HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-21; City Council; 9878; Information Item - Oceanside San Diego Commuter Rail Study Final Assessment of Candidate Stations0
P
0
4J
U
cu
P
A
to-i
•� u
`- U
a
0
4 4'
4J 1.y
U
Q)'n
4-1
U 4-1
u »
�+ 0
•H a
b a)
b "
C
a cd
o
4J
C rz
0 (1)
U b
al
H N
N
LH Z
w .0
4 o
U)4.1
.4 3
10 Q)
a, u
a +J
o cd
�4
w
4J
•U �
�>
0 a)
U H
M
00
N
N 0
i=-
V
R
J_
V
z
0
0
C"-11 ®F CARLSBAD -- AGEN0 BILL
AB# TITLE_: INFORMATION ITEM - OCEANSIDE •• SAN DIEGO DEPT. HD.
MTG. 2/21/89 COMMUTER RAIL STUDY - FINAL ASSESSMENT CITY ATT
OF CANDIDATE STATIONS
DEPT. PLN CITY MG .
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Department recommends that the Council direct the Planning Department
to review the attached documents with other departments and return with a report
detailing their concerns and recommendations.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The above mentioned study recommends that two commuter rail stations be located
in Carlsbad, one at the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and the A.T. & S.F.
Railroad and the other at the northeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and the A.T. &
S.F. Railroad. These stations would be part of a commuter rail service which has
been scheduled to be in operation by late 1992. The funding for the commuter rail
service has been generated by sales tax revenue from Proposition A which was
approved by San Diego voters in November 1987. The purpose of Proposition A was
to create funds for transportation improvements.
Representatives from Carlsbad, other coastal north county cities, the Metropolitan
Transit Development Board, the North County Transit Development Board and SANDAG
have been meeting on a monthly basis to monitor the progress of a series of
studies necessary to implement commuter rail service by 1992. One of these
studies examined appropriate sites for commuter rail stations. In preparing this
study, the consultant examined all possible locations for commuter rail stations
between Oceanside and San Diego. After examining all possible sites in Carlsbad,
the consultant recommended that commuter rail stations be located at the following
locations:
1. The northeast corner of Grand Avenue and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad and on
A.T. & S.F. Railroad property presently occupied by Bauer Lumber's
storage facility.
2. The north6ast corner of Poinsettia Lane and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad, a
vacant 50 acme parcel.
Staff believes that the proposed project and the recommendations of the station
location report have merit, but have concerns about both locations. The location
of a commuter station at the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and the A.T. & S.F.
Railroad could create some serious problems for the downtown area if it was not
properly designed.
Due to these concerns the Planning Department is recommending that the Council
direct staff to review the recommendations of this study with other departments
and return with a report detailing their concerns and recommendations. Staff also
recommends that this item be presented to the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory
Board for their input regarding the proposed commuter rail station near Grand
Avenue in the Redevelopment Area. For additional background see the attached memo
dated February 10, 1989.
d—
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. �TI'V
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The North County Transit Development Board is preparing an Environmental Impact
Report evaluating the instruction of the proposed commuter rail service. The
impacts of the proposed station locations will also be evaluated by this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown at this time.
EXHIBITS
1)> Memo dated February 10, 1989
2)v Report dated November, 1988
8): Notice of Preparation dated February 7, 1989
4)•: Letter dated December 16, 1988 with attachment
MEMORANDUM
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1989
TO: RAY PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: MIKE HOWES, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS AT GRAND AVENUE AND POINSETTIA LANE
The attached report titled Oceanside -San Diego Commuter Rail Study - Final
Assessment of Sites recommends that commuter rail stations be located at two
sites in Carlsbad. The first site would be located on the east side of the
existing railroad tracks immediately north of Grand Avenue. This site consists
of A.T. & S.F. Railroad right-of-way that is presently occupied by lumber storage
for Bauer Lumber. This site is being considered because 1) trains loading and
unloading would only block traffic on Grand and Elm Avenues during the evening
commute; 2) if properly designed it could help to encourage redevelopment along
State Street north of Grand Avenue and; 3) the North County Transit Development
Board and the County of San Diego have indicatc;d that they have approximately
$1,100,000 in funding available for the development of a combination bus transit
center/commuter rail station at this site.
Staff has a number of concerns with the development of a bus transit/commuter
rail station at this site. On October 17, 1988 Chris Salamone received a letter
and a draft agreement between the County and the North County Transit Development
Board for the construction of a transit center north of Grand Avenue adjacent
to the railroad tracks. After reviewing this information, I informed all parties
concerned that it would be appropriate for the City of Carlsbad to be included
in this agreement. Subsequent to that on December 16, 1988, a revised agreement
was submitted for staff review.
A copy of the revised agreement which included the City as part of the agreement
was submitted to the City Attorney's office for review. the City Attorney's
office has expressed some strong reservations about the proposed project. As
of this date staff has not received any detailed information from the North
County 'Transit Development Board or San Diego County on exactly what they propose
to construct at that location. The North County Transit Development Board is
interested in relocating their bus transfer point to this location because of
the development of the Village Faire project. The design of this project as well
as the conditions of approval makes it impossible for them to continue to utilize
their existing transfer point on the south side of Grand Avenue between Carlsbad
Boulevard and Washington Street.
The Engineering Department is concerned about the impacts of bus traffic on State
Street, while the City Attorney's office has expressed concerns about the impacts
of relocating a portion of a Bauer Lumber facility from its leased space on the
A.T. & S.F. Railroad row. Staff believes it would be appropriate for
z��
representatives from U e Planning and Engineering Departments, City Attorney's
Office and Redevelopment to meet with representatives of NCTD and the County to
further discuss the impacts of this project. After this meeting staff would be
able to make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed
facility at this site.
The second site being recommended is the northeast corner of the present
intersection of Poinsettia Lane and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad. This 50 acre flat,
undeveloped site is being recommended because 1) due to the exiting separated
graded intersection trains loading and unloading would not block traffic; 2) the
site has good access to the freeway and circulation element roadways; 3) the site
is separated form existing residential development; 4) there is an existing
siding that would allow trains to pass while the commuter train is loading an
unloading; 5) the property owner has shown a strong interest in developing a
commercial/office project centered around a commuter rail station.
Other potential station sites at Palomar Airport Road and at the Batiquitos
Lagoon Educational Park were determined to be unsatisfactory for a number of
reasons. For more details see pages 9-10 of the attached report.
Staff has less concerns about the possibility of locating a station at Poinsettia
Lane. The major concern expressed by the Engineering Department would be the
traffic impacts.
As mentioned in the attached Agenda Bill, staff recently received a Notice of
Preparation from the North County Transit Development Board. This notice stated
that they will be the lead agency in preparing an Environmental Impact Report
addressing the initiation of commuter rail service between Oceanside and San
Diego, including stops at several communities between Oceanside and San Diego.
Staff has concerns whether an EIR of this magnitude would provide sufficient
information on the individual station sites in Carlsbad. Staff had always
assumed that individual EIR's would be done for each of the proposed station
locations in Carlsbad.
At this time staff believes the City Manager should direct the ('ther appropriate
departments to cooperate and work with the Planning Department in the review and
evaluation of the proposed station sites. Once this has been done staff could
probably return this matter to the City Council within thirty days with their
recommendations.
-2-
MH:af
c-rail.mem
Sharon Greene
and Associates
OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY
FINAL ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE STATIONS
November, 1988
71,ansportatinn, Economics, Environmental Pleinning
1810 North Brnadu ar • Santa Ana Califormet 9?'00 0 t -/ i I ;-+.i -4-60
1.
10. -
It OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY
FINAL ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE STATIONS
This report documents the results of the evaluation process
tl used to recommend proposed station sites for the Oceanside -San
Diego Commuter Rail service. Specifically, the purposes of
this report are to:
1) describe the three -phased screening process used to
identify and evaluate candidate station sites;
2) identify key issues associated with the candidate station
sites recommended for further evaluation. '
OVERVIEW OF STATION SCREENING PROCESS
A three -phased process was used to identify and screen station
sites under consideration for. the Oceanside -San Diego Commuter
Rail service. The first step in this process involved
identifying a list of candidate sites. As shown in Figure 1,, a
total of 23 sites were identified and advanced for
consideration by the Commuter Rail. Technical Committee and
Commuter Rail Advisory Committee. These sites included:
Oceanside Multimodal Transportation Center
Carlsbad (Grand Avenue)
Carlsbad (Palomar Airport Road)
Carlsbad (Poinsettia)
Carlsbad (Sammie Property)
Encinitas (La Costa Boulevard)
Encinitas (Encinitas Boulevard: 4 possible sites
Site A: south of Encinitas Boulevard, behind La Paloma
Site B: south of Encinitas Boulevard, between D and E
Site C: northwest quadrant of Encinitas Blvd/ATSF tracks
Site D: F Street and Vulcan Avenue, east of Lumberyard
Cardiff
Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe)
Del Mar: two sites
Site A: Jimmy Durante Drive
Site B: Existing Amtrak Station
Sorrento Valley: two sites
Site A: north valley, near Torrey Pines State Reserve
Site B: south valley, south of I-5/I-805 split
Miramar: two sites
Site A: northeast quadrant of Miramar Road/ATSF tracks
Site B: south of Miramar Road, end of Frost Mar Place
-1-
,/
Figure 1
POTENTIAL STATION SITES
Oceanside
w
OCEAN.
SIDE
Carlsbad (Elm)
93
14
C44jN0
Carlsbad (Palomar MrPort R FEEL)
PIOMAR
Cta—rlsbadd((�Poi7�isettia)
19
Carlsbad (SatmrLq Property)
9ATIQU11
Encinitas (La. Costa)
LAGOi
u�:
ucadia
Encinitas (Encinitas Boulevard:
>
sites A, B, C, and D)
24 Z
Encinitas (Bindngham)
0
card;
By 5
Th
Sac
Solana Beach (UnELS Santa Fe)
S
LANA
BEAC9
l Mar "All
Ede
Gardena
tyt 7�A,.,
Del. i'7a TDot
DEL MAR
Sorrento Valley ",V
Sorrento Valley "Bn
Miramar "All
and "B" ....
