Chapter 6A – Implementation

6A.1 Introduction

This chapter provides the PWP/TREP Implementation Framework, which coordinates the timing of rail, highway, transit, community and resource-enhancement project components to ensure highway improvements do not outpace other multimodal transportation improvements for the corridor, and that proposed transportation improvements do not outpace natural-resources restoration and enhancement.

The Implementation Framework includes a Phasing Plan (Section 6A.2.1) for proposed PWP/TREP improvements to ensure transportation improvements would be implemented to achieve a multimodal solution for regional transportation needs and to ensure transportation improvements are implemented in conjunction with comprehensive restoration and enhancement plans for the region's unique natural resources. In addition, the Implementation Framework includes a Resource Enhancement and Mitigation Program (REMP, detailed in Chapter 6B), which utilizes a combination of traditional and nontraditional measures to mitigate coastal resource impacts of the proposed mobility improvements, particularly as it relates to enhancing marine and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) resources. The constrained, primarily developed North Coast Corridor (NCC) leaves few opportunities for large-scale land purchases for restoration opportunities that could enhance the corridor's natural resources, and the NCC's lagoon habitats are biologically unique and cannot be replicated elsewhere; thus, opportunities to enhance these habitats require comprehensive solutions with improvements focused on ecosystem-wide benefits. The PWP/TREP's innovative approach to mitigate impacts to natural resources in advance results in greater benefits to coastal resources on a corridor-wide level than if only ratio-based, project and site-specific mitigation were employed.

This chapter also describes the procedures the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) will use to review and authorize specific projects included in the PWP/TREP. As detailed in Chapter 1, the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the Coastal Commission's review of those projects will be limited to the federal consistency review process only; therefore, the PWP/TREP includes a process for obtaining federal consistency for these identified rail projects, as detailed in Section 6A.4 (Federal Consistency Review Procedures). Similarly, rail projects that may be processed through the PWP (and conceptual highway, bike, and pedestrian enhancement components of the PWP) may be subject to future PWP amendment and Notice of Impending Developments (NOIDs) to ensure consistency with the approved PWP, or San Diego Association of Governments/California Department of Transportation (SANDAG/Caltrans) may choose (in consultation with the Coastal Commission) to submit a coastal development permit application to the appropriate permitting agency. All other improvements included in the PWP/TREP not located in areas of Coastal Commission retained permit jurisdiction must be found consistent with the PWP/TREP and all policies and implementation measures contained in Chapter 5, and are subject to the PWP procedures detailed in Sections 6A.5 (PWP Development Review Procedures). Procedural requirements for projects located in areas of Coastal Commission retained permit jurisdiction are located in Section 6A.6 (Coastal Development Permit [CDP] Review Procedures); for these projects, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act will remain the standard of review, and Chapter 5 of the PWP/TREP will be used as guidance.

Together with the policies, design/development strategies, and implementation measures in Chapter 5, the phasing requirements of Chapter 6A will ensure that the PWP/TREP program of improvements is implemented consistent with applicable Coastal Act policies that address the following:

• Energy Conservation & Vehicle Miles Traveled
• Public Transit & Smart Growth
• Public Access & Recreation
• Marine Resources: Water Quality & Wetlands
• ESHAs & Special Status Species
• Archaeological & Paleontological Resources
• Visual Resources
• Site Stability & Management
• Agricultural Resources
• Conflict Resolution

6A.2 Implementation Framework

6A.2.1 Phased Project Implementation

The PWP/TREP Phasing Plan includes Initial-Term (2010-2020), Mid-Term (2021-2030), Long-Term (2031-2040), and Vision (2041-2050) project phasing groups for proposed rail, highway, transit, community and resource enhancement projects (Table 6A-1 and Figure 6A-1A through Figure 6A-1D). The Phasing Plan is intended to provide the overall framework to ensure the project's implementation in an orderly, planned, and resource-protective manner, within which flexibility is retained while keeping these goals in mind.

The primary objectives of the Phasing Plan are as follows:

• Ensure Multimodal Project Phasing: Identify project phasing and implementation priorities for rail improvements, and track the progress of rail corridor project implementation in the context of all other PWP/TREP improvements (highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement project implementation).
• The Phasing Plan includes LOSSAN rail projects listed and grouped into Initial-, Mid-, and LongTerm projects and Unconstrained Vision projects according to the San Diego - LOSSAN Corridor Project Prioritization Analysis (July 2009). The Implementation Framework ensures the PWP/TREP transportation improvements will be implemented consistent with the region's commitment to pursue a multimodal solution for regional transportation needs.
• Provide Flexibility for Project Implementation: Provide for maximum flexibility in implementing all PWP/TREP improvements to accommodate opportunities and uncertainties in potential future funding availability and local, state, and federal political and policy decisions, while ensuring projects are implemented in a way that balances rail and highway improvements, and that community and resource enhancements are implemented prior to, or concurrent with, project implementation.
• Provide for maximum flexibility in implementing resource enhancement projects pursuant to the REMP (Chapter 6B), while ensuring compliance with mitigation requirements for transportation projects and comprehensive enhancement of corridor resources.
• Ensure Potential Resource Impacts & Benefits are Balanced: Identify, quantify, and track, coastal resource opportunities/benefits and impacts of each Initial-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term project phase as detailed in Section 6B.2.1. (Performance Reporting). Integral coastal resource opportunities and benefits include:
  • Promotion of public transit and smart growth (energy conservation and air quality)
  • Improvements to public access and recreation
  • Protection/enhancement of water quality
  • Restoration, enhancement and/or preservation of wetlands - Restoration, enhancement and/or preservation of ESHAs.

---

Table 6A-1: Phasing Plan

2010-2020 Phase

• Project Phase Benefits (Estimated)
  • 29.7 lane-miles of new HOV facilities
  • 5.3 miles of new rail double-tracking
  • 6.3 miles of new bike/ped facilities (1.3 miles of improved facilities)
  • 2 new bike/ped crossings (4 improved crossings)
  • 220 acres of environmental mitigation
  • Potential enhancements to San Elijo Lagoon (491-acre system)*
  • Capital investment:
    
    • $1,037M highway & bike/ped
    • $259M rail & transit
    • $170M environmental*
• Highway
  • 2 HOV lanes from Manchester Av to SR 78
    • San Elijo Lagoon Bridge Replacement
    • Batiquitos Lagoon Bridge Replacement
    • Manchester Av DAR
    • San Elijo Multi-Use Facility
  • 2 HOV lanes from La Jolla Village Dr to I-5/I-805
    
    • Voigt Dr DAR
  • I-5/I-805 HOV Connectors
    
    • Peñasquitos Creek Bridge
    • Soledad Creek Bridge
• Bicycle & Pedestrian/ Community Enhancements
  • Highway Adjacent
    • EN#1 Bike/Ped Trail on Both Sides of I-5 at San Elijo
    • EN#5A Encinitas Blvd Bike/Ped Enhancements
    • EN#2B Villa Cardiff & MacKinnon Bridge Enhancements
    • EN#8 Manchester Avenue Trail to Nature Center
    • SB#3 Gateway Open Space Preservation Site & Pedestrian Undercrossing
    • CB#1A Bike/Ped Trail & Bridge on W Side of Batiquitos
    • CB#2 Trail on NE Side of I-5 at Batiquitos Lagoon
    • I-5 North Coast Bike Trail (San Elijo and Batiquitos segments)
    • Manchester Ave Undercrossing Improvements
    • Voigt Dr Overcrossing & Realignment Improvements
  • LOSSAN Adjacent
    • Coastal Rail Trail (Chesterfield Dr to G St)
    • Coastal Rail Trail (G St to Leucadia Blvd)
    • Coastal Rail Trail (Leucadia Blvd to La Costa Av)
• Rail & Transit*
  • Eastbrook to Shell Double Track
  • Oceanside Through Track
  • Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track
    
    • Batiquitos Bridge replacement
  • San Elijo Lagoon Double Track
    
    • San Elijo Bridge replacement
  • Poinsettia Station Improvements
  • Parking improvements at selected rail stations (currently under prioritization study)
• Environmental
  • San Dieguito W19 Establishment Site
  • Hallmark (East & West) Establishment Site
  • Dean Family Trust Establishment Site
  • Batiquitos Bluffs Restoration & Preservation/Enhancement Site
  • Deer Canyon II Establishment Site
  • Laser Preservation/Enhancement Site
  • La Costa (Ayoub) Site Preservation & Enhancement
  • San Elijo Lagoon Preservation/Enhancement
  • Lagoon Mgmt/Endowment/Regional Dredging Program

2021-2030 Phase

• Project Phase Benefits (Estimated)
  • 32.6 lane-miles of new HOV facilities
  • 2.9 miles of new rail double-tracking
  • 15.8 miles of new bike/ped facilities (15.5 miles of improved facilities)
  • 7 new bike/ped crossings (11 improved crossings)
  • Potential enhancements to Buena Vista Lagoon (203-acre system)*
  • Capital investment:
    
    • $1,442M highway & bike/ped
    • $338M rail & transit
    • $45M environmental
• Highway
  • 2 Express Lanes from I-5/I-805 to SR 56
    • Carmel Creek Bridge Widening
    • I-5/SR 56 Interchange Improvements
  • 2 Express Lanes from SR 56 to Manchester Av
    
    • San Dieguito River Bridge Widening
    • Del Mar Local Gateway Feature at Via de la Valle
  • 2 Express Lanes from Manchester Av to Palomar Airport Road
    
