Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3455; Coastal Rail Trail Oceanside to Del Mar; Coastal Rail Trail Oceanside to Del Mar; 2001-04-01Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to Del Mar Includes letters of comments and responses Prepared by: City of Carlsbad (As lead agency representing the Cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, So/ana Beach and Del Mar) 1635 Faraday, Carlsbad, CA Tel. (760) 602-4608 Environmental Consultant CLM, Inc. P. 0. Box 2286 Vista, CA 92085-2286 Tel. (760) 941-9696 April 2001 City of Carlsbad Plan n i ng : Depa.-r.trfi'ent MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Project Description: Oceanside to Del Mar along the railroad right-of-way and adjacent public streets. A Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1996 by the affected coastal cities and San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) initiated the project concept and environmental review process. The City of Carlsbad was designated as the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes. Responsible Agencies affected by this environmental review include: Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, SDNR and SANDAG. The proposed Coastal Rail Trail is a regional trail along SDNR's railroad right-of-way and adjacent streets for pedestrians and bike riders. The 24 mile segment from Oceanside to Del Mar is covered by this environmental document. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. The environmental review was coordinated with the other Responsible Agencies noted above. Reviewing Locations: (1) Planning Department offices for the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach and Del Mar; (2) City Libraries in Oceanside, Carlsbad and Del Mar, (3) County Libraries in Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe and Solana Beach, (4) San Diego City Library in Carmel Valley; and, (5) SANDAG offices at 401 B Street, Suite 800 in downtown San Diego. For questions, contact the staff person noted for each city: Oceanside, Jerry Hittleman (760) 966-4783; Carlsbad, Eric Munoz (760) 602-4608; Encinitas, Gary Barberio (760) 633-2698; Solana Beach, Steve Apple (858) 720-2451; Del Mar, Linda Niles (858) 755-9313. Written comments from the public are invited; submit to the Carlsbad Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 within 45 days of date of issuance - January 15, 2000. If you have any general questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. DATED: CASE NO: DECEMBER 1,2000 EIA 00-06 CASE NAME: COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PUBLISH J)ATE: DECEMBER 1,2000 MICHAEL J. HOLZ Planning Director LER City of Carlsbad PI a n h i n g; Department April 6, 2001 Mr. Bill Figge, Chief Development Review and Public Transportation Branch CALTRANS District 11 P.O. Box 85406, MS-50 San Diego CA 92186-5406 Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project SCH# 2001011023 Dear Mr. Figge, The Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report (PSR) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the culmination of a long commitment by the coastal cities for the development of a rail trail along the San Diego Northern Railway. Caltrans' consistent involvement has been greatly appreciated. For a point of clarification, the Coastal Rail Trail PSR evaluates the potential for a trail within the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) right-of-way between the Oceanside Transit Station and the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego; a distance of 44 miles. However, the MND environmental document analyzes potential impacts of the Coastal Rail Trail project between the Cities of Oceanside and Del Mar only. That portion of the project south of the City of Del Mar was intentionally omitted from the MND, therefore, appropriate CEQA processing will be pursued by the City of San Diego at some time in the future. The majority of your comments identified in the letter dated February 16, 2001 deal specifically with freeway bridges outside the limits of the MND and would be more adequately addressed by the City of San Diego as part of the preparation of the CEQA document for that portion of the project. hi addition, your first comments relates to coordination and/or a possible conflict with the Oceanside to Escondido Rail line. Staff reviewed the proposed alignment plans (Sheet 2 of drawing no. 376-9) and notes that the spur line begins southerly of Oceanside Blvd. The proposed alignment for the Coastal Rail Trail path parallels the existing railroad right-of-way northerly of Oceanside Blvd then traverses westerly along Oceanside Blvd. to Pacific Street. This review also confirms that the proposed alignment of the bikeway does not conflict with the existing Oceanside to Escondido Rail line. During the design phase of the Coastal Rail Trail project, a more accurate survey will be performed. If, as identified in the MND, the route of the bikeway is substantially altered, additional environmental review may be necessary. Once again the comments provided by Caltrans are appreciated. The North County coastal cities look forward to continuing to work with you and your agency on this regional project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (760) 602-4608 Sincerely, Eric Munoz Senior Planner Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Associate Engineer Steven Jantz City of Oceanside Acting Planning Director Gerald Gilbert City of Oceanside Assistant Civil Engineer Steve Tisdale City of San Diego Mr. Lawrence Monserate City of San Diego Associate Engineer Husam Y. Hasenin 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 6O2-8559 (ji'av I )u\ i> t,t >\ I K.M >K S T \ I t O I C A L I I l> R N I \ Governor's Orrice ot"Planning and Researchi* State Clearinehouse February 22, 2001 Eric Munoz City o f Carlsbad -'•''"" 1635 Faraday Avenue r " Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Subject: Coastal Rail Trail (E1A 00-06) SCH#: 2001011023 Dear Eric Munoz: The enclosed comment (s) on your Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on February 6, 2001. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2001011023) when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts' Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 '1TNTII SlRIitl I'.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMl MO, CALIFORNIA i)5SI2-',044 416-441-0^1, K\\ 9I6-323-30KS \V\\ AV.Ol'R.CA.GOV C.L1 AKIM.IIorSI .II I MI FRI 5:54 PM CALTRANS PUBLIC TRANS FAX NO. 619 688 4233 ?. I - CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAV DAVIS, Governor ARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JTRICT 11. P.O. BOX 85406. MS-50. JAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5406 619.688-6954 FAX: 619-688-4299 February 16,2001 11-SD-005 PM 15.2-53.9 2001011023 Mr. Scott Morgan State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Morgan: ND for the Coastal Rail Trail project - SCH # 2001011023 Caltrans District 11 comments are as follows: • The Oceanside-Escondido Rail Line footprint is not clearly shown. If the footprint is within the area required for the bikeway, the alignment of the bikeway may have to be altered and a reevaluation of the environmental document will be required. Additionally, the staging of construction of the bikeway should be noted to ensure that each segment constructed has independent utility and can stand on its own without requiring construction of an adjoining segment to be useable; • The Coastal Rail Trail will interface with several state facilities including, Interstate 5 (I-5), I- 8, I-805, State Route 56 (SR 56), SR 52, SR 209, and SR 274. Caltrans will appreciate being informed and involved in the process to assure that impacts on State facilities are noted and addressed; • The first potential conflict is located at the undercrossing of the trail at the Sorrento Valley Station. I-5 is being widened over Sorrento Valley Road, which will result in additional bridge columns that might effect the location of the trail; • The trail also crosses under SR 52 on the eastside of I-5. There is potential for conflict with bridge structures, utilities and drainage; • A bicycle bridge is proposed over SR274 (Balboa Ave.) with a footing in the median. A permit or modification of existing agreements may be necessary. Early coordination for that improvement will be important; • The trail crosses under the Clairemont Drive Bridge over I-5. This is also the location of a new light rail Trolley station. Design modifications to the bridge or the abutments should be coordinated with Caltrans; FEi 5:54 PM CALTRANS PUBLIC TRANS FAX NO, 619 688 4293 Mr. Scott Morgan February 16, 2001 Page 2 • Trail crosses under the Sea World Drive Bridge over I-5. Again any design modifications to the bridge or the abutments should be coordinated with Caltrans; • Trail crosses under I-8. Any potential effect upon I-8 bridge structures should be taken into account during design and coordinated with Caltrans; • The Class III facility proposed under I-5 at Pacific Highway should not have an effect upon the State facility. If the design were to change to a Class I facility, potential impacts to the I-5 bridge structure should be coordinated with Caltrans; • The California Department of Transportation is supportive of this congestion relieving alternative transportation project. Continued close coordination with Caltrans is encouraged. If you have any questions on the above comments, please contact Daniel Gallagher, District 11 Bicycle Coordinator, at (619) 688-2597. Sincerely, BILL FIGGE, Chief Development Review and Public Transportation Branch City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 6, 2001 Mr. Donald R. Chadwick Environmental Specialist Supervisor California Department of Fish and Game 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego CA 92123 Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Dear Mr. Chadwick, The Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report (PSR) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the culmination of a long commitment by the coastal cities for the development of a rail trail along the San Diego Northern Railway. Your comments dated February 21, 2001 on the MND have been considered and, in order to accurately address your concerns regarding the impact to the wetland areas and the biological resources, the City requested the project biologist, Dr. Thomas Leslie, conduct a special survey of the area. I have attached a copy of Dr. Leslie's report for your information. Based on the additional surveys and subsequent analysis of potential impacts, Dr. Leslie concluded the following: • No jurisdiction wetlands occur along the proposed alignment of the portion of the CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, south of Oceanside Blvd. Between SDNR and Pacific Street". • Construction of the portion of the proposed CRT trail in the non-native park grass area easterly of an existing concrete walkway will not require any type of regulatory permit or mitigation. No further regulatory investigations are necessary since no jurisdictional elements (waters or riparian habitat) will be impacted by construction of the portion of the CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, south of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street". • No regulatory approvals are required for construction of the portion of the CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, (south) east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street". Therefore, the City of Carlsbad, as lead agency, has determined that no adverse impacts will be created at this location and the findings support the Negative Declaration determination. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-460O • FAX (76O) 602-8559 Mr. Donald R. Chadwick April 6, 2001 California Department of Fish & Game Page 2 Once again, the comments provided by the California Department of Fish & Game are appreciated. The City of Carlsbad looks forward to continuing to work with you as the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Encinitas embark on the design phase of the project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (760) 602-4608 Sincerely, Eric Munoz Senior Planner u^?. c: Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Associate Engineer Steven Jantz City of Oceanside Acting Planning Director Gerald Gilbert City of Oceanside Assistant Civil Engineer Steve Tisdale ^Thomas Lestie Corporation Biological & Cultural Investigations & Monitoring Mr. Steve Jantz, Associate Planner March 22. 2001 City of Carlsbad Public Works Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 SUBJECT: Coastal Rail Trail Project Dear Mr. Jantz: It is our understanding that the Coastal Rail Trail Project (CRT) proposes construction of a multi-use trail between the Cities of Oceanside and San Diego. The multi-use trail will be located within the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) right-of-way. On March 2, 1998, I sent a memo to Ms. Peggy Gentry, a Senior Planner with Transtech, Inc., entitled "Pre-Assessment of Waters for the Coastal Rail Trail Project". I have also attached a copy of the 1998 memo to this letter for your reference. The purpose of the memo was to identify areas along the trail that required further investigation to accomplish the following tasks. • Ascertain if any impacts would occur to any jurisdictional elements (waters, wetlands and riparian habitat) located adjacent to the CRT trail. • Determine if construction of any part of the proposed trail right-of-way would require regulatory permits prior to initiation of trail construction activities. Mr. Munoz, City of Carlsbad Planning Division received a comment letter from the Department of Fish and Game (Department) regarding the proposed CRT project. The Department's comment letter, dated February 21, 2001, stated the following: "The MND states that no jurisdictional areas would be impacted based on site survey." "Information provided in the Technical studies, however contradict this statement. Based on a letter submitted by Thomas Leslie and Associates (1998), 0.008 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be impacted by construction of the northern portion of the coastal rail trail. Although this is a relatively small impact, any impact to wetlands is considered significant. The Biological Resources section of the MND should be updated such that impacts to wetland habitat (d) are potentially significant unless mitigation (is) incorporated. Appropriate mitigation measures should also be included." At your request I reviewed the Department's February 21, 2001 comments letter and prepared this response to comments letter. Summary of Review As a result of the review of the Department's letter, and the 1998 memo Thomas Leslie & Associates (TLA) prepared for Ms. Gentry, I determined that the Department's comments letter referred to a portion of the CRT trail proposed for construction through Buccaneer Beach Park. However, the Department's letter misstates the contents of the 1998 memo. A copy of TLA's 1998 memo is attached for your reference. TLA's 1998 memo states that "no wetland habitat will be impacted" by construction of the portion of the CRT trail proposed for construction through Buccaneer Beach Park. Instead Column 4 ("Potential impacts"), and Column 5 ("Recommended Action") of the memo stated that there was a potential for significant impacts to occur to "0.008± acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Impacts are related to discharge of fill or dredged materials into waters of the U.S. No wetland habitat will be impacted." P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, CA 92593-2229 Office (909) 296-6232 Fax (909) 296-6233 The avoidance of impacts to wetlands was confirmed during additional investigations performed subsequent to preparation of the March 2, 1998, memo. As noted on page 24 of the MND. the additional investigations were completed by "December 15,- 1998" (MND, 2000). The remainder of this response letter provides a detailed discussion of the summary of the findings of my review. The response letter is comprised of two parts: (a) a comparison of the Department's comments lener to the MND and TLA's 1998 memo prepared for Ms. Gentry and (b) performance of a March 2001. site inspection of the portion of the CRT trail currently proposed for construction through Buccaneer Beach Park. The site inspection was performed to confirm the findings of the MND that "as a result of the analysis TLA delineators determined that no jurisdictional areas would be impacted based on site surveys." A. Comparison of the Department's Comments Letter to the MND And the 1998 Memo Prepared For Ms. Gentry. A -1. As stated in Table 1 Column 4 ("Potential impacts") of TLA's March 2, 1998, "Pre-Assessment of Waters For The Coastal Rail Trail Project" memo there was a potential for significant impacts to occur to "0.008+ acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Impacts are related to discharge of fill or dredged materials into waters of the U.S. No wetland habitat will be impacted." A - 2. As indicated in Column 2 of Table 1, the location of these potential impacts were at "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street". A - 3. As indicated in Column 5 ("Recommended Action") of Table 1,1 recommended performance of "a wetlands delineation to more accurately determine quantities and significance of potential impacts jurisdictional waters of the U.S." A-4. As documented on page 24 of the October 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Coastal Rail Trail Project, Oceanside to Del Mar, the further investigations I recommended in 1998, in column 5 of Table 1, were performed and completed by "December 15, 1998" (MND, 2000). The results of the further investigations are also documented on page 24: "As a result of the analysis TLA delineators determined that no jurisdictional areas would be impacted based on site surveys. The alignment was modified to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States and associated sensitive habitat types (i.e. riparian, vegetation, wetlands, marshes, and coastal sage scrub)." B. Performance of A Site Inspection, Of the Portion of the CRT Trail as It Passes through "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street." In an effort to reaffirm the results of the further investigations recommended, and completed by TLA in 1998,1 re-inspected the portion of the CRT trail proposed to pass through "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street". The field inspection of Buccaneer Park was performed on March 14, 2001 to ascertain if construction of the portion, of the proposed CRT trail passing through Buccaneer Park, would result in impacts to any jurisdictional elements including waters, wetlands or riparian habitat. The results of our field inspection are summarized below. • Subsequent to preparation of the March 2, 1998, the alignment of the portion of the proposed CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street" was redesigned. • As documented on sheet 3 of 45 of the (9/25/00) Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report Alignment Concept Plan, as proposed, the CRT trail will be constructed southeasterly of an existing concrete walkway. • The area southeasterly of the concrete walkway, where the CRT trail will be constructed, is currently vegetated with non-native park grass. No wetlands or any other jurisdictional elements (waters or riparian habitat) occur along this portion of the alignment. Photo Plate No. la photographically documents the existing concrete walkway and park grass where the CRT trail will be constructed. PHOTO PLATE NO. 1 la. Northeasterly view of Buccaneer Beach Park. The park is located southeast of Oceanside Boulevard between the SDNR and Pacific Street. Loma Alta Creek, a SDNR bridge crossing, an existing concrete walkway and the park grass southeasterly of the concrete walkway, where the CRT trail will be constructed are visible in this photograph. This photo also documents the absence of wetlands on either side of the existing concrete walkway. Both banks of Loma Alta Creek have been stabilized with rock boulders. CONCLUSSIONS « No jurisdictional wetlands occur along the currently proposed alignment of the portion of the CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street". • Construction of the portion of the proposed CRT trail in the non-native park grass area easterly of an existing concrete walkway will not require any type of regulatory permit or mitigation. • No further regulatory investigations are necessary since no jurisdictional elements (waters or riparian habitat) will be impacted by construction of the portion of the CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street." • No regulatory approvals are required for construction of the portion of the CRT trail passing through "Buccaneer Park, (south)east of Oceanside Blvd. between SDNR and Pacific Street". Please call me at (909) 296-6232 if you have any questions regarding this letter or require additional information. Respectfully Submitted, THOMAS LESLIE CORPORATION Thomas A. Leslie, Ph.D., REA President TAL/ona Leslie & Associates Biological & Cultural Investigations & Monitoring MIEMOTANPHJM DATE: March 2, 1998 TO: Ms. Peggy Gentry, Senior Planner Transtech Inc. FROM: Dr. Thomas A. Leslie, CA EPA, REA, Principal/Thomas Leslie & Associates SUBJECT: "Pre-assessment Of Waters" For The Coastal Rail Trail Project As requested, Thomas Leslie & Associates (TLA) has prepared the subject "Pre-assessment Of Waters". Table 1 identifies jurisdictional waters and wetland areas along the entire alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail Project (CRT) that will require regulatory approvals from at least the following agencies. • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 401 waiver, « U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers (Corps) Nation Wide 26a Permit, and • California Department Of Fish And Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement (1603). Pre-assessment Of Quantities Of Impacts To Jurisdictional Areas: It is estimated that a total of 0.308± acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands will be impacted by construction of the CRT project between the cites of Oceanside and San Diego, California. The exact quantities and significance of potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands will be determined during a wetlands delineation being conducted in 1998. POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS; The following two areas have been tentatively identified as potential mitigation areas to mitigate impacts occurring during construction of the CRT. The location of the potential mitigation areas are identified by the page number of Transtech's 1997 Alignment Concept Plan. 1. City of Encinitas: Page 15 OF 45: between Birmingham and Chesterfield Drives at the northwest end of a park. Mitigation in this area would involve removal of non-native exotic plant species growing along a drainage and replanting the area with native species. 2. City of Del Mar: Page 21 OF 45: southwest of Carmel Valley Road: remove non-native exotic plant species growing along both side of SDNR tracks and replant with native species. At least one pair of Coastal California gnatcatcher inhabit the area immediately adjacent to the proposed trail alignment. Mitigation in this area would involve removal of non-native exotic plant species growing immediately west of the CRT ROW and replanting the area with native plant species associated with "ideal" gnatcatcher habitat in the surrounding local vicinity. 32395 Clinton Keith Rd. Suite B7 Wildomar, CA 92595 Office (909) 698-0195 Fax (909) 698-2233 oQCa, z Eo H (0 ZO <C3 0) UJ ,-5< OU O oB oo_lo m \ COtfuH< fa O HZWz CA 03GO Recommended Action^3 sy C W<§«ia ea oc JE S3*^ *^c e32o o 04 fi* _ 03 O*«>§ J s "o s — ••« fiA MS si• 4^ y ^^w.2: fe.-CA ^.j 5 PBM« •- o 5 ^0 "Su0 1 & So ej5 C8 ^« cw ^ ) T5 O j: "u. ^ o i *" S .£ & <3 1. Conduct a wetlands delineation toaccurately determine quantitiessignificance of potential impactsjurisdictional waters of the U.S.^c E E •5 £ .2 ^ 1 | J£o CO ^13co "^1 L.et i^ vw a uSBQ 10 tu0en (^4 J? O rtv ^aS — is y o <DW IT+1 !S « GO ^J W80^ ll.§ •2 '-3 ^3u .y £-* |lco •o4j ctf 8tala " *Q CA 31 j s5/3 c «§ «ti, <U ^ "OCJ j^ co jg a f-^zsaSt 4>-P 2. Prior to initiation of any projectdisturbing construction activities detenO ,„ W< U4 15 5i <*- >T3 8>|| f^ Cfl »t III 0 |^ "o -n ^D 03 4i 111 „ g ^3/3 ISJC/5 prepare, and process applicationsregulatory approvals identified as neceduring the delineation.1u c" «fj '§: *-> 1 00c ^3. It is likely that at least the folioregulatory approvals will be necessary:,_ > "5 a. RWQCB 401 certification or wthereof,•o CO i1 03VOCN U."2 _o 2tn fr 6 .0 C.2'H c. CDFG 1603 Streambed/Lake AlterAgreement c po u •o •oe<uE£oo •a o»Potential Impacts AnPotential Significanc"m OJ Description OfSensitive Biologic:resources And/OrJurisdictional Issuic w0 n. w •t- bfi /*03 ^^ w « OM Z co2 1 Insignificant impactsrelated to minor amount ofshading of open watersbeneath overhang of bridgeextension.o Widening of existingbridge on southwesterlyside over open waters.This activity will notrequire discharge of filldredged materials intoJurisdictional areas.1 csc 3pa Su.O m <U£ OJ o13 goon:es i ^ 0 )-2 ->^ *±t/5 <^» CO P *w J3 ^His 3Q3i-iSu Sw 3 ^? WH5 0 Tf - Co2 _c cen | K KC oZ Ul I 13§ .S•*ri ^cn_£"S P* ^)fT| • I/I """! _ 5 'IT1 "^ ^^ £^ ^ ^D ^ ^ C *U *""* *•* fl3 ^ ^ ^ *"iO ^~j c3 ^^ ^ G 3 4J S *^"" 0X1 C o •"*• O u5 1 between the station ande.-. a ui L.£%oU ||I n* „„ 25 K»^05 C S & ZS -§0 e9.^ 2| 0> A •£ '^3 > g< Ooo co2 Insignificant impactsrelated to minor amount ofshading of open watersbeneath overhang of bridgeextension.Widening of existingbridge on westerly sideover open waters. Thisactivity will not requiredischarge of fill ordredged materials intoJurisdictional areas.jjs>! "£ .. t « C0W tuo^^*r % &2Q 00 c£ *•*w< •o04 •Oeu couO)« jU-0 O O 0 5 e •- coeS 2 • o 2 « .2' 8 = •5-^5-2 g §S §S| 5|l!i^-s-s'ies Ca, T3 C o s bO ,O^Hi *JS ••« C . 2llf *s s 1 — T3 (NT3C d<f AndPotential ImpactsPotential Signiflcaterssimpacg ofvegetationimpacts towith thectonad assocat. Theshadingarian vee and iciatedr side oitato spagesocrid.habid tdritlanrelateters anneathtlandswetlarewatbenwetlk on either side of theighway 805 bridge.l* -Description OfSensitive Biologicalresources And/OrJurisdictional Issuesco G CO o £PO ra2^^ S °.e--*-* O c/5 -^ J-i fc-r 2 WC 2 S-eg -o 3 "O <a D' "5 "5 — " "- £§ <U3 t: s j= 3 ro w)•" O 'C O. O O OH c ? u o c > oJ B §!' o•a o: >n fe 1 io ^ o <N (N . . 3* bO P O o -a mH en STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AOENCY GRAY DAyis fl, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, California 92723 (858) 467-4201 (858) 467-4235 February 21, 2001 Mr. Eric Munoz City of Carlsbad Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Comments on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project: Oceanside to Del Mar, San Diego County, California (SCH# 2001011023) Dear Mr. Munoz: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that we received on January 8, 2001, for the above referenced project. The Department is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386 and is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the state's biological resources. The project is located within the jurisdictions of five coastal cities in San Diego County: Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and Del Mar. The Coastal Rail Trail is a proposed multi-use pathway to be located within the San Diego Northern Railway right-of-way. The trail will begin south of the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside and proceed south, following the railroad right-of-way to the southern boundary of the City of Del Mar. The 24-mile bikeway consists of 18 miles of a 12-foot wide multi-use Class I paved path, 5 miles of 5-foot wide Class n bike lanes and 1 mile of Class HI bike routes within existing roadways. The Class I pathway will reflect a linear park and will include park amenities such as landscaping and fencing. In addition to the pathways, the proposed project includes two at-grade pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings, three bridges, and the placement of retaining walls. According to the Biological Technical Report (Michael Brandman Associates 1999), the majority of the proposed rail trail passes through commericaL, urban, and residential developed areas, or areas of disturbed vegetation (coastal sage scrub). Sensitive biological areas in the proposed corridor identified during the general surveys were subject to focused surveys. Focused surveys identified California gnatcatcher (Polioptila caltfomica californica, gnatcatcher) at one location and sensitive wetland habitats at five locations. According to the MND, however, no significant impacts to Water or Biological Resources are anticipated. We offer the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Carlsbad in avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to sensitive native plants and wildlife: 1. The MND states that no jurisdictional areas would be impacted based on site surveys. Mr. Eric Munoz February 21, 2001 page 2 Information provided in the Technical Studies, however, contradict this statement. Based on a letter submitted by Thomas Leslie and Associates (1998), 0.008 acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be impacted by construction of the northern portion of the coastal rail trail. Although this is a relatively small impact, any impact to wetlands is considered significant. The Biological Resources section of the MND should be updated such that impacts to wetland habitats (d) are potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Appropriate mitigation measures should also be included. Please clarify in the MND whether a 401 waiver was granted for the proposed project. The Technical Studies include a letter requesting a 401 waiver but no mention of this was made in the MND. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on your project. If you have any questions or comments pertaining to this letter, please contact Christine Collier at (858) 467- 4207. Sinceri Donald R. Chadwick Environmental Specialist Supervisor California Department of Fish and Game cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers State Clearinghouse City of Carlsbad April 6, 2001 Mr. Lawrence C. Monserate City of San Diego Planning and Development Review 1222 First Avenue, MS 401 SanDiego,CA 92101-41544 Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Case No. EIA 00-06; City of San Diego LDR No. 21-01 Dear Mr. Monserate: This is in response to your letter dated January 12, 2001 regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Coastal Rail Trail Project. The City of San Diego has been one of six coastal cities actively participating in the preparation of the Project Study Report and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document prepared for the Coastal Rail Trail Project. During the preparation of the MND, the City of San Diego elected to conduct further trail alignment studies within the City of San Diego and requested the trail within the City of San Diego be removed from the MND. In response, the MND has been revised and reflects analysis for the portion of the trail between the Cities of Oceanside and Del Mar. However, the Project Study Report (PSR) is a culmination of a four-year work effort by all of the signatory agencies to a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 1996. The purpose of the PSR was to explore a broad range of issues for the rail trail. The PSR explores General Plan consistency for each of the agencies, public needs assessment, demographics, conceptual landscape design, trail design resolution, sign design, liability, environmental, funding mechanisms, and other issues and continues to be relevant for the entire 44-mile reach, from the Oceanside Transit Station to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego. Your comments and review of the MND are appreciated. Please note the 4th paragraph on page 13 of the MND states that the MND is specifically for the portion of the trail from Oceanside to Del Mar and environmental analysis of the portion that lies within the City of San Diego will be processed separately by the City of San Diego. The City of Carlsbad looks forward to working with the City of San Diego as the region continues the development of the Coastal Rail Trail Project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (760) 602-4608 Sincerely, L.^t-C-0 / / <-^*fe ERIC MUNOZ Senior Planner Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Associate Engineer Steven Jantz City of San Diego Associate Engineer Husam Y. Hasenin 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 « (760) 6O2-4600 • FAX (760) 6O2-8559 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO January 12,2001 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Michael I. Holzmiller Planning Director Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Review and Comment of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Occanside to Del Mar (Case No. EIA 00-06; City of San Diego LDR No. 21-01) Dear Mr. Holzmiller: The City of San Diego Development Services Department has reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to Del Mar. Afi described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed Coastal Rail Trail would extend 24 miles from the northern end of the City of Oceanside, at the San Luis Rey River Bicycle Path, to existing Class II bicycle lanes within the City of Del Mar. No section of the trail as currenty proposed would be located within the City of San Diego. As such, the City of San Diego is not a responsible agency in accordance with Section 15381 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. However, the project alignment graphics in the document show the trail extending beyond Del Mar into the City of San Diego. Please note that any future construction of the trail within the City of San Diego's jurisdiction would require further environmental review. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to Del Mar. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the final environmental document. Planning and Development Review 1222 for AMAUI, «S«1«StnDiigo, a 9210H1H Page 2 Mr. Michael J. Hoizmiller January 12, 2001 If you have any questions please contact Eliana Barreiros of the Environmental Analysis Section at (619) 446-5380. Sincerely, Lawrence C. Monserratc, Environmental Review Manager cc: Gary Halbert, Deputy Director, Land Development Review Rick Duvemay, City Attorney Eileen Lower, Senior Planner Betsy McCullough, Senior Planner Mike Mezey, Senior Planner Kerry Sanioro, Senior Planner Salam Hasenin, Associate Engineer Maureen Gardiner, Associate Engineer EASfile City of Carlsbad ^ •P*T^MBMll»T^iMiiliM~TiiamnmTBii«i iiiiarrnmrmaPI a n n i n g D e pa rtm e n t April 6, 2001 Mr. Scott Vurbeff Environmental Coordinator City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-3635 Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Dear Mr. Vurbeff: The Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report (PSR) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the culmination of a long commitment by the coastal cities for the development of a rail trail along the San Diego Northern Railway. The City of Encinitas' consistent involvement has been greatly appreciated. Your comments dated January 16, 2001 on the MND have been considered and, in order to accurately address your concerns regarding the impact to the wetland areas and the biological resources, the City requested the project biologist, Dr. Thomas Leslie, conduct a special survey of the area. I have attached a copy of Dr. Leslie's report for your information. Based on the additional surveys and subsequent analysis of potential impacts at the natural channel, Dr. Leslie concluded the following: • No jurisdictional wetlands occur in a "natural drainage channel" north of Chesterfield Drive in Encinitas. • Although jurisdictional waters of the U.S. occur in the channel as proposed, construction of the 30-foot long bridge over the channel will completely span the channel thereby avoiding any permanent or temporary impacts to any jurisdictional element. Wetland permits will not be required for construction of the CRT Project bridge over the channel. In addition, performance of jurisdictional wetland delineation will not be required. Therefore, the City of Carlsbad, as Lead Agency, has determined that no adverse impacts will be created at this location and the findings support the Negative Declaration determination. Furthermore, as identified in Section 8 of the MND on page 4, "Any substantial deviations from this alignment may required additional environmental analysis and permit modifications as determined by the Planning Directors for each City". Therefore, at the Coastal Development Permit/project level entitlement stage, the final project alignment must be assessed against the project description used for this MND. Any substantial deviations to the project may require appropriate CEQA review and compliance based on current practices within the City of Encinitas. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-460O • FAX (760) 602-8559 Mr. Vurbeff April 6, 2001 City of Encinitas Page 2 Once again, the comments provided by the City of Encinitas are appreciated. The City of Carlsbad looks forward to continuing to work with you as the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Encinitas embark on the design phase of the project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (760) 602-4608 Sincerely, -v Eric Munoz Senior Planner c: Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Associate Engineer Steven Jantz City of Encinitas Community Development Director Sandra Holder City of Encinitas Senior Planner Gary Barberio Thomas Leslie, Corporation Biological & Cultural Investigations & Monitoring Ms. Peggy Gentry, Contract Planner February 22, 2001 P.O. Box 2286 Vista, California 92085-2286 SUBJECT: Coastal Rail Trail Project Dear Ms. Gentry: It is our understanding that the Coastal Rail Trail Project (CRT Project) proposes construction of a trail between the Cities of Oceanside and San Diego. A portion of the proposed trail passes through the City of Encinitas. Within the City of Encinitas, the project proposes construction of a 30-foot long bridge over a "natural drainage channel" north of Chesterfield Drive in Encinitas. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the proposed CRT Project. The City of Encinitas intends to rely on the MND for environmental review purposes when discretionary actions are being considered for construction of the portion of the CRT Project within the City. Therefore, one of the City's staff, Mr. Scott Vurbeff, Environmental Coordinator, prepared a comments letter requesting clarifications and additional information. According to Mr. Vurbeff s letter "the MND and Biology Report provide no assessment of potential impacts to the natural drainage channel". Furthermore Mr. Vurbeff s letter states "Although the channel appears to be a disturbed wetland, the MND should clearly describe existing conditions in this area, quantify any permanent or temporary impacts, indicate whether the impacts would be subject to any required wetland permits and disclose the significance of any impacts to this wetland." At your request, Thomas Leslie Corporation (formerly Thomas Leslie & Associates) performed a field inspection of the "natural drainage channel" on February 21, 2001 to accomplish the following: • Describe existing conditions of the "natural drainage channel". • Quantify any permanent or temporary impacts. • Indicate whether the impacts would be subject to any required wetland permits. • Disclose the significance of any impacts to wetlands. The results of our field inspection are summarized below. 1. Description Of The Existing Conditions Of The "Natural Drainage Channel" A small, highly disturbed "natural drainage channel" (channel) is located north of Chesterfield Drive in Encinitas. More specifically, the highly disturbed channel is located immediately southwest of the intersection of Liverpool Drive and San Elijo Avenue between San Elijo Avenue and the SDNR Coaster tracts (Figure 1). The channel is comprised of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and associated streamside vegetation. Table 1 provides a list of the seventeen dominant herb, grass, shrub and tree species observed onsite during our February 21, 2001, field inspection. 69% of the plant species identified onsite are non-native introduced species characteristically growing on highly disturbed soils. Natural, "pristine" plant communities (habitat) in this part of San Diego County usually contain less than 25% non-native species. The high number of non-natives documents the highly disturbed nature of the channel. The streamside vegetation is not dominated by plant species having obligate, facultative wet or facultative wetland indicator status. According to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 50% of the dominant vegetational cover of a jurisdictional wetland must be comprised of plant species having obligate, facultative wet or facultative wetland indicator status. Therefore, no jurisdictional wetland exists within or in association with the channel. Photo Plate Nos. 1 and 2 document the existing conditions of the "natural drainage channel". P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, CA 92593-2229 Office (909) 296-6232 Fax (909) 296-6233 j*ITH_Ay_:.NOH 1 CATHY RDLN; °' -X"X "" % i OCEAN CREST RD = 'GWr.SE K. = = : KHi&S CROSS OP. = ; CT ;I:. A-.'WINDSOR .BRIDGE! ^. ^fttK Cl ^S5 ^ODGROV.£. V VSANDCASTLE DR- CARETTA! WY ELIJO STATE BEACH : xv-.^^\a\x\ •••:Proposed CRT Bridge Site I 2001 San Dieqo Thomas Guide. Detail Page 1147, Map Coordinate C-3 I BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING Figure 1: Vicinity Map Coastal Rail Trail Project Site City of Encinitial, CA , PHOTO PLATE NO. 1 Southeasterly view of a small channel situated southwesterly of the intersection of Liverpool Drive and San Elijo Avenue. The preferred location proposed for the CRT project bicycle-bridge is between an existing pedestrian loot-bridge ;uid tlie SDNR coaster tracks (visible in background). Northwesterly view of drainage showing the preferred location proposed 1'or Uie CRT bridge. The predominant vegetation types visible in this photograph are non-native Giant Reed lArundn donax) and l"asior Be;in iRicinm ccmmuiiisi. Castor bean is poisonous and many extensive, costly programs, to remove liiani Reed from channels, are underway in San Diego County (and other parts of California). 2. Quantification Of Any Permanent or Temporary Impacts As Mr. Vurbeff noted, the CRT project proposes construction of a 30-foot long bridge over the channel. Presently, as shown on Photo Plane Nos. la and 2b, a narrow wooden pedestrian footbridge spans the channel. It is our understanding that the construction of the proposed CRT bridge will be involve one of the following scenarios. • Placement of a pre-fabricated bridge over the channel in a way that completely avoids impacts to the right and left banks and bed of the channel (Photo Plate Nos. la and Ib). • Modification of the existing wooden pedestrian footbridge to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts will occur to the channel as a result of the construction of the proposed CRT bridge. 3. Will Any Impacts Be Subject To Any Required Wetland Permits No wetland permits will be required authorize construction of the 30-foot long bridge being proposed by the CRT Project. Wetland permits will not be required because (a) no wetlands occur in the channel and (b) no permanent or temporary impacts will occur to the jurisdictional waters of the U.S. of the channel as a result of the construction of the CRT bridge over the channel. Performance of a jurisdictional delineation will not be necessary for the same reasons. 4. Significance of Any Impacts to Wetlands No significant impacts will occur to any jurisdictional wetlands because none exists within or in association with the channel. Furthermore, even if wetlands occurred onsite no significant impacts would result from either of the bridge construction scenarios described above in #3. Impacts will not occur because the bridge will span the channel without impacting the bed and banks of the jurisdictional waters of the channel. Construction of the bridge will however necessitate the removal of a small quantity of the vegetation growing on the tops of the northerly and southerly banks of the channel. The vegetation which might need to be removed would primarily consists of non-native Giant Reed (Arundo donax), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis) and Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). The removal of non-natives, like the highly invasive Giant Reed and poisonous Castor Bean, will enhance the environment of the channel. However, mitigation will not be required for the removal of a few non-native, exotic plant specimens during construction of the bridge being proposed by the CRT Project. CONCLUSSIONS « No jurisdictional wetlands occur in a "natural drainage channel", north of Chesterfield Drive, in Encinitas. • Although jurisdictional waters of the U.S. occur in the channel, construction of the 30-foot long proposed CRT bridge over the channel will span the channel thereby avoiding any permanent or temporary impacts to any jurisdictional element. • Wetland permits will not be required to authorize (a) construction of the proposed CRT Project bridge over the channel or (b) removal of highly invasive or poisonous non-native plants. Please call me at (909) 296-6232 if you have any questions regarding this letter or require additional information. Respectfully Submitted, THOMAS LESLIE CORPORATION Thomas A. Leslie, Ph.D., REA President TAL/ona TABLE 1: Predominant Plant Species Observed On February 21, 2001. NON-NATIVE 11/16 = 69% X X X X X X X X X X X SCIENTIFIC NAMES KINGDOM PLANTAE DIVISION ANTHOPHYTA Class Dicotyledones FAMILY AIZOACEAE Carpobrotus chilensis FAMILY ANACARDIACEAE Malosma laurina FAMILY APIACEAE Foeniculum vulgare FAMILY BRASSICACEAE Raphanus sativus Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum FAMILY FABACEAE Cassia tomentosa FAMILY EUPHORBIACEAE Ricinus communis FAMILY GERANIACEAE Erodium sp. FAMILY MALVACEAE Malva parviflora FAMILY OXALIDACEAE Oxalis pes-caprae FAMILY SALICACEAE Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa Salix sp. Class Monocotyledones FAMILY ARECACEAE Washingtonia filifera Washingtonia robusta FAMILY POACEAE Arundo Donax Avena sp. COMMON NAMES (16) FLOWERING PLANTS Dicots FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY Sea Fig SUMAC FAMILY Laurel Sumac CARROT FAMILY Sweet Fennel MUSTARD FAMILY Radish Water Cress PEA FAMILY Wooly Senna SPURGE FAMILY Castor Bean GERANIUM FAMILY Filaree MALLOW FAMILY Cheeseweed OXALIS FAMILY Bermuda Buttercup WILLOW FAMILY 31ack Cottonwood Willow Vlonocots PALM FAMILY California Fan Palm Mexican Fan Palm GRASS FAMILY Giant Reed Wild Oat Symbols/Abreviations: sp. = Plant identified to genus only; species undetermined 2/22/01 City of RECEIVED Encinitas FEB 212031 February 20, 2001 Mr. Eric Munoz Senior Planner Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Comments on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Coastal Rail Trail Project (EIA 00-06) Dear Eric: The City of Encinitas appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced document. As a responsible agency under CEQA, Encinitas intends to rely on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for environmental review purposes when discretionary actions (Coastal Development and Design Review Permits) are being considered for project implementation. In order for the City of Encinitas to use the document, the issues provided below should be addressed in the response to comments. Please note that these issues were previously identified by Encinitas staff in the annotated comments (submitted 1 0/24/00) for the internal review of the draft MND. At that time, technical studies for the MND were not submitted to Encinitas staff for review. Based upon staff review of the draft MND and technical studies, the following comments are provided for applicable portions of the project to be carried out by the City of Encinitas: 1 . Page 4, Future Permitting: This section of the document indicates that the project may need to acquire wetland permits from the California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. However, Page 24 (Section IV. Water) indicates that, based on site surveys, no jurisdictional wetland areas would be impacted. Page 21 of the Biology Report states that wetland delineation surveys should be conducted for areas that represent jurisdictional wetlands. Given the inconsistencies within the MND and Biology Report, it is not clear whether the project would have direct or indirect impacts on any jurisdictional wetland areas in Encinitas. If the project would impact any jurisdictional wetlands in Encinitas, the MND and Biology Report should clearly describe, quantify, discuss the significance of, or provide mitigation for these impacts. 2. Page 14, Project Description: As noted in this section, the project proposes a 30-foot bridge located over a "natural drainage channel" north of Chesterfield Drive in Encinitas. The MND and Biology Report provide no assessment of potential impacts to this area. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ^^ recycled paper Mr. Eric Munoz February 20, 2001 Page 2 of2 Although the drainage appears to be a disturbed wetland, the MND should clearly describe existing conditions in this area, quantify any permanent or temporary impacts, indicate whether the impacts would be subject to any required wetland permits, and disclose the significance of any impacts to this wetland. 3. Page 28, Biological Resources: This section should provide an assessment of potential indirect impacts from erosion on downstream biological resources. The assessment should be based upon the discussion of erosion impacts provided on page 23 (Section III, Geology). The significance of these potential impacts should be disclosed in the MND. 4. Biology Report, Appendix A: This section contains several memos prepared by Thomas Leslie & Associates. The Biology Report and MND do not clearly summarize the contents of these memos, which indicate that the project would have a potentially significant impact on wetlands in Oceanside. To partially mitigate these impacts, the biologist identified the drainage channel north of Chesterfield Drive as a potential mitigation area. It was recommended that this area be enhanced by removing non-native exotic plant species and replanting the area with native species. The MND should indicate whether the wetland impacts in Oceanside are considered significant under CEQA and whether any necessary off-site mitigation is being proposed in Encinitas to mitigate this impact. If the impact is not significant, the City of Encinitas would be willing to consider enhancement of this drainage as a project feature with the final project design. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (760) 633-2692. Sincerely, Scott Vurbeff Environmental Coordinator cc: Gary Barberio, Senior Planner, City of Encinitas SV/sav PHOTO PLATE NO. 2 2a. Close-up view of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. along the bottom of the unnamed channel immediately southwest of the intersection of Liverpool Drive and San Elijo Avenue. The short, cut off culm "stumps" indicate someone has been removing Giant Reed (Arundo donax) from the channel. 2b. Northerly view across a wooden pedestrian foot-bridge previously constructed across the unnamed channel. California Fan Palms (Washingtonia fllifera) grow in the channel on either side of the bridge. City of Carlsbad 1^ l»»MPM^-^-^——IJLiMHPllLLL-Planning Peparthrlferrit April 6, 2001 Ms. Leslie Blanda North County Transit District 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 Comments on the Final Project Study Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Blanda: NCTD has participated in the development of a Project Study Report (PSR) for the Coastal Rail Trail project since 1996. The six north county cities in conjunction with the North County Transit District (NCTD) and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board embarked on the preparation of a detailed feasibility study for this project pursuant to an executed Memorandum of Understanding in 1996. The participation and cooperation by NCTD staff is commendable, as well as necessary for this regional project. Your comments dated January 10, 2001 on the Final Project Study Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Documents have been considered. In response, the City of Carlsbad, as Lead Agency for the PSR and MND, offers the following responses: Comments on the Final Project Study Report: 1. Metrolink Rail Service It is recognized the Metrolink currently provides commuter service from Oceanside to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The 4th paragraph on page 19 implies that there are numerous existing and future potential railway uses within the existing corridor. Therefore, your comment is noted and no changes will be made to the PSR. 2. Average Passenger Trail movements. It is understood that passenger rail service may be increased or decreased by the rail provider depending on passenger needs and availability of trains. During the development of Section 2.3 of the PSR, the test identified the train movements at that tune. The increases in train movements do not significantly change the intent of the PSR. Therefore, your comment is noted and no changes will be made to the PSR. 3. Sorrento Valley and Miramar Hills alignment. The alignment proposed,from Sorrento Valley and Miramar Hills is a consideration to be explored as a part of the Miramar Hills second track project. Page 76 of the PSR states "NCTD is in the process of designing a second track from 1-805 to Miramar Road. It is recommended that the trail be developed in conjunction with the future realignment of the railway". The alternative 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 6O2-4600 • FAX (76O) 602-8559 Ms. Leslie Blanda April 6, 2001 North County Transit District . Page 2 analysis requested on Page 2 of your letter will be part of the City of San Diego's project level review. Issues related to the use of the maintenance road by bicyclists will be a consideration at the project design level and may be resolved by the City of San Diego through the development of a trail management program. Consideration may include restricting trail usage during routing maintenance and/or signage that references rail maintenance. Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. Content of Agreement The City of Carlsbad and the participating agencies acknowledge that agreements will need to address safety and liability issues. Issues related to the physical separation of the SDNR facilities will be considered during consultation with NCTD during the future design phase that each city will undergo. Specifically to address your comment, the MND includes the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure No. 4 - Each City, in the final design process, shah1 acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow to the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address un-signalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 2. NCTD Signatory on the MOV'and "No Trespassing"signs The intent of the reference is to acknowledge that, although the rail corridor is currently not open for public use, NCTD has been participating in the development of a future rail trail 3. PUC Permitting Page 4, item #8 acknowledges that permits are required from the PUC including new at-grade crossings and are the responsibility of each individual city. Page 4 includes the following statement: Prior to construction, it will be necessary for each individual city to obtain (at a minimum) 1) a Coastal Development Permit if the jurisdiction does not have an adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP), 2) Public Utilities Commission approval for at-grade crossings, 3) NCTD agreements for use and management of the corridor, and 4) CEQA compliance. In addition, Mitigation Measure No. 4 also requires the securing of the necessary approval from the PUC and/or NCTD during the final design process. 4. Footpath in Del Mar Please reference Appendix B, Detailed Project Descriptions for the analysis contained in the MND. Note that the footpath along the Del Mar bluffs is specifically excluded from the project and is therefore not part of the environmental analysis of the MND. 5. Maintenance Program The intent of the comment related to the maintenance program is that the current NCTD maintenance program may need to be modified so that there is not a duplication of effort on the Ms. Leslie Blanda April 6, 2001 North County Transit District . Page 3 part of the SNDR or the trail manager. Specifically to address your comment, the MND includes the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure No. 6 - Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. 6. Beach accessibility Currently beach access across the railroad corridor is considered "trespassing" by the SDNR and trespassers may be fined. Additionally, the railroad corridor is not improved for pedestrian/bicycle accessibility or sanctioned crossing points. The proposed project would improve overall safety and beach access through the use of a paved pathway, signage, and other PUC and/or NCTD amenities including formalized pedestrian crossing points. 7. Pathway in Encinitas Although the 4' pathway in Encinitas is not located within the railroad right of way, it is perceived as such. The detailed design of the rail trail by the City of Encinitas will further delineate that trail alignment. Once again the comments provided by NCTD are appreciated. The North County coastal cities look forward to continuing to work with you and your agency on this regional project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (760) 602-4608 Sincerely, Eric Munoz Senior Planner Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Associate Engineer Steven Jantz City of Encinitas Community Development Director Sandra Holder City of Encinitas Senior Planner Gary Barberio City of San Diego Lawrence Monserate City of San Diego Associate Engineer Husam Y. Hasenin City of Del Mar Planning Director Linda Niles City of Del Mar Senior Planner Bob Scott January 10, 2001 Eric Munoz Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: COMMENTS ON THE FINAL PROJECT STUDY REPORT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) DOCUMENTS. Dear Mr. Munoz: Thank you for providing us with copies of the Final Project Study Report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration documents of the Coastal Rail Trail Project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments. Comments on the Final Project Study Report. 1. Page 19, 4th paragraph last sentence states 'Additional commuter service may soon become available by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) who operates the Metrolink rail service throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties.' Metrolink currently operates commuter service between Oceanside and L.A. Union Station. The above statement and paragraph does not seem to acknowledge this. Please make the required changes. 2. Page 30, 1st paragraph, please make the following changes - Amtrak (§11 trains per direction per day). There is an average of 40 total passenger train movements per day along the corridor... 3. Page 76 - The trial alignment in the City of San Diego from Carmel Valley to Genesee Avenue, continues to propose use of the railroad maintenance road and developing a trail in conjunction with the Miramar Hills second track project. As stated in previous letters, this approximate 3.5 mile segment of the railroad is extremely constrained. As previously indicated, the use of the maintenance road as the rail trail is likely not feasible. Maintenance in this area is precarious and requires special care due to limited access to the railroad. The development of the rail trail would interfere with the maintenance of this railroad segment. It is therefore recommended that alternative Coastal Rail Trail alignment be sought for this segment. In addition, as previously stated, Section IV of the Miramar Hills Curve Realignment and Second Track NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 8 ' 0 h\ i 5 s i o r Averse Oceons.de C A 9 i 0 Alternative Analysis Report contains a Land Use and Recreation section which discusses the constrains of the railroad right-of-way. Section IV states that the rail trail alignment should avoid the railroad alignment alternatives under study by NCTD between Sorrento Valley and Miramar Hills. At the July CRT meeting the City of San Diego stated that it would not pursue the development of the trail through the Sorrento Valley. NCTD requests the City of Carlsbad as lead agency to provide an explanation for not considering an alternative alignment in Segment 8 based on the constraints mentioned above. Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration Documents. 1. Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II - Page 4 - Future Permitting: - In addition to obtaining the NCTD agreements for the use and management of the corridor; the Cities and NCTD will also need to reach agreements regarding liability, resolution of safety issues and resolution of issues related to the physical separation of the SDNR Facilities and the Coastal Rail Trail. 2. Page 18 - 4th paragraph - 2nd line states "While the North County Transit District Board is a signatory agency on the MOD, at this time 'No trespassing' signs are posted intermittently along the corridor." It is unclear from this sentence what the relevance of NCTD being a signatory agency to the MOU has with the 'no trespassing' signs. The no trespassing signs are posted as part of the NCTD's program to enforce the California Penal Code § 555. Entry upon posted property and § 369 i. Trespass upon railroad property. 3. On Page 22 Hazards or Barriers to Users, the 4th Line states "However, the Coastal Rail Trail project proposes two at-grade crossings in those areas where there is a long distance between roadway crossings." Wherever the proposed at-grade crossings are mentioned specifically as a benefit of the project, there needs to be a recognition that the grade crossings are subject to CPUC approval. 4. Page 33 - First line states that "The bluffs along the Del Mar overlook the coastline, although only a natural footpath will be located along the Del Mar Bluffs." Please add statements similar to those on page 23- The proposed alignment in the MND does not include any portion of trails along the top of the bluffs. Any proposed improvements to the unimproved trail along the Del Mar bluffs will be subject of a separate approval process with the City of Del Mar.' This would clarify that the Coastal Rail Trail project does not include the development of the existing pedestrian paths and natural footpath. 5. XI Public Services -Page 32: - 2nd paragraph states "Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail would modify the current maintenance program." NCTD has a maintenance program for its right-of-way; the Coastal Rail Trail would be required to develop its own maintenance program to maintain the trail. Thus other than reducing the width of the right-of-way required to be maintained by NCTD, there would be no other modification to its current maintenance program. 6. XV Recreational - Page 36: - 3rd paragraph states "Beach access will be enhanced by the accessibility to the coast and by the additional at-grade crossings to provide beach accessibility." This statement is contradictory to statements made on Page 18 "Installing fencing along the corridor to discourage or eliminate crossings would disrupt the established communities by reducing access to the beach.", and Page 28 "Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail would result in a barrier or fence at various locations, thereby restricting movement of bicyclists or pedestrians." Secondly, the mention of the additional at-grade crossings as means to increase beach accessibility should be made cautiously, as they are subject to CPUC approval. 7. Page 36- 1st paragraph states- "except a 4' wide pathway in Encinitas, within the railroad right-of-way." The bike path along the Highway 101 in Encinitas is not within the railroad right-of-way. Please make the change. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Project Study Report and MND documents. We are in the process of reviewing the Alignment Concept Plan and will forward our comments on the plan when we complete our review. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact me at (760) 967-2852. Sincerely, Leslie Blanda Manager of Capital Development Cc: Martin Minkoff, NCTD Karen King, NCTD Chip Wlllett, NCTD Bruce Smith, NCTD Zigisha Mhaskar, NCTD City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 9,2001 Mr. James W. Royle, Jr. Environmental Review Committee San Diego County Archaeological Society PO Box 81106 San Diego CA 92138-1106 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Dear Mr. Royle, The Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report (PSR) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the culmination of a long commitment by the coastal cities for the development of a rail trail along the San Diego Northern Railway. As part of the MND public review period, the City of Carlsbad forwarded copies of the following documents to the San Diego Archaeological Society for their consideration and comments; Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project Technical Studies for Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project Coastal Rail Trail Alignment Concept Plans For clarification, the Coastal Rail Trail PSR was developed to evaluate the feasibility of a multi-modal non-motorized path mostly within the existing railroad right-of-way between the Cities of Oceanside and San Diego. The main objective was to identify and resolve the various impacts of the trail project and ultimately connect a 44-mile trail system along the coastline of northern San Diego County. The City of Carlsbad, acting as Lead Agency on behalf of the six northern San Diego County coastal cities, managed a team of consultants charged with preparing detailed environmental studies and reports that would identify a feasible route for the trail project. A major component was the coordinated effort with Caltrans, the resource agencies, permitting agencies, and local jurisdictions. hi order to comply with federal, state and local regulations, the project was required to process the appropriate CEQA documents. Consultant groups conducted detailed studies of the potential impacts of the Coastal Rail Trail Project along the entire 44-mile route. However, during the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of San Diego elected to conduct further trail alignment studies within the City of San Diego and requested the trail within the City of San Diego be removed from the MND. Therefore, the MND approval is limited to the proposed trail characteristics in the PSR for the portion from the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside to the southerly city limits of Del Mar. Therefore, the MND description covers the northern 32-miles of the proposed 44-mile route identified hi the PSR. 1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-460O • FAX (760) 602-8559 Mr. James W. Royle, Jr. April 9. 2001 San Diego County Archaeological Society •_ Page 2 Your comment letter dated February 21, 2001 was considered and referred to the Project Biologist/Culturist Dr. Thomas Leslie, Thomas Leslie Corporation, for advice. Attached, for your information, is a copy of Dr. Leslie's letter. The City of Carlsbad therefore, provides the following responses to points raised in your letter: Comment 1 - The May 1999 Negative Archaeological Survey Report (NegASR) was commissioned to identify potential cultural impacts along the entire 44-mile project alignment. The NegASR reported potential impacts at Sites SDI-4513, 5443 and 4609 and further recommended mitigation measures. However, as stated earlier, the MND boundaries are between the Cities of Oceanside and Del Mar. SDI- 4513, 5443 and 4609 are outside the limits of the MND and therefore, the recommended mitigation measures for these sites were not included as mitigation measures in the MND. That portion of the trail is within the City of San Diego and any required CEQA processing will be necessary when San Diego pursues the southern portion of the Coastal Rail Trail project. Comment 2 - The intent of the PSR was to investigate and analyze the potential impacts from a trail located mostly within the existing railway corridor. The PSR conducted a planning-level study, as opposed to a project level review, to determine the location and resulting impacts to sensitive cultural resources. There was not enough detail in the PSR to identify future material storage and staging areas. The NegASR conducted cultural surveys along a considerable length of the railway corridor and determined that no resources will be impacted. As long as the future staging areas are located in previously surveyed areas, consistent with the MND, no further cultural analysis will be needed. However, additional environmental review may be necessary if the proposed staging sites are located outside the surveyed portion of the alignment since construction related sites would be more precisely defined during the design phase of the project. It is strongly suggested that your organization become actively involved with the staff of each individual city during the upcoming design phase to identify important archaeological sites accordingly. Please feel free to contact me if you need contact information of the Coastal Rail Trail staff of other affected cities. In addition, since the CRT project utilizes federal funds, a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) application is being currently considered by Caltrans, the state agency that authorizes the use of federal funds from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). Through the NEPA process, the Coastal Rail Trail Project received a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) Negative finding by FHWA. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Coastal Rail Trail Project was defined by Laura S. White, a SOPA/RPA certified archaeologist, in consultation with Peggy Gentry, Senior Planner at Wallace, Roberts & Todd; Marin D Rosen, Caltrans District 11 Heritage Preservation Coordinator; and Jeffery S. Lewis, FHWA Senior Transportation Engineer. The Report concluded that no cultural resources are present within or adjacent to the project's APE, the cultural studies are complete and satisfactory, and the requirements of 36CFR§800 have been completed. The issues raised in your letter are hereby noted. To ensure that no adverse impacts occur to cultural resources, the summary statement below will be communicated to affected cities/Responsible Agencies in order to adequately implement the CRT Mitigated Negative Declaration: During the design phase of the CRT, each city shall review all project description elements, including any material storage or staging areas, against the area of impact covered by the MND. For any deviation, whereby areas not previously reviewed by the MND are proposed, adequate CEQA review, including cultural resource investigations, shall be carried out by the affected city. Mr. James W. Royle, Jr. April 9. 2001 San Diego County Archaeological Society -- Page 3 Comment 3 - After careful consideration and review of the document and related mitigation measures, staff has determined that the existing description and mitigation of site SDI-6751 in Carlsbad, as described in the MND and NegASR, is adequate. No changes will be made. As mentioned above, the project has completed a HPSR and will receive NEPA approvals since federal funds are being utilized. In addition, as stated in Mitigation Measure 7 above, a qualified archaeologist will be required to evaluate and monitor the impacts of the project at site SDI-6751. "Qualified archaeologist" would include the professional provision to comply with the Code of Ethics of the Register of Professional Archaeologists. Therefore, any artifacts discovered during the development of the project will be identified and recorded appropriately. Comment 4 - During the production of the Technical Studies for Mitigated Negative Declaration, the maps depicting the locations of archaeological sites were inadvertently left attached. As part of the public review process, Carlsbad distributed copies of the document to city halls and public libraries from Del Mar to Oceanside. Staff has retrieved the draft documents from circulation. The final MND will not have the maps included. However, the scale of the maps that were available for public review were not at a scale that would identify the precise mapping of the cultural resource site. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the error of including this information in any form with the public review materials, and again apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Therefore, the City of Carlsbad, as Lead Agency, has determined that no adverse impacts will be created and the findings made support the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination. The comments provided by the San Diego County Archaeological Society are appreciated. The City of Carlsbad looks forward to continuing to work with you as the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Encinitas embark on the design phase of the project. If you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact me at (760) 602-4608. Sincerely, Eric Munoz Senior Planner c: Planning Director Michael Holzmiller Associate Engineer Steven Jantz City of San Diego Lawrence Monserate City of San Diego Husam Y. Hasenin City of Oceanside Acting Planning Director Gerald Gilbert City of Oceanside Assistant Civil Engineer Steve Tisdale City of Encinitas Community Development Director Sandra Holder City of Encinitas Senior Planner Gary Barberio City of Del Mar Planning Director Linda Niles City of Del Mar Senior Planner Bob Scott City of Solana Beach Community Service Director Andrew O'Leary Cffiomas Leslie, Corporation Biological & Cultural Investigations & Monitoring Mr. Steve Jantz, Associate Planner April 2, 2001 City of Carlsbad Public Works Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 SUBJECT: Response to the San Diego County Archeological Society Comments Letter Dear Mr- Jantz: At your request we have reviewed the March 5, 2001, comments letter sent to you by Mr. Jim Royle Jr., Chairperson Environmental Review Committee, San Diego County Archeological Society. In his comments letter, Mr. Royle provided four numbered comments regarding his review of the cultural resources element of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the proposed Coastal Rail Trail Project (CRT Project). In answer to Mr. Royle concerns, we have prepared responses addressing the four numbered comments of his letter. 1. Although an impact analysis and mitigation measures for SD1-4513, 5443 and 4609 were included in our May J999 Negative Archaeological Survey Report (NcgASR) report, these sites are outside the boundaries of rhe MND currently being processed. If a trail alignment is ever proposed which would impact any of these sites the impact analysis and mitigation measures of our May 1999 NegASR report should be included in that MND. 2. At the time the May 1999 NegASR was prepared data regarding the locations of any material/equipment staging areas and access points was not available. In 1999 the project planning efforts were more general and did not identify specifics such as the locations of material/equipment staging areas and access points. The following measures are recommended to address this matter. • The proposed locations of any material/equipment staging areas and access points shall be placed in previously investigated areas lacking cultural resources. • The proposed locations of any material/equipment staging areas and access points shall be inspected: by an archaeologist prior to deployment of material or equipment to the area. The archaeologist will provide a brief letter documenting (a) the proposed locations lack cultural resources and (b) materials and equipment may be deployed to the proposed staging areas. 3. The May 1999 NcgASR provided mitigation measures for SDI-6751. Specifically, the NegASR recommended archaeological monitoring during construction of the proposed CRT trail alignment in the vicinity of SDI-6751. This measure was adopted in the MND. Therefore, no further mitigation measures regarding SDI-6751 are necessary. In addition, SDI-675 1 was determined not to be .significant by Ogden Environmental, Inc. and it does not appear eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, any significant materials collected during implementation of the monitoring recommended by our May 1999 NegASR, must be appropriately addressed. 4. The recommendation that "disciplinary action be taken", for what was obviously a clerical error, is not usual and is therefore inappropriate and extreme. It is our understanding that when published the "final" MND will not contain information concerning the location of any archeological sites. Please call me at (909) 296-6232 if you have any questions regarding this response to comments letter or require additional information. Respectfully Submitted, THOMAS LESLIE CORPORATION Laurie S. White, M.A., Principal Archaeologist LSW/ona SJ-040401 • P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, CA 92593-2229 Office (909) 296-6232 Fax (909) 296-6233 o^£CO c0, >> San Diego County Archaeological Society Environmental Review Committee _,_--. * > ' «3 • - To: Subject: Mr. Steven C. Jantz Associate Engineer Public Works Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail •ENGiN'' DEF.-,: Dear Mr. Jantz: I have reviewed the cultural resources aspects of the subject PMND on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County Archaeological Society. Based on the contents of the PMND, initial study, and the two archaeological assessments for the project, we have the following comments: 1. The cultural resources section of the initial study does not include the impact analysis and mitigation measures included in the archaeological assessments for the archaeological sites SDI-4513, 5443 and 4609 in Sorrento Valley, in the City of San Diego. 2. The various reports appear not to address impacts which may result at material and equipment staging areas, and necessary mitigation for such impacts. 3. The mitigation measures for the Sorrento Valley sites and for SDI-6751 in the City of Carlsbad are inadequately defined. I have attached two pages from the PMND for a recent project in the City of San Diego, to provide an example of the type of wording that should be included. Note, incidentally, that the involvement of federal funding and permits will require curation of the archaeological collections and associated records, as does the Code of Ethics of the Register of Professional Archaeologists. 4. The copies of the two archaeological assessments provided to SDCAS included restricted information depicting the locations of archaeological sites. Please advise if this information was in the copies distributed to the general public and made available at various public locations. If it was, this constitutes a serious violation of the restrictions placed on the dissemination of archaeological site information, and disciplinary action should be taken. P.O. Box81106 . San Diego. CA 92138-1106 . (619)538-0935 SDCAS appreciates being included in the environmental review process for this project. Please continue to include SDCAS in the distribution of environmental documents related to this project. Sincerely, es W. Royle, Jr., Ch; Environmental Review ittee cc: Thomas Leslie & Associates SDCAS President File Page 2 Historical Resources Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter of verification to the Environmental Review Manager of Land Development Review (LDR) stating that a qualified archaeologist and/or archaeological monitor, as defined in the City of San Diego Historical Resources Guidelines, has been retained to implement the monitoring program. ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THIS PROJECT SHALL BE APPROVED BY LDR PRIOR TO THE START OF MONITORING. THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY LDR OF THE START AND END OF CONSTRUCTION. a. THE REQUIREMENT FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING SHALL BE NOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. b. The qualified archaeologist shall attend all preconstruction meetings to make comments and/or suggestions concerning the archaeological monitoring program with the construction manager. THE QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST SHALL COMPLETE A RECORDS SEARCH PRIOR TO THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING AND BE PREPARED TO INTRODUCE ANY PERTINENT INFORMATION CONCERNING EXPECTATIONS AND PROBABILITIES OF DISCOVERY DURING TRENCHING AND/OR GRADING ACTIVITIES. c. The qualified archaeologist or archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during excavation of native soils.\ d IN THE CASE OF A DISCOVERY, AND WHEN REQUESTED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGIST, THE CITY RESIDENT ENGINEER SHALL DIVERT, DIRECT OR TEMPORARILY HALT GROUND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA OF DISCOVERY TO ALLOW EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THE ARCHAEOLOGIST SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LDR STAFF OF SUCH FINDING AT THE TIME OF DISCOVERY. The significance of the discovered resources shall be determined by the archaeologist in consultation with LDR and the Native American community. LDR must concur with the evaluation before grading activities will be allowed to resume. For significant archaeological resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be prepared and carried out to mitigate impacts before land disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume. e. If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be followed. If Native American remains are present, the County Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission to designate a Most Likely Descendant, who will arrange for the dignified disposition and treatment of the remains. f. All cultural materials collected shall be cleaned, catalogued, and permanently curated with an appropriate institution. All artifacts shall be analyzed to identify function and PageS chronology as they relate to the history of the area. Faunal material shall be identified as to species and specialty studies shall be completed, as appropriate. g. Within three months following the completion of grading, a monitoring results report and/or evaluation report, if appropriate, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics) shall be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Review Manager of LDR. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be included as part of the evaluation report. A mitigation report for significant cultural resources, if required, shall be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Review Manager of LDR prior to the release of the grading bond. VI. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: Draft copies or notice of this Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to: City of San Diego Councilmember Peters, District 1 Development Services Department Library, La Jolla/Riford Branch La Jolla Shores Association (272) La Jolla Town Council (273) La Jolla Historical Society (274) La Jolla Community Planning Association (275) Birdwatcher's Neighborhood Association (276) University of California San Diego (277) External Affairs Commissioner (278) La Jolla Light (280) La Jolla Shores PDO Advisory Board (281) La Jollans for Responsible Planning (282) Patricia K. Miller (283) Isabelle Kay (284) Tom Laughlin Dr. Florence Shipek (208) Dr. Lynne Christenson (208A) San Diego State University (210) San Diego Archaeological Center (212) San Diego Natural History Museum (213) Save Our Heritage Organization (214) RonChristman(215) Louie Guassac (2 ISA) Archaeological Institute of America (216) San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. (218) Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee (225) * Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians (225A) * CampoBandof Mission Indians (225B) * Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians (225C) * Inaja and Cosmit Band of Mission Indians (225D) * Jamul Band of Mission Indians (225E) Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to Del Mar Prepared for: Lead Agency City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday, Carlsbad, CA Tel. (760) 602-4608 Responsible Agencies the Cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, So/ana Beach and Del Mar Prepared with assistance by: CLM, Inc. P. O. Box 2286 Vista, CA 92085-2286 Tel. (760)941-9696 October 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Initial Study Part H 3 II. Supplemental Comments 13 ni. Summary of Mitigation Measures for each Responsible Agency 37 FV. Appendices 48 A. Distribution List for Notice of Determination and Reviewing Locations B. Detailed Alignment Descriptions C. Project Alignment Maps (Drwg No. 376-9) D. CalTrans Classifications for Bikeways E. Coastal Rail Trail Sign and Design Guidelines F. Memorandum of Understanding and City Resolutions Additional Documents Available for Review 1. Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, Transtech Engineers, February 1999 and revised October 2000. 2. An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed 42 Mile Coastal Rail Trail Project: Oceanside to San Diego, San Diego County, California, by Robert S. White and Laura S. White, May 26, 1999. 3. Noise Impact Analysis, Coastal Rail Trail Project, Oceanside to San Diego, CA, Michael Brandman Associates, March 23,1998. 4. Coastal Rail Trail, Biological Technical Report, Michael Brandman Associates, and February 5, 1999. 5. Pre-assessment of Waters for the Coastal Rail Trail Project, Thomas Leslie & Associates, March 2, 1998 and Michael Brandman Associates, 1997. I. INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II CASE NO: EIA 00-06 DATE: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Coastal Rail Trail 2. APPLICANT: The Cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach and Del Mar each individually approved resolutions that authorize the City of Carlsbad to act as lead agency for the purpose of preparing the environmental document for the portion of the Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside to Del Mar. (See Appendix A) 3 ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad, Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad (760) 602-4608 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 12, 2000 5. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A multi-use pathway along the railroad right-of-way from Oceanside to Del Mar known as the Coastal Rail Trail Project. The project was the focus of a Project Study Report (PSR) completed in February 1999 and updated in October 2000 for a multi-use pathway from Oceanside to San Diego. This environmental document is only for the section from Oceanside to Del Mar even though the PSR addresses the Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside to San Diego. A detailed project description is located in Appendix C. 6. CITY CONTACTS: The following is a list of persons at each of the participating coastal cities that may be contacted for more information regarding this environmental document: Jerry Hittleman, City of Oceanside, (760) 966-4783 Eric Mufioz, City of Carlsbad, (760) 602-4608 Gary Barberio, City of Encinitas, (760) 633-2698 Steven Apple, City of Solana Beach. (858) 720-2451 Linda Niles, City of Del Mar (858) 755-9313 7. REVIEWING LOCATIONS: Copies of the environmental document, supporting special studies and Project Study Report are available for review at the following locations: City Offices City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 City of Encinitas Planning Department, 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 City of Oceanside, Planning Department, 300 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 City of Solana Beach, Planning Dept, 635 S. Highway 101, Solana Beach, CA 92075 City of Del Mar, Planning Dept., 1050, Del Mar, CA 92104 Libraries City of Oceanside Library, 330 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054 Carlsbad City Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad City Library, 1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Del Mar Library, 1305 amino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 San Diego County Branch Library, 540 Cornish, Encinitas, CA 92024 San Diego County Branch Library, 2027 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 San Diego County Branch Library, 17040 Avenida Acacias, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92075 San Diego County Branch Library, 981 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Solana Beach, CA 92075 City of San Diego Public Library, Carmel Valley, 3919 Townsgate Drive, San Diego, CA 92130 San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 8. FUTURE PERMITTING: Upon completion of the CEQA environmental documents, it may be necessary for the lead agency to complete appropriate NEPA documentation and permits with the California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project lies within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission and therefore, the Coastal Commission must review the project to determine consistency with the Coastal Act. Prior to construction, it will be necessary for each individual city to obtain (at a minimum) 1) a Coastal Development Permit if the jurisdiction does not have an adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP). 2) Public Utilities Commission approval for at-grade crossings, 3) NCTD agreements for use and management of the corridor, and 4) CEQA compliance. This environmental document analyzed the impacts of the Coastal Rail Trail alignment from Oceanside to Del Mar. Any substantial deviation from this alignment may require additional environmental analysis and permit modifications as determined by Planning Directors for each city. 9. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning | [Transportation/Circulation | Public Services Tre I | Population and Housing I Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems | | Energy & Mineral Resources X3 Aesthetics Water 1X1 Hazards 1X3 Cultural Resources Air Quality [_] Noise [ | Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR/Neg. Dec is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect hi this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR/MEIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR/MEIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. W<. Project Planner Signature ^2 Date OQ^ Planning Director-' Signature TDate' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaratioa « A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant • Based on an "EIA-Part IT', if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or, (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant Sources/Literature Cited The following documents were used in the environmental analysis contained in this document. Source Document "Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report", Transtech Engineers, February 1999, Revised October 2000. 2. "An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed 42 Mile Coastal Rail Trail Project: Oceanside to San Diego, San Diego County", California, by Robert S. White and Laura S. White, May 26, 1999. 3. "Noise Impact Analysis, Coastal Rail Trail Project", Oceanside to San Diego, CA, Michael Brandman Associates, March 23,1998. 4. "Coastal Rail Trail, Biological Technical Report", Michael Brandman Associates, February 5,1999. 5. Butter Roach Group, Inc., "Draft & Final EIR for the Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation Project for the SDNR Right-of-WayL November 11, 1994 and May 19, 1995 respectively (SCH #93-121075). 6. State of California, Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual. Chapter 1000, Bikeway Planning and Design. 7. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, "Conflicts on Multiple Use Trails", 1996. 8. Sandag, "Region Transportation Plan", 1996 9. Pre-Assessment of Waters for the Coastal Rail Trail Project. Tomas Leslie and Associates, March 1998 and Michael Brandman Associates, 1997 See Sources and Literature Cited.Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Source #1 page 22, Source #5 page 3-18,4-29-4-34. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? | [ | | b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or | | [""] policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? I [~~1 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts I I I I to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an | [ [ [ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? nD D D H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Source #1 pages 22-40 Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Source #5 pages 4-1-4-9 Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? i) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? D 1 n n r n X X Dn D n n • - -----]-'nnnnn nnn n u U a See Sources and Literature Cited.Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. WATER Source #5 pages 4-12-1-19. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? n a aaa a a a n u a a a a a V. AIR QUALITY. Source #1 page 45 Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Source #1 pages 35-44 Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ I b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp f I curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ I d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? I I e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? I I D Dn n nn See Sources and Literature Cited. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Source #1, pages 163-175 and Source #4 Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? D n a a n nn Vffl. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ 1 n nn n n n DC. HAZARDS. Source #1 pages 36-44,148-161 Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? n n n a n n n nn n X. NOISE. Source* 3 Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ' II-.I-I.T ' •n n n EIu EI 10 See Sources and Literature Cited. XL PUBLIC SERVICES. Source #1 pages 47-56 Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated i—i D D D D D D xn.uriLrnES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS, would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (none) b) Communications systems? (none) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (none) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (none) e) Storm water drainage? (none) f) Solid waste disposal? (none) g) Local or regional water supplies? (none) D Dn n nn n KI nn Xffl. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? (1)n I]D D XTV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Source #2 Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? an a n See Sources and Literature Cited. XV. RECREATIONAL. Source #1 pages 40-44 Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D IE! D D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D D XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earner analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 12 II. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS GENERAL PURPOSE/SUMMARY The following section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Coastal Rail Trail project, a proposed regional bike and pedestrian pathway/trail which would begin at the San Luis Rey River extending through the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, ending in the City of Del Mar. (See location map, page 14) The attached environmental checklist, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, assessed environmental factors that may be further impacted by the proposed project. The Initial Study will serve to identify and evaluate any effects determined to be potentially significant. The study concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of environmental review. Mitigation measures focus on public safety, aesthetics, and cultural resources. BACKGROUND A study commissioned by SANDAG in 1989, the "Coastal Corridor Bicycle Path Analysis", investigated the opportunity to develop a pathway along the entire corridor of the railway from Oceanside to San Diego. It was determined that it was "technically feasible to construct a bicycle path along the railway for nearly its full length from Oceanside to San Diego." The only exception included a 1-1/2 mile segment near the Del Mar racetrack, where the railroad runs along a long, narrow embankment and a long bridge. The alignment, as described in the report, included crossing over the lagoons on either bridge abutments to the existing railroad bridges or on separate new bridges. The report, however, did not provide a thorough analysis of the costs to construct the regional pathway and bridges, and did not explore environmental impacts. SANDAG determined that further analysis was necessary to explore the specific alignment. A second study, the Coastal Rail Trail Master Plan/Project Study Report (PSR), was completed in January 1999 with additional revisions completed October 2000. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, North County Transit District (NCTD), and the Metropolitan Development Board (MTDB) to jointly coordinate and plan the Coastal Rail Trail (See Appendix F). The preparation included attendance at monthly meetings by the participating agencies which included the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB), the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) and MCAS Miramar. The purpose of the PSR was to identify issues and to develop an environmentally appropriate alignment for the pathway, which would be constructable, not cost prohibitive, while maintaining the continued use of the railroad for passenger and freight transportation. The entire alignment in the PSR (see Coastal Rail Trail Alignment maps hi Appendix C) reflects a paved pathway within the right-of- way of the San Diego Northern Railway for approximately 32-miles of the 44-mile corridor. This MND is specifically for the portion of the Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside to Del Mar. (24 miles of the entire 44-mile project and specifically described hi Appendix B). Environmental analysis of the portion of the Coastal Rail Trail that lies within the City of San 13 Diego will be processed separately by the City of San Diego. The alignment presented in this document is the result of a study conducted and modified to consider potential environmental impacts and reflected in drawings 376-9 (see Appendix C, Project Alignment Maps). It is fully recognized that at any time during the design of the project, if changes to the alignment are made, further additional environmental review may be required by the individual jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project begins south of the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside and proceeds south generally following the railroad right-of-way to the southern boundary of the City of Del Mar. Detailed project description is described in Appendix B. The proposed project includes a 24-mile bikeway through the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and Del Mar located within the San Diego Northern Railway right of way. The 24-mile bikeway consists of 18 miles of a 12' wide multi-use Class I paved path, 5 miles of 5' wide Class II bike lanes and 1 mile of Class IE bike routes within existing roadways. The Class I pathway will reflect a linear park and will include such amenities that will enhance the pathway. These may include landscaping, irrigation, fencing, public art, park furniture, trash containers, lighting, water fountains, bicycle racks, sign kiosks, and bicycle air pumps. Conceptual landscape design and other elements are discussed in the Project Study Report Chapter 8. In addition to the pathways, the proposed project includes the following components: 1. Two (2) at-grade pedestrian/bicycle railroad crossings (at Chestnut Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad and Marcheta Street/Orpheus Avenue, in the City of Encinitas), 2. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon over an existing sewer line, 3. A bridge structure over drain inlet between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad, 4. A bridge over natural drainage channel northerly of Chesterfield Street in the City of Encinitas, and 5. Retaining walls east of Buccaneer Beach Park, in the City of Oceanside, Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge, along the Agua Hedionda Sewer Pump Station to Cannon Road in the City of Carlsbad, and along Santa Fe Drive in the City of Encinitas. 14 San Marcos Carlsbad Polnsettla Station Solana Beach Soiana Beach Station Sorrento Valley Station La Jolla University City Mission Beach Old Town Transit Center MCAS Miramar :'. J \ Clairemont N Not to Scale Point Loma Oceanside - San Diego TRAIL 15 FUTURE ENTITLEMENTS Grants have been awarded through both State and Federal funding sources for the construction of the Coastal Rail Trail. Since the project will receive Federal funding, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead agency for environmental processing under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CalTrans acts as the FHWA agent providing oversight and review functions. Prior to implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail, the lead agency (the City of Carlsbad) Would complete appropriate NEPA documents and secure permits, as appropriate, with the Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and a federal consistency determination with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The project is subject to a Coastal Consistency Evaluation by the Coastal Commission since the Coastal Rail Trail project lies within the California Coastal Zone. The lead agency (the City of Carlsbad) will request a Coastal Consistency determination from the Coastal Commission. Prior to construction, each individual city must process a Coastal Development Permit locally or, if the city does not currently have an adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP), the city must process a Coastal Development Permit through the California Coastal Commission. Of the five affected cities, the City of Solana Beach does not have a Local Coastal Program and will be required to obtain a CDP from the California Coastal Commission. The Commission has the authority to require design modifications or mitigation measures and any other discretionary permits required by that jurisdiction. The lead agency, the City of Carlsbad, will not process a CDP in other cities. The Coastal Rail Trail project is generally located within the San Diego Northern Railway right- of-way, which is owned and controlled by the North County Transit District. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail for the portions of the pathway within the rail right-of-way. The design of the Coastal Rail Trail is subject to the review and approval by NTCD. NCTD, as property owner, will review and approve all phases of design and construction, maintenance and monitoring program, and limits of liability insurance coverage. The City of Solana Beach and NCTD have negotiated a use agreement, which is currently pending Council and Board approval. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The 24-mile Coastal Rail Trail bikeway consists of 18 miles of a 12' wide multi-use Class I paved path within the SDNR railway right-of-way, 5 miles of 5' wide Class n bike lanes, and 1 mile of Class HI bike routes within existing roadway. The project is located along existing public roadways on either Class n bicycle lanes or as Class HI bicycle routes. Descriptions of Class I, Class n, and Class in bikeways as defined by the California Department of Transportation are identified in Appendix D. 16 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact The purpose of the Coastal Rail Trail project is to provide a Class I bicycle path along the San Diego Northern Railway to encourage persons to use alternative modes for transportation and to utilize links to transit stations, regional bus routes, and connecting bicycle facilities. Each of the individual cities identify the rail corridor as an area for development of an open space park with trails. Typically, passive open space, bicycle paths and pedestrian trails are land uses permitted within railroad transportation corridors. A crucial part of the planning process has been the participation and support of the underlying property owners (North County Transit District and Metropolitan Transit District), six cities, California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). The Coastal Rail Trail sub- committee consisting of representatives from each of these agencies met monthly for three years. Goals developed by the committee include the following: • Organize and manage trail use in the corridor and provide an alternative to using heavily traveled parallel roadways, • Develop a functional facility that serves major and minor destinations. • Maximize safety along the railroad corridor by organizing and managing pedestrian and bicycling activity, and maximizing separation between the train and trail, • Minimize impacts to adjacent property owners through appropriate design and operation of the facility, • Preserve the ability for San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) to double-track the railroad in the future, • Preserve existing access routes to beaches and other destinations, • Protect existing wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats along the right-of- way, • Design the facility to meet state and federal standards and the intent of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and • Design grade crossings at roadways, which maximize trail user safety and convenience, while minimizing negative impacts to traffic capacity. The Coastal Rail Trail Project has met the goal to develop an alternative route from the roadway, one that serves primary destinations and one that does not impact wetlands. Goals specific to design will be met through the preparation of the design documents. The need to provide regional walking and bicycling recreational facilities is identified in the following: • The California Outdoor Recreation Plan of 1993 identifies walking as the outdoor use with the highest participation rate of 88% and bicycling on paved surfaces is listed with a participation rate of 45.8%. • The "President's Commission on Americans Outdoors" (1996), showing the 17 percentage of adults who participate in the following selected activities one or more times during a year: Walking for pleasure 84% Bicycling 46% Running or jogging 42% Day hiking 27% • The County of San Diego's "Bicycle Use and Attitude Survey" completed in May 1994 concluded that over 41% of those surveyed did not cycle" because of a lack of desired bike facilities. The bikeway most preferred by cyclist respondents was a separate path that excludes cars (65%)." The report recommends that regional policies should encourage "construction of more bikeways along existing and future roads, and on alignments separated from motorized vehicle traffic, to meet the varied needs of San Diego's cyclists." Bicycle usage on adjacent roadways along the San Diego Northern Railway corridor is higher than the average in other parts of San Diego County. A bicycle survey completed in 1997 by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) counted the number of bicyclists at eight (8) locations along Highway 101 (Coast Highway). The average hourly number of cyclists exceeds the average for the region of 15.5 cyclists per hour in all instances ranging with a low of 19.2 per hour at Oceanside Boulevard and North Coast Highway in Oceanside and a high of 39.0 per hour at Lomas Santa Fe and Highway 101 in Solana Beach. Although, the volume of users, use, loss of privacy, and increase in vandalism may be a concern to those land uses in close proximity to the trail, research of multi-use trails has indicated that a well-designed and well-used pathway would not only enjoy exposure to the general public but be more accessible by the law enforcement personnel and may reduce existing undesirable activity within the railroad right-of-way. (Rails to Trails Conservancy, "Rails with Trails, Sharing Corridors for Transportation and Recreation, 1997). The research conducted by the national Rails to Trails Conservancy has also revealed that unsafe crossings of the tracks have actually decreased in rail corridors with trails adjacent to the railway since users are provided with a paved surface to use and are directed to safe crossings. The proposed project will provide access to a private railroad corridor to thousands of new trail users. While the North County Transit District Board is a signatory agency on the MOU, at this time 'No Trespassing' signs are posted intermittently along the corridor. Historically local residents have used the right-of-way and that use continues today despite the no trespassing signs posted along the right-of-way. Traffic volumes and the number of people walking and riding along and across the coastal roadways is projected to increase with the population growth in San Diego County. Installing fencing along the corridor to discourage or eliminate crossings would disrupt the established communities by reducing access to the beach. Fencing that directs trail users to well-defined locations would reduce random crossings over the track. There are two (2) pedestrian crossings identified as part of this project proposed to be located at Chestnut Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad and Marcheta Street/Orpheus Avenue in the City of Encinitas. All at-grade crossings require Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval. The trail will also provide clear signing indicating private property limits, no trespassing laws, and 18 applicable fines and punishments. Current informal pathways along and crossing the corridor will also be identified and will be fenced or channeled to restrict random railroad crossings. A sign program will be developed to provide clear signage for trail users to direct users to appropriate crossings and to advise users of the restricted use of the railway. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of five local jurisdictions, each having their own General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, implementing elements, zoning, ordinances, and polices. The following are the relevant plans for each of the affected agencies. California Coastal Commission The 1972 California Coastal Act is intended to protect the natural and scenic qualities of the California Coastal Zone. The Coastal Rail Trail is located within the Local Coastal Program Boundary and is subject to the review of the California Coastal Commission and a federal consistency determination with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The California Coastal Act regulations require that a coastal plan include "a public access element for maximum visual and physical use and enjoyment of the coastal zone by the public" and require each local government to prepare a specific public access component (Local Coastal Program) or process a Coastal Development Permit with the Coastal Commission. The Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Del Mar have Local Coastal Programs whereas the City of Solana Beach does not and would have to file a Local Development Permit upon completion and approval by the City for design plans. The Coastal Act policies, which are related to shoreline access, are as follows: Section 30210. Requires maximum access and broad recreational opportunities for all people in beach and coastal areas. Section 30211. Requires that new development not interfere with the public's right of access to coastal areas. The proposed trail would provide additional recreational opportunities for bicyclists, pedestrians, disabled, and other nonmotorized uses and would ensure coastal access is maintained. No adverse impacts to existing coastal resources or shoreline access would occur. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is mandated to prepare and update the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (2020 RTF) by Section 65080 of the State Government Code. This section also specifies that actions by transportation agencies, including CalTrans and the Transit Development Boards must be consistent with 2020 RTF. Local agencies utilize this document for planning for future transportation facilities, then incorporate the transportation plan into their General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. In order to obtain state, federal, or transportation sales tax funding, the project must be consistent with the 2020 RTP. The 2020 RTF identifies the Coastal Rail Trail as a proposed regional trail stating that the "affected cities and the County of San Diego, with the cooperation of NCTD and MTDB, will complete design and construction of the coastal Rail Trail and the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Trail.1 2020 Regional Transportation Plan, San Diego Association of Governments. April 2000. P 193. 19 City ofOceanside The City ofOceanside is located at the juncture of the north-south SDNR railroad and the east- west Oceanside-Escondido rail. The city has recognized the opportunity that this juncture brings to non-motorized trail use. General Plan. Circulation Element (1995): The plan identifies two recreational routes for pedestrians and bicycles which includes the old Santa Fe Escondido Branch line (and future light rail line) running east from Oceanside to Escondido and the San Luis Rey River Bike Loop, at the northern end of the City. This loop will connect the beach area near the future Coastal Rail Trail and Pacific Street, to the inland portions of Oceanside along the San Luis Rey River. Relevant policies include commitments to "assure that transit centers have adequate bicycle and pedestrian access, including secure bicycle storage" (p. 52) and "provide connection and continuation of the Pacific Coastal Bicycle Corridor and the San Diego-Anza Borrego Bicycle Corridor" (p. 54). General Plan. Land Use Element (January 1989): The plan recognizes the need to enhance non- 1 motorized transportation facilities in order to provide safe and efficient movement of people in and through the City of Oceanside. Additionally, Section 2.7132 (p. 63) states that "the City shall encourage the use of the railroad right-of-way for recreation and similar uses." The Coastal Rail Trail is consistent with the City of Oceanside's goals and objectives, which encourages non-motorized facilities and the use of the railroad right-of-way for recreation and similar uses. City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad has identified the Coastal Rail Trail in their General Plan and the draft Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed citywide trail system does not preclude a trail within the railroad right-of-way. The following documents recognize the opportunity of a trail along the rail right-of-way: General Plan. Circulation Element: Policy C.I 9 reads: "Encourage passive and active use of the railroad right-of-way trail linkage and bicycle Coastal Rail Trail." Other policies encourage improvements to both pedestrian and bicycle circulation including safety improvements and expanded facilities. Zoning Code: The Transportation Corridor Zone (Section 21.100.0200(4)8 & C) allows for a trail as a permitted use within the Coastal Zone. Bicycle Master Plan (1996): Section 10 of this document recognizes the Coastal Rail Trail as a north-south spine along the coast and a regional connection to east-west trails. The plan includes conceptual solutions to various design issues including bridge crossings, undercrossings, and at- grade crossings. The Coastal Rail Trail is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. The Coastal Rail Trail would augment the Carlsbad trail system by providing a route for bicyclists and connections to existing and proposed east-west bicycle and trail routes. 20 City ofEncinitas The railroad right-of-way within the City of Encinitas experiences a high number of users crossing the tracks to access the beach. This is due in a large part to the limited number of surface streets that cross the tracks and the large residential areas which border the east side of the tracks in communities such as Leucadia, Old Encinitas, and Cardiff-by-the-Sea. The City of Encinitas1 goals and objectives are presented in the following documents: General Plan (1989): The General Plan recognizes the need to retain access to the beaches and the potential of the railroad right-of-way as a resource for a multi-use trail. As stated in the Introduction, Railroad Crossings/Right-of-Way: "The limited number of railroad crossings acts as a deterrent to east-west pedestrian and vehicular movement. This obstacle to movement results in uncontrolled pedestrian crossings of the track wherever it is convenient. The right-of-way represents a significant source of noise, but is also a potentially valuable area for the establishment of a riding/hiking/bicycling path for north-south movement near the coast and a landscaped buffer adjacent to the major north-south circulation roadways, Highway 101 and Vulcan Avenue. Enhancement of the rail corridor, including the possible depression of the track grade to address these issues, is warranted."2 The General Plan also includes a bikeway facilities map, which identifies a separate bikeway along the railroad right-of-way. Master Bikeway Plan and Engineering Feasibility Study (1990): This document provides ample detail regarding bicycles, riding habits, and the riders themselves including age, sex, trip purpose, frequency of use, and other information. The Plan evaluates the potential for a bike path along the railroad right-of-way, and provides an alternative that includes widening parallel streets for bike lanes (Vulcan/San Elijo) in order to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and other trail users. The former 'AT&SF Railroad' option is evaluated in three distinct segments, projected to have a 10 to 12 foot width, and be located on the east side of the tracks. Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan (1994): The circulation element of this plan addresses both pedestrian and bicycle movement, with a multi-purpose trail identified along the railroad corridor south from E Street. The plan recommends pursuing development of this facility in cooperation with NCTD. North 101 Corridor Specific Plan (1997): This plan recommends a "multi-modal recreational path within the railroad right-of-way east of North Highway 101. This bike path will replace the existing narrow asphalt pathway along North Highway 101." The plan also recommends parallel on-street bike lanes on North Highway 101 and Vulcan Avenue. The Coastal Rail Trail is consistent with the City ofEncinitas' General Plan and Master Bikeway Plan, which identify the railway corridor as an opportune area for a multi-use path, and does not reduce the existing bike lanes. City of Solatia Beach The City of Solana Beach has taken extensive steps to prepare for a trail along the railroad. The city goals and objectives are succinctly stated in the following documents: 2 Encinitas General Plan, 1989. Pp 1-6 21 Solana Beach Linear Park Master Plan (1995): This document covers the planning and preliminary design of a 1.8-mile linear park along the railroad right-of-way (essentially the same alignment as the proposed Coastal Rail Trail). The plan contains details on the public involvement process, relevant plans, existing influences such as topography, vegetation, and circulation, conceptual plans, cross sections, and design elements such as lighting, entry features, plazas, fencing, bridges, and landscaping. The plan provides the most detailed design framework for the proposed Coastal Rail Trail in the entire corridor. It includes design recommendations but acknowledges that the specific design of the Linear Park will occur during the final design phase. Highway 101 Corridor Specific Plan (1992): This plan covers the area adjacent to U.S. 101 through the City and consists of land use, community facilities, and circulation components. There is substantial overlap in this plan's study area and is covered by the more recent Linear Park Master Plan (see above). The plan recognizes the future Linear Park and the need to create better pedestrian linkages across Highway 101 to the Linear Park. Solana Beach Bikewav Master Plan (1993) and Bikeway Addendum (1996. 2000): These plans cover on-street and off-street bicycle facilities in the city, along with support facilities such as bike racks. It identifies the 'Coastal Corridor' Class I bike path through Solana Beach. EIR for the Proposed Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation Project for the San Diego Northern Railway, (1995): Jointly, NCTD and the City of Solana Beach developed a plan to lower the train tracks approximately 35 feet below their existing level in order for the trains to pass under the intersection at Lomas Santa Fe Drive and Highway 101. The purpose of the "grade separated railway" is to reduce traffic congestion at Lomas Santa Fe and noise impacts to adjacent residential and commercial properties. As part of the "Lomas Santa Fe Grade Separation Project," the City pursued the development of a linear park along the railway right-of-way for the purpose of creating a parklike setting, to provide a formal trail for pedestrian and bicyclists, and to continue to reduce conflicts with bicyclists and vehicles. The design criteria set forth in the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report support the policies identified in the City's General Plan (1988), the Fletcher Cove Master Plan and supporting EIR (1992), Linear Park Master Plan. Bikewav Master Plan (1993). and Bikewav Addendum (1996). City of Del Mar The City of Del Mar recognizes the need to provide alternative transportation, but also the need to preserve the coastal bluffs along the railroad. These policies and goals are identified in the following documents: General Plan. Recreation Element (May 1, 1985): Promotes the use of bicycle facilities and trails. Camino Del Mar Streetscape Plan (September 6, 1996): The intent of the plan is to consider specific design modifications which will enhance the three mile length of Camino Del Mar through the City of Del Mar. The plan maintains the need for bicycle lanes through the City and identifies a bicycle/pedestrian bridge at the Jimmy Durante - Grand Avenue/Camino Del Mar merge. 22 Del Mar Trail Subcommittee (December 1996): The City of Del Mar's City Council directed its staff to work with community groups in the development of the Coastal Rail Trail and to explore trail alternatives. The trail subcommittee considered a paved bicycle/pedestrian trail along the railroad right-of-way, however, due to width and drainage constraints along the bluffs and known bluff instability, the committee agreed to divert bicyclists to existing bicycle lanes on Camino del Mar while maintaining existing pedestrian paths along the west side of the railway, on top of the bluffs. The proposed alignment in the MND does not include any portion of trails along the top of the bluffs. Any proposed improvements to the unimproved trail along the Del Mar bluffs will be subject of a separate approval process with the City of Del Mar. The Coastal Rail Trail is consistent with the City of Del Mar's programs and policies since it encourages the preservation of the coastal bluffs and the continued use of the existing trails and bicycle lanes. Summary The Coastal Rail Trail project is consistent with the individual city policies and programs, and regional goals. No impacts were identified. Mitigation Measure: None II. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact The proposed project will not generate additional population, create a need for additional housing or displace existing housing due to its location within the undeveloped portions of the railroad right-of-way or within existing roadways. The Coastal Rail Trail project is not considered growth inducing since the project provides a recreational/commuter element for existing residents and visitors. No impacts were noted. Mitigation Measure: None III. GEOLOGIC No Impact The proposed project is not located on the Alquist-Priola Earthquake fault zoning map or in an area of known active faults. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts nor expose people to geologic problems such as fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards, landslides or mudflows, erosion, subsidence of the land, expansive soils or other geologic impacts. The proposed project will be constructed along exiting roads, or on existing dirt roads and trails. Erosion associated with construction will be controlled through the use of appropriate construction techniques and through monitoring during construction. An erosion control program for each city is a standard practice and will be prepared during the design phase for each city as part of standard construction practices to meet state NPDES standards. There are no proposed improvements for the informal pedestrian trail that currently exists along the bluffs of Del Mar. The project would not have a significant impact to geologic conditions since the project would not impact the coastal bluffs. 23 As part of standard construction practices, each individual city requires that erosion control methods are incorporated as part of the grading plan, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to permit issuance, and implemented during the construction process. Mitigation Measure: None IV. WATER No Impact Michael Brandman Associates conducted a Pre- Assessment of Waters in the spring of 1997. Dr. Thomas Leslie, CA EPA, RE A, conducted further field review in the spring of 1998. Due to the field review, the alignment of the Coastal Rail Trail was modified to eliminate the trail at the Buena Vista Lagoon, (routing the trail to the street) and the Poinsettia Station southwest of Avenida Encinas, routing the trail to the Avenida Encinas, thereby avoiding impacts to identified vernal pools. Thomas Leslie and Associates (TLA) performed a jurisdictional analysis of the entire length of the Coastal Rail Trail right-of-way. The analysis was performed to determine if any areas of the proposed trail right-of-way would require a 401 permit prior to initiation of trail construction activities or if the trail could be constructed under the authorization of a 401 waiver. The analysis was performed between April 12,1997 and December 15,1998. As a result of the analysis TLA delineators determined that no jurisdictional areas would be impacted based on site surveys. The alignment was modified to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States and associated sensitive habitat types (i.e. riparian, vegetation, wetlands, marshes, and coastal sage scrub). FEMA maps were consulted and those maps indicate that the trail is located out of the 100-year floodplain or is routed to adjacent roadways in areas within 100-year floodplains to avoid impacts. No other potential impacts were noted. Mitigation Measure: None V. AIR QUALITY No Impact The Federal Clean Air Act forms the basis for the effort to reduce air pollutants. Each state is mandated to submit a plan, which details the steps that the state commits to reducing pollutants. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District prepares the San Diego's State Implementation Plan (SIP). This adopted plan includes four air quality strategies: ridesharing, transit improvements, traffic flow improvements, and bicycle facilities and bicycle programs. Reducing vehicle trips is known to reduce air pollutants. The California Air Resources Board estimates that a fully integrated multi-modal plan can achieve vehicle trip reductions of 10-23% with commensurate air quality benefits. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are specifically exempted from conformance with federal Clean Air standards per the Federal Register, November 24, 1993 "Air Quality Transportation Plans, 24 Programs and Projects; Federal State Implementation Plans Conformity Rules." The project has the potential to substantially increase air quality and reduce potential air emissions due to the reduced use of vehicles and the increased use of alternative transportation modes (i.e. bicycling and walking). San Diego Association of Governments 1996 Regional Transportation Plan identified that "on- road vehicle emissions account for approximately 60% of smog in the San Diego region."3 Walking and bicycling do not consume petroleum products and are non-polluting modes of transportation. Walking and bicycling generally replace short distance commuting trips, which are the most polluting of vehicle trips. The 1990 amendments to the California Clean Air Act recognize that the use of bicycling and walking as transportation can be an effective way to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources (cars, trucks, buses, etc). There have been some studies completed to address the potential benefits to air quality. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has conducted numerous studies on the benefits of cycling. In the United States in 1991, it has been estimated "that bicycling and walking were equivalent to 7.6 and 28.1 billion motor vehicle miles, saving 370 to 1,340 million gallons of gasoline and 4.4 to 16.3 million metric tons of exhaust emission air pollution." Additional estimates of the air pollution cost savings of walking or bicycling rather than driving a car is estimated at $0.40 per 2.5 mile urban commute trip and $0.24 for all other urban trips. Quantifying these benefits by monitoring changes is difficult because inadequate data exists. It is also difficult to recognize the benefit of just one program when there are many other reasons for a reduction in air pollution. Additionally, it is difficult to project what the usage will be of a facility that has not yet been built. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) encourages the use of integrated planning for land use, transportation, and air quality, which supports all modes of transportation. The proposed project would not result in substantial air emissions or in the deterioration of ambient air quality. Non-motorized activities such as walking, bicycling, and roller blading do not consume petroleum and are not polluting modes of transportation. Walking and bicycling generally replace short distance commuting, which are the most polluting of vehicle trips. The 1990 Clear Air Act Amendments recognize that the use of bicycling and walking as transportation can be effective ways to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources (cars, trucks, buses, etc.). In addition, use of non-motorized activities to access the 5 transit stations along the corridor will reduce vehicle trips. Short-term construction activities will result in project related emissions. Construction related emissions would be associated with activities such as rock and dirt removal, site preparation and forming, and concrete pouring. In addition to equipment exhaust, project related construction would generate dust from activities such as grading, demolition, and vehicle/equipment use. Construction related air quality impacts would be temporary in nature and standard construction practices, including but not limited to, dust control measures and avoidance of peak travel periods for construction related travel would be used to control construction related impacts. Impact of construction emissions will be reduced by avoiding seasons such as late summer when ' SANDAG, "2000 Regional Transportation Plan". 25 Operational (long-term) emissions associated with the construction of the pathway would be limited to seasonal daily-mechanized sweeping and vehicular use related to maintenance/repair activities. Due to the infrequent and intermittent nature of such activities, operational emissions associated with these alternatives are considered inconsequential. The identified construction related impacts are considered to insignificant due to the short term duration and the fact that dust control measures are standard practice. With the appropriate use of standard grading and operating procedures (including watering) the project would not generate significant emissions of particulate matter or dust. Mitigation Measure: None VI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION No Impact Circulation and Projected Use The proposed project would not impact existing traffic patterns or existing bicycle traffic along adjacent roadways. The project would provide a designated corridor for a wide range of bicycling abilities, as well as pedestrian and disabled users. Signs would direct Coastal Rail Trail users to a paved corridor and would eliminate random crossings over the tracks through the use of fencing and signs. Additional at-grade crossings may be requested to the PUC to provide pedestrians and bicyclists with safe, convenient crossings. These additional at-grade crossings would be processed by the individual city at the project approval level. San Diego County's 1995 population of 2,585,234 is expected to increase by 22% to 3,154,490 by 2010, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Population and Employment Growth Forecasts1 Jurisdiction Carlsbad Del Mar Encinitas Oceanside Solana Beach Population Growth Forecast 1995 67,200 5,100 56,800 145,900 13,500 2020 109,300 5,700 68,400 196,600 15,100 % Change 38.6% 10.6% 17.0% 26.8% 11.6% Employment Growth Forecast 1995 41,200 3,200 22,600 34,600 8,700 2020 86.200 3,600 27,800 67,100 9,700 % Change 109.0% 13.09% 23.0% 94.0% 11.0% INFO, Sandag/Source Pointe, September-October 1999. No. 5 The North County West Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), including the corridor cities of 26 Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, and Solatia Beach, make up 12.5% of the County's population. These five, which will enjoy direct access to the proposed Coastal Rail Trail, share significant features as summarized below: • The cities expect an average population growth of 20.9% by 2020, with Carlsbad and Oceanside gaining 38.6% and 26.8%, respectively. • The cities expect an average employment gain of 27.5% by 2020, with Carlsbad and Oceanside gaining 47.1% and 51.5%, respectively; and • Five of six cities meet or exceed the 1% national average of commuters who bike to work. Given the scenic beauty of the corridor, warm climate, and projected growth in both population and employment, the existing average mode split of 3.4% for walking and 0.8% for bicycling for the five cities has the potential to be much higher. Based on U. S. Department of Transportation "National Walking and Bicycle Study1 1995, the estimated number of users is based on a series of assumptions that includes peak season (tourism), off season usage, effects of weather, time of usage, and age of user group. Additionally, these assumptions determined where the users would be located, average length of bicycle/pedestrian trip and trip origin. The Project Study Report projects usage of the entire 44 mile trail to be 28,500 daily users on a peak day for recreation and 22,500 for commuting which translates into an estimated 11.5 million annual users. Bicyclists, pedestrians, and others currently traveling along the corridor have the choice of using roadways such as the Coast Highway, Camino Del Mar, and Torrey Pines Road. While bike lanes and/or wider curb lanes are provided along some of the route, the roadways present a combination of high traffic volumes, higher speeds, and side friction from driveways, parked vehicles, and intersecting roadways. Daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major north-south routes parallel to the trail are between 10,000 and 20,000. As population and jobs continue to expand along the corridor, traffic volumes on roadways will naturally increase. The trail also has the potential to lessen disruption to the railroad operations by organizing and channeling movement to official crossings, which would also effectively reduce the barrier effect of the railroad itself. Parking Impacts It is anticipated that a large portion of Coastal Rail Trail users would walk or bike to the trail. Trail users who travel from their homes would utilize public parking lots provided for beach access, public parks, and public parking within the commercial areas as well as parking available on local streets. Emergency Access In areas where the pathway would not be immediately accessible by the adjacent roadway for emergency personnel, the pathway would be designed to allow access for standard medical, police, and fire vehicles while restricting motorized users (other than motorized wheelchairs). Design methods would consider removable bollards, adequate curb cuts, pavement strength, 27 pathway horizontal and vertical geometric, and vertical clearance. Multi-Use Conflicts The proposed project would be built as a 12-foot wide paved path to allow for adequate two-way traffic and for passing of slower moving users. User conflicts may occur for numerous reasons and "have been found to be related to activity style (mode of travel, level of technology, environmental dominance, etc.), focus of trip, expectations, attitudes toward and perceptions of the environment, level of tolerance for others, and different norms held by different users."4 Signs would inform users as to the appropriate cycling speed and courtesy for other users such as calling-out "on your left" when passing other trail users. Sign programs for each individual city will be developed to inform users of safe trail use and consideration (such as speed, riding on the right side of the roadway, etc.). Hazards or Barriers to Users Less than Significant (See also Section JX Public Safety/Hazards) Currently, pedestrians and bicyclists use the rail-trail corridor although the rail owner does not sanction the use. These users enjoy free access to the corridor and are restricted from crossing the tracks to access activities on either side only by natural constraints such as changes in grade that make it difficult to cross. Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail would result in a barrier or fence at various locations, thereby restricting movement of bicyclists or pedestrians. However, the Coastal Rail Trail project proposes two at-grade crossings in those areas where there is a long distance between roadway crossings. In other areas, there are roadway crossings that provide a more structured crossing that reduces potential conflicts with rail use. This impact is considered less than significant since the users will be provided with at-grade crossings at those segments of the rail trail where there are limited roadway crossings. Hazards of trail use within a rail corridor is acknowledged and addressed in Section DC Public Safety/Hazards. Mitigation Measure: None (See Mitigation Measure IX Public Safety/Hazards) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Impact Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. completed a biological assessment on January 8, 1999, cumulating site assessments that spanned over a two year period. The biological technical report presents the results of biological survey and an analysis of potential impacts from the Coastal Rail Trail project along the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) right-of-way. The report is based on a review of existing environmental documentation, general field surveys, and focused surveys for special status species. The purpose of this effort was to assess the biological resources along the proposed pathway(s), assess impacts, and develop mitigation for potential impacts. The literature review included a review of existing biological resource information for projects that encompass the corridor. The review consisted of a total of 11 EIRs and technical documents, biological data from the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the Multiple Species Conservation Program. Other pertinent information reviewed included: Conflicts on Multiple-Use Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of Pra<iice, Federal Highway Administration, 1994 pp 1,16. 28 1. The Federal Register listing package for each federally listed endangered or threatened species potentially occurring in the corridor, 2. Literature pertaining to habitat requirements of special status species potentially occurring in the corridor, 3. CDFG Annual Report on the status of California's listed threatened and endangered plants and animals, 4. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) information regarding special status species potentially occurring in the corridor, and 5. The CDFG's Wildlife Habitat Relationships System for specific information on habitats occurring the corridor. The general surveys of the entire route, found that the majority of the proposed alignment for the pathway passes through commercial, urban and residential developed areas, or areas of disturbed vegetation within the SDNR right-of-way. Developed areas along the proposed alignment contain small commercial establishments, single- and multi-family residential uses, mixed-use structures, mobile home parks, professional office, public office, and small industrial uses. Commercial areas provide low value habitat for wildlife. These areas contain little vegetation and are subject to noise and disturbance from traffic, the railroad and other human activities. General Field Surveys of the entire route were conducted in mid-April 1997. A general assessment of the existing conditions and habitats along the route was conducted and a list of common plant and animal species in each habitat developed. Selected sections of the corridor were marked on aerial maps for subsequent focused biological surveys. This was based on the presence of protected habitats or habitats that could support special status species. The focused survey sites were visited, and focused surveys were conducted between early May and late June 1997. Additional focused surveys were conducted during that same period in 1998. The purpose of the focused surveys was to determine the presence or absence of special status species and protected habitats, and to identify potential negative impacts to those resources that could result from development and operation for the Coastal Rail Trail. All surveys were conducted on foot by MBA biologist Claude Edwards and/or Dr. Thomas Leslie. Specific sites surveyed are identified in the technical appendix. A list of species found in the course of the general and focused surveys are contained in the Biological Technical Report prepared by Michael Brandman Associates on February 5,1999. Focused surveys were conducted at the following locations and results of those surveys are noted below: 1. South side of the San Luis Rey River mouth, No impacts to special status plant or animal species are expected from development or operation of the proposed trail. 2. Buccaneer Beach Park No impacts to special status plant or animal species or habitats are expected. Indirect impacts to 29 Loma Alta Creek could occur from increased human activity along the trail and subsequent entry into the habitats along the creek. The project would be designed to implement PSR.design elements regarding signing, fencing, etc., which would minimize potential disturbances. The trail would be designed to avoid an intermittent tributary creek north of Loma Alta Creek that contains salt marsh vegetation. 3. Buena Vista Lagoon No direct impacts to special status plant or animal species or their habitats are expected. Development of the trail is not anticipated to pose a threat to or result in negative impacts to natural habitats or sensitive biological resources. The trail has been modified and realigned to avoid any potential impact to biological resources. Adverse impacts to those few areas identified as sensitive habitats have been avoided by adjusting the trail or relocating the trail alignment to avoid the area entirely. In those areas, the pathway utilizes the existing roadways for bicyclists and sidewalks for pedestrians. Mitigation Measures: None VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Not Pertinent within the Project Study Area. Mitigation Measures: None IX. PUBLIC SAFETY/HAZARDS Less than Significant Potential hazards include the proximity of the train traveling at speeds up to 90 mph to pathway users. Currently, pedestrians and bicyclists informally and illegally use the rail corridor and cross the tracks at any location. Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail would result in a channeled effect of the users. The pathway would be located at the outermost edge of the right of way and would be separated from the rail by a fence or landscaped barrier. At-grade crossings proposed as part of this project would be designed so that users would be required to stop prior to crossing the railroad. This may be accommodated through the use of design methods that include reverse angle crossing, stop signs, flashing lights, and/or crossing gates. As noted in other surveys in the PSR, designated paved pathways reduce the numbers of users that randomly cross the tracks or that walk directly on the tracks. It is expected that the proposed pathway by restricting random crossings with the use of a landscape barrier or fence would reduce the potential for train/pedestrian collisions. In other cities, such as the Mission Trail in the City of San Fernando, a 10' wide trail 20' from the edge of the rail was constructed and 5' high chainlink fencing was installed to separate the users from the tracks. Random crossings of the tracks are no longer a problem and illegal crossings are nonexistent. Passenger MetroLink trains providing transit service to Los Angeles and Orange County and Amtrak trains are a common occurrence with trains travelling 70mph. Mitigation Measures: 30 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer with the purpose of designing the trail to limit potential public safety impacts to levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Coastal Rail Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 3. Each City, in the final design process, shall develop and implement a comprehensive maintenance program to ensure the pathway is well maintained to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. X. NOISE No Impact A noise survey was conducted by Michael Brandman Associates to assess the potential impacts of railway noise on the pathway user and to determine potential noise associated with at-grade crossings, where the train must by state law use their hom to warn of an oncoming train. Baseline noise levels were derived from passing trains and nearby on-road traffic. Noise measurements were conducted at eight (S)-represented sites, a distance of 35 to 250 feet from the track along the corridor in November 1997. Additional measurements were conducted for existing at-grade crossings with horns and for locations where two at-grade crossings are proposed. Noise levels ranged from 66-70 dB CNEL. At two locations with extended setback and/or grade separation, the noise level was below 65 dB CNEL. Acceptability of noise to users was shown to be 70-75 dB CNEL in those jurisdictions where standards exist. A report "Noise Impact Analysis, Coastal Rail Trail Project, Oceanside to San Diego," March 23,1998 prepared by Michael Brandman Associates provides further discussion of these standards Baseline measurements at all sites were generally within acceptable noise guidelines. Unless train activity was to change significantly, the pathway would be considered a compatible use in terms of noise exposure. CNEL may not be an ideal indicator of noise exposure from loud single events such as trains. Areas around train tracks have few seconds of very loud noise and extended periods of only ambient noise. People are not annoyed by the average, but rather the peaks. Except for grade- separated sites, peak events from a single loud train pass-by reached 88 dB or more. Near at- grade crossings such as Cannon Road, the combination of train pass-by plus the signal crossing horn produced noise peaks of 96dB at 50 feet from the source. There was some slight variation between Amtrak and Coaster trains. Average exposures are generally consistent with noise standards for active recreational use. Measurement of background noise levels at numerous trail locations showed a generally 31 acceptable noise exposure of 70 dB CNEL or less. A clearly perceptible degradation of noise conditions would require a +3 dB increase. While service on the tracks is presumed to increase somewhat in the future, a doubling of the number of trains is unlikely. Any potentially significant impacts would thus derive mainly from the project on the environment, and not from ambient conditions on the project. Operation of non-motorized uses of the pathway will result in minimal noise. The single source of noise impact directly resulting from the project would occur with the implementation of new at-grade pedestrian crossings, creating additional use of horns as trains approach the crossing. Audibility of train horns at proposed at-grade crossings is considered an adverse impact because of the intrusive character of the horn noise. The duration of horn use is somewhat discretionary with train engineers. The project may result in a decrease in the use of horns since the users would be channeled to areas where crossings would be expected rather than random crossings. An impact is significant if it creates a violation of an adopted noise standard, or if it measurably worsens an existing excessive noise condition. An impact could also be significant if it increases a noise condition or increases a nuisance independent of any numerical threshold. The proposed project is not expected to increase existing noise levels and would not exceed quantitative significance criteria. Mitigation Measures: None XL PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact The proposed project would require additional public services for regular and periodic maintenance, on-going monitoring for adherence to rules, surveillance and emergency response. These public services are typical services provided for managing any park or road facility and are not expected to extend beyond normal maintenance and patrolling. Currently, NCTD patrols the rail right-of-way and conducts routine maintenance and weed control. Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail would modify the current maintenance program. An agreement between each City would be completed during the design phase to develop a maintenance program. As with other park operations, funds are allocated through General Funds, user fees, and assessments. Other funding programs may be considered that may include donations, adopt a trail program, fundraisers or grants. Mitigation Measures: None XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES Not pertinent to the Project Study Area. XIII. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Impact The pathway parallels the railroad alignment for most of the corridor and the scenic State Route 101 from Oceanside to Del Mar. Views directly to the ocean from the railroad tracks are in the area from just north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to immediately south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, south of Cannon Road, and in the area of Avenida Encinas in Carlsbad. Areas within the Cardiff- 32 by-the-Sea community, in the City of Encinitas have views to the ocean. The bluffs along the Del Mar overlook the coastline, although only a natural footpath will be located along the Del Mar bluffs. In the urban environment, the pathway will be located along commercial, residential, industrial uses and the railroad tracks. In areas where the right-of-way width between the pathway and the railroad is limited or where crossing of the railroad is known to occur barriers would be installed to channel users to stay on the trail. Barriers may include landscaping and/or fencing. An open weave type fencing, approximately 4-5" high will minimize any potential view obstruction. Generally, the adjacent uses are at a higher elevation than the trail and the impact to the residences is minimal. The proposed project would provide a formalized Class I pathway (see Appendix D) within the railroad right-of-way where currently natural terrain or ad-hoc dirt trails exist for much of the corridor. The proposed project proposes a barrier (fence and/or vegetation) in areas in which the pathway would be closer than 25 feet from the edge of the railway. The fence would be designed to retain the aesthetic quality of the beach area through the use of landscaping or a natural, open fencing material. Visual impacts associated with the construction of the pathway would be short-term in nature. Due to the phasing of the project, there would only be short sections, which would be disturbed at any given time. The disturbance would primarily result in the excavation of the pathway, which would involve scraping the soil to an approximate 20' width by 12" depth, installation of bridges, and various utility upgrades and relocations. Construction related impacts, such as those associated with dust generation, equipment emissions and construction noise would be mitigated substantially by standard construction practices. There are several retaining walls proposed to accommodate the trail as noted below: (See page 46 of Appendix C for detail). 1. A retaining wall would be constructed for approximately 60' in length with varying heights of 2' - 8" above top of footing under the south side of the railroad bridge east of Buccaneer Beach Park. There would be no views obstructed by the construction of this wall. 2. A retaining wall would be necessary to support the slope from the northerly bridge abutment at Carlsbad Boulevard south of the Buena Vista Lagoon. The length would extend southerly approximately 200' with varying heights of 4'-8'. There would be no view obstructions as the wall would be located under the existing railroad bridge. 3. A retaining wall would need to be constructed south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and north of Cannon Road. The retaining wall would extend approximately 600' in length with varying heights of 2" to 10'. The wall would not obstruct any views to the ocean, as it would be located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Sewer Pump Station, east of the railroad tracks. 4. A retaining wall would extend approximately 2,500' in length with varying heights from 4'-5' would be constructed south of Santa Fe Drive in the City of Encinitas. The wall would not obstruct any views to the ocean, as it would be located below the street grade. The aesthetic treatment of the walls would be determined during final design and would consist of decorative materials and where appropriate consideration of the use of public art. 33 There are three bridges identified within the project area as follows: (See pages 46, 47 of Appendix C). 1. An approximate 50' long bridge structure will be constructed over the storm drain inlet headwall on the east side of the railroad tracks between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad (page 7, Appendix C) and would be constructed of a single span structure with truss supports along both sides forming the main support and the railings. The bridge will not project above the roadway and will not constrict views to the ocean. 2. The second bridge would be located across the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (page 6 of Appendix B). The bridge would span approximately 220 feet and would be designed to accommodate the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer main upgrade. The sewer main is anticipated to be about 48" to 54" in diameter. The Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer main upgrade is not a part of the Coastal Rail Trail and will be processed as a separate project by the City of Carlsbad. Three bridge types are considered in this location which would not place supporting columns or falsework in the channel. The bridge types considered are a concrete arch bridge, a steel truss bridge, or a suspension bridge. The bridge would not protrude noticeably above the present bridge line and would not impact views of the surrounding residential properties since the residences are located above the proposed bridge and to the east of Interstate 5. A proposed detail of a potential bridge is shown on page 47 of Appendix C. 3. The third bridge is proposed over a natural drainage channel northerly of Chesterfield Street in Encinitas. The bridge would parallel an existing pedestrian bridge and would be approximately 60" long. The proposed structure would accommodate bicycles and additional non-motorized traffic and would be of asphalt surface with a natural wood bridge similar to the type already in place. The bridge would not project above any existing residences and would not obstruct views to the ocean (detail shown on page 46 of Appendix C). Park-like improvements within the right-of-way as desired by the local agency (upon approval of the transit district) would result in long-term benefits to the community. The linear park concept would enhance the overall visual setting of the project area within the surrounding community; enhance the enjoyment to users and train passengers; enhance the aesthetic character of the right- of-way; and take advantage of an opportunity to create and enhance community character. Park- like improvements may include enhanced paving, benches, public art, lighting, landscaping and irrigation, decorative fencing, drinking fountains, bike racks, and/or air pumps. The linear corridor of the trail offers an opportunity for public art. Developed with public participation, public art will increase public awareness to cultural diversity of the community. The project would require removal of vegetation and involve cut and fill slopes in addition to grading. This is considered a less than significant impact as all vegetation would be replaced with landscaping in accordance with the guidelines setforth in the PSR as each City would prepare a landscape plan based on the mitigation measures. The affect of retaining walls would be minimized through the use of aesthetic treatments, wall color, building materials and public art. Through the final design process, each City will develop design criteria for wall treatments. 34 Mitigation Measures: 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers necessary to ensure public safety. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Impact An Archaeological Records Search was conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) which included a review of the archeological data base that addresses all known prehistoric and historic archaeological sites located within the rail right-of-way. The intent of the research was to identify all known locations of archaeological and historical interest that may be adversely impacted by the implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail. MBA conducted a preliminary visual inspection of the entire trail alignment to search for any obvious pre-historic and/or historic cultural resources within the proposed trail alignment as indicated on Transtech Engineers 1:2000 (metric) Coastal Rail Trail Alignment Concept Plan dated May 28, 1997. None were observed. An archaeological assessment was conducted for the entire corridor in the spring of 1998. The results of the record survey completed on March 2, 1998 indicated that there was one archaeological site lying within the project alignment within the Carlsbad segment. The single prehistoric site identified within the City of Carlsbad, SD1-6751 A, B and C (W-5508) was evaluated and determined to be insignificant (Pigniolo and Crawford 1993.5-5). Although no further excavation at the site is warranted, it is recommended that construction monitoring by a qualified archeologist during earthmoving operations connected with the proposed project be conducted. No further work in conjunction with cultural resources is recommended at the remaining site. Mitigation Measures: 1. For the area surrounding SD1-6751, the City of Carlsbad shall monitor any grubbing and/or earthmoving activities in conjunction with construction of the Coastal Trail by a qualified archaeologist. If buried archaeological material is encountered during the course of construction, the archaeologist should have the authority to temporarily halt 35 the earthmoving activities until such time that the significance of the find(s) can be determined and resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. XV. RECREATIONAL Less Than Significant Impact Currently, people walking, bicycling, or roller blading along the San Diego County coast between San Diego and Oceanside have a choice of using Class II bicycle lanes along Highway 101, (a.k.a. Coast Highway, Carlsbad Boulevard, Coast Highway 101, Camino Del Mar, and Pacific Coast Highway) or Class n bicycle routes along local streets, where available. There are no paved Class I bicycle paths (See Appendix D for CalTrans Design Standards for Class I bicycle paths) along the coastal corridor except a 4' wide pathway in Encinitas, within the railroad right of way. Bicycle volumes are substantial along this route due to: (a) the access to the coastline, beaches, parks, shopping areas, and other destinations in this area which are considered major attractions, (b) view of this scenic coast, and (c) access to multi-modal connections such as transit and bus stations. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, "maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. "(Section 30210) The proposed project would not preclude the public's access to the beach. Beach access will be enhanced by the accessibility to the coast and by the additional at-grade crossings to provide for beach accessibility. Implementation of the proposed project would enhance recreational opportunities by providing a paved bicycle and pedestrian facility for the general public and for disabled persons. (Section 30213) Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. (Section 30221) Bicyclists and pedestrians currently must share roadways along the coast carrying between 15,000 and 58,000 vehicles per day. The accident statistics indicate a concentration of bicycle and pedestrian-related accidents along the coastal roadways due to the large number of cyclists along this coastal corridor. Pedestrians frequently walk within the railroad right-of-way often walking directly on the tracks due to lack of facilities. The proposed project would provide a hard surface parallel route that would ultimately result in an increase of recreational activities for nonmotorized uses. Mitigation Measures: None 36 I. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EACH RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Table 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Aesthetics/ Visual 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers to level of significance.. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. 3. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. Planning Director or designee Prior to construction Public Safety/ Hazards 4. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 5. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 6. Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. Planning Director or designee Prior to Construction Cultural Resources 7. For the area surrounding SD1-6751, the City of Carlsbad, shall monitor any grubbing and/or earthmoving activities in conjunction with construction of the trail by a qualified archeologist. If buried archaeological material is encountered during the course of trail construction, the archaeologist should have the authority to temporarily halt the earthmoving activities until such time that the significance of the find(s) can be determined. Qualified archeologists and City of Carlsbad Planning Director or designee. During clearing and/or grading 37 City of Oceanside Summary of Mitigation Measures Coastal Rail Trail The following mitigation measures are the responsibility of the applicant representing the proposed project. Aesthetics/Visual 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers to level of insignificance. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. Public Safety/Hazards 3. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 4. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 5. Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. 38 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT The items under the applicant's responsibility in Attachment "A", Mitigation Measures constitute an enforceable commitment pursuant to Section 1507(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Signature 'Date' lannina/Director Signature / Date 39 City of Carlsbad Summary of Mitigation Measures Coastal Rail Trail The following mitigation measures are the responsibility of the applicant representing the proposed project. Aesthetics/Visual 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers to level of insignificance. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. Public Safety/Hazards 3. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 4. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Coastal Rail Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 5. Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. Cultural Resources 6. For the area surrounding SD1-6751, the City of Carlsbad shall monitor any grubbing and/or earthmoving activities in conjunction with construction of the trail by a qualified 40 archeologist If buried archaeological material is encountered during the course of trail construction, the archaeologist should have the authority to temporarily halt the earthmoving activities until such time that the significance of the find(s) can be determined and resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT The items under the applicant's responsibility in Attachment "A", Mitigation Measures constitute an enforceable commitment pursuant to Section 1507(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. _ Project Planner Signature J Planning Director^--' Signature Date 41 City of Encinitas Summary of Mitigation Measures Coastal Rail Trail The following mitigation measures are the responsibility of the applicant representing the proposed project. Aesthetics/Visual 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers to level of insignificance. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. Public Safety/Hazards 3. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 4. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Coastal Rail Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 5. Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT The items under the applicant's responsibility in Attachment "A", Mitigation Measures constitute an enforceable commitment pursuant to Section 1507(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. k/0Il00 Project Planner '/ Signature Date ^Planning Director ' Signature ' Date ~\ 43 City of Solana Beach Summary of Mitigation Measures Coastal Rail Trail The following mitigation measures are the responsibility of the applicant representing the proposed project. Aesthetics/Visual 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers to level of insignificance. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. Public Safety/Hazards 3. Each City, in the final design process, shaU acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Coastal Rail Trail. 4. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 5. Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. 44 _J ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT The items under the applicant's responsibility in Attachment "A", Mitigation Measures constitute an enforceable commitment pursuant to Section 1507(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Project Planner Signature Date 7 * Planning Director r^ Signatfjpe^Date 45 City of Del Mar Summary of Mitigation Measures Coastal Rail Trail The following mitigation measures are the responsibility of the applicant representing the proposed project. Aesthetics/Visual 1. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan which addresses landscape treatment for those areas where a barrier or fence is identified, subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to adequately landscape all fences and safety barriers consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report to reduce the visual impacts of the barriers to level of insignificance. 2. Each City, in the final design process, shall adequately address visual treatment of all „ retaining walls subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director. The retaining walls shall be in substantial conformance with the retaining wall heights and dimensions noted in this project description and environmental review. Each City shall address, at a minimum, wall color, materials, style, associated landscaping consistent with the Coastal Rail Trail Project Study Report, and any public art opportunities. Public Safety/Hazards 3. Each City, in the final design process, shall acquire all necessary approvals from the PUC and/or NCTD, as necessary, to allow for the access, encroachment and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer to maintain potential public safety impacts at levels of insignificance. This effort shall also address unsignalized street crossings within each individual city to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail. 4. Each City, in the final design process, shall process a Sign Program, to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director, to provide clear signage for Coastal Rail Trail users and to reduce potential public safety impacts. 5. Each City, in the final design process, shall provide adequate maintenance provisions subject to the satisfaction of the individual City's Planning Director and City Engineer. 46 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENT The items under the applicant's responsibility in Attachment "A", Mitigation Measures constitute an enforceable commitment pursuant to Section 1507(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Signature ' /Date Signature /Date 47 IV. APPENDICES 48 APPENDIX A Distribution List for Notice of Determination and Reviewing Locations 49 Distribution List for Notice of Determination State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Dept. of Fish & Game Environmental Services 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service U. S. Dept. of the Interior Division of River Basins 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, Ca 92008 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 9150 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, CA 92123 California Native Plant Society Natural History Museum P.O. box 1390 San Diego, CA 92112 San Diego County Clerk 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 260 San Diego, CA 92101 North County Transit District Attention: Leslie Blanda 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054-2825 SANDAG First Interstate Plaza 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Mr. Jim Royle EIR Review Committee San Diego Archaeological Society P.O. Box A, 81106 San Diego, CA 92138 CALTRANS-District 11 Attn: William Figge, Chief Public Transportation Branch P. O Box 85406 San Diego, CA 92186-5406 CALTRANs-District 11 Attn: Richalene Kelsay Environmental Branch P. O. Box 85406 San Diego, CA 92186-5406 CALTRANS-District 11 Attn: Christine Carrington Local Assistance Program P.O. 60x85406 San Diego, CA 92186-5406 County of San Diego Environmental Review Coordinator Dept. of Planning & Land Use 5201 Ruffin Road San Diego, 92123-1666 Palomar Audubon Society Attention: Richard Barber 15569 Walton Heath Row San Diego, CA 92128 City of San Diego Environmental Analysis Section 1222 First Avenue, MS 501 San Diego Ca 92101 Sierra Club Attn: Chris Ranson 3820 Ray Street San Diego, Ca 92104 50 Army Corps of Engineers State of California Chief Planning Division, LA..District Fish & Game Dept. P. O. Box 2711 4949 Viewridge Avenue Los Angeles, A 90053-2325 San Diego, CA 92123 Audubon Society Palomar Chapter P.O. Box2483 Escondido, CA 92033 SDG&E Supervisor, Land Planning P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, CA 92112-4150 Pacific Bell Right of Way Dept. Attn; Danny Buchanan 4220 Arizona Street, Room 100 San Diego, CA 92104 Jim Roache, Sheriff San Diego County Sheriffs Office 222 West "C" Street San Diego, Ca 92101 North County Times News Desk 207 E. Pennsylvania Avenue Escondido, Ca 92025 State of California Public Utilities Commission 107 S Broadway Los Angeles, CA Coastal Commission San Diego Coast District Office 3111 Camino del Rio North San Diego, CA 92121 Regional Water Quality Control Bd. 9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard Suite A San Diego, CA 92124 51 Reviewing Locations Carlsbad City Library 1775 Dove Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 City of Oceanside Library 330 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 San Diego County Branch Library 981 Lomas Santa Fe Drive Solana Beach, CA 92075 San Diego County Branch Library 540 Cornish Encinitas, CA City of Del Mar Planning Dept. 1700 Coast Blvd. Del Mar, CA City of San Diego Public Library Carmel Valley 3919 Townsgate Drive San Diego, CA City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 City of Encinitas Planning Department 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA City of Oceanside Planning Department 300 N. coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 City of Solana Beach Planning Dept. 635 S. Highway 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Carlsbad City Library 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 San Diego County Branch Library 17040 Avenida Acacias Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92075 San Diego County Branch Library 2027 San Elijo Avenue Encinitas, CA City of Del Mar Library 1309 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 52 APPENDIX B Detailed Alignment Descriptions Detailed Alignment Descriptions Segment 1: San Luis Rev Bicycle Trail, Oceanside to Buena Vista Lagoon Southbound: The Coastal Rail Trail begins at the northern end of the City of Oceanside, at the San Luis Rey River Bicycle Path (a separate City of Oceanside project) on the eastern side of the tracks. The Class I pathway would proceed south along the eastern side of the right-of-way where there is sufficient width except near Surfrider Way and between Pier View Way and Civic Center Drive where two public parking lots have been constructed. The trail would divert around two parking lots utilizing adjacent streets. Standardized Coastal Rail Trail signs would be erected to identify the Class HI bicycle route along these streets. To avoid diverting in and out of the rail right-of-way, the trail would head easterly on Neptune Way to Cleveland Street. At Cleveland Street, the trail would cross over Surfrider Way, Sportfisher Way, Civic Center Drive, Pier View Way, Mission Avenue, and Seagaze Way. At Seagaze Way, the trail would go easterly to Tremont Street where it would proceed south past the Oceanside Transit Center. The trail would proceed past the transit station to Missouri Avenue. At Missouri Avenue, the trail would proceed westerly accessing the eastern side of the railway right-of-way. The Coastal Rail Trail project would proceed southerly within the railroad right-of-way along the east side of the tracks to Oceanside Blvd. The trail would proceed as a Class n bikeway west two blocks to Pacific Street where it would utilize a Class HI bicycle