HomeMy WebLinkAbout3455; Coastal Rail Trail, Reach 1; Mitigated Negative Decleration Coastal Rail Trail Project; 2003-08-01^66
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 602-4608
Prepared by:
EDAW, Inc.
1420 Kettner Blvd., Suite 620
San Diego, CA 92101
For:
Dokken Engineering, Inc.
9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435
SanDiego, CA92123
August 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad - Sherri Howard
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
1635 Faradav Avenue. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-2756
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See Attachment A
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• water
I I Afr Quality
• Transportation/Cfrculation •public Services
• Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
• Energy & Mineral Resources •Aesthetics
I I Hazards
I I Noise
I I Cultural Resources
I I Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 06/2000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that tiie 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 Declaration.
• 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 H", 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.
Rev. 06/2000
• 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.
Rev. 06/2000
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable envfroiunental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses?
e) Disrapt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
The proposed project is a 3.2-mile segment of the Coastal Rail Trail, a 44-mile-long regional bike and pedestrian
pathway/frail. The proposed project would construct the path parallel to the North County Transit Disfrict raifroad
fracks or designate a bike lane/route on existing sfreets, and would not divide an established community. This
project is consistent with the City ofCarlsbad's General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. Policy C 19 of the General
Plan's Cfrculation Element states: "Encourage passive and active use of the raifroad right-of-way frail linkage and
bicycle Coastal Rail Trail." Other policies encourage improvements to both pedestrian and bicycle cfrculation
including safety improvements and expanded facilities. The Coastal Rail Trail would augment the Carlsbad frail
system by providing a route for bicyclists and connections to existing and proposed east-west bicycle and frail
routes.
There are no agricultural resources or operations located within or adjacent to the project alignment; therefore, no
impacts to soils or farmland would occur. Land uses surrounding the proposed frail include: open space,
travel/recreation commercial areas, residential, community commercial, office & related commercial, and
fransportation corridors. The proposed bicycle frail would be compatible with the above-mentioned uses. (Sources
land 2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either dfrectiy or
indfrectiy (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
The proposed project would 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 proposed project would provide a recreational/commuter element for existing residents and
visitors; therefore, it is not considered growth inducing. (Source 1)
• • •
• • •
• • •
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rapture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 06/2000
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Infomiation Sources); Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) | | | | | [ |XI
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil |^ | [ | |
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
( )
g) Subsidence of tiie land? ( ^ • • •
h) Expansive soils? ( ) | | | | | |
i) Unique geologic or physical features? |^
The proposed project is not located on an Alquist-Priolo fault zoning map or in an area known to have active or
potentially active faults. The trail would be constracted along existing roads, or in a disturbed raifroad right-of-
way; therefore, no impacts would occur from fault rapture, seismic ground shaking, or seismic ground failure. No
buildings are proposed as part of the Coastal Rail Trail. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose
people to geologic hazards such as volcanic hazards, landslides or mudflows, subsidence of the land, expansive
soils, or other geologic impacts.
Soils at the project site consist of Marina loamy coarse sand, which has a slight to moderate erosion hazard.
Erosion associated with constraction would be controlled through the use of appropriate constmction techniques
and practices that meet state National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System standards.
The proposed project is within an area susceptible to seiches and tsunamis because it is close to the ocean and
lagoons; however, the frail would not constract stractures and would not result in an increased risk to humans or
the surrounding environment if these hazards were to occur. (Sources 1,2, & 3)
IV. WATER. Would tiie proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface mnoff?
( )
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?
( )
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
The proposed project would not requfre groundwater for operation of the frail. The associated landscaping of the
bike path from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue may require irrigation for establishment and maintenance. This
water usage would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge because it would be
provided tiirough the City water system. In addition to the minimal use of water, the project would provide a small
increase in impervious surface where the approximately 12-foot-wide paved bike path would be built in the dirt
right-of-way. This amount of impervious ground surface would not substantially alter the recharge of groundwater
supplies.
The Coastal Rail Trail would be located adjacent to an existing storm water drainage system. The Coastal Rail
Trail would not create or confribute mnoff water that would exceed the capacity of planned or existing stormwater
drainage systems, nor would it provide a substantial new source of polluted mnoff. The proposed project woitid
add four (frainage inlets on the eastem side of the frail. These inlets would be established to prevent ponding on
the eastem side of the frail. (Source 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would tiie proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or confribute 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? ( )
No significant source of stationary or mobile afr pollutants would result from pedestrians or bicyclists using the
trail. The facility may encourage beach users to walk or bicycle instead of drive, which could reduce automobile
trips and be an afr quality benefit. Temporary impacts would occur during constraction, but would be short term
and would cease at the end of the constraction phase. Impacts associated with project constraction or operation
would not violate air quality standards.
