in 1988 and extended by voters in 2004, are expected to provide all 

non-federal funding for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The TransNet Extension 

Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Ordinance) governs the distribution of the half-percent 

sales tax revenues beginning in FY 2009. In the Ordinance, the project is identified as 

1 of 11 rail and bus rapid transit capital improvements that make up part of SANDAG’s 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-5 

Major Corridor Projects Program, which receive 38 percent of net annual TransNet sales 

tax revenues. The project also can receive funding from the TransNet Major Corridor 

Project Environmental Mitigation Program, which receives 4.4 percent of net annual 

TransNet sales tax revenues. Additionally, the Ordinance gives priority to funding and 

completing the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project along with two highway projects, the 

first of which already is completed and the other is currently under construction. 

The capital plan relies on a combination of pay-as-you-go TransNet capital revenues 

and conventional long-term bonds backed by TransNet revenues to provide the 

proposed 50.6 percent local match. Pay-as-you-go capital revenues are used to pay the 

local share of the annual project finance charges, which is consistent with SANDAG’s 

practice of using capital revenues to first pay off annual debt service amounts. Bonds 

backed by TransNet revenues are used to bridge the remaining gap in project funding in 

each year. Additional information on project borrowing and financing costs is presented 

in Section 6.4. 

6.2.3 Evaluation of Financial Capacity 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Financial Plan (SANDAG, 2014y) presents the 

sources and uses of funds for the SANDAG systemwide capital plan, including the MidCoast Corridor Transit Project, between FY 2009 and FY 2030. The plan includes 

capital expenditures and associated funding for the remaining TransNet projects, 

SANDAG non-TransNet projects, and MTS capital projects, including bus, paratransit, 

and light rail transit vehicle replacement and acquisition purchases. The capital plan 

shows that the ending capital cash balance is expected to remain positive throughout the 

forecast period, which demonstrates that SANDAG and MTS possess the financial 

resources to undertake the project and fund the other major capital projects and routine 

replacements of existing assets, keeping the entire system in a state of good repair 

through FY 2030. This reserve balance exceeds $290 million in any given year and 

averages $843 million between FY 2009 and FY 2030. 

If additional TransNet revenues are needed for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, 

SANDAG is required to dedicate such revenues to complete construction. As discussed 

earlier, the project is one of three projects identified in the Ordinance as having first 

priority for TransNet revenues. With one of the other projects already completed and the 

other expected to be completed by FY 2015, the project will become the only one with 

first priority for TransNet Major Corridor Projects funding. 

6.3 Operating and Maintenance Plan 

This section presents the annual O&M cost estimates prepared for the No-Build and 

Refined Build Alternatives, and assesses the region’s ability to fund the project’s O&M 

costs and the O&M costs for MTS’ regional transit system. Additional information on the 

operating financial plan can be found in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Financial 

Plan (SANDAG, 2014y). 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-6 September 2014 

6.3.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs 

Table 6-4 presents the annual costs to operate and maintain the project as well as the 

planned MTS transit system for FY 2030. The O&M costs include costs associated with 

light rail transit, bus (both directly operated and purchased services), paratransit, and 

other miscellaneous expenses. Although Chula Vista Transit is reported as a separate 

entity in the National Transit Database, it is consolidated under the bus purchased 

transportation services for reporting purposes. Commuter bus, paratransit, and Chula 

Vista Transit services are not expected to be affected by implementation of the project, 

but they are included for completeness of the analysis. 

Table 6-4. Annual O&M Costs for FY 2030 

for No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives (YOE$ Millions) 

No-Build 

Alternative 

Refined Build 

Alternative 

Light rail transit $103.06 $135.21 

Directly operated bus $179.11 $175.58 

Purchased transportation bus $133.94 $134.07 

Purchased transportation commuter bus $6.59 $6.59 

Paratransit and other $25.72 $25.72 

Total O&M cost $448.43 $477.17 

Project O&M cost (LRT) $32.15 

Project share (percent) 6.7% 

Total net O&M cost $28.74 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

 FY = fiscal year; LRT = light rail transit; O&M = operating and 

maintenance; YOE$ = year-of-expenditure dollars 

The net difference in annual O&M costs in FY 2030 between the No-Build and Refined 

Build Alternatives is $28.74 million. This is mostly due to the addition of the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project to MTS’ light rail transit (Trolley) system, resulting in an 

incremental increase of $32.15 million to the total light rail transit O&M costs for 

FY 2030. 

The increase in light rail O&M costs is offset by a decrease in directly operated bus O&M 

costs as a result of the project. The costs for the Refined Build Alternative include 

elimination of MTS Route 150 and minor modifications to other bus routes to improve 

station access. This reduction in directly operated bus service under the Refined Build 

Alternative decreases annual O&M costs for directly operated buses by $3.53 million 

compared to the No-Build Alternative. This decrease is approximately 2 percent of the 

No-Build Alternative directly operated bus O&M costs in FY 2030. 

6.3.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources 

SANDAG and MTS use a combination of local, state, and federal funding sources to 

operate and maintain the existing transit system. This section describes the primary 

funding sources for the operation and maintenance of the system. 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-7 

6.3.2.1 Fare Revenues 

MTS currently relies on fare revenues to fund about 41 percent of its O&M costs 

(FY 2012). The financial plan assumes that, beginning in FY 2016, the average fare for 

each transit mode will increase every three years to keep pace with general inflation. In 

addition, for the first full year of project operation in FY 2020, MTS expects that the 

increased ridership resulting from the new service would also generate additional fare 

revenues for the light rail system. Fare revenues for the Trolley system in FY 2020 are 

expected to be $8 million higher than those in FY 2019 as a result of the additional 

expected ridership. 

6.3.2.2 Federal Funding 

MTS has been using FTA funds for preventive maintenance of its rail operations. 

Although the FTA program structure was changed by MAP-21, overall funding levels 

have not changed significantly. The financial plan assumes that federal formula funds 

(Section 5337 State of Good Repair and Section 5307 Urbanized Area) will be used to 

help pay for preventive maintenance costs in future years. The plan assumes that 

implementation of the project will also lead to an increase in the amount of formula 

funding apportioned to the San Diego metropolitan area. Between FY 2009 and 

FY 2030, the financial plan assumes that 100 percent of MTS’ share of Section 5337 

funds and 22 percent of MTS’ share of Section 5307 funds would be used for transit 

operations. 

6.3.2.3 State Funding 

The State Transit Assistance (STA) fund constitutes the main state funding assistance 

for MTS transit operations. The forecasts used in the financial plan are consistent with 

projections in the SANDAG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast Process and Model 

Documentation (SANDAG, 2010a). MTS allocates STA funds between the operating 

and capital budgets at the direction of its Board of Directors. The financial plan assumes 

that only 28 percent of total STA projected revenues would be used for MTS transit 

operations between FY 2009 and FY 2030. 

6.3.2.4 Local Funding 

Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding is the main local O&M revenue source, 

providing approximately 65 percent of the total local operating assistance. The forecast 

used in the financial plan assumes a 5.1 percent compounded annual growth rate 

between FY 2013 and FY 2030, consistent with projections in the SANDAG 2050 

Regional Growth Forecast Process and Model Documentation (SANDAG, 2010a). MTS 

policy is to use TDA funds for operations first; only if there is an operating surplus in a 

given year are these funds used for capital projects. 

The TransNet program covers the remaining 35 percent share of local operating 

assistance. The program includes two sub-programs for funding transit operations: a 

subsidy for current transit services and an operating fund dedicated to new services. 

TransNet dedicates 16.5 percent of annual sales tax revenues to help fund existing 

transit operations. The new services operating fund also was established to subsidize 

the incremental cost of transit projects built under the TransNet program. As such, this 

funding source, which amounts to 8.1 percent of TransNet revenues, will provide an 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-8 September 2014 

additional subsidy to MTS for the operation and maintenance of those projects within 

MTS’ service area. 

6.3.2.5 Summary of O&M Sources and Uses 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Financial Plan (SANDAG, 2014y) presents the 

O&M sources and uses of funds for the entire MTS system, including the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project, between FY 2009 and FY 2030. The operating plan shows an 

operating surplus in almost every year that allows MTS to build an operating reserve and 

transfer some TDA funds to be used for ongoing capital needs. This demonstrates that 

SANDAG and MTS have sufficient financial capacity to operate and maintain the project 

while operating and maintaining the existing and planned transit system. 

6.4 Cash Flow Analysis 

This section compares the project’s annual and total proposed capital funding to its 

capital costs. To make the financial plan work on a cash flow basis, SANDAG will use 

debt financing and incur finance charges. 

6.4.1 Project Financing Assumptions 

Total finance charges for the project equal $424 million (Table 6-5). These charges 

represent interest and upfront financing costs associated with two types of debt 

instruments: short-term GANs that will be repaid with FTA New Starts funds and longterm bond issuances that will be repaid with TransNet capital revenues. 

The plan assumes an annual limit of $100 million on FTA New Starts funds. To address 

project cash flow needs, SANDAG plans to issue GANs as a form of short-term debt that 

would be repaid by New Starts funds. The capital plan assumes that these GANs would 

be issued in FY 2016, at the start of peak construction activities, at a 4 percent interest 

rate and with a 7-year maturity. The total amount of GANs issued for the project is 

currently estimated to be $550 million. 

SANDAG also plans to use TransNet bond proceeds to bridge the project’s funding gap 

in each year. SANDAG’s Plan of Finance includes planned bond issuances every other 

year between FY 2015 and FY 2029 to provide funding for the entire TransNet program. 

The financial plan assumes that some proceeds from the following three planned debt 

issuances will be used for project funding: 

 FY 2015 debt issuance: total of $354.4 million; 4 percent interest rate; 30-year 

maturity; 64 percent ($228.0 million) used for project funding 

 FY 2017 debt issuance: total of $588.1 million; 4 percent interest rate; 30-year 

maturity; 89 percent ($523.2 million) used for project funding 

 FY 2019 debt issuance: total of $311.1 million; 4 percent interest rate; 29-year 

maturity; 59 percent ($183.8 million) used for project funding 

Table 6-5 summarizes the finance charges attributed to the project for each bond issue. 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-9 

Table 6-5. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Financing Costs 

(YOE$ Millions) 

Debt Instrument Finance Charges

FTA-backed Bond Proceeds

 FY 2016 GANs $99 

TransNet Bond Proceeds

 FY 2015 debt issue $93 

 FY 2017 debt Issue $181 

 FY 2019 debt Issue $51 

Total Finance Charges $424 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

 FTA = Federal Transit Administration; FY = fiscal 

year; GANs = Grant Anticipation Notes; 

YOE$ = year-of-expenditure dollars 

6.4.2 Project Cash Flow 

Table 6-6 summarizes the proposed sources and uses of capital funds for the project. 

The table demonstrates that the project would be fully funded assuming receipt of 

49.4 percent of total project cost from the federal New Starts program. All of the nonSection 5309 New Starts funds are committed for the project from TransNet revenues. 

6.5 Risks and Uncertainties 

This section describes the risks and uncertainties associated with the project’s capital 

costs, operating costs, and funding. It also presents several mitigation strategies that 

SANDAG could implement in the event that any of these risks materialize. 

6.5.1 Project Cost Uncertainties 

Typical areas of capital cost risk for projects in this stage of project development include 

the potential for scope and schedule changes that can increase a project’s capital cost 

and higher-than-expected inflation that can increase YOE costs. Project O&M costs also 

are subject to their own risk factors, which include changes to O&M unit costs, inflation, 

and unanticipated service changes. 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-10 

Table 6-6. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Sources and Uses of Funds (YOE$ Millio

FY 

2011 

FY 

2012 

FY 

2013 

FY 

2014

FY 

2015 

FY 

2016 

FY 

2017 

FY 

2018 

FY 

2019 

FY 

2020 

FY 

2021 

FY 

2022 

FY 

2023 

FY 

2024 

Uses of Funds 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Cost

SCC 10 to 90 $20.0 $13.1 $18.5 $43.5 $166.0 $335.5 $426.1 $480.1 $182.0 $2.8 SCC 100 - Finance Charges 

 $3.2 $16.8 $38.3 $48.9 $48.1 $49.3 $45.4 $41.4 $37.2 $32

Total Uses of Funds $20.0 $13.1 $18.5 $43.5 $169.2 $352.3 $464.4 $529.1 $230.0 $52.0 $45.4 $41.4 $37.2 $32Sources of Funds 

FTA Sec. 5309 New Starts

 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100

FTA Sec. 5309 GANs Proceeds Drawdown

 $181.8 $341.1 $27.0 

FTA Sec. 5309 GANs Principal Repayment

 -$69.6 -$72.4 -$75.3 -$78.3 -$81.5 -$84.7 -$88.1 

TransNet Bond Proceeds Drawdown

 $166.0 $62.0 $73.5 $449.7 $181.0 $2.8 

TransNet Capital Revenues

$20.0 $13.1 $18.5 $43.5 $3.2 $8.5 $19.4 $24.8 $24.3 $27.6 $26.9 $26.1 $25.3 -$67

Total Sources of Funds 

$20.0 $13.1 $18.5 $43.5 $169.2 $352.3 $464.4 $529.1 $230.0 $52.0 $45.4 $41.4 $37.2 $32

Source: SANDAG, 2014 Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.  FTA = Federal Transit Administration; FY = fiscal year; GANs = Grant Anticipation Notes; SCC = Standard Cost Category; YOE$ = 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-11 

6.5.1.1 Scope and Schedule Risks 

The capital cost estimates presented in this chapter are based on the Final SEIS/SEIR 

Plan Set (Volume 2 of this Final SEIS/SEIR) at a level of design completion needed for 

this stage of project development. While the contingencies included in the estimates are 

considered to be sufficient to cover unknown factors at this stage of project 

development, cost increases could occur as a result of unexpected scope changes. 

Cost increases also could occur as a result of schedule delays. These delays could be 

related to unforeseen construction challenges, local decision-making processes, 

equipment malfunctions, or general construction delays. 

Prior to FTA’s approval of the project into PE, SANDAG, FTA, and FTA’s Project 

Management Oversight Contractor assessed potential scope and schedule risks to the 

project and evaluated the level of contingency included in the project’s budget. As the 

project advances through the project development stage into Engineering, SANDAG and 

the FTA will continue to collaborate to refine the cost estimate. 

6.5.1.2 Cost Escalation Risk 

The cost escalation rates used to convert the cost estimates from constant 2013 dollars 

to YOE dollars were developed specifically for the project using a comprehensive 

analysis of inflation forecasts, supplemented by interviews with industry suppliers and 

manufacturers. These rates are affected by regional economic conditions, commodity 

prices, real estate values, and labor availability. Changes in cost escalation rates could 

lead to cost increases in nominal terms, which would require additional capital funding. 

6.5.1.3 Interest Rates and Municipal Market Risks 

As with any capital project requiring this issuance of debt, the project is subject to 

uncertainty associated with fluctuations in interest rates. Variations in interest rates could 

affect the interest earned on cash balances and the interest paid on any outstanding 

debt, as well as the size of the debt requirements to finance the project. Fluctuations in 

interest rates are influenced by a number of factors, including the credit rating of the 

bond issuer (SANDAG) and other external factors that are not directly under the control 

of SANDAG, such as market risks. 

6.5.1.4 Operating and Maintenance Cost Risks 

The O&M unit costs (in constant 2013 dollars) that were developed to build the O&M 

cost model are based on recent MTS operating statistics. As a result, productivity 

factors, such as the number of gallons of fuel used per mile or work hours per revenue 

hour of service, are fairly well established and subject to limited uncertainty. Resource 

unit costs, such as dollar per gallon of fuel or hourly wages, on the other hand, are 

subject to inflationary pressures from national and regional factors. 

Moreover, the project’s O&M cost is based on an operating plan that makes 

assumptions about future systemwide levels of service. There is some risk that the 

systemwide levels of service might change, which could affect the overall O&M costs for 

the project and MTS. 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-12 September 2014 

6.5.2 Project Funding Uncertainties 

The financial plan assumes certain levels of New Starts and other federal funds and 

TransNet revenues. There are potential risks associated with securing federal grants 

and/or securing them in the timeframes required to maintain the project schedule and 

avoid inflationary risk. Potential risks are also associated with TransNet revenue 

collections being below forecast levels. 

6.5.2.1 FTA New Starts Funding 

New Starts funding is subject to legislative uncertainties. MAP-21, the current federal 

legislation that authorizes the New Starts program, expires September 30, 2014. 

Considerable uncertainty exists regarding when Congress will reauthorize the surface 

transportation program, the amount of funding that will be provided for New Starts 

projects, and the potential changes to program eligibility and other requirements. 

SANDAG is requesting federal New Starts funding in an amount that represents 

49.4 percent of total project cost. The terms of this funding will be negotiated and 

described in a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) between SANDAG and the FTA, 

which would occur following completion of the National Environmental Policy Act/ 

California Environmental Quality Act processes and following the project’s rating and 

approval into Engineering by FTA. Several projects around the country are competing 

for a limited supply of New Starts funds, and the amount of uncommitted funding 

available for new projects may become increasingly limited in the coming years. Any 

delay in the FFGA or reduction in the annual New Starts funding amount below the 

assumed $100 million could affect the construction schedule and increase project costs. 

Even if an FFGA is negotiated and signed according to the schedule, there is risk 

associated with the timing of annual funding appropriations for the project. Although 

history has shown that Congress ultimately honors and appropriates the full amount 

spelled out in an FFGA, Congress could delay funding for the project by reducing or 

stretching out the annual appropriations. Any delay might necessitate additional 

borrowing, schedule delays, and cost increases. 

6.5.2.2 TransNet Funding 

The only source of non-federal funds for the project is being generated by TransNet

revenues, which are based on sales taxes. Sales tax revenues tend to move in tandem 

with the overall economy. As such, TransNet revenues will be affected by the ebbs and 

flows of the local economy. This could lead to future TransNet shortfalls during times of 

economic recession. Any reduction in TransNet revenues could affect the ability of 

SANDAG to complete other projects in its capital program. 

Moreover, the project’s capital plan includes proceeds from several planned TransNet

bond issuances between FY 2015 and FY 2019. If these bond issuances are not 

approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors, there is a risk that the agency may need 

to modify the project’s schedule or scope. 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 6-13 

6.5.3 Mitigation Strategies 

In the event that any of these cost or funding risks materialize, SANDAG has several 

mitigation strategies that it can implement to absorb potential cost increases or revenue 

shortfalls. 

6.5.3.1 Increase in Project Capital Cost 

The project is one of three projects identified in the Ordinance as having first priority for 

TransNet revenues. The other two projects include an extension of State Route (SR) 52 

from SR 125 to Highway 67, which opened to travelers in FY 2011, and improvements to 

SR 76, which will be completed by FY 2015. Once the work on SR 76 is complete, the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will receive first priority for TransNet Major Corridor 

Projects funding. In the event of a cost increase, SANDAG is required to dedicate 

additional TransNet revenues to complete the project. 

6.5.3.2 Delay in Federal New Starts Funding/Decrease in TransNet Revenue Collections 

In the event that federal funding for the project is delayed, SANDAG has the ability to 

issue additional TransNet bonds to complete the project. Revenues generated by 

TransNet until FY 2048 would provide more than adequate debt capacity for the project. 

SANDAG has forecasted that sales tax revenues will increase at a compounded annual 

growth rate of 4.9 percent between FY 2013 and FY 2030. If TransNet revenues 

increase at a lower rate than forecasted, SANDAG still is required to complete the 

project and would need to strategize its capital program capacity, including issuing more 

debt. SANDAG also can seek additional state and federal funding to help make up any 

shortfall in TransNet revenues. SANDAG will frequently review TransNet receipts as 

compared to forecasts and update forecasted amounts if needed. 

6.5.3.3 Increase in Operating and Maintenance Cost 

MTS has demonstrated its ability to control O&M cost increases through periods of 

economic change and price volatility. In the event that O&M costs increase at a greater 

rate than forecasted in the project’s financial plan, the project will still be able to use the 

8.1 percent TransNet operating fund that is dedicated to new services. If additional 

revenues are needed, MTS may use additional federal formula funding apportioned to 

the region to fund ongoing preventative maintenance activities required for the project. 

 
Chapter 6.0 - Cost and Financial Analysis 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6-14 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-1 

7.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter presents the results of the evaluation of the benefits, costs, and impacts of 

the Refined Build Alternative, as compared to the No-Build Alternative. This comparison 

is made from four perspectives—effectiveness in meeting the purpose and need, cost 

effectiveness, feasibility, and environmental and other considerations. Important tradeoffs also are highlighted. 

The evaluation in this chapter draws upon and summarizes the information provided in 

the previous chapters of this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR). The evaluation measures used 

in this chapter reflect local goals for the Refined Build Alternative as described in 

Chapter 1.0. This chapter has been revised since the Draft SEIS/SEIR to reflect the 

approval of refinements to the Build Alternative (now referred to as the Refined Build 

Alternative) by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of 

Directors for evaluation in the Final SEIS/SEIR. The Refined Build Alternative reflects 

decisions among the options presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR, modifications to the 

project to reduce impacts, and further engineering refinements, as described in Chapter 

2.0 of this document. Revisions to this chapter also reflect updates to the Section 5309 

New Starts program criteria implemented under Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act of 2012 (MAP-21). The cost information presented in Section 7.4 was 

revised based on the information presented in Chapter 6.0 of this document. 

Additionally, the findings of the environmental analysis, as summarized in Section 7.5, 

were revised to reflect changes in Chapter 4.0 of this document. Section 7.5.3 was 

revised to reflect impacts to an ephemeral basin containing San Diego fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp were evaluated in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplement to the Subsequent 

Environmental Impact Report, which was circulated for review and comment from July 

18, 2014 to September 2, 2014. 

7.1 Effectiveness in Meeting Purpose and Need 

Chapter 1.0 presents the purpose and need for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

As stated in that chapter, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide for 

implementation of transit improvements that improve transit service in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and University City. Although the 

Mid-Coast Corridor is currently served by transit, the existing transit system does not 

offer the level of service needed to meet the region’s goals for mobility, accessibility, 

reliability, and efficiency, as defined in the SANDAG 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) (SANDAG, 2007a). The 

COASTER commuter rail service passes through the corridor, but its stations are widely 

spaced and it does not have a station in close proximity to the University of California, 

San Diego (UCSD) or the University Towne Centre (UTC) Transit Center. The San 

Diego Trolley (Trolley) Blue Line terminates at the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-2 September 2014 

under existing conditions1. 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. 

To meet the region’s goals most effectively, the Mid-Coast Corridor needs a transit 

system that is better able to serve the major travel destinations of UCSD and the UTC 

Transit Center in University City. This transit system must provide a frequency of 

service, speed, and reliability that would better serve existing transit riders and attract 

new riders. The exclusive right-of-way for transit that is proposed for the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project would shorten travel times, improve reliability, and reduce the 

number of transfers required for travel between major travel markets, thereby improving 

service for existing riders and attracting new riders. With the improved transit service 

provided by the project, one-seat rides (trips that do not require a transfer) would be 

available from the U.S.–Mexico international border to University City, and between 

communities in South San Diego County, Downtown San Diego, and University City, 

making transit an attractive alternative to travel by automobile. 

Section 1.6 identifies other important local goals related to livability, sustainability, and 

equity. The following sections describe the effectiveness of the Refined Build Alternative 

in meeting these goals and addressing the project’s purpose and need. 

