Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3455; Costal Rail Trail, Reach 1; Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project; 2003-05-01MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION COASTAL RAIL TRAIL PROJECT CITY OF CARLSBAD HA^ 2 ^ ^"^^ Prepared for. HNG\N££F^"^^ City of Carlsbad CEPARTV.HN i ^ 635 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 San Diego, CA 92123 May 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail (To be completed by staff) 2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad - Sherri Howard. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT; 1635 Faraday 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 enviromnental factor that has at least one impact checked 'Totentially 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 r~l Air QuaHty • Transportation/Circulation public Services • Biological Resources •utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics 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 tiiat tfie 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 infomiation 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 apphcable 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 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less Than No Signiflcant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal:. a) Confiict 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? d) Afiect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts 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 commuiuty)? The proposed project is a 3.2-mile segment of the Coastal Rail Trail, a 44-mile-long regional bike and pedestrian pathway/trail. The proposed project would construct the path parallel to the North Counly Transit District railroad tracks or designate a bike lane/route on existing streets, and woiUd not divide an established community. This project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. Policy C 19 of the General Plan's Circulation Element states: '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. 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. There are no agricultural resources or operations located within or adjacent to the project alignment; therefore, no impacts to soils or farmland woitid occur. Land uses surrounding the proposed trail include: open space, travel/recreation commercial areas, residential, community commercial, office & related commercial, and tiansportation corridors. The proposed bicycle trail would be compatible with the above-mentioned uses. (Sources land 2) n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area eitiier directly or indirectiy (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 raihoad 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 I) m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupttire? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 06/2000 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • • • • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources); f) 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? ( ) 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 constructed along existing roads, or in a disturbed railroad right-of- way; therefore, no impacts would occur from fault rupture, 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 construction woiUd be controlled tiirough the use of appropriate construction techniques and practices that meet state National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System standards. The proposed project is within an area susceptible to seiches and tstmamis because it is close to the ocean and lagoons; however, the trail would not construct structures and would not result in an increased risk to humans or the surrounding environment if these hazards were to occur. (Sources 1,2, & 3) rv. WATER. Would tfie proposal result in: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) 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? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? { ) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • lEI Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources); Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project would not require groundwater for operation of tiie trail. The associated landscaping of the bike patii from Oak Avenue to Tamarisk Avenue may require irrigation. This water usage would be minimal and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge because it would be provided through the City water system. In addition to the minimal use of water, tiie project would provide a small increase of impervious surface where tiie approximately 12-foot paved bike path would be biult in tiie dirt right-of-way. This amount of impervious ground surface would not substantially alter tiie 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 contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of planned or existing stormwater drainage systems, nor would it provide a substantial new source of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not create any structures. (Source I) V. AIR QUALITY. Would tiie 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? ( ) No significant source of stationary or mobile air pollutants would result from pedestiians or bicyclists using tiie trail. The facility may encourage beach users to walk or bicycle instead of drive, which could reduce automobile trips and be an air quality benefit. Temporary impacts would occur during construction, but would be short term and would cease at the end of the constmction phase. Impacts associated with project construction or operation would not violate air quality standards. The trail 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 require 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 trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipmenO? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) • • • • • • • • • Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources): d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ) The project would promote pedestrian and bicycle use. The project would not increase the number of vehicle trips or increase congestion along roadways or at intersections. The trail may encourage people to make trips 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 miiumum cross flow by motorists, providing a safe cycling and walking environment. The remainder of tiie trail, which would be located on existing city streets, would be delineated with signage and in the southem half the roadway would be restriped to designate the trail. The trail would be designed to ensure safety impacts from design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. The project would not block or alter access to any existing location 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 trail and not generate substantial parking demand. No impacts to parking would result. The Coastal Rail Trail is designed to provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists to use for commuting and recreation. Tbe 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 railroad right-of-way. The Class I bike path would provide an exclusive right of way for foot and bicycle traffic. A 6-foot-high chain link fence and 8-foot-high wrought iron fence would be erected on the west side of the bike path to provide a safety barrier between the trail users and the railroad. The fence would be placed 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks, and an additional 14 feet would separate the fence from the path. In areas where the trail would be directed onto City streets, the frail would be delineated with signage and/or striping of the roadway to inform trail users and motorized traffic of the trail alignment. Pedestrians and bicyclists would be required to follow all applicable traffic mles and regulations when traveling on shared roadways. In the southem portion, the tiail would cross the railroad tracks near the southem end at Avenida Encinas. Pedestrians and bicyclists would be required to follow appropriate safety guidelines for crossing railroad tracks. Potentially Potentially Less Hian No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources); Potentially Potentially Lessliian No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Intact Mitigation Incorporated The project would promote alternative transportation. The trail would provide a safe and continuous linear route for pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail would also pass by Carlsbad Village Coaster Station and Poinsettia Coaster Station, allowing for easy access to additional transportation modes, such as the bus or train. The trail would cross the railroad fracks at Averuda Encinas, a grade-separated crossing. There would be no impact to frain operations. The frail would not impact waterbome or airbome Q'affic. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would tiie 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) Wetiand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) A Biological Habitat Assessment letter was prepared in June 2002 for the proposed project and is included as Attachment B. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present along this phase of the trail alignment. The report also concluded that the highly disturbed habitat along the trail alignment would not support any sensitive species. In addition, no wetiands were located in this phase of the trail alignment. No impact would result. (Source 1) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would tfie proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? | [ | | j | b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and j j j | inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral I I [ [ resource that would be of future value to the region and tfie residents of tiie State? ( ) The project would not conflict with energy conservation plans or use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient maimer. The project would provide a frail for walking, cycling, and other recreational uses. These uses would not increase energy use and could have a potential beneflcial impact on energy by providing a convenient altemative to vehicle fravel for short-distance trips. There are no known nuneral resources underlying the project site. The area is highly urbanized and would not be appropriate for mineral extiaction. Project constmction would iwt result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 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 health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? ( ) The project would constmct a pedestrian/bicycle trail in the City of Carlsbad. Constmction or operation of the project would not require 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 trail 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 constmct a path tiiat would not require the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not create a significant potential health hazard to the public. The linear trail would travel through developed areas of Carlsbad, and no potential health hazards have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in the potential exposure of 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 trail would be located on existing ci^ streets and would include no new vegetation. No significant increased flre hazard in area would result. Potentially Potentially Less Than , No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • El • • • lEI • • • • X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( • • • • • • Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Only minimal noise would be generated by the use of the trail by pedestrians and bicyclists. No substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would result. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels would occur during constmction of the project. Because the increase in noise levels due to constmction activities would be temporary and in accordance with the City noise standards, the impact would be less than sigiuficant. Along portions of the proposed alignment, the trail would be located near the railroad tracks and crossings, (jenerally, the northem segment, from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue, would be directly adjacent to the tracks and associated crossings. The northem end of the southem portion on Aveiuda Encinas is nearby the Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster station. The very southem portion of the trail would be near the railroad tracks and crossing at La Costa Avenue. These areas would be exposed to trains passing by and loud hom blasts and wanting 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 1). However, this exposure to noise would be short term and intermittent, occurring only when trains pass by. Because this exposure to high noise levels would be temporary and sporadic along the trail, no signiflcant 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 the 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? ( ) b) c) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? C e) Other govemmental services? ( Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Hian Significan t Impact No Impact • • • lEI • • • IS! • • • lEI • • m • • • • Kl The proposed project is a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. This recreational trail would not result in impacts to fire or police protection, nor would it generate additional students to impact schools. The proposed project would reqiure additional public services for regular and periodic maintenance moiutoring. These services are typical for managing any park or road facility and would not extend beyond normal maintenance and patrolling. No effects on oth^ public facilities would occur from the proposed project Xn.UTILrnES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would tfie proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Information Soiu'ces); c) Storm water drainage? ( 0 Solid waste disposal? ( g) Local or regional water supplies? ( Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated ) • • • • • • • • • 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 require inigation. If imgation is needed, it would be minimal and would be provided through the City water system. The Class I bike trail 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 required. At the intersection of Oak Avenue and the proposed tiail alignment a telephone and light pole exist at the western end of the intersection and a drainage facility is located within the eastem side of the proposed trail alignment. The telephone and light poles would be moved approximately. 15 feet and 20 feet, respectively, outside of the 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 ensure adequate drainage. Xin. AESTHETICS. Would tiie proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( c) Create light or glare? ( 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 sceiuc 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. Constmction of the trail would result in short-term visual changes. Ckinstmction would be tenqiorary and individual areas would be disturbed for only short periods of time as the constmction 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 sigiuficant. The trail would be designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Along the Class I portion of the project adjacent to the railroad right- of-way, from Oak Avenue south to Tamarack Avenue, the new landscaping and vegetation associated with the bike path would improve the visual character of the existing vacant right-of-way. A 6-foot-high chain link fence would be placed between tiie Class I bike path and the railroad tracks, approximately 60 feet from the tracks. The chain link fence would not obstmct views or be visually intrusive. As a visual enhancement and safety barrier at the intersection of the raifroad right-of-way and Chestnut Avenue, an 8-foot-high fence would be constmcted of wrought fron. This heavy gage, tight weave, wrought iron fencing would extend 200 feet on both sides of Chestnut • • • • • • • • • 11 Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Infonnation Sources): Avenue. In many areas where there are residential viewers, the residences have privacy fencing on their property that would obstruct views towards the trail. Along portions of the frail where the alignment is outside of the railroad right-of-way, such as State Street and Avenida Encinas, the Class II or m trail would consist of only new stripping on the existing paved roadways or trail identiflcation signage along the alignment. 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. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitig^ion Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact XIV. a) b) c) d) e) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tiie proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) Affect historical resources? ( ) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Restrict 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 ethiuc cultural values were identifled along the project alignment. Therefore, no direct or indfrect 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). XV.RECREATIONAL. Would tiie proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) • • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl •K • • • •K • • • Kl • • • • • • The Coastal Rail Trail would provide a recreational opportunity in the form of a pedestrian/bicycle trail. This trail would provide users with increased access to local and regional parks including the beach. It would not adversely affect existing recreational facilities. 12 Rev. 06/2000 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIHCANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a flsh 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 Califomia 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 tiie 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 directiy or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Less Hian No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Intact Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • • XVn. EARLIER ANALYSES. a) Earlier analyses used. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to Del Mar (2002). 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 measures. There would be no potentially significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, no irutigation measures are proposed. Sources City of Carlsbad 2001 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Coastal Rail Trail Project Oceanside to Del Mar. Prepared by CLM, fric. for the City of Carlsbad. April 2001. City of Carlsbad 1994 General Plan. Adopted September 6. 13 Rev. 06/2000 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. 