Gihmn Drive
�F
Friars Road
Old Town
Ocean
San Diego Del;<ot
San Diego Convention Center
-2-
46
O TIarreaanl
1 %\
y
i
0
at En,
4Tior
CITY
F r
r
c
Gilman Drive
Friars Road (Anna Avenue)
Old Town
Santa Fe Depot
San Diego Convention Center
Additional detail on the site location, railroad post miles,
and key issues associated with each site is provided in Table
1. The sites were then subjected to an initial screening to
rule out locations deemed inappropriate from a land use or
environmental perspective. This resulted in elimination of two
sites and retention of 21 from the initial list. Additional
locations were also added for the Sorrento Valley station.
A second, more detailed analysis was then conducted to select
between candidate sites within the same general service area
and to facilitate integration of commuter rail stations with
MTDB's proposed light rail extensions. This second level
analysis resulted in elimination of 9 sites and retention of 12
candidate locations. Among the 12 sites retained, general
agreement was reached with regard to stations at the northern
(Oceanside to Poinsettia) and southern (Sorrento Valley to
Santa Fe Depot) ends of the line.
A third level analysis was then conducted. This analysis
focused on resolving remaining issues concerning selection of
two sites from the four under consideration within the 14-mile
middle portion of the route between Poinsettia and Sorrento
Valley. Also of interest were recommendations concerning a
potential Convention Center station.
In the sections below, the results of each phase of the
analysis are discussed in detail.
INITIAL SCREENING
A preliminary analysis was conducted of the key land use,
transportation, and environmental issues associated with each
of 23 sites. These sites were identified from previous studies
and from recommendations of the consultant team and members of
the Commuter Rail Advisory Committee and Technical Committee.
The results of this analysis were documented in a technical
memorandum entitled Preliminary Assessment of Pot-ential
Stations, dated August 11, 1988. Supporting the
recommendations in this initial analysis, the Commuter Rail
Advisory and Technical Committees eliminated two sites from
further consideration for the following reasons;
-3-
a Table 1
OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY
CANDIDATE STATION LOCATIONS
sf
pOTEHTIAI STATION LOCATIONS
POST MILE LOCATION
KEY ISSUES
(E) Oceanside Multimodal Center
226.3 S. side of Hitt Street
-Parking availability.
between 1st and Topeka
-Additional platform and
in Oceanside. on east
terminal improvements
side of ATSF tracks.
needed.
Carlsbad (Elm Averwe)
02-229.3 Site of old station.
-Parking and compatibility
N. of Elm, east of
with downtown commercial
Washington Street an
development.
east side of ATSF
-Interference with Elm and
tracks.
Grand Ave. traffic.
-Locations across Grand Av
at lumberyard proposed as
alternate sites.
Carlsbad (Palomar Airport Road)
#2-232.2-A N. of Palomar Airport
-Timing of realignment of
Road (S-12), E. of
Palomar Airport Road/
Carlsbad B., on west
Carlsbad Road interchange
side of ATSF tracks,
would not accomodate
commuter rail implement-
ation schedule.
Carlsbad (Poinsettia)
Between 233-234 N. of Poinsettia, W.
-Good access and site
of Avda. Encinas, on
compatibility.
east side of ATSF
-Potential noise effects
tracks.
on mobile home parks due
to acceleration of trains.
Carlsbad (Sammis Property)
Between 233-234 S. of Ave. Encinas, on
-Indirect access to site.
east side of ATSF
-Reevaluation by City of
tracks.
development concept may
be required if educational
institutions not identified.
Encinitas (La Costa Ave)
#2-235.1-A N. of La Costa, E. of
-Access, environmental and
(Deleted)
Carlsbad B., S. of
community accessibility
Batiquitos Lagoon, on
issues.
west side of ATSF
-City prefers site be
tracks.
removed from consideration.
4
•
pOTENTIAL
STATION LOCATIONS
POST MILE
Encinitas
(D)
About 238
Encinitas
(C)
#2-237.7-8
Encinitas
(0)
About 238
Encinitas (A) About 238
Encinitas (Birmingham Drive) #2-239.8
Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe) Roughly 241
Del Mar- Site "All
(Deleted)
243.5
LOCATION
KEY ISSUES
S. of F Street and
-Potential access and
Vulcan Av., east side
parking constraints.
of ATSF tracks, near
-Access to site is via
Lumberyard complex.
Vulcan Av. or F Street.
F Street is 2-lanes
through residential
neighborhood and does not
continue past tracks.
W. of Encinitas 8, on
-Location north of
W. side of ATSF tracks
Encinitas B. makes site
with parking on both
Less welt integrated into
sides of tracks.
Downtown.
S. of Encinitas B.,
-Site would be directly
midblock site on east
compatible with a future
side of ATSF tracks
relocation of the Civic
between D and E Sts.
Center to Downtown.
Behind La Palome, on
-Site is wrll integrated
west side of ATSF
with Downtown and would
tracks at D Street.
Likely be easier to
implement than the other
two Locations.
Linear site on E. of
-Site well Located with
Vulcan (San Elijo) Av,
respect to commercial
N. of Birmingham
activities and beach.
(Chesterfield). On E.
-Access via Birmingham Dv.
side of ATSF tracks.
would require widening,
with taking of residences.
Extension of Birmingham
across tracks has also
been proposed.
On N. side of Lomas
-Parking, station access
Santa Fe, west of ATSF
and land availability
tracks across from
constraints.
Western Lumber.
-Potential impact on linear
park which parallels the
ATSF tracks. and Old 101.
Between Jimmy Durante
-Seasonal access problems
Drive, and 5-21, near
with Del Mar Race Track.
20th Street, S. of Del
-Environmental/design
Mar Race Track. On W.
constraints (slough).
side of ATSF tracks.
Part of City'S Lagoon
Preservation Plan.
-Site deleted from consid-
eration by Technical
Advisory Committee.
5
W
poTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS
POST MILE LOCATION
KEY ISSUES
l
'
{E) Del Mar- Site "B"'
2" Between Coast B. and
-Access and parking
S-21, N. of 15th St,
constraints at existing
east side of ATSF
station.
tracks.
Sorrento- Site "A"
Roughly 248 City -owned site S. of
-Potential access improve -
Sorrento Valley Rd and
ments needed on Sorrento
E. of Carmel Valley Rd
Valley Road.
Adjacent to northern
-Environmental issues
end of Torrey Pines
associated with Penasquitos
State Reserve and Park
Marsh.
and Ride. On E. side
Need furthur evaluation.
of ATSF tracks.
Sorrento- Site "B"
#2-249.1 Just S. of I-5/1-805
-Would require decking
split. S. of Sorrento
station over flood channel.
Valley Road. About
-Feeder/shuttle service
2 miles east of UCSD
within Sorrento Valley
and Scripps Memorial
needed.
Hospital. Industrial
-Southbound a.m. peak
area. Drainage channel
trains could block Roselle/
on W. side of tracks.
Sorrento Valley B. turning
movements.
Miramar -Site "All
#2-252.7 Midblock location on N.
-Potential terminus for
side of Miramar, Rd, at
extension of MTDB North
NE quadrant of Miramar
line.
Road/ATSF tracks.
-ATSF tracks in deep cut.
Would require massive
retaining wall and
mechanical means of
vertical integration of
station and parking with
proposed commuter rail,
tight rail and transit
feeder services.
Miramar -Site "Bit
#2-252.9-A S. of Miramar Rd., at
-Good location with respect
the end of Frost Mar
to land availability, access,
Place (Camino Santa
track capacity (on Miramar
Fe). Immediately E. of
siding) and topography.
Miramar Naval Air
-Would require MTDB to fly
Station. On E. side of
over Miramar Road to
ATSF tracks.
interface computer rail and
light rail.
6
4 POTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS
Gilman Drive
I.
f
Friars Road
Old Town
(E) San Diego Depot
POST MILE
Roughly 257
#2-263.7-6
#2-263.89-A
276.5
San Diego Convention Center Roughly 277
MzExisting station.
LOCATION
KEY ISSUES
E. of I-5, northeast
-Access and parking
of the Gilman/1-5
constraints.
interchange. On W.
-Site is within Rose Canyon
side of ATSF tracks.
Open Space preserve.
-Requires prior decision by
MTDB on potential alignment
of North LRT line.
Potential site if MTD8
-Requires prior decision by
proceeds with light
MTDB on potential extension
rail to Mission Bay
of Mission valley LRT Line
and See World. N. of
west to Mission Bay.
Friars Rd. at Anne Av.
-Site is in industrial airea
N. of San Diego River
with high vacancy rates.
Floodway.
Station could potentially
encourage area revitalization.
-Remoteness of location
could present safety and
security issues.
S. of San Diego River
-Major interface for
Floodway and southeast
commuter rail, Light rail,
of the I-5/I-8
transit and park -and -ride.
interchange. E. of
-Site well located with
Pacific Hwy. on W.
respect to Old Town Park
side of ATSF tracks.
and tourist/commercial
activities.
W. of Kettner Ave, and
-Commuter rail platform and
N. of Broadway. On
train storage needs require
western edge of
coordination with Amtrak,
downtown. On E. side
Santa Fe and MTDB.
of ATSF tracks.
In vicinity of proposed
-Requires coordination with
MTDB LRT station at
Santa Fe, MTD8 and City
foot of First Street
re land availability and
and d, at Convention
track requirements.
Center.
-Desirability of station
depends on location to be
selected for commuter rail
train storage at southern
terminus.
7
I
Encinitas (La Costa): access, environmental, and community
compatibility constraints; and
Del Mar Site "All: access and environmental compatibility
issues.