7.1.1 Mobility and Accessibility 

Just as mobility and congestion have worsened over the years, congestion in 2030 will 

be worse than it is today. Congestion reduces travel speeds and increases travel time. 

For transit riders, the increase in congestion would directly affect their mobility because 

travel times on buses would increase. Although the planned high-occupancy vehicle 

(HOV) lanes on Interstate (I-) 5 under the No-Build Alternative would offset the effects of 

congestion for transit riders using buses operating in the HOV lanes, other riders would 

be affected by congestion. 

Mobility and accessibility under the No-Build and Refined Build Alternatives were 

evaluated in terms of transit travel time, the number of transfers required to complete a 

trip, and transit ridership with a focus on the key travel markets identified in Chapter 1.0 

(Downtown San Diego and areas to the east and south and University City). Table 7-1 

summarizes the mobility and accessibility benefits of the alternatives. 

7.1.1.1 Transit Travel Time and Speed 

Travel time represents how long it takes a passenger to complete a trip by transit and is 

affected by the speed of the transit vehicle, roadway congestion, the number of stops, 

and the distance between stops. Transit riders benefit if a transit investment helps them 

complete their trip more quickly. Additionally, choice transit riders, defined as those 

 

1

 Existing conditions generally refers to conditions in 2010 when the Notice of Preparation for the California 

Environmental Quality Act was issued. 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-3 

Table 7-1. Effectiveness of Alternatives—Mobility and Accessibility Benefits

Measures 

No-Build 

Alternative

Refined Build 

Alternative Difference 

Transit Travel Time (peak period in minutes)

Golden Triangle to Centre City/Downtown 47.1 43.5 -3.6 

South San Diego to UCSD 68.6 51.9 -16.7 

Mission Valley to UCSD 51.6 39.1 -12.5 

Transit Ridership 

Average weekday linked trips—systemwide 309,900 323,300 +13,400 

Average weekday boardings—local bus 360,300 367,100 +6,800 

Average weekday boardings—express bus 59,300 53,000 -6,300 

Average weekday boardings—Trolley 152,200 180,800 +28,600 

Daily passenger miles 3,604,858 3,800,297 +195,439 

Transfers (Daily Transfer Rate) 

University City to Centre City/Downtown 2.01 1.70 -0.31 

South to University City 2.62 2.08 -0.54 

East to University City 2.51 2.38 -0.13 

Source: SANDAG, 2014v 

Note: UCSD = University of California, San Diego 

individuals who could complete a trip by either automobile or transit, may decide to ride 

transit if it becomes more competitive with automobile travel time. Despite 

implementation of the planned roadway and transit improvements identified in the 2030 

RTP, highway speeds will be slower as regional population, employment, and 

congestion grow by 2030. As highway speeds become slower, transit projects that 

increase transit speeds will make transit a more attractive alternative to travel by 

automobile. 

Travel times between three of the major travel markets identified in Chapter 1.0—Golden 

Triangle to Centre City (Downtown San Diego), South San Diego to UCSD, and Mission 

Valley to UCSD—are presented in Table 7-1. As described in Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, 

a substantial number of trips currently occur between areas of San Diego south and east 

of the OTTC and the University City and UCSD area. Furthermore, the number of trips 

between these areas would increase by 2030. Connecting these areas with reliable, 

efficient transit service is one of the purposes of the project. 

The Refined Build Alternative offers much faster transit travel time than the No-Build 

Alternative for the three major travel markets described above, with peak-period time 

savings ranging from 3.6 to 16.7 minutes per trip. These travel times include time spent 

on transit in addition to the initial wait time, walk time to reach a transfer, and any wait 

time for that transfer. As shown by the improvement in transit travel times and speed, 

the Refined Build Alternative achieves the project objective of increasing speed. 

Chapter 3.0 provides additional information on the project’s travel-time benefits. 

Under the Refined Build Alternative, the faster transit travel times and increased transit 

speeds result in transportation system user benefits, measured in terms of equivalent 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-4 September 2014 

hours of travel-time savings. Transportation system user benefits capture a diverse set 

of benefits to transit riders—including reductions in walk times, wait times, ride times, 

transfer time, and costs (converted to time)—expressed in terms of savings in travel 

time. There would be approximately 11,500 hours per day of user benefits under the 

Refined Build Alternative. 

User benefit thematic maps are included in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report (SANDAG, 2014v). These maps show 

that travelers starting their trips in the Mid-Coast Corridor would gain the greatest 

benefit. Travelers starting their trips in the Marina–Ballpark (District 29), Mission Valley 

(District 7), and South Bay (District 11) travel analysis districts and areas along the U.S.–

Mexico international border would also benefit, indicating that user benefits of the project 

would be widespread (refer to Figure 1-2 for a map of travel analysis districts). 

7.1.1.2 Transit Ridership 

The extent to which a transit project can attract more ridership is a direct reflection of its 

benefits to potential riders, including changes in travel time, transfers, and reliability, 

among other factors. Linked transit trips in 2030 under the Refined Build Alternative 

would increase by 13,400 trips per day (4 percent) over the No-Build Alternative. Linked 

trips are a trip from origin to destination regardless of the number of transfers needed to 

complete the trip. This increase in transit ridership under the Refined Build Alternative 

reflects the improvement in mobility and accessibility provided by extending the Trolley 

Blue Line and providing continuous service from the San Ysidro Transit Center at the 

U.S.–Mexico international border to University City. These are trips that would not be 

made by automobile on congested roadways. 

The Refined Build Alternative would increase systemwide ridership on the Trolley by 

28,600 boardings per day compared to the No-Build Alternative, from 152,200 to 

180,800 (19 percent). Some of these riders would be new to transit. Others would be 

riders who would use buses under the No-Build Alternative but would benefit from a 

faster and more reliable trip on the Trolley with the project. The increase in transit 

ridership under the Refined Build Alternative is an indication of the effectiveness in 

making transit an attractive alternative to the automobile. 

7.1.1.3 Number of Transfers 

Some transit passengers are able to take one bus route from their starting point to their 

end point without the need to board another vehicle. However, for other passengers, a 

transfer may be required. A transfer can be from one bus to another, or between bus and 

rail (for instance, taking a bus to reach a Trolley station and then taking the Trolley to 

complete the trip). The number of transfers needed to complete a trip is another way to 

measure mobility benefits. Transfers add travel time and uncertainty to the trip, especially 

if transit services at the transfer point are not coordinated and wait times are long. 

Table 7-1 lists the number of transfers required to complete a transit trip between three 

of the major travel markets identified in Chapter 1.0: University City to Centre City 

(including Downtown San Diego), South San Diego to UCSD, and East San Diego 

(including Mission Valley) to UCSD. The table presents transfer rates; a transfer rate of 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-5 

2.62 means that, on average, for every transit trip from the south to University City 1.62 

transfers per trip are required. As shown, the Refined Build Alternative would reduce the 

number of transfers required to complete these trips. Consequently, the Refined Build 

Alternative achieves the project objective of reducing transfers for these major travel 

markets. 

Transfers still would be required for passengers traveling between University City and 

areas east of downtown; however, these transfers would be easier under the Refined 

Build Alternative. With the extension of the Trolley Blue Line from Santa Fe Depot to 

the UTC Transit Center under the Refined Build Alternative, passengers who would 

take the Trolley Green Line and then transfer to bus Route 150 under the No-Build 

Alternative would instead use the Trolley Blue Line. The Refined Build Alternative 

would provide faster service than a bus and thus would reduce travel time, even with any 

required transfers. Additionally, 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 NoBuild Alternative. Further, the Refined Build Alternative would reduce transfer wait 

times, especially during the midday off-peak period, since it would operate with 7.5-

minute headways from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Because of the improved convenience of 

transferring and shorter frequencies, transfers under the Refined Build Alternative would 

be more convenient than under the No-Build Alternative, thus benefitting passengers. 

7.1.2 Efficiency 

The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) uses “passengers per in-service hour” as a 

measure of transit’s efficiency. It is a measure of the number of boardings on the route 

divided by the hours that the route is available to transport passengers. The 

Coordinated Plan 2010-2014 (SANDAG, 2010c) established a guideline of 35 revenue 

passenger boardings per service hour. If a route does not meet the guideline, then it 

may be providing service for more hours than is needed to serve the ridership demand. 

In these cases, the transit agency may adjust service by reducing service during offpeak periods or reducing the service span to serve demand more efficiently. 

Although the Refined Build Alternative would lead to substantially higher Trolley Blue 

Line ridership than under the No-Build Alternative, the Trolley Blue Line in-service hours 

would grow more rapidly than ridership. As a result, the Trolley Blue Line under the 

Refined Build Alternative would serve approximately 370 passengers per in-service 

hour, making it somewhat less efficient than under the No-Build Alternative 

(approximately 430 passengers per in-service hour). This would represent a 12-percent 

decrease in efficiency. Nonetheless, the Trolley Blue Line would be substantially more 

efficient than existing conditions (280 passengers per in-service hour) and would far 

exceed the guidelines established by the Coordinated Plan 2010-2014. 

7.1.3 Reliability 

Improved reliability is a third goal of SANDAG’s 2030 RTP. Transit system reliability 

generally is measured in terms of on-time performance (i.e., whether the bus or Trolley 

departs a stop less than zero seconds early and no more than five minutes past the 

scheduled time). Roadway congestion has a direct impact on the reliability of transit 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-6 September 2014 

services, particularly buses. In comparison, the Trolley operates in an exclusive right-ofway with a few grade crossings in Downtown San Diego and is not hindered by 

fluctuations in traffic. As a result, under existing conditions, the Trolley Blue Line has 

93 percent on-time reliability throughout the day, whereas Express Bus Route 150, 

operating between Downtown San Diego and the UTC Transit Center, has 86 percent 

reliability during the p.m. peak period when roadways are more congested. 

By 2030, a 54-percent increase in vehicle hours of delay is projected, representing 

increased congestion on corridor roadways. As highway congestion increases, the 

reliability of buses operating in mixed traffic is expected to decline. The exceptions 

include bus routes operating in I-5 HOV lanes; however, buses still would need to travel 

on arterials and local roadways to reach these lanes, which would affect reliability. 

The 10.9-mile extension of the Trolley Blue Line under the Refined Build Alternative 

would be operated in exclusive right-of-way completely separate from roadway 

congestion, thus offering much greater reliability for transit riders. As identified in 

Section 3.4.1.2, passenger miles in exclusive right-of-way on the Trolley system would 

increase 27 percent compared to the No-Build Alternative. Because the Trolley operates 

primarily in exclusive right-of-way, the Trolley Blue, Green, and Orange Lines are 

currently able to maintain higher on-time performance, and similar performance would 

be expected under the Refined Build Alternative. Passenger miles on buses operating in 

HOV lanes would decrease under the Refined Build Alternative, partly because Route 

150 would be eliminated and some bus passengers would switch to the Trolley. The 

Refined Build Alternative achieves the project objective of increasing transit reliability in 

the corridor. 

7.2 Effectiveness in Supporting Other Local Goals 

The 2030 RTP established goals not only for mobility, accessibility, efficiency, and 

reliability, but also for livability, sustainability, and equity. While these goals do not 

directly contribute to the purpose and need for a transit investment in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor, the project does support these other goals, as described in this section. 

7.2.1 Livability 

The livability goal seeks to focus transit improvements in areas with compatible land 

uses that support an efficient transit system, and to foster smart-growth land uses. As 

stated in Section 4.1.3, the continuation and enhancement of bus Route 150 under the 

No-Build Alternative would be inconsistent with local goals and policies, which aim to 

increase the intensity of development along transit corridors, enhance regional 

connectivity, and minimize environmental impacts. 

The Refined Build Alternative would connect the region’s two largest population and 

employment centers—Downtown San Diego in the southern area and University City in 

the northern area of the corridor—thus supporting this goal. Since the mid-1980s, 

communities in the corridor have been identifying the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

in their plans. Additionally, SANDAG has designated Smart Growth Opportunity Areas, 

and the City of San Diego has developed the “City of Villages” strategy of integrating 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-7 

land use and transit to address potential growth. All nine of the proposed stations under 

the Refined Build Alternative are located in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. 

When evaluating proposed projects for New Starts funding, in accordance with federal 

law and regulations, land use and economic development are two of the criteria that the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses to establish a project justification rating. The 

other project justification criteria are mobility improvements, cost effectiveness, 

environmental benefits, and congestion relief. The land use and economic development 

criteria take into account both existing land use and adopted plans and policies to help 

shape development and foster more transit-oriented patterns. In 2011, FTA gave the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project a “medium” rating for land use and a “medium-high” 

rating for economic development. In its economic development rating, FTA cited the 

city’s Smart Growth Concept Map that identifies Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in 

which all of the proposed stations would be located. It also cited the additional city plans 

and policies, including: (1) the City of San Diego General Plan (City of San Diego, 

2008a), which focuses new development and redevelopment in existing communities, 

(2) the City of San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan (City of San Diego, 2006b), and (3) the

San Diego Street Design Manual (City of San Diego, 2002b). 

7.2.2 Sustainability 

This section discusses how the Refined Build Alternative supports the 2030 RTP’s 

sustainability goal, which seeks to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. Table 7-2 highlights key findings from the results of the air quality 

analysis presented in Sections 4.5 and 4.6. 

Table 7-2. Effectiveness of Alternatives—Sustainability Benefits

Measures 

Existing 

Conditions

No-Build 

Alternative

Refined Build 

Alternative 

Roadway vehicle miles traveled within corridor 

(million miles per day)* 

10.693 12.472 12.407 

Greenhouse gas emissions within region 

(metric tons of carbon dioxide per day) 

37,439 46,243 45,963 

Source: SANDAG, 2014q 

Note: * Includes on-road vehicle miles traveled, including bus transit 

As shown in Table 7-2, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would increase 17 percent between 

2010 and 2030 under the No-Build Alternative. Emissions of air pollutants and GHG 

increase as VMT increases. Consequently, as stated in Section 4.5.3, emission levels 

for several air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would increase 

between 2010 and 2030. Similarly, emissions of GHG would increase. 

The Refined Build Alternative would help reduce VMT, resulting in a decrease in air 

pollutants and GHG compared to the No-Build Alternative. The FTA’s project 

justification criterion for environmental benefits, which is based on changes in VMT, will 

be addressed when SANDAG seeks approval to advance the project into the 

Engineering phase following the Record of Decision. 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-8 September 2014 

7.2.3 Equity 

The 2030 RTP equity goal establishes that SANDAG will provide equitable levels of 

transportation services for all population segments, including low-income, minority, 

elderly, and persons with disabilities. Environmental justice (EJ) populations are 

communities with a higher proportion of minority and/or low-income populations 

compared to the surrounding community. The expanded bus service that would be 

provided under the No-Build Alternative may not offer faster or more convenient access 

to jobs and services in the corridor to the same extent as the Refined Build Alternative. 

As noted in Section 4.20, five of the nine identified EJ populations are located within 

one-half mile of the project alignment and thus would be well served by the Refined 

Build Alternative. Benefits of the Refined Build Alternative to transit users include 

increased transit options, improved mobility, proximity to transit stations, and access to 

employment and activity centers. The project would be fully compliant with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, thus ensuring equitable service to persons with 

disabilities. Transit performance would improve within the Mid-Coast Corridor, and all 

population segments would share in these benefits. 

Table 7-3 compares the transportation system user benefits for low-income groups with 

those benefits for all income groups combined. More than 60 percent of the Refined 

Build Alternative’s user benefits (7,066 out of 11,473 hours) would accrue to low-income 

groups. These benefits would accrue to low-income groups inside the Mid-Coast 

Corridor and those outside the corridor who have a travel destination within the corridor. 

Table 7-3. Benefits to Low-Income Persons in 2030 

Low Income

All Income Groups 

Combined 

Transportation System User Benefits (hours per day) 7,066 11,473 

Source: Series 11 model 

As described in Section 4.20, the Refined Build Alternative would not result in substantial 

and disproportionately high and adverse effects to EJ populations. In addition, the 

Veterans Administration Medical Center Station would provide convenient access for 

veterans, disabled and otherwise, seeking medical treatment. 

7.3 Cost-Effectiveness 

The cost-effectiveness analysis considers whether the project’s benefits would justify its 

capital and operating costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis offers another perspective for 

evaluating the Refined Build Alternative and is one of the criteria that FTA uses to 

evaluate the justification for projects proposed for Section 5309 New Starts funding. 

Cost-effectiveness has been evaluated using the measure that FTA required at the time 

that the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was approved into Preliminary Engineering in 

2011. That measure was the ratio of the project’s incremental annual cost (both capital 

and operating) divided by the project’s incremental annual benefits in terms of the hours 

of user benefit in 2030. Both costs and user benefits were calculated in relation to a 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-9 

New Starts baseline, which represented the best that could be done to improve transit 

service without building a new fixed guideway. The resulting ratio was compared with 

the cost-effectiveness breakpoints that FTA established for rating projects on a five-level 

scale, from high to low. Using this measure, FTA gave the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project a “medium” rating for cost effectiveness in 2011. 

More recently, in accordance with MAP-21, FTA revised its cost-effectiveness measure 

and breakpoints. In the future, a project’s cost-effectiveness will be rated in terms of the 

annual cost (both capital and operating) per project trip. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project will be rated using this new measure when SANDAG seeks approval to advance 

the project into the Engineering phase. 

7.4 Feasibility 

This section addresses two feasibility measures—financial feasibility and 

constructability—highlighting significant factors covered in Chapters 4.0 and 6.0. 

Based on the assumptions underlying the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Financial 

Plan (SANDAG, 2014y), as summarized in Chapter 6.0, the Refined Build Alternative is 

considered to be financially feasible. The financial plan expects that the Refined Build 

Alternative would be funded through a combination of available TransNet funds and FTA 

New Starts funds (Table 7-4). 

Table 7-4. Financial Feasibility 

Measures 

No-Build 

Alternative

Refined Build 

Alternative 

Capital cost (million 2013 $)1 Base $1,489

Capital cost (million YOE $)2 Base $2,112

TransNet funding (million YOE $)3 $0 $1,069 

New Starts funding (million YOE $) $0 $1,043

Source: SANDAG, 2014y 

Notes: YOE $ = year-of-expenditure dollars 

 1 Does not include financing costs 

2 Includes financing costs 3 Includes both bond proceeds and capital revenues 

Chapter 6.0 explains that TransNet funding is in place, but New Starts funding is not 

ensured. To receive New Starts funding, the project must complete the National 

Environmental Policy Act process—of which this document is a part—and the FTA New 

Starts process with at least a “medium” rating for both project justification and local 

financial commitment based in FTA’s latest criteria. When FTA approved the project’s 

entry into Preliminary Engineering on September 2, 2011, the project received an overall 

rating of “medium-high.” In addition, New Starts funding is dependent upon future 

congressional actions to authorize the program when MAP-21 expires in September 

2014 and to provide annual appropriations. 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-10 September 2014 

SANDAG intends to request federal funds in an amount equal to 49.4 percent of the total 

capital cost (including finance charges). As shown in Table 6-3, SANDAG has the ability 

to fund the capital cost of the project within the proposed federal and local revenue 

sources. 

The financial plan also demonstrates that SANDAG and MTS have sufficient financial 

capacity to operate and maintain the project while operating and maintaining the existing 

system in a state of good repair. 

In terms of constructability, the engineering performed to date has not revealed 

construction issues that cannot be managed. The cost estimate reflects current 

understanding about the complexity of construction, and the capital cost estimate 

includes contingencies for unknown conditions that may arise as design progresses. 

7.5 Environmental and Other Considerations 

While the Refined Build Alternative would provide mobility and accessibility, livability, 

and sustainability benefits, as discussed in the previous sections, the project would 

result in transportation and environmental impacts, which are discussed in Chapters 3.0 

and 4.0, respectively. This section summarizes the major impacts, specifically traffic, 

visual, biological, and construction. 

7.5.1 Traffic Impacts 

As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the Refined Build Alternative would adversely affect 

roadway performance. Adverse impacts would occur at 15 intersections (13 

intersections south of the San Diego River and 2 intersections north of the river) as a 

result of the increased frequency of trains traveling through grade crossings in the south 

or additional traffic accessing proposed stations and park-and-ride facilities in the north. 

The adverse impacts would be fully mitigated at all but two intersections through 

implementation of geometric (e.g., the addition of turning lanes) and operational (e.g., 

changes to traffic signal phasing or timing) modifications. 

Adverse and unavoidable impacts would occur for one roadway segment and two 

intersections. The level of service on Balboa Avenue from the I-5 southbound on-ramp 

to the I-5 northbound off-ramp would deteriorate under the Refined Build Alternative 

because of traffic accessing the Balboa Avenue Station and park-and-ride facility. 

Traffic to the proposed Balboa Avenue Station also would increase delay at the 

intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue during p.m. peak hours, exceeding 

guidance established by the City of San Diego. Mitigation measures for these adverse 

impacts were considered. Mitigating the impact to the segment of Balboa Avenue would 

require reconstruction of the I-5 and railroad bridges and thus was deemed infeasible. 

Mitigating the impact at Mission Bay Drive and Garnet Avenue would require right-ofway acquisition and utility relocations. This intersection operates at level of service 

(LOS) E today and would continue to operate at LOS E under the Refined Build 

Alternative, but with greater delay. The mitigation measures identified for this 

intersection would decrease delay but the intersection would continue to operate at LOS 

E. Therefore, the benefits of mitigating this intersection would not outweigh the 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-11 

secondary impacts, and the Refined Build Alternative impact at this location would 

remain adverse and not mitigated. 

An adverse and unmitigated impact was also identified at the stop-controlled intersection 

of Beech Street and Pacific Highway, located south of the San Diego River. During the 

a.m. peak hour, the intersection would operate at LOS E with a delay 0.6 second greater 

than that experienced under the No-Build Alternative. A traffic signal was examined as 

mitigation; however, the intersection is within close proximity of two other signalized 

intersections and adding a traffic signal at this location would reduce vehicular storage 

capacity in the area and increase delay along Pacific Highway. Therefore, the impact at 

Beech Street and Pacific Highway remains adverse and not mitigated. 

7.5.2 Visual Impacts 

The Refined Build Alternative would have adverse visual impacts, as described in 

Section 4.4. The adverse impacts would be fully mitigated through implementation of 

design and landscaping mitigation measures. At UCSD, project features consist of new 

rail lines, ballast, retaining walls, grading, catenary lines, and poles. These project 

elements would add to the visual landscape. The removal of some mature trees and 

vegetation may be required within Pepper Canyon. However, project features would not 

contrast substantially with the surrounding visual quality or character. The project would 

have a low-to-moderate visual impact on the visual resources at UCSD. 

The elevated structure would introduce a new visual element that would affect the 

physical and visual character of the adjacent Matthews Apartments, resulting in a 

localized adverse impact to the Matthews Apartments. This aerial structure would 

obstruct west-facing views, but these views are not of the coast or of public view 

corridors, and thus the impact is not adverse. 

The UTC and University City area contains architecture and mature landscaping with 

distinct visual character. The Refined Build Alternative includes an overhead structure 

with columns in the center of the Genesee Avenue median and with two straddle bents 

on Genesee Avenue. One straddle bent would be located west of Regents Road where 

the alignment would enter Genesee Avenue and the second one would be located at the 

intersection of Executive Square and Genesee Avenue to support the tracks and the 

station platform. The Refined Build Alternative would have a moderate adverse impact 

on this area; however, the impact would be mitigated. 