route to Buccaneer Beach Park. At Buccaneer Beach Park, bicyclists would connect to an existing pedestrian path, which traverses along the north side of the Park and proceed easterly under the railway trestle. An approximate 60' long retaining wall would be constructed under the railroad trestle. The height of the wall would vary from 2' to 8' above top of footing. Approximately 280 s.f. of retaining wall would be constructed in this location to accommodate the width of the bicycle path. The pedestrian path would be widened to a 12' wide multi-use Class I trail and would connect to the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way. The trail would then proceed south along the right-of- way to Vista Way, just north of the Buena Vista Lagoon, where it would utilize Class III route to Coast Highway Class II bicycle lanes. Northbound: Bicyclists would proceed north across the Buena Vista Lagoon on Class n bicycle lanes to Vista Way. At Vista Way, bicyclists would proceed easterly on a Class in bicycle route on Vista Way to the railroad right-of-way. At the railroad right-of-way the bicyclists would utilize a Class I bicycle path north to the Buccaneer Beach Park. At the east side to the park, bicyclists would proceed under the railroad trestle through the park to Pacific Street. A retaining wall would be constructed under the railroad trestle as noted above (See page 46 of Appendix B). The trail would proceed to Pacific Street where bicyclists would utilize Class HI bicycle route to Oceanside Boulevard. The Coastal Rail Trail would proceed easterly on Oceanside Boulevard and access the railroad right-of-way on the east side of the tracks. The Coastal Rail Trail project would proceed southerly within the railroad right-of-way along the east side of the tracks to Missouri Street. At Missouri Street, the bicyclists would head easterly on a Class HI bicycle 54 route to Tremont Street. From Tremont Street, bicyclists would head north on a Class HI bicycle route past the Oceanside Transit Center and proceed west at Seagaze Way to Cleveland Street. At Cleveland Street, the trail would head north, passing Mission Avenue, Pier View Way, Civic Center Drive, Sportfisher Way, Surfiider Way and would access the railroad right-of-way at Neptune Way. There the trail would utilize the railroad right-of-way as a Class I bicycle path and head north to the San Luis Rey River bicycle Path. Segment 2; Buena Vista Lagoon to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Carlsbad Southbound: Southbound users would proceed south along Coast Highway on Class n bicycle lanes. The trail would divert from Class II bikes lanes through city-owned property at the Home Plant Lift Station. The trail would follow along the southern boundary of the lift station property and would access the eastern side of the right-of-way. A retaining wall would be needed to support the slope from the northerly bridge abutment. The retaining wall would be approximately 200' in length with height varying from 4' - 8' above top of footing. (See page 46 of Appendix B.) The area of the wall would be approximately 1,200 s.f. The trail would follow the railroad right-of-way to the Carlsbad Village Transit Station parking lot. There the trail would proceed along the northern edge of the parking lot to State Street. The trail would utilize a Class HI bicycle route along State Street to Oak Street where the trail would access the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way. A Class I bicycle path would be constructed within the eastern edge of the right-of-way proceeding south. At Chestnut Avenue, an at-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing would be constructed in order to allow bicycle/pedestrian access to Chestnut Avenue on the west side of the tracks. The Class I bicycle path would continue along the eastern edge of the right-of-way to the north side of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Northbound: Northbound users would continue north from the Agua Hedionda lagoon along the eastern edge of the right-of-way on a Class I bicycle path. At Chestnut Avenue, an at-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing would be constructed to allow users to cross the tracks to Carlsbad Boulevard. Continuing northbound, users would use the Class I bicycle path to Oak Street. At Oak Street, the trail would head easterly to State Street and then northerly on a Class HI bicycle route, passed the transit station and continuing to Carlsbad Boulevard/Coast Highway on the Class n bicycle lanes across the Buena Vista Lagoon to the City of Oceanside. Segment 3; Agua Hedionda Lagoon to Batiouitos Lagoon Southbound: Southbound users would cross the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on a bridge spanning the channel for approximately 220' in length (See page 47 of Appendix B). The bridge design would accommodate the future 48" to 54" Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer Main. The bridge design 55 would not place supporting columns or falsework in the channel. The Class I bicycle path would continue south along the Agua Hedionda Sewer Pump Station. A retaining wall would be necessary for approximately 600' in length with varying heights up to 10'. The trail continues as a Class I bicycle path along the easterly side of the right-of-way. A short bridge or structure, approximately 50' in length, would be constructed over the storm drain inlet between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. The trail would proceed south to the Poinsettia Transit Station and connect to the Class n bicycle lanes on Avenida Encinas. The trail would continue on Avenida Encinas southerly to the Carlsbad Boulevard/Avenida Encinas intersection. The intersection would require improvements to include sidewalks and loop detectors. At Carlsbad Boulevard, the trail would proceed south on Class n bicycle lanes across the Batiquitos Lagoon, while providing access to the Carlsbad State Beach. Northbound: Northbound users would proceed north on Class n bicycle lanes on Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas. At Avenida Encinas, bicyclists would proceed east and then continue north on Class n bicycle lanes. Just past the Poinsettia Transit Station, a flashing bicycle light would alert bicyclists and motorists that bicyclist may cross Avenida Encinas to access the Class I pathway. Bicyclists would access the railroad right-of-way just past the transit station and head north. As noted above, retaining walls would be constructed across a storm drain inlet between Palomar Airport Road and Cannon Road and along the Agua Hedionda Sewer Pump Station (See page 47 of Appendix B.) The Class I bicycle path would continue north to the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon bicycle/pedestrian bridge. Segment 4; Batiquitos Lagoon to the Encinitas Transit Station. Encinitas Southbound: Bicyclists would proceed south on Class n bicycle lanes along North Coast Highway 101 to the City of Encinitas. At the signalized La Costa Avenue intersection and North Coast Highway 101, users would enter the western edge of the railroad right-of-way. This intersection will be modified by the City of Encinitas to accommodate the Coastal Rail Trail and will include accommodations for a Class I bicycle path along the west side of the rail road right-of-way. c The trail would proceed south along the western side of the right-of-way towards Encinitas Boulevard replacing an existing 4' wide bike path currently located within the right-of-way. At Marcheta Street/Orpheus Avenue, a bicycle/pedestrian at-grade crossing would be constructed to the east side of the right-of-way and then would proceed south to Encinitas Boulevard, on a Class I bicycle path along the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way. The trail would cross Encinitas Boulevard at the intersection of Encinitas Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue and continue past the Encinitas Transit Station to E Street as a Class HI bicycle facility along Vulcan Avenue. Northbound: Bicyclists would proceed north from the intersection of Vulcan Avenue and Encinitas Boulevard to the railroad right-of-way, crossing Vulcan Avenue. On a Class I bicycle path along the eastern edge of the right-of-way, bicyclists would continue north to Orpheus Avenue. At 56 Marcheta Street/Orpheus Avenue, bicyclists would cross over the railroad on an at-grade bicycle/pedestrian crossing to the western edge of the right-of-way. Continuing on a Class I bicycle path, the trail would proceed north toward La Costa Avenue. At La Costa Avenue, northbound users would use the Class n bicycle lanes on North Coast Highway 101/Carlsbad Boulevard and continue north across the Batiquitos Lagoon. Segment 5; Encinitas Transit Station to San Elijo Lagoon Southbound: Bicyclists would divert to the eastside of the railroad right-of-way at E Street and proceed south to Chesterfield Drive. The terrain within the right-of-way varies and short retaining walls may be necessary to develop the trail within this section. The trail would not impact the existing unimproved parking along San Elijo Avenue. At Chesterfield Drive, the trail crosses the tracks at the intersection and joins the existing Class n bike lanes on South Coast Highway 101 and proceeds south across the San Elijo Lagoon on South Coast Highway 101. Just north of Chesterfield Drive, a bridge (adjacent to the existing pedestrian bridge) would be constructed to accommodate bicycles and additional non-motorized traffic. This bridge would be of similar construction as the existing 5' wide pedestrian bridge and of similar length, approximately 60' (see page 47 of Appendix B). At Chesterfield the bicyclists would cross over the existing at grade roadway crossing on Class n bicycle lanes to the South Coast Highway 101. At South Coast Highway 101, bicyclists would continue south over the San Elijo Lagoon to the City of Solana Beach. Northbound: Northbound users would cross over the San Elijo Lagoon on existing Class n bicycle lanes and proceed east at Chesterfield Drive in the City of Encinitas. At Chesterfield Drive, bicyclists would be directed across the street to the Class I bicycle path along the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way. Just north of Chesterfield Drive, a 60' long bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing pedestrian bridge, as noted above. The path would continue north along the eastern edge of the right-of-way, paralleling San Elijo Avenue/ Vulcan Avenue and continuing to E Street. At E Street, bicyclists would cross at the signal and continue north along Vulcan Avenue as a Class HI bicycle facility, passing the Encinitas Transit Station. At the north side of Encinitas Boulevard, bicyclists would cross the roadway and enter the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way. Segment 6 - San Eliio Lagoon to Via de la Valle, Del Mar Southbound: Bicyclists would proceed south on Class JJ bicycle lanes along Highway 101 to the City of Solana Beach. At Cliff Street, southbound cyclists would cross the street at an existing signalized intersection and access the western edge of the railroad right-of-way and proceed south. The Class I bicycle path would proceed the entire distance through the City of Solana Beach, crossing Lomas Santa Fe Road and continuing to Via de la Valle in the City of Del Mar. Environmental impacts of Segment 6 were analyzed in the FEJJR. for the Lomas Santa Fe Drive 57 Grade Separation Project (lead agency was NCTD). Northbound: Trail users would utilize the Class I bicycle path along the western edge of the railroad right-of- way though the City of Solana Beach, crossing Lomas Santa Fe Drive and continue to the northern edge of the City of Solana Beach. At the northern edge of the San Elijo Lagoon, the Class I bicycle path ends and northbound cyclists would utilize the Class n bicycle lanes along Highway 101 to the City of Encinitas. Segment 7: Via de la Valie to Carmel Valley Road This segment departs from the railway right-of-way and biyclists would utilize existing Class II bicycle lanes and pedestrians would utilize existing sidewalks along roadways. Southbound: Bicyclists would use the existing Class II bicycle lanes at Via de la Valle and South Highway 101 and continue through the City of Del Mar on Camino Del Mar. Northbound: Bicyclists would enter the City of Del Mar on existing Class n bicycle lanes at Via de la Valle and Carmel Valley Road. Proceeding north, bicyclists would continue to Via de la Valle and South Highway 101 and access the Class I bicycle path at the City of Solana Beach. 58 Cardiff by the Sea JO San Marcos I LindaMission Beach | vista Point Loma M Motto/Scale SEGMENTS SAN LUIS REY TRAIL TO BUENA VISTA LAGOON COASTAL RAIL Tl *^B Carlsbad Encinitas Gatdlff by the Sea Solana Beach Dei Mar Rancho Santa Fe •La Jolia Linda vista Old Town PoJnttipma Not to Scale < ?-F 3 San Dieg<*: SEGMENT #2 VISTA IA<SO0M TO CANNON ROAD COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ::::f *^M%&3ft%m%!& San Marcos Carlsbad Encinitas Cardiff by the Sea Solatia Beach Del'Mar •gj> Rancho —' Santa Fe Sorrento Valley La. Jotla .Mission Beaeh Point Lorna Clairemont i• Linda vista Old Town If Not,toS<sal6|.San Diego SEGMENT #3 CANNON ROAD TO BATIQUITOS LAGOON COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Carlsbad Eneinitas O Cardiff by: the Sea ^ 'ft Solana Beach Del Mar Sbrfeftto Valley San Marcos La Jbila LindaMission Beach: | Vista Old Town Point Loma n Motto Scale San Diegib\ FIGURE 5.04-1 SEGMENT #4 BATIQUITOS LAGOON TO ENCINITAS COASTER STATION COASTAL RAIL TRAIL San Marcos Cardiff by the Sea ^ i Solatia Beach Del Mar Rancho Santa Fe Sorrento Valley .La Jolla: :Clairemont \\v LindaMission Beach; Vista Old Town Point-lioma N Motto Seals San Diego FIGURE 5.05-1 SEGMENT #5 ENCINITAS COASTER STATION SAN ELIJO LAGOON COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Encinitas Cardiff-;bythe Sea Solatia Beacfi i Del Mar Sorrento Valley San Marcos Rancho Santa Fe La Jotla- LindaMission'Seaen I vista Old Town Point Loma Not to Scale San Diegjb' FIGURE 5.06-1 SEGMENT #6 SOLANA BEACH COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ' "*%&,; San Marcos Eneinitas Cardiff'by the Sea Solana Beach 0 Del Mat Rancho Santa Fe Sorrento Valley £l La Joife Clairemont'A Linda Mission Beach; fjl. Vista Old Town Point Lama N. Not.tO: Scale San Diego;. FIGURE 5.07-1 SEGMENT #7 CITY OF DEL MAR APPENDIX C Project Alignment Maps (Drwg. No. 376-9) APPENDIX D CalTrans Classifications for Bikeways HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-1 July 1,1995 CHAPTER 1000 BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN Topic 1001 - General Information Index 1001.1 - Definitions "Bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel. (1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. (2) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. (3) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. 1001.2 Streets and Highways Code References - Chapter 8 - Nonmotorized Transportation (a) Section 887 -- Definition of nonmotorized facility. (b) Section 887.6 ~ Agreements with local agencies to construct and maintain nonmotorized facilities. (c) Section 887.8 - Payment for construction and maintenance of nonmotorized facilities approximately paralleling state highways. (d) Section 888 - Severance of existing major nonmotorized route by freeway construction. (e) Section 888.2 — Incorporation of non- motorized facilities in the design of freeways. (f) Section 888.4 - Requires Caltrans to budget not less than $360,000 annually for nonmotorized facilities used in conjunction with the state highway system. (g) Section 890.4 - Class I, II, and HI bike-way definitions. (h) Section 890.6 - 890.8 -- Caltrans and local agencies to develop design criteria and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices for bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. (i) Section 891 — Local agencies must comply with design criteria and uniform symbols. (j) Section 892 - Use of abandoned right- of-way as a nonmotorized facility. 1001.3 Vehicle Code References - Bicycle Operation (a) Section 21200 ~ Bicyclist's rights and responsibilities for traveling on highways. (b) Section 21202 -- Bicyclist's position on roadways when traveling slower than the normal traffic speed. (c) Section 21206 — Allows local agencies to regulate operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle facilities. (d) Section 21207 — Allows local agencies to establish bike lanes on non-state highways. (e) Section 21207.5 - Prohibits motorized bicycles on bike paths or bike lanes. (f) Section 21208 - Specifies permitted movements by bicyclists from bike lanes. (g) Section 21209 ~ Specifies permitted movements by motorists in bike lanes. (h) Section 21209 ~ Prohibits bicycle parking on sidewalks unless pedestrians have an adequate path. (i) Section 21210 — Prohibits impeding or obstruction of bicyclists on bike paths. (j) Section 21212 — Requires a bicyclist under 18 years of age to wear an approved helmet. (k) Section 21717 — Requires a motorist to drive in a bike lane prior to making a turn. (1) Section 21960 -- Use of freeway shoulders by bicyclists. 1000-2 July 1, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Topic 1002 - General Planning Criteria 1002.1 Introduction Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved maintenance and by upgrading existing roads used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated. This effort requires increased attention to the right- hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are expected to ride. On new construction, and major reconstruction projects, adequate width should be provided to permit shared use by motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing projects, the entire paved shoulder and traveled way shall be resurfaced. When adding lanes or turn pockets, a mini- mum 1.2 m shoulder shall be provided (see Topic 405 and Table 302.1). When feasible, a wider shoulder should be considered. When placing a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room outside the stripe should be provided for bicyclists. When considering the restriping of roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on bicycle travel should be assessed. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic through construction zones should be addressed in the project development process. These efforts, to preserve or improve an area for bicyclists to ride, can benefit motorists as well as bicyclists. 1002.2 The Role of Bikeways Bikeways are one element of an effort to improve bicycling safety and convenience - either to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on shared roadways, or to complement the road system to meet needs not adequately met by roads. Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors can be effective in providing new recreational opportunities, or in some instances, desirable commuter routes. They can also be used to close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel (e.g., river crossing). On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and convenience, espe- cially if other commitments are made in con- junction with establishment of bikeways, such as: elimination of parking or increasing roadway width, elimination of surface irregularities and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweeping, establishing intersection priority on the bike route street as compared with the majority of cross streets, and installation of bicycle- sensitive loop detectors at signalized intersections. 1002.3 The Decision to Develop Bikeways The decision to develop bikeways should be made with the knowledge that bikeways are not the solution to all bicycle-related problems. Many of the common problems are related to improper bicyclist and motorist behavior and can only be corrected through effective educa- tion and enforcement programs. The develop- ment of well conceived bikeways can have a positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behav- ior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can be counterproductive to education and en- forcement programs. 1002.4 Selection of the Type of Facility The type of facility to select in meeting the bicycle need is dependent on many factors, but the following applications are the most common for each type. (1) Shared Roadway (No Bikeway Designa- tion). Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations. This probably will be true in the future as well. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, and signing and striping for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, routes may be unsuitable for bicycle travel, and it would be inappropriate to encourage additional bi- cycle travel by designating the routes as bikeways. Finally, routes may not be along high bicycle demand corridors, and it would be inappropriate to designate bikeways re- gardless of roadway conditions (e.g., on minor residential streets). Many rural highways are used by touring bicyclists for intercity arid recreational travel. In most cases, it would be inappropriate to designate the highways as bikeways because of the limited use and the lack of continuity with other bike routes. However, the development and maintenance of 1.2 m paved roadway shoulders with a standard 100 mm edge stripe can HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-3 July 1,1995 significantly improve the safety and convenience for bicyclists and motorists along such routes. (2) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Generally, bike paths should be used to serve corridors not served by streets and highways or where wide right of way exists, permitting such facilities to be constructed away from the influence of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can either provide a recreational opportunity, or in some instances, can serve as direct high-speed commute routes if cross flow by motor vehicles can be minimized. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right of way, abandoned railroad right of way, within college campuses, or within and between parks. There may also be situations where such facilities can be provided as part of planned developments. Another common application of Class I facilities is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by construction of freeways or because of the existence of natural barriers (rivers, mountains, etc.). (3) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs that can be served by them. The purpose should be to improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike lanes are intended to delineate the right of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. But a more important reason for constructing bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of lanes, or prohibiting parking on given streets in order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other things can be done on bike lane streets to improve the situation for bicyclists, that might not be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to the surface, augmented sweeping programs, special signal facilities, etc.). Generally, stripes alone will not measurably enhance bicycling. If bicycle travel is to be controlled by delineation, special efforts should be made to assure that high levels of service are provided with these lanes. In selecting appropriate streets for bike lanes, location criteria discussed in the next section should be considered. (4) Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Bike routes are shared facilities which serve either to: (a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facili- ties (usually Class n bikeways); or (b) Designate preferred routes through high demand corridors. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes are shared with motor vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class III bikeways is strongly discouraged. It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, n and HI should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application. In selecting the proper facility, an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require bicy- clists or motorists to operate in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of the road. An important consideration in selecting the type of facility is continuity. Alternating segments of Class I and Class II (or Class HI) bikeways along a route are generally incompatible, as street crossings by bicyclists are required when the route changes character. Also, wrong-way bicycle travel will occur on the street beyond the ends of bike paths because of the inconvenience of having to cross the street. 1000-4 July 1, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Topic 1003 - Design Criteria 1003.1 Class I Bikeways Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by motorists minimized. Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bi- cycles and pedestrians". However, experience has shown that if significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians are necessary to minimize conflicts. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles is undesirable, and the two should be separated wherever possible. Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I facilities because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the design standards for Class I bikeways, and do not minimize motorist cross flows. See Index 1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bike- ways. By State law, motorized bicycles ("mopeds") are prohibited on bike paths unless authorized by ordinance or approval of the agency having jurisdiction over the path. Likewise, all motor vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These prohibitions can be strengthened by signing. (1) Widths. The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path shall be 2.4 m. The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 1.5 m. A minimum 0.6 m wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003.1A). A 1.0 m graded area is recommended to provide clearance from poles, trees, walls, fences, guardrails, or other lateral obstructions. A wider graded area can also serve as a jogging path. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the graded area may be reduced accordingly; however, the graded area is a desirable feature regardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after careful considera- tion due to the problems of enforcing one- way operation and the difficulties in maintaining a path of restricted width. Where heavy bicycle volumes are anticipated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is expected, the paved width of a two-way path should be greater than 2.4 m, preferably 3.6 m or more. Another important factor to consider in determining the appropriate width is that bicyclists will tend to ride side by side on bike paths, necessitating more width for safe use. Experience has shown that paved paths less than 3.6 m wide sometimes break up along the edge as a result of loads from main- tenance vehicles. Where equestrians are expected, a separate facility should be provided. (2) Clearance to Obstructions. A minimum 0.6 m horizontal clearance to obstructions shall be provided adja- cent to the pavement (see Figure 1003.1A). A 1.0 m clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum required, the clear- ance may be reduced accordingly; however, an adequate clearance is desirable regardless of the paved width. If a wide path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g., block wall), a 100 mm white edge stripe, 0.3 m from the fixed object, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it The clear width on structures between railings shall be not less than 2.4 m. It is desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path (i.e., 3.6 m). The vertical clearance to obstruc- tions across the clear width of the path shall be a minimum of 2.5 m. Where practical, a vertical clearance of 3 m is desirable. (3) Striping and Signing. A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate opposing directions of travel. A centerline stripe is particularly beneficial in the following cir- cumstances: (a) Where there is heavy use; (b) On curves with restricted sight distance; and, HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-5 July 1.1995 Figure 1003.1 A Two-way Bike Path on Separate Right of Way 2.4 mMin. Width Paved0.6m(Min.) Graded Figure 1003.1 B Typical Cross Section of Bike Path Along Highway 0.6 m Graded Area (Min.) •K 1.5 in cr 2.4 m ( NOTE: See Index 1003.1(5).* One-Way: 1.5 m Minimum Width TVro - Way: 2.4 m Minimum Width 1000-6 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL (c) Where the path is unlighted and night- time riding is expected. (Refer to Topic 1004 for signing and striping details.) (4) Intersections with Highways. Intersections are a prime consideration in bike path de- sign. If alternate locations for a bike path are available, the one with the most favorable intersection conditions should be selected. Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bi- cycle traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of right of way by traffic signals should be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for bicyclists may suffice. Bicycle path intersections and approaches should be on relatively flat grades. Stopping sight distances at intersections should be checked and adequate warning should be given to permit bicyclists to stop before reaching the intersection, especially on downgrades. When crossing an arterial street, the cross- ing should either occur at the pedestrian crossing, where motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the influence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see turning vehicles. When crossing at midblock locations, right of way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs, stop signs, or traffic signals which can be activated by bicyclists. Even when crossing within or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for conflict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path stop or yield signs are visible to approaching motor vehicle traffic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion. In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists. Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to preserve the utility of the bike path. Ramps should be the same width as the bicycle paths. Curb cuts and ramps should provide a smooth transition between the bicycle paths and the roadway. (5) Separation Between Bike Paths and Highways. A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways (see Figure 1003. IB). Bike paths closer than 1.5 m from the edge of the shoulder shall include a physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the highway. Bike paths within the clear recovery zone of freeways shall include a physical barrier separation. Suitable barriers could in- clude chain link fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not recom- mended because bicyclists could fall over them and into oncoming automobile traffic. In instances where there is danger of mo- torists encroaching into the bike path, a positive barrier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guardrailing) should be provided. See Index 1003.6 for criteria relative to bike paths carried over highway bridges. Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets and highways are not recommended. They should not be considered a substitute for the street, because many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facilities as compared with the streets, particularly for utility trips. (6) Bike Paths in the Median of Highways. As a general rule, bike paths in the median of highways are not recommended because they require movements contrary to normal rules of the road. Specific problems with such facilities include: (a) Bicyclist right turns from the center of roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and confusing to motorists. (b) Proper bicyclist movements through intersections with signals are unclear. (c) Left-turning motorists must cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic and two directions of bicycle traffic, which in- creases conflicts. (d) Where intersections are infrequent, bicy- clists will enter or exit bike paths at mid- block. (e) Where medians are landscaped, visual relationships between bicyclists and motorists at intersections are impaired. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-7 July 1,1995 For the above reasons, bike paths in the median of highways should be considered only when the above problems can be avoided. Bike paths shall not be designed in the medians of freeways or expressways. (7) Design Speed The proper design speed for a bike path is dependent on the expected type of use and on the terrain. The minimum design speed for bike paths shall be 40 km/h except as noted in Table 1003.1. Table 1003.1 Bike Path Design Speeds Type of Facility Design Speed (km/h) Bike Paths with Mopeds Prohibited 40 Bike Paths with Mopeds Permitted 50 Bike Paths on Long Downgrades 50 (steeper than 4%, and longer than 150m) Installation of "speed bumps" or other similar surface obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to slow down in advance of intersections or other geometric constraints, shall not be used. These devices cannot compensate for improper design. (8) Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation. The minimum radius of curvature negotiable by a bicycle is a function of the superelevation rate of the bicycle path surface, the coefficient of friction between the bicycle tires and the bicycle path surface, and the speed of the bicycle. For most bicycle path applications the superelevation rate will vary from a minimum of 2 percent (the minimum necessary to encourage adequate drainage) to a maximum of approximately 5 percent (beyond which maneuvering difficulties by slow bicyclists and adult bicyclists might be expected). A straight 2% cross slope is recommended on tangent sections. The minimum superelevation rate of 2% will be adequate for most conditions and will simplify construction. Superelevation rates steeper than 5 percent should be avoided on bike paths expected to have adult tricycle traffic. The coefficient of friction depends upon speed; surface type, roughness, and condition; tire type and condition; and whether the surface is wet or dry. Friction factors used for design should be selected based upon the point at which centrifugal force causes the bicyclist to recognize a feeling of discomfort and instinctively act to avoid higher speed. Extrapolating from values used in highway design, design friction factors for paved bicycle paths can be assumed to vary from 0.31 at 20 km/h to 0.21 at 50 km/h. Although there is no data available for unpaved surfaces, it is suggested that friction factors be reduced by 50 percent to allow a sufficient margin of safety. The minimum radius of curvature can be selected from Figure 1003.1C. When curve radii smaller than those shown in Figure 1003.1C must be used on bicycle paths because of right of way, topographical or other considerations, standard curve warning signs and supplemental pavement markings should be installed. The negative effects of nonstandard curves can also be partially offset by widening the pavement through the curves. (9) Stopping Sight Distance. To provide bicyclists with an opportunity to see and react to the unexpected, a bicycle path should be designed with adequate stopping sight distances. The distance required to bring a bicycle to a full controlled stop is a function of the bicyclist's perception and brake reaction time, the initial speed of the bicycle, the coefficient of friction between the tires and the pavement, and the braking ability of the bicycle. Figure 1003.ID indicates the minimum stopping sight distances for various design speeds and grades. For two-way bike paths, the descending direction, that is, where "G" is negative, will control the design. 