LEVEL TWO SCREENING
The second step in the station site evaluation process focused
on analysis of the 21 remaining sites. In light of
difficulties in finding a compatible site for a station in
Sorrento Valley, alternate locations were identified for this
station and added to the list of candidate sites, as well. The
candidate station sites were then evaluated in greater detail.
of particular interest in this second phase.of the analyses
were the following:
Land Use Suitability Issues, including:
Location
Existing Land Use
Zoning and General Plan Designation
Community Compatibility
Ownership
Site Availability
Parcel Size
Joint Development Potential
Access Related Issues, including:
Population and Employment within 1-Mile and 5-Mile Radius
Freeway and Arterial Access
Proximity to Nearest Freeway Ramps
Proximity to Other Proposed Commuter Rail Stations
Intermodal Integration/Transit Feeder Service
Peak Hour Congestion Levels
Parking Requirements
Potential Patronage
Community and Environmental Compatibility Issues, including:
Sensitive Land Uses
Proximity to Residential Development
Physical Environmental Issues
Design and Aesthetic Concerns
Potential Displacements
-8-
Railroad and Station operational Issues, including:
Station Siting/Railroad Suitability
Station Site Development Considerations
Order of Magnitude Development Costs
Expansion Capability
Additional data were compiled on each site, and supported by
extensive field investigation. In addition, interviews were
conducted with key staff of each jurisdiction, and with
Metropolitan Transit Development Board and North San Diego
County Transit Development Board. Particular attention
focussed on elimination of duplicate sites and on coordination
' of interface points between commuter rail and MTDB's proposed
light rail transit lines. More detail was provided for new
and/or controversial station locations, with less detail on
locations such as Oceanside, Santa Fe Depot, and Old Town,
where commuter rail stations were already expected. No data on
potential patronage was available to support this analysis.
Based on this evaluation, nine sites were dropped from further
consideration. Key factors supporting the decision to
eliminate the nine sites from consideration are summarized
below for:
Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad (Sammis Property)
Encinitas Boulevard: Sites B, C, and D
Sorrento Valley "A"
Miramar "A"
Gilman Drive
Friars Road
Palomar Airport Road - This site was removed from consideration
at this time in favor of an alternate location roughly 1 mile
to the south at Poinsettia. This is due chiefly to phasing
and land availability issues. At the present time, there is no
access to the site from the existing loop -ramps connecting
Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. Over the next
three years, however, the City will be re -designing and re-
building the junction of Palomar Airport Road with Carlsbad
Boulevard into a T-intersection. When completed, this will
free up a large landholding in the northwest quadrant of the
Palomar Airport Road/ATSF tracks on land that is partially
state-owned. A major portion of this land is proposed for use
by the State Parks and Recreation Department, and it is
uncertain whether additional land would be available for
station development. Given the potential lag in timing
relative to commuter rail implementation and the availability
of an alternative station site in the general vicinity, it was
considered preferable to initiate service with a station at
-9-
T
Poinsettia instead of Palomar Airport Road. Consideration of
this site could be reactivated if the alternate location proved
' unavailable.
Carlsbad (Sammie Property) - This site was also removed from
consideration in favor of an alternate, more accessible site
in close proximity at Poinsettia. Located within the
Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Master Plan area, the site is
part of an innovative mixed use planned development program.
While the 1955 Master Plan does not presently call for a
commuter rail station, the developer has expressed an interest
in participating in a joint venture or land swap to integrate a
commuter rail station into the future development of the area.
The station could potentially be integrated into sectors of the
plan calling for a proposed 6.9 acre Neighborhood Commercial
area located west of the ATSF tracks, or into a proposed 12.8
acre Health/Recreation Center area located east of the tracks.
To do either would potentially require amending the existing
Master Plan and the Local Coastal Plan for the area.
Access to this site in indirect and more circuitous than to
Poinsettia. Freeway access is via Poinsettia, with Avenida
Encinas and Windrose Circle (a loop road) providing access into
the site itself. An alternate access route is via Poinsettia
to Carlsbad Boulevard to .Avenida Encinas. The developer will
be providing a grade separation at Avenida Batiquitos for
access from Carlsbad Road.
While the Sammis property is not recommended for a commuter
rail station at this time, consideration of this s� s could be
Leactivated if negotiations with the develn--er of the
Poinsettia site were not successful.
Encinitas Boulevard: sites B, C, and D: Four candidate sites
were identified for an Encinitas Boulevard station. Of the
four, three were rejected in favor of a site (Site A) located
immediately north of D Street, behind and adjacent to the La
Paloma Theater.
Site B, located midblock between D and E Streets, was
considered to be an extension of Site A. Thus, this site was
not rejected, but instead was integrated into consideration for
the A site. Site B would have focussed the station platform to
the south of D Street, rather than to the north. The site is
well located with respect to potential plans for a new City of
Encinitas Civic Center/Library complex, with access off of
Vulcan Avenue. In light of the short distance between D and E
Streets, a platform at this location could potentially
interfere with traffic movement on D or E Street while trains
were at the stat._on. Traffic -related impacts would not be
-10-
severe, however, since neither D nor E Streets carry through -
traffic. By integrating this site in with Site A, station -
related parking could occur in an extended linear manner that
integrated Site B into the station concept and, at the same
time, was compatible with Downtown redevelopment efforts and
with a potential Civic Center complex.
Site C, located north of Encinitas Boulevard in the northwest
3 quadrant of the Encinitas Boulevard/ATSF tracks, was rejected
from consideration for land use and railroad related reasons.
Separated from the Downtown Encinitas Redevelopment Area by
Encinitas Boulevard, the site was considered to be less well
integrated into the City's plans for the revitalization of
Downtown. In addition, track curvature and superelevation at
this location were not favorable to a station.
Site D, located south of F Street/Requeza Street and Vulcan
Avenue, is east of the ATSF tracks and the Lumberyard
Commercial Complex. This location was considered less
accssaible than the other three sites. Access would be
provided via Vulcan Avenue, a two-lane augmented local
collector, since F Street is a two-lane facility which
traverses a residential neighborhood and terminates east of the
ATSF tracks, without connection to First Street/Old Highway
101.
Sorrento Valley "All: This site is a triangular City -owned
parcel located in the Penasquitos marshland abutting the Torrey
Pines State Reserve. With regard to accessibility and
catchment area potential, this site would provide an excellent
location for a commuter rail station. It is located
immediately south of the I-5/Carmel Valley Road interchange,
with future access to be provided from the east by a new
freeway, SR-56. Thus, a station at this location could serve
as both an origin point for residents from North City West and
the surrounding area, as well as a destination point for
commuters continuing by shuttle service to work locations in
Sorrento Valley and Scripps Hospital/Torrey Pines Business and
Research Park.
In light of environmental compatibility issues, however, the
Sorrento "A" site was removed from further consideration.
Future plans for this area call for integration of this site
into opportunities for wetlands and habitat preservation and
enhanced recreational activity being undertaken by the
Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation, a public -private joint venture.
As Caltrans' plans for the reconstruction of the I-5/I-805/SR
56 interchange could affect this area, preservation of this
site is also a consideration during the interchange deoign and
construction.
-11-
Miramar "All: This site, located on the north side of Miramar
Road, was originally identified in order to coordinate the
81 Miramar commuter rail station with MTDB's proposed Miramar
light rail station. As MTDB will be focussing its station
location efforts on the south side of Miramar Road, and as
opportunities exist to integrate this site with the alternate
Miramar "B" site, this site has been deleted from further
consideration.
With the ATSF tracks in a cut at this location, the Miramar "A"
site would have required a massive (roughly 30 foot) retaining
wall, as well as mechanical means to vertically integrate the
station and parking areas with the proposed commuter rail,
light rail, and transit feeder services. Integration of this
site with Miramar "B" can be achieved by utilizing the Frost
Mar Place location for access and parking, locating the station
platform to the north - almost under the Miramar Road bridge -
and providing access to both sides of Miramar Road.
Gilman Drive: This site was originally proposed to be a major
interface station for commuter rail and the MTDB North Line.
MTDB is considering alternative alignments for the North Line,
however. Only one of these alignments parallels the ATSF
tracks and would allow for commuter rail/light rail interface
at this location.
As commuter rail/light rail interface is also proposed at
Miramar, such interface at Gilman Drive would be duplicative.
Both stations would depend on LRT for feeder and distribution
service to University Towne Center and to the University.
Since a joint commuter rail/LRT station at Miramar would be
better able to serve these markets. the Gilman Drive station
would be needed only if a Miramar station were not possible.
The proposed site is located within the nose Canyon Open Space
preserve. Thus, there are likely to be significant issues
associated with the compatibility of this station with existing
land use. Access to the site presents additional constraints.
Friars Road: This site was identified to provide a potential
interface station between commuter rail and the proposed MTDB
Mission Valley Line, particularly if this line were extended
west to Mission Bay. Under consideration was a cul-de-sac
location on Anna Street, in an industrial area with high
vacancy rates. If extended, the Mission Valley/Mission Bay LRT
could run east -west, allowing for a multimodal station at this
location. If the Mission Bay Line were not extended (as will
be the case over the next decade), the operating concept for
the light rail service would likely require turning movements
between the North Line and the Mission Valley Line to occur in
-12-
I
structure over the San Diego River. Engineering constraints
associated with accommodating both a curve and a station could
then preclude a commuter rail/light rail interface at this
location. Pending any future decisions concerning the
extension of the Mission Valley Line to Mission Bar, MTDB will
be consolidating its LRT/transit interface at Old Town. Thus,
consideration of a commuter rail station at this location is
premature at this time.
LEVEL THREE SCREENING
After completion of the Level Two screening, 12 sites remained
as candidate commuter rail station locations. These sites are
illustrated in Figures 2 through 14, and consist of the
following:
Oceanside Transit Center
Carlsbad (Grand)
Carlsbad (Poinsettia)
Encinitas Boulevard
Cardiff
Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe)
Del Mar Amtrak Station
Sorrento Valley
Miramar
Old Town
Santa Fe Depot
San Diego Convention Center
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the population, housing, and
employment within a 1-mile and 5-mile distance of each
candidate station. As shown in the tables, the total 1995
population within a 1-mile access to the stations is roughly
65,000, with some 725,000 persons projected to be within a 5-
mile radius. With regard to employment, in 1995 roughly
140,000 jobs will be within 1 mile of a station, and some
460,00 jobs will be within 5 miles. These figures represent
the total potential market area for the commuter service in
1995.