Various mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize visual impacts. These 

measures include the replacement of trees and implementation of design treatments so 

project features blend with their surroundings. 

7.5.3 Biological Resources 

As described in Section 4.8, the Refined Build Alternative would result in the long-term 

loss of jurisdictional aquatic resources (refer to Section 4.8.1.2 for a definition of this 

term). Long-term direct impacts to wetlands and non-wetland waters under U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction total 

0.37 acre (or 3.01 acres including construction and shading impacts). Long-term direct 

impacts to streambed and riparian areas under the California Department of Fish and 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-12 September 2014 

Wildlife and the City of San Diego jurisdiction total 0.87 acre (or 4.95 acres including 

construction and shading impacts). Long-term direct impacts would occur to coastal 

wetlands under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, totaling 0.23 acre (0.88 

acre including construction and shading impacts). The project would avoid and minimize 

impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters to the extent practicable. As long-term 

impacts to areas under USACE jurisdiction do not exceed 0.5 acre within any of the 

affected watersheds, it is anticipated that the project would be authorized under Section 

404 through the Nationwide Permit program. Although the Nationwide Permits 

appropriate for the activities associated with the proposed project would be determined 

by the USACE as part of the permitting process, potentially applicable Nationwide 

Permits include Nationwide Permit 3 (Maintenance), Nationwide Permit 12 (Utility Line 

Activities), Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation), and Nationwide Permit 33 

(Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering). 

The Refined Build Alternative would result in the long-term loss of 8.29 acres of riparian, 

Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland (wetlands and Tiers II–III) that 

provide foraging and/or nesting habitat for special-status wildlife species. Specifically, 

implementation of the project would result in direct impacts to an ephemeral basin 

containing San Diego fairy shrimp, and would also impact suitable habitat for coastal 

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii 

pusillus), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). The project 

would also impact suitable foraging habitat for light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris 

levipes). Direct impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp triggered formal Section 7 

consultation with the USFWS, which was initiated on June 12, 2014. On September 5, 

2014, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion concurring with the FTA’s determination 

that the project is not likely to adversely affect coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s 

vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or light-footed clapper rail, or critical habitat for 

these species. While the project would directly affect San Diego fairy shrimp, the 

Biological Opinion concludes that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the San Diego fairy shrimp, and included authorization for incidental take of 

San Diego fairy shrimp. Affected areas would be limited to locations within or 

immediately adjacent to the existing MTS right-of-way where comparatively large areas 

of native habitats remain available. In addition, vegetation community impacts would be 

mitigated through the SANDAG TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program using one 

or more of the ratios shown in Chapter 4.0, Table 4-19, Table 4-20, and Table 4-21 of 

this SEIS/SEIR. Mitigation for impacts to Tier II and Tier IIIB vegetation communities 

within and outside of the Multi-Habitat Planning Area is shown in Table 4-20 and Table 

4-21. As a result, adverse impacts to special-status wildlife species through the reduction 

of foraging and/or nesting habitat would be negligible. 

About 92 percent of the existing wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation communities would 

remain after implementation of the Refined Build Alternative, and direct impacts to 

wetlands and Tier II–III vegetation would be mitigated, as described in Section 4.8.4. 

7.5.4 Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts are described in Section 4.17. Despite the project’s scope and 

length, the construction impacts of the Refined Build Alternative on the built and natural 

environment are limited. The land use encroachments for construction are temporary, 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7-13 

and the contractor would return these sites to their original condition when the 

construction phase ends. Additionally, the project has been designed to minimize the 

number of temporary encroachments needed during construction. Commercial signage 

and business visibility could be affected during construction; however, the contractor 

would be required to install temporary signage and signage to direct vehicles to parking 

and/or access. Therefore, adverse impacts to businesses would not be anticipated. 

Some construction activities would occur during nighttime hours, which could result in 

adverse impacts to residences, particularly along Charmant Drive and Genesee Avenue and 

in the northeast corner of Cape La Jolla Gardens housing complex adjacent to I-5. Noisereducing curtains, noise masking machines, or temporary lodging in an approved hotel 

would be offered to residents when excessive nighttime construction noise is expected. 

Impacts to wetlands and waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California 

Coastal Commission, and the City of San Diego would be mitigated as specified in 

Section 4.17.3.2; additional measures may be required during the permitting processes. 

With the mitigation identified in Section 4.17.3.2, no adverse impacts would occur. 

Air quality impacts during construction would be adverse. Emissions from construction 

equipment and from hauling and worker trips all would result in air pollutant emissions. 

Adverse and unavoidable impacts would remain even after implementation of project 

measures, resulting in exceedance of thresholds for nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. 

Section 3.4.7 summarizes construction impacts on the transportation system. 

Construction of the project would affect Trolley and bus travel times, roadway traffic, and 

off-street parking supply. Project features and mitigation would be implemented to 

reduce impacts and would consist of detours and the provision of off-street parking in 

other locations, as available; however, some adverse and unavoidable impacts would 

remain. 

7.6 Summary of Important Trade-offs 

A decision to invest in the Refined Build Alternative reflects an assessment that the 

project’s benefits justify its costs and impacts. Through more than 20 years of local 

planning, SANDAG and other local agencies have evaluated the project and concluded 

that the project has merit. The SANDAG Board of Directors reconfirmed the Locally 

Preferred Alternative in 2010 and approved the Refined Build Alternative in November 

20132

. In addition, the project is a priority under the TransNet sales tax program 

adopted by San Diego County voters. By approving the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project into the New Starts program in 2011, FTA concluded that the project met its New 

Starts criteria for project justification and was likely to be a good candidate for funding. 

 

2

 The SANDAG Board of Directors subsequently amended the Refined Build Alternative on May 9, 2014. 
Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

7-14 September 2014 

7.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative 

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that an 

environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives considered. 

The environmentally superior alternative is generally defined as the alternative that 

would result in the least adverse environmental impacts to the project site and 

surrounding area. If the No-Build Alternative is found to be the environmentally superior 

alternative, the document must identify an environmentally superior alternative among 

the build alternatives. The analysis in this document has found the Refined Build 

Alternative to be environmentally superior to the No-Build Alternative. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-1 

8.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH, AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

This chapter describes how the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Diego 

Association of Governments (SANDAG) have engaged agencies and the public in the 

advancement of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project and preparation of this Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report (SEIS/SEIR). While outreach began in 1990 with the original Notice of Intent 

(NOI) and Notice of Preparation (NOP), this chapter covers the consultation and 

coordination that occurred leading into California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

scoping through the publication of this Final SEIS/SEIR and Record of Decision. 

Previous agency and public outreach is described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives 

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report 

(Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB], 1995a); the Final Environmental 

Impact Report for the Mid-Coast Corridor (MTDB, 1995b); and the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Project Balboa Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (MTDB, 2001). 

The project’s public outreach and involvement activities communicate project information 

while providing opportunities for input during the decision-making process and ensuring 

public awareness of opportunities to review and comment on the environmental 

document. Project outreach has included coordination with the public, as well as 

stakeholders and government and resource agencies. 

This chapter has been revised to present the additional coordination that has occurred 

since completion of the Draft SEIS/SEIR (refer to Section 8.8). The Draft SEIS/SEIR 

was circulated for a 60-day review and comment period from May 17 through July 17, 

2013. Comments received during this period are summarized in Section 8.6 and in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final Refined Build Alternative Report (SANDAG, 

2014dd). This chapter has also been revised to summarize comments received on the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Supplement to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Supplement) (SANDAG, 

2014ee), which was circulated for a 45-day review and comment period from July 18 

through September 2, 2014. Comments received during this period are summarized in 

Section 8.7. All comments received during the review and comment periods for the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR and the Supplement and responses to those comments are provided in the 

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Final SEIS/SEIR Volume 3: Comments and 

Responses. 

8.1 Regulatory Context 

The public outreach program described in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Public 

Involvement Plan (SANDAG, 2010g), was developed in compliance with the 

requirements of federal and state statutes addressing public involvement for 

transportation projects, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CEQA, 

and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 United States Code 2000d et seq.). Additionally, 

the program complies with government outreach policies and guidelines, including the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/FTA Interim Policy on Public Involvement 

(1995), Presidential Executive Order 12898 of 1994, and the City of San Diego Land 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-2 September 2014 

Development Code, Chapter 12, Article 8. To meet the requirements of NEPA, CEQA, 

and Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), SANDAG has prepared and followed the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Agency Coordination Plan (SANDAG, 2011d). Per Section 

139(g)(1) of SAFETEA-LU, the agency coordination requirements apply to all U.S. 

Department of Transportation Environmental Impact Statement documents for which the 

NOI was published in the Federal Register after August 10, 2005. Although the original 

NOI was published in 1990, a second NOI for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project was 

published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2011, and is included in Appendix B of this 

Final SEIS/SEIR. 

8.2 Public and Agency Outreach Prior to Scoping 

Prior to formal scoping for the Draft SEIS/SEIR, SANDAG prepared the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Public Involvement Plan (SANDAG, 2010g) to guide outreach 

efforts through the project development process. This plan was updated in 2011 prior to 

the public comment period for the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The plan identified stakeholder 

groups affected by and interested in the project, highlighted key project communication 

information, and outlined strategies and tactics to foster broad public involvement. In 

addition, these efforts included preparation and regular updating of a project stakeholder 

database. 

During the phase prior to formal scoping of the project, SANDAG undertook an analysis 

of changed conditions in the Mid-Coast Corridor and re-evaluated transit alternatives for 

the project based on changed conditions since the original environmental documentation 

for the project was completed. Public and agency outreach efforts were conducted in 

support of this effort in the period extending from November 2008 through spring of 

2010. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives 

Report (SANDAG, 2010e) describes in detail the public and agency outreach conducted 

in this phase of the project prior to CEQA scoping, and these efforts are briefly 

summarized below. The purpose of early outreach efforts during this study period was 

both to inform and obtain input from the public and agencies about the project, its status, 

and the upcoming CEQA scoping. 

8.2.1 Overview of Outreach Activities 

SANDAG reached out to the following stakeholders during the pre-scoping phase: 

 San Diego Mayor and City Council members 

 Affected agencies (City of San Diego, California Department of Transportation 

[Caltrans], and the University of California, San Diego [UCSD]) 

 Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee 

 Community planning groups in the Mid-Coast Corridor 

 Property owners 

 Employers 

 The accessibility community 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-3 

 Minority groups 

 Environmental organizations 

 Transportation advocates 

 Business groups 

As part of stakeholder outreach and involvement activities, SANDAG also: 

 Conducted stakeholder briefings 

 Participated in community events 

 Presented to interested organizations, including community and civic groups, 

employers in the corridor, minority and accessibility organizations, and environmental 

organizations 

 Attended and provided status reports to interested stakeholders and community 

organizations 

 Produced regular project e-newsletters starting in October 2009 

 Produced and distributed the project fact sheet 

 Maintained and promoted the project Web site (http://www.sandag.org/midcoast) 

From initiating the public involvement program in November 2008 to the beginning of the 

CEQA scoping period in May 2010, SANDAG conducted key government agency and 

staff outreach activities, including, but not limited to, the following: 

 Regular updates to the SANDAG Transportation Committee and the SANDAG Board 

of Directors 

 Presentations to the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee 

 Briefings to elected officials and their staff 

8.2.2 Project Working Group 

SANDAG formed the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Working Group (Project 

Working Group) to provide input on the following: 

 The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Public Involvement Plan (SANDAG, 2010g) 

 The project purpose and need statement 

 The alternatives to be considered for analysis 

 The Draft SEIS/SEIR 

 This Final SEIS/SEIR 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-4 September 2014 

San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts serves as chair of the Project Working 

Group, and members include representatives from community planning groups, 

environmental organizations, employers, students, accessibility advocates, and others 

(Table 8-1). The Project Working Group held seven meetings prior to CEQA scoping. 

Table 8-1. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Working Group 

CHAIRMAN 

Ron Roberts, Supervisor 

County of San Diego 

VICE CHAIRMAN 

Bob Emery 

Retired Metropolitan Transit System Board 

Member and Poway City Council Member 

MEMBERS

Daniel Allen 

La Jolla resident 

Rob Hutsel 

San Diego River Park Foundation 

Anette Blatt 

Scripps Health 

Janay Kruger 

University Community Planning Group 

Joe LaCava 

La Jolla Community Planning Group 

John Alderson 

Westfield LLC 

Vacant 

SANDAG Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee 

Evan McLaughlin 

La Jolla resident 

Brian Gregory, Asst. Vice Chancellor 

UCSD 

Vacant 

San Diego Convention Center 

Debra Gutzmer 

CBRE, Inc. 

Barbara Obrzut 

La Jolla resident 

Chanelle Hawken 

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce 

Jeff Barfield 

Clairemont Community Planning Group 

Ann Van Leer 

Land Conservation Brokerage, Inc. 

David Potter 

Clairemont resident 

Mark Marcus 

La Jolla Country Day School 

Ian Foster 

Clairemont resident 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Notes: Since the formation of the Project Working Group, some original members have stepped down from 

participating on the committee. Replacement members have been found. This list is current as of 

September 2014. 

 SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; UCSD = University of California, San Diego 

8.3 Scoping 

During April 2010 and July 2011, SANDAG conducted CEQA and NEPA scoping. This 

section describes the scoping activities and summarizes the comments received during 

each scoping period. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project California Environmental 

Quality Act Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f) and the Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project National Environmental Policy Act Scoping Report (SANDAG, 2011b) 

provide additional information on the respective scoping processes. 

8.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Scoping 

This section describes the scoping notice process, scoping meetings, and key public and 

agency comments received during CEQA scoping. The purpose of CEQA scoping was 

to initiate early consultation with Trustee and Responsible Agencies, public agencies 

that have jurisdiction by law, and the public, regarding scope and content, including the 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-5 

range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects that were 

analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

8.3.1.1 Scoping Notices 

On April 28, 2010, SANDAG issued a NOP for a SEIR (see Appendix B). NOP 

packages were mailed to 120 organizations, including 22 federal agencies, 17 Native 

American tribes, 41 state agencies, 11 regional agencies, and 29 local agencies. In 

addition, the NOP was posted by the State Clearinghouse on April 28, 2010, and the 

San Diego County Office of the County Clerk on May 5, 2010. 

Table 8-2 lists the newspapers used to publish the NOP notices, which provided 

information on the five scoping meetings and how to submit written comments. Table 

8-3 lists the 20 libraries in which SANDAG posted meeting notices. 

Table 8-2. Publications Used for Public Notices 

Publication Circulation Publication Circulation

Asian Journal 35,000 San Diego Downtown News 18,500 

Beach & Bay Press 18,500 San Diego Union-Tribune 317,855 

Clairemont Community News 23,000 Star News 33,500 

El Latino 80,500 UCSD Guardian 11,000 

La Jolla Village News 18,500 Voice & Viewpoint 25,000 

North County Times 85,790 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

Table 8-3. Public Libraries Receiving Public Notices 

Balboa Branch Library Mission Valley Branch Library San Diego County Public Law Library 

City of San Diego Central Library North Clairemont Branch Library Serra Mesa-Kearny Mesa Branch 

Library 

Clairemont Branch Library North Park Branch Library University Community Branch Library 

Kensington-Normal Heights Branch 

Library 

North University Community 

Branch Library 

University Heights Branch Library 

La Jolla/Riford Branch Library Ocean Beach Branch Library UCSD Geisel Library 

Linda Vista Branch Library Pacific Beach/Taylor Branch 

Library 

University of San Diego Copley Library

Mission Hills Branch Library Point Loma/Hervey Branch Library 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

 UCSD = University of California, San Diego 

SANDAG also sent direct mail postcards announcing the scoping meetings to 24,959 

residents and businesses located within one-half mile of the project alignments being 

considered. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-6 September 2014 

8.3.1.2 Scoping Meetings 

Subsequent to the notices, SANDAG hosted five public scoping meetings in buildings 

that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and served by public transit 

(Table 8-4). SANDAG used an open-house format with display board stations featuring 

various topics. SANDAG staff and members of the technical team knowledgeable in each 

topic area were present at these stations. The stations addressed the following topics: 

 Project and process overview 

 Draft comparative evaluation of alternatives 

 Alternatives for scoping 

 Public involvement 

 Comments 

Table 8-4. CEQA Public Scoping Meetings 

Meeting Time/Date Community Location Target Audience 

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 

4–7 p.m. 

Downtown San Diego (SANDAG) Agencies and 

General Public 

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 

3–6 p.m. 

University of California, San Diego General Public 

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 

4–7 p.m. 

Clairemont General Public 

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 

4–7 p.m. 

University Community General Public 

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 

4–7 p.m. 

Old Town General Public 

Source: SANDAG, 2012 

SANDAG made bilingual English/Spanish materials available at all scoping meetings, 

along with a Spanish interpreter who helped Spanish-speaking participants understand 

project information and submit comments. 

8.3.1.3 Summary of California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Comments 

The 30-day comment period began on May 3, 2010, and closed on June 1, 2010. 

SANDAG continued accepting comments for one week after the comment period closed 

to account for any comments that were sent via U.S. mail. Sixty-eight individuals 

provided verbal and written comments during the five public scoping meetings. 

SANDAG also accepted e-mail, letters, and telephone communications during the 

scoping period. Various groups, including agencies, community organizations, elected 

officials, and members of the general public, submitted comments. 

In all, SANDAG received 244 comment submissions that included more than 700 

individual comments. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project California Environmental 

Quality Act Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f) includes a summary of 

comments and copies of all agency, organization, and individual citizen comments. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-7 

SANDAG summarized the comments into the following major issues: 

 Project purpose and need 

 Evaluation of alternatives 

 Alternative alignments 

 Stations and station locations 

 Project cost and funding 

 Traffic analysis 

 Neighborhood concerns 

 Land use and development 

 Parklands 

 Environmental justice 

 Aesthetics 

 Air quality 

 Noise and vibration 

 Solid waste and hazardous materials 

 Ecosystems and wildlife 

 Water resources and flood control issues 

 Cultural resources 

Nine government agencies submitted comment letters during the CEQA scoping period: 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)1

 (a Trustee Agency), the San 

Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB), the California Department of 

Toxic Substances Control, Caltrans, the California Native American Heritage 

Commission (NAHC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), UCSD (a 

Trustee Agency), and the City of San Diego. The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f) 

includes copies of all agency letters received during CEQA scoping. 

8.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act Scoping 

This section describes scoping activities and coordination with cooperating and 

participating agencies during NEPA scoping. 

8.3.2.1 Scoping Activities 

On July 19, 2011, the FTA published a new NOI in the Federal Register to supplement 

the previous scoping period for the project’s environmental document. The purpose of 

this second NOI was to ensure awareness of the ongoing project planning and 

environmental review processes and to provide opportunities to comment on the project. 

Communications regarding the NEPA scoping notification included the following: 

 A report to the SANDAG Transportation Committee on July 15, 2011 

 NOI and NEPA scoping notices on the SANDAG “Notices” Web site 

(www.sandag.org/notices) 

 

1

 As of January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has changed its name to the 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is how it is referred to in this report for text describing 

actions subsequent to the name change. However, for publications and regulations published or issued 

before that date, as well as actions taken and meetings held before January 1, 2013, the CDFG name has 

been retained. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-8 September 2014 

 Letters of invitation to potential cooperating and participating federal, state, and local 

agencies pursuant to SAFETEA-LU agency coordination guidance 

 FTA letters to the region’s 17 Native American tribes inviting them to participate in 

the project planning and environmental review processes 

 E-mail notifications to members of the Project Working Group 

 E-newsletter to the project’s interested participants list (614 individuals) 

 Information on the NOI and NEPA scoping process, and instructions for submitting 

comments on the project Web site 

The NOI included a description of the relationship between NEPA scoping and the prior 

year’s CEQA scoping process. SANDAG indicated in the NOI and in all public outreach 

materials that comments previously submitted during the CEQA scoping process also 

would be considered as part of the NEPA scoping process. 

8.3.2.2 Coordination with Cooperating and Participating Agencies 

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Agency Coordination Plan (SANDAG, 2011d) 

identifies the federal, tribal, state, regional, and local agencies affected by, having 

jurisdiction over, or an interest in the project. The Coordination Plan also identifies 

Trustee and Responsible Agencies, and agencies that have jurisdiction by law. The FTA 

and SANDAG are the lead agencies for the environmental review. The potential 

cooperating agencies identified in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Agency 

Coordination Plan (SANDAG, 2011d) include FHWA/Caltrans and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE). The FTA and SANDAG also identified 46 federal, tribal, state, 

and local agencies as potential participating agencies, including Trustee and 

Responsible Agencies under CEQA. 

The Letters of Invitation to these potential cooperating and participating agencies 

described the project study area, the purpose of the project, and the project history. The 

agencies were asked to identify issues of concern, comment on the project alternatives, 

participate in upcoming coordination activities, and review and comment on project 

information, the alternatives considered, and anticipated impacts and mitigation. 

Eight potential cooperating or participating agencies responded to these letters: the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, FHWA, the Department of Homeland 

Security, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Caltrans, UCSD, City of San Diego, 

and North County Transit District (NCTD). Of the eight agencies, three submitted 

comments as part of the NEPA scoping process: the FHWA, Caltrans, and the 

American Council on Historic Preservation. The U.S. National Park Service and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency also submitted comments. None of the 

agencies identified as potential cooperating agencies accepted the role of cooperating 

agency; instead they elected to serve in the role of participating agency. No written 

response was received from the USACE; however, since then, the USACE has indicated 

that it will serve in the role of participating agency based on the level of permit required. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-9 

8.3.2.3 Summary of National Environmental Policy Act Scoping Comments 

The 30-day NEPA scoping period began on July 19, 2011, and closed on August 15, 

2011, with mailed comments being accepted after August 15, 2011, to account for any 

delays in U.S. mail. The public submitted a majority of the comments, in addition to four 

federal agencies and one state agency. In all, SANDAG and the FTA received 17 

comment submissions containing 51 individual comments. The Mid-Coast Corridor 

Transit Project National Environmental Policy Act Scoping Report (SANDAG, 2011b) 

includes a summary of comments and copies of all agency and public comments received 

during scoping and copies of all agency letters. 

The NEPA comments were similar to those received during CEQA scoping or involved 

issues previously identified for analysis in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. They include the 

following major issues: 

 Alternatives 

 Access to tracks by a private railroad and warehouse located along the alignment 

 Stations 

 Transit access at stations, including pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and transit 

connectivity 

 Economic impacts 

 Safety, particularly in regard to safe track crossings by pedestrians and bicyclists in 

University City, Clairemont, and Pacific Beach 

 Funding 

 Recreational facilities, particularly in regard to impacts to the Rose Creek Bicycle 

Path 

 Land use 

 Air quality 

 Noise 

 Water resources, particularly in regard to contour, alignment, and channelization 

changes to Rose Creek 

 Parklands, particularly in regard to compatibility of the project with the Rose Creek 

Watershed Opportunities Assessment and restoring degraded habitat and removing 

concrete impediments in Rose Creek 

Government agency comments included the following: 

 American Council on Historic Preservation—Encouraged early and ongoing 

consultation with appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Native American tribes, and other consulting 

parties 

 FHWA—Stated several concerns for highway system impacts 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-10 September 2014 

 Caltrans—Encouraged transit-oriented development around proposed stations; 

encouraged continued interagency coordination; noted that the High-Speed 

Passenger Train Bond (Proposition 1A) includes funding for the Trolley Blue Line 

projects; and wanted the environmental document to be adequate for use for the 

State Highway Encroachment Permit, which is required for any construction work 

within Caltrans’ right-of-way 

 National Park Service—Stated “no comments” by letter 

 Federal Emergency Management Agency—Requested review of current Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps for the City of San Diego and San Diego County; noted 

minimum federal National Flood Insurance Program floodplain management building 

requirements; and warned that the city and county agencies may have adopted more 

restrictive requirements 

8.4 Public and Agency Outreach during Preparation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

This section describes the public and stakeholder coordination activities and agency 

consultation that occurred between the CEQA and NEPA scoping periods and 

publication of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Refer to Sections 8.5.2 and 8.8 for a summary of 

outreach efforts that have occurred since completion of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. 