    • Encinitas Local Gateway Feature at Encinitas Blvd
• Bicycle & Pedestrian/ Community Enhancements
  • Highway Adjacent
    • SD#2A Carmel Valley Bike/Ped Trail Connection
    • SD#2B Enhanced Park & Ride at Carmel Valley Rd
    • SD#2C Old Sorrento Valley Road Trail Connections
    • I-5 North Coast Bike Trail (adjacent segments)
    • SD#3 Bike/Ped Trail & Bridge on W Side of I-5 at San Dieguito
    • SD#4 Ped Overpass Connection N of Del Mar Heights Rd
    • SB#1 Streetscape Enhancements on Ida Ave
    • SB#2 Ped Amenities at Solana Hills Dr
    • I-5 North Coast Bike Trail (adjacent segments)
    • Del Mar Heights Rd Overcrossing Improvements
    • Via de la Valle Undercrossing Improvements
    • Lomas Santa Fe Dr Undercrossing Improvements
    • EN#2A Park & Ride Enhancements at Birmingham Dr
    • EN#3 Hall Property Park Trail Connecting to Santa Fe Dr
    • EN#4 Trail Connecting Santa Fe Dr to Requeza St
    • EN#5B Trail Connecting Requeza St to Encinitas Blvd
    • EN#6A Union St Ped Overpass
    • EN#6B Cottonwood Ck Park to Union St Trail Connection
    • CB#1B Park & Ride Enhancement at La Costa Ave
    • I-5 North Coast Bike Trail (adjacent segments)
    • Birmingham Dr Overcrossing Improvements
    • Santa Fe Dr Undercrossing Improvements
    • Requeza St Overcrossing Improvements
    • Encinitas Blvd Undercrossing Improvements
    • Leucadia Blvd Overcrossing Improvements
    • La Costa Ave Overcrossing Improvements
    • Poinsettia Ln Overcrossing Improvements
    • Palomar Airport Rd Overcrossing Improvements
  • LOSSAN Adjacent
    • DM#1 Coast to Crest Trail LOSSAN Crossing
    • CB#6 Chestnut Ave LOSSAN Pedestrian Crossing
    • Hillcrest Dr LOSSAN Pedestrian Crossing
    • Coastal Rail Trail (Poinsettia Station to Palomar Airport Rd)
    • Coastal Rail Trail (Palomar Airport Rd to Cannon Rd)
    • Coastal Rail Trail (Cannon Rd to Tamarack Av)
• Rail & Transit
  • Moonlight to Swami Double Track
  • Carlsbad Village Double Track
    
    • Buena Vista Bridge replacement
  • San Dieguito Double Track and Platform
    
    • San Dieguito Bridge replacement
    • Del Mar Fairgrounds Special Event Platform
  • Del Mar Bluffs Additional Stabilization
  • Enhancements to Coast Highway Bus Service
  • Parking improvements at selected/ remaining rail stations (currently under prioritization study)
• Environmental
  • Buena Vista Lagoon Preservation/Enhancement

2031-2040 Phase

• Project Phase Benefits (Estimated)
  • 1.7 miles of new rail double-tracking
  • 3 new roadway/bike/ped crossings
  • Capital investment:
    
    • $1,614M rail & transit
• Rail & Transit
  • Del Mar Tunnel:
    
    • Camino Del Mar Alternative
    • I-5 / Peñasquitos Alternative
  • Peñasquitos Double Track
    
    • Peñasquitos Bridge replacement (Dependent upon Del Mar Tunnel Alternative)
  • Leucadia Blvd Grade Separation
  • Two Additional Roadway Grade Separations
• Environmental
  • Continuation of environmental improvements above

Note: Naming convention used for consistency with maps and other chapters: SD=San Diego, SB=Solana Beach, EN=Encinitas, CB=Carlsbad, OC=Oceanside.

* Both the Buena Vista and San Elijo Lagoon restoration projects could be eligible for a $90M funding pool if all regulatory permits are obtained. The available funds could go to one lagoon or be shared between them. For purposes of this table, the $90M is split evenly between the two lagoons until actual allocations are determined.

---

6A.2.1.1 Phasing Plan Factors

A range of priorities, constraints, and other factors shape the baseline phasing plan for the NCC consistent with the PWP/TREP phasing plan objectives. The primary phasing factors are the following:

• Available revenue and project cost (both capital and operations)
• Regional growth and transportation need
• Transportation system performance
• Minimization of construction impacts to the public and the environment
• Requirements of SB468
• Safety and rehabilitation needs
• Coastal access and promotion of alternative modes

Available Revenue and Project Costs

Fiscal constraints require projects to be accomplished gradually, as revenue becomes available. The stream of revenue from the regional TransNet sales tax, as well as the availability of state and federal funds, largely dictates how many projects the region can implement at any given time. Within these revenue constraints, individual project needs, performance, and benefits are evaluated to determine projects that will be the most effective for meeting plan objectives and that can be accomplished within the available funding at a given time. Capital funding for project construction is only one dimension of overall costs; many projects, especially transit, also require a commitment to provide operating funding in perpetuity. Operations costs, as well as maintenance costs, are therefore considered with the capital cost within the phasing plan. In addition, many state and federal funds come with strict limitations on the types of activities for which they can be used. Most federal funds, for example, generally cannot be spent on operations and maintenance. Therefore, federal assistance available for a project's initial construction is also considered with available and reliable funding sources for operations and maintenance.

The TransNet ordinance does provide some operational funding for transit, and these future revenue projections are factored into the transit service plans contained in the SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) and the PWP/TREP phasing plan. In addition, single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) using the I-5 Express Lanes will provide revenue (via user fees paid with FasTrak transponders) that can be used to support corridor transit operations. In accordance with SB 468, revenues (in excess of administrative and operating costs) from paying SOV users on the I-5 Express Lanes will be used only in the I-5 corridor for the improvement of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities and transit services.

Regional Growth and System Performance

The region's transportation needs and the performance of its transportation systems play heavily into the PWP/TREP phasing plan. As changes occur in the San Diego region and the North Coast Corridor-not just the continuation of growth, but also the evolution of local land use policy in conjunction with that growth-project phasing is designed to respond to these changes. Accordingly, the PWP/TREP phases projects in a manner that will both reduce congestion in the corridor and increase multimodal access to key corridor activity centers, including coastal resources. It is for this reason, for example, that a single HOV/Express Lane will be extended throughout the NCC before adding a second HOV/Express Lane in any location. This allows the program to respond to current congestion and access needs in a measured way while leaving more significant expansions for later phases when demand is projected to be even higher. By aligning project delivery with growth, the phasing plan will allow the NCC to provide the best possible system performance to meet traveler demands.

Construction Impacts and SB 468

The phasing plan also seeks to minimize the impacts of construction, both to the public as well as to the environment. Community enhancement projects, for example, are aligned with the highway and rail projects that correspond to their locations, which will allow for concurrent construction and provide assurances that any existing facilities impacted by construction are immediately replaced and improved. This will create a synergy among projects that will reduce disruptions and minimize detrimental impacts to the lowest possible levels. In addition, SB 468 requires the NCC PWP/TREP phasing plan to phase lagoon bridge construction in a way that minimizes construction impacts to the critical lagoon resources.

Safety and Rehabilitation

Safety and rehabilitation needs also influence the phasing plan. Early phase projects include replacement of several deteriorating LOSSAN bridges, improvements at several rail crossings to enhance safety for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and operational safety improvements on I-5. These projects are given priority in the phasing plan to ensure the safety of all users of the transportation system. In addition, these safety enhancements are designed to be compatible with the ultimate plan for the corridor, thus minimizing the use of "throwaway" enhancements that would be superseded by future projects.

Coastal Access and Promotion of Alternative Modes

Improving access to, through and within the corridor is the overarching goal for the multimodal transportation program and phasing plan. The phasing plan is designed to increase coastal access, reduce congestion, and promote the use of transit and other non-automobile travel modes as efficiently and effectively as possible within the confines of companion factors such as funding availability, travel demand, growth, and transportation system performance. By placing the majority of rail projects in the first phase and promoting increased HOV travel on I-5, the phasing plan prioritizes projects that meet the overarching goals of improved multimodal transportation and coastal access. Prioritizing the completion of one HOV/Express Lane throughout the corridor before initiating the construction of additional HOV/Express Lanes serves to encourage HOV travel as much as possible by completing the HOV network and responding incrementally to travel demand over time. Once demand swells enough to create congestion in the first HOV Lane, the incentive for HOV travel will diminish; it is at this point that the second Express Lanes will be constructed, which will reduce HOV congestion and therefore restore the HOV incentive.

6A.2.1.2 Process for Phased Implementation

This section identifies SANDAG/Caltrans phasing obligations for individual project components included in the PWP/TREP. The phasing plan combines rail, highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects into project phases. The combination of projects in each phase has been designed to ensure that the development of multimodal transportation options keeps pace with highway improvements. The specific phasing requirements are as follows:

1. Ensure Multimodal Project Phasing: SANDAG and Caltrans must complete all project phases in order-i.e., they must start with Initial-Term projects, move to Mid-Term projects and then on to Long-Term projects, except where project "shifts" between phases are allowed per the following section.
   Individual rail, highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects within an active project phase must be "complete" before SANDAG and Caltrans begin constructing highway projects in the next project phase.
   A project phase will be considered "complete" with a NOID or Federal Consistency submittal demonstrating that construction/implementation of all rail, highway, transit, and community enhancement projects included in the phase has been initiated and any corresponding mitigation/enhancement requirements have been implemented and achieved performance standards pursuant to the REMP (Chapter 6B).
2. Provide Flexibility for Project Implementation: SANDAG and Caltrans retain sole discretion to determine what order to construct projects within a given phase. Some projects within an active project phase may be completed before others in the same phase start. Other projects in the same phase may be carried out in parallel.
   Nothing shall preclude the ability of SANDAG to advance rail project implementation to earlier project phases as long as the corresponding Federal Consistency or CDP submittal demonstrates compliance with all mitigation and lagoon bridge project phasing requirements of the REMP (Chapter 6B).
   SANDAG and Caltrans may "shift" individual highway, transit and associated community enhancement projects from one phase to another by demonstrating in the corresponding Federal Consistency or NOID submittal that the total mobility and coastal resource benefits (coastal access, resource restoration/enhancement, etc.) of the phase the project is entering exceed the cumulative impacts of that phase. Cumulative phase benefits and impacts will continue to be documented and updated per the process outlined in Section 6A.2.1.3 (Performance Reporting) and the REMP (Chapter 6B).
3. Ensure Potential Resource Impacts & Benefits are Balanced: SANDAG and Caltrans must keep track of the status, project phase benefits and/or impacts covered by this PWP/TREP and that are part of the REMP.
   The Phasing Plan identifies and quantifies, where feasible, the mobility and coastal resource opportunities/benefits and impacts of each project phase. Pursuant to Section 6A.4 (Federal Consistency Review Procedures) and Section 6A.5 (PWP Development Review Procedures), Federal Consistency and NOID submittals for individual projects within an active phase must include information regarding the status of implementation of rail, highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects included in the same project phase. Cumulative phase benefits and impacts will continue to be documented and updated per Federal Consistency and NOID submittals, as detailed in Section 6A.2.1.3 (Performance Reporting) and enumerated in Table 6A-2 and the REMP (Chapter 6B), which will provide a reporting mechanism for progress made toward achieving PWP/TREP implementation objectives and current data regarding project phase benefits and impacts from which to determine:
   • That a project phase is "complete" for purposes of initiating the next project phase for highway and associated community enhancement projects.
   • A proposed development's contribution to the cumulative mobility benefits of the project phase (public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, coastal access/recreation improvements).
   • A proposed development's contribution to cumulative project phase resource impacts, project phase mitigation requirements, and status of compliance with mitigation/enhancement requirements (as established and accounted for per the REMP, Chapter 6B).
   • A proposed development's contribution to cumulative project phase resource benefits (water quality, wetlands, ESHAs), overall progress of restoration and enhancement improvements in
   • the corridor and success of achieving the goals of the REMP (Chapter 6B), which may have project components and/or procedures not subject to PWP/NOID procedures (i.e., large-scale restoration and monitoring plans for San Elijo and Buena Vista Lagoons).
   • The appropriateness of potential project shifts between phases as determined based on the review of achieving the cumulative mobility benefits and mitigation requirements identified for each project phase and/or updated information relative to the Performance Measures included in the PWP/TREP Transportation Report Package and enumerated in Table 6A-2, and the REMP (Chapter 6B).