The frail alignment would be located near trains and vehicle traffic, but would not generate or expose people to
substantial levels of air pollutants.
The project would not include any feature that would block or change air movement or alter climate.
The proposed project would not create any objectionable odors because there is no component of the project that
would requfre use of materials or substances that emit an odor. Use of the trial by recreationalists would not
generate objectionable odors.
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would tiie
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle frips or fraffic congestion?
( )
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? ( )
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
b)
c)
(
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(
e) Hazards or barriers for pedesfrians or bicyclists?
(
)
• • • K
• • K •
• • • E
• • • E
• • • Kl
Rev. 06/2000
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Hian
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
• • • K
• • • m
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
fransportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air u-affic impacts?
( )
The project would promote pedesfrian and bicycle use. The project would not increase the number of vehicle trips
or increase congestion along roadways or at intersections. The frail may encourage people to make frips via bike or
walking instead of using their vehicle.
The Class I bike path between Oak Avenue and Tamarack Avenue would provide an exclusive right-of-way for
trail users with minimum cross flow by motorists, providing a safe cycling and walking environment. The
remainder of the frail, which would be located on existing city sfreets, would be delineated witii signage and in the
southem half the roadway would be resfriped to designate the frail. The frail is designed to reduce safety impacts
from design features or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not block or alter access to any existing location (see Attachment B) and, therefore, would not
result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby areas.
The proposed project would not result in the elimination of parking spaces. It is expected that local users would
either walk or bike to the frail and not generate substantial paridng demand. No impacts to parking would result.
The Coastal Rail Trail is designed to provide a safe route for pedesfrians and bicyclists to use for commuting and
recreation. The project is designed to avoid or eliminate as many hazards as possible for pedestrians. A Class I bike
path, from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue, would be located within the NCTD raifroad right-of-way. The Class
I bike path would provide an exclusive right of way for foot and bicycle fraffic. A 6-foot-high welded, wire-mesh
fence would be erected on the west side of the bike path to provide a safety barrier between the frail users and the
railroad. The fence would be placed 60 feet from tiie centerline of the railroad fracks, and an additional 14 feet
would separate the fence from the path.
In areas where the frail would be directed onto City sfreets, the frail would be delineated with signage and/or
sfriping of the roadway to inform frail users and motorized fraffic of the frail alignment. Pedestrians and bicyclists
would be requfred to follow all applicable traffic rales and regulations when fraveling on shared roadways. In the
southem portion, the frail would cross the raifroad fracks near the southem end at Avenida Encinas. Pedesfrians
and bicyclists would be requfred to follow appropriate safety guidelines for crossing raifroad tracks.
The project would promote altemative transportation. The frail would provide a safe and continuous linear route
for pedestrians and bicyclists. The frail would also pass by the Poinsettia Coaster Station, allowing for easy access
to additional fransportation modes, such as the bus or train.
The frail would cross tiie railroad tracks at Avenida Encinas, an existing grade-separated crossing. There would be
no impact to frain operations. The frail would not impact waterbome or afrbome fraffic.
vn. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would tiie proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or thefr habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and bfrds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage frees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
( )
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
) • • • Kl
• • • Kl
• • • Kl
• • X A Biological Letter Survey Report was prepared in June 2002 for the entire Coastal Rail Trail alignment in the City
of Carlsbad. The report concluded that the highly disturbed habitat along the frail alignment would not support any
sensitive species. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present along tiie northem and southem
segments of the frail alignment that are proposed for this phase of the project. In addition, no wetiands were
located in this phase of tiie frail alignment. No impact would result. (Source 1 and Source 6)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would tiie
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteftil 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? ( )
The project would not conflict with energy conservation plans or use non-renewable resources in a wasteftil or
inefficient manner. The project would provide a trail for walking, cycling, and other recreational uses. These uses
would not increase energy use and could have a potential beneficial impact on energy by providing a convenient
altemative to vehicle fravel for short-distance trips.
There are no known mineral resources underlying the project site. The area is highly urbaiuzed and would not be
appropriate for mineral exfraction. Project constraction would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource.
IX. HAZARDS. Would tiie 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 healtii
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
The project would constract a pedestrian/bicycle frail in the City of Carlsbad. Consfruction or operation of the
project would not requfre the use or transport of hazardous substances such as chemicals or radiation. No impact
from an accidental explosion or release of hazardous material would occur.
The project would not alter or interfere with any area roadways or emergency evacuation routes because the frail
would either be on an existing roadway or within the railroad right-of-way. The project would not impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plans.
The project proposes to designate a bike lane/route and constract a path that would not require the use, fransport, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not be a significant potential health hazard to the
public.
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
The linear frail would fravel through developed areas of Carlsbad, and no potential health hazards have been
identified in the inunediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project would not expose people to existing
sources of potential health hazards.