8.4.1 Public and Stakeholder Coordination Activities 

The following public outreach activities were conducted between NEPA scoping and 

release of the Draft SEIS/SEIR: 

 Project presentations to community, business, and transportation organizations 

 Meetings with affected property owners near the project alignment and the project 

stations, including UCSD, Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (Scripps Hospital), the 

Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, La Jolla Village Square shopping 

center, and Westfield University Towne Centre (UTC) shopping center 

 Project updates to the SANDAG Transportation Committee 

 E-newsletters providing project updates 

 Meetings of the Project Working Group 

 Briefings for elected officials 

The focus of the public outreach efforts was to ensure that the public was kept up-todate on the project status, share new project information, and notify the public about the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR public review period (from May 17 to July 17, 2013) and opportunities 

to provide comment. 

8.4.2 Agency Consultation Activities 

SANDAG coordinated and consulted regularly with local, regional, state, and federal 

government agencies prior to circulation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Frequent 

presentations, meetings, and informal communications occurred with the Metropolitan 

Transit System (MTS), NCTD, Caltrans, and the City of San Diego. Because the project 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-11 

alignment traverses the UCSD West and East Campuses, coordination with UCSD 

included presentations and working meetings with technical staff and project update 

briefings with the UCSD Design Review Board. Through coordination with UCSD, the 

alignment and station locations on the UCSD West and East Campuses were refined for 

evaluation in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Chapter 2.0, Section 2.1 describes the refinements 

to the Locally Preferred Alternative that were made prior to the circulation of the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR through coordination with UCSD. SANDAG also held meetings with UCSD 

to identify types and location of equipment sensitive to electromagnetic interference from 

Trolley operations near the proposed UCSD West Campus Station. 

SANDAG held meetings with staff from several City of San Diego departments to 

discuss transportation impacts and mitigation, floodplain impacts, and impacts to 

parklands and recreational areas. Beginning in the fall of 2011, meetings were held on 

an ongoing basis with the Development Services Department and the Transportation 

and Storm Water Department to discuss traffic methodologies and traffic volumes; traffic 

impacts and mitigation at grade crossings and station area intersections; traffic impacts 

and mitigation during construction; and impacts to bicycle facilities (both long term and 

during construction). Meetings also were held with the city to discuss the project 

alignment on Genesee Avenue and design options to minimize impacts to the street and 

adjacent properties. 

Additionally, SANDAG coordinated with the City of San Diego Park and Recreation 

Department and the Transportation and Storm Water Department to obtain concurrence 

determinations related to the de minimis impact and temporary occupancy exemption 

findings for the Section 4(f) evaluation. Specifically, on October 29, 2012, SANDAG met 

with the staff from the Transportation and Storm Water Department to discuss 

construction-related impacts to the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path. On November 7, 2012, 

SANDAG met with staff from the Park and Recreation Department to discuss the Section 

4(f) evaluation for Marian Bear Memorial Park and Mission Valley Preserve. 

Documentation of preliminary concurrence is included in Appendix C. Subsequent to the 

initial meeting with the Park and Recreation Department, the location of impacts within 

Marian Bear Memorial Park changed. A new preliminary statement of concurrence was 

issued by the department on February 15, 2013, based on its review of the revised 

impacts. SANDAG also met with the City of San Diego Floodplain Manager from the 

Public Works Department on December 20, 2012, regarding the floodplain analysis and 

crossings of the San Diego River, Tecolote Creek, and Rose Creek. 

Frequent meetings also were held with Caltrans to review the project alignment along 

the Interstate (I-) 5 corridor between State Route (SR) 52 and Voigt Drive, design of the 

freeway crossings south of Nobel Drive and at Voigt Drive, the alignment along Voigt 

Drive and the location of the proposed Voigt Drive direct-access ramps, the scope of the 

environmental and engineering studies, and the permits required for the project. 

On January 22, 2013, a coordination meeting was held with the CPUC and the MTS to 

discuss project design, operations at the eight existing grade crossings (including the 

operating plan, gate optimization measures, and traffic mitigation measures), typical 

right-of-way sections, and pedestrian crossings at the two proposed aerial stations on 

Genesee Avenue. Coordination with the CPUC will continue throughout the design of 

the project. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-12 September 2014 

Since initiating the outreach program, SANDAG has coordinated and consulted with 

state and federal resource agencies, including Trustee and Responsible Agencies under 

CEQA. In May 2010, project briefing meetings were held individually with the USACE, 

the CDFG, and the San Diego River Conservancy. Summaries of the meetings are 

contained in the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project California Environmental Quality Act 

Scoping Summary Report (SANDAG, 2010f). A follow-up meeting was held with the 

USACE on July 23, 2012, and a pre-application meeting was held with the USACE, the 

CDFG, and the SDRWQCB on August 14, 2012. A telephone conference call was held 

with the USACE and the FTA on September 7, 2012, to discuss permitting requirements, 

the role of the USACE in the environmental review of the project, and the potential for 

minimizing impacts to water resources. A second pre-application meeting was held with 

the USACE on October 31, 2012, to discuss design options for the channel structure at 

Rose Creek and SR 52 (i.e., box culvert, open channel, bridge, and natural bottom 

channel), to minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S. in the Rose Creek watershed. 

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 was incorporated into the Build Alternative 

analyzed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. A letter of confirmation of impacts to Waters of the 

U.S. was transmitted to the USACE on February 13, 2013. A letter to the USFWS 

initiating Endangered Species Act Section 7 informal consultation was transmitted to that 

agency on February 27, 2013. Copies of this correspondence are included in Appendix 

C of this Final SEIS/SEIR. On February 27, 2013, a coordination meeting was held with 

the SDRWQCB to review the open channel design at SR 52/Rose Creek. The 

SDRWQCB did not express concern regarding the open channel design. The USACE 

also attended the meeting. Coordination with state and federal resource agencies will 

continue throughout the environmental review and project development process. 

Section 106 consultation was initiated to identify historic and cultural resources and 

concerns related to the project’s possible effects on historic properties. In response to 

CEQA scoping, in May 2010 the NAHC sent a letter recommending that the California 

Historic Resources Information System and 20 local Native American groups be 

contacted. In November 2011, FTA sent formal Section 106 consultation letters to 23 

Native American groups, including those identified by the NAHC. SANDAG also sent 

letters to local interested public historical or cultural organizations. Additional 

information on the Section 106 consultation process is presented in the Mid-Coast 

Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report 

(SANDAG, 2013c), the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Effects 

Report (SANDAG, 2014k), and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological 

Resources Survey Report (SANDAG, 2013e)2

. 

As part of Section 106 consultation, coordination with the SHPO has been ongoing. In 

October 2011, FTA consulted with the SHPO for concurrence on the limits of the Area of 

Potential Effects (APE) for both archaeological and architectural resource investigations. 

On October 28, 2011, the SHPO concurred that the project APE is sufficient pursuant to 

 

2

 This document contains sensitive information regarding the location of archaeological sites and is not 

available to the public or other unauthorized persons. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-13 

Code of Federal Regulations 800.4(1)(a). In July 2012, FTA sent two reports to the 

SHPO (the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Historic Property Survey and Eligibility 

Determination Report [SANDAG, 2013c] and the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Survey Report [SANDAG, 2013e]) and a letter requesting 

concurrence on the eligibility of historic properties within the APE. After receiving written 

and verbal comments from the SHPO, in January 2013 the two reports were updated 

along with the preparation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Archaeological 

Resources Supplemental Research Report (SANDAG, 2013d)3

. In February 2013, 

additional coordination was conducted with the SHPO to address the eligibility of historic 

architectural properties and archaeological resources within the APE. 

SANDAG also held meetings with the VA Medical Center staff to review the alignment 

and optional station location at the VA Medical Center. SANDAG will continue to 

coordinate with agencies throughout the environmental review and permitting process 

and project construction. 

8.5 Draft SEIS/SEIR Comment Period 

On May 17, 2013, FTA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, inviting 

comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. In addition, the Notice of Completion was posted at 

the San Diego County Office of the County Clerk on May 8, 2013, and by the State 

Clearinghouse on May 14, 2013. Copies of the Notice of Availability and Notice of 

Completion are included in Appendix B of this Final SEIS/SEIR. The Draft SEIS/SEIR 

was made available for a 60-day public review and comment period from May 17 

through July 17, 2013. 

The document was distributed to all interested and concerned parties, including public 

agencies, elected officials, groups and organizations, businesses, and individuals. 

Specifically, copies of the Draft SEIS/SEIR were mailed to 20 federal agencies, 17 

Native American tribes, 31 state agencies, 6 regional agencies, and 9 local agencies. In 

all, more than 450 copies of the Draft SEIS/SEIR were distributed. The Draft SEIS/SEIR 

and technical reports also were made available for review at area libraries (Table 8-3) 

and SANDAG offices, as well as posted on the project Web site 

(www.sandag.org/midcoast). 

Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR were submitted via mail, e-mail, voice mail, fax, and 

at each meeting via comment cards or by speaking to a court reporter. Oral comments 

were also accepted at the public hearing held on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG 

continued accepting comments after the comment period closed to account for any 

comments that were sent via U.S. mail. Responses to comments received by FTA and 

SANDAG are addressed in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

 

3

 This document contains sensitive information regarding the location of archaeological sites and is not 

available to the public or other unauthorized persons. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-14 September 2014 

8.5.1 Public Meetings and Hearing 

Four public meetings and one public hearing were held during the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

public review and comment period. Table 8-5 lists the newspapers used to publish the 

formal public notices, which provided information on the public meetings and public 

hearing and how to submit written comments. Additionally, an advertisement promoting 

the public meetings and public hearing was published in the publications identified in 

Table 8-6. SANDAG also sent direct mail postcards announcing the public meetings 

and public hearing to 37,173 residents and businesses located within one-quarter mile of 

the project alignment. 

Table 8-5. Publications Used for Public Notices of the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR Comment Period 

Publication Circulation 

Asian Journal 35,000 

El Latino (Spanish) 80,500 

San Diego Daily Transcript Unknown 

San Diego Voice & Viewpoint 25,000 

U-T San Diego* 317,855 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Note: * In 2012, the San Diego Union-Tribune was renamed U-T San Diego 

Table 8-6. Publications Used for Advertisement of Public Meetings and Public Hearing 

for the Draft SEIS/SEIR Comment Period 

Publication Circulation Publication Circulation

Asian Journal 35,000 Presidio Sentinel 35,000 

Beach & Bay Press 18,500 San Diego Downtown News 18,500 

Clairemont Community News 23,000 U-T San Diego1 317,855 

El Latino (Spanish) 80,500 San Diego Uptown News 22,000 

Indian Voices Unknown San Diego Voice & Viewpoint 25,000 

La Jolla Today 18,500 Star News 33,500 

La Jolla Light 18,080 UCSD Guardian2 11,000 

La Prensa (Spanish) Online Voice of San Diego Online 

Peninsula Beacon 18,500 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Notes: 1 In 2012, the San Diego Union-Tribune was renamed U-T San Diego. 2 Advertisement was run twice in publication. 

The public meetings and one public hearing were held in buildings that are compliant 

with the Americans with Disabilities Act and served by public transit (Table 8-7). At the 

public meetings, SANDAG used an open-house format with display board stations 

featuring various topics. SANDAG staff and members of the technical team 

knowledgeable in each topical area were present at these stations. The stations 

addressed the following topics: 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-15 

Table 8-7. Public Meetings and Hearing 

Meeting Time/Date Community Location

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 

4–7 p.m. 

Clairemont 

Monday, June 10, 2013 

3–6 p.m. 

University of California, San Diego 

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 

4–7 p.m. 

University Community 

Tuesday, June 18, 2013 

4–7 p.m. 

Old Town 

Friday, June 21, 2013 

4–7 p.m. 

Downtown San Diego (SANDAG)* 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Note: * Served as the public hearing 

 Purpose and Need 

 Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR 

 Transportation 

 Construction 

 Property Acquisitions and Relocations 

 Public Involvement 

 Environmental 

SANDAG made bilingual English/Spanish materials available at all public meetings, 

along with a Spanish interpreter who helped Spanish-speaking participants understand 

project information and submit comments. Approximately 350 individuals attended the 

four public meetings combined. 

SANDAG also hosted one public hearing, which was held in conjunction with the 

SANDAG Transportation Committee meeting. The purpose of the public hearing was to 

give interested parties an opportunity to formally submit comments on the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. 

8.5.2 Public and Agency Outreach during the Comment Period 

During the Draft SEIS/SEIR review and comment period, SANDAG gave presentations 

and/or met with members of the public and representatives from agencies, 

groups/organizations, property owners, and businesses. Some of the property owners 

and community groups SANDAG met with during the review and comment period 

included Scripps Hospital, La Jolla Country Day School, Westfield UTC shopping center, 

Garden Communities, the Colony La Paz Condominium Association, La Jolla Colony 

Home Owners Association, and the Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center. 

SANDAG also meet with several agencies during the review and comment period. A 

meeting was held with the CPUC to discuss the project and traffic impacts and mitigation 

near the grade crossings. A meeting was held with the NCTD to discuss the project and 

permit requirements. A meeting also was held with UCSD to discuss the project 

alignment and stations on the UCSD campus, UCSD comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

and analysis results. Additional meetings were held with UCSD and Caltrans to discuss 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-16 September 2014 

the coordination of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project with other construction 

projects in the vicinity of UCSD. 

8.6 Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

Comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR were submitted via mail, e-mail, voice mail, fax, and 

at each meeting via comment cards or by speaking to a court reporter. Oral comments 

also were provided by 20 people during the public hearing held before the SANDAG 

Transportation Committee on June 21, 2013. 

In total, 309 comment submissions (e.g., comment cards, e-mails, and letters) were 

received containing 1,416 individual comments. Table 8-8 lists the number of 

submissions and comments received by affiliation. 

Table 8-8. Number of Submissions and Comments by Affiliation 

Affiliation Submissions Comments 

Federal agency 6 17 

State agency 10 113 

Local agency 3 41 

Tribal agency 1 4 

Elected official 2 23 

Groups/organizations 30 402 

Businesses 21 173 

Individuals 236 643 

TOTAL 309 1,416 

Source: SANDAG, 2013 

Note: The term “submission” refers to a comment card, e-mail, or letter 

containing comments. The term “comments” refers to individual 

comments within a submission. 

The comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR addressed a variety of topics. Some 

included general statements of support or opposition to the project, or the options 

evaluated in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Other comments offered suggestions on how to 

improve the project through refinements, as well as requests for changes, clarification, 

and new or additional analysis and mitigation to the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Additionally, other 

comments expressed concern over environmental impacts and funding/costeffectiveness issues in regard to the project. 

The dominant themes of comments received related to the following: 

 Project alternatives or features (e.g., alignment, stations, traction power substations, 

construction staging areas) 

 Impacts related to biological resources, noise, and visual changes 

 Impacts related to construction 

 Station area circulation 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-17 

 Pedestrian and bicycle access to stations 

 Parking 

All of the comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR are addressed in Volume 3 

Section V3-1 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

8.7 Comments on the Supplement 

On July 18, 2014, FTA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, inviting 

comments on the Supplement. In addition, the Notice of Completion was posted at the 

San Diego County Office of the County Clerk on July 9, 2014, and by the State 

Clearinghouse on July 11, 2014. Copies of the Notice of Availability and Notice of 

Completion are included in Appendix B of this Final SEIS/SEIR. The Supplement was 

made available for a 45-day public review and comment period from July 18 through 

September 2, 2014. Table 8-9 lists the newspapers used to publish the formal public 

notices, which provided information on how to submit written comments. 

Table 8-9. Publications Supplement SEIS/SEIR Comment Period 

Publication Circulation 

Asian Journal 35,000 

El Latino (Spanish) 80,500 

San Diego Daily Transcript Unknown 

San Diego Voice & Viewpoint 25,000 

U-T San Diego* 317,855 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: * In 2012, the San Diego Union-Tribune was renamed U-T San Diego.

Additionally, an advertisement regarding the review and comment period for the 

Supplement was published in the publications identified in Table 8-10. 

Table 8-10. Publications Used for Advertisement of Supplement Comment Period 

Publication Circulation Publication Circulation

Asian Journal 35,000 Peninsula Beacon 18,500 

Beach & Bay Press 18,500 Presidio Sentinel 35,000 

Clairemont Community News 23,000 San Diego Downtown News 18,500 

Clairemont Times 15,000 San Diego Uptown News 22,000 

El Latino (Spanish) 80,500 San Diego Voice & Viewpoint 25,000 

Indian Voices Unknown Star News 33,500 

La Jolla Light 18,080 U-T San Diego* 317,855 

La Prensa (Spanish) Online Voice of San Diego Online 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: * In 2012, the San Diego Union-Tribune was renamed U-T San Diego.
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-18 September 2014 

The document was distributed to all interested and concerned parties, including public 

agencies, elected officials, groups and organizations, businesses, and individuals. The 

document was also distributed to individuals who submitted comments on the Draft 

SEIS/SEIR. Specifically, electronic and/or hard copies of the Supplement were mailed 

to 20 federal agencies, 18 Native American tribes, 31 state agencies, 6 regional 

agencies, and 9 local agencies. The Notice of Availability was sent via e-mail to those 

who commented on the Draft SEIS/SEIR and provided an e-mail address rather than a 

postal address. In all, more than 600 copies of the Supplement were distributed. The 

Supplement also was made available for review at area libraries (Table 8-3) and 

SANDAG offices, as well as posted on the project Web site (www.sandag.org/midcoast). 

The Notice of Availability specified that comments submitted during the Supplement 

comment period must be limited to the analysis of impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp 

only. Comments on the Supplement were submitted via mail, e-mail, voice mail, and 

fax. SANDAG continued accepting comments after the comment period closed to 

account for any comments that were sent via U.S. mail. Responses to comments 

received by FTA and SANDAG are addressed in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

In total, nine comment submissions (e.g., comment cards, e-mails, and letters) were 

received containing ten individual comments. Table 8-11 lists the number of 

submissions and comments received by affiliation. All of the comments received on the 

Supplement are addressed in Volume 3 Section V3-2 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. 

Table 8-11. Number of Submissions and Comments by Affiliation 

Affiliation Submissions Comments 

Federal agency 1 2 

State agency 2 2 

Groups/organizations 1 2 

Individuals 2 2 

TOTAL 4 4 

Source: SANDAG, 2014 

Note: The term “submission” refers to a comment card, e-mail, or letter 

containing comments. The term “comments” refers to individual 

comments within a submission. 

The dominant themes of comments received during the comment period for the 

Supplement related to the following: 

 Support for the project despite impacts to the San Diego fairy shrimp 

 Emergency access during construction in south University City 

 Mitigation for the San Diego fairy shrimp 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-19 

8.8 Public and Agency Outreach since Close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR Public Review 

Period 

SANDAG continued to hold briefings with community groups and coordinate with 

stakeholders and agencies after the close of the Draft SEIS/SEIR review and comment 

period. The focus of the briefings and coordination efforts primarily related to discussion 

of comments received on the project and Draft SEIS/SEIR and refinements made to the 

project in response to comments. 

8.8.1 Continued Public and Stakeholder Coordination Activities 

Comments received from UCSD and Scripps Hospital indicated concerns regarding 

electromagnetic field (EMF) impacts to sensitive equipment. As a result, coordination 

meetings were held with representatives from these stakeholders and mitigation 

measures were identified based on additional EMF analysis, as detailed in Chapter 4.0, 

Section 4.14.4 of this Final SEIS/SEIR. Meetings with UCSD and Scripps Hospital also 

focused on the project alignment and the Voigt Drive realignment, while additional 

meetings where held with UCSD regarding station design and results of the updated 

noise and vibration analysis. 

Transit parking at the Nobel Drive Station and UTC Transit Center was refined based on 

coordination with the property owners, as described in Chapter 2.0, Section 2.3.3 of this 

Final SEIS/SEIR. Specifically, coordination meetings were held with representatives of 

the La Jolla Village Square shopping center regarding the design of the Nobel Drive 

Station park-and-ride facility. Meetings with representatives from the Westfield UTC 

shopping center focused on the shopping center’s future development plans, the 

planned bus transit center, and transit parking for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. 

Coordination also occurred with affected property owners along the alignment to discuss 

the project alignment and construction-related impacts. These included Armstrong 

Garden Centers, Narvarra Morena Properties near the Tecolote Road Station, Bayview 

Plaza near the Clairemont Drive Station, Good Samaritan Episcopal Church, the La Jolla 

Community Church, The Shops at La Jolla, Monte Verde/La Jolla Canyon Development, 

La Jolla Country Day School, and the VA Medical Center. 

SANDAG also met with representatives of the Sheraton La Jolla Hotel regarding the 

noise and vibration analysis and mitigation. Additional analysis was performed to 

determine noise levels for the upper floors of the hotel and the hotel’s inner courtyard. 

No modifications were made to the length and height of the sound wall in this location as 

proposed in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. This additional analysis is included in Volume 3 of this 

Final SEIS/SEIR as attachments to the Sheraton Hotel’s comment response. 

The Refined Build Alternative approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors on 

November 15, 2013, shifted the I-5 crossing, south of Nobel Drive, approximately 360 

feet to the south of the crossing location shown in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Following 

approval of the Refined Build Alternative by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 

November 2013, SANDAG received comments on the shift from the Cape La Jolla 

Gardens residential community located west of I-5 in the vicinity of the I-5 crossing. The 

comments expressed concerns on the shifted I-5 crossing being located closer to Cape 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-20 September 2014 

La Jolla Gardens and that the revised location of the I-5 crossing was not included in the 

Draft SEIS/SEIR before it was circulated for public review and comment. As part of the 

development of the refined alignment, additional engineering and environmental analysis 

was conducted to verify grades, alignment, and utility impacts, and to determine if any 

new and significant environmental impacts would be caused by shifting the alignment 

south from the I-5 crossing location shown in the Draft SEIS/SEIR. The analysis 

determined that the shift was feasible from an engineering perspective and that no 

additional noise or visual impacts would occur with the shift in the crossing location 

under the Refined Build Alternative. 

On May 9, 2014, SANDAG staff made a presentation to the SANDAG Board of Directors 

on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project that included a description of the I-5 crossing 

location as presented in the Draft SEIS/SEIR and the Refined Build Alternative, a 

summary of the impact analysis conducted for the shift in the crossing location, and a 

summary of the concerns expressed by the Cape La Jolla Gardens residential 

community. The SANDAG Board of Directors approved amending the Refined Build 

Alternative to return the I-5 crossing south of Nobel Drive to the location designated in 

the Draft SEIS/SEIR for inclusion in the final environmental documents. The design 

change of the crossing that eliminated the straddle bents over I-5 was retained. 