In the absence of commuter rail patronage forecasts, the market
area potentials presented above were utilized to provide order -
of -magnitude estimates of potential parking requirements at
each station. An algorithm was developed by the consultant
team which utilized the ratio of population within 5 miles of
each station to total population within 5 miles of all
stations, and employment within. 1 mile of all stations south of
that station. These factors were applied to a total estimated
1995 ridership of 4,000 in order to estimate patronage by
-13-
Figure 2
CANDIDATE STATION RYI-re
Oceanside
Carlsbad (Grand)
Carlsbad (Poinsetti
Encinitas F
Lon
San Diego Cc
t
m
Y
=
�
CO A
.pMp CO eNMp �kn p
N O.
M m
��
�
V •O •O � M N
o M �V A M O
N
q
N P P� A
ry
M O r•
O <
� Y
V A^ � N N O
�
•AO
'QO $� vt MMy A M^
N M M M A N
h O N
Mp .O N .A.pp N
N .�
K
.•O. .
r h .O V V N
G�
^ � tl .Np N ��•• �:
OPT V fqp� pP $
i
p
ul A A p N `t
V .Ppp pvp..
0 0 ^^ O
NN
E ..ppp A nM
V ^N r N ^ v
P r ry
9
V V
N N N N M P p
M J
Q 'O A
M1 P
N O
O
N M M M1 •O N
•^
ft
p
7
o 0 0?
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o
0
O O
tl qq�
V �O A Vj n G N N
r Mf
0 6
N N N N 0 0 O O
L
O p
ppp
N
^,
2
= C
•y.
N N N N M .D O
� M N P ryVj � P J
N O P O O N
�
�
M
N
O
E
U
U YY.
pM MMJ 1Ne r1 HY N r J N
O^
..pp
N
,�f
� �
�
qF
N O
'�
^ M
I
yypp .pp IM+1
p� ry
a
W2
S
O
0.
� �
O
O N •Oi• .AdO N O. �? M;
..P}} ccpppO O a0 O v�
pp
V
'
W
N M MM
2
N
d P
M
iipp
J V V V N
y V N A N A A
^ y
O V M
yj
O
O
v
^^
U
N fr A p M N ^^
h N
h V� J O 1C1
P N O
r r r
Od ^
yY
O
J 1/tl1
ry d N
p d
Y�
,
K 6
K
u
> ry
N O
d
(qqy (fy� pyryyp �p M
O �pp
N h N m N
V � M
00pp O A(Np
^w. ^ N N � O n A N
9 - N .. 1+1 N m 0 N N A P
d
M
L
u ® p qq a
M
E O
Y
N
2 'o C y M V N F M � .�A., � 0 ymj v N •- A d 0� � N m 0
ty� A
S ^ N ^^ O^ V N ^
O
9 A A
U
A^ O M A P h
C
e A ry h V � QN
N N A
.� N NM •-O p N
C p Mqpp P N A v ...ppp
d
u d
� d •g� U� �V u � m u V u u y N L u V V L
37 C,yy g gg m _
N A u Z a> g _? a
u �
4
station. It was next assumed that 75% of the patronage would
require parking. The resulting range of estimated parking
requirements are shown in Table 4. This information was then
'incorporated into the discussion of issues associated with each
station.
The key issues associated with the candidate station sites are
discussed below. Of particular interest are the following:
- Station design and development -related issues; and
- Station spacing considerations.
The former issues focus on station -specific concerns related to
land use suitability, access, community and environmental
compatibility, and railroad and station operations. The latter
address two concerns: first, the need to select among"the four
candidate stations within the middle 14-mile section of the
corridor in order to assure efficient commuter service; and
second, factors affecting the selection of Santa Fe Depot or
the San Diego Convention Center as the southern terminus for
the service.
Oceanside Transit Center
As shown in Figure 3, the Oceanside Transit Center is located
in downtown Oceanside. The Transit Center is one block west of
Hill Street, the main north -south arterial through downtown.
It is bounded on the east by Tremont Street, on the south by
Michigan Avenue, with the Santa Fe railroad tracks providing
the western boundary. The center is owned by the County of San
Diego and operated by the North County Transit District.
The Oceanside Transit Center serves several transportation
modes. Amtrak, North County Transit District, Greyhound, and
County Transit System all use the facility. Taxi and carpool
service are also available. Eight Amtrak intercity round-trip
trains service the center. The center also serves as the main
transfer point for North County Transit District, with eleven
local routes and one express route currently provide timed
transfer service at the Transit Center. Greyhound operates 15
northbound and 18 southbound trips per day, and provides
package delivery service. County -run commuter bus service to
San Diego also stops at the center.
The commuter rail platform and terminal
the Transit Center area, immediately
center and parking area, across Tyson
site backs onto Larson Steel, -which is
the near future.
-17-
would be located -within
south of the existing
Street. The proposed
expected to be moving in
Table 4
OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF 1995 PARKING REQUIREMENTS
STATION
Oceanside
Carlsbad (Grand)
Poinsettia
Option A
Encintas B
Lomas Santa Fe
Option B
Cardiff
Del Mar
Sorrento Valley
Miramar
Old Town
Santa Fe Depot
Convention Center
PARKING REQUIRED
(spaces)
250-350
50-150
150-250
150-250
150-250
150-250
150-250
0-100
100-200
0-100
0
LAND AREA REQUIRED
(acres)
2-3
Options A and B represent alternative model runs.
Assumes 100-125 spaces/acre (including landscaping)
-18-
Figure 3
Proposed Oceanside Commuter Rail Station
-19-
The City's ultimate plans for the Transit Center area call for
lengthening the existing platform to the south, with 4 tracks
for commuter rail; installing a second platform, passing track,
pedestrian grade separation, and fencing at the ceni-ir; adding
a new at -grade crossing at Mission Avenue and closing the
existing one at Third. Also under consideration are grade
separations at Oceanside Boulevard and Hill Street to
accommodate movements to Escondido Junction; and lowering of
the tracks at Wisconsin and Cassidy.
Additional parking is presently needed for existing operations,
with commuter rail service adding to this requirement.
Currently, there are roughly 200 spaces in the surface lot,
with 36 "T" spots and other parking on -street. In the
Oceanside Transit Center Parking Study, completed by SANDAG in
June 1988, current demand for parking was estimated to exceed
available supply by 60%. By 1995, demand is, projected to
increase 30% to 645 spaces, or three times the current.supply.
This estimate includes an estimated 225 spaces for commuter
rail service, which is lower than the 250-350 spaces estimated
by the consultant. A 4-story, 500-600 space parking garage has
been proposed immediately north of the Transit Center. The
objective is to provide a total of 1,000 spaces in the
immediate area.
Carlsbad (Grand)
Figure 4 illustrates the proposed location for the Grand Avenue
commuter rail station. This site is located in the Village
Redevelopment Area, and is immediately north of the existing
Elm Avenue station on the site of the existing Bauer Lumberyard
and on ATSF right-of-way. The site is bounded on the east by
properties fronting on State Street, on the south by Grand
Avenue, with the ATSF tracks serving as the western boundary.
Christiansen (Cedar) Street provides additional access from
State Street to the ATSF right-of-way. A portion of the site
is ATSF-owned, and a portion is privately owned by several
owners including the Bauer family.
Location of the station at this site would require relocation
of Bauer Lumberyard slightly farther north toward Beech Avenue
on ATSF-owned property. Such relocation would be required in
order to provide a commuter rail facility in the vicinity of
the existing station, while accommodating parking and NCTD
transit service. At present, NCTD has a transit center across
Grand Avenue from the site at Grand and Washington. Viree
routes presently interface at this location: a north -south
local route from Oceanside to University Towne Center via Del
Mar and UCSD; another route from Spinaker Hills via Lakeshore
Gardens and Altamira; and a third serving Carlsbad from Plaza
Camino Real via Laguna Riviera.
-2 0-
Figure 4
Proposed Carlsbad (Grand) Commuter Rail Station
-21-
The Carlsbad Redevelopment Area Economic, Circulation, and
Design Study, undertaken in 1986, designates this area for
r`�m.mercial and limited industrial use. Designated as Subarea 3
the redevelopment area, the goal of this subarea is "to
maximize the established pattern of development north of Grand
and create a visual link with the Village Center." The study
also notes that most existing limited industrial uses should be
encouraged to relocate outside of the Village project area.
Specific design guidelines are recommended for developments in
the redevelopment area in the village Design Manual, revised by
the City in April 1988. Among the developments currently
underway is the 90,000 square foot Village Faire retail
complex, immediately southwest of the station site.
Also analyzed in the above study were parking needs. Excluding
parking that would be required for commuter rail patrons, 790
new spaces will be required in the redevelopment area by 1990
to support planned commercial, hotel, and residential
development. To this total, commuter rail would add an
additional 50-150 spaces.
In summary, key issues associated with this station site are
potential relocation of Bauer Lumberyard, preservation of the
unique Village/pedestrian scale of the area, and provision of
parking.
Carlsbad (Poinsettia
Figure 5 illustratts the proposed location of the Poinsettia
station. Poinsettia Lane, the primary access to the site, has
a direct interchange with I-5, and is grade -separated from the
ATSF right-of-way. Located in the northeast quadrant of
Poinsettia and the ATSF tracks, the parcel is presently
privately owned by Newport National Corporation. The site is
vacant, with City plans calling for medium density residential
and office development. The owner has expressed an interest in
joint development with the commuter facility. Such development
could potentially call for the addition of commercial uses to
the site, thus requiring a change in zoning and/or genera: plan
designated uses.