5. Califomia Department of Transportation 2003 Califomia Scenic Highway Program; Available at: www.dot.ca.gov. Downloaded on May 12,2003. IK2I9 CRT EIA MND.doc 14 Rev. 06/2000 ATTACHMENT A Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project Description The City of Carlsbad proposes to constract a segment of the Coastal Rail Trail, 44-rmle-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 northern 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 constracted 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 evaluated in the approved Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Coastal Rail Trail Project, Oceanside to Del Mar (City of Carlsbad 2001), which addressed the entire Coastal Rail Trail project from Oceanside to Del Mar. The City of Carlsbad is proposing to modify a portion of the trail from that described in the Final MND. The currentiy proposed project varies slightiy because 1) constraction would be phased, and 2) a pedestrian at-grade crossing would be eliminated. These revised Coastal Rail Trail elements will be analysed in this MND. The City of Carlsbad proposes to constract a bike path and add trail identification signs along the northem portion of the trail and strip bike lanes in the southern portion of the bike trail (Figure 2). The northem segment would start on Carlsbad Boulevard at the City of Oceanside boundary. The trail would head south on Carlsbad Boulevard, south on State Street, and west on Oak Avenue. This would be a Class HI bike trail, where signs would be posted to designate the alignment. This area has already been analysed in the Final MND. 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 (Figure 3), as previously analysed in Final MND. The path would include a 12-foot-wide paved multi-use path with 3- foot-wide landscaped shoulders on either side. A fence would be erected 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks along the northem and southem alignment of the bike path. The bike path would be constracted 14 feet from the fence. In the middle portion of the path alignment, a 400-foot-long, 8-foot-high, heavy-gage, tight-weave wrought-iron fence would be centered at Chestnut Avenue. A 6-foot-high chain link fence would be erected along the bike path alignment to the north and south of the wrought-iron fence. The project design addressed in the Final MND included an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at Chestnut Avenue. That project element is no longer being considered and has been eliminated from project design. Source: SANDAG, 2002 (Base Layers); AirPhotoUSA. 2001. 4000 0 4000 ^^^^^ 8000 Feet Scale: 1: 48 000; 1 indi = 4000 feet Figure 1 City of Carlsbad Coastal RaU Trail Coastal Rail Trail IK2mGIS\APR\CarIsbad coaslJraiLi^r 5/02/02 (A. Wall) BEST COPY Mue a manr taaoie m PACIFIC OCEAN ^^t^ CLASS I BIKE PATH CLASS III BIKE ROITTE Source: Thomas Bros. 2002 NO SCALE Figure 2a Proposed Project - North Segment Oceanside Coastal Rail Trail 1K219 Coastal Rail Tr(ut\Figurts\ Fig2nseg.fh8 (bradyd} 5/13/03 CLASS II BIKE LANE Source: Thomas Bros. 2002 o NOSCALE Figure 2b Proposed Project - South Segment Oceanside Coastal Rail Trail 1K2I9 Coastal Rail Tra/Af/gurajN Fig2bnseg.fli8 (bradyd) 5/13/03 ro tWtlMCFENCC Source: Dokken Englrwering. 2003 O100 50 0 50 100 150 Feel Scale: 1" = 150* CRT ClS\IKllincaJlFoipirt3BilupalhOakiaTamarackiiwt (caUinic) SJ4JI} Figure 3 Class I Bike Path from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue 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 (northem boundary of the City of Encinitas) as a Class II bike facility by striping bike lanes on the road surface, as analysed in the Final MND. Public art would be incorporated into the design of the Class I bike path, possibly including decorative pavement or stone work. In addition, landscape conceptual plans have been prepared for the path. The bike path alignment has been designated as Segment "B." This area would be planted with native and coastal-adapted vegetation and would be irrigated. 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. ATTACHMENT B Biological Letter Survey Report for the Coastal Rail Trail Project within the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Zone Note: The biological survey was conducted for the entire Coastal Rail Trail alignment in the City of Carlsbad, not just the northern and southem segments that are proposed for this phase of the project. As such, the attached survey report includes an analysis of biological resources that are present in the central portion of the trail that will be constracted at a future date and are not a part of this current project. All sensitive habitats and species identified in the survey report, such as wetiands, coastal sage scrab, and coastal Califomia gnatcatcher, are located within this central area of future development. There are no identified sensitive biological resources within or adjacent to the northem or southem segments of the trail. June 27, 2002 Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad Engineering Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Subject: Subject: Biological Letter Survey Report for the Coastal Rail Trail Project within the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Zone Dear Ms. Howard: The purpose of this letter is to present EDAW's findings regarding biological resources found within and adjacent to that portion of the proposed Coastal Rail Trail that is located within the Local Coastal Zone under the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad. The survey and this letter are intended to describe any sensitive vegetation communities, habitats, and survey needs within the constmction corridor of this project. The letter does not analyze direct, indirect, permanent, or temporary impacts that may result from project implementation. The Coastal Rail Trail project is a proposed regional bike and pedestrian pathway extending south from the San Luis Rey River through the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and San Diego. The portion of the Coastal Rail Trail project surveyed includes a 20-foot-wide constraction corridor between Buena Vista Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon within the City of Carlsbad. This survey and letter do not address a portion of the Coastal Rail Trail project between Chinquapin and Cannon Avenue, including a proposed 220-foot-long bridge crossing at Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The excluded area is part of the Califomia Coastal Zone and under the jurisdiction of the Califomia Coastal Commission. BIOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS On March 27 and 28,2002 EDAW biologist Ryan Roberts conducted a biological survey of the project constraction corridor to map vegetation communities and land cover types, document plant species, and determine the need for future surveys. Plant community mapping was conducted by walking along the proposed constraction corridor and recording biological resource information. EDAW biologist Ryan Roberts and I, Mark Tucker, conducted a routine wetiand delineation at the drainage between Palomar Airport Road and Cannon Road on December 14, 2002. I also delineated and made a preliminary jurisdictional determination at the small isolated drainage ditch on the eastem edge of the railroad right-of-way north of Palomar. Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad, Engineering Division June 27, 2002 Page 2 Airport Road. The wetiand delineations were conducted in accordance with Section D, Routine Determinations, Subsection 2, Areas Equal to or Less Than Five Acres in Size, in the online, annotated version of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987, www.wes.army.mil/el/wetiands/pdfs/wlman87.pdO. The determination of Corps jurisdictional wetiands is based on three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Under normal circumstances, and with the exception of some atypical situations, the 1987 Corps delineation manual requires the presence of indicators for each criterion for an area to be delineated as a wetiand. This involves identifying vegetation communities, estabfishing sample points in each community, and making jurisdictional determinations based on the results of the data collected on vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Vegetation types were mapped in the field, and data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology were collected at each sample point. An area was determined to support hydrophytic vegetation if more than 50 percent of the dominant species are listed as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC) on the USFWS National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1988 Califomia (Region 0) (Reed 1988). At each sample point, soil pits were dug to determine the presence of hydric soil field indicators such as reducing conditions, gleyed or low-chroma colors, organic streaking, among others (Environmental Laboratory 1987; United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 1998). The determination that a soil was hydric was based on the presence of field indicators and from information regarding the mapped soil series of the site from the Soil Survey ofthe San Diego Area, Califomia (Bowman 1973). The mapped soil series were then referenced to the Field Office Official List of Hydric Soil Map Units for the San Diego Area, Califomia (Soil Conservation Service 1992) to detennine whether any of the soils are considered hydric, or identified as having hydric inclusions. All data points were surveyed for the presence of primary and secondary field indicators of wetiand hydrology. Wetlands and Waters There are disturbed wetlands within the jurisdiction of the Corps and CDFG upstream (east) of the project site. This wetland area is located within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The wetiand area is bordered by upland vegetation and nonwetiand waters of the US. The dominant plant in this small wetland area is water cress (Rorippa sp). It is our understanding that this area will not be impacted by the project. The limits of Corps and CDFG jurisdiction within the immediate project area are also defined by the OHWM, which is roughly analogous to the northern and southem limits Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad, Engineering Division June 27, 2002 Page 3 of the concrete apron. Although within the jurisdiction of the Corps and CDFG, the concrete apron is not a wetland. CDFG has jurisdiction over an additional small area on the north side of the drainage, which is defined by the limits of the canopy of the single salt cedar tree {Tamarisk sp.). Califomia Coastal Commission (CCC) jurisdiction would correspond to the limits of CDFG jurisdiction. It is our understanding that the project, as currentiy designed, will not impact Corps, CDFG, or CCC jurisdiction. Therefore, no impacts to wetiands or other waters regulated by the CCC are anticipated at this location. While driving or moving materials across the concrete apron is not regulated by the Corps and CDFG, any permanent or temporary discharge of dredged or fill material (Corps) or obstmction or modification (CDFG) would be regulated. Therefore constraction materials should be stored outside the limits of Corps, CDFG, and CCC jurisdiction, and impacts to the tamarisk tree should be avoided. The drainage ditch north of Palomar Airport Road is located at the edge of the railroad access road. It appears to have developed primarily as a result of surface water pending resulting from ranoff from an adjacent parking lot. The area is approximately 1000 feet long and 1 to 2 feet wide. The drainage ditch does not appear to drain to the south, and instead water ponds there. As a result, scattered patches of wetland vegetation occur within the drainage ditch including cattail {Typha sp.), alkali grass (Puccinella sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), nutsedge {Cyperus sp.), American bulrash (Scirpus americanus), and spikerash (Eleocharis sp.). Because the area lacks a reasonable surface water connection and is not adjacent to any jurisdictional areas, this area is considered an isolated wetland, and is likely not regulated by the Corps. The area does not appear to meet the definition of a CDFG streambed either. The area does, however, appear to meet the definition of a CCC wetiand. Upland Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types The City of Carlsbad categorizes habitats in descending order (groups A through F) based on their relative sensitivity in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. The four vegetation communities and land cover types occurring within or adjacent to the constmction cortidor aire discussed below. The locations of sensitive vegetation and potential habitats along the constraction corridor are represented in Figures 1,2, and 3. Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad, Engineering Division June 27, 2002 Page 4 Southem Coastal Bluff Scrab (Group B) Southem coastal bluff scrab is a low, sometimes prostrate, scrab that occurs at localized sites along the coast south of Point Conception. Dominant plants are mostiy woody and/or succulent and include such species as saltbush {Atriplex spp.), iceplant {Carpobrotus spp.), coastal prickly-pear {Opuntia littoralis), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), dudleya (Dudleya spp.), and giant and San Diego sea-dahlia (Coreopsis gigantea and C. maritima). Coastal bluff scrab occurs in a relatively large area of land between Palomar Airport Road and the Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster Station (Figure I). Dominant species in this area include Califomia sunflower (Encelia californica), saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), Califomia buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), iceplant, and lemonadeberry. Coastal Sage Scrab (Group D) Coastal sage scrab is composed of low, soft-woody subshrabs to about 1 meter (3 feet) high and is a prevalent shrab-dominated community in Califomia. This community occurs on xeric sites with shallow soils or on dry sites, such as steep, south-facing slopes or clay-rich soils that are slow to release stored water. Sage scrab species are typically drought deciduous plants with shallow root systems. Both of these adaptations allow for the occurrence of sage scrab species on these xeric sites. Coastal sage scrab occurs in two areas south of Cannon Road (Figure 2). Both sites are disturbed, surrounded by development, and confined to nartow strips adjacent to the railroad. Dominant plant species in these areas include goldenbush, California buckwheat, coyote bush, laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), Califomia sage (Artemisia californica), yerba santa (Eriodycton crassifolium), and sugarbush (Rhus ovata). Nonnative Grassland (Group E) Nonnative grassland generally occurs on fine-textured loam or clay soils that are moist or even waterlogged during the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall. It is characterized by a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses, often with native and nonnative annual forbs. This habitat is a disturbance-related community most often found in old fields or openings in native scrab habitats. Typical grasses within the region include wild oat (Avena sp.), soft chess (Bromus mollis), red brome (Bromus madritensis), ripgutgrass {Bromus diandrus), and foxtail fescue {Vulpia myorus). Characteristic forbs include red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), black mustard Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad, Engineering Division June 27, 2002 Page 5 (Brassica nigra), tarweed (Hemizonia spp.), California goldfields (Lasthenia chrysostoma), and owl's clover (Orthocarpus purpurascens). Small patches of nonnative grassland border the constraction corridor north of Carlsbad Village Coaster Station (Figure 3). Dominant species in these communities include salt grass (Distichlis spicata), ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), ripgut, and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Ornamental/Nonnative Shrabland (Group F) Escaped naturalized omamentals and other nonnative shrabs are a dominant component in coastal San Diego County. This vegetation type is especially abundant in proximity to urban areas. Omamental/nonnative shrabland is found at several locations on site. Dominant nonnative plants in these areas include castor bean (Ricinus communis), myoporam (Myoporum laetum), sawgrass {Cortaderia jubata), rice grace (Piptatherummiliaceum), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca)^ Canary Island palm (Phoenix canariensis), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), and Mexican fan pd\m{Washingtonia robusta). Dominant native plants include laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), yerba santa (Eriodycton crassifolium) and sugarbush (Rhus ovata). Nonnative woodland ("Group F) This community is dominated by several species of gum tree. These introduced species produce large amounts of leaf and bark litter, the chemical composition of which inhibits the establishment and growth of other species, especially natives, in the understory. Generally, these species were planted for aesthetic and horticultural purposes, but many species of eucalyptus have become naturalized and have been quite successful in invading riparian areas. This community occurs on site at one location between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road and is dominated by gum tree. Other species occurring in this patch include mexican fan palm, myoporam, iceplant, and goldenbush. Disturbed/Ruderal Habitat (Group F) Disturbed/raderal habitat is any land that has been permanentiy altered by previous human activity including grading, repeated clearing, intensive agriculture, vehicular damage, or dirt roads. Disturbed/raderal habitat is typically characterized by more than Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad, Engineering Division June 27, 2002 Page 6 50 percent bare ground or may be dominated by invasive nonnative forbs that are adapted to a regime of frequent disturbances. Furthermore, previous disturbances were severe enough to eliminate future potential biological value of the land without active restoration. Vegetation is sparse, when present, and typically includes nonnative weed species including mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Russian thistle {Salsola tragus), fountain grass, and horseweed (Conyza canadensis), among others. Disturbed/raderal habitats within the constmction corridor are often associated with railroad access roads and are characterized by bare compacted soils that are sparsely vegetated or are devoid of vegetation. Plant species that may occur in these areas include mustard, Russian thistle, fountain grass, horseweed, black mustard, and ragweed. Disturbed/raderal habitat may also be characterized by the dominance of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). A large stretch of