The project would incorporate landscaping to enhance the appearance of the Class I bike path between Oak
Avenue and Tamarack Avenue. This landscaping would be maintained and would not present a new fire hazard to
the area. The remaining portions of the frail would be located on existing city sfreets and would include no new
vegetation. No significant increased fire hazard in area would result.
X. NOISE. Would tiie proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(
•
•
•
•
•
•
Only nunimal noise would be generated by the use of the frail by pedestrians and bicyclists. No substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in tiie project vicinity would result. Temporary increases in ambient
noise levels would occur during constraction of the project. Because the increase in noise levels due to
constraction activities would be temporary and in accordance with the City noise standards, the impact would be
less than significant.
Along portions of the proposed alignment, the frail would be located near the raifroad fracks and crossings.
Generally, the northem segment, from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue, would be dfrectiy adjacent to the fracks
and associated crossings. The southem portion on Avenida Encinas is nearby the Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster
station. The very southem portion of the frail would be near the railroad fracks and crossing at La Costa Avenue in
Encinitas. These areas would be exposed to trains passing by and loud hom blasts and waming signals at
crossings. Near at-grade crossings, the combination of the train pass-by plus the signal crossing horn would result
in peak noise levels of 90 decibels or greater at a distance of 50 feet (Source I). However, this exposure to noise
would be short term and intermittent, occurring only when frains pass by. Because this exposure to high noise
levels would be temporary and sporadic along tiie frail, no significant impact would result. Ambient noise levels
would not expose persons to severe noise levels and would generally consist of local roadway noise.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would tiie proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (
Police protection? (
Schools? (
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
b)
c)
d)
(
e) Other govemmental services? (
• • • K
• • •
• • • K
• • Kl •
• • •
The proposed project is a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. This recreational frail would not result in impacts to fire or
police protection, nor would it generate additional students to impact schools. The proposed project would requfre
additional public services for regular and periodic maintenance monitoring. These services are typical for
managing any park or road facility and would not extend beyond normal maintenance and pafrolling. No effects
on other public facilities would occur from the proposed project.
XII.UTILrriES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would tiie
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( ) • • •
Rev. 06/2000
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Intact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Communications systems? ( ) • • • Kl
c) Local or regional water freatment or distribution • • • Kl facilities? ( ) • • •
ti) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) • • • Kl e) Storm water drainage? ( ) • • • X D Solid waste disposal? ( ) • • • Kl
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) • • • Kl
The proposed pedestrian/bike pathway would not require the use of power, natural gas, communications, or water,
nor would it generate wastewater or solid waste. Landscaping would be provided along the Class I bike path,
which may requfre irrigation for plant establishment and maintenance. Such irrigation would be minimal and
would be provided through the City water system. The Class I bike frail would generate storm water mnoff due to
a minor increase in the amount of impervious surface; however, the expansion of existing drainage facilities would
not be requfred.
At the intersection of Oak Avenue and tiie proposed frail alignment, a telephone and light pole exist at the westem
end ofthe intersection and a drainage facility is located within the eastem side of the proposed frail alignment. The
telephone and light poles would be moved approximately 15 feet and 20 feet, respectively, outside of tiie proposed
alignment. A portion of tiie existing drainage system would be paved over; however, a Type A inlet would be
installed at the intersection of Oak Avenue and the proposed bike path. This feature of the project would provide
adequate drainage.
xm. AESTHETICS. Would tiie proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? FH FH F"!
( ^ I—I I—I i—J 1^
b) Have a demonsfrate negative aesthetic effect? FH FH FH
( J I—I I—1 LL^ 1—I
c) Create light or glare? ( ^ • • • K
The project would not be located in the vicinity of a scenic highway (Source 5). The City of Carlsbad General
Plan does not specifically call out any scenic vistas (Carlsbad 1994). The project would not obstmct any ocean
views or other scenic areas. Therefore, no impact would result.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in botii temporary and permanent visual changes (see
Attachment C). Constraction of the trail would result in short-term visual changes. Constraction would be
temporary and individual areas would be disturbed for only short periods of time as the constraction activities pass
along the linear alignment. Trail constmction would involve excavation of the pathway, paving, grading,
landscaping, re-striping, etc. This temporary impact is not considered significant.
The frail would be designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Along the Class I portion of tiie project adjacent to the
raifroad right-of-way, from Oak Avenue soutii to Tamarack Avenue, the new landscaping and vegetation
associated with the bike path would improve tiie visual character of tiie existing vacant right-of-way. A 6-foot-
high wfre-mesh fence would be placed between the Class I bike path and the raifroad fracks, approximately 60 feet
from the fracks. The fence would not obstract views or be visually intrasive. As a visual enhancement and safety
barrier at the intersection of the raifroad right-of-way and Chestnut Avenue, a 6-foot-high masonry wall feature
would be constracted. This feature would extend 50 feet on both sides of Chestnut Avenue on the west side of the
bike path. In many areas along this sfretch where there are residential viewers, the residences have installed
privacy fencing on thefr property that would obstract views towards the trail. A 6-foot-high chain-link fence
would be placed along property lines at the eastern edge of the frail. The additional fencing would not infroduce a
new obstmction, and tiie visual continuity may be perceived as an aestiietic improvement.