A key advantage of this site is that Santa Fe has a controlled
passing siding (Ponto) at this location, thus potentially
permitting use of the passing track for commuter purposes while
keeping the main line open for intercity and freight trains.
Poinsettia Lane provides excellent access to existing and newly
approved master plan develor:Aents, including Pacific Rim, La
Costa, Carillo Ranch, and the Scripps Hospital site.
Currently, NCTD provides transit service to Poinsettia and
Avenida Encinas from Alta Mira, Lakeshore Gardens, and Spinaker
-22-
Figure 5
Proposed Carlsbad (Poinsettia) Commuter Rail Station
-23-
Hills. The route presently turns south onto Avenida Encinas
roughly one quarter of a mile from the station, but the route
would access the station if this site were chosen. Most
commuter rail patrons would arrive by auto, however, with
parking demand at this location estimated to range from 150-250
spaces.
While the Poinsettia grade separation provides visual and noise
screening, there could potentially be an impact to Lakeshore
Gardens and to Lanakai Mobile Home Parks due to acceleration of
commuter trains from the station.
Encinitas (Encinitas Boulevard)
Figure 6 illustrates the proposed location of the Encinitas
Boulevard station. This site is located north of D. Street,
behind and adjacent to the La Paloma Theater. Access to the
site is provided via Vulcan Avenue or First Street from
Encinitas Boulevard, which interchanges with I-5 in the
vicinity of the station. Encinitas Boulevard is a major
arterial providing access from residential development to the
east and north.
A portion of the site is owned by the Santa Fe, with the
balance privately owned by the owner of the La Paloma building.
There is a vacant lot comprising the northern portion of the
site that is currently used on weekends for the Seaside Bazaar.
The ATSF right-of-way is wide, thus potentially allowing for
linear parking areas both east and west of the tracks.
The City's proposed general plan calls for a Transportation
Corridor overlay zone on the majority of the site, with parking
considered an allowable use. The remaining portion of the site
is zoned General Commercial. Current City objectives call for
revitalization of the Downtown Encinitas area. The station
site is well located with respect to these efforts, and with
respect to potential development of a new Civic Center/Library
complex in the vicinity.
At the present time, NCTD has two routes serving the site: one
from Cardiff by the Sea via Encinitas to Plaza Camino Real and
Camp Pendleton, and the other from Village Park via Cardiff and
Leucadia. If Encinitas Boulevard were the selected station
location, NCTD would relocate its current major transit center
at Cardiff to this location. Five routes presently interface
at this center.
The City is presently conducting a Downtown Parking Study.
Preliminary estimates of parking supply suggest that there are
240 spaces potentially available in the vicinity of the La
Paloma, if available land were improved for parking. Commuter
-24-
Figure 6
Proposed Encinitas Boulevard Commuter Rail Station
Le
-25-
rail parking requirements estimated for this San Diego Commuter
Rail Study call for 150-250 spaces.
Due to its proximity to the proposed Cardiff commuter rail
station site, only one of these two locations will be
ultimately selected. In light of its superior accessiblity,
compatibility with Downtown revitalization objectives, and
relative ease of station development, Encinitas Boulevard is
recommended by the consultant.
Cardiff
Figure 7 illustrates the proposed location of the Cardiff
station. Access to this site is via Birmingham Drive, a
relatively steep and narrow two-lane road which interchanges
with I-5 roughly 1 mile east of the site. The road terminates
at the railroad and Vulcan Avenue, and does not presently
extend to Old Highway 101. An at -grade crossing to 101 is
provided at Chesterfield Drive to the south. While not
presently proposed for upgrading, any widening of Birmingham
Drive would likely require the acquisition of homes fronting on
the street.
The site is well located with respect to existing adjacent
commercial development at Cardiff by the Sea Towne Centre,
residential catchment areas to the east, proximity to San Elijo
State Beach, and parking availability. In addition, Cardiff is
a major NCTD transit center, with 5 routes interfacing at this
location. The ATSF right-of-way is quite broad and depressed
below the level of the parallel street, Vulcan Avenue. This
difference in elevation provides some natural visual and noise
screening of the site. If left in this general configuration,
•the site could also accommodate the majority of the 150-250
commuter rail parking spaces projected for this station.
Based on discussions with community leaders in the Cardiff
area, there is interest in integrating a Cardiff station into
proposals to expand the San Elijo State Park to the east. This
would be accomplished by relocating and depressing the railroad
tracks and Highway 101 to the east, decking and extending the
park over the depressed facilities, grade -separating
intersecting streets, and providing shared recreational and
commuter parking. A preliminary cost estimate for this
proposal ranges from $100-150 million. While there are many
benefits to this far-reaching plan, the majority do not accrue
to commuter rail per se. Thus, should this station site and
site development concept be selected, funding would likely have
to be secured from a variety of sources, including local
funding and State Parks and Recreation funds.
As noted above, due to close station spacing, the Cardiff site
-26-
Figure 7
Proposed Cardiff Commuter Rail Station
ENCINI
-27-
i
is an alternate location for the proposed Encinitas Boulevard
station. Of the two, the consultant's preliminary
recommendation is for the Encinitas Boulevard location.
Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe)
Figure 8 illustrates the proposed location of the Lomas Santa
Fe site. This site is located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of Louis Santa Fe Drive with the ATSF tracks.
Primary access is provided via Lomas Santa Fe Drive, a major
arterial which interchanges with 1-5 roughly 1 mile east of the
station site. East of the City boundary, Lomas Santa Fe Drive
transitions to Linea Del Cielo through the residential areas of
Rancho Santa Fe. Access to the station is also provided via
Cedros, a two lane north -south collector, which extends from
Via de la Valle to north of Cliff Street.
The site is currently served by
south route operating on Camino
via Del Mar; the other running
to Cardiff.
2 NCTD bus routes: one a north -
Del Mar from Oceanside to UCSD
from Escondido via Solana Beach
Presently occupied by Western Lumber Company, development of a
station at this location would require relocaticn of the
southern portion of Western Lumber closest to Lomas Santa Fe.
At present, a 3.9 acre parcel owned by the Santa Fe Railway
Company is being offered for sale. This parcel is north of the
area being used by Western Lumber. Under the City's proposed
general plan, the station site is presently designated for
Special Commercial zoning. Allowable uses consist of low -impact
light industrial, commercial office or retail with all inside
storage. Thus, Western Lumber would be a .non -conforming use
under the proposed zoning. Of the 3.9 acre parcel, the
southern half (to Cliff) is zoned Special Commercial, and the
northern half Medium Density Residential.
Western Lumber presently leases a portion of the ATSF right-of-
way for parking. This area would be required for the proposed
station, thus reducing the existing parking supply while adding
demand for an additional 150-250 commuter rail spaces. If this
location were to serve as both a commuter station and an Amtrak
intercity station relocated out of Del Mar, an additional 150-
250 spaces could be required, as well. Thus, accommodation of a
joint station in this location could only be accomplished
through coordinated redevelopment of the area.
Revitalization of the Downtown area is underway, with specialty
retail and light industrial development along Cedros south of
Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and at Solana Beach Plaza, a 30,000
square foot office and commercial development under
construction at the northeast quadrant of the Cedros/Lomas
-28-
Figure 8
Proposed Lomas Santa Fe Commuter Rail Station
Cardiff' NVA',
,
by the
Sea
�o
=T.r�
euck
- - - DEL
MAR:_.
-29-
Santa Fe Drive intersection across from Western Lumber. This
latter project includes partial widening of both Cedros and
Lomas Santa Fe Drive. The City has considered extending the
widening of Lomas Santa Fe Drive to the west, thus requiring
taking of the southern portion of the Western Lumber property.
Discussions with city officials and community leaders
concerning this site have highlighted the City's interest in
minimizing traffic impacts on Lomas Santa Fe Drive and in
providing a grade separation at this location. Such a grade
separation would require a 27-foot lowering of the tracks for a
distance exceeding 1 mile, provision of a temporary shoofly
track capable of future upgrading ,to a second track, and
provision of a maintenance road in the railroad right-of-cay.
The preliminary cost estimate for this grade separation, as
prepared by the consultant team, exceeds $28 million. The City
submitted an application to the California Public Utilities
Commission in 1988 to assist in funding the grade separation,
however the project received a low priority ranking by the PUC.
Recognizing the City's interest in preserving the linear park
paralleling the ATSF tracks to the west, it should be noted
that construction of the grade separation project, with
associated track relocation, could result in short-term and
potentially long-term loss of this parkland.
Given the close proximity of station spacing, the Lomas Santa
Fe site is considered an alternative to the existing Del Mar
Station. In light of the potential land use, parking, and
compatibility issues, coupled with the high cost of the
proposed grade separation, the recommendation by the consultant
is to defer selection of a site at either Lomas Santa Fe Drive
or Del Mar pending further investigation of an alternative
site. In particular, re-examination of the Via De La Valle
site first proposed in 1977 appears merited.
Del Mar
Figure 9 illustrates the location of the existing Del Mar
Amtrak intercity station. This site is located at the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Coast Boulevard and
the ATSF" tracks. Access to the site is via Coast Boulevard and
15th Street, with access from I-5 via Via De La Valle or Del
Mar Heights Road. The station is served by one transit route:
NCTD's north -south route on Camino Del Mar from Oceanside to
University Towne Center via UCSD.
The relocation of the Del Mar Amtrak station has been under
consideration for more than a decade. In 1977, the County of
San Diego prepared a report entitled Relocation of the Del Mar
-30-
Figure 9
Proposed Del Mar Commuter xa9.l Station
-31
Amtrak Station that considered ten alternate locations for the
station. The constraints presented at the current site were
i described in detail in the report and have become more severe
over the last eleven years. These include inadequate access,
lack of sufficient parking, and adverse spillover effects on
the surrounding residents. Narrow access streets, with limited
ability to accommodate turning movements, transit vehicles, or
station kiss -and -ride service, present particular problems with
limited opportunities for improvement.