In July and August 2014, four station design workshops were held in communities near 

the proposed new stations in the Mid-Coast Corridor to obtain input on station design 

features. These workshops were open to the public, and public notice was provided 

through newspaper advertisements, the project eNewsletter, the SANDAG Web site, on 

social media, and through coordination with community group leaders. The station 

design was advanced based on feedback gathered during these workshops; SANDAG 

will present this advanced station design to the University City, Clairemont, Linda Vista, 

and Pacific Beach Community Planning Groups in late 2014. 

Coordination with stakeholders and the public along the alignment will continue 

throughout design and construction of the project. 

8.8.2 Agency Consultation Activities 

On November 7, 2013, SANDAG and the USFWS held a conference call regarding the 

presence of the coastal California gnatcatcher population on UCSD property, as 

identified by UCSD, fairy shrimp surveys for the 2013 to 2014 season, and the potential 

for light-footed clapper rail to occur within the San Diego River area. Mitigation for 

biological resources and informal Section 7 consultation were also discussed during this 

meeting. In March 2014, the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp was identified 

in an ephemeral basin on the east side of the existing LOSSAN tracks near Morena 

Boulevard. This basin would be directly impacted by construction of the project. On 

April 30, 2014, SANDAG and FTA discussed the positive survey findings with the 

USFWS and the need for formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. On May 6, 

2014, SANDAG and FTA hosted a field visit with the USFWS to review the location of 

impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp and the proposed mitigation location. Formal Section 

7 consultation was initiated with the USFWS on June 12, 2014 (refer to Appendix C for 

the consultation initiation letter). SANDAG and FTA continued to provide information as 

requested by the USFWS during the Section 7 consultation process. On September 5, 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 8-21 

2014, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion concurring with the FTA’s determination 

that the project is not likely to adversely affect the subject species and critical habitat, 

and included authorization for incidental take of San Diego fairy shrimp. 

Meetings were held with various departments at the City of San Diego, including the City 

Real Estate Assets Department, Storm Water Department, and Development Services 

Department. Meetings focused on comments received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

permitting, utilities, and property requirements. 

Following public review of the Section 4(f) evaluation as part of the Draft SEIS/SEIR, 

SANDAG coordinated with the City of San Diego to obtain final concurrence 

determinations related to the Section 4(f) findings. Specifically, on January 31, 2014, 

SANDAG met with staff from the Park and Recreation Department to discuss the 

findings of the Section 4(f) evaluation and to review comments on the Draft SEIS/SEIR 

that relate to Section 4(f) resources. Several comments indicated the potential for a 

constructive use of the Rose Canyon Open Space Park; however, upon further 

evaluation, SANDAG confirmed that no constructive use would occur. On February 

13, 2014, the Park and Recreation Department provided a signed statement indicating 

its final concurrence with the Section 4(f) findings of de minimis direct use of Marian 

Bear Memorial Park, temporary occupancy exceptions of Marian Bear Memorial Park 

and Mission Valley Preserve Open Space, and no constructive use of Rose Canyon 

Open Space Park. On February 5, 2014, SANDAG met with the Transportation and 

Storm Water Department to discuss the findings of the Section 4(f) evaluation and 

review the comment received that related to the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path. On 

February 6, 2014, the Transportation and Storm Water Department provided a signed 

statement indicating final concurrence with the Section 4(f) findings of a de minimis

impact to the Ocean Beach Bicycle Path. Documentation of final concurrence also is 

included in Appendix C. 

A comment letter received from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) indicated 

that the Coastal Zone boundary shown in the Draft SEIS/SEIR between the San Diego 

River and Balboa Avenue was incorrect and that this portion of the project was within 

the Coastal Zone. On August 26, 2013 SANDAG met with the CCC in response to the 

comment letter received on the Draft SEIS/SEIR. SANDAG and the CCC staff 

identified an acceptable approach to obtaining letters of exemption for upcoming 

geotechnical survey work located within the area in question to allow work to proceed 

while the boundary issue was being resolved. A follow-up meeting was held with the 

CCC staff on May 8, 2014, regarding the Coastal Zone boundary and anticipated 

permitting requirements. Subsequently, SANDAG requested a formal Coastal Zone 

boundary determination for the area between the San Diego River and Balboa Avenue; 

the boundary determination was provided by the CCC on May 30, 2014, and stated 

that the boundary extended to the eastern edge of the MTS right-of-way. The 

boundary request and CCC response are included in Appendix C of this document. 

Another meeting was held on May 27, 2014, during which SANDAG and the CCC staff 

generally discussed SANDAG’s upcoming application for a Coastal Development 

Permit for the project. On July 2, 2014, SANDAG met with CCC staff to discuss the 

acceptability of potential mitigation sites for anticipated impacts to coastal wetlands 

from several SANDAG projects. 
Chapter 8.0 - Public Outreach, Agency Consultation and Coordination 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8-22 September 2014 

A kick-off meeting also was held with the Federal Railroad Administration Rail Safety 

Group to provide an overview of the project. In addition, meetings were held with NCTD 

regarding track separation and the modifications to the signal systems at Taylor Street 

near the Old Town Transit Center. 

On April 9, 2014, the SHPO concurred with the FTA’s finding that the project would have 

“no adverse effect” on historic properties (including historic architectural and 

archaeological properties). In May 2014, SANDAG conducted a follow-up call with the 

SHPO to confirm the appropriate phrasing for conclusions regarding resources that were 

not detected within the area of potential effects during Extended Phase I surveys. That 

phrasing is reflected in this Final SEIS/SEIR. 
References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1 

REFERENCES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2010. Recommended Approach for 

Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archeological Sites. Updated 

September 30, 2010. Accessed August 2012 at: http://www.achp.gov/archguide.html. 

Bat Conservation International. 2009. Bats in Buildings, A Guide to Safe & Humane 

Exclusions. Accessed March 1, 2013 at: http://batcon.org/index.php/bats-a-people/batexclusion-instructions.html. 

Bracken. 2000. Investigation of EMF Mitigation Schemes.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008–2010. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. 

Accessed August 2012 at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012a. Attainment Areas. Accessed January 2012 at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012b. Sites Measuring All Pollutants in San Diego 

County. Accessed August 2012 at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb/sitelist_create.php. 

California Building Code (CBC). 2010. Seismic Design Standards. 

California Department of Conservation. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency 

Planning, La Jolla and Point Loma Quadrangles, State of California, County of San 

Diego. 1:24,000 scale. June 1, 2009. Accessed August 2012 at: 

http://conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/SanDiego/P

ages/SanDiego.aspx. 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1997. Old Town San Diego State Historic Park 

Resource Management Plan and General Development Plan. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2003. Construction Site Best Management 

Practices Reference Manual. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation and ConstructionInduced Vibration Guidance Manual. J&S 02-039. Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous 

Waste Management Office. June 2004. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007. Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-10, 

“Surface Fault Rupture Displacement Hazard Investigations.” January. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009a. Technical Noise Supplement. ICF 

J&S 00183.08. Division of Environmental Analysis. November 2009. Accessed August 

2012 at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009b. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 

400. June 24, 2009. Accessed October 2011 

at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/chp0400.pdf. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010a. Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-13, 

“Tsunami Hazard Guidelines.” January. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010b. Seismic Design Criteria. Version 

1.6. November 2010. 
References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2 September 2014 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010c. Storm Water Quality Handbook: 

Project Planning and Design Guide. Office of Surface Water Management. July 2010. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for 

New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. Division of 

Environmental Analysis. May 2011. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. California Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices. 2012 Edition. 

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2011. 2010 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. 

Publication Number: CEC-100-2010-001-CMF. 

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2003. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment—Peak 

Ground Acceleration. Accessed at: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pga.htm. 

California State Parks. 2011. Old Town San Diego State Historic Park. Accessed May 2011 

at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/663/files/OldSanDiego.pdf. 

Chaparral Lands Conservancy. 2012. San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis).

Accessed at: http://chaparralconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/. 

City of San Diego. 1981. North City Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Approved March 

31, 1981. 

City of San Diego. 1985. Mission Valley Community Plan. Approved January 1985 and 

adopted June 1985 (last updated October 2008). 

City of San Diego. 1986. University Community Plan. Approved December 1986 and adopted 

July 1987 (last updated December 2006). 

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

adopted July 1987. 

City of San Diego. 1989. Clairemont Mesa Community Plan. Approved April 1989 and 

adopted September 1989 (last updated May 2008). 

City of San Diego. 1992. Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines. Approved August 

4, 1992. 

City of San Diego. 1993. Pacific Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use 

Plan. Approved December 1993 and adopted February 1995. 

City of San Diego. 1994a. Mission Bay Park Master Plan Update. Adopted August 1994 (last 

updated July 2002). 

City of San Diego. 1994b. Marian Bear Memorial Park Natural Resources Management Plan. 

January 1994. 

City of San Diego. 1997. City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea 

Plan. March 1997. Accessed at: 

http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf. 

City of San Diego. 1998a. Linda Vista Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use 

Plan. Approved September 1998 and adopted December 1998 (last updated May 

2008). 
References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3 

City of San Diego. 1998b. North Bay Redevelopment Plan. Adopted May 18, 1998 (last 

updated June 19, 2007). 

City of San Diego. 1998c. City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual. July 1998. 

City of San Diego. 2001. La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. 

Approved December 2001 and adopted November 2003 (last updated February 2004). 

City of San Diego. 2002a. Strategic Framework Element. 

City of San Diego. 2002b. San Diego Street Design Manual. 

City of San Diego. 2006a. Draft San Diego River Natural Resources Management Plan. May 

2006. 

City of San Diego. 2006b. City of San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan. 

City of San Diego. 2007. City of San Diego Paleontological Guidelines. 

City of San Diego. 2008a. City of San Diego General Plan. Adopted March 10, 2008. 

City of San Diego. 2008b. University Towne Centre Revitalization Project Environmental 

Impact Report. 

City of San Diego. 2010a. Draft 2010 San Diego River Park Master Plan. September 2010. 

City of San Diego. 2010b. San Diego Municipal Code, Article 9.5: Noise Abatement and 

Control. July 2010. 

City of San Diego. 2011a. CEQA Significance Determination Thresholds. Development 

Services Department. Adopted 1991. Updated January 2011. 

City of San Diego. 2011b. City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update. June 2011. 

City of San Diego. 2011c. Storm Water Standards Manual. January 14, 2011. 

City of San Diego. 2011d. Draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. 

City of San Diego. 2012a. City of San Diego General Plan, City of Villages, 2008. Adopted 

March 10, 2008, by City Council Resolution Number: R-303473. Last amended, January 

31, 2012, by Resolution 307262. 

City of San Diego. 2012b. San Diego Municipal Code Land Development Code—Biology 

Guidelines. June. 

City of San Diego Historical Resources Board. 2011. Guidelines for the Application of 

Historical Resources Board Designation Criteria. 

City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department. 2011. Presidio Park. Accessed May 2011 

at: http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/presidio/index.shtml. 

City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department. 2012. Marian Bear Memorial Park. 

Accessed at: http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/presidio/index.shtml. 

Colliers. 2010. North America CBD Parking Rate Survey. Colliers International. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 
References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4 September 2014 

County of San Diego. 1998. Final Multiple Species Conservation Program: MSCP 

Plan. August 1998. Accessed at: 

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/FinalMSCPProgramPlan.pdf. 

County of San Diego. 2010. San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, City of 

San Diego, 1997a-c. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, City of 

San Diego, 2012. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway 

Projects. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1996. Community Impact Assessment: A Quick 

Reference for Transportation. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2010. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23 Part 

772, Procedures for the Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. Document 23 CFR 772. 

Department of Transportation. July 13, 2010. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Questions and Answers on the Application of 

the Section 4(f) De Minimis Impact Criteria. April 4, 2011. Accessed May 2012 at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/qasdeminimus.htm. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2012. Section 4(f) Policy Paper. 

Federal Railroad Administration and California Department of Transportation. 2007. Los 

Angeles to San Diego Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements (LOSSAN) Final Program 

EIS/EIR. September. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2003. Public Transportation System Security and 

Emergency Preparedness Planning Guide. January 2003. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

Guidance Manual. Office of Planning and Environment. Document FTA-VA-90-1003-

06. May 2006. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2012. Environmental Policy Justice Guidance for Federal 

Transit Administration Recipients. FTA Circular C 4703.1. August 15, 2012. 

Herzan. 2012. MACS Active Cancellation System. Accessed at: http:// 

www.herzan.com/products/electromagnetic-interference-isolation/activeemicancellation.html. 

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. 156 

pp. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2002. IEEE Standard C95.6,,IEEE 

Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 

0-3 kHz. IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28, IEEE International Committee on 

Electromagnetic Safety on Non-Ionizing Radiation. October 23, 2002. 
References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5 

Kleinfelder. 2014. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Earthquake Fault Rupture Field 

Investigation, dated April 9 2014. 

Leonard, D. 2004. “Year 2004 Protocol Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the University of 

California, San Diego Canyonview Aquatics Center Expansion.” Letter report from D. 

Leonard (HELIX Environmental Planning Inc.) to D. Marquez (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service). April 28, 2004. 

Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2014. “Re: 45-day Letter Report of Light-footed Clapper Rail Protocol 

Surveys for the Support of the San Diego River Bridge Double Track Project in the City 

of San Diego, San Diego County, California.” April 3. 

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 1995a. Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives 

Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report. 

February 1995. 

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 1995b. Final Environmental Impact Report 

for the Mid-Coast Corridor. December 1995. 

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 2001. Mid-Coast Corridor Project Balboa 

Extension and Nobel Drive Coaster Station Final Environmental Impact Statement. June 

2001. 

Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). 2003. Mid-Coast Strategic Transportation 

Study: Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Comparative Assessment Report. April 1, 2003 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2007. Policies and Procedures Number 42: Transit 

Service Evaluation and Adjustment. 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2010. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Route Statistics. 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2011a. MTS Public Service Schedules. October 2011. 

Accessed December 2011 at: http://sdmts.com/. 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2011b. Rail Fleet Management Plan. 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2011c. MTS Route Maps. 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2011d. MTS Bus Operations Fact Sheet. 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2011e. San Diego Trolley, Inc. Fact Sheet. 

Mock, P. 2004. “California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica)” in The Coastal Scrub and 

Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal 

Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California. California Partners in 

Flight. Accessed at: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/scrub.html. 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2010. 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit 

and Passenger Rail Systems. 

National Park Service. 1997. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1983. National Engineering Handbook. 

Accessed at: http://www.mi.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/engineering/neh.html. 

North County Transit District (NCTD). 2011. NCTD Public Service Schedules. October 2011. 
References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6 September 2014 

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego 

County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California.” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D. (October 1986). March 2008. 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2007. Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

for San Diego County. 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2011. Rules and Regulations. Accessed 

at: http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules.html. Visited in 2011. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2003. Mid-Coast Strategic Transportation 

Study Technical Memo No. 9 – UCSD/University City LRT Study. October 2003. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004a. Regional Comprehensive Plan for 

the San Diego Region. Approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors on July 23, 2004, 

by Resolution No. 2005-01. Final July 2004. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004b. Final Program Environmental 

Impact Report for the Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region. State 

Clearinghouse Number 2004011141. June 2004. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004c. Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit 

Extension Locally Preferred Alternative Update Summary. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2004d. City Community Planning Areas. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007a. 2030 San Diego Regional 

Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP). 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007b. 2006 Mission Valley Corridor 

Crime Study. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2007c. Final Environmental Impact Report 

for the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2008a. Series 11: 2030 Regional Growth 

Forecast Update: Process and Model Documentation. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2008b. Smart Growth Concept Map. 

Accepted 2006 and updated January 27, 2012. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010a. 2050 Regional Growth Forecast 

Process and Model Documentation. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

SANDAG Mode Choice Model Calibration and Validation Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010c. Coordinated Plan 2010-2014. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010d. San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan 

Riding to 2050. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010e. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project

Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010f. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Summary Report. 
References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 7 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010g. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Public Involvement Plan. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2010h. Final 2010 Regional 

Transportation Improvement Plan. September 10, 2010. Accessed at: 

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1511_11835.pdf. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011a. 2050 Regional Transportation 

Plan: Our Region, Our Future (2050 RTP). Adopted October 28, 2011. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

National Environmental Quality Act Scoping Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011c. 2050 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Final Environmental Impact Report. October 

2011. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011d. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Agency Coordination Plan. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011e. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Jutland Drive Station Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011f. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Evaluation of Voigt Drive Alignment Options Technical Memorandum. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2012. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Veterans Administration Medical Center Station Feasibility Study Technical 

Memorandum. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013a. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact 

Report (Volume 1) and Plan Set (Volume 2). 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013c. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Historic Property Survey and Eligibility Determination Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013d. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Supplemental Research Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2013e. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Survey Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014a. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Archaeological Resources Extended Phase I Investigation Results and Effects 

Assessment. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014b. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Cultural Resources Discovery Plan. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014c. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Construction Monitoring Plan. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014d. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Land Use Impacts Technical Report. 
References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8 September 2014 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014e. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Social, Community, and Neighborhood Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014f. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Economic and Fiscal Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014g. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Energy Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014h. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Hazardous Materials Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014i. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Geotechnical, Geologic, and Seismic Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014j. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Visual Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014k. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Historic Property Effects Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014l. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Paleontological Survey Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014m. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Water Impact Analysis Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014n. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Safety and Security Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014o. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Property Acquisitions Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014p. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Noise and Vibration Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014q. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Air Quality Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014r. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Electromagnetic Field Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014s. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Construction Impacts Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014t. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Environmental Justice Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014u. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Biological Resources Technical Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014v. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014w. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Travel Forecasting Results Report. 
References

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 9 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014x. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Cost Escalation Forecast (2014 to 2023). 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014y. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Financial Plan. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014z. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project 

Capital Cost Methodology and Estimate Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014aa. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology and Estimate Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014bb. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Tecolote Road Station Layout Options Technical Memorandum. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014cc. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Balboa Avenue Station Relocation Study Technical Memorandum. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014dd. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Final Refined Build Alternative Report. 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2014ee. Mid-Coast Corridor Transit 

Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplement to the Subsequent 

Environmental Impact Report. 

San Diego Earthworks. 2012. Rose Creek Watershed Wetland, Riparian and Water Quality 

Restoration Opportunities Analysis. Prepared by cbec, inc., eco-engineering, Trestles 

Environmental Corporation, and KTU+A. January 2012. 

San Diego Geographical Information System (SanGIS). 2003a. Earthquake Faults SD. 

October 27, 2003. Accessed July 2012 at: http://www.sangis.org. 

San Diego Geographical Information System (SanGIS). 2003b. Geohazard. October 27, 2003. 

Accessed July 2012 at: http://www.sangis.org. 

San Diego Geographical Information System (SanGIS). 2009. Neighborhoods SD. October 5, 

2009. Accessed May 2012 at: http://www.sangis.org. 

San Diego Park and Recreation Department. 2011. Accessed May 2011 at: 

http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/index.shtml. . 

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). 1994. Water Quality Control 

Plan for the San Diego Basin. 

Scott, E. and K. Springer. 2003. “CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California.” The 

Environmental Monitor. Fall 2003, pp 4-10, 17. 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines 

Committee. 1995. “Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable 

Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines.” Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 

News Bulletin, Number 163, pp. 22-27. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water 

Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report). EPA Final Approval October 11, 2011. 

Accessed at: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/catego

ry5_report.shtml. 
References 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

10 September 2014 

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. 

Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. TCRP Report 100 Transit Capacity and Quality 

of Service Manual—Second Edition. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 

University of California, Davis (UCD). 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide 

Protocol. Institute of Transportation Studies. UCD, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-

21. December 1997. 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 1989. University of California, San Diego Master 

Plan. July 1989. 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2000. University of California, San Diego East 

Campus Health Sciences Neighborhood Planning Study. July 2000. 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2004a. University of California, San Diego 2004 

Long Range Development Plan. September 2004. 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2004b. University Center/Sixth College 

Neighborhoods Planning Study. September 2004. 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2004c. University of California, San Diego 2004 

Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2004. 

University of California, San Diego (UCSD). 2010. Letter from UCSD Physical Planning 

Department Regarding Site for Temporary Urban Farm. Dated September 13, 2010. 

United States Census Bureau. 2012a. 2010 Census. Accessed December 2012 at: 

http://www.census.gov. 

United States Census Bureau. 2012b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey. Accessed 

December 2012 at: http://www.census.gov. 

United States Department of Energy. 2009. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption 

Estimates, Total End Use Energy Consumption Estimates. 

United States Department of Energy. 2012. State Energy Consumption Estimates: 1960 

through 2010. U.S. Energy Information Administration. June 29, 2012. Accessed at: 

www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-complete.cfm#summary. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). 2012. AirData Monitor Values Report. 

Accessed August 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/. 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Preparers

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 1 

LIST OF FINAL SEIS/SEIR PREPARERS 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region 9 

 Raymond Sukys, Director, Office of Planning and Program Development 

 Hymie Luden, Transportation Program Specialist 

 Alexander Smith, Community Planner 

 Debra Jones, Environmental Protection Specialist (formerly FTA) 

 Mary Nguyen, Environmental Protection Specialist 

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 

 Jim Linthicum, P.E., Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation 

 John Haggerty, P.E., Division Director of Rail Implementation 

 Leslie Blanda, Project Manager, Environmental/New Starts/Planning 

 Greg Gastelum, P.E., Project Manager, Engineering/Design 

 David Hicks, Communications and Public Involvement Officer 

 Rick Curry, Senior Transportation Modeler 

 Chip Finch, P.E., Systems Engineer 

 Tom King, Research Analyst/Transit Modeler 

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) 

 Tim Allison, Real Estate Assets Manager 

 Sharon Cooney, Chief of Staff 

 Wayne Terry, Chief Operation Officer 

 Devin Braun, Senior Transportation Planner 

MJE Marketing Services 

 Susanne Bankhead, Public Involvement 

 Kristen Byrne, Public Involvement 

 Lauren Bogart, Public Involvement 

Worden Williams 

 Wayne Brechtel, Public Agency, Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Attorney 

 Felicia Brechtel, Litigation and Land Use Paralegal 

 Yin Ho, Associate Attorney 

Dokken Engineering

 Chip Willet, Right-of-Way Manager 

Project Management Consultant Team 

 Tom Jenkins, P.E., Project Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Laura Ray, Deputy Project Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Liz Crenshaw, Deputy Project Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Harvey Berliner, Design Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 David Calver, P.E., Design Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Brett Stephens, P.E., Deputy Design Manager, TY Lin International 

 S. Tesse Rasmussen, P.E., Risk Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Preparers 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2 September 2014 

 Patti Boekamp, T.E., Third Party Coordinator, TY Lin International 

 Adrianne Beazley, Environmental Manager/Technical Reviewer, LSA Associates, Inc. 

(LSA) 

 Jack Gouge, Environmental Manager/Technical Reviewer, TY Lin International 

 Susan Robbins, AICP, Environmental Manager/Technical Reviewer, InfraConsult/HDR, 

Inc. 

 Larry Engleman, Safety and Security Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Sandipan Bhattacharjee, AICP, EIT, Associate Transportation Planner, LSA 

 Natalie Brodie, Senior Cultural Resource Manager, Cultural Resources Specialist, LSA 

 Eric Brown, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Earth Mechanics, Inc. 