6A.2.1.3 Performance Reporting

The PWP/TREP includes ongoing monitoring to track progress toward meeting the goals outlined in the PWP/TREP and phasing plan. The indicators used in this ongoing monitoring will illustrate those areas in which the region appears to be moving in the right direction and those in which improvement is needed. These indicators provide the stakeholders with assurances that the program is being implemented in a timely and balanced manner. These indicators can also serve to assess if requested project-specific scope and/or schedule changes to future improvements in the program are consistent with commitments made in the PWP/TREP.

Reporting on the performance of PWP/TREP implementation recognizes that the success of the improvements goes beyond the initial capital investment. Performance reporting also assesses how the capital investment made in the corridor has resulted in tangible improvements to PWP/TREP objectives.

While capital improvements will be quantified and tracked, how those improvements ultimately result in changes to human behavior is harder to accurately forecast-especially given the impact of various external variables that SANDAG and Caltrans do not control. Consequently, the performance reporting and change process provides flexibility to react to factors outside of SANDAG and Caltrans control, while providing assurances that the coastal objectives commitments of the PWP/TREP are met over the length of the program.

The ultimate success of the NCC in meeting project objectives is not only a function of capital investment but also many external factors such as public acceptance, fuel prices, and economic conditions that Caltrans and SANDAG do not control. Historically, many of these external factors are also very volatile over short time frames. For example, while the general economic health of California has been a very positive upward trend over the last 100 years, in any given year (or series of years) there are significant peaks and valleys. Consequently, despite a strong commitment to the PWP/TREP by SANDAG and Caltrans, this commitment may not directly correspond to meeting specific transportation objectives in any given year. As an example, while the region can commit to adding additional track and trains, they cannot commit to the number of people riding those trains in any given future year.

It is also important to point out in addition to the capital investments addressed in the PWP/TREP, there are a number of other implementation strategies the region is pursuing to maximize the effectiveness of the capital investments within the corridor. These strategies demonstrate that the region's objectives are very much in alignment with the PWP/TREP goals of reducing the growth of vehicle miles traveled. However, the effectiveness of these strategies is very hard to accurately forecast. The strategies include:

• Analyzing the feasibility of a new commuter rail station in Camp Pendleton
• Implementing corridor specific Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies to facilitate continued travel behavior change once construction is complete, influencing a sustained modal shift from SOVs
• Collaborating with the other Southern California regions to identify rail operational strategies (such as express trains and common ticketing) to reduce interregional rail travel times and improve rail competitiveness.

Goals of Performance Reporting: Given the above issues, NCC performance monitoring will:

• Provide assurances that the program sponsors are implementing the program in good faith, with due diligence and in a timely and balanced manner
• Recognize that long-term success in meeting program objectives requires a commitment that goes beyond the initial capital investment
• Provide flexibility to maintain balanced project delivery, despite inaccurate forecasts and/or external factors
• Recognize that program success cannot be defined by one measure, but rather program performance should be analyzed as a group of measures over a multiyear period to demonstrate specific trends and needed areas of improvement
• Allow for flexibility to address the likely scenario that some outcomes may be underperforming at a given point in the program while others could be performing better than expected. Under this scenario, the program should still be allowed to move forward as long as the measure of aggregate outcomes falls within an acceptable range
• Measure and report difficult to predict demand and usage information not as a threshold but as valuable information necessary to inform future decisions.
• Provide information on regional, state and federal transportation and funding strategies and policies that affect the NCC.

Transportation Report Package

The Transportation Report Package will be prepared to coincide with the monitoring reports SANDAG prepares for regularly updated regional transportation and growth plans and will be submitted to the Coastal Commission and corridor cities for informational purposes every 4-5 years in order to provide detail on improvements to the entire transportation system located within the NCC, as described in the PWP/TREP. Following report submittal, Caltrans and SANDAG will present the Transportation Report Package to the Coastal Commission as an informational item.

The package will include updates on capital improvements, an accounting of dollars invested, changes in transportation trends and information on other transportation strategies and policies implemented through the corridor. In particular, the report will provide an overall picture of the progress made during the reporting period toward meeting the 30-year transportation goals expressed by the region within regional plans and the PWP/TREP. The report will consider a variety of factors to track overall enhancements to the transportation system within the corridor, particularly those necessary to ensure that positive steps toward improved connectivity and mass transit are developed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy usage as described in the PWP/TREP. The report will include both a description of areas where measurable enhancements have been realized as well as areas where the results do not meet expectations, an analysis of the factors behind those results and potential adaptive management solutions for improvements, where necessary. Moreover, the report will provide a reassessment of land-use changes over time and identify new opportunities for improved transit services as a result of those changes. Specific factors to be reported are shown in Table 6A-2 and will reflect performance in the following categories:

• Coastal Access and Connectivity Improvements
• Moving People, Not Vehicles (Mode Share)
• Level of Investment
• Improving Efficiency and Managing Demand
• Facility Performance
• General Trends

If a comprehensive review of the above parameters does not display substantial gains in the access, connectivity, numbers of people moved via non-SOV travel modes, investment, efficiency, and performance, then independent analysis and adaptive management would be instituted to identify potential solutions that could further improve mobility and alternate transit opportunities that have not previously been identified or implemented through the PWP/TREP.

6A.2.1.4 Interpretation and Use of the PWP

As detailed in Chapter 1 and Section 6A.1 of the PWP/TREP, the LOSSAN rail projects included in the PWP/TREP will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the Coastal Commission's review of the projects will be limited to the federal consistency review process only. The standard of review for these rail projects will continue to be the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act as applied during the federal consistency review process (Section 6A.4), and the Chapter 5 sections of the PWP/TREP will be utilized as guidance as a part of this review.

The Federal Consistency Certification provisions described in Section 6A.4 apply only to the future phased federal consistency review for LOSSAN rail projects as described previously, or as may otherwise be applicable for potential future PWP amendments related to approved highway, transit, and associated community and resource enhancement projects (as specified in Section 6A.4.2.5).

For the highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects that are both 1) subject to the Commission's federal consistency review authority, and 2) expected to be processed through the PWP's NOID review procedure. The PWP/TREP provides a coordinated document to initially obtain concurrence with a Federal Consistency Certification for these improvements, which will also receive approval from the Coastal Commission pursuant to the PWP/TREP NOID review procedures described in Section 6A.4 and, therefore, will not require a separate, future consistency certification. These PWP/TREP projects shall be included within the scope of the specific projects contained in Chapter 4, shall be consistent with all policies, design/development standards, and implementation measures contained in Chapters 5 and 6, and shall be subject to the PWP Development Review Procedures described in Section 6A.4, unless Caltrans or SANDAG opts to process the project through the CDP review procedures described in Section 6A.5.

Table 6A-3 lists the proposed PWP/TREP LOSSAN rail and I-5 highway projects by project phase and identifies the coastal development review process that each project would be subject to (federal consistency review, PWP requirements, and/or CDP requirements). PWP/TREP community and resource enhancement improvements would be subject to PWP requirements-with the exception of projects located in areas of Coastal Commission retained permit jurisdiction, which would require separate CDPs-and would utilize the PWP/TREP as guidance and/or those conceptual projects that SANDAG/Caltrans may choose (in consultation with the Coastal Commission) to submit a CDP application to the appropriate permitting agency.

---

Table 6A-3: Project-Specific Federal Consistency Review and/or PWP or CDP Procedure Requirements (Phasing Plan)

Initial-Term Phase

Table note:

The PWP/TREP itself serves as Coastal Commission concurrence with the consistency certification for the non-rail projects that are being approved under the PWP. Therefore, projects listed as requiring both a federal consistency certification and a PWP will not go through a separate consistency certification process.

---

Mid-Term Phase

Long-Term Phase

Vision

1. The PWP/TREP itself serves as Coastal Commission concurrence with the consistency certification for the non-rail projects that are being approved under the PWP. Therefore, projects listed as requiring both a federal consistency certification and a PWP will not go through a separate consistency certification process.

6A.3 Federal Consistency Review Procedures

The TREP component of the PWP/TREP functions as a master federal consistency certification to ensure the entire suite of rail, highway, transit, community, and resource improvements are appropriately linked, phased and implemented consistent with applicable California's Coastal Management Program /Coastal Act policies. Given the PWP/TREP program-level of detail available to evaluate potential coastal resource impacts from rail improvement projects, it is anticipated that federal consistency review may need to be conducted in a phased manner for proposed rail improvements. As rail projects are further developed, additional federal consistency review would be conducted, as necessary, for the proposed PWP/TREP rail improvements that require federal permits, federal authorization, and/or federal funding. The standard of review in these cases would be the Coastal Act, with the affected local coastal program(s) (LCP) and the PWP/TREP providing guiding policy and/or background information. In addition, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and other federal agency procedures require the Coastal Commission's concurrence with consistency certification prior to finalizing any environmental impact statement and issuance of a Record of Decision for proposed PWP/TREP projects.