disturbed habitat has been identified north of Cannon Road. This area contains some scattered coastal sage scrab species such as Califomia buckwheat and golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum). Developed (Group F) Developed areas support no native vegetation and may be additionally characterized by the presence of human-made stractures such as buildings or paved roads. Sensitive Vegetation Communities Sensitive habitats within the survey area include coastal sage scrab, coastal bluff scrab, and nonnative grasslands. Coastal sage scrab is considered Group D sensitive habitat by the City of Carlsbad and is considered sensitive by the CDFG. This community supports a number of sensitive species. The coastal Califomia gnatcatcher listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is an obligate breeding resident of coastal sage scrab. Coastal sage scrab within and adjacent to the constraction corridor is disturbed and isolated. Therefore, it is not considered suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife. Nonnative grasslands are considered a Group E sensitive habitat by the City of Carlsbad. These communities provide important foraging habitat for raptors and may support other sensitive wildlife and plant species. Nonnative grasslands on site are small, isolated, and disturbed and are therefore not considered suitable foraging habitat raptors. Ms. Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad, Engineering Division June 27, 2002 Page 7 Coastal bluff scrab is considered a Group D sensitive habitat by the City of Carlsbad. Development along the southem Califomia coastline has reduced this community throughout its range. Sensitive Plant Species Based on these surveys no sensitive plant species were detected within the survey area. Sensitive Animal Species EDAW biologist Eric Lacoste conducted focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica californica) pursuant to protocols established by the USFWS on April 27; May 4; and May 12,2002. Coastal Califomia gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in coastal bluff scrab located between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Station. The coastal Califomia gnatcatcher was not detected during these surveys and is not expected to occur on site due to the low quality of habitat. On two occasions during the coastal Califomia gnatcatcher surveys, Mr. LaCoste detected a least Bell's vireo in riparian habitat adjacent to, but outside of, the constraction corridor south of Palomar Airport Road, To avoid potential indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo, constraction activities near this location should not occur during the breeding season (April 1 to July 31). Constraction outside of the breeding season (August 1 to March 31) would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to this species. Ifyou have any questions or need further clarification, please call me at (619) 233-1454. Sincerely, Mark Tucker Senior Ecologist Attachment: Figures I, 2, and 3 }Mi9 Bio Utter for LCP 5-20-03.wpd REFERENCES Bowman, R. 1973 Soil Survey ofthe San Diego Area, Califomia. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service in cooperation with University of Califomia Agricultural Experiment Station, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps. Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) 1995 Criteria for Hydric Soils. USDA_NRCS Hydric Soils of the United States Introduction. Http://www.statiab.iastate.edu/ soils/hydric/intro.html Oberbauer, T. and J. Vanderwier 1991 The vegetation and geologic substrate association and its effect on development in southem Califomia. In, Abbot, P. and B. Elliot. Geo! Soc. North Amer., So. Calif. Reg., Sympos. Oct. 21-24,1991, San Diego, Califomia. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1998 National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26.10). Soil Conservation Service 1992 Field Office Official List of Hydric Soil Map Units for the San Diego Area, Califomia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service 1998 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 4.0. G.W Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F. (eds.). USDA, NRCS, Ft. Worth, TX. PROJECT MAPS Source: SANDAG(1995), SANGIS(Jan. 2002). O 1500 0 1500 Feet Scale: 1" = 1.500' 1:18.000 Figure 1 Sensitive Habitats Along the Coastal Rail Trait Construction Corridor Coastal Rail Trail IK219\GIS\APR\mv)3j:bad_poinlset.apr 5/6/02 (tesiert) Pacific Ocean Approxlmati Location of Trail Within the Coastal Zone Approximate Location of Trail Qutsldtt of Local Coastal Zorte ^'f Railroad Streams Ifrfoot Contours Approximate Location of Disturtwd Isolated Wetland Within tha Project Aprroximata Location of DIsturiMd Wetland Adjacent totheProfeet Aprroxlmate Location of Coastal Saga Scrub See Figure 1 Source: SANOAG(19g5), SANGIS(Jan. 2002). ^^^^^^ 1500 Scale: 1" = 1,500' 1:18,000 Figure 2 1500 Feet Sensitive Habitats Along the Coastal Rail Trail Construction Corridor Coastal Rail Trail lK2l9\GlS\APR\map2 cbadjxanttet.apr 5/6/02 (jeslert) Pacific Ocean CARLSBAD VILLAGE COASTER STATION Approximate Location of Trail Railroad Streems Roads 1ft-foot Contoura Approximate Location of Nonnative Grassland Sie^ Fiacre 2 Source; SANDAG(1995), SANGIS{Jan. 2002). O 1500 0 Scale: r= 1.500' 1:18.000 Figure 3 1500 Feet Sensitive Habitats Along the Coastal Rail Trail Construction Corridor Coastal Rail Trail IK2I9\GlS\APR\tnapi_cbadjointsa.apr 5/6/02 (jestert) ATTACHMENT C COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ACCESS STUDY PROJECT 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. The Carlsbad portion of the Coastal Rail Trail will be developed in phases. The first phase, analysed in this report, contains two segments. The northern segment would start on Carlsbad Boulevard at the City of Oceanside boundary. The trail would travel south on Carlsbad Boulevard, south on State Street, and west on Oak Avenue. This portion would be a Class III bike trail, where signs would be posted to designate the alignment. 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 raihroad 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 II bike facility by striping bike lanes on the road surface. Areas where the trail would be constmcted within the railroad right-of-way are the focus of this study. As described above, within Carlsbad, the trail would be within the railroad right-of-way from Oak Avenue south to Tamarack Avenue. The 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. 