 Ron Brugger, Senior Air Quality Specialist, LSA 

 Kelly Czechowski, Senior Environmental Planner, Technical Reviewer, LSA 

 Linda Meadows Davis, Safety and Security Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Mona DeLeon, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner, LSA 

 JD Douglas, AICP, Transportation Planner, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Wade Durant, P.E., Senior Bridge Construction Engineer, TY Lin International 

 Bethany Garretson, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer, TY Lin International 

 Roya Golchoobian, P.E., Senior Bridge Engineer, TY Lin International 

 Jacqueline Hall, Cultural Resources Manager, Cultural Resources Specialist, LSA 

 Jayna Harris, Senior Land Use Specialist, LSA 

 Ali Iqbal, P.E., Civil Engineer, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Keith Lay, Associate Acoustical and Air Quality Specialist, LSA 

 Allison McEachern, EIT, Utility Coordination Engineer, TY Lin International 

 Roderic McLean, M.A., RPA, Associate, Cultural Resources Specialist, LSA 

 Henry Miranda, Safety and Security Manager, InfraConsult/HDR, Inc. 

 Ambarish Mukherjee, AICP, EIT, Senior Transportation Planner, LSA 

 Aga Napiatek, LEED-AP, Economic and Fiscal Specialist, Environmental Justice 

Specialist, LSA 

 Henry Peng, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer, TY Lin International 

 Brianna Pilkinton, Senior Environmental Planner, Technical Reviewer, LSA 

 David Preciado, ASLA, Estrada Land Planning 

 Megan Ryan, Community and Neighborhoods Specialist, Visual Resources Specialist, 

LSA 

 Christine Huard-Spencer, Senior Environmental Planner, Section 4(f) Specialist, LSA 

 Mike Trotta, Principal Biologist, LSA 

 Nicole West, CPSWQ, QSD/QSP, Associate Water Resources Specialist, LSA 

 Lisa Williams, Associate Hazardous Materials Specialist, LSA 

Parsons Brinckerhoff 

 Dennis Henderson, Environmental/New Starts Project Manager 

 Reddy Chidananda, Engineering Project Manager 

 Hadi Samii, P.E., Engineering Manager 

 Susan Killen, AICP, Environmental Manager for Draft SEIS/SEIR 

 Kristin M. Carlson, AICP, Transportation and Final SEIS/SEIR Manager 

 Jennifer Mitchell, Financial Planning Manager for Draft SEIS/SEIR 

 Bassel Younan, Financial Planning Manager for Final SEIS/SEIR 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Preparers

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 3 

 Bill Davidson, Travel Demand Forecasting Manager 

 Lisa Nungesser, Ph.D., Senior Advisor and Technical Reviewer 

 Don Emerson, Senior Advisor and Technical Reviewer—Transportation Planning and 

New Starts 

 Sharon Henderson, Document Production/Graphics 

 Ed Reynolds, Editor 

 Melissa Estrada, Environmental Coordinator, Environmental Planning 

 Christine Rychel, P.E., Construction Impacts 

 Jeff Howard, L.A., Environmental Planning—Land Use Impact Analysis 

 Tracey Nixon, AICP, Environmental Planning—Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis 

 Theresa Dickerson, Environmental Planning—Visual Analysis 

 Betsy Minden, AICP, Environmental Planning—Property Acquisitions Impact Analysis 

 Kimberly Jaskot, CPESC, FE/EIT, Environmental Planning—Water Impact Analysis 

 Alice Lovegrove, Environmental Planning—Energy, Air Quality, and Climate Change 

Impact Analysis 

 Edward Tadross, Environmental Planning—Energy, Air Quality, and Climate Change 

Impact Analysis 

 David Gobelle, Environmental Planning—Electromagnetic Interference Impact Analysis 

 Jinghua Xu, Ph.D., P.E., Travel Demand Forecasting Analysis 

 Chris J. Wahl, Transportation Planning 

 Michelle Go, Transportation Planning 

 Laura Wojcicki, P.E., Traffic Analysis 

 Jay A. Yenerich, P.E., Traffic Analysis 

 Miriam Jim, P.E., T.E., Traffic and Construction Analysis 

 Nirupa Kannan, P.E., Engineering 

 Jeannie Pham, Engineering and Right-of-Way 

 Jim Liao, P.E., Structural Engineering 

 Joe Valencia, P.E., Trackwork Engineering 

 John Trautmann, AIA, LEED AP, Architecture 

 Mahesh Patel, Systems Engineering 

 David B. McBrayer, AICP, PTP, Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimating 

 Pat McNamee, Capital Cost Estimating 

ATS Consulting 

 Hugh Sauerman, Ph.D., Environmental Planning—Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 

 Steven Wolf, Environmental Planning—Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 

 Zack Dennis, Environmental Planning—Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis 

Dudek 

 Paul Lemons, Environmental Planning—Ecosystems and Biological Impact Analysis 

 Thomas S. Liddicoat, Environmental Planning—Ecosystems and Biological Impact 

Analysis 

 Kamarul J. Muri, TWS, CNPS, Environmental Planning—Ecosystems and Biological 

Impact Analysis 

 Brock A. Ortega, Environmental Planning—Ecosystems and Biological Impact Analysis 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Preparers 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4 September 2014 

 Patricia C. Schuyler, CNPS, Environmental Planning—Ecosystems and Biological 

Impact Analysis 

Enertech Consultants 

 Chris Hooper, Environmental Planning—Electromagnetic Field Measurements 

Electric Research and Management 

 David Fugate, Environmental Planning—Electromagnetic Interference Impact Analysis 

Garcia and Associates 

 Erica Shultz, MHP, Environmental Planning—Historic Architectural Impact Analysis 

 Carole A. Denardo, M.A., RPA, Environmental Planning—Archaeological Impact 

Analysis 

 Caprice “Kip” Harper, M.A., RPA, Environmental Planning—Paleontological Impact 

Analysis 

ICF International 

 Richard Starzak, Environmental Planning—Historic Architectural Impact Analysis 

 Daniel Paul, Environmental Planning—Historic Architectural Impact Analysis 

 Karen Crawford, MA, RPA, Environmental Planning—Archaeological Impact Analysis 

Kleinfelder 

 Elyssa Figari, Environmental Planning—Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis 

 James Gingery, P.E., GE, Environmental Planning—Geotechnical, Geologic, and 

Seismic Impact Analysis 

 Scott Rugg, Environmental Planning—Geotechnical, Geologic, and Seismic Impact 

Analysis 

 Liz Simmons, Environmental Planning—Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis 

 Robert Torres, P.E., Environmental Planning—Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis 

KTU+A 

 Michael L. Singleton, ASLA, AICP, LEED AP, Environmental Planning—Visual Impact 

Analysis 

 Brooke Pietz, Environmental Planning—Visual Impact Analysis 

Simon Wong Engineering 

 Jim Frost, P.E., Structural Engineering 

 Keith Gazaway, Structural Engineering 

Sirius Environmental 

 Wendy Lockwood, Environmental Planning 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Preparers

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 5 

Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc. 

 Terry A. Hayes, AICP, Environmental Planning—Community and Neighborhood Impact 

Analysis; Environmental Justice; Technical Reviewer 

 Michael Sullivan, Environmental Planning—Community and Neighborhood Impact 

Analysis and Environmental Justice 

 Madonna Marcelo, Environmental Planning—Community and Neighborhood Impact 

Analysis; Environmental Justice; Technical Reviewer 

 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Preparers 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6 September 2014 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

LIST OF FINAL SEIS/SEIR RECIPIENTS Federal, State, Regional, and Local Agencies and Native American Tribes 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation John Fowler, Executive Director 401 F Street NW, Suite 308; WFederal Aviation Administration Dave Cushing, Manager Los Angeles Airports District 

Office (Western-Pacific Region) 

P.O. Box 92007; Los Angeles

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Teresa Bresler 2730 McKean Street, Building 

92136-5198 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colonel Kimberly M. Colloton, Commander (Los Angeles 

District) 

915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 90017 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shanti Santulli, Project Manager, South Coast Branch 

cc: Meris Bantilan-Smith, Project Manager, South Coast Branch 

5900 La Place Court, Suite 10

U.S. Department of Commerce—NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

Rodney McInnis, Regional Administrator (Southwest Region) 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, SCA 90802-4213 

U.S. Department of Defense Christine E. Wormuth, Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy 

2100 Defense Pentagon; Was

U.S. Department of Energy Carol Borgstrom, Director (Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance) 

1000 Independence Avenue, 20585 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Ken Shapiro, Region 9 Acting Director 90 Seventh Street, Federal Bu

Francisco, CA 94103 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Thomas Frieden, Director 1600 Clifton Road; Atlanta, GA 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Karen Armes, Acting Region 9 Administrator 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200; O

U.S. Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Gregory Blackburn, Region 9 Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch Chief 

1111 Broadway, Suite 1200; O

U.S. Department of Homeland Security—Transportation Security Administration 

John S. Pistole, Administrator TSA-1 Administrator; 601 S. 1

20598 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

2 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

U.S. Department of Homeland Security—U.S. Coast Guard 

Captain Sean Mahoney, Commander (Sector San Diego) 2710 North Harbor Drive; San 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Ophelia B. Basgal, Regional Administrator (San Francisco Regional Office) 

600 Harrison Street, 3rd Floor1300 

U.S. Department of the Interior Willie R. Taylor, Director (Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance) 

Main Interior Building, MS 234Washington, DC 20240 

U.S. Department of the Interior Patricia S. Port, Regional Environmental Officer (Pacific 

Southwest Region) 

333 Bush Street, Suite 515; S

U.S. Department of Transportation—Federal Highway Administration 

Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

U.S. Department of Transportation—Federal Highway Administration 

Vincent Mammano, Division Administrator (California Division) 

650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100; 

U.S. Department of Transportation—Federal Railroad Administration 

Paul Nissenbaum, Associate Administrator (Office of 

Railroad Policy and Development) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

U.S. Department of Transportation—Federal Railroad Administration 

James Jordan, Region 7 Administrator 801 I Street, Suite 466; Sacra

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Jeffrey T. Gering, Director (VA San Diego Healthcare 

System) 

3350 La Jolla Village Drive ; S

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Susan Bromm, Director (Office of Federal Activities, EIS 

Filing Section) 

Ariel Rios Building, MC 2251-AAvenue, NW; Washington, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jared Blumenfeld, Region 9 Administrator 75 Hawthorne Street; San FraU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Carol Sachs, Region 9 EIS Review Coordinator 75 Hawthorne Street; San FraU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Connell Dunning, Region 9 Transportation Team 

Supervisor 

75 Hawthorne Street; San Fra

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ren Lohoefener, Regional Director (Pacific Southwest 

Region) 

2800 Cottage Way, W-2606; S

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scott Sobiech, Acting Field Supervisor (Carlsbad Office) 

cc: Karen Goebel, Assistant Field Supervisor cc: Lauren Kershek, Biologist cc: David Zoutendyk, Chief (Coastal San Diego Division) 

2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250; 

U.S. Marine Corps C.L. Thornton, Community Plans and Liaison Officer 

(Marine Corps Air Station Miramar) 

P.O. Box 452000; San Diego, 

U.S. Marine Corps Juan Lias (Marine Corps Air Station Miramar) P.O. Box 452001; San Diego, 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

State Agencies California Business, Transportation, & Housing Agency 

Brian P. Kelly, Secretary 915 Capitol Mall, Suite 350B; Sa

2742 

California Coastal Commission Elizabeth Fuchs, Manager (Statewide Planning) 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000

94105-2219 

California Coastal Commission Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director (San Diego Coast 

District) 

7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 92108-4402 

California Coastal Commission Gabriel Buhr, Coastal Program Analyst III 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 

92108-4402 

California Coastal Conservancy Joan Cardellino, South Coast Program Manager 1330 Broadway, 13th Floor; OCalifornia Department of Conservation Mark Nechodom, Director 801 K Street, MS 24-01; SacraCalifornia Department of Conservation—State Mining and Geology Board 

Steven Testa, Executive Officer 801 K Street, MS 20-15; Sacra

California Department of Fish & Wildlife Charlton H. Bonham, Director 

cc: Sandra Morey, Deputy Director (Ecosystem Conservation Division) 

1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor; 

California Department of Fish & Wildlife Ed Pert, Region 5 Manager 3883 Ruffin Road; San Diego, California Department of Fish & Wildlife Paul Schlitt Paul.schlitt@wildlife.ca.gov California Department of Fish & Wildlife Gail K. Sevrens, Environmental Program Manager 3883 Ruffin Road; San Diego, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

Ken Pimlott, Director cc: Dale Hutchinson, Regional Chief (Southern Region) 

P.O. Box 944246; Sacramento

California Department of Housing and Community Development 

Randall Deems, Acting Director 2020 West El Camino Avenue; 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Major General Anthony L. Jackson, Director cc: Jay Chamberlin, Chief (Natural Resources Division) 

P.O. Box 942896; Sacramento

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Nellie Gonzalez, Acting Administrative Officer (San Diego Coast District) 

4477 Pacific Highway; San Di

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Clayton Phillips, District Superintendent 4477 Pacific Highway; San Di

California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) 

Caroll Mortensen, Director P.O. Box 4025; Sacramento, C

California Department of Toxic Substances Control 

Debbie Raphael, Director P.O. Box 806; Sacramento, C
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

4 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Malcolm Dougherty, Director cc: Jay Norvell, Environmental Analysis cc: Bill Mosby, Transportation Planning 

P.O. Box 942873, MS49; Sac

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Laurie Berman, Director (District 11) 4050 Taylor Street; San Diego

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Allan Kosup, I-5 and SR-76 Corridor Director 4050 Taylor Street; San Diego

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Ken Johansson, Route Manager (NPDES/Storm Water Compliance) 

4050 Taylor Street; San Diego

California Department of Water Resources Mark Cowin, Director 

cc: Nadell Gayou, Division of Engineering 

P.O. Box 942836; Sacramento

California Emergency Management Agency Mark Ghilarducci, Director 

cc: Christina Curry, Deputy Director—Planning, Preparedness, and Prevention 

3650 Schriever Avenue; Math

California Energy Commission Roger Johnson, Deputy Director (Siting, Transmission, 

and Environmental Protection Division) cc: Eric Knight (Environmental Protection Office) 

1516 Ninth Street, MS-29; Sac5512 

California Environmental Protection Agency Matt Rodriquez, Secretary for Environmental Protection P.O. Box 2815; Sacramento, CCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency—California Air Resources Board 

Douglas Ito, Chief (Air Quality, Planning, and Science Division) 

P.O. Box 2815; Sacramento, C

California Environmental Protection Agency—State Water Resources Control Board 

Vicky Whitney, Deputy Director (Division of Water Quality) 

P.O. Box 100; Sacramento, C

California Environmental Protection Agency—San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 

David W. Gibson, Executive Officer (San Diego Region 9) cc: Mike Porter cc: Chiara Clemente 

2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100

California Governor's Office of Planning and Research 

Ken Alex, Director P.O. Box 3044; Sacramento, C

State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street; SacramenCalifornia Health and Human Services Agency Diana S. Dooley, Secretary 1600 Ninth Street, Room 460; California High-Speed Rail Authority Gregg Albright, Deputy Project Manager 

cc: Bryan Porter cc: Thomas Fellenz 

770 L Street, Suite 800; Sacra

California High-Speed Rail Authority Mark A. McLoughlin, Director (Environmental Services) 770 L Street, Suite 800; Sacra
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

California Highway Patrol Jim Abele, Division Chief (Border Division) 9330 Farnham Street; San DieCalifornia State Lands Commission Cy Oggins, Division Chief (Environmental Planning and 

Management) 

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 95825 

California Native American Heritage Commission 

 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364; S

California Native American Heritage Commission 

Dave Singleton, Program Analyst 1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 

CA 95691 

California Natural Resources Agency John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311California Office of Historic Preservation Carol Roland-Nawi, State Historic Preservation Officer 1725 23rd Street, Suite 100; SCalifornia Office of the Governor Jerry Brown 

Attn: Operations Department 

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173; 

California Public Utilities Commission Daren Gilbert, Manager (Rail Transit and Crossing 

Branch, Safety and Enforcement Division) 

180 Promenade Circle, Suite 95834-2939 

California Public Utilities Commission Paul Clanon, Executive Director 505 Van Ness Avenue; San FCalifornia Public Utilities Commission Anton Garabetian, Supervisor (Rail Crossings 

Engineering Section) 

320 West 4th Street, Suite 500

California Public Utilities Commission Joey Bigornia 320 West 4th Street, Suite 500California Transportation Commission Andre Boutros, Executive Director 1120 N Street, Room 2221 (M

95814 

San Diego River Conservancy Kevin McKernan, Executive Officer 1350 Front Street, Suite 3024University of California Office of the President Patrick J. Lenz, Vice President (Budget and Capital 

Resources Department) 

1111 Franklin Street, 6th Floo

University of California, San Diego Pradeep K. Khosla, Chancellor 

cc: Gary C. Matthews, Vice Chancellor for Resources Management and Planning 

9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0005; 

University of California, San Diego Robert Clossin, Director (Physical and Community 

Planning) 

9500 Gilman Drive #0074; La 

Regional Agencies LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Linda Culp, Principal Planner—Rail 401 B Street, Suite 800; San DMetropolitan Transit System Harry Mathis, Board Chairman 1255 Imperial Avenue, Ste. 10

92101 

Metropolitan Transit System Paul Jablonski, Chief Executive Officer 1255 Imperial Avenue, Ste. 10

92101 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

6 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

Metropolitan Transit System Sharon Cooney, Chief of Staff 1255 Imperial Avenue, Ste. 10

92101 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Deirdra West, Team Manager 7 P.O. Box 54153; Los Angeles

North County Transit District Bill Horn, Board Chairman 1600 Pacific Highway; San DiNorth County Transit District Matthew Tucker, Executive Director 810 Mission Avenue; OceansiSan Diego County Air Pollution Control District Robert Reider, Supervisor (Planning and Rule 

Development) 

10124 Old Grove Road; San D

Local Agencies City of San Diego Kevin Faulconer, Mayor 202 C Street, 11th Floor; San City of San Diego Thyme Curtis, Director (ADA and Disability Services) 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 924

92101 

City of San Diego Scott Chadwick, Chief Operating Officer 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 130City of San Diego Cathy Winterrowd, Assistant Deputy Director 

(Development Services Department) 

1222 First Avenue, MS 301; S

City of San Diego Farah Mahzari, Development Services Department 1222 First Avenue, MS 301; SCity of San Diego Holly Kicklighter, Multiple Species Conservation Program 1222 1st Avenue, MS 413; SaCity of San Diego Herman Parker, Director (Park and Recreation) 202 C Street, MS 37-C; San DCity of San Diego Kris McFadden, Director (Transportation and 

Stormwater) 

202 C Street, MS 9A; San Die

City of San Diego Halla Razak, Director (Public Utilities) 1222 First Avenue, MS 413; SCity of San Diego Tony Heinrichs, Deputy Chief Operating Officer (Public 

Works) cc: Jamal Batta, Floodplain Manager 

1222 First Avenue, MS 413; S

City of San Diego Steve Celniker, Senior Traffic Engineer 401 B Street, Suite 800; San DCity of San Diego Elizabeth Maaland, City Clerk 202 C Street, 2nd Floor; San DCity of San Diego Sherri S. Lightner, Council President Pro Tem (District 1) 202 C Street, MS #10A; San DCounty of San Diego Helen Robbins, Chief Administrative Officer 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 2

CA 92101 

County of San Diego Sarah Aghassi, General Manager/Deputy Chief 

Administrative Officer (Land Use and Environmental Group) 

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 2CA 92101 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

County of San Diego Mark Wardlaw, Director (Planning and Development 

Services) 

5510 Overland Avenue, MS 092123 

County of San Diego Brian Albright, Director (Parks and Recreation) 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 

CA 92123 

County of San Diego Richard E. Crompton, Director (Public Works) 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 

Diego, CA 92123 

County of San Diego Elizabeth A. Pozzebon, Acting Director (Environmental 

Health) 

5500 Overland Avenue, Suite Diego, CA 92123 

County of San Diego Dave Roberts, Supervisor, County of San Diego (District 

3) 

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 392101 

County of San Diego Ron Roberts, Supervisor, County of San Diego (District 

4) 

1600 Pacific Highway, Room 392101 

San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg, County Clerk 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 1

CA 92101 

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Thella F. Bowens, President/CEO 

cc: Marianne Phelps (Environmental Affairs) 

P.O. Box 82776; San Diego, C

San Diego County Water Authority Maureen Stapleton, General Manager 4677 Overland Avenue; San DSan Diego Fire-Rescue Department Javier Mainar, Fire Chief 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 4San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Jerry Sanders, President & CEO 402 West Broadway, Suite 10San Diego Unified Port District Eileen Maher, Assistant Director (Environmental Services) P.O. Box 120488; San Diego, San Diego Unified School District Cindy Marten, Superintendent 4100 Normal Street, Room 22Native American Tribes Barona Band of Mission Indians Clifford LaChappa, Chairman 1095 Barona Road; Lakeside, Campo Kumeyaay Nation Ralph Goff, Chairman 36190 Church Road; Campo, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Robert Pinto Sr., Chairman 4054 Willows Road; Alpine, CIipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources P.O. Box 507; Santa Ysabel, CInaja-Cosmit Band of Indians Rebecca M. Osuna, Chairwoman 2005 South Escondido Boulev

92025 

Jamul Indian Village, A Kumeyaay Nation Raymond Hunter Sr., Chairman P.O. Box 612; Jamul, CA 9193La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians LaVonne Peck, Tribal Chair 22000 Highway 76; Pauma VaLa Posta Band of Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson 8 1/2 Crestwood Road; BoulevLos Coyotes Band of Mission Indians Shane Chapparosa, Spokesperson P.O. Box 189; Warner Springs
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

8 

Agency Contact Name Contact A

Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Leroy Elliott, Chairman P.O. Box 1302; Boulevard, CA Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Mark Romero, Chairman P.O. Box 270; Santa Ysabel, CPala Band of Mission Indians Robert Smith, Chairman PMB 50, 35008 Pala TemecuPauma Band of Mission Indians Randall Majel, Chairman P.O. Box 369; Pauma Valley, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairman 1 West Tribal Road; Valley CeSan Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E. Lawson, Chairman P.O. Box 365; Valley Center, CSanta Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians Virgil Perez, Chairman P.O. Box 130; Santa Ysabel, CSycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Daniel J. Tucker, Chairman 1 Kwaaypaay Court; El CajonViejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Anthony R. Pico, Chairman P.O. Box 908; Alpine, CA 919

Community Planning Groups, Town Councils, and Home Owners Associations (HOAs) 

Group, Council, or HOA Contact Name Contact Addre

Cambridge Park Apartments Manager 3394 Daley Center Drive; San Diego, CCarmel Valley Community Planning Board Frisco White, Chair 5335 Caminito Exquisito; San Diego, CDowntown Community Planning Council Laura Garrett, Chair 1585 Kettner Boulevard; San Diego, CClairemont Community Planning Group Jeff Barfield, Chair 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suit

92124-1324 

Clairemont Mesa Town Council Ryan Trabuco, President P.O. Box 17793; San Diego, CA 92177Colony La Paz Condominium Association Audrey Kane, Association Manager P.O. Box 90928; San Diego, CA 92169 Community Planners Committee (CPC) Joe LaCava, Chairman 5274 La Jolla Boulevard; La Jolla, CA Costa Verde Apartments - North & South Mark Warren, Property Manager 8720 Costa Verde Boulevard; San DieDowntown Residents Group Gary Smith, Chairman P.O. Box 124715; San Diego, CA 9211East Village Association David Hasson, President 1041 Market Street, #200; San Diego, Gaslamp Quarter Association Jimmy Parker 614 Fifth Avenue, Suite E; San Diego, La Jolla Colony HOA, Barcelona HOA, and Las Palmas HOA 