The existing station parking lot accommodates less than 100
cars. Effective September 1, 1988 this lot requires payment
for parking at $5 per day. The addition of commuter rail
service would add an additional 150-250 space parking demand
beyond that required for intercity service.
To date, the Del Mar City Council has supported retention of
the Amtrak intercity station at Del Mar. At the same time, the
Council has not supported adding a commuter rail stop at this
location. In contrast, the Commuter Rail Advisory and
Technical Committees to this study have adopted a policy
position of integrating both services at the same location.
Thus, the two positions are in conflict with regard to the
selection of the Del Mar site.
As noted above, in light of station spacing, the Del. Mar site
is an alternate to the Lomas Santa Fe Drive location. Both
sites present constraints that support the recommendation to
defer selection of either location pending additional
consideration of an alternate site, notably at Via De La Valle.
Sorrento Valley
Figure 10 illustrates the location of the proposed Sorrento
Valley station. The site is located in the northeast quadrant
of the intersection of Sorrento Valley Boulevard and the ATSF
tracks, on the west side of Sorrento Valley Road. The site is
constricted by topographic and man-made factors, including
embankments, a wide flood control channel immediately west of
the railroad right-of-way, triple -track rail, and support
columns for I-5. No parking could be provided at this site in
light of these spatial constraints. Sorrento Valley itself is
linear and narrow, with limited opportunities for additional
east -west connections.
The Commuter Rail Service Concept for the Sorrento Valley site
is as a destination station. Thus, feeder service would be
required to employment locations within Sorrento Valley and
surrounding areas including the Campus Point Industrial Park
and the San Diego Tech Center. Access could also be provided to
the Torrey Pines Science Park if Tower.Road were opened and
-32-
3
Figure 10
Proposed Sorrento Valley Commuter Rail Station
\r\
\
At p
.�_.� ! C
-33-
extended to Roselle
Access to the site is via Sorrento Valley Road and Sorrento
Valley Boulevard, with connections to Sorrento Parkway and
Lusk Boulevard. Freeway access ramps for I-5 are located north
at Carmel Valley Road and south at Genesee, with a partial
interchange at Roselle for southbound traffic to San Diego.
Accesv for I-805 is at Mira Mesa Boulevard to the south. The
County Circulation Element proposes the extension of Sorrento
Valley Road across I-805 to connect with Carroll Canyon Road.
Widening of Sorrento Valley Road and Sorrento Valley Boulevard
are programmed within the next five years.
There is no transit service to the site (or to the general
area) at this time. A proposed MTDB express route is under
consideration. This route would originate in North City West,
travel on Sorrento Valley Road past the proposed station site,
and serve the San Diego Tech Center area and the University
Towne Center. In addition, the extension of the MTDB light rail
system to north San Diego County is being considered.
Miramar
Figure 11 illustrates the location of the proposed Miramar
station. This site is located on the south side of Miramar
Road at the end of Frost Mar Place. With Miramar Naval Air
Station immediately east of the site, the proposed station is
either within or adjacent to the Crash Hazard Zone for the NAS.
The site is owned by the ATS?, and is located within the
double -tracked Miramar siding. The undeveloped site is
expansive, with level terrain.
East -west access to the site is via Miramar Road, with Camino
Santa Fe to Frost Mar Place providing north -south access. At
the present time, there is one San Diego Transit route
providing service along Miramar Road between downtown San Diego
and Mira Mesa via La Jolla and University Towne Center. The
proposed site is under consideration as a potential terminus
for an extension of the MTDB North Line. Thus, the Miramar
station would serve as a major interface point between commuter
rail and light rail transit service. Re -use of Miramar NAS for
civilian air service is presently under study by SANDAG.
The commuter rail service concept for the Miramar station would
be chiefly a destination station. Feeder/distribution service
to and from jobs at University Towne Center, along La Jolla
Village Drive, and at the University of California to the west
would be provided by the light rail line in the longer term,
and by bus or shuttle service in the short term. The site
could also serve as an origin station for trips originating in
-34-
IN
I
9
0
.r-I
4J
M
a
a)
a
0
u
b
.H
a�
0
a
0
a
-35-
A
i
I
La Jolla, Mira Mesa, and Miramar. Consideration is also being
given to relocating the Amtrak intercity service out of Del Mar
to the Miramar station.
Parking requirements to accommodate the proposed commuter
station are estimated to range from 100-200 spaces, with
potential for an additional 150-250 spaces required for
intercity service.
The site affords an excellent candidate commuter station with
respect to land availability, access, track capacity,
topography, and future intermodal integration.
Old Town
Figure 12 illustrates the location of the proposed Old Town
commuter rail station. The site is located south of Taylor
Street and east of Pacific Highway, with the ATSF tracks
providing the eastern boundary. Privately owned by the
Fletcher family, the site is currently used as a parking
facility for the Old Town State Historic Park.
The old Town station will provide a key intermodal access point
for commuter rail, light rail, bus transit, and park and ride.
MTDB recently initiated a 15-month long study to extend light
rail service to Old Town by 1992, coinciding with the
initiation of commuter rail service. At present, an LRT
platform is being considered for the east side of the ATSF
tracks. Thus, conceptual plans for the Old Town commuter
station will require coordination with MTDB to resolve a
variety of issues including platform location, retention of
spur tracks to General Dynamics, the Washington Street wye,
parking, access, coordination with State Parks and Recreation,
and sewer relocation. For commuter rail purposes, some 100
parking spaces could potentially, be required, in addition to
those required for LRT and tourism/recreation purposes.
The proposed site is well located with respect to the Old Town
State Historic Park and tourism/commercial attractions in the
Old Town area. The General Development Plan for the Old Town,
San Diego State Historic Park shows this site as the primary
parking area for the park. Improvements to the local street
system have been proposed by SANDAG in its Old Town Parking and
Circulation Study, conducted in 1986. The SANDAG study calls
for realignment of Congress Street to parallel the railroad
tracks and connect with Taylor Street, and relocation of the
entrance to the parking lot to be off of Congress Street.
Potential grade separation and grade crossing improvements will
likely be required, as well. Among the improvements discussed
to date are a grade separation at Rosecrans/Taylor Street and
pedestrian crossing improvements at Congress Street. Heavy
-36-
Figure 12
Proposed Old Town Commuter Rail Station
-37-
existing and projected traffic on Rosecrans, Taylor, Pacific
Highway, and Congress will require careful consideration of
access/egress provisions and of potential bus transit
coordination. At the present time, turning movements -
particularly, cross -traffic - are difficult from this location.
Santa Fe Depot
Figure 13 illustrates the location of the existing Santa Fe
Depot. The site is located west of Kettner Boulevard and north
of Broadway, on the east side of the ATSF tracks. With its
location on the western edge of Downtown, the Depot has been
proposed as the southern terminus for the commuter service.
Arriving commuter rail passengers would either transfer to
MTDB's light rail lines, San Diego Transit buses, or walk to
their final destinations within the Downtown.
The Depot site consists of the existing Spanish Revival
structure and 15.7 acres adjoining it. The structure currently
houses Amtrak, Mexicoach Tijuana Express, auto rental services,
Traveler' Aid, and a small retail concession. The Depot has
been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1972.
With respect to the adjoining acreage, Santa Fe is planning a
major new development of office buildings, shops, restaurants,
and hotels. These plans include removal of trackage at the
Depot area, thus reducing available storage for intercity and
commuter trains during the day. Removal of tracks could also
affect operations with respect to a Convention Center station
by requiring trains to stop on one track, pull north out of the
station, and continue south on the one remaining through -track.
Also proposed to be physically integrated into the Depot area
are two MTDB light rail tracks, which will be located between
the Depot structure and the ATSF tracks. The Depot will serve
as a key interface point for MTDB's old Town and South Lines,
which will run north from the Depot, and the East and Bayside
Lines, which will continue to the south.
Thus, planning for commuter rail -related facilities at the
Santa Fe Depot will require coordination with both MTDB and the
Santa Fe, as well as with the City of San Diego.
Convention Center
Figure 14 illustrates the location of the proposed Convention
Center station. The site is located at the southern end of
First Street, between Harbor Drive and the ATSF tracks. To the
west of the site is the City's new Convention Center (presently
under construction) and several major hotels. East of the site
is the Marina Redevelopment Area, which proposes residential
-38-
0
Figure 13
Proposed Santa Fe Depot Corunuter Rail Station
UZI%
WAfT CJAAn
_—�v.nw '�STAiIOM _
X
ta�a LLiC7U:LIIl�ra NMI
-3 9-
Figure 14
Proposed San Diego Convention Center Commuter Rail Station
t DEM
.—_may , r �•_"_— �,�
Aft StAl70N
iOWn �rrt Ott
rOWNTOWN ENLARGEMENT
-40-
raa n.0
�r
development adjacent to the right -of way.
An MTDB LRT station is also proposed for this location. At
present, ATSF owns a 100 foot right-of-way through this site,
with MTDB owning a 50 foot parallel right-of-way. Current
plans call for a 30 foot roadway between ATSF's tracks and the
LRT tracks. East of the site, a linear park buffer is planned
to separate the rail activities from the adjoining residential
redevelopment. To the west, the City of San Diego proposes to
widen Harbor Drive to 6 lanes.
In order co Lring cumxauter trains to this location, a second
track could be required from the Santa Fe Depot south. MTDB-is
presently in negotiation with the tanta Fe Railway Company
concerning shared right-of-way for the proposed Bayside LRT
service. It is important that such negotiations not be
adversely affected by delays that could be associated with
integrating commuter rail service into this area.
The Convention Center site was added to the list of candidate
station sites by the Technical Advisory Committee in order to
allow for direct service from North County to the Convention
Center area. Operationally, a Convention Center station could
result in duplication of Downtown feeder and distribution
service that MTDB light rail service is proposed to provide.
Further, the types of trips this station would handle are more
likely to be tourism/recreational or business travel, and not
the daily work trips that commuter rail traditionally
addresses.