1000-8 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL (W)Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure 1003. IE indicates the minimum lengths of crest vertical curves for varying design speeds. (ll)Lateral Clearance on Horizontal Curves. Figure 1003.IF indicates the minimum clearances to line of sight obstructions for horizontal curves. The required lateral clearance is obtained by entering Figure 1003. IF with the stopping sight distance from Figure 1003. ID and the proposed horizontal curve radius. Bicyclists frequently ride abreast of each other on bicycle paths, and on narrow bicycle paths, bicyclists have a tendency to ride near the middle of the path. For these reasons, and because of the serious consequences of a head on bicycle accident, lateral clearances on horizontal curves should be calculated based on the sum of the stopping sight distances for bicyclists traveling in opposite directions around the curve. Where this is not possible or feasible, consideration should be given to widening the path through the curve, installing a yellow center stripe, installing a curve ahead warning sign, or some combination of these alternatives. (12)Grades. Bike paths generally attract less skilled bicyclists, so it is important to avoid steep grades in their design. Bicyclists not physically conditioned will be unable to negotiate long, steep uphill grades. Since novice bicyclists often ride poorly maintained bicycles, long downgrades can cause problems. For these reasons, bike paths with long, steep grades will generally receive very little use. The maximum grade rate recommended for bike paths is 5%. It is desirable that sustained grades be limited to 2% if a wide range of riders is to be accommodated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for short segments (e.g., up to about 150 m). Where steeper grades are necessitated, the design speed should be increased and additional width should be provided for maneuverability. (IS)Structural Section. The structural section of a bike path should be designed in the same manner as a highway, with consider- ation given to the quality of the basement soil and the anticipated loads the bikeway will experience. It is important to construct and maintain a smooth riding surface with skid resistant qualities. Principal loads will normally be from maintenance and emergency vehicles. Expansive soil should be given special consideration and will probably require a special structural section. A minimum pavement thickness of 50 mm of asphalt concrete is recommended. Type "A" or "B" asphalt concrete (as described in Department of Transportation Standard Specifications), with 12.5 mm maximum aggregate and medium grading is rec- ommended. Consideration should be given to increasing the asphalt content to provide increased pavement life. Consideration should also be given to sterilization of basement soil to preclude possible weed growth through the pavement. At unpaved highway or driveway crossings of bicycle paths, the highway or driveway should be paved a minimum of 3 m on each side of the crossing to reduce the amount of gravel being scattered along the path by motor vehicles. The pavement structure at the crossing should be adequate to sustain the expected loading at that location. (14)Drainage. For proper drainage, the surface of a bike path should have a cross slope of 2%. Sloping in one direction usually simplifies longitudinal drainage design and surface construction, and accordingly is the preferred practice. Ordinarily, surface drainage from the path will be adequately dissipated as it flows down the gently sloping shoulder. However, when a bike path is constructed on the side of a hill, a drainage ditch of suitable dimensions may be necessary on the uphill side to intercept the hillside drainage. Where necessary, catch basins with drains should be provided to carry intercepted water across the path. Such ditches should be designed in such a way that no undue obstacle is presented to bicyclists. Culverts or bridges are necessary where a bike path crosses a drainage channel. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-9 July 1,1995 Figure 1003.1C Curve Radii & Superelevations v2 •n 127 (nb+f) where, R = Minimum radius of curvature (m), V = Design Speed (km/h), e = Rate of bikeway superelevation, percent f = Coefficient of friction Design Speed-V (km/h) 20 30 40 50 20 30 40 50 20 30 40 50 20 30 40 50 Friction Factor-f 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.21 Superelevation-e (%) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Minimum Radius-R (m) 10 24 47 86 9 23 45 82 9 22 43 79 9 21 42^ 76 1000-10 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1 003.1 D Stopping Sight Distance 250 200 s 150 S £o» 55a. a.a. 100 50 10 Grade (%) 15 20 S =Descend (f±G) 1.4 Where: S = stopping sight, m V = velocity, km/h f = coefficient of friction (use 0.25) G = grade, m/m (rise/run) HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-11 Feb. 9,1998 Figure 1003.1E Stopping Sight Distances for Crest Vertical Curves L = 2S - 450 A L = AS2 '450 when S > L when S < L Double line represents S=L L = Min. length of vertical curve - A = Algebraic grade difference-% meters S = Stopping sight distance - meters Height of cyclist eye - 1400 mm Height of object - 100 mm GIVEN "A " AND "L "; FIND A 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 L=50 m S(m) 75 70 66 63 60 57 55 53 51 50 49 47 46 45 44 43 42 42 41 40 39 39 L=100 m S(m) 95 90 87 83 80 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 64 63 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 L=150 m S(m) 98 95 92 89 87 84 82 80 78 77 75 73 - 72 71 69 68 67 V = Design speed km/h (Refer to Figure 1003. ID to determine "V", after "S" is determined.) "S" L=200 m L=250 m S (m) S (m) 103 100 97 95 93 90 88 99 87 97 85 95 83 93 82 91 80 90 79 88 77 87 L=300 m S(m) 98 96 95 1000-12 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1 E Stopping Sight Distances for Crest Vertical Curves (continued) GIVEN "A" AND "S"; A (%) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 S=10 m S=15 m L (m) L (m) 1.9 3.5 5.0 6.3 7.5 8.6 9.5 10.4 11.3 12.0 12.7 13.3 4 13.9 4 14.5 5 15.0 S=20 m Mm) 2.5 5.4 7.9 10.0 11.9 13.5 15.0 16.3 17.5 18.6 19.6 20.4 21.3 22.2 23.1 24.0 24.9 25.8 26.7 S=25m Mm) 5.0 9.1 12.5 15.4 17.9 20.0 21.9 23.5 25.0 26.4 27.8 29.2 30.6 31.9 33.3 34.7 36.1 37.5 38.9 40.3 41.7 S=30 m Mm) 3.8 10.0 15.0 19.1 22.5 25.4 27.9 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 42.0 44.0 46.0 48.0 50.0 52.0 54.0 56.0 58.0 60.0 FIND "L S=35 m Mm) 5.7 13.8 20.0 25.0 29.1 32.5 |T 35.4 38.1 40.8 43.6 46.3 49.0 51.7 54.4 57.2 59.9 62.6 65.3 68.1 70.8 73.5 76.2 78.9 81.7 a S=40m Mm) 5.0 15.7 23.8 30.0 35.0 39.1 MHW^M.S42.7 46.2 49.8 53.3 56.9 60.4 64.0 67.6 71.1 74.7 78.2 81.8 85.3 88.9 92.4 96.0 99.6 103.1 106.7 S=45 m Mm) 15.0 25.7 33.8 40.0 45.0 49.5 54.0 58.5 63.0 67.5 72.0 76.5 81.0 85.5 90.0 94.5 99.0 103.5 108.0 112.5 117.0 121.5 126.0 130.5 135.0 S=50 m Mm) 10.0 25.0 35.7 43.8 50.0 61.1 66.7 72.2 77.8 83.3 88.9 94.4 100.0 105.6 111.1 116.7 122.2 127.8 133.3 138.9 • 144.4 150.0 155.6 161.1 166.7 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-13 July 1,1995 Figure 1003.1 F Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves Sight distance (S) measured along this line S - Sight distance in meters. R - Radius of C of lane in meters. *n — Distance from t of lane in meters. V - Design speed for S in km/h. (Refer to Figure 1003.10 to determine "V". after "S" is determined.) Angle is expressed in degrees tn = R h _o Formula applies only when S is equal to or less than length of curve. Line of sight is 600 mm above <L inside lane at point of obstruction. GIVEN "R" AND "S"; FIND "m1 S=10 m S=20 m S=30 m S=40 m S=50 S=60 m S=70 m S=80 m S=90 m S=100 a S=110 m jit BI 01 tn tn in in in in in in R (m) meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 350 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0.50 0.25 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 1.97 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 4.37 2.23 1.50 1.12 0.90 0.75 0.64 0.56 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 7.58 3.95 2.65 1.99 1.60 1.33 1.14 1.00 0.89 0.80 0.73 0.67 0.57 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.20 11.49 6.12 4.13 3.11 2.49 2.08 1.78 1.56 1.39 1.25 1.14 1.04 0.89 0.78 0.62 0.52 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.31 15.94 8.73 5.92 4.47 3.58 2.99 2.57 2.25 2.00 1.80 1.63 1.50 1.29 1.12 0.90 0.75 0.64 0.56 0.50 0.45 20.75 11.76 8.02 6.06 4.87 4.07 3.49 3.06 2.72 2.45 2.22 2.04 1.75 1.53 1.22 1.02 0.87 0.77 0.68 0.61 25.73 15.17 10.42 7.90 6.35 5.30 4.55 3.99 3.55 3.19 2.90 2.66 2.28 2.00 1.60 1.33 1.14 1.00 0.89 0.80 30.68 18.92 13.10 9.96 8.01 6.70 5.75 5.04 4.49 4.04 3.67 3.37 2.89 2.53 2.02 1.69 1.45 1.27 1.12 1.01 35.41 22.99 16.06 12.24 9.87 8.26 7.10 6.22 5.53 4.98 4.53 4.16 3.57 3.12 2.50 2.08 1.79 1.56 1.39 1.25 39.72 27.32 19.28 14.75 11.91 9.97 8.57 7.52 6.69 6.03 5.48 5.03 4.31 3.78 3.02 2.52 2.16 1.89 1.68 1.51 1000-14 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL July 1,1995 Figure 1003.1 F Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves (continued) GIVEN "R"AND"m": FIND "S1 R (m) 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 350 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 m = 1 meter S(m) 14.19 20.03 24.52 28.31 31.64 34.66 37.43 40.01 42.44 44.73 46.91 49.00 52.92 56.58 63.25 69.29 74.84 80.00 84.85 89.44 m = 2 meters S(m) 20.13 28.38 34.72 40.06 44.78 49.04 52.96 56.61 60.04 63.28 66.37 69.32 74.86 80.03 89.47 98.00 105.85 113.15 120.01 126.50 m = 3 meters S(m) 24.74 34.81 42.57 49.11 54.88 60.10 64.90 69.36 73.56 77.53 81.31 84.92 91.71 98.03 109.59 120.04 129.65 138.60 147.00 154.95 m = 4 meters S(m) 28.67 40.27 49.21 56.75 63.41 69.43 74.97 80.13 84.97 89.56 93.92 98.08 105.92 113.22 126.57 138.63 149.73 160.05 169.76 178.93 tn = 5 meters S(m) 32.17 45.10 55.08 63.51 70.94 77.67 83.86 89.62 95.04 100.16 105.03 109.69 118.45 126.61 141.53 155.02 167.42 178.97 189.81 200.07 m = 6 meters S(m) 35.37 49.49 60.40 69.63 77.77 85.13 91.91 98.22 104.15 109.76 115.09 120.19 129.79 138.73 155.06 169.83 183.42 196.07 207.95 219.18 in = 7 meters S(m) 38.35 53.55 65.32 75.27 84.06 92.00 99.32 106.13 112.53 118.59 124.35 129.86 140.22 149.87 167.52 183.47 198.14 211.80 224.63 236.76 m = 8 meters S(m) 41.15 57.35 69.91 80.54 89.92 98.41 106.23 113.51 120.35 126.82 132.98 138.86 149.94 160.26 179.11 196.16 211.85 226.45 240.16 253.13 m = 9 meters S(m) 43.81 60.93 74.23 85.50 95.44 104.44 112.73 120.45 127.70 134.56 141.09 147.33 159.08 170.01 190.01 208.09 224.72 240.21 254.75 268.51 m = 10 meters S(m) 46.36 64.35 78.34 90.20 100.67 110.15 118.88 127.01 134.66 141.89 148.77 155.34 167.72 179.25 200.32 219.38 236.91 253.23 268.56 283.06 m- 11 meters S(m) 48.82 67.61 82.26 94.68 105.66 115.60 124.75 133.27 141.28 148.86 156.08 162.97 175.95 188.04 210.13 230.12 248.50 265.62 281.69 296.90 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-15 July 1,1995 (15)Barrier Posts. It may be necessary to install barrier posts at entrances to bike paths to prevent motor vehicles from entering. When locating such installations, care should be taken to assure that barriers are well marked and visible to bicyclists, day or night (i.e., install reflectors or reflectorized tape). Striping an envelope around the barriers is recommended (see Figure 1003.1G). If sight distance is limited, special advance warning signs or painted pavement warnings should be provided. Where more than one post is necessary, a 1.5 m spacing should be used to permit passage of bicycle- towed trailers, adult tricycles, and to assure adequate room for safe bicycle passage without dismounting. Barrier post installations should be designed so they are removable to permit entrance by emergency and service vehicles. Generally, barrier configurations that pre- clude entry by motorcycles present safety and convenience problems for bicyclists. Such devices should be used only where extreme problems are encountered. Figure 1003.1G Barrier Post Striping 0.3 m 100 mm Yellow stripe (16) Lighting. Fixed-source lighting reduces conflicts along paths and at intersections. In addition, lighting allows the bicyclist to see the bicycle path direction, surface conditions, and obstacles. Lighting for bicycle paths is important and should be considered where riding at night is expected, such as bicycle paths serving college students or commuters, and at highway intersections. Lighting should also be considered through underpasses or tunnels, and when nighttime security could be a problem. Depending on the location, average main- tained horizontal illumination levels of 5 lux to 22 lux should be considered. Where special security problems exist, higher illumination levels may be considered. Light standards (poles) should meet the recommended horizontal and vertical clear- ances. Luminaires and standards should be at a scale appropriate for a pedestrian or bicycle path. 1003.2 Class II Bikeways Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for preferential use by bicycles are established within the paved area of highways. Bike lane stripes are intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation be- tween areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is supported by bike lane signs and pavement markings. Bike lane stripes can increase bicy- clists' confidence that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain within the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve toward opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists. Class II bike lanes shall be one-way facilities. Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that are contiguous to the roadway) are not permitted, as such facilities have proved unsatisfactory and promote riding against the flow of motor vehicle traffic. (1) Widths. Typical Class n bikeway con- figurations are illustrated in Figure 1003.2A and are described below: (a) Figure 1003.2A-(1) depicts bike lanes on an urban type curbed street where parking stalls (or continuous parking stripes) are marked. Bike lanes are located between the parking area and the traffic lanes. As indicated, 1.5 m shall be the minimum width of bike lane where parking stalls are marked. If parking volume is substantial or turnover high, an additional 0.3 m to 0.6 m of width is desirable. 1000-16 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Bike lanes shall not be placed between the parking area and the curb. Such facilities increase the conflict between bicyclists and opening car doors and reduce visibility at intersections. Also, they prevent bicy- clists from leaving the bike lane to turn left and cannot be effectively maintained. (b) Figure 1003.2A-(2) depicts bike lanes on an urban-type curbed street, where parking is permitted, but without parking stripe or stall marking. Bike lanes are established in conjunction with the parking areas. As indicated, 3.3 m or 3.6 m (depending on the type of curb) shall be the minimum width of the bike lane where parking is permitted. This type of lane is satisfacory where parking is not extensive and where turnover of parked cars is infrequent. However, if parking is substantial, turnover of parked cars is high, truck traffic is substantial, or if vehicle speeds exceed 55 km/h, additional width is recommended. (c) Figure 1003.2A-(3) depicts bike lanes along the outer portions of an urban type curbed street, where parking is prohib- ited. This is generally the most desirable configuration for bike lanes, as it elimi- nates potential conflicts resulting from auto parking (e.g., opening car doors). As indicated, if no gutter exists, the minimum bike lane width shall be 1.2 m. With a normal 600 mm gutter, the minimum bike lane width shall be 1.5 m. The intent is to provide a minimum 1.2 m wide bike lane, but with at least 0.9 m between the traffic lane and the longi- tudinal joint at the concrete gutter, since the gutter reduces the effective width of the bike lane for two reasons. First, the longitudinal joint may not always be smooth, and may be difficult to ride along. Secondly, the gutter does not provide a suitable surface for bicycle travel. Where gutters are wide (say, 1.2 m), an additional 0.9 m must be provided because bicyclists should not be expected to ride in the gutter. Wherever possible, the width of bike lanes should be increased to 1.8 m to 2.4 m to provide forgreater safety. 2.4 m bike lanes can also serve as emer- gency parking areas for disabled vehicles. Striping bike lanes next to curbs where parking is prohibited only during certain hours shall be done only in conjunction with special signing to designate the hours bike lanes are to be effective. Since the Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to ride in bike lanes where provided (except under certain conditions), proper signing is necessary to inform bicyclists that they are required to ride in bike lanes only during the course of the parking prohibition. This type of bike lane should be considered only if the vast majority of bicycle travel would occur during the hours of the parking prohibition, and only if there is a firm commitment to enforce the parking prohibition. Because of the obvious complications, this type of bike lane is not encouraged for general application. Figure 1003.2A(4) depicts bike lanes on a highway without curbs and gutters. This location is in an undeveloped area where infrequent parking is handled off the pavement. This can be accomplished by supplementing the bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement) signs, or R26 (no parking) signs. Minimum widths shall be as shown. Addi- tional width is desirable, particularly where motor vehicle speeds exceed 55 km/h. The typical traffic lane width next to a bike lane is 3.6 m. Lane widths nar- rower than 3.6 m must receive approval as discussed in Index 82.2. There are situations where it may be necessary to reduce the width of the traffic lanes in order to stripe bike lanes. In determin- ing the appropriateness of narrower traffic lanes, consideration should be given to factors such as motor vehicle speeds, truck volumes, alignment, and sight distance. Where favorable condi- tions exist, traffic lanes of 3.3 m may be feasible. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-17 July 1,1995 Bike lanes are not advisable on long, steep downgrades, where bicycle speeds greater than 50 km/h are expected. As grades increase, downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which increases the problem of riding near the edge of the roadway. In such situations, bicycle speeds can approach those of motor vehicles, and experienced bicyclists will generally move into the motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance and maneuverability. If bike lanes are to be striped, additional width should be provided to accommodate higher bicycle speeds. If the bike lanes are to be located on one- way streets, they should be placed on the right side of the street. Bike lanes on the left side would cause bicyclists and motorists to undertake crossing maneuvers in making left turns onto a two-way street. (2) Striping and Signing. Details for striping and signing of bike lanes are included under Topic 1004. Raised barriers (e.g., raised traffic bars and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pavement markers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. Raised barriers prevent motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right turns, as required by the Vehicle Code, and restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring to enter or exit bike lanes. They also impede routine maintenance. Raised pavement markers increase the difficulty for bicyclists when entering or exiting bike lanes, and dis- courage motorists from merging into bike lanes before making right turns. Bike lane stripes should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicle lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (3.3 m to 3.9 m between the bike lane line and the curb) should not be directed toward the curb at intersections or localized areas where parking is prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following a straight course. Where transitions from one type of bike lane to another are necessary, smooth tapers should be provided. (3) Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this reason, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner that will rninirnize confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road. Figure 1003.2B illustrates a typical inter- section of multilane streets, with bike lanes on all approaches. Some common move- ments of motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A prevalent type of accident involves straight-through bicycle traffic and right-turning motorists. Left-turning bicy- clists also have problems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicyclists are profi- cient enough to merge across one or more lanes of traffic, to use the inside lane or left- turn lane provided for motor vehicles. However, there are many who do not feel comfortable making this maneuver. They have the option of making a two-legged left turn by riding along a course similar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young children will often prefer to dismount and change directions by walking their bike in the crosswalk. At intersections where there is a bike lane and traffic-actuated signal, installation of bicycle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is desirable. Push button detectors are not as satisfactory as those located in the pavement because the cyclist must stop to actuate the push button. It is also desirable that detectors in left-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect bicycles (see Chapter 9 of the Traffic Manual and Standard Plans for bicycle-sensitive detector designs). At intersections (without bike lanes) with significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated signal, it is desirable to install detectors that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles. Figure , 1003.2C illustrates recommended striping patterns for bike lanes crossing a motorist right-turn-only lane. When confronted with such intersections, bicy- clists will have to merge with right-turning motorists. Since bicyclists are typically 1000-18 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.2 A Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections (On 2-lane or Multilane Highways)« , Parking Stalls or Optional 100 mm Solid Stripe' • ISO mm Solid White Stripe • Parking Bike Bike Lane Lane The optional solid white stripe may be advisable where stalls are unnecessary (because parking is light) but there is concern that motorists may misconstrue die bike lane to be a traffic lane. (1) STRIPED PARKING Parking Vertical Curb 150 mm Solid White Stripe. * 3.9 m is recommended where there is substantial parking or turnover of parked cars Is high (e.g. commercial areas) (2) PARKING PERMITTED WITHOUT PARKING STRIPE OR STALL Rolled Curb • 50 mm Solid White Stripe, *j 1.5ml -*« Min. l~~ Bike Lane (Wtth Goiter) Motor Vehicle Lanes (3) PARKING PROHIBITED i PHIJ 1.2m L-*l Min. h- Bike Lane (Without Gutter) 150 mm Solid White Stripe. ^"n-^LHi^rBike Lane Motor Vehicle Lanes (4) TYPICAL ROADWAY IN OUTLYING AREAS PARKING RESTRICTED H 1.2m Min. Bike Lane h HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-19 July I.1993 Figure 1003.2B Typical Bicycle/Auto Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets _Jjj — — 81- — <=: rRed. Crossing — L-H y awn 1 UMC •IKE ' **• N ~^*K« \^ i \ ^ \ MMamn 1 | | | i1 V . \ 1 r*-i — Red. Crossing / 'SJ] -ii] 1 I/ If \, ^Jn1tLANE •IKE ^^"^ / I|"^ *" Bike Travel IA J. %* 1-. 1 1- 1000-20 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.2C Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist Right-turn-only Lanes * If space is available. Otherwise all delineation should be dropped at ^this point. Red. Crossing t t t * I LANE BIKE 1.2 mmin.i t — -\^ \ \ \ t I LANE DIUT 1 * If space is available Typical path -•**' of through bicyclist. RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE PARKING AREA BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE Red. Crossing *v t \ Typical path of through "bicyclist. t t LANE BIKE| OPTIONAL DOUBLE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE Red. Crossing t * t LANE BIKE 1.2 m mln. t t "**~ '/ V \ \ \t A LANE * BIKE Typical path of /through bicyclist. * If space is available. Drop bike lane stripe where right turn only designated. RIGHT LANE BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-21 July 1,1995 traveling at speeds less than motorists,they should signal and merge where there is sufficient gap in right-turning traffic, rather than at any predetermined location. For this reason, it is recommended that all delineation be dropped at the approach of the right-turn lane (or off-ramp). A pair of parallel lines (delineating a bike lane crossing) to channel the bike merge is not recommended, as bicyclists will be en- couraged to cross at a predetermined location, rather than when there is a safe gap in right-turning traffic. Also, some bicyclists are apt to assume they have the right of way, and may not check for right- turning motor vehicle traffic. A dashed line across the right-turn-only lane is not recommended on extremely long lanes, or where there are double right-turn- only lanes. For these types of intersections, all striping should be dropped to permit judgment by the bicyclists to prevail. A Bike Xing sign may be used to warn motorists of the potential for bicyclists crossing their path. 1003.3 Class III Bikeways Class m bikeways (bike routes) are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeway (normally bike lanes). Class HI facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class HI facilities are established by placing Bike Route signs along roadways. Minimum widths for Class EQ bikeways are not presented, as the acceptable width is dependent on many factors, including the volume and character of vehicular traffic on the road, typical speeds, vertical and horizontal alignment, sight distance, and parking conditions. Since bicyclists are permitted on all highways (except prohibited freeways), the decision to sign the route should be based on the advis- ability of encouraging bicycle travel on the route and other factors listed below. (1) On-street Bike Route Criteria. To be of benefit to bicyclists, bike routes should offer a higher degree of service than alternative streets. Routes should be signed only if some of the following apply: (a) They provide for through and direct travel in bicycle-demand corridors. (b) Connect discontinuous segments of bike lanes. (c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic control devices (stop signs, signals) to give greater priority to bicyclists, as compared with alternative streets. This could include placement of bicycle- sensitive detectors on the right-hand portion of the road, where bicyclists are expected to ride. (d) Street parking has been removed or re- stricted in areas of critical width to pro- vide improved safety. (e) Surface imperfections or irregularities have been corrected (e.g., utility covers adjusted to grade, potholes filled, etc.). (f) Maintenance of the route will be at a higher standard than that of other comparable streets (e.g., more frequent street sweeping). (2) Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria. In general, the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class III bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory. It is important to recognize that the devel- opment of extremely wide sidewalks does not necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle travel, as wide sidewalks will encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase potential for conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects. Sidewalk bikeways should be considered only under special circumstances, such as: (a) To provide bikeway continuity along high speed or heavily traveled roadways having inadequate space for bicyclists, and uninterrupted by driveways and intersections for long distances. (b) On long, narrow bridges. In such cases, ramps should be installed at the sidewalk approaches. If approach bikeways are two-way, sidewalk facilities should also be two-way. 1000-22 July 1, 1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Whenever sidewalk bikeways are estab- lished, a special effort should be made to re- move unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicyclists are directed from bike lanes to sidewalks, curb cuts should be flush with the street to assure that bicyclists are not subjected to problems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a flat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection are necessary, as well as bikeway yield or stop signs at uncontrolled intersections. Curb cuts should be wide enough to accommodate adult tricycles and two-wheel bicycle trailers. In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential con- flicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. Nevertheless, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is accepted. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. (3) Destination Signing of Bike Routes. For Bike Route signs to be more functional, supplemental plates may be placed beneath them when located along routes leading to high demand destinations (e.g., "To Down- town"; "To State College"; etc.— see Figure 1004.4 for typical signing). There are instances where it is necessary to sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical destination, but where the route does not of- fer any of the above listed bike route fea- tures. In such cases, the route should not be signed as a bike route; however, destination signing may be advisable. A typical applica- tion of destination signing would be where bicyclists are directed off a highway to by- pass a section of freeway. Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists to the next logical destination. The intent is to di- rect bicyclists in the same way as motorists would be directed if a highway detour was necessitated. 1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances, bicyclists are permitted on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be signed or striped as a bikeway, but it can be opened for use if it meets certain criteria. Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety and conve- nience of the freeway as compared with avail- able alternate routes. However, a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use if it is determined to be incompatible. The Headquarters Traffic Reviewer and the OPPD Coordinator must approve any proposals to open freeways to bicyclists. If a suitable alternate route exists, it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However, if the alternate route is unsuitable for bicycle travel the freeway may be a better alternative for bicyclists. In determining the suitability of an alternate route, safety should be the paramount consideration. The following factors should be considered: • Number of intersections • Shoulder widths • Traffic volumes • Vehicle speeds • Bus, truck and recreational vehicle volumes • Grades • Travel time When a suitable alternate route does not exist, a freeway shoulder may be considered for bicycle travel. Normally, freeways in urban areas will have characteristics that make it unfeasible to permit bicycle use. In determining if the freeway shoulder is suitable for bicycle travel, the following factors should be considered; • Shoulder widths • Bicycle hazards on shoulders (drainage grates, expansion joints, etc.) • Number and location of entrance/exit ramps • Traffic volumes on entrance/exit ramps When bicyclists are permitted on segments of freeway, it will be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulatory signs, particularly those at freeway ramp entrances and exits (see Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual). HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-23 July 1,1995 Where no reasonable alternate route exists within a freeway corridor, the Department should coordinate with local agencies to develop or improve existing routes or provide parallel bikeways within or adjacent to the freeway right of way. The long term goal is to provide a safe and convenient non-freeway route for bicycle travel. 1003.5 Multipurpose Trails In some instances, it may be appropriate for agencies to develop multipurpose trails - for hikers, joggers, equestrians, bicyclists, etc. Many of these trails will not be paved, and will not meet the standards for Class I bikeways. As such, these facilities should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they should be designated as multipurpose trails (or similar designation), along with regulatory signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropriate. If multipurpose trails are primarily to serve bicycle travel, they should be developed in accordance with standards for Class I bikeways. In general, multipurpose trails are not recommended as high speed transportation facilities for bicyclists because of conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians. Wherever possible, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths should be provided. If this is not feasible, additional width, signing and striping should be used to minimize conflicts. It is undesirable to mix mopeds and bicycles on the same facility. In general, mopeds should not be allowed on multipurpose trails because of conflicts with slower moving bicyclists and pedestrians. In some cases where an alternate route for mopeds does not exist, additional width, signing, and striping should be used to minimize conflicts. Increased patrolling by law enforcement personnel is also recommended to enforce speed limits and other rules of the road. It is usually not desirable to mix horses and bicycle traffic on the same multipurpose trail. Bicyclists are often not aware of the need for slower speeds and additional operating space near horses. Horses can be startled easily and may be unpredictable if they perceive approaching bicyclists as a danger. In addition, pavement requirements for safe bicycle travel are not suitable for horses. For these reasons, a bridle trail separate from the multipurpose trail is recommended wherever possible. 