Sean DeFreitas, Manager, A. McKibbin & Co. Community Association Management 

7529 Draper Avenue, Suite D; La Jolla
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Group, Council, or HOA Contact Name Contact Addre

La Jolla Community Planning Association Joe LaCava, Chair P.O. Box 889; La Jolla, CA 92038 La Jolla International Garden Apartments 3417 Lebon Drive; San Diego, CA 921La Jolla Shores Association Audrey Keane, Chair P.O. Box 64; La Jolla, CA 92038 La Jolla Town Council Cindy Greatrex 1150 Silverado Street; La Jolla, CA 92La Jolla Village Community Council Janay Kruger, Chair 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 1080La Scala Luxury Villas 3845 Nobel Drive; San Diego, CA 9212Linda Vista Community Collaborative Adriana Gallardo 2202 Comstock Street; San Diego, CA Linda Vista Planning Group Drew Corley, Chair P.O. Box 710174; San Diego, CA 9217Little Italy Association Marco LiMandri, Chief Executive Administrator 2210 Columbia Street; San Diego, CA Little Italy Residents Association Annie Eichman 1572 Columbia Street; San Diego, CA Midway/Pacific Highway Community Planning Group 

Melanie Nickel, Chair 3446 Hancock Street, #C; San Diego, 

Mission Beach Precise Planning Board Debbie Watkins, Chair 713 Isthmus Court; San Diego, CA 921Mission Beach Town Council Scott Morrison, President P.O. Box 9842; San Diego, CA 92169 Mission Valley Planning Group Dottie Surdi, Chair 9215 Piantino Way; San Diego, CA 92Morena Business Association Nevin Kleege, President 1244 Knoxville Street; San Diego, CA Morena Business Association Kimberly Weber 1244 Knoxville Street; San Diego, CA Ocean Beach Planning Board Peter Ruscitti, Chair P.O. Box 7090; San Diego, CA 92167 Old Town Community Planning Committee Thurston Coe, Chair 2836 Juan Street; San Diego, CA 9211One VA Stephen Arends 1370 Don Carlos Court; Chula Vista, CPacific Beach Planning Group Brian Curry, Chair 1351 Chalcedony Street; San Diego, CPacific Beach Town Council Alan Harris, President 1706 Garnet Avenue; San Diego, CA 9Peninsula Community Planning Board Julia Quinn, Chair P.O. Box 7994; San Diego, CA 92167 Playmor Terrace West HOA Geoff Laundy, President 7529 Draper Avenue, Suite D; La JollaRegency Villas Senior Complex Niles Johanson 6083 Via Regla; San Diego, CA 92122 Torrey Hills Community Planning Board Kathryn Burton, Chair 4106 Via Mar de Delfinas; San Diego, Torrey Pines Community Planning Group Dennis Ridz, Chair 14151 Boquita Drive; Del Mar, CA 920University City Community Association Barry Bernstein, President 3268 Governor Drive, Box 121; San DUniversity Community Planning Group Janay Kruger, Chair 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Ste. 1080; Uptown Planners Leo Wilson, Chair 536 Maple Street, #202; San Diego, C
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

10 

Group, Council, or HOA Contact Name Contact Addre

Venetian Condos HOA Pamela Walker, Manager 9610 Waples Street; San Diego, CA 92Village Apartments on the Square Anjanette Soban, Manager 8683 Via Mallorca; San Diego, CA 920Windemere HOA Ed Roth, Manager 2665 Caminito Merion; La Jolla, CA 92
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Environmental Organizations 

Organization Contact Name Contact Ad

Association of Environmental Professionals Julie Wang, President P.O. Box 82604; San Diego, CA California Coastal Coalition Steve Aceti, Executive Director 1133 2nd Street; Encinitas, CA 9California Native Plant Society c/o San Diego Natural History Museum 

 1788 El Prado; San Diego, CA 9

DeLano & DeLano on behalf of Friends of Rose Canyon Everett L DeLano III 220 W. Grand Avenue; EscondidEndangered Habitats League Michael Beck, San Diego Director 560 La Cresta Boulevard; Crest, Environmental Health Coalition Diane Takvorian, Executive Director 401 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310Friends of Rose Canyon Deborah Knight, Executive Director P.O. Box 221051; San Diego, CA Friends of Rose Canyon Deborah Knight, Executive Director 6804 Fisk Avenue; San Diego, CFriends of Rose Creek Karin Zirk 4629 Cass Street #188; San DieFriends of Tecolote Canyon Shirley Miller, President 5643 Tamres Drive; San Diego, Friends of the River Mouth Chapter of the San Diego River Park Foundation 

Lindsay Goodwin 1010 Santa Clara Place; San Die

Industrial Environmental Association Jack Monger 1330 Orange Avenue; CoronadoMarian Bear Natural Park Recreation Council Deron Bear, Chairman c/o North Clairemont Recreation 

Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 

Rose Creek Watershed Alliance Ann Van Leer 4079 Governor Drive, #330; San San Diego Audubon Society Chris Redfern, Executive Director 4010 Morena Boulevard, #100; SSan Diego Canyonlands Eric Bowlby, Executive Director 3552 Bancroft Street; San DiegoSan Diego Coastkeeper Megan Baehrens, Executive Director 2825 Dewey Road, Suite 200; SSan Diego Earth Times Carolyn Chase 2511 Loring Street; San Diego, CSan Diego River Park Foundation Rob Hutsel, Executive Director P.O. Box 80126; San Diego, CA San Diego River Conservancy Kevin McKernan, Executive Officer 1350 Front Street, Suite 3024; SSan Diego Sierra Club Dave Grubb, Chair 8304 Clairemont Mesa Boulevar

92111 

Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association Debi Carey, Administrative Director P.O. Box 575; Imperial Beach, CSurfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter Roger Kube, Chair 9883 Pacific Heights Boulevard, 

92121 

Tecolote Canyon Citizens Advisory Council Don Steele 5550 Balboa Arms Drive, #35; S
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

12 

Businesses, Business Groups, Community Services 

Business Contact Name Contact A

AIA-San Diego Urban Design Committee Paul Schroeder, Chair 2265 India Street; San Diego, Alexandria Real Estate Equities Jason Moorhead 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, S

92122 

All Saints Lutheran Church Karen Whistler 6355 Radcliffe Drive; San DieAmylin Pharmaceuticals John Grohs, Esq. CSP 9360 Towne Centre Drive, #7Armstrong Nursery Ian Hydoski, VP, Operations 

cc: Monte Wright cc: Stephanie Butkus cc: Gary Jones cc: Eric Asakawa, South and Bay Area Regional Manager cc: Will Bollard 

2200 E. Route 66, #200; Glen

BB&T John Burnham Insurance Services Iris Gladney 750 B Street, Suite 2400; San Biocom Jimmy Jackson, VP of Public Policy 4510 Executive Drive, Plaza 7BriceHouse Starboard LLC G. Bradford Saunders P.O. Box 6738; San Diego, CA Building Owners & Managers Association Audrey Doherty P.O. Box 121166; San Diego, Congregation Adat Yeshurun David Kupferberg, President 8625 La Jolla Scenic Drive N.Costco Sherri Eyler 4605 Morena Boulevard; San Discover Pacific Beach George Ondovchack, President 1503 Garnet Avenue; San DieDowntown San Diego Partnership Janelle Riella, VP, Public Policy & Communications 401 B Street, Suite 100; San DDoyle Park & Recreation Center Lou Ellen Robbins 3203-1 Caminito Eastbluff; La Evans Hotels David Cherashore 998 West Mission Bay Drive; SGenesee Executive Plaza Katie Davis, Property Manager 9339 Genesee Avenue, Suite 

92121 

Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce George Schmall, President 6235 Lusk Boulevard; San DieGreater Clairemont Mesa Chamber of Commerce 

Janet Miller, President 4203 Genesee Avenue #103-

92117 

Kennebec Properties LLC P.O. Box 847; Bonita, CA 919La Jolla Eastgate Building LP 1589 Calle Delicada; La Jolla, C
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Business Contact Name Contact A

La Jolla Golden Triangle Rotary Club Linda Stouffer, President 

cc: Cynthia Villis 

P.O. Box 13023; La Jolla, CA 

La Jolla Village Merchants Association Phil Coller 1162 Prospect Street; La JollaLa Jolla Village Professional Center Pele Wylde, Vice President 8950 Villa La Jolla Drive; La JLa Jolla Village Square - CBRE Damon Bradshaw 8657 Villa La Jolla Drive; La JLawrence Family Jewish Community Center Larry Katz, President 

cc: Michael Cohen, Executive Director cc: Julie Potiker, Past President cc: Nate Stein cc: David Wax, Past President 

4126 Executive Drive; La Jolla

Little Italy Association of San Diego Marco LiMandri, Executive Director 2210 Columbia Street; San DiMission Bay Montessori Academy Nan Madden, Principal 2640 Soderblum Avenue; San Morena Business Association Nevin Kleege, President 1244 Knoxville Street; San DieNAIOP Karen Burges, Executive Director 2658 Del Mar Heights Road #Old Town Chamber of Commerce Richard Stegner 2415 San Diego Avenue; San Qualcomm Monique Rodriguez 5775 Morehouse Drive; San DRegency Centers Stephen W. Hargrave, Senior Property Manager 420 Stevens Avenue, Suite 32

92075 

Regents Square La Jolla LLC 550 Newport Center Drive; NewRubens George J & Yvonne M Family Trust 1305 Chalcedony Street; San DSamuel Blick on behalf of La Jolla Village Square P.O. Box 9477; Rancho Santa FSan Diego BID Council Tiffany Bromfield, CEO P.O. Box 70169; San Diego, CSan Diego California LDS Temple Kevin Moesser, Temple Recorder 7474 Charmant Drive; San DieSan Diego Coastal Chamber of Commerce Nancy Wasko, President/CEO 2002 Jimmy Durante Bouleva

CA 92014 

San Diego Convention Center Corp. Carol Wallace, President/CEO 111 W. Harbor Drive; San DieSan Diego County Taxpayers Association Felipe Monroig, President & CEO 707 Broadway, Suite 905; San San Diego Land Lawyers on behalf of Scripps Health 

Robin Madaffer 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400; 

San Diego Mesa College Ian Kay, Co-Chair (Architecture) 7250 Mesa College Drive, Ma

CA 92111 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

14 

Business Contact Name Contact A

San Diego Mesa College Genevieve Esguerra, Outreach Coordinator 7250 Mesa College Drive, Roo

92111 

San Diego Padres Sarah Farnsworth, Senior Vice President of Public 

Affairs 

100 Park Boulevard; San Dieg

San Diego Regional Center Paul Mansell 4355 Ruffin Road, Suite 114; San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Carmen Sandoval, Public Policy 402 West Broadway, Suite 10San Diego Regional EDC Lauree Sahba, Chief Operating Officer 530 B Street, 7th Floor; San DSan Diego Tourism Authority Joe Terzi 750 B Street, Suite 1500; San Scripps Health Michael Bardin, Sr. Director of Public & Gov't Affairs 

cc: Jennifer Barker cc: Annette Blatt cc: Suzie Bustamante 

4275 Campus Point Court; Sa

Scripps Health Bruce Rainey 10130 Sorrento Valley Road, 

Diego, CA 92121 

Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, LLP Deborah Miller 396 Hayes Street; San FranciSkye Pharmaceuticals/Pacira Pharmaceuticals 

David Stack, CEO 10450 Science Center Drive; S

Standley Middle School Godwin Hega, Principal 6298 Radcliffe Drive; San DieTemple Corp of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 

 50 E. North Temple #2225; Salt 

The Irvine Company John Boslet 550 Newport Center Drive; NeThe Irvine Company Thomas Sullivan 750 B Street, Suite 1200; San The Irvine Company Kristopher Kopensky 4225 Executive Square, Suite Torrey Pines Christian Church Jim Brandt, Business Manager 8320 La Jolla Scenic Drive N.Torrey Pines Elementary School Jim Solo, Principal 8350 Cliffridge Avenue; La JoToys R Us David Picot One Geoffrey Way; Wayne, NTRU 2005 RE I LLC—Harbor Investment Co. LLC 

 One Geoffrey Way; Wayne, NJ 

UC Connection Marcia Munn 6255 Radcliffe Drive; San DieUC Golden Daniel Arovas 3202 Lahitte Court; San DiegoUCSD Graduate Student Association 9500 Gilman Drive, #0064; La UCSD Thornton Hospital Debbie Wayne, Interim Director 9300 Campus Point Drive; La 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Business Contact Name Contact A

UCSD, Government & Community Relations Anu Delouri, Principal Community Planner 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0074; UCSD, Student Human Relations Gary Anderson, Manager 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0352; UCSD, Transportation Services Curt Lutz 9500 Gilman Drive ; La Jolla, University City High School Ernie Smith, Principal 6949 Genesee Avenue; San DUniversity Lutheran Church Brian Hooper, Pastor 9595 La Jolla Shores Drive; LUniversity of San Diego Tom Cleary, Senior Director Maher 264, 5998 Alcala Park; 

2492 

VA San Diego Healthcare System Cynthia Butler 

cc: John Norwood 

3350 La Jolla Village Drive; Sa

Westfield Corp. John Alderson 225 Broadway, Suite 1700; SaWestfield UTC John Alderson, Vice President—Development 

cc: Jerry Engen, Supervisor—Development cc: David Reitz, Vice President–Design 

225 Broadway, Suite 1700; Sa

Accessibility Advocates 

Organization Contact Name Contact Address

Access to Independence of San Diego Louis Frick, Executive Director 8885 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 131; San DiegoBraille Institute Jay Comstock, San Diego Regional Director 4555 Executive Drive; San Diego, CA 92121 Mayor's Committee on Disability Susan Madison 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1300, MS 56C; San DSANDAG Social Services Transportation Advisory Council 

Erick Asero, Chair 6952 Del Cerro Boulevard; San Diego, CA 9212
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

16 

Minority Organizations 

Organization Contact Name Contact A

Asian Business Association Wendy Urushima-Conn, President & CEO 7675 Dagget Street, Suite 340Bayside Community Center Jorge Riquleme, Executive Director 2202 Comstock Street ; San DChicano Federation Raymond Uzeta, President & CEO 

cc: Michelle Soltero, Chair 

3180 University, Suite 317; Sa

Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce of San Diego County 

Willie Racelis, President 415 Laurel Street, PMB 218; S

MAAC Project Antonio Pizano, President & CEO 1385 Third Avenue; San DiegSan Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Albert Clark, Chairman P.O. Box 131548; San Diego, San Diego Organizing Project (SDOP) Kevin Malone, Executive Director 4305 University Avenue, Suite 

92105

San Diego Urban League Ray King, President & CEO 720 Gateway Center Drive; SaSan Diego Workforce Partnership Peter Callstrom, President & CEO 3910 University Avenue, Suite 

92105

Transportation Advocates 

Organization Contact Name Contact A

Bike San Diego Samantha Ollinger, Executive Director 

cc: Kelly Cummings 

sam@bikesd.org 

COMPACT Bill Ferguson, Chairman 6253 Via Regla; San Diego, CLa Jolla Traffic & Transportation Board Todd Lesser P.O. Box 889; La Jolla, CA 92Circulate San Diego Jim Stone, Executive Director 1111 6th Avenue, Suite 402; SCirculate San Diego Elyse Lowe, Deputy Executive Director 1111 6th Avenue, Suite 402; SSan Diego County Bicycle Coalition Andy Hanshaw, Executive Director P.O. Box 34544; San Diego, CTransit Alliance for a Better North County (TABNC) Ted Owen, President 810 Mission Avenue ; San Die
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Housing Advocates 

Organization Contact Name Contact Address

BIA Borre Winckel, Executive Officer 9201 Spectrum Center Boulevard, Suite 110; San Diego, CA 9San Diego Housing Federation Tom Scott, Executive Director 110 West C Street; San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego Organizing Project Kevin Malone, Executive Director 4305 University Avenue, Suite 530; San Diego, CA 92105 Urban Land Institute Mary Lydon, Executive Director 1249 F Street; San Diego , CA 92101 Community Interest Groups 

Group Contact Name Contact Address

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council 

Robyn C. Purchia 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000; South San 

Hecht Solberg on behalf of Bay Park Community 

Neil S. Hyytinen 600 West Broadway, 8th Floor; San Diego, CA 9

Kosa'aay (Cosoy) Geoffrey Mogilner 2737 San Diego Avenue; San Diego, CA 92110 Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 89 

Bobby Pineda, President 4161 Home Avenue; San Diego, CA 92105 

La Jolla Colony Board of Directors Management 

Sean DeFreitas 7529 Draper Avenue, Suite D; La Jolla, CA 9203

Live Well San Diego—North Central Leadership Team 

Andy Hamilton 5055 Ruffin Road; San Diego, CA 92123 

Lozeau Drury on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 89 

Richard T. Drury 410 12th St # 250, Oakland, CA 94607 

Moderate Majority Brian Kim info@moderatemajorityusa.org San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council 

Joe Powell, President 3737 Camino del Rio South, Suite 202; San Die

United Veterans Council of San Diego County 

Jack Harkins 2115 Park Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92101 

University City Community Association Barry Bernstein 3268 Governor Drive, Box 121; San Diego, CA 9
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

18 

Project Working Group 

Contact Name Contact Address

Ron Roberts, Supervisor, County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335; San DiegDan Allen, La Jolla Resident 1714 Kearsarge Road; La Jolla, CA 92037 Bob Emery, Retired MTS Board Member and Poway City Council Member 14360 Mountain Road; Poway, CA 92064 John Alderson, Westfield LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 1700; San Diego, CA Ian Foster, Clairemont Resident 3514 Baker Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Brian Gregory, UCSD Assistant Vice Chancellor 9500 Gilman Drive, MS0057; La Jolla, CA 9Debra Gutzmer, CBRE, Inc. 14122 Powers Road; Poway, CA 92064 Joe LaCava, La Jolla Community Planning Group 5274 La Jolla Boulevard; La Jolla, CA 9202Mark Marcus, La Jolla Country Day School 9490 Genesee Avenue; La Jolla, CA 92037 Evan McLaughlin, La Jolla Resident 3737 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 403; San Jeff Barfield, Clairemont Community Planning Group 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 10Barbara Obrzut, La Jolla Resident 6840 Draper Avenue; La Jolla, CA 92037 David Potter, Clairemont Resident 4975 Milton Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Anette Blatt, Scripps Health 4275 Campus Point Court, San Diego CA 9Ann Van Leer, Land Conservation Brokerage, Inc. P.O. Box 3799, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 9206Janay Kruger, University Community Planning Group 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 1080; SaRob Hutsel, San Diego River Park Foundation P.O. Box 80126; San Diego, CA 92138 Chanelle Hawken, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1000; San Diego, 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Libraries 

Name Address

Balboa Branch Library 4255 Mt. Abernathy Avenue; San Diego , CA 92117 City of San Diego Central Library 330 Park Boulevard; San Diego , CA 92101 Clairemont Branch Library 2920 Burgener Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92110-1027 Kensington-Normal Heights Branch Library 4121 Adams Avenue; San Diego, CA 92116-2507 La Jolla/Riford Branch Library 7555 Draper Avenue; La Jolla, CA 92037-4802 Linda Vista Branch Library 2160 Ulric Street; San Diego, CA 92111-6628 Mesa College Library 7250 Mesa College Drive, San Diego, CA 92111-4998 Mission Hills Branch Library 925 W. Washington Street; San Diego, CA 92103-1806 Mission Valley Branch Library 2123 Fenton Parkway; San Diego, CA 92108-4739 North Clairemont Branch Library 4616 Clairemont Drive; San Diego, CA 92117-2701 North Park Branch Library 3795 31st Street; San Diego, CA 92104-3720 North University Community Branch Library 8820 Judicial Drive; San Diego, CA 92122-4684 Ocean Beach Branch Library 4801Santa Monica Avenue; San Diego , CA 92107 Pacific Beach/Taylor Branch Library 4275 Cass Street; San Diego, CA 92109-4005 Point Loma/Hervey Branch Library 3701 Voltaire Street; San Diego , CA 92139 San Diego County Public Law Library 1105 Front Street; San Diego, CA 92101-3904 Serra Mesa-Kearny Mesa Branch Library 3440 Sandrock Road; San Diego, CA 92123-2198 UCSD Geisel Library 9600 John Jay Hopkins Drive; La Jolla, CA 92093 University Community Branch Library 4155 Governor Drive; San Diego, CA 92122-2501 University Heights Branch Library 4193 Park Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92103-2510 University of San Diego Copley Library 5998 Alcala Park; San Diego, CA 92110 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

20 

Affected Property Owners and/or Property Representatives 

Contact Name Contact Address

8650 Villa La Jolla Inc. 8657 Villa La Jolla Drive, #123; La Jolla, CA 92Adams Family Trust 22992 Black Bear Trail; Conifer, CO 80433 Albertsons LLC—Regency Centers LP P.O. Box 790830; San Antonio, TX 78279 Alecta Real Estate USA LLC 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2500; San FranciAlain H. Huang and Hua Li Ming Revocable Trust 287 Livorna Heights Road; Alamo, CA 94507 Allen D. Chang 9871 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Amber Hewette Revocable Living Trust 1711 W. Walnut Street; Carbondale, IL 62901 Angel Family Trust and Jordan Angel Revocable Trust 298 Via La Paz; Greenbrae, CA 94904 Associated Microbreweries Inc. 5985 Santa Fe Street; San Diego, CA 92109 Barbara A. Lorentz 4028 Mahaila Avenue #B; San Diego, CA 9212Barbara Roberts 9839 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Barmatz Family Trust 9781 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Bartell Hotels 4875 N. Harbor Drive; San Diego , CA 92106 Bluewater Provisioning LLC 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, #200; San Diego, Brazell Charles & Margaret Family Trust 4170 Morena Boulevard #E; San Diego, CA 92Bridget L. Scanlan 9837 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Changyi Zhu and Baohong Yang 1038 Jacqueline Way; San Jose, CA 95129 Christos D. Svolopolous and Sheri Crampton 5105 Renaissance Avenue #A; San Diego, CA Colony La Paz Condominium Association P.O. Box 90928; San Diego, CA 92169 Costa Verde Hotel LLC 8895 Towne Centre Drive, #105-2; San Diego, Edward C. Alexander and Edwina C. Alexander Trust 3381 Lone Jack Road; Encinitas, CA 92024 Elmer D. Lucas Jr. and Tina M. Lucas 3346 Knollridge Drive; El Dorado Hills, CA 9576Epsilon Iota Chapter of Delta Gamma House Corporation 3250 Riverside Drive; Upper Arlington, Ohio 43Eugene T. Lombardi and Sandra S. Lombardi 9803 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Gateway Center LCC 4607 Mission Gorge Place; San Diego, CA 921Guosheng Fu and Yafen Lu 4808 Tula Court; San Diego, CA 92122 Genesee Executive Plaza LLC 575 Market Street; San Francisco, CA 94105 Geza Nagy and Ginny M. Nagy 9831 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Contact Name Contact Address