Furthermore, should modifications to highway, community, and resource enhancement project design and/or changes within the project area create the potential for resource impacts not considered during federal consistency review for the PWP/TREP, additional federal consistency review may be required. In such instances, the PWP/TREP may be amended pursuant to Section 6A.7 of this chapter, and may potentially require phased or re-opening of the federal consistency review process.

6A.3.1 Federal Consistency Certification Submittal Contents

A Federal Consistency Certification submittal to the Coastal Commission for any individual PWP/TREP project, or package of projects, shall be clearly titled as such and shall, at a minimum, include the following information regarding the proposed development project or activity:

1. The project description and location, and identification and availability of associated National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA) documents, including relevant studies, reports, agency correspondence, public comments, and technical materials included as part of, or supporting, the project environmental review and consistency certification.
2. Copy/ies of any applicable federal permit application/s and relevant material provided to the federal agency in support of the application/s and which is relevant to the Federal Consistency Certification.
3. A detailed description of the proposed project or activity, its associated facilities, the coastal effects, and any relevant project plans, mapping, data, technical studies, or other information sufficient to support the consistency certification.
4. An updated implementation Phasing Plan (Table 6A-1) and REMP Impact/Mitigation table (Table 6B-1), with information detailing the project/s consistency with the Phasing Plan requirements detailed in Section 6A.2.1 including details regarding:
   • The project phase in which the development is included
   • The status of implementation of another rail, highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects included in the same phase
   • A brief summary of the project/s contribution to the mobility and resource benefits of the project phase
   • Description of any project-specific resource impacts and status of corresponding mitigation requirements for the project phase.
   • A detailed discussion and justification for any proposed project shift between project phases as provided in the Phasing Plan (Table 6A-1), where applicable.
5. A description of the specific project/s consistency with the REMP, including evidence of review by the REMP Working Group confirming consistency with any mitigation and/or resource enhancement or protection requirements of the REMP, as applicable.
6. A detailed consistency certification (an evaluation that includes a set of findings relating to the coastal effects of the proposed project or activity with respect to Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act), which includes a statement that "The proposed activity complies with California's approved Coastal Zone Management Program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program."
7. Where the consistency certification is contained in associated project NEPA/CEQA documentation, a cover letter identifying that the NEPA/CEQA document contains the analysis and where the analysis is included in the NEPA/CEQA document.

6A.3.2 Coastal Commission Review of Federal Consistency Certification

Unless there is a mutual agreement to the contrary, SANDAG/Caltrans will arrange a meeting with the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission prior to the submittal of a Federal Consistency Certification to allow time for pre-consultation on the proposed development or activity. SANDAG/Caltrans will notify the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission a minimum of 90-days prior to final approval of a federal action (i.e., a Record of Decision or Finding of No Significant Impact).

Upon formal submittal of a Federal Consistency Certification to the Executive Director, the Coastal Commission shall review the Federal Consistency Certification in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 6A.4.2.1-6A.4.2.5.

6A.3.2.1 Coastal Commission Acceptance/Process of Consistency Certification Waiver Request

1. Should SANDAG/Caltrans, or another project Lead Agency, determine a particular project activity is de minimis and would not affect coastal resources, and the Coastal Commission staff agrees, the agency/ies may request a waiver of the consistency certification requirement.
2. A consistency certification waiver request must contain a brief description of the proposed development or activity, the project or activity location, and the basis for the request, including an analysis of the proposed project or activity with applicable Chapter 3 policies, sufficient for the Coastal Commission to evaluate whether the project or activity would affect coastal resources.
3. Upon receipt of consistency certification waiver request and all applicable supporting information for a proposed development project, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission shall review the submittal and notify SANDAG/Caltrans or another project Lead Agency that:
   • The subject consistency certification is waived
   • Additional information is necessary to adequately review the consistency certification waiver request, and if additional information is deemed necessary, shall request such information from SANDAG/Caltrans or another project Lead Agency, or iii. The subject consistency certification is not waived and a consistency certification for the proposed project or activity must be submitted for review by the Coastal Commission.

6A.3.2.2 Coastal Commission Acceptance/Processing of Consistency Certification

Within 30 days of receipt of the Federal Consistency Certification and all applicable supporting information for a proposed project or activity as described in Section 6A.4.1, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission shall review the submittal and notify SANDAG/Caltrans or other project Lead Agency that additional information is necessary to adequately review the consistency certification, and if additional information is deemed necessary, shall request such information from SANDAG/Caltrans or another project Lead Agency and the federal permitting agency, or shall notify SANDAG/Caltrans or another project Lead Agency that the submittal is deemed complete and accepted processing.

1. The consistency certification will be deemed complete if the Executive Director does not respond within 30 days to the consistency certification submittal or to a submittal with additional information made in response to the Executive Director's request for such information.
2. The consistency certification will be deemed complete upon receipt and review of the Executive Director, within 30 days, of any additional information submitted in response to the Executive Director's request for such information unless it is determined by the Executive Director that the original informational needs requested have not been satisfied by the updated information submittal.
3. Once deemed complete, a staff report will be prepared and public notice provided for Coastal Commission action on the consistency certification within six months of the date the review period commenced.
   • If the Coastal Commission has not issued a decision on the consistency certification within three months of the date the consistency certification review period commenced, the Coastal Commission will notify SANDAG/Caltrans or another project Lead Agency and the federal permitting agency of the status of the matter and the basis for any further delay.
   • Coastal Commission concurrence with the consistency certification can be conclusively presumed if the Coastal Commission has not acted within the six-month review period. The Coastal Commission's hearing deadline may be extended if, on or before the hearing deadline, SANDAG/Caltrans, or another project Lead Agency, and the Coastal Commission staff agree to a stay of the hearing deadline to allow Coastal Commission review to occur at a later hearing.
4. The Coastal Commission will hold a public hearing and may take action to concur, conditionally concur with, or object to the consistency certification as described in Sections 6A.4.2.3 and 6A.4.2.4.

6A.3.2.3 Coastal Commission Concurrence with Consistency Certification

1. The Coastal Commission will hold a public hearing and may concur with the consistency certification, based on the project or activity's consistency with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
2. The Coastal Commission may conditionally concur with a consistency certification. Such conditions must be based on the project or activity's consistency with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. Should SANDAG/Caltrans, or another project Lead Agency or the federal permitting agency, not agree with the conditions and/or does not modify the project or activity to incorporate the conditions, the Coastal Commission's conditional concurrence will be treated as an objection.
3. Conditional concurrences for federal license or permit and federal assistance activities that are treated as objections as described in the previous sentence are appealable to the Secretary of Commerce.

6A.3.2.4 Coastal Commission Objection to Consistency Certification

1. The Coastal Commission may object to a consistency certification by finding the information supplied is insufficient to enable the Coastal Commission to assess the activity for consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, in which case the Coastal Commission will identify the information and the reason it is necessary to assess consistency of the project or activity's consistency with applicable Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
2. The Coastal Commission may object to a consistency certification by finding the proposed project or activity is inconsistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, in which case the Coastal Commission will identify alternative measures, where such measures exist, that would enable the Coastal Commission to find the project consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
3. An applicant may appeal a Coastal Commission objection to its consistency certification to the Secretary of Commerce within 30 days of its receipt of notification of the Coastal Commission's objection.

6A.3.2.5 Consolidated Review of Consistency Certification and PWP Amendment

Wherever possible and as requested by SANDAG/Caltrans or other project Lead Agency, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission may recommend to the Coastal Commission consolidated review of any consistency certification and associated application for a PWP Amendment and/or CDP where required for rail, highway, transit, community or resource enhancement projects included in the PWP/TREP.

6A.4 PWP Development Review Procedures

All PWP/TREP improvements subject to PWP requirements shall be subject to the PWP Development Review Procedures described in this section. The following procedures and standards are applicable to all transportation, community, and resource enhancement improvements permitted in the PWP/TREP and subject to PWP requirements, except as provided for in Section 6A.5.6, Development Excluded from Project-Specific NOID Procedures. In addition, PWP/TREP rail improvements subject only to the federal consistency review procedures detailed in Section 6A.4, and those improvements located in areas of the Coastal Commission's permit jurisdiction and therefore subject to the CDP review procedures detailed in Section 6A.6, are not required to obtain a NOID prior to construction.

After the PWP/TREP has been approved by the Coastal Commission, any development proposed pursuant to the approved plan would be processed as a Specific Project. The NOID process for the implementation of specific PWP projects is outlined in Figure 6A-2.

6A.4.1 Development Consistency

The development shall be deemed consistent with the PWP/TREP if it is found consistent with the following provisions of the PWP/TREP:

The development is consistent with the scope of planned improvements detailed in Chapter 4.

The development is consistent with the resource-specific policy and implementation measures included in Chapter 5.

The development is consistent with the phasing and implementation requirements contained in Section 6A.2.

Figure 4-5 and Table 6A-1 (Implementation Framework) identify the type, location, and size of development permitted by this PWP/TREP. Development shall not be authorized unless it is of a type, location, and size contemplated by Chapter 4, and it is demonstrated project implementation is in compliance with all policies and implementation measures of Chapters 5 and 6B of the PWP/TREP, as
applicable.