10 Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Along portions of the frail where the aligmnent is outside of the railroad right-of-way, such as State Sfreet and
Avenida Encinas, the Class II or III frail would consist of only resfripping on the existing paved roadways or frail
identification signage along the alignment. The visual change would be barely perceptible. No visual impacts
would result. Implementation of the project would not result in permanent adverse visual changes.
The project would not include any lighting features that would create light or glare. No impact would result.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tiie 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) Resfrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
The project is located within a disturbed and highly urbanized area. No unique resources with ethnic cultural
values were identified along the project alignment. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to unique resources
would occur.
No religious or sacred uses occur within the urban developed project area. No impact would result from
implementation of the project (Sources 1 and 4).
• • • X
• • • Kl
• • • Kl • • • K
• • • Kl
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would tiie proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
) (
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Coastal Rail Trail would provide a recreational opportunity in the form of a pedestrian/bicycle frail. This trail
would provide users with increased access to local and regional parks including the beach. It would not adversely
affect existing recreational facilities.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDEMGS OF SIGNIHCANCE.
a) Does tiie project have the potential to degrade tiie
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 resfrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
• • •
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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 tiie effects of
probable fiiture projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either dfrectiy or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
• •
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
• •
•
XVn. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a) Earlier analyses used. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, Coastal Rail Trail
Project Oceanside to Del Mar (2001).
b) Impacts adequately addressed. The following issue areas were adequately
addressed in the MND: land use and planning, population and housing, geologic
problems, water, air quality, transportation/circulation, energy and mineral
resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities and services systems, cultural
resources, and recreation.
Addition biological, access, and visual quality studies were conducted and are
attached.
c) Mitigation measiu'es. There would be no potentially significant impacts as a
result of the proposed project. The mitigation measures adopted in the Final
MND are listed in Attachment A.
Sources
1. City of Carlsbad
2(X)1 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to
Del Mar. Prepared by CLM, Inc. for tiie City of Carlsbad. April 2001.
2. Cityof Carlsbad
1994 General Plan. Adopted September 6.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey: San Diego Area, Califomia, San Luis Rey Quadrangle.
4. Cityof Carlsbad
2000 Technical Studies for Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project
Oceanside to Del Mar. Prepared with assistance by CLM, Inc. October.
12 Rev. 06/2000
5. Califomia Department of Transportation
2003 Califomia Scenic Highway Program. Available at: www.dot.ca.gov. Downloaded
on May 12, 2003.
6. EDAW
2002 Biological Survey Letter Report for the Coastal Rail Trail Project within the City
of Carlsbad Local Coastal Zone. June 27.
01 }K219 Carlsbad CRT EIA MND
13 Rev. 06/2000
ATTACHMENT A
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail
Project Description
The City of Carlsbad proposes to construct a segment of the Coastal Rail Trail, a 44-mile-long
regional bicycle and pedestrian pathway/trail that will extend from northem Oceanside to
downtown San Diego. The Carlsbad segment of the Coastal Rail Trail (Figure 1) would begin in
northem Carlsbad at the southem end of the Oceanside Coastal Rail Trail. The trail would
continue south within the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad right-of-way or on city
streets until it connects to the City of Encinitas segment of the Coastal Rail Trail. Approximately
3.2 miles of the Coastal Rail Trail would be located in the City of Carlsbad. Where the trail
would be in railroad right-of-way, the trail would be constmcted as a Class I bike path. Class I
bike paths are facilities with exclusive rights-of-way, with minimum cross flows by motorists.
Where the trail is located on city streets, the street surface would be striped to designate the trail
(Class n), or signs would be posted to designate the trail route (Class HI).
The Coastal Rail Trail alignment has been previously evaluated in the approved Final Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND), Coastal Rail Trail Project, Oceanside to Del Mar (City of
Carlsbad 2001). The Final MND addressed the entire Coastal Rail Trail project from Oceanside
to Del Mar. In that MND, each local jurisdiction adopted measures to mitigate potential
impacts related to Coastal Rail Trail constmction in their jurisdiction. The City of Carlsbad
adopted six mitigation measures to address the issues of aesthetics/visual resources, public
safety/hazards, and cultural resources. All six are listed below and are hereby incorporated by
reference into the MND:
AestheticsA^isual
1. Each city, in the final design process, shall process a Landscape Plan that 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 a level of insignificance.