Despite the above operational considerations, selection of a
southern terminus for the commuter rail service will depend, in
part, on the location selected for storage of equipment during
the day. If trains were to be stored south of the Santa Fe
Depot, requiring movements south towards the Convention Center,
consideration of this terminus would be merited. Thus, it is
recommended that a decision concerning this station as the
southern terminus for the service be deferred until a decision
is made regarding train storage.
SUMMARY OF CONSULTANT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The key findings and recommendations from this study of
potential station sites for the Oceanside -San Diego Commuter
Rail Service are presented below. These findings and
recommendations are advanced by the consultant for
consideration by the Commuter Rail Advisory and Technical
Committees.
-41-
KEY FINDINGS
1. This Final Assessment of Candidate Stations for the
Oceanside -San Diego Commuter Rail Service supports the
existence of a viable set of stations for the proposed service.
A total of 10 stations would be desirable to support potential
ridership within the corridor and to provide efficient commuter
service.
2. In the northern portion of the corridor extending from
Oceanside through Carlsbad, the following sites are well suited
to accommodate commuter rail stations:
Oceansite Transit Center
Carlsbad (Grand Avenue)
Carlsbad (Poinsettia)
These sites were considered to be generally appropriate station
locations from the perspective of land use suitability, access,
community and environmental compatibility, and railroad
operational requirements.
3. In the middle 14-mile portion of the corridor, between
Encinitas and Sorrento valley, there are four sites that could
potentially be considered for commuter service:
Encinitas Boulevard
Cardiff
Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe)
Del Mar
Of these four, only two stations would be needed. Reduction in
the number of stations would be required in order to assure
appropriate spacing between stations of 4 - 5 miles, and to
keep overall travel time in the corridor to under one hour. In
light of the relatively short distances betwean these sites,
the most appropriate pairing of possible stations would be
Encinitas Boulevard/Lomas Santa Fe and Cardiff/Del Mar. Thus,
the choice for a station in the northern portion of this
segment would be either Encinitas Boulevard or Cardiff.
Similarly, in the southern portion the choice would be either
Lomas Santa Fe or Del Mai-.
In the northern sub -segment, the results of this analysis
support Encinitas Boulevard as the preferable location with
regard to access and community compatibility -related issues.
In the southern sub -segment, the analysis was less conclusive.
While the Lomas Santa Fe site is preferable to the existing Del
Mar Amtrak station, both sites present severe constraints and
potential impacts. Further study of an alternate location for
-42-
the station is merited, with ra-examination of the Via De La
Valle station recommended.
4. Within the more southerly portion of the corridor, extending
from Sorrento Valley to Downtown, the following sites are well
suited for commuter rail stations:
Sorrento Valley
Miramar
Old Town
Santa Fe Depot
Like the sites in the northern portion of the corridor, these
sites provide generally suitable locations for commuter service
from the perspective of existing and proposed land use, access,
community and environmental compatibility, and railroad
operations. Site development constraints at the Sorrento
Valley station could result in the need for additional
investigation of a station site in the vicinity of Sorrento
Valley.
5. With regard to the San Diego Convention Center commuter rail
station as the southern terminus for the service, additional
information is required concerning arrangements for daily train
storage to support a recommendation concerning this station.
RECOMMENDATIONS'
1. The following sites are recommended for consideration by the
Commuter Rail Advisory and Technical Committees as candidate
commuter stations:
Oceanside
Carlsbad (Grand Avenue)
Carlsbad (Poinsettia)
Encinitas Boulevard
Sorrento Valley
Miramar
old Town
Santa Fe Depot
2. Additional analysis is merited prior to recommending a
station site for the Solana Beach/Del Mar catchment area. In
particular, a re -assessment of Via De La Valle as a joint
commuter rail and intercity rail station is recommended.
3. As the operational viability of a Convention Center station
is affected by decisions concerning daily train storage, a
recommendation concerning this site should be deferred.
-43-
OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
San Diego- Freeway Levels of Service, 12/86.
(region)
Average Weekday Traffic Volumes, SANDAG, 5/87.
Population and Housing Estimates, SANDAG, 5/88.
(includes data for Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas,
Oceanside and other cities in San Diego County.)
Population, Housing, and Employment within 1-Mile
and 5-Miles of Potential Commuter Rail Stations,
SANDAG, 10/88.
Metropolitan Transit System, Regional Transit Guide.
Station Field Trip Photos, 8/24/88.
Circulation Element, San Diego County General Plan,
5/88.
Oceanside- Draft Oceanside Transit Center Parking Study, 6/88.
Timetable, North County Transit District -Oceanside.
Carlsbad- City of Carlsbad General Plan (map)
City of Carlsbad Zoning (map)
City of Carlsbad, Growth Management Plan, 1987.
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, 1986.
City of Carlsbad, Statistical Data, 1983.
Carlsbad Tract Log, 5/16/88.
City of Carlsbad, Traffic Census Program, 1985.
Existing Volumes on Poinsettia, Palomar Airport Road,
Tamarack Ave., Elm Ave., Carlsbad Road.
Level of Service Report, 3/14/88.
City of Carlsbad Buildout Maps (3)
Carlsbad Redevelopment Area, Economic, Circulation
and Design Study, Economic Research Associates,
Volumes I, II and III, 3/86.
City of Carlsbad, Village Design Manual, 4/88.
City of Carlsbad, Village Area, Redevelopment
Plan, 4/81.
Map of Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area, 1981.
Staff Report on Village Faire, 10/87.
Assessor's Maps for Proposed Station Areas.
Secured Assessment Roll for Proposed Station Areas.
Timetable, North County Transit District- Carlsbad.
Carlsbad City Facility Finder (map)
Seapointe Carlsbad, General Plan Amendment.
Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan, 10/85
Technical Site Plan for Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park.
Encinitas- Design Study for Downtown Encinitas, 3/88.
Encini';as General Plan- Housing Element, 5/88 and
Housing Plan Technical Report, 12/87.
City of Encinitas, Urban Design Study, undated.
Encinitas Cityscape Plan, undated.
Encinitas Downtown Improvement Plan, 3/88.
City of Encinitas, Planning Commission Report, 5/88.
Master Traffic Census Listing, 2/87.
Encinitas "Buildout" Traffic Volumes.
Encinitas, Secured Property Assessee Index, 6/88.
Draft Land Use Element, City of Encinitas General
Plan, 5/88.
Circulation Element, Encinitas General Plan, 5/88.
Draft Land Use Policy Map, 6/88.
Solana Bch- City of Solana Beach General Plan, 1988.
Solana Beach Land Use Plan (map)
Traffic Analysis for Solana Beach Center, Willdan
Associates, 2/87.
plication to California Public Utilities Commission
Ap-
for Separation of the Existing Crossing of Lomas
Santa Fe Dri,!e and the ATSF Railway Tracks, City of
Solana Beach, 12/87.
Del Mar-
Del Mar Zoning Map.
Relocation of the Del Mar Amtrak Station, County of
San Diego, 6/77.
Draft EIR for Multipurpose Transportation Facility in
Del Mar -Solana Beach, 8/87.
Del Mar Santa Fe Railway Station Improvement Report,
Caltrans, 7/77.
The Community Plan for the City of Del Mar, 3/76.
Sorrento-
Torrey Pines Community Plan, 3/75.
Widen:L.ng Plans for Sorrento Valley Road, 4/88.
Miramar-
University Community Plan (4 maps: Land Use; Proposed
Street Network; Future Traffic Volumes; and Proposed
Light Rail Transit and Shuttle Loop.)
Gilman Dr-
Draft #2, University Community Plan, 12/86.
Land Use and Development Intensity Table, revised for
University Community Plan, 8/87.
Friars Rd-
Morena Transportation Study, 7/85.
Mission Valley Community Plan, 5/85.
old Town-
Old Town San Diego, Community Plan, 7/87.
Long Range Plan- Land Use Concept, Circulation
Concept, Existing Circulation/Plan, Street and
Parking Improvements, Auto Circulation/Parking
Concept, Circulation/Public Transit Concept,
Bikeways/Pedestrian Links.
San Diego-
Plans for Trolley -Station at Santa Fe Depot.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
DATE: February 7, 1989
TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Interested
Parties
FROM: North San Diego County Transit Development Board
(NSOCTDB)
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (DEIP.)
PROJECT TITLE: OCEANSIDE TO SAN DIE00 COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT
The NSDCTDB will be the lead agency and will prepare an
Environmental Impact Report evaluating the initiation of a Commuter
Rail service between Oceanside and San Diego, including stops at
several communities between Oceanside and San Diego.
The proposed project would extend approximately 43 miles along
existing railroad right-of-way which is currently used by AMTRAK and
Santa Fe Railroad Freight Trains. Proposed station stops are
indicated in the attached materials. The proposed project would
provide an alternative to the commute by automobile on the increas-
ingly congested I-5 and 805 freeways.
The project description, location, and probable environmental
effects are contained in the attached materials. Your agency may need
to use the EIR when considering am permit or other approval for the
project. We need the views of your agency regarding the scope and
content of the environmental document.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must
be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after
receipt of this notice. We will need the name of a contact person in
your agency.
-1-
Please send your ,espouse or address any questions to:
Helene Kornblatt
c/o NSDCTDB
311 South Tremont Street
Oceanside, CA 92054
Phone: 619-967-2828
Sincerely,
Richard L. Fifer
Executive Director
RLF/HK/cp
Attachments: Project Description, Alternatives, Probable Effects,
Location Maps
-2-
O,,ANSIDE TO SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The Oceanside to San Diego Commuter Rail Project would be located in
San Diego County (see Exhibit A) mostly in existing railroad right-of-way
currently used by Amtrak and Freight Trains. It will extend from Oceanside
Transit Center to downtown San Diego. The project would terminate at the
downtown San Diego Santa Fe depot, or at an additional convention center
stop. The proposed project Would add four additional round trips per day
during commuter peak hours to the existing Amtrak and freight operations.