---

Figure 6A-2: Notice of Impeding Development (NOID) Process

• SANDAG/Caltrans
  Authorize Specific Project
• Prepare
  Project Report
• Prepare NOID
• Post NOID
• Submit NOID to CCC
• California Coastal Commission (CCC) Review
  
  • NOID "Completion" Determination by CCC Executive Director
  • NOID Scheduled for Hearing: Regular Calendar
    • CCC Finds NOID Consistent with PWP, with Conditions, if necessary
  • CCC Executive Director Determines NOID de minimis: Reports NOID on Consent Calendar
• Begin Construction
• Monitoring and Reporting

---

6A.4.2 NOID Contents

A NOID for any individual transportation, community or resource enhancement project shall be clearly titled as such, shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission at least 30 working days before the beginning of construction, and shall, at a minimum, include the following information regarding the development project authorization:

1. The project description and location, including identification and availability of a project report (prepared pursuant to Section 6A.5.3) and information regarding where and when it is available for public review. Copies of associated lengthy and/or oversized studies, reports, and technical materials included as part of the project report shall be provided to the Executive Director, and to interested persons and agencies which specifically request these materials.
2. The expected date of commencement of construction;
3. The appropriate Caltrans and/or SANDAG contact person(s) and/or designated project manager and their contact information;
4. A list of recipients of the NOID.
5. Supporting information sufficient to allow the Executive Director to determine whether the proposed development project is consistent with the certified PWP/TREP shall accompany the NOID submitted to the Executive Director, and to persons and agencies requesting such information. At a minimum, the supporting information shall include:
   • Any final authorization documents from SANDAG/Caltrans (e.g., approval, resolutions, certifications, etc.) not included in the project report
   • A separate document that identifies all applicable project conditions, mitigations and implementation measures for the proposed development project
   • Copies of all correspondence received on the proposed development project; and
   • For the Executive Director only:
     • A mailing list with names and addresses for each of the persons and/or agencies provided with the NOID;
     • One set of plain (i.e., unadorned with no return address) regular business size (9-inch by 4inch) envelopes stamped with first-class postage (metered postage is not acceptable) addressed to all interested persons and agencies, for each Coastal Commission hearing on the matter (i.e., if there are multiple Coastal Commission hearings on the matter, then multiple envelop sets shall be provided as directed by the Executive Director); and,
   • Evidence that the NOID has been posted pursuant to the parameters of Section 6A.5.4 (evidence might include a site plan with the notice locations noted and/or photos of the notice locations attached).

6A.4.3 Preparation of Project Reports

Except as provided in Sections 6A.5.6 and 6A.7, SANDAG/Caltrans shall prepare a project report to accompany the NOID submittal for each development project included in the PWP/TREP and subject to PWP requirements. SANDAG/Caltrans shall prepare a project report to demonstrate that the proposal satisfies the standards for development authorization set forth in this PWP/TREP. The Coastal Commission staff shall determine whether the submittal meets these requirements as discussed in Section 6A.5.5. At a minimum, the project report shall include:

1. A description of the proposed development that is: sufficient to understand its size, location, type, and intensity (including but not limited to site plans, grading plans, and elevations/renderings showing the proposed development, where applicable) sufficient to determine the development is contained in the PWP/TREP.
2. Consistency analysis of the proposed development with all applicable Chapter 5 policies, design/development strategies and implementation measures, including any project feature alternatives analysis required pursuant to Chapter 5 Design/Development Strategies and/or Implementation Measures (i.e., water quality best management practices, visual treatment elements, etc.)
3. Updated implementation Phasing Plan Table (Table 6A-1) and REMP Impact/Mitigation Tables (Table 6B-1), with information detailing the project/s consistency with the Phasing Plan requirements detailed in Section 6A.2.1 including details regarding:
   • The project phase in which the development is included
   • The status of implementation of another rail, highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects included in the same phase
   • A brief summary of the proposed development's contribution to the mobility and resource benefits of the project phase
   • Description of any project-specific resource impacts and status of corresponding mitigation requirements for the project phase.
   • A detailed discussion and justification for any proposed project shift between project phases as provided in the Phasing Plan (Table 6A-1).
4. A description of the specific project/s consistency with the REMP, including evidence of review by the REMP Working Group confirming consistency with any mitigation and/or resource enhancement or protection requirements of the REMP, as applicable.
5. Environmental documentation for the proposed development prepared pursuant to CEQA and/or NEPA.
6. All technical reports associated with the proposed development (such as biological reports, geotechnical reports, traffic analyses, etc.), including all reports, studies, and/or project-specific plans required pursuant to applicable Chapter 5 implementation measures.
7. The results, including supporting documentation, of consultation with persons and agencies interested in, with jurisdiction over, and/or affected by the proposed development, including consultations with local, federal and state resource agencies (such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.)
8. All implementing mechanisms associated with the proposed development including, but not limited to, Cooperative Maintenance agreements with affected cities for community enhancement projects as detailed in Section 5.7 of Chapter 5, CEQA mitigation monitoring reports, legal documents, lease agreements, etc.
9. All correspondence received on the proposed development
10. Identification of a person (project manager, Resident Engineer) responsible for ensuring the proposed development is constructed to authorized specifications, that all terms and conditions of approval are met, and that any budget shortfalls which could affect these commitments are identified and brought to the attention of decision-makers; and
11. Findings:
    • The proposed development has been reviewed in compliance with the CEQA and/or NEPA, and all conditions and/or mitigation measures identified in those CEQA and/or NEPA documents have been incorporated as part of the proposed development;
    • The proposed development project advances the purpose of this PWP/TREP, as set forth in Chapter 3;
    • The proposed development has been reviewed by any affected local jurisdiction, resource and/or lagoon conservancy, and comments have been reviewed and considered.
    • The proposed development, as modified by any conditions and/or mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project, is contained in and is consistent with the certified PWP/TREP.

6A.4.4 NOID Posting Requirements

The NOID shall be posted in conspicuous locations at the proposed development site when the NOID is submitted pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section, and at least 30 working days before the beginning of construction. The notices shall be subject to the following parameters:

1. Posted notices shall be sized and located in an area easily read by the public and as close to the proposed development site as is feasible.
2. Notices shall indicate that a NOID has been submitted to the Coastal Commission for the proposed development and shall contain a general description of the nature of the proposed development.
3. Notices that may become illegible, and/or that fall to the ground or disappear must be replaced and shall remain posted until the effective date of development authorization.

6A.4.5 Coastal Commission Review of NOID

SANDAG and Caltrans shall consult with the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission as early as possible in the planning of subsequent development projects contemplated by the PWP/TREP with the objective of facilitating the preparation of an informationally complete NOID submittal package and identifying issues of possible concern to the Coastal Commission in light of PWP/TREP policies, design development strategies, and implementation measures. Such consultation shall occur during specific technical environmental reviews and prior to finalization of project designs, particularly if new technologies (e.g., improved water quality best management practices) may allow for greater protection of coastal resources than what was considered to be available at the time of the Coastal Commission's approval of the PWP/TREP. This early coordination will also allow Coastal Commission staff to work with SANDAG and Caltrans to identify means to allow the NOID to be reviewed by the Coastal Commission at a Southern California Coastal Commission hearing.

A pre-NOID submittal consultation shall be scheduled with the Executive Director, as represented by the Deputy Director at the San Diego Coast office, at the earliest feasible time when an adequate level of design detail is available (generally at 30% Design) and at least 60 days prior to the anticipated NOID submittal, which shall include review of all draft items listed in Section 6A.5.2 and Section 6A.5.3 as part of the consultation. Coastal Commission staff shall provide written direction within two weeks of the consultation regarding the adequacy of the proposed submittal information to support the NOID for the Coastal Commission's subsequent review. SANDAG and Caltrans shall address this written response in a follow-up pre-NOID submittal consultation or as part of the final submittal package.

6A.4.5.1 Filing the NOID

Within 5 working days of receipt of the NOID and all applicable supporting information for a proposed development project (as described in Sections 6A.5.2 and 6A.5.3), the Executive Director shall review the submittal and shall determine whether the NOID is "complete," or whether additional information is necessary to determine if the proposed development project is consistent with the PWP/TREP, and if additional information is deemed necessary, shall request such information from the project manager.

1. The NOID shall be deemed "complete" if the Executive Director does not respond to the NOID or any subsequent information submittal within 5 working days following its receipt; the NOID shall be deemed "complete" on the 5th working day following the Executive Director's receipt of the NOID or to a submittal with additional information made in response to the Executive Director's request for such information.
2. The NOID shall be deemed "complete" when all necessary information requested for purposes of reviewing the proposed project's consistency with the PWP/TREP has been received by the Executive Director. In the event of disagreement concerning the need for additional information or the adequacy of information submitted to enable the Coastal Commission to analyze project consistency with the certified PWP/TREP, SANDAG/Caltrans may appeal to the Executive Director's determination that additional information is needed to the Coastal Commission for resolution. The Executive Director shall schedule the matter for hearing and resolution at the next Coastal Commission meeting or as soon thereafter as practicable, but no later than 60 calendar days after the Executive Director's receipt of written appeal by SANDAG/Caltrans expressing disagreement with the Executive Director's determination that additional information is needed to analyze project consistency with the certified PWP/TREP. The appeal shall be scheduled and heard by the Coastal Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 13056(d). The Executive Director shall notify SANDAG/Caltrans, no later than 60 calendar days after the Executive Director's receipt of written appeal by SANDAG/Caltrans, of any change in the Executive Director's determination that additional information is necessary to analyze project consistency with the certified PWP/TREP as directed by the Coastal Commission.

6A.4.5.2 Coastal Commission Hearing Deadline

The Coastal Commission shall hold a hearing on the NOID no later than 30 (thirty) working days following the day the NOID is deemed "complete." If the Coastal Commission fails to act upon the NOID on or before the hearing deadline, the noticed development project shall be deemed consistent with the certified PWP/TREP. The hearing deadline may be extended if, on or before the hearing deadline, SANDAG/Caltrans waive the right to a hearing within 30 working days to allow Coastal Commission review to occur at a later hearing, and agrees to an extension to a date certain.

6A.4.5.3 Coastal Commission Review and Determination of Consistency with PWP/TREP

1. The Executive Director shall report, in writing to the Coastal Commission, the pendency of the proposed development project for which a NOID has been deemed complete. The Coastal Commission shall review the proposed development project at a scheduled public hearing prior to the hearing deadline.
2. If the Executive Director determines one or more proposed development projects are de minimis with respect to the purposes and provisions of the PWP/TREP, they may be scheduled for the Coastal Commission's review at one public hearing, during which all such items may be taken up as a single matter pursuant to procedures comparable to the Coastal Commission's consent calendar procedures (California Code Regulations, Title 14, Sections 13101 through 13103).
3. For all other proposed development projects, the Executive Director's report to the Coastal Commission shall include a description sufficient to allow the Coastal Commission to understand the location, nature, and extent of the proposed development, and a discussion and recommendation regarding the consistency of the proposed development project with the certified PWP/TREP. On or before the hearing deadline, the Coastal Commission, by a majority of its members present, may take one of the following actions on a proposed development project:
   • Determine the proposed development project is consistent with the certified PWP/TREP, or
   • Determine the proposed development project is not consistent with the certified PWP/TREP and vote to impose conditions necessary to render the proposed development project consistent with the certified PWP/TREP. The Coastal Commission may also impose conditions necessary to render the proposed development project consistent with the certified PWP/TREP at the next scheduled hearing.
4. Following the Coastal Commission's action, the Executive Director shall inform SANDAG/Caltrans of the Coastal Commission's action and shall forward any conditions associated with the action. If the Coastal Commission has voted to impose the condition/s necessary to render the project consistent with the PWP/TREP, development shall not be undertaken until the conditions have been incorporated into the project. The Coastal Commission review of a proposed development project shall be deemed complete on either:
   • The date of a Coastal Commission action determining the proposed development project is consistent with the PWP/TREP (with or without conditions to render it consistent); or
   • If the Coastal Commission has failed to take action on the proposed development project by the hearing deadline, the date of the hearing deadline.
5. Upon completion of the Coastal Commission's review, SANDAG/Caltrans may undertake the development project provided any conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission to render the development consistent with the PWP/TREP have been incorporated into the project.