2. Each city, in the final design process, shall adequately address the 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 constmction 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
A-1
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 SDl-6751, the City of Carlsbad shall monitor any gmbbing
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 the trail
constmction, 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.
The City of Carlsbad is proposing to slightly modify the project described in the Final MND.
The proposed modifications are addressed in this MND. The two differences are:
1. Elimination of a pedestrian at-grade crossing at Chesmut Avenue, and
2. Implementation of the project in several phases.
Each of these elements are described in more detail below.
Element 1 - Elimination of Chesmut Avenue At-Grade Crossing
The project design addressed in the Final MND included an at-grade, pedestrian crossing of the
railroad tracks at Chesmut Avenue. That project element has been eliminated from project
design, but existing at-grade crossings at Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue would
remain.
Chesmut Avenue is located in a portion of the Class I trail that extends between Oak Avenue and
Tamarack Avenue. Between these two streets, a Class I bike path would be constmcted within
the NCTD right-of-way on the eastem side of the railroad tracks (Figure 2). This alignment was
previously analysed in the Final MND. The path would include a 12-foot-wide, paved, multi-use
path with 3-foot-wide landscaped shoulders on either side. A 6-foot-high, welded, wire-mesh
fence would be erected approximately 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks. The bike
path would be constmcted approximately 14 feet from the fence.
Chestnut Avenue currently terminates at the NCTD right-of-way on both the east and west side
of the right-of-way. The new design would involve constraction of masonry walls on the west
side of the path at Chestnut Avenue (Figure 3). The wall would be constracted parallel to the
trail, approximately 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks. In this location, the
A-2
masonry wall would be constracted instead of the 6-foot-high, wire-mesh fence. This wall
would be set back approximately 38 feet from the eastem edge of the railroad right-of-way. It
would be centered at the tenninus of Chestnut Avenue. As shown on Figure 4, a driveway
would be cut into the existing curb and gutter to allow cyclists, pedestrians, and emergency
vehicles to enter the trail. The intent is to allow pedestrians/ bicyclists to enter the Coastal Rail
Trail, while discouraging cross-traffic.
Element 2 - Phased Implementation
The City of Carlsbad proposes to constmct the Coastal Rail Trail in several distinct phases. In
the first phase, the northem and southem segments would be constracted. The middle segment
would be constracted as a second phase or as multiple phases. The northem segment would
generally be between Tamarack Avenue and Oak Avenue (Figure 4a). It would consist of a
Class I bike path. The southem segment would be located generally between the Poinsettia
coaster station and the Carlsbad/Encinitas city boundary (Figure 4b). This segment would
consist of a Class II bike lane striped on the roadway.
As noted in the Final MND, public art would be incorporated into the design of the Class I bike
path, possibly including decorative pavement or stonework. In addition, landscape conceptual
plans have been prepared for the path. This area would be planted with native and coastal-
adapted vegetation and would be irrigated.
Also as noted in the Final MND, signage would be placed along the bike path to identify the
trail, to direct trail users along the route, and to wam of potential hazards. A dashed, yellow
centerline stripe would be used to separate the two-way bike path.
The southem segment of the project would involve designating Avenida Encinas south of the
Poinsettia coaster station, and Carlsbad Boulevard between Avenida Encinas and La Costa
Boulevard (nortiiem boundary of the City of Encinitas) as a Class n bike facility by restriping
bike lanes on the road surface. Signage would be placed along the bike lanes to identify the trail.
This segment would remain unchanged from that analyzed in the Final MND.
01IK219 Carlsbad CRT EIA MND }\J f.O/^t^U/^^O ^i.C\CC4 ^ftr'^LUlf^
0
A-3
PtAM, COtSTM. fWL TRM.
•Two-eur MMT. wnnsrmm wm mnantmmtmiamoutim STMDHflD pum MM term (
-uema mujm " vaamt mm
PLAth COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
seta. r-4e
CARLSBAD .-..^jaaa^,
COASTAL RAL IRAL W-o/wot,
gRP.KKEN 1 mil 1 IIH TJI .at OM gRP.KKEN
ciCMit or •oau
mSL.
KM r.MucMrr •ct-eoejon
V
0 0M « »
Uwin. wai. «• io<nc FOB
1 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
Uwin. wai. «• io<nc FOB
1 COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
li'wiU •UI* mum
gr V IKVRON OCWTCM Ml
ets* • •rr w •MW.
••11^ 1 lauer lO. • OMiie in.
