Jeff Clemetson | Editor<\/p>\n
On Feb. 6, the city released a revised working draft of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Mission Valley community plan update (CPU). City planner and Mission Valley CPU project manager Nancy Graham presented the plan\u2019s changes at the Mission Valley Planning Group meeting that day.<\/p>\n
The most substantial change to the CPU was a compromise reached on the controversial Via Las Cumbres road extension. The original plan was to expand Via Las Cumbres over the trolley tracks, through the proposed Riverwalk development and over the San Diego River, eventually linking up with Hotel Circle North and Interstate 8. At previous meetings, planning group members, representatives of Riverwalk developers Hines, and Mission Valley residents opposed the road extension citing a variety of concerns including traffic, environmental and aesthetic issues.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have been working with the Hines team and the Riverwalk owners to come up with a compromise about Via Los Cumbres and we have reached one that both parties are agreeing to,\u201d Graham said.<\/p>\n
The compromise reached involves connecting Friars Road to Hotel Circle North with a new road, currently dubbed \u201cStreet J.\u201d Street J will run east of Via Las Cumbres and instead of the four-lane connector envisioned previously. It will be a two-lane, grade-separated street with a painted median that will go under the trolley tracks instead of over them.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo Via Las Cumbres as you know will come down the hill and it will still dead end into the tracks,\u201d Graham said. \u201cOne block to the east, Street J becomes a more direct connection down to I-8.\u201d<\/p>\n
Street J will also have bike facilities going in both directions \u201cso in an emergency evacuation, you could still use emergency vehicles and repurpose those lanes because it would sufficient for emergency access, though it would only be a two-lane major [thoroughfare] during regular operations,\u201d Graham added.<\/p>\n
Access for emergency vehicles was the main reason the city cited for the need for a north-south road connector on the west side of Mission Valley.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a compromise where the Planning Department feels like we got the connectivity that we were seeking in order to provide for emergency access and things we were concerned about. But it also makes the project itself less impactful being able to go under the tracks instead of above the tracks,\u201d Graham said.<\/p>\n
The Street J connector would still cross the San Diego River as a \u201chigh-water crossing\u201d that would not be subject to flooding and would connect to a future Interstate 8 interchange along Hotel Circle North designed by CalTrans, Graham said.<\/p>\n
The compromise plan was mostly met with support as an improvement over the impactful Via Las Cumbres extension. But planning group members raised concerns with the overall CPU.<\/p>\n
Perry Dealy criticized the CPU for not capturing the city\u2019s \u201cnew philosophy of housing first\u201d and<\/p>\n
pointed to the plan not allowing properties south of Interstate 8 to add housing and mixed-use development.<\/p>\n
Alan Grant took issue with the Street J compromise because it would still \u201cpinch the river\u201d by building a bridge over it that will impact water flows. He described the plan as \u201ca disappointment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Marco Sessa asked why the CPU\u2019s EIR doesn\u2019t include a section on developer impact fees.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou will have all the information that will indicate what a fee will be, with projects lists and cost estimates,\u201d Graham replied. \u201cThat will be available in a draft form when this plan goes to City Council. We\u2019re shooting for this summer. It will not be a packaged document because we allow Council to make changes on the fly, so we don\u2019t finish that document.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sessa asked how the planning group was supposed to evaluate projects without understanding the cost implications to the impact fees and used the Street J project as an example. Because Street J is listed as a long-term project, it implies that Hines would not contribute money to building it as they develop Riverwalk, he said.<\/p>\n
Graham said that Hines funding for the Street J project was \u201cstill under negotiation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI guess the question for me is, if it is going to end up raising everybody\u2019s fees by $10,000, potentially making projects unfeasible, is that an appropriate tradeoff for the bridge or not?\u201d Sessa asked. \u201cAnd you\u2019re asking us to comment on an environmental document without the economic information that would traditionally go along with something like this.\u201d<\/p>\n
Graham said that the city has not released impact fee studies in its recent community update plans because of their complexity.<\/p>\n
The working draft EIR for the Mission Valley CPU is available to read at bit.ly\/2DCj4OC<\/a>. Comments of the plan will be taken through the end of March.<\/p>\n