6A.4.6 Development Excluded from Project-Specific PWP NOID Procedures

The categories of development identified in this section are excluded from the requirements of the PWP Development Review Procedures described in Sections 6A.5.1 to 6A.5.4, assuming the proposed activity will not have a risk of substantial adverse impact on public access, environmentally sensitive habitat area, wetlands, or public views to the ocean.

The categories of development covered by this section are as follows:

1. Maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels or moving dredged material from the channels to an area outside the Coastal Zone, pursuant to a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
2. Repair and maintenance activities specifically described in the document titled "Repair, Maintenance and Utility Hook-up Exclusions from Permit Requirements," adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 5, 1978.
3. Repair or maintenance activities that do not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of, the object of those repair and maintenance activities provided the activity does not include:
   • Any method of repair or maintenance of a seawall, revetment, bluff retaining wall, breakwater, groin, culvert, outfall, or similar shoreline work that involves substantial alteration of the foundation of the structure being repaired or maintained placement of rip-rap or other solid material on a beach or in coastal waters, streams, estuaries, or wetlands, or on a shoreline protective work; replacement of 20 percent or more of the materials of an existing structure with materials of a different kind; or the presence of mechanized construction equipment or construction materials on any sand area, bluff, or ESHA, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams.
   • Any repair or maintenance to facilities, structures, or work located in an ESHA, any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or ESHA, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams, that includes: (a) the placement or removal, whether temporary or permanent, of riprap, rocks, sand, other beach materials, or any other form of solid materials; and/or (b) the presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized equipment or construction materials.
   • Any routine maintenance dredging or disposal of dredge materials that involves the dredging of 100,000 cubic yards or more within a 12-month period; the placement of dredged spoils of any quantity within an ESHA, on any sand area, within 50 feet of the edge of a coastal bluff or ESHA, or within 20 feet of coastal waters or streams; or the removal, sale, or disposal of dredged spoils of any quantity that would be suitable for beach nourishment in an area the Coastal Commission has declared by resolution to have a critically short sand supply that must be maintained for protection of structures, coastal access or public recreational use.
4. Installation, testing, and placement in service or the replacement of, any necessary utility connection between an existing service facility and any authorized development, including utility hook-up activities described in the document entitled "Repair, Maintenance, and Utility Hook Up Exclusions from Permit Requirements," adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 5, 1978.
5. Development authorized by a CDP issued by the Coastal Commission prior to certification of this PWP/TREP.

6A.5 Coastal Development Permit Review Procedures

All PWP/TREP improvements located within areas of retained Coastal Commission permit jurisdiction

(such as lagoon bridge replacements) and/or proposed to be implemented by another Lead Agency (such as lagoon restoration projects or certain pedestrian and bicycle improvements located outside of the Caltrans/SANDAG right-of-way) shall be subject to the Coastal Commission CDP review procedures described in this section.

6A.5.1 Coastal Development Permit Application Contents

A CDP application for any individual transportation, community or resource enhancement project included in the PWP/TREP shall be clearly indicated as such, shall comply with the submittal requirements as described in the Coastal Commission Regulations, and shall include the following information:

1. A description of the proposed development is: sufficient to understand its size, location, type, and intensity including maps, plans, photographs, etc. Two (2) complete sets of project plans, drawn to scale, must be provided for the site plan(s), floor plans, elevations, grading/ drainage/ erosion control, and landscape plans, as applicable. Note: If maps, plans, photographs or other exhibits are larger than 8 ½" x 11" then enough copies must be sent with the application to allow for the distribution to those persons on the Coastal Commission's mailing list and the Coastal Commission staff and commissioners.
2. Consistency analysis of the proposed development with all applicable Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act
3. Updated implementation Phasing Plan Table (Table 6A-1) and REMP Impact/Mitigation Tables (Table 6B-1), with information detailing the project/s consistency with the Phasing Plan requirements detailed in Section 6A.2.1 including details regarding:
   • The project phase in which the development is included
   • The status of implementation of another rail, highway, transit, community, and resource enhancement projects included in the same phase
   • A brief summary of the proposed development's contribution to the mobility and resource benefits of the project phase
   • Description of any project-specific resource impacts and status of corresponding mitigation requirements for the project phase.
   • A detailed discussion and justification for any proposed project shift between project phases as provided in the Phasing Plan (Table 6A-1).
4. A description of the specific project/s consistency with the REMP, including evidence of review by the REMP Working Group confirming consistency with any mitigation and/or resource enhancement or protection requirements of the REMP, as applicable.
5. Two (2) copies of any environmental documents and/or technical reports prepared for the project, as applicable.
6. Description of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including implementation measures included in the approved PWP/TREP, to substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the environment.
7. Description and documentation of legal interest in all the property upon which work would be performed.
8. Assessor's parcel map(s) showing the proposed development site and all adjacent properties within 100 feet of the property boundary, excluding adjacent roads.
9. Stamped envelopes (no postage meter) addressed to neighboring property owners and occupants, and other interested parties and a list of the same.
10. Project site vicinity map (copy of Thomas Bros. or other road map or U.S. Geological Survey quad map).
11. Dated signature attesting to the truth, completeness, and accuracy of the application.
12. Additional information may be requested by the Executive Director to file a complete application, as determined necessary to review the project for consistency with applicable Coastal Act policies (refer to Sample Technical Document/Addressing Coastal Policy Issues section above for commonly requested resource-specific application information). For additional details, see Title 14, Division 5.5, Chapter 5, Section 13053.5 of the California Code of Regulations.

6A.5.2 Coastal Development Permit Noticing Requirements

SANDAG/Caltrans shall provide a list of the addresses of all residences, property owners and occupants located within 100 feet of the perimeter of the real property of record on which the development is proposed, and shall provide a list of names and addresses of all persons known to be interested in the project. Along with the lists, SANDAG/Caltrans shall provide addressed, stamped envelopes with the words "Important. Public Hearing Notice." prominently placed on the front of the envelope. At the time the application is filed with the Coastal Commission, a notice of application for the proposed development permit shall be posted as close as possible to the proposed development site. A standardized posting notice shall be provided by the Executive Director when the application is filed.

6A.5.3 Coastal Commission Review of the Application

SANDAG and Caltrans shall consult with the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission as early as possible in the planning of subsequent development projects contemplated by the PWP/TREP with the objective of facilitating the preparation of an informationally complete application package and identifying issues of possible concern to the Coastal Commission in light of Coastal Act and PWP/TREP policies. Such consultation shall occur during specific technical environmental reviews and prior to finalization of project designs, particularly if new technologies (e.g., improved water quality best management practices) may allow for greater protection of coastal resources than what was considered to be available at the time of the Coastal Commission's approval of the PWP/TREP. This early coordination will also allow Coastal Commission staff to work with SANDAG and Caltrans to identify means to allow the application to be reviewed by the Coastal Commission at a Southern California Coastal Commission hearing.

A pre-application submittal consultation shall be scheduled with the Executive Director, as represented by the Deputy Director at the San Diego Coast office, at least 60 days prior to the anticipated application submittal, which shall include a review of all draft items listed in Section 6A.6.1 as part of the consultation. Coastal Commission staff shall provide written direction within two weeks of the consultation regarding the adequacy of the proposed submittal information to support the application for the Coastal Commission's subsequent review. SANDAG and Caltrans shall address this written response in a follow-up pre-application submittal consultation or as part of the final submittal package

6A.5.4 Filing the Application

1. Within 30 days of receipt of the application and all applicable supporting information for a proposed development project, the Executive Director shall review the submittal and shall determine whether the application is "complete," or whether additional information is necessary to determine if the proposed development project is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, and if additional information is deemed necessary, shall request such information from the project manager.
2. After the application is deemed complete and filed, the Executive Director shall complete a staff report for the permit. The report shall contains the maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the proposed project, a summary of significant questions of fact, a summary of the project's consistency with applicable Coastal Act policies, a copy or summary of public comments, a summary of the legal adequacy of the application and the staff's recommendation for approval, conditional approval or denial of the permit.

6A.5.5 Coastal Commission Hearing Deadline

The Coastal Commission shall hold a hearing on the CDP application no later than 180 days of the application being deemed "complete." If the Coastal Commission fails to act upon the CDP on or before the hearing deadline, the noticed development project shall be deemed approved. SANDAG/Caltrans may grant a one-time, 90-day extension to allow more time for the Coastal Commission to consider and act on the application during a public hearing.

Within the application review time frames, SANDAG/Caltrans have a right to a single postponement request to allow more time for discussion and resolution of any outstanding issues associated with a review of the application. The Coastal Commission may continue the public hearing on the application at any time but must act on the application within the 180-day review period, or the extended 90-day review period is granted by the applicant.

6A.6 Amendment of PWP/TREPProject Authorizations

Development in the NCC highway and rail corridors which require amendment for a project approved prior to PWP/TREP certification, and which is subject to coastal development requirements, shall be pursued through the appropriate authority having jurisdiction over such CDP.

Authorization for development that has been deemed consistent with the PWP/TREP by SANDAG/Caltrans and the Coastal Commission may be subsequently amended as necessary according to the following procedures and as set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 13365 Amendment of Public Works Plan. The PWP amendment process is illustrated in Figure 6A-3.