1 -5555 |3„.„
Figure 2b
Class 1 Bike Path from
Tamarack Avenue to Oak Avenue
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Wetland Delineation
Graphics JKl\9CoastidKiB\TTmhFig2W!poat.fhi (bradyd) I/S/02
-7^
*INC NoBlE
END
SOV/T
- -^J^^ v^n;/
-1**00 -"^^
^ IV
'',two-CQv Um. icum srmm mti wnfiTvc euss SMB. w umiMs iSTMMv PLiw MM oerJw I I Tl
BEGIN
24*^
-nw-aw^A*i«F.-mtfli-srAnc MTM— WFtficnc cuss aras f» OVAWS
21*00-i«*op
PLANt COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
X a pa « 10
X 0 »s « m>
CARLSBAD
COASTAL RAL TRAL'
DOKKEN
BNOINBBKIIfa
MIW.* *» «;»r. <S SWWW
BOBSB3 tllGM£» or •OM:
stm
^illCITY OP CASLSBAD||<f'<
1 r II cnscuHB dCPanwHT II AA xnfwcwMGC.JWiomc KJM ro*<
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
xnfwcwMGC.JWiomc KJM ro*<
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL
T UW cv«-a« twn on DOMEK WE
wn w n RC VISION OESC"»W< UI
•TMI • morn.
am
0<* V SSK— 3455 bre-w
Figure 2a
Class 1 Bike Path from
Tamarack Avenue to Oak Avenue
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Wetland Delineation
Graphics lK219Coasial Rail Traif>Fig2btpaih.fliS ibradyd) 1/8/02
7^
6-FOOT-HIGH
WIRE MESH
FENCE
6-FOOT-HIGH-
MASONRY WALL
100'
-60"-
6-FOOT-HIGH
WIRE MESH
FENCE
-20
6-FOOT-HlQH
CHAIN LINK
FENCE
NEW CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
CHESTNUT AVE.
CUL-DE-SAC
6-FOOT-HIGH
CHAIN LINK
FENCE
O
NOSCALE
Figure 3
Conceptual Plan View
Masonry Wall Feature at Chestnut Avenue
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail
IK2i9CoaslatRmlTraimgme^Figicona!flJS^(bra^) 5113/03
uue B m/r xmaur/IS
PACIFIC OCEAN
//RUB
*^'N(/ CLASS I BIKE PATH
Source: Thomas Bros. 2002
NO SCALE
Figure 9a
Proposed Project - North Segment
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail
IK219CoastalRailTraimguref^Fig2nseg.JhS(bradyd) 5/li/03
CLASS II BIKE LANE
Source: Ttiomas Bros. 2002
^^^^^^
NO SCALE
Figured
Proposed Project • South Segment
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail
1K2I9 Coasial Rail Trait^igureA FigSbnseg.fhS (bradyd) 5/13/03
ATTACHMENT B
Coastal Rail Trail Access Study
PRO.TECT OVERVIEW
The Coastal Rail Trail project in Carlsbad is a segment of the Coastal Rail Trail, a 44-mile-long
regional bicycle and pedestrian pathway/trail that is located within the North County Transit District
right-of-way and on city streets. The proposed trail would extend south from the San Luis Rey River
in Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. Where the trail would be within the
railroad right-of-way, it would be constracted as a Class I, paved, multi-use path. Class I bikeways
are facilities with exclusive rights-of-way, with minimum cross flows by motorists. Where the trail
is located on city streets, the street surface would be striped to designate the trail lane (Class II), or
signs would be posted to designate the trail route (Class IB).
The Carlsbad portion of the Coastal Rail Trail will be developed in phases. The first phase, analysed
in this report, contains two segments. Between Oak Avenue and Tamarack Avenue, a Class I bike
path would be constracted within the NCTD right-of-way on the eastem side of the railroad tracks.
The southem segment of the project would involve designating Avenida Encinas, south of the
Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster station, and Carlsbad Boulevard between Avenida Encinas and La Costa
Avenue (northem boundary of the City of Encinitas), as a Class n bike facility by restriping bike
lanes on the road surface and erecting Coastal Rail Trail identifying signs along the roadway.
The purpose of this access study is to determine existing east/west access points that would bisect
the Class I bike path and any resulting impacts to these access points with implementation of this
project. This study focuses only on the Class I bike path in the NCTD right-of-way because the
remaining alignment would be located on existing streets and would not impede or alter any access
points. Along these city streets the trail would not be restricted, and complete access would be
available for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicle traffic. In addition, access would not be
restricted for persons wanting to enter onto the trail or those wanting to exit the trail and travel
throughout the local community to areas such as the beach. These portions of the trail located on
city streets with no restrictive access were not analyzed in this study.