Good Samaritan Episcopal Church 4321 Eastgate Mall; San Diego, CA 92121 Harbor Investment Co. LLC P.O. Box 876; La Mesa, CA 91944 Harker G. Wesley Family Trust 9255 N. Magnolia Avenue #206; Santee, CA 92Hashem-Nahid Family Trust and Berkus Yassaman Catayoun 1666 Michael Lane; Pacific Palisades, CA 9027Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive; Newport Beach, CA Jennifer Whelan 9775 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Jerry R. Gallenson P.O. Box 87079; San Diego, CA 92138 John P. Nguyen 9825 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Julie Atencio 2834 Meadow Glen Way W.; Escondido, CA 92Julia Plant 9793 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Kerchner Family Trust and Matthew Kerchner 4152 Summit Ridge Court; Westlake Village, CA La Jolla Business Center LLC 315 4th Avenue; San Diego, CA 92101 La Jolla Canyon Gardens LLC 8895 Towne Centre Drive, #105-2; San Diego, La Jolla Country Day School 9409Regents Road; La Jolla, CA 92037 Lanza Morena LLC 3978 Sorrento Valley Boulevard, #100; San DieLin Family Trust 5250 Soledad Mountain Road; San Diego, CA 9Malone Edward C & Barbara J Family Trust 581 San Antonio Avenue; San Diego, CA 92106 Marc H. Tayman and Susan D. Comer 2635 Camino Del Rio South #312; San Diego, CMaria I. McComb Trust 3939 Walnut Avenue, #220; Carmichael, CA 95McHugh Family Trust 9771 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 Michael R. Jauregui and Kathleen J. Anderson Family 8045 E. Del Cristal Drive; Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Morena Investors 5360 Eastgate Mall #G; San Diego, CA 92121 Navarra Morena Properties LLC 16960 Mesamint Street; San Diego, CA 92127 Nemeth-Eagle Trust 3060 6th Avenue, #2; San Diego, CA 92103 P S Rose Canyon LLC 701 Western Avenue #200; Glendale, CA 9120Paul Ciesko and William S. Maginnis III 14 Woodland Avenue; Hawthorne, NJ 07506 Peter Iverson and Nancy W. Iverson Revocable Living Trust 1328 Bulrush Court; Carlsbad, CA 92011 Ranindra A. Athale and Chanda R. Athale; Satish Samant and Jyoti Samant 5311 Dunleigh Drive; Burke, VA 22015 Ravindra P. Mistry and Nayna R. Mistry 3531 Skyline Drive; Hayward, CA 94542 Regency Centers LP 420 Stevens Avenue Suite 320; Solana Beach, 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

22 

Contact Name Contact Address

Regents of the University of California 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor; Oakland, CA 9Rudie & Rudie LLC 4537 Mt. Henry Place; San Diego, CA 92117 Rusian Polinovsky and Olga Polinovsky; Diana Tishkovakaya 1414 Bay Street; Santa Monica, CA 90405 S. A. Marina LLC 7029 Martano Place; Rancho Cucamonga, CA Sadler Company LLC 3021 Kona Way; San Diego, CA 92106 San Diego Data Processing Corp. 5975 Santa Fe Street; San Diego, CA 92109 San Diego Gas & Electric 8326 Century Park Court; San Diego, CA 92123 San Diego Humane Society & SPCA 5500 Gaines Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Scripps Health 10140 Campus Point Drive, #AX265; San DiegoSimon Huang and Betty Yang Huang 4785 W. 4th Avenue; Vancouver, Canada V6T1UTC Properties LLC 550 Newport Center Drive; Newport Beach, CA UTC Venture LLC P.O. Box 130940; Carlsbad, CA 92013 Vallegjos Family Trust 794 Saugerties Avenue; San Diego, CA 92154 Victor Chan and Lonio Chan 2129 Scudder Street; St. Paul, MN 55108 Warren H. Lu and Jane Lu 9791 Genesee Avenue; San Diego, CA 92121 William Hoffenberg and Carol C. Hoffenberg 1050 17th Street, #24FL; Denver, CO 80265 With Memorial Trust 6666 Caminito Sinnecock; La Jolla, CA 92037 Ying Wang 1290 Upas Street; San Diego, CA 92103 Ying Wang P.O. Box 3452; San Diego, CA 92163 Evelyn Heidelberg on behalf of Alecta Real Estate USA LLC 525 B Street, Suite 2200; San Diego, CA 92101 James R. Dawe on behalf of Bartell Hotels 750 B Street, Suite 2100; San Diego, CA 92101 Richard Schulman on behalf of Costa Verde Hotel LLC 600 West Broadway, Suite 800; San Diego, CA Jeffrey Chine on behalf of Regency Centers 501 West Broadway, 15th Floor; San Diego, CADan Zentmeyer on behalf of TRU 2005 REI LLC 3400 Carlisle Street, Suite 400; Dallas, TX, 752Neal Maguire on behalf of UTC Venture LLC 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 215; Westlake Vil
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Individuals 

Contact Name Contact Address

Name Not Provided bmagda@aol.com Name Not Provided 4042906824@mypixmessages.com Theresa Acerro P.O. Box 8697; Chula Vista, CA 91912 J. Deryl Adderson 6106 Regents Road; San Diego, CA 92122 A. Aguilar 4311 Moraga Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Marilyn Ames 4414 Field Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Sam Ames 4414 Field Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Jason Anderson-Brustkern and Traci AndersonBrustkern 3936 Caminito Silvela; San Diego, CA 92122 Melodee Arnold 3184 Carnegie Court; San Diego, CA 92122 Daniel Arovas 3202 Lahitte Court; San Diego, CA 92122 Eric Asakawa 4186 Conner Court; San Diego, CA 92117 George Ashby 3693 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 David Atz datz1@san.rr.com Eduardo Azucena 7120 Shoreline Drive #2308; San Diego, CA 92122 Ronald Bacon 4670 Leathers Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Ed Baize 3911 Caminito Cassis; San Diego, CA 92122 Erin Bala erinbala@gmail.com Ian J. Ball 2980 Clairemont Drive, #35; San Diego, CA 92117-6728 John Bassler 3068 Award Row; San Diego, CA 92122 N Lee Bausch and Judith Bausch 3044 Fried Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Rilla Baxter and Alan Baxter baxart@san.rr.com Meagan Beale 3276 Willard Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Daniel Beeman 3897 Caminito Aguilar, Suite D; San Diego, CA 92111 Al Bennett 5728 Honors Drive; San Diego, CA 92122 Beth P.O. Box 178194; San Diego, CA 92117 Butch Biendara 4041 Mt. Everest Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92111 Paul Bordieri 1827 Goldfield Street; San Diego, CA 92110 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

24 

Contact Name Contact Address

Mark Boydszon 1601 Kettner Boulevard #29; San Diego, CA 92101 Amanda Rose Brandon 4477 Onondaga Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Marquis Bret 28634 Meadow Glen Way W; Escondido, CA 92026 Walter Brewer catcar38@verizon.net David Brezic 3962 Nobel Drive, Unit 301; San Diego, CA 92122 Karen Brown 3221 Brandywine Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Steve Brown 4737 Mt. Almagosa Drive; San Diego, CA 92111 Alice Buck 8839 Via Andar, San Diego, CA 92122 Peter Burch 2667 Angell Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Nicole Burgess 2233 Soto Street; San Diego, CA 92107 Cindy Burrascano 11195 Kelowna #83; San Diego, CA 92126 Robert Byrnes 4018 Nobel Drive #305; San Diego, CA 92122 JD Calandro 3772 Balboa Terrace A; San Diego, CA 92117 Linda Caldwell 8668-4 Villa La Jolla Drive; La Jolla, CA 92037 Tan Cao tan.n.cao@gmail.com Stephen Carlin and Christine Carlin 7144 Caminito Pantoja; San Diego, CA 92122 Cesar P.O. Box 12904; San Diego, CA 92112 Gary Chapman 4145 Caminito Cassis; San Diego, CA 92122 Shirley Chernowsky 3131 Wayne Lane; San Diego, CA 92117 Jon Christensen 2327 Cowley Way; San Diego, CA 92110 BD Christian 5425 Lodi Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Joan Christiansen 3803 Camino Lindo; San Diego, CA 92122 Kyley Christy on behalf of Gary Kent Team kyley78@gmail.com Christine Clark 1810 Denver Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Jay A. Clark jayadair@yahoo.com Ross Clark 3552 Cowley Way; San Diego, CA 92117 Karen Coleman 5568 Renaissance Avenue #2; San Diego, CA 92122 Linda Colley 3589 Syracuse Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 David Conart 4052 Albatross Street; San Diego, CA 92103 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Contact Name Contact Address

James Conklin and Sylvia Conklin 3630 Ethan Allen Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 R. Cooke raycooke@pacbell.net Sylvia Corbin 3268 Bunker Hill Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Gary Cottrell 9500 Gilman Drive # 0404; La Jolla, CA 92093 Lily Cowen 4025 Caminito Davila; San Diego, CA 92122 John Coxe 3596 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Carol Crafts 13030 Birch Lane; Poway, CA 92064 Bill Crane 3051 Pennant Way; San Diego, CA 92122 Ken Crocker and Kim Crocker 3919 Caminito Cassis; San Diego, CA 92122 Bruce Cromer 4327 Santa Cruz Avenue; San Diego, CA 92107 Mark Croshier and Rose Croshier 3675 Ethan Allen Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Ken Daniszewski 2543 Congress Street, Apt 102; San Diego, CA 92110 Paul-Michael Decker 6549 Mission Gorge Road, #205; San Diego, CA 92120 Simone DeLira simone.delira@everbank.com Christina Deroche 4020 Porte La Paz #101; San Diego, CA 92122 Dale Dickerson daledickerson756@yahoo.com Doris Dickinson 3956 Nobel Drive; San Diego, CA 92122 Gine Dobey 2764-88 Ariane Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 Dennis Doyle 3155 Galloway Drive; San Diego, CA 92122 Pat Drummy pdrummy50@gmail.com Marilyn Duffey 8638 Villa La Jolla Drive, #6; La Jolla, CA 92037 Pat Dube patdube@ymail.com Sara Duke tikapoozie@yahoo.com Marilyn Dupree 8092 Camino Tranquilo; San Diego, CA 92122 Jon Eisen 3275 Welmer Place; San Diego, CA 92122 Elizabeth Elman 4052 Albatross Street; San Diego, CA 92103 Linda Emery 3741 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Phillip N. Enright drpenright@me.com Alexandra Epstein 617 3rd Avenue #18; Chula Vista, CA 91910 David Erving 5688 Lord Cecil Street; San Diego, CA 92122 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

26 

Contact Name Contact Address

Joe Falletta 3749 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Tiffany Farnsworth tiffany.farnsworth@gmail.com Meryl Faulkner 5915 Desert View Drive; La Jolla, CA 92037 G. Ferrero 4080 Hancock #3416; San Diego, CA 92110 Greg Finely 2400 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 107; San Diego, CA 92106 Jeff Flowers 6244 Ferris Square; San Diego, CA 92121 Tom Ford 3767 Vista De La Bahia; San Diego, CA 92117 Stewart Forster sforster@sbcglobal.net Melissa Foster 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1600; San Diego, CA 92122 Lynn Fralic 1282 Peach Avenue; El Cajon, CA 92021 Josephine P. Frodente 3636 Ethan Allen Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Jim Fry 4046 Caminito Terviso; San Diego, CA 92122 Victor Gallego 3927 Caminito Silvela; San Diego, CA 92122 Kristina Garcia 1536 Beroy Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Arleen Garcia-Herbst 3248 Geddes Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 Michael Gerber 6151 Dorothy Drive; San Diego, CA 92115 Linda Gibson lgibson2227@gmail.com Allen Giffen and Connie Giffen 5434 Bothe Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Sarah Gille 9551 Poole Street; La Jolla, CA 92037 Marysue Glynn marysu@me.com Bill Godwin-Austen billga@cox.net Peggy Goings 1446 Lieta Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Ken Goodwill 8875 Costa Verde Boulevard, #1704; San Diego, CA 92122 David Gottfredson and Lois Gottfredson 5953 Scripps Street; San Diego, CA Joan Green 2725 Tokalon Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Karlyn Griggs karlyn.griggs@btinternet.com William Griswold 2769 Schenley Terrace; San Diego, CA 92122 Brent Grizzle P.O. Box 9530; San Diego, CA 92067 Walter Groth 1363 Frankfort Street; San Diego, CA 92110 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Contact Name Contact Address

Nancy Groves 2955 Renault Place; San Diego, CA 92122 Lynn Guidoboni 5446 Renaissance Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Michele Hagstrom and Rick Hagstrom 2642 Lange Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Lucia KB Hall 2885 Havasupai Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Miranda K. Hall 3767 Southview Drive, #222; San Diego, CA 92117 Sheryl Harris 2897 Ariane Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 Beth Hartman 3280 Mt. Tami Drive; San Diego, CA 92111 Keith Hartz khartz90@hotmail.com Brian Hassler 2912 Fried Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Jan Hawkins 3233 Wellesly Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Charlotte Healy 3631 Ethan Allen Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Charles Heisman 72 17th Street Apt. #411-Box #58; San Diego, CA 92101 Larry Hemmerly and Lynne Hemmerly 3702 Brandywine Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Janis Heppell janishere@sbcglobal.net Jacqueline Higgins 3609 Moultrie Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Steven Higgins 5421 Via Aguario; San Diego, CA 92111 Elizabeth Hill 6216 Agee Street #121; San Diego, CA 92122 F. Hill fhill777@netscape.net Donald Hoffhine 6361 Caminito Luisito; San Diego, CA 92111 Gary Hoffman ghoffman@ucsd.edu Louise Hofheimer 3069 Renault Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Larry Hogue 3590 Stetson Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Sonja Honeyman 8216 Caminito Modena; La Jolla, CA 92037 Judith Hood 3416 Tony Drive; San Diego, CA 92122 Peter Hopf 5111-D Renaissance Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Kelly Houston 4121 Calgary Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Tim Hull tim@timhull.org Doug Hovland 969 Buenos Avenue; San Diego, CA 92110 David Hurst 9501 Genesee Avenue, #615; San Diego, CA 92121-2015 Pamela Hutton 8870 Villa La Jolla Drive, #311; La Jolla, CA 92073 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

28 

Contact Name Contact Address

Andrea Ito 5864 Carnegie Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Lisa Iturzaeta lisaiturzaeta@yahoo.com Mark Iturzaeta 3648 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Paul Jamason 4619 Biona Drive; San Diego, CA 92116 Cindy Jenson-Elliott 2615 Luna Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Eamon Johnston 722 Venice Court; San Diego, CA 92109 Scott Jones plantproco@att.net Robert Kanters 1855 Morena Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92110 Susan Kearney 3612 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Reginald G. Keetley 4013 Caminito Meliado; San Diego, CA 92122 Gary Keller and Ida Keller 5572 Stresemann Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Lenora Kellough 3321 Morena Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92117 David Keenan chainblaster@gmail.com Karen Keeven tom_keeven@yahoo.com Kelly Kirkland 8629 Via Mallorca, Unit F; La Jolla, CA 92037 Kristin Kistler 3250 Millikin Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 MaryAnn Klima 5672 Carnegie Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Rob Klima robklima@gmail.com Christianne Knopp 3092 C Street; San Diego, CA 92102 Bryan Knowlton 4301 Vallejo Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 L Kotenko 3466 Millikin Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Henry Krous 4215 Caminito Cassis; San Diego, CA 92122 Janay Kruger 4013 Porte de Palmas, #53; San Diego, CA 92122 Peter Krysl 4013 Camino Lindo; San Diego, CA 92122 David Krysl 4013 Camino Lindo; San Diego, CA 92122 Jeff Kucharski kucharskijeff@hotmail.com L Bizstuff8@sbcglobal.net Joe LaCava 5274 La Jolla Boulevard; La Jolla, CA 92037 Judith Landau 5989 Agee Street; San Diego, CA 92122 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Contact Name Contact Address

Don Lander 4049 Caminito Terviso; San Diego, CA 92122 George Lattimer 1589 Calle Delicada; La Jolla, CA 92037 Keith Lazerson 5908 Eton Court; San Diego, CA 92122 Kathy Leavenworth and Michael Leavenworth 7942 Playmor Terrace; San Diego, CA 92122 David Lebowitz 8430 Via Mallorca, #214; La Jolla, CA 92037 Corrine LeCates 2292 Dunhaven Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Helen Leung 6657 Richard Street; San Diego, CA 92115 Jonathan Lin jonathan_h_lin@hotmail.com Sandy Lippe 2549 Angell Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Wallace Lockwood 1804 Garnet Avenue, #131; San Diego, CA 92109 Steven Lombardi 4516 Niagara Avenue; San Diego, CA 92107 Inge Lopez 2160 Burgener Boulevard; San Diego, CA 92110 Rebecca Loveless 1927 Monroe Avenue; San Diego, CA 92116 Jeff Low 10457 Pine Grove Street; Spring Valley, CA 91978 Barbara Malone barbaramalonesd@gmail.com Elaine Malz 6575 Manana Place; San Diego, CA 92037 Markov Manalo manalo_mm@yahoo.com Sarah Mathy smathy@gmail.com Dana May 6195 Radcliffe Drive; San Diego, CA 92122 Jason McGehee jmcgehee@ecscontrols.com Craig McIlwain mcilwaincraig@yahoo.com Mary McIlwain 6662 Avenida Manana; La Jolla, CA 92037 Virginia McIlwain virginia_mcilwain@yahoo.com Nancy McLaughlin 8370 F Via Sonoma; La Jolla , CA 92037 Jeanne McNitt jmcnitt@san.rr.com June Mertz 3165 Driscoll Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 Rodney W. Mills 4024 32nd Street, #22; San Diego, CA 92104 Sharon Muczynski muczynski.sharon@gmail.com Jack Naliboff 1500 State Street, Suite 280; San Diego, CA 92101 Bruce Naschak 3935 Caminito Amparo; San Diego, CA 92122 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

30 

Contact Name Contact Address

Ash Nasser 8813 Villa La Jolla Drive, Suite 2003; La Jolla, CA 92037 Sharon Nelson snelson1112@yahoo.com Peter Newman 6017 Dirac Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Melanie Nickel 550 Gage Drive; San Diego, CA 92106 Christopher Nielsen 4225 Caminito Cassis; San Diego, CA 92122 Teresa Norris 13025 Via Del Toro; Poway, CA 92064 Carol Pallazola mercypals@aol.com George Papen 6636 Red Deer Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Robin Parchia tgulesserian@adamsbroadwell.com Cynthia Parnell 2750 Wheatstone Street; San Diego, CA 92111 Lynn Parrish sdple@yahoo.com Hal Pashler 3521 Stetson Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Shila Patel shilapatel1@gmail.com Nancy Patula tmcavoy5401@gmail.com Billy Paul 2747 Fairfield Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Nadine Pedusseau 3211 Innuit Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Nisa Pho n.pho.moon@gmail.com Carole Pietras 6917 Lipmann Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Michael Pique 4690 Monongahela Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Diane Pitzel 4378 Cleveland Avenue; San Diego, CA 92103 John Quesenberry 6627 Edmonton Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Valarie Ramey 3225 Millikin Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Elizabeth Reers zabeth92037@yahoo.com Tom Reid and Carol Reid 2319 Frankfort Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Bob Riffenburgh 3069 Award Row; San Diego, CA 92122 Patricia Robertson 4559 Jutland Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 Sharon Russakoff 6558 Edmonton Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Mary Russell 3383 Wellesly Ave, San Diego, CA 92112 Russell Rustin and Lisa Rustin 3426 Mt. Laurence Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 
List of Fi

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

September 2014 

Contact Name Contact Address

Gavin Sammarco gavin.sammarco@gmail.com Ellen Sauder 3010 Cowley Way, #204; San Diego, CA 92117 Kristine Schindler 409 N. Granados Avenue; Solana Beach, CA 92075 David Schlafman and Helen Schlafman 5534 Honors Drive; San Diego, CA 92122 Margaret Schmidt 2122 Tokalon Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Judy Schulman 4055-148 Porte La Paz; San Diego, CA 92122 Matt Schwartz 3427 Mt Laurence Drive; San Diego, CA 92117 Carol Schwenke 4628 Del Monte Avenue; San Diego, CA 92107 Ken Sinclair 749 Selma Place; San Diego, CA 92114 Laurie Smith 9500 Gilman Drive #0116 Room 5135; La Jolla, CA 92093 Jan Sopher 3206 Brandywine Street; San Diego, CA 92217 Lea Spagarino lspagarino@gmail.com Joseph Steinbach 3547 Luna Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Esther Barath cc: Phel Steinmetz 

8460-44 Via Sonoma; La Jolla, CA 92037 

Leah Stender 1145 19th Street; San Diego, CA 92102 Kay Stewart 2171 India Street, Suite A; San Diego, CA 92101 Dave Strom 8268 Gilman Drive #16; La Jolla, CA 92037 Michael Sullivan msullivan@salk.edu Kim Sykes 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 100; San Diego, CA 92123-1502 Kort Syverson 3250 Brandywine Street; San Diego, CA 92117 Randy Tagg 8321 Lemon Avenue; La Mesa, CA 91941 Stephen Thomason stephen.thomason@cox.net Sharon Taylor 3944 Caminito Silvela; San Diego, CA 92122 Troy Terwilliger and Jeannie Terwilliger 3551 Paul Jones Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Timothy Treadwell 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 100; San Diego, CA 92123-1502 Cory Triglia corytrig@yahoo.com Sam Tsimikas 7191 Whipple Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Tim Vasquez 5983 Gaines Street; San Diego, CA 92110 Dave Voss 7743 Lucia Ct; Carlsbad, CA 92009 
List of Final SEIS/SEIR Recipients 

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT 

32 

Contact Name Contact Address

Robert Wade 3418 Front Street; San Diego, CA 92103 Joanne Wainscott joaniehere@aol.com Larry Wasserman 4536 Nido Lane; San Diego, CA 92117 Elizabeth Watson 8666 Cliffridge Avenue; La Jolla, CA 92037 Eric G. Watters and Rabon Cooke Watters ewatters1@hotmail.com Kristina Weinman 2477 Presidio Drive; San Diego, CA 92103 Ann Wellhouse ann.wellhouse@gmail.com William Whalen 2555 Curie Place; San Diego, CA 92122 Andy Wiese 5842 Stresemann Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Amber Will 4065 Porte La Paz; San Diego, CA 92122 Leo Wilson 536 Maple Street, #202; San Diego, CA 92103 Patricia A. Wilson 4185 Porte de Palmas #165; San Diego, CA 92122 Andrew Wise 5842 Stresemann Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Walter Wiszowaty W.J. Bradley Mortgage Capital, 16885 W. Bernardo Dr. #290, San Diego, CA 9212John Wolfe 2232 Via Tiempo; Cardiff, CA 92007-1216 Kathleen Wood Geckeler 3977 Camino Lindo; San Diego, CA 92122 Peter Worcester and Donna Worcester 4624 Robbins Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Pamela Wu 3975 Caminito Cassis; San Diego, CA 92122 Susan Yates Susan.Yates@sharp.com Ken Young 4331 Miami Court; San Diego, CA 92117 Vahid Zakeri 5744 Mott Street; San Diego, CA 92122 Dennis Zerwekh 2667 Havasupai Avenue; San Diego, CA 92117 Carole Ziegler cactus12carole@gmail.com Barbara Zirino 4261 Karensue Avenue; San Diego, CA 92122 Karin Zirk 2686 Hornblend Street; San Diego, CA 92109