Design modifications and/or changed site conditions (new or changed resources) which deviate from the scope and/or conditions documented in the approved PWP/TREP, but that do not result in significant new impacts to coastal resource, and/or result in impacts which are addressed with adopted PWP/TREP policies and implementation measures, will not require an amendment to the approved TRE/PWP and may be reviewed and implemented by the Coastal Commission according to the NOID procedures included in this Chapter. Such improvements may include, but not be limited to, addition and/or modification of project features which were anticipated in the PWP/TREP scope of improvements (such as new water quality treatment best management practices or aesthetic treatment features), as identified and evaluated during the Caltrans/SANDAG, city, and Coastal Commission pre-consultation process and assuming such improvements do not result in coastal resource impacts not already addressed by PWP/TREP Design/Development Strategies and/or Implementations Measures.

6A.6.1 Public Hearing at Local Level

Prior to the submission of an application for an amendment to the PWP, SANDAG/Caltrans shall demonstrate a public hearing at the local level has been held on the proposed amendment within a reasonable time prior to submission of the amendment application to the Coastal Commission. In determining the reasonableness of the time of the public hearing(s), the Executive Director shall consider the location, scope or size of the PWP project or activity subject to amendment, the progress of SANDAG/Caltrans toward obtaining all funding and governmental approvals for the amendment project or activity, and development of the PWP amendment. A steady progression of SANDAG/Caltrans toward the development of the PWP amendment in this manner, after holding public hearings on the amendment, shall constitute evidence of the reasonableness of the time of the prior public hearing.

---

Figure 6A-3: Public Works Plan Amendment Process

• SANDAG/Caltrans
  Authorize PWP Amendment
• Local Hearing on PWP Amendment
• Prepare PWP Amendment CCC Application
• Submit PWP Amendment to CCC
• California Coastal Commission (CCC) Review
  • PWP Amendment "Completion" Determination by CCC Executive Director
  • CCC Executive Director Determines/Notices for Major PWPA: Scheduled for Regular Hearing
    • CCC Finds PWPA Consistent with Coastal Act/LCP, As Applicable, PWPA Approved
  • CCC Executive Director Determines/Notices for Minor PWPA - No Objection in 15 days PWPA Deemed Approved & Reported at Next CCC Hearing
• SANDAG/Caltrans Follow NOID Process for Amended PWP Projects

---

6A.6.2 Amendment Application Contents and Coastal Commission Review of Application

1. An application for an amendment to the PWP shall be submitted to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission and shall contain sufficient information regarding the type, size, intensity and location of amended development activity intended to be undertaken pursuant to the PWP and/or any changes to PWP policies, standards or procedures to determine consistency with applicable policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and/or the certified LCP, including, but not limited to the following, where applicable:
   • The specific type of activity or activities proposed to be undertaken
   • The maximum and minimum intensity of activity or activities proposed to be undertaken (e.g., maximum traffic capacity of a road)
   • The maximum size of facilities proposed to be constructed pursuant to the plan (e.g., number of lanes of a road) and the proposed timetable for a precise definition of all projects included in the plan and any phasing of development activity contemplated
   • The service area for the proposed activity or activities
   • The proposed method of financing the activity or activities including any direct or indirect means of obtaining or guaranteeing funds through the assessment or any other form of levy against lands located within the Coastal Zone and an estimate of the projected amount of revenues to be obtained from land or water areas located in the Coastal Zone over the useful life of the proposed development
   • Environmental analysis, reports, studies, maps, etc. prepared for the PWP amendment and relevant to the analysis of the PWP amendment's consistency with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and/or the certified LCP, as applicable.
   • The proposed location or alternative locations considered for any development activity or activities to be undertaken pursuant to the proposed plans.
   • The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission may require the submission of any additional information deemed necessary to determine the consistency of the proposed amendment with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and/or the certified LCP, as applicable.
2. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission shall deem a PWP amendment application complete at such time as the Executive Director determines the information required pursuant to this section has been received at the appropriate Coastal Commission office. Said review shall be completed within no later than five (5) working days after the date it is received in the district office of the Coastal Commission during normal business hours unless there are unusual circumstances, in which case said review shall be completed within no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the date it is received. Immediately upon making such determination, the Executive Director shall affix the date of filing to the application file and notify SANDAG/Caltrans of the application completeness determination.
3. In the event of disagreement concerning the need for additional information or the adequacy of information submitted to enable the Coastal Commission to analyze the PWP amendment for consistency with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act or certified LCP, as applicable, SANDAG/Caltrans may appeal the Executive Director's determination that additional information is needed to the Coastal Commission for resolution. The Executive Director shall schedule the matter for hearing and resolution at the next Coastal Commission meeting or as soon thereafter as practicable, but no later than 60 calendar days after the Executive Director's receipt of written appeal by SANDAG/Caltrans expressing disagreement with the Executive Director's determination that additional information is needed to analyze the PWP amendment for consistency with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act or certified LCP, as applicable. The appeal shall be scheduled and heard by the Coastal Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 13056(d). The Executive Director shall notify SANDAG/Caltrans, no later than 60 calendar days after the Executive Director's receipt of written appeal by SANDAG/Caltrans, of any change in the Executive Director's determination that additional information is necessary to analyze project consistency with the certified PWP/TREP as directed by the Coastal Commission.
4. The Executive Director shall provide, make available to the public, or demonstrate the PWP amendment submittal materials have been available for public review, including environmental information on the amendment necessary to enable the Coastal Commission to determine the consistency of the amendment with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and/or the certified LCP, as applicable. Where the Executive Director determines it is not feasible to distribute the PWP amendment submittal materials and/or relevant environmental information due to the size or volume of the documents, or because of the costs of such distribution, the Executive Director shall provide notice to interested persons of the location of the environmental documents which are available for review, and a list of those documents. The PWP amendment materials and relevant environmental information shall be distributed or made available to the public prior to a public hearing on the plan, and the Coastal Commission shall provide the opportunity for public comment in response to the information prior to the close of the public hearing on the plan.

6A.6.3 Coastal Commission Rejection of Application for PWP Amendment

An application for an amendment to the PWP may be rejected if, in the opinion of the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, the proposed PWP amendment would lessen or avoid the intended effect, or any conditions, of the certified PWP. The determination by the Executive Director to reject an amendment application shall be transmitted, in writing, to the applicant with an explanation of the reasons for such rejection.

6A.6.4 Coastal Commission Acceptance/Process of Application for Minor Amendment

Design modifications and/or changed site conditions which may substantially deviate from the scope and/or conditions documented in the approved PWP/TREP, but that do not result in significant new impacts, and/or result in impacts that are addressed with adopted PWP/TREP policies and implementation measures may be subject to a minor PWP amendment. Such improvements may include, but not be limited to, addition and/or modification of a project feature that is minor in nature (such as a new retaining wall, expanded recreational support facility, etc.) which were not anticipated in the PWP/TREP scope of improvements and assuming such improvements do not result in coastal resource impacts not already addressed by PWP/TREP Design/Development Strategies and/or Implementations Measures, or addition of new design/development strategies or implementation measures that are consistent with PWP/TREP policies.

Where an application for an amendment to a PWP is accepted, the Executive Director shall determine whether the proposed amendment is minor in nature. If the Executive Director determines the proposed amendment is minor in nature, a notice of such determination shall be mailed to the Coastal Commission and to all parties the Executive Director knows or has reason to know may be interested in the amendment. If no written objection to the proposed amendment is received in the Coastal Commission office within fifteen (15) working days of the published notice, the proposed PWP amendment shall be deemed minor in nature and shall be approved. The Executive Director shall notify the Coastal Commission of the approved minor PWP amendment at the next regular meeting of the Coastal Commission.

6A.6.5 Coastal Commission Acceptance/Process of Application for Major Amendment

Design modifications and/or changed site conditions which substantially deviate from the scope and/or conditions documented in the approved PWP/TREP, and that have the potential to result in significant new impacts not addressed with adopted PWP/TREP policies and implementation measures may be subject to a major PWP amendment. Such improvements may include, but not be limited to, addition and/or modification of a new project not anticipated in the PWP/TREP scope of improvements (such as a new highway or mitigation project) and assuming such improvements result in coastal resource impacts not already addressed by PWP/TREP Design/Development Strategies and/or Implementations Measures, or addition of new design/development strategies or implementation measures that that would lessen the resource protection policies of PWP/TREP.

If the Executive Director determines the proposed PWP amendment is not minor, or if reasonable objection is made to the Executive Director's determination that the proposed PWP amendment is minor, or if the proposed amendment affects elements of the certified PWP adopted for purposes of protecting a coastal resource or coastal access, the amendment application will be processed as a regular amendment subject to the following procedures.

6A.6.6 Notice and Hearing Procedures for Major Amendment

1. The Executive Director shall provide notice, and prepare and make available a staff report for the Coastal Commission, SANDAG/Caltrans, any affected local government, any persons who participated in the Coastal Commission hearings for review of the public works plan, and any other persons known or thought to be interested in the proposed public works plan amendment of the acceptance of the amendment application.
2. The Coastal Commission shall hold a hearing on the proposed PWP amendment no later than sixty (60) calendar days following the day the PWP amendment application is deemed "complete." If the Coastal Commission fails to act upon the PWP amendment on or before the hearing deadline, the PWP amendment shall be deemed certified. The hearing deadline may be extended if, on or before the hearing deadline, the Coastal Commission extends for good cause the hearing deadline for a period not to exceed one year from the original hearing deadline as established by the date the PWP amendment application was deemed complete.

6A.6.6.1 Public Works Plan Amendment in Areas without a Certified LCP

1. Where the PWP amendment review occurs prior to certification of a LCP, SANDAG/Caltrans may submit the PWP amendment to the Coastal Commission for review and certification. Approval of a PWP amendment by the Coastal Commission shall be accompanied by specific written findings that:
2. The development is in conformity with Chapter 3 of the California Coastal
3. That there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures, as provided in CEQA, available that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the proposed amendment may have on the environment.