As described above, the Class I bike path would be within the railroad right-of-way from Oak
Avenue south to Tamarack Avenue. Design of this portion of the trail would include a 12-foot-wide,
paved, multi-use path with landscaped shoulders on either side. Project design also includes fencing
between the path and the railroad tracks to ensure safety for trail users in the right-of-way due to the
proximity to the railroad tracks. Trains pass through this area frequently and at high speeds. A
6-foot-high, welded, wire mesh fence would be erected approximately 60 feet east of the centerline
of the railroad tracks parallel to the bike path. A 6-foot-high masonry wall would be erected at
Chestnut Avenue instead of the wire mesh fence to provide an additional safety feature. A 100-foot-
long masonry wall would be constracted 38 feet west of the eastem edge of the railroad right-of-way,
centered on the terminus of Chesmut Avenue and west of the bike path. There would be no east/west
access through the fencing/wall along the length of the Class I bike path from Oak Avenue to
Tamarack Avenue because of the physical barrier it creates.
B-1
EASTAVEST ACCESS POINTS
Carlsbad Village Drive
The northemmost east/west track crossing near the Class I bike path would be located on Carlsbad
Village Drive. Carlsbad Village Drive is a major east/west roadway through Carlsbad, connecting
Interstate 5 to the beach areas with a signalized crossing at the raihroad tracks. Carlsbad Village
Drive would provide a legal east/west crossing approximately 500 feet north of the Class I bike path.
Tamarack Avenue
When using the Class I bike path the next east/west access point would be less than 0.75 mile (4,000
feet) to the south at Tamarack Avenue. The southem terminus of the Class I bike path would be at
Tamarack Avenue and would not actually cross the road; however, trail users would be
exiting/entering the Class I bike path at this point. Tamarack Avenue provides a major east/west
access to beach areas, with a signalized crossing at the railroad tracks.
Illegal Crossings
During field visits to the site, people were observed walking within the NCTD right-of-way along
the railroad tracks. People were also observed crossing the tracks at places other than designated
crossings. Though illegal, people trespass and cross the railroad right-of-way to access the other
side. On the westem side of the railroad tracks, most east/west roads between Tamarack Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive dead end near the tracks, and access to the right-of-way is possible at these
points. The majority of the property lining the east side of the railroad tracks is lined with solid noise
walls or chain link fence. These walls and fences eliminate most illegal crossing opportunities along
the Class I bike path alignment. However, access to the right-of-way is possible in two areas along
the eastem side of the tracks. Breaks in the fencing occur at Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue.
Chestnut Avenue is one location where persons illegally cross the railroad tracks to access the nearby
beach areas. Chestnut Avenue dead-ends into cul-de-sacs on both the east and west sides of the
railroad tracks. On each side there is a wooden fence with waming signs; however, this fencing is
easily circumvented and pedestrians cross illegally from one end of Chestnut Avenue to the
continuation of the road on the other side of the railroad tracks. With implementation of the Class
I bike path, the safety fencing would eliminate the illegal east/west access at this location. From
Chestnut Avenue, the next access to westbound roads would be at Carlsbad Village Drive,
approximately 0.4 mile (2,000 feet) north. Travel on existing streets or through the existing park is
required to access Carlsbad Village Drive. The next southem east/west access area would be at
Tamarack Avenue, slightly more than 0.5 mile (2,300 feet) south.
Oak Avenue dead ends on botii the east and west side of the NCTD right-of-way. On the eastem side
of the railroad tracks there is a large gap in the chainlink fence, allowing for illegal access to the
right-of-way. During field visits, pedestrians and bicyclists were seen using this gap in the fence to
enter the right-of-way. From this access point, persons could cross directly to the westem side of the
railroad tracks where Oak Avenue continues or access one of the other dead end roads on the westem
side, such as Pine Avenue. This illegal access point would be eliminated with constraction of the
B-2
Class I bike path and associated fencing. From Oak Avenue, the nearest east/west access would be
located approximately 0.1 mile (500 feet) north at Carlsbad Village Drive.
CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the City of Carlsbad, die Coastal Rail Trail would provide an opportunity for trail users
to access areas to the west of the railroad right-of-way. When located on city streets, trail users
would have unrestricted access to all westbound or eastbound roadways. The bike path would be less
than 0.75 mile (3,800 feet) in length and would not travel across any major roadway that serves as
direct access from inland areas to the coast.
Constraction of the Class I bike path would eliminate the illegal east/west access points along the
bike path alignment at Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue. The farthest distance without a access
point, where an illegal crossing currently exists, would be from Chestnut Avenue to Tamarack
Avenue, less than 0.5 mile (2,300 feet). This is not considered a significant loss of east/west access
or a substantial reduction in beach access because safe, legal crossings existing within a reasonable
distance to both the north and south of all areas along tiie bike path alignment. In addition, the safety
fencing associated with the Class I bike path would provide increased public safety by eliminating
existing illegal crossing of tiie railroad tracks.
Phase I of the trail within the City of Carlsbad, meets the goal of providing increased non-motorized
access to the coastal zone by providing a safe, well-maintained trail traveling near the coastHne.