In other words, four trains would leave Oceanside each morning and ter-
minate in San Diego allowing commuters to arrive in time to begin work in
downtown San Diego. During the afternoon peak hours, four trains would
begin in downtown San Diego and return commuters back up the coast to ter-
minate at the Oceanside Transit Center. Commuter service is proposed to
begin in late 1992.
The California Environmental Quality Act provides that additional train
service in existing railroad right-of-way is exempt from the Act. However,
the proposed project requires the acquisition of additional land outside of
existing railroad right-of-way for train station parking. Therefore, this
Envionmental Impact Report is being prepared to address the station issues
on the entire Commuter Rail project.
Ridership for the year 1995 is projected to be approximately 4,000 trips
per day total. This includes 2,000 a.m. peak southbound passengers and
2,000 p.m. peak northbound passengers.
Station sites are indicated on the attached exhibits. Due to the commuter
nature of the service, it is expected that stations from Sorrento Valley
south will in effect serve as destination stations and, therefore, will re-
quire little parking. Stations from Del Mar north will each provide
parking for commuters using the service. Parking to be provided at each
station will range from approximately 200 to 350 spaces, depending on
availability of land for parking and projected demand for parking at each
individual station.
Station sites were selected based on an elimination process which began
by looking at 26 candidate sites. Selection of proposed station sites was
based on availability of land, environmental and other constraints, and
potential demand for station site parking in each area.
While the project will use existing railroad track, in some areas addi-
tional track will be added to provide for train passing movements.
Eventually it is expected that the right-of-way will be doubletracked for
most of its length. The addition of a track within existing railroad
right-of-way will enable more efficient operations. The project will also
include a straightening of curves in two areas: at Elvira, south of the
Miramar station, and in Soledad Canyon (see a'iached Exhibit G and H for
locations). These curve realignments will cut curves of almost 75% to
curves of 3 to 4%, thereby improving the speed at which the trains may
operate.
-3-
Stations are proposed to be located at: The Oceanside Transit Center;
Grand Street in downtown Carlsbad; Poinsettia in Carlsbad; D Street in
Encinitas; Del Mar; Sorrento Valley; Miramar; Old Town; and at the Santa Fe
depot.
It is expected that the existing Del Mar Amtrak station will be relocated
and combined with the Commuter Rail station to a new location in the Del
Mar vicinity. Three alternatives for this relocated Del Mar station are
being considered (see attached Exhibit E). The EIR may examine one
preferred alternative location for the Del Mar station, if a preferred al-
ternative is selected by the time the EIR is prepared. Alternative Del Mar
station sites will be discussed regardless of whether a preferred alterna-
tive is identified.
Two alternative station locations for the Sorrento Valley station are being
considered, as indicated on Exhibit F.
ALTERNATIVES
It is proposed that the following alternatives be considered in the EIR:
Proposed Project - This alternative is the project preferred alterna-
tive as described above, and as indicated on the attached Exhibit A.
No Project - The No Project alternative will consist of existing plus
committed roadway and transit improvements for the project area.
Express Bus - This alternative will consist of intensified North
County u downtown San Diego express bus service.
Alternac a Station sites - A number of alternatives to the -preferred
project sites will be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report, and
the rationale for discarding alternative sites will be explained.
-4-
■
OCEANSIDE - SAI DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT
EVALUATION OF PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Background
1. Name of Proponent North San Diego County Transit Development Board
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 311 South Tremont Street,
Oceanside, CA 92054 (619) 967-2828
3. Date of Checklist Submitted February 7. 1989
4. Agency Requiring Checklist San Diego Association of Governments
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Oceanside - San Diego Commuter
Rail Project
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are included on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical
features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
-5-
Yes Mavbe No
x
x
x
x
x
x
Yes Maybe No
g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterior-
ation of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in
either marine r f h t 9
o res wa ersx
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? x
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? x
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? x
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? x
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? x
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? x
10
x
x
Yes Maybe No
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal
waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? w
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish
and shellfish, benthic organisms or
insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? P
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
-7-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Yes Maybe No
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
x
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
x
10.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release
of a hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event of
an accident or upset conditions?
x
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
_ x
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
x
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect exist-
ing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
x
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
x
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
x
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
x
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/
or goods?
x
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
x
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
x
10
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
:�C
Yes Maybe No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Yes Mavbe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? x
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? x
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the lumber or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
-10-
x
x
x
x
Yes Maybe No
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term im acts will endure well into the
future. x
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is
significant.) x
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? x
-11-
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Explanation of Items marked Yes or Maybe in Section II.
lc. Construction of station parking and curve straightening may re-
quire grading resulting in changes in ground surface.
3b. Additional paved area may be added at stations, resulting in
changes in absorption and drainage.
3e. The proposed route is close to the Ocean and Lagoons and runoff
might enter the water.
3i. Two of the 3 alternative Del Mar station sites are located in the
San Dieguito River floodway.
4,5. Construction of stations (especially the Del Mar and Sorrento
Valley stations, depending on alternative selected) and the curve
straightenings might impact diversity and numbers of species.
Sa,b,d. Diversity and numbers of species, and wildlife habitat could be
impacted by construction of the Del Mar and Sorrento Valley
stations, and by the curve realignments. Impacts will depend upon
tree station sites selected, and upon the species identified in a
biological survey to be performed in preparing the DEIR.
6a. The Commuter Rail service could increase noise levels. An evalua-
tion will be performed for the EIR.
7. Lights at stations could introduce a new source of light into some
areas.
8. Land use changes can result from transportation improvements such
as the Commuter Rail service.
9a. The Commuter Rail will require diesel fuel to operate.
11. Commuter Rail service may influence growth in the project area.
12. The Commuter Rail route and stations would be near some housing
development in several locations. Potential impacts will need to
be investigated. One of the existing Del Mar station alternatives
may involve acquisition of private residential property.
13. Implementation of the Commuter Rail service could affect existing
traffic and parking conditions in the area. Stations could affect
the demand for parking. Potential impacts will be investigated.
14d. Public access to the beach and Del Mar fairground could be en-
hanced.
14e. Maintenance of the Commuter Rail facilities will be addressed in
the EIR.
-12-
15a. The Commuter Rail service will require additional fuel for opera-
tion, but may save fuel by diverting some auto trips to transit.
16. Construction of the Commuter Rail facilities may require the
relocation of utilities. Short-term disruption of service could
occur.
18. The Commuter Rail service could provide scenic vistas to more
people who would otherwise experience freeway congestion during
their commute. The stations could introduce new visual elements
into some areas. The EIR will evaluate visual impact issues.
19. The Commuter service may enhance the opportunities for recrea-
tional acitivities.
20a,b. The impact on cultural resources will be considered during
preparation of the EIR.
21a,c,d. The proposed project may have significant and/or cumulative im-
pacts on the natural environment. It may have direct or indirect
impacts on human beings. These issues will be evaluated in the
EIR.
IV. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant affect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. x
l
t t
-13-
Helene B. Kornblatt
Consultant to NCTD
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED OCEANSIDE - SAN DItGO
COMMUTE" RAIL PROJECT
Oceanside
Carlsbad (Grand;
Carlsbad (Poinsel
Encinita;
San Di
EXHIBIT B
Proposed Carlsbad (Grand) Commuter Rail Station
-15-
EXHIBIT C
Proposed Carlsbad ;Poinsettia) Commuter Rail Station
-16-
EXHIBIT D
Proposed Encinitas D Street Commuter Rail Station
Leucadia
Cardiff
by the .
-17-
EXHIBIT E
Alternative Del Mar Commuter Rail Station Sites
so
EXHIBIT F
Alternative Sorrento Valley Commuter Rail Stations
�C
i
r IOS RwA50wt0f
-19-
r.
O
.1
41
(d
4
rn
U�
C
•r
�
rf
—1
4)
rd
.�
•r
b
�I
v
C7 41
L")
°O o
_ U
v.
x
L.LI
r
•r
aJ
,r
.t+
N
q
a
'b
0
v
En
0-
0
a
0
p
a
-20-
EXHIBIT H
Proposed Elvira Curve Straightening
-21-
EXHIBIT I
Proposed Old Town Commuter Rail Station
y W ".M.
,..' suMc
PARK
-22-
EXHIBIT J
Proposed Santa Fe Depot Commuter Rail Station
Proposed Convention Center Station
V 11fWN��i
A
Ir CA! O yTaTIVATMD a
�•__ •�r1 ION o`
lTi a,Jl::2'_95117/ij////■
eE-111
.v�,wa s2
-23-
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN
DIRECTOR
(619) 694-2212
(LOCATION CODE 750)
December 16, 1988
tLilltYltu of 'SiIki pilega
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
5555 OVERLAND AVE, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123-1295
Mr. Mike Howse
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, California 92009
Dear Mr. Howse:
COUNTY L..uIN1:Cn
COUNTY AIRPORTS
COUNTY ROAD COMNI-SSIONER
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
COUNTY SURVEYOR
FLOOD CONTFOL
LIQUID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
Subject: Revised Agreement for the Construction of the Carlsbad Transit Center
Enclosed is the revised draft Agreement for the construction of a transit
center in the City of Carlsbad. As discussed with staff from our Department at
the meeting on December 5, 1988, the draft Agreement now includes the City of
Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Commission.
Please review the Agreement and call Denis McGee at 694-2196 with your
comments. After an Agreement has been drafted that is acceptable to all of the
parties, originals of the Agreement will be distributed f-,t vecution.
Following execution by all parties involved, we will convenr the first meeting
of the Project Management Team.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
VerN truly yours,
ILLS.
B W-M, Director
tment f ublic Works
GMB:DJM:djm
Enclosure
AGREEMENT FOR THE CINSTRUCTION OF THE
CARLSBAD TRANSIT CENTER
THIS AGREEMENT IS HEREBY made and entered into this day of
1989, by and between:
THE COUNTY OF SAT DIEGO, a political
subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to