6A.6.6.2 Public Works Plan Amendment in Areas with a Certified LCP

1. Where the PWP amendment review follows certification of a LCP and if a proposed PWP amendment does not require an amendment to the LCP pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30515, SANDAG/Caltrans may submit the PWP amendment to the Coastal Commission for review and certification. Coastal Commission review shall be undertaken only after consultation with the affected local government who may recommend modifications necessary for the proposed PWP amendment to adequately carry out the certified LCP.
   • At least 10 working days prior to the first public hearing on a proposed PWP amendment directly affecting a portion of the Coastal Zone for which a LCP has been certified by the Coastal Commission, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission shall direct the Coastal Commission staff to consult with the affected local government with respect to the impact of the proposed PWP amendment on the Coastal Zone and on the certified LCP; the results of such consultation shall be reported to the Coastal Commission at the first public hearing on the proposed PWP amendment.
   • At least 5 working days prior to transmitting a written recommendation on the proposed PWP amendment to the Coastal Commission, the Executive Director shall request the affected local government(s) transmit to the Coastal Commission its determination as to whether the proposed PWP amendment is in conformity with the certified LCP in the jurisdiction(s) affected by the proposed PWP amendment.
   • The affected local government may, within its discretion, transmit its determination as to the conformity of the proposed PWP amendment with the LCP, in writing to the Coastal Commission prior to the Coastal Commission's vote on the proposed PWP amendment, and may include any recommended modifications of the proposed PWP amendment that would conform it to the LCP; a local government may also indicate any proposed amendments to its LCP that would be necessary to accommodate the proposed PWP amendment.
   • Approval of a PWP amendment by the Coastal Commission shall be accompanied by specific factual findings supporting the conclusion that the PWP amendment, as approved, is in conformity with the certified LCP in jurisdictions affected by the proposed public works plan amendment.

6A.6.7 Consolidated Review of PWP Amendment and Project-Specific NOID

If a proposed project intended to be undertaken pursuant to a PWP amendment is submitted to the Coastal Commission for a NOID concurrent with the submittal of a PWP amendment, the Coastal Commission shall review the project and the PWP amendment concurrently, and shall, if the project NOID is consistent with applicable Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, approve the project as an integral component of the PWP amendment. The Coastal Commission may require conditions, where necessary, to bring the project into conformance with the Coastal Act.

6A.7 Emergency Authorizations

Definition of Emergency. For the purpose of this section, the term "emergency" means: A sudden unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services.

6A.7.1 Emergency Development in Areas Outside of the Coastal Commission's

Retained Jurisdiction but Within Original Jurisdiction

1. SANDAG/Caltrans Director Authority: Where immediate action by SANDAG/Caltrans is required to protect life and property within the PWP/TREP area from imminent danger, or to restore, repair, or maintain rail or freeway right-of-way, utilities, or services destroyed, damaged, or interrupted by natural disaster, serious accident, or in other cases of an emergency, the SANDAG/Caltrans director may authorize emergency development on PWP/TREP area outside of the Coastal Commission's permit jurisdiction area in compliance with this section. Emergency work within areas subject to the Coastal Commission's permit jurisdiction is addressed in Section 6A.7.1.
2. Extreme Emergency Requiring Immediate Action: If an emergency is so extreme it does not allow time for the written requests, authorizations, and coordination described in this section, SANDAG/Caltrans personnel or other authorized persons undertaking any emergency development shall adhere as closely as reasonably possible to the written request, authorization, and coordination portions of these procedures.
3. Authorization of Emergency Development: SANDAG/Caltrans may undertake emergency development in the PWP/TREP area if it is found that:
   • Immediate action by the SANDAG/Caltrans is required to protect life and property from imminent danger, or to restore, repair, or maintain university property, utilities, or services destroyed, damaged, or interrupted by a natural disaster, serious accident, or in other cases of emergency;
   • The emergency requires action more quickly than could occur through the PWP/TREP normal development review procedures, and the emergency development can and will be completed within 30 days unless otherwise specified in the emergency authorization;
   • Public comment on the emergency development has been reviewed if time allows;
   • SANDAG/Caltrans has coordinated with planning staff in the South Coast District office of Coastal Commission and/or the Executive Director pursuant to as much as feasible;
   • The emergency development proposed is the minimum necessary to address the emergency and, is the least environmentally damaging temporary alternative for addressing the emergency; and
   • The emergency development proposed would be consistent with the PWP/TREP as much as feasible and/or would not impede the attainment of PWP/TREP requirements following completion of the emergency development.
4. Notice of Emergency Development Authorization: No later than 3 days of the occurrence of the disaster or the discovery of the danger, SANDAG/Caltrans shall provide the affected city and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission with at least telephone notice of the type and location of the emergency action taken. As soon as possible and no later than 7 days after the emergency, SANDAG/Caltrans shall submit, for information purposes only, a written Notice of Emergency Development Authorization to the affected city and the Executive Director.
5. Development authorized Pursuant to the Notice of Emergency Development Authorization: Emergency development authorized pursuant to this Section is subject to the following conditions:
   • Emergency development must be completed within 30 days and the development is considered temporary unless it is subsequently authorized through regular PWP/TREP or CDP review procedures, which review must commence within ninety (90) days of the emergency authorization. Issuance of an emergency authorization shall not constitute an entitlement to the erection of permanent development or structures
   • Development authorized through the emergency process must be removed and the affected area restored if a development project authorization has not been received within one year of authorization of the emergency development. If not so authorized, the emergency development, or unauthorized portion thereof, shall be removed and the affected area restored.

6A.7.2 Emergency Development in Areas within the Coastal Commission's Permit Jurisdiction

1. In the event of an emergency necessitating emergency development on land on which the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction the procedures of this subsection shall apply.
   • SANDAG/Caltrans shall apply for an emergency permit to the Executive Director, by letter if time allows, or by telephone or in-person if time does not allow. All processing of the proposed emergency permit shall be in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Sections 13136-13143.
   • Where immediate action by SANDAG/Caltrans is required to protect life and public property from imminent danger or to restore, repair, or maintain public works, utilities, or services damaged or interrupted by natural disaster or another emergency, the requirement for obtaining an emergency permit may be waived, in accordance with Section 30611 of the Coastal Act; provided that SANDAG/Caltrans shall comply with the requirements of Section 30611. SANDAG/Caltrans shall notify the Executive Director of the type and location of the emergency work within 3 days of the disaster or discovery of the danger, whichever comes first. This subsection does not authorize the erection of any permanent structure valued at more than $25,000. Within 7 days of taking action, SANDAG/Caltrans shall notify the Executive Director in writing of the reasons why the action was taken and provide verification of compliance with the expenditure limits. SANDAG/Caltrans submittal to the Executive Director shall be reported to the Coastal Commission and otherwise processed in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 13144.

6A.8 Monitoring of PWP/TREP Development Projects

The PWP/TREP development review procedures for project NOIDs and reporting requirements for the phasing plan and REMP contained in this Chapter will provide the vehicle to continuously track and evaluate PWP/TREP program and project implementation to ensure program benefits, including benefits to coastal access and coastal resources, are balanced with or exceed program impacts through the full 30 year planning period. To further monitor PWP/TREP program and project implementation, the PWP/TREP includes a monitoring and reporting program which will provide yearly assessment and summary of information and updates to the Implementation Framework to document projects and associated mitigation requirements completed, and to assess cumulative phase impacts, benefits and available resource mitigation credits for future project and/or phase implementation. Should a circumstance arise where a yearly report determines unanticipated resource impacts have occurred or are greater than anticipated for any particular project phase identified in the PWP/TREP, SANDAG/Caltrans will be responsible for initiating additional projects pursuant to the appropriate procedures outlined in this Chapter to sufficiently balance program impacts and benefits, prior to initiating any development contained in a subsequent phase.

6A.8.1 PWP/TREP Monitoring and Reporting Program

The project manager and/or other SANDAG/Caltrans personnel assigned responsibility to implement and/or monitor authorized development projects shall prepare an annual PWP/TREP monitoring report, commencing with approval of the PWP/TREP by the Coastal Commission, which includes a cumulative and calendar year summary of:

1. Status of PWP/TREP-authorized development project implementation for the year (status of any associated authorizations, funding, construction timeline, etc.) and summary of compliance with any applicable implementing measures and/or conditions placed on the authorized NOID
2. Status and summary of compliance with conditions for any continuing obligations from project authorizations in previous years
3. Any emergency authorizations that occurred and a summary of compliance with Section 6A.7
4. Any comments received on PWP/TREP implementation (project construction, condition compliance, etc.)
5. Preparation and/or submittal status of PWP/TREP phasing and/or REMP monitoring reports required pursuant to Sections 6A.2.1 and 6A.2.2 of this Chapter

The project manager or other responsible SANDAG/Caltrans personnel shall verify authorized project compliance with all applicable implementation measures and that all NOID conditions have been timely fulfilled. The project manager or other responsible SANDAG/Caltrans personnel shall update and maintain a current copy of the PWP/TREP Phasing Plan, prepared and implemented pursuant to Section 6A.2.1, as may be revised per the procedures contained in this chapter, and any other applicable documents and project plans demonstrating compliance with the PWP/TREP. SANDAG/Caltrans shall maintain a record of these annual monitoring reports and they shall be available for public review. The annual monitoring and reporting program reports will be included in the Transportation Report Package described in Section 6A.2.1.3, which will be submitted to the Coastal Commission every 4 -5 years to provide detail on improvements to the entire transportation system located within the NCC, as described in the PWP/TREP.

6A.9 PWP/TREP Funding Plans

6A.9.1 Sources of Funding

With a diverse program of transportation, community, and resource enhancement projects in the corridor, funding will come from a variety of sources including local, state, and federal governments. SANDAG and Caltrans will have primary responsibility for developing funding in order to ensure program implementation. While funding is certain to change over time, some of these funding grants and programs that may enable the implementation of this program are listed below.

6A.9.1.1 Local

• TransNet One-Half Percent Local Sales Tax Revenues
• Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP)
• Transportation Development Act (TDA)
• Local Street and Road Gas Tax Subventions
• Local Street and Road General Fund and Other Revenues
• Toll Road Funding - debt financing backed by future HOT/Express Lane revenues

6A.9.1.2 State

• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
• State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds
• Proposition 1B Infrastructure Bonds
• Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Funds
• State Highway Operations, and Preservation Program (SHOPP) and Maintenance and Operations Program Funds
• Future State/Federal Gas Tax or Equivalent Revenue Increases

6A.9.1.3 Federal

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Discretionary (Section 5309) Funds
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Formula (Section 5307 and 5309) Funds
• Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds
• Miscellaneous Federal/State/Private/Other Capital Revenues
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Federal Stimulus Bill