1003.6 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria The following are miscellaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, n and in bikeways. Some, by their very nature, will not apply to all classes of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important to consider on any highway where bicycle travel is expected, without regard to whether or not bikeways are established. (1) Bridges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coordinated with approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound in opposite directions is best accommodated by bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one direction of bicycle traffic would be required to cross the highway at grade twice to get to and from the bridge bike path. Because of the in- convenience, many bicyclists will be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge termini. The following criteria apply to a two-way bike path on one side of a highway bridge: (a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should be by way of a separate two-way facility for the reason explained above. (b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing, shall be provided to offset the adverse effects of having bicycles traveling against motor vehicle traffic. The physical separation should be designed to minimize fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and if the bridge is an interchange structure, to minimize sight distance restrictions at ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway bridge railings or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at least 1.4 m high to minimize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the railings. Standard bridge railings which are lower than 1.4 m can be retrofitted with lightweight upper railings or 1000-24 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL chain link fence suitable to restrain bicyclists. Separate highway overcrossing structures for bikeway traffic shall conform to Caltrans' standard pedes- trian overcrossing design loading. The minimum clear width shall be the paved width of the approach bikeway but not less than 2.4 m. If pedestrians are to use the structure, additional width is recommended. (2) Surface Quality. The surface to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes, and the pavement edge uniform. For rideability on new construction, the fin- ished surface of bikeways should not vary more than 6 mm from the lower edge of a 2.4 m long straight edge when laid on the surface in any direction. Table 1003.6 BIKEWAY SURFACE TOLERANCES Direction of Travel Grooves (1)Steps(2) Parallel to travel No more than No more 12 mm wide than 10 mm high Perpendicular to travel No more than 20 mm high (1) Groove—A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel, such as a gap between two concrete slabs. (2) Step—A ridge in the pavement, such as that which might exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cover; or that might exist between two pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway. Table 1003.6 indicates the recommended bikeway surface tolerances for Class n and in bikeways developed on existing streets to minimize the potential for causing bicyclists to lose control of their bicycle (Note: Stricter tolerances should be achieved on new bikeway construction.) Shoulder, rumble strips are not suitable as a riding surface for bicycles. See Traffic Manual Section 6-03.2 for additional information regarding rumble strip design considerations for bicycles. (3) Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways. Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and installed in a manner that provides an adequate surface for bicyclists. They should be maintained flush with the surface when resurfacing. Drainage inlet grates on bikeways shall have openings narrow enough and short enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop into the grates (e.g., reticuline type), regardless of the direction of bicycle travel. Where it is not immediately feasible to replace exist- ing grates with standard grates designed for bicycles, 25 mm x 6 mm steel cross straps should be welded to the grates at a spacing of 150 mm to 200 mm on centers to reduce the size of the openings adequately. Corrective actions described above are recommended on all highways where bicycle travel is permitted, whether or not bikeways are designated. Future driveway construction should avoid construction of a vertical lip from the drive- way to the gutter, as the lip may create a problem for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the roadway at a flat angle. If a lip is deemed necessary, the height should be limited to 15 mm. (4) At-grade Railroad Crossings and Cattle Guards. Whenever it is necessary to cross railroad tracks with a bikeway, special care must be taken to assure that the safety of bicyclists is protected. The bikeway crossing should be at least as wide as the approaches of the bikeway. Wherever possible, the crossing should be straight and at right angles to the rails. For on-street bikeways where a skew is unavoidable, the shoulder (or bike lane) should be widened, if possible, to permit bicyclists to cross at right angles (see Figure 1003.6A). If this is not possible, special ' construction and materials should be considered to keep the flangeway depth and width to a minimum. Pavement should be maintained so ridge HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-25 July 1.1995 RR Xing ^f Sign Figure 1003.6A Railroad Crossings 9CT 45° Minimum angle. If less, a stop sign should be placed. CLASS I BIKEWAY Large radii desirable Direction of bike travel Widen to permit right angle crossing CLASS II BIKEWAY 1000-26 July 1,1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.6B Obstruction Markings 100 mm - 150 mm. Solid White Stripe UhvM .—*4 Direction of Bike Travel \ I LANE BIKE Pier, abutment or other obstruction L LEGEND L » 2/3 V W where: L = Length of approoch marking (m) V = Average speed of bicyclists (km/h) W = Width of obstruction (m) HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-27 July 1,1995 buildup does not occur next to the rails. In some cases, timber plank crossings can be justified and can provide for a smoother crossing. Where hazards to bicyclist cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be installed to warn bicyclists of the danger. All railroad crossings are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). All new bike path railroad crossings must be approved by the CPUC. Necessary railroad protection will be determined based on a joint field review involving the applicant, the railroad company, and the CPUC. The presence of cattle guards along any roadway where bicyclists are expected should be clearly marked with adequate advance warning. (5) Obstruction Markings. Vertical barriers and obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and other features causing bikeway constriction, should be clearly marked to gain the at- tention of approaching bicyclists. This treat- ment should be used only where unavoidable, and is by no means a substitute for good bikeway design. An example of an obstruction marking is shown in Figure 1003.6B. Signs, reflectors, diagonal black and yellow markings, or other treatments will be appropriate in other instances to alert bicyclists to potential obstructions. Topic 1004 - Uniform Signs, Markings and Traffic Control Devices 1004.1 Introduction Per Section 891 of the Streets and Highways Code, uniform signs, markings, and traffic control devices shall be used. As such this section is mandatory, except where permissive language is used. See the Traffic Manual for detailed specifications. 1004.2 Bike Path (Class I) An optional 100 mm yellow stripe may be placed to separate opposing directions of travel. (See Index 1003.1(3) for additional information.) A 0.9 m long stripe with a 2.7 m space is the recommended striping pattern, but may be revised, depending on the situation. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used on highways may be used on bike paths, as appropriate (and may be scaled down in size). Special regulatory, warning, and guide signs may also be used to meet specific needs. White painted word (or symbol) warning markings on the pavement may be used as an effective means of alerting bicyclists to approaching hazards, such as sharp curves, barrier posts, etc. 1004.3 Bike Lanes (Class II) Bike lanes require standard signing and pavement markings as shown on Figure 1004.3. This figure also depicts the proper method of striping bike lanes through intersections. Bike lane lines are not typically extended through intersections. Where motor vehicle right turns are not permitted, the solid bike lane stripe should extend to the edge of the intersection, and begin again on the far side. Where right turns are permitted, the solid stripe should terminate 30 m to 60 m prior to the intersection. A dashed line, as shown in Figure 1004.3, may be carried to, or near, the intersection. Where city blocks are short (less than 120 m), the length of dashed stripe is typically close to 30 m. Where blocks are longer or motor vehicle speeds are high (greater than 60 km/h), the length of dashed stripe should be increased to 60 m. The R81 bike lane sign shall be placed at the beginning of all bike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maximum 1 km intervals. Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and may be placed at other locations as desired. Raised pavement markers or other raised barriers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. The G93 Bike Route sign may also be used along bike lanes, but its primary purpose should be to provide directional signing and destination signing where necessary. A proliferation of 1000-28 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL July 1,1995 : Bike Route signs along signed and striped bike lanes serves no useful purpose. Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists in bike lanes. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bike lanes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. 1004.4 Bike Routes (Class III) Bike routes are shared routes and do not require pavement markings. In some instances, a 100 mm white edge stripe separating the traffic lanes from the shoulder can be helpful in providing for safer shared use. This practice is particularly applicable on rural highways, and on major arterials in urban areas where there is no vehicle parking. Bike routes are established through placement of the G93 Bike Route sign. Bike route signs are to be placed periodically along the route. At changes in direction, the bike route signs are supplemented by G33 directional arrows. Typical bike route signing is shown on Figure 1004.4. The figure shows how destination signing, through application of a special plate, can make the Bike Route sign more functional for the bicyclist. This type of signing is recommended when a bike route leads to a high demand destination (e.g., downtown, college, etc.). Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicyclists. Standard warning and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bike routes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-29 July 1.1995 Figure 1004.3 Bike Lane Signs and Markings WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PROHIBITED Optional Dashed Stripe Centerllne or Lane Line .150 mm White Stripe 1.2 n Minimum (Se.e Figure 1DD3.5A) (See Note 4) 30 m - 60 nf n Curb or edge of pavement RE6, RBI (No Parking) (Bike Lane) (See Note 6) r~ Optional Markings (See Note 1) WHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PERMITTED Optional Dashed Stripe 3.3 m or 3.6 m Minimum (See Figure 1003.2A) (See Note 4) 30 m - 60 m * i' m fn PARKING 150 mm Vhlte Stripe ptional Markings (See Note 1) STACLS (See Note 5) NO STALLS NOTES: 1. The Bike Lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and may be placed at other locations as desired. 2. The use of the bicycle symbol pavement marking to supplement the word message is optional. 3. The G93 Bike Route sign may be placed intermit- tently along the bike lane if desired. 4. Where motorist right turns are permitted, the solid bike lane line shall either be dropped entirely, or dashed as shown, beginning at a point between 30 m and 60 m in advance of the intersection. Refer to Detail 39A in the Traffic Manual for striping pattern dimensions. 5. 6. f »- 100 mm WhiteR 81 (See Note 6) STALLS In areas where parking stalls are not necessary (because parking is light), it is permissible to paint a 100 mm solid white stripe to fully delineate the bike lane. This may be advisable where there is concern that motorists may misconstrue the bike lane to be a traffic lane. The RBI bike lane sign shall be placed at the be- ginning of all bike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maximum O.B km intervals. 1000-30 July 1.1995 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1004.4 Bike Route Signing DOUWIOUJN G33 DOUWTOUJN L imu i i_ii.._u NOTES: The G93 Bike Route signs shall be placed at all points where the route changes direction and periodically as necessary. G93 Special Optional Destination Signing G93 Special Optional Destination Signing APPENDIX J PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA- STANDARDS GENERAL ORDER No. 118 1 > IA Ul b r GENERAL ORDER No. 118 r E 2 1 so <0 i_. I r .(A IT «/» o O 'om o0.40 v* o oc z "~ ocnuJ frimltJ 1m CALiro>Ni< >TATi miNiiMa arnci 87 77132 GENERAL ORDER No. 118 t MAIN 1 •' *" •!;»:•..•. _jJ ii^?'-:-*--vi E < LINE SID « , TB rtintnrm In C ft 9fi- 0 • > -»>J i-:- •'•••-••.•••:•.•:• : ;-: ::•; •.;•.:.•.-. :"• ..-jf. .• J P NO L. g'-j" Minimum >- i ^ ' 2 ft. Min i STANDARD No. 2 WALKWAYS ALONG MAIN LINE TRACKS WAIKVAY SHORT LINE OR IRANCH LINE SIOINO - 8'-6" Minim* —4« To eonforn to 6.tt 26-D 8-6 Mininum •H ^^^l ^ L ^J.^WALKWAY STANDARD No. 2-A WALKWAYS ALONG SHORT LINE AND BRANCH LINE TRACKS GENERAL OBDER No. 118 WALKWAY- B'-6N Minimum WALKWAY STANDARD No. 4 WALKWAYS ALONG SHORT LINE AND BRANCH LINE TRACKS GENERAL ORDER Ho. 118 8'-6" Minimum 2 Ft. Minimum*2 Ft. Minimum STANDARD No. I WALKWAYS ALONG MAIN LINE TRACKS JO Figure 2 STANDARD NO. 1-D PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING SIGN 18" RAILROAD CROSSING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES ONLY BLACK LETTERING ON WHITE __. REFLECTORIZED BACKGROUND The wording "and bicycles" is optional and may be omitted where appropriate. C.O. 75-C FlgOr. 10 STANDARD NO. 10 •Croiling Bill 1 (i i RAILROAD CROSSING ° Pt»ltTIII»> MO •ICTCLI OHM R I Ped*»trion and Bieyclt Railroad 6rod« CroMing Sign (Standard Mo. 1-0) Pipa Poll PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CROSSING PROTECTION FLASHING LIGHT TYPE SEE NOTES 1, 2 AND 3, SECTION 8. G.0.75-C APPENDIX E Coastal Rail Trail Sign and Design Guidelines COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Logo COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Logo with City Seal incorporated 1.5"R Typical Sign not to scale FIGURE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL LOGO 2' (.6096M) Demountable post with Coastal Rail Trail identification colors marked in reflective tape COASTAL BAll TRAIL Trailjtegulatjqrtf; ••!.»' No motorized vehicles: .2. :'Stby'on'the trail';'.-', (.9144M) 0'2' FIGURE TRAIL HEAD SIGNAGE 2' (.6096M) I COASTAL RAIL TRAIL Genesee: Garden'K (.9144M) O1 FIGURE TRAIL INTERSECTION SIGN POST If Existing street light pole Coastal Rail Trail identification colors marked in reflective tape 4' (1.22M) 0' FIGURE BIKE LANE SIGNAGE 60" high barrier within separation. Vegetation on the fence will buffer visual impact of passing trains. -i. / f 15' (4.6M) u <2'/ 12' (3.6M) ^ (06M) 0'8' FIGURE CONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal = 15' Tracks placed below adjacent grade per NCTD plans. 60" high barrier with vegetation. Class II bike lane on adjacent surface street. Soft surface path can be offset from main trail. 0'8' FIGURE UNCONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: vertical = +10' horizontal = - 20'. © 18' Surface street with sidewalk and possible class III bike lane. Street-side planting to buffer trail from adjacent, busy street. Landscaping enhances the overall street character. 48" high barrier within separation. Vegetation is to provide a visual screen along the barrier, reduce lateral traffic, and enhance trail's aesthetics. Plant selections will be drought tolerant with low maintenance requirements. (5.5M) 2'12' (3.6M) (0.6M) 8' FIGURE CONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal = -20* 12' (3.6M) Low maintenance, drought tolerant plantings to mitigate negative visual impacts of extensive fencing. 48" high barrier adjacent to tracks. 20' (6.1M) (0.6M) 0'8' FIGURE CONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal -20' Barrier plantings to reduce lateral traffic. Plant selections will be drought tolerant with low maintenance requirements. 34'12' (10.4M) (0.6M) 0' (3.6M) FIGURE UNCONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: horizontal = +20' Native plantings to provide a barrier and to control erosion on canyon slopes. 2'12' (0.6M) 0' (3.6M) 8' FIGURE UNCONSTRAINED SECTION Separation: vertical = +10' horizontal = + 20'. APPENDIX F Memorandum of Understanding and City Resolutions MTDB Doc. No. L0348.0-98 OPS 940.8 (PC 415) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES OF OCEANSIDE, CARLSBAD, ENCINITAS, SOLANA BEACH, DEL MAR AND SAN DIEGO AND THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR COORDINATED PLANNING AND DESIGN OF A MULTI- MODAL, NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILWAY FROM SAN LUIS REY RIVER, OCEANSIDE TO THE SANTA FE DEPOT, SAN DIEGO. WHEREAS, the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, are hereinafter referred as Public Agencies; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies desire to develop a 42 mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility primarily within the right-of-way of the San Diego Northern Railway, hereinafter referred to as SDNR, from the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego, hereinafter known as the Coastal Rail Trail; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Rail Trail will provide alternative transportation opportunities, reduce automobile trips, and thereby improve air quality; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies also recognize the regional benefits that a continuous multi- modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on recreation, tourism, quality of life, and health; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency in coordinating the planning and design effort for the "Coastal Rail Trail" project and have formalized this action by designating the Coastal Rail Trail within the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) own the SDNR right-of way, with North County Transit District (NCTD), the operating entity of NSDCTDB, serving as the managing agency; and WHEREAS, the SDNR was purchased for use primarily as a rail transportation corridor, hosting a federally designated high speed passenger corridor, as well as rail freight operations and; WHEREAS, the Public Agencies desire to develop, maintain, and operate the Coastal Rail Trail within the SDNR right-of-way as an ancillary use subordinate to the primary use; and, WHEREAS, the Public Agencies acknowledge the importance of designing a trail that is safe and is separated from the railway; and, WHEREAS, the Public Agencies desire to develop the Coastal Rail Trail within the SDNR right- of-way, if feasible due to railway, legal, and land use limitations; and iWHEREAS, in those segments of the San Diego Northern Railway right-of-way not suitable or feasible for the Coastal Rail Trail alignment, the Public Agencies intend to explore alternative alignments utilizing city, state, or federal highway, utility right-of-ways, and private property; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies intend to work closely in a cooperative effort with NCTD, MTDB, and other affected local, state, and federal agencies to plan and design the Coastal Rail Trail in portions of the right-of-way not intended for railway and light rail use; and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies, agree to work cooperatively to develop implementing agreements for the Coastal Rail Trail with affected property owners and to pursue grant funding for construction, operation and maintenance of the Coastal Rail Trail facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Agencies and the Board of Directors of of NSDCTDB and MTDB as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City Manager of the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, and the General Manager of NSDCTDB and MTDB are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of each City or Board of Directors, the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the proposed "Coastal Rail TraiP'with the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego and NSDCTDB and MTDB, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. CITY OF OCEANSIDE h, Mayor CITY OF C Raymond PatchettrCity Manager Date: H -"7 ~Q(X"^ ™ v-^ CITY OF ENCINITAS Lauren Wasserman, City Manager CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Robert Semple, ity Manager Date: OF DEL MAR Lauraine BrekkeEsparca CitjManag Date:4^ Crr>QF SAN DIEGO _ Jack/vIcGrory, City Manager Date: NORTH Date: Martin Minkoff, Executie Director DEV. BOARD Da.a: Thomas Larwin, General Manager ITEM NO. 1C STAFFREPORT QSSJJ) CITY OF OCEANSIDE DATE: July 12, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ACT AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT SYNOPSIS Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Carlsbad to act as the lead agency for the purpose of conducting the environmental review for the Coastal Rail Trail. BACKGROUND The Coastal Rail Trail project is a proposed 44-mile bicycle trail extending from Oceanside to San Diego within the railroad right-of-way. The project is identified in the SANDAG Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) as a multi-modal transportation facility with regional benefits for commuting and recreation. In 1992, SANDAG designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency for submitting a grant application for preparation of a detailed study of the feasibility of constructing a bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the railroad right-of-way. In association with the coastal cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego, the City of Carlsbad sponsored a successful grant funding application. Six cities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, along with the North County Transit District and the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, to coordinate a planning and design effort for a bike trail within the railroad right-of-way. The result of this 3-year effort is a detailed Master Plan, trail alignments, special environmental studies and an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment has not yet been released for public review and comment. ANALYSIS Since the original grant application, additional grant funds have been awarded for the design and construction of the Coastal Rail Trail project. The preparation of plans, specifications and estimates are contingent upon the completion of the environmental process. The City of Carlsbad has requested a resolution authorizing the City of RESOLUTION NO. 2000-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA COMPLIANCE FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT WHEREAS, the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is proposed as a 42 mile multi-modal, non- motorized transportation facility within the right-of-way of the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR), from the San Luis Rey River Trail in the City of Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated the CRT within the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency in coordinating the planning and design effort for the CRT; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the environmental assessment prepared for the CRT by the City of Carlsbad acting as lead agency, and finds the conclusions therein valid; and WHEREAS, the City Council does recognize the regional benefits that a continuous multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on commuting, recreation, tourism, quality of life, and health. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City of Carlsbad is authorized to act as Lead Agency, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on the CRT for purposes of CEQA compliance. 3. That in the event of a CEQA challenge, the City of Carlsbad is authorized to select legal counsel and determine legal strategies with the City of Solana Beach participating in the defense of such a challenge. 4. That in the event of a CEQA challenge the City of Solana Beach will not pay defense costs as the challenge period to its CEQA documents has already expired. 5. That approval of the resolution signifies that the City of Solana Beach supports the environmental assessment conducted by the Lead Agency and the conclusions contained therein. 6. The City of Solana Beach will ensure that any mitigation measures, within the City of Solana Beach corporate boundary, provided for in the mitigated negative declaration will be implemented and that within its jurisdiction, the proposed mitigation monitoring program will be enforced. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA COMPLIANCE FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT AND AGREEMENT TO SHARE COSTS WHEREAS, the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is proposed as a 42 mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility within the right-of-way of the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR), from the San Luis Rey River Trail in the City of Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated the CRT within the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency in coordinating the planning and design effort for the CRT; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has reviewed the environmental assessment prepared for the CRT by the City of Carlsbad, acting as lead agency, and finds the conclusions therein valid; and WHEREAS, the City Council does recognize the regional benefits that a continuous multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on commuting, recreation, tourism quality of life, and health. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City of Carlsbad is authorized to act as Lead Agency, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on the CRT for purposes of CEQA compliance. 3. That in the event of a CEQA challenge, the City of Carlsbad is authorized to select legal counsel and determine legal strategies with the City of Del Mar participating in the defense of such a challenge. 4. That in the event of a CEQA challenge the City of Del Mar will pay certain pro rata share of defense costs based upon a formula to be agreed upon by the parties to that Memorandum of Understanding. city of del mar staff report To: From: Date: Subject: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Linda Niles, Planning and Community Development Director Via Lauraine Breldce-Espate^jptfy Manager Prepared by Monica Tuchgcner, Advance/Special Projects Manager July 17,2000 Memorandum of Understanding for the Coastal Rail Trail Project Issue; Whether to approve a resolution authorizing the City of Carlsbad to act as the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA compliance for the Coastal Rail Trail project. Recommendation: Approve a resolution authorizing the City of Carlsbad to act as the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA compliance for the Coastal Rail Trail project. Background: / The Coastal Rail Trail project is a proposed 44-mile bicycle facility extending from Oceanside to San Diego within the railroad right-of-way. The project is identified in the SANDAG Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) as a multi-modal transportation facility with regional benefits for commuting and recreation. In 1992, SANDAG designated the City of Carlsbad to act as the lead agency for submitting a grant application to prepare a detailed study of the feasibility of constructing a bicycle/pedestrian pathway within the railroad right-of-way. In association with the coastal cities of Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and San Diego, the City of Council Action: Action Taken: Adopted Resolution 2000-45. Clerk: Process and index resolution. Reference: Clerk's,File No. Agreement File nntta on JOCV. Recycltd Piper JUL 172000 OU RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA COMPLIANCE FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT AND AGREEMENT TO SHARE COSTS WHEREAS, the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is proposed as a 42 mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility within the right-of-way of the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR), from the San Luis Rey River Trail in the City of Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated the CRT within the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency in coordinating the planning and design effort for the CRT; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has reviewed the environmental assessment prepared for the CRT by the City of Carlsbad, acting as lead agency, and finds the conclusions therein valid; and WHEREAS, the City Council does recognize the regional benefits that a continuous multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on commuting, recreation, tourism quality of life, and health. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City of Carlsbad is authorized to act as Lead Agency, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on the CRT for purposes of CEQA compliance. 3. That in the event of a CEQA challenge, the City of Carlsbad is authorized to select legal counsel and determine legal strategies with the City of Del Mar participating in the defense of such a challenge. 4. That in the event of a CEQA challenge the City of Del Mar will pay certain pro rata share of defense costs based upon a formula to be agreed upon by the parties to that Memorandum of Understanding. T;clerks/reso/2000/railtrail 2 JUL 17 2000 JTtM 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA COMPLIANCE FOR THE COASTAL RAH, TRAIL PROJECT WHEREAS, the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is proposed as a 42 mile multi-modal, non- motorized transportation facility within the right-of-way of the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR), from the San Luis Rey River Trail in the City of Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated the CRT within the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency in coordinating the planning and design effort for the CRT; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the environmental assessment prepared for the CRT by the City of Carlsbad acting as lead agency, and finds the conclusions therein valid; and WHEREAS, the City Council does recognize the regional benefits that a continuous multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on commuting, recreation, tourism, quality of life, and health. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the City of Carlsbad is authorized to act as Lead Agency, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on the CRT for purposes of CEQA compliance. 3. That in the event of a CEQA challenge, the City of Carlsbad is authorized to select legal counsel and determine legal strategies with the City of Solana Beach participating in the defense of such a challenge. 4. That in the event of a CEQA challenge the City of Solana Beach will not pay defense costs as the challenge period to its CEQA documents has already expired. 5. That approval of the resolution signifies that the City of Solana Beach supports the environmental assessment conducted by the Lead Agency and the conclusions contained therein. 6. The City of Solana Beach will ensure that any mitigation measures, within the City of Solana Beach corporate boundary, provided for in the mitigated negative declaration will be implemented and that within its jurisdiction, the proposed mitigation monitoring program will be enforced. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-51 CEQA COMPLIANCE FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 20* day of June 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers - KELLEJIAN, CAMPBELL, DODSON, GOLICH, SMERICAN NOES: Councilmembers - NONE ABSENT: Councilmembers - NONE ABSTAIN: Councilmembers - NONE ATTEST: KATHRYHA. KIRK City Clerl/^ l,Miyc t APPROVED AS TO FORM: CELIAA.BRE City Attorney DATED. KATHRYN, BY' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DEIGO ) ss. CITY OF SOLANA BEACH ) I, KATHRYN A. KIRK, City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2000-51 was duly passed and adopted at a Regular Solana Beach City Council meeting held on the 20th day of June, 2000, and is the original on file in the City Clerk's Office. Kathryn A. Mfrk City Clerk ' O.^L (SEAL) RESOLUTION NO. 2000-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA COMPLIANCE FOR THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT WHEREAS, The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is proposed as a 44-mile multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility within the right-of-way of the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR), from the San Luis Rey River Trail in the City of Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in the City of San Diego; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated the CRT within the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, SANDAG has designated the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency in coordinating the planning and design effort for the CRT; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Encinitas does recognize the regional benefits that a continuous multi-modal, non-motorized transportation facility will have on commuting, recreation, tourism, quality of life, and health. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Encinitas, as follows 1. That the above recitations are true and correct 2. That the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized to act as lead Agency, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on the CRT for purposes of CEQA compliance. 3. That in the event of a CEQA challenge, the City of Carlsbad is authorized to select legal counsel and determine legal strategies with the City of Encinitas participating in the defense of such challenge. 4. That in the event of a CEQA challenge the City of Encinitas will pay its pro rata share of defense costs to defend a challenge on any portion of the CRT located in the City of Encinitas. 5. That the City of Encinitas hereby authorizes the release of the environmental assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration completed by the Lead Agency for public review. I, Deborahi Cenone, City CM of the City «t EncinlM.CaWorw do hmbji certify under penalty rf w rotfhi afcote and brewing is a true an* cornet upy ofIan fccmnenl on tile in my office, fa fitMii rttVW, I hro MIm hand aadjfte Seal oi it* CSy of EoQate tib&LjqofJ^i HDPDiberih Cenone, a~ cdd/g/advanced_planning/CCOO-58-Reso PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Bond, Cameron, DuVivier, Guerin, Holz NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chuck DuVivier, Mayor City of Encinitas City Council ATTEST: fci Vi-LJt-« Deborah Cervone, City Clerk cdd/g/advanced_p!anning/CCOO-58-Reso