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 fences between the path and the railroad tracks to ensure safety for trail users in the right-of-way. A 6-foot-high chain link fence would be erected 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks along the northem and southem alignment of the bike path. A 400-feet-long, 8-foot-high heavy-gage, tight-weave wrought-iron fence, centered at Chestnut Avenue, would be erected instead of the chain link fence to provide an additional safety feature. The path would be constmcted 14 feet from the fence. The original project design in the Final MND included an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks at Chestaut Avenue. That project element is no longer being considered and has been eliminated from project design. Throughout portions of Carlsbad, the trail would travel on city streets as described above. Along these city streets the trail would not be restricted, and complete access would be available for 1 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. Direct Access to Major East/West Roadways Tamarack Avenue The Class I bike path would not travel across any major roadway that serves as direct access from inland areas to the coast. This phase of the project would end at Tamarack Avenue just east of the railroad tracks and would not actually cross the road; however, trail users would be exiting/entering the Class I bike path at this point. Tamarack Avenue would provide a major east/west access to beach areas for bicyclists/pedestrians using the trail. The next direct east/west access point when using the Class I bike path is less than 0.75 mile (3,960 feet) to the north at Carlsbad Village Drive. Indirect East /West Access Points Carlsbad Boulevard The northemmost indirect access point within Carlsbad would be located on Carlsbad Boulevard. Carlsbad Boulevard is a major north/south roadway along the Carlsbad coastiine that crosses from the east side of the tracks to the west side near beach areas. The trail is designed to travel on Carlsbad Boulevard from the northern jurisdictional boundary south to State Street. Access to Carlsbad Boulevard would allow trail users to travel both east and west of the railroad tracks. Reduced Access Points During field visits to the site, people were observed walking within the right-of-way along the railroad tracks. People were also observed crossing the tracks at places other than designated crossings. Though illegal, people do trespass and cross the railroad right-of-way to access the other side. This is especially common in areas where roadways dead-end near the railroad tracks, such as Chestaut Avenue. Some other streets, such as Oak Avenue, also dead end on both sides of the tracks, but access is restricted by masonry walls at the cul-de-sacs or intervening vegetation. Chestnut Avenue Chestnut Avenue is not currentiy a direct east/west access; however, persons illegally cross the railroad tracks in this area. Chestaut Avenue dead-ends into cul-de-sacs on both the east and west sides of the railroad tracks. In the original design of the Coastal Rail Trail, an at-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing was planned for trail users to access Chestnut Avenue on the west side of the railroad tracks and travel to the beach areas. This access point has been eliminated from the current design. Because the project would constract a 6- to 8-foot-high safety fence along the Class I bike path alignment, access across the tracks at Chestnut Avenue would no longer be possible, though this is an illegal railroad crossing point. The next access to westbound roads is at Carlsbad Village Drive, approximately 0.3 mile (1,400 feet) north, where the trail exits the railroad right-of-way and travels on existing streets or on Tamarack Avenue as described above. From State Street north to Carlsbad Boulevard, the trail would follow city streets allowing trail users unrestricted access to travel east or west. No legal crossings would be eliminated due to the trail. Conclusions Throughout the City of Carlsbad, the 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. In general, direct access from the trail to direct east/west roadways are not substantially far apart. The farthest distance without a direct access point would be within the Class I bike path from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue. This span is approximately 0.75 mile (3,960 feet). This distance is not a large interval for the type of recreationalists who would use the trail. 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 coastline. ATTACHMENT D Landscape Amenity Concept 30% Schematic Design Coastal Rail Trail Carlsbad (not included in this screencheck submittal) ATTACHMENT E 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 from implementation of the trail project. This visual stady 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 study 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 constiucted 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. 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, the 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 this portion of the trail would include a 12-foot-wide paved multi-use path with 3-foot-wide landscaped shoulders on either side. Project design also includes fences between the path and the railroad tracks to ensure safety for trail users in the right-of-way. A 6-foot-high chain link fence would be erected 60 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks along the northem and southem alignment of the bike path. A 400-feet-long, 8-foot-high heavy-gage, tight-weave wrought-iron fence, centered at Chestnut Avenue, would be erected instead of the chain link fence to provide an additional safety feature. The path would be constracted 14 feet from the fence. 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 alignment. 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. Constmction 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 utihty 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. 1K_2I9 CRT Visuaiwpd May 14, 2003 (3:54pm)