02IK2I9 Carlsbad CRT Access Study - Attach B.wpd
B-3
ATTACHMENT C
Visual Assessment for
Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail
Visual impacts from the Coastal Rail Trail project were analyzed in the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND), Coastal Rail Trail Project, Oceanside to Del Mar (2001). That document
found that no significant visual impacts would result fi-om implementation of the trail project. This
visual study is focused on the portion of the Coastal Rail Trail located within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the City of Carlsbad. The study describes the change to existing viewers in areas
where the trail would be constracted. The intent of this smdy is not to analyze the views of users of
the future trail. The Final MND identifies where new trail users would have views of the ocean,
which is considered a project benefit, but is not disclosed here.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Coastal Rail Trail project is a segment of the Coastal Rail Trail, a 44-mile-long regional bicycle
and pedestrian pathway/trail that is located within the North County Transit District right-of-way and
on city streets. The proposed trail would extend south from the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside
to the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. The trail would travel through the cities of Carlsbad,
Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego. Where the trail would be within the railroad
right-of-way, it would be constracted as a 12-foot-wide Class I paved, multi-use path. Class I
bikeways are facilities with exclusive rights-of-way, with minimum cross flows by motorists. Where
the trail is located on city streets, the street surface would be striped to designate the trail (Class II),
or signs would be posted to designate the trail route (Class IH).
Portions of the trail that would be located along existing streets would not impact visual resources
because no grading or constraction activities are proposed. The trail would be identified on existing
streets by restriping on the existing pavement to designate bike lanes or by placing identification
signs with the official markings. Those portions of the Coastal Rail Trail within existing streets in
Carlsbad would not create substantial visual change and are therefore not analyzed in this report.
Areas where the trail would be constracted within the railroad right-of-way are the focus of this
study. Within Carlsbad, the trail would be within the railroad right-of-way from Oak Avenue south
to Tamarack Avenue. As described above, tiie proposed project would create a new paved trail
within the railroad right-of-way on the east side of the tracks with signs placed periodically along
the pathway. The Coastal Rail Trail elements would be designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
Design of tiiis portion of the trail would include a 12-foot-wide paved multi-use path with
^sS-foot-wide landscaped shoulders on either side. Project design also includes fences between the
path and the raiboad tracks to ensure safety for trail users in the right-of-way. A 6-foot-high woven
wire-mesh fence would be erected approximately 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks
along most of the bike path. The path would be constracted approximately 14 feet east of the fence.
At Chestnut Avenue, a masonry wall feature would be constmcted instead of the wire fence to
provide an additional safety feature. The masonry wall would have two 80-foot-long segments, one
C-l
each north and south of Chestnut Avenue. Additionally, another 100-foot-long wall would be
constracted approximately 38 feet to the west. This wall would allow users to enter the bike path
at Chestnut Avenue while providing security.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Various land uses occur along both the east and west sides of the railroad tracks and along the city
streets included in the trail aligrmient. Currently, the railroad right-of-way is not vegetated and
consists mainly of dirt and gravel access roads.
The area between Oak Avenue and Tamarack Avenue consists of residential development on both
sides of the railroad tracks. Most residential developments have privacy fencing or walls in their
backyards that face the tracks to limit views of the tracks. Vegetation screening is also used as a
buffer between the tracks and adjacent properties.
VISUAL CHANGE
Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail project would result in both temporary and permanent
visual changes. Constraction would result in short-term visual changes. Permanent visual
alterations resulting from the trail would occur within areas where the trail would be constracted
within railroad rights-of-way, replacing natural terrain or dirt paths.
The existing developments and land uses that surround the trail alignment determine the type of
viewers who would be affected by the project. Viewers from residential or recreation areas are
considered sensitive. Viewers from commercial or industrial areas are not considered sensitive.
ConsUiiction activities resulting from the Coastal Rail Trail project would be short term, and
individual areas would only be disturbed for short periods of time as the constraction activities pass
along the liner alignment of the trail. Constraction activities would require the use of constraction
equipment and would result in temporary nuisances such as dust and noise. Trail constraction would
primarily involve minor grading of the pathway. Temporary constraction activities would also entail
paving of the pathway, fence installation, landscaping, and utility relocations. Constraction of the
Coastal Rail Trail would result in short-term, temporary visual changes.
Because many residences that face the railroad tracks have walls that reduce the view towards the
railroad tracks and beyond, they would also reduce views of the Coastal Rail Trail elements such as
fences, pavement, or signs.
The Coastal Rail Trail would be designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Increased vegetation and
landscaping would improve the visual character of the railroad right-of-way. No ocean views would
be obstracted. In most residential areas that are located adjacent to the railroad right-of-way and trail
alignment, existing security and privacy fencing would limit views of the trail. Many design features
of the trail would provide visual benefits to barren areas adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail would not result in permanent adverse visual changes.
04IK2I9 Carlsbad CRT Visual - Attack C.wpd May 14. 2003 (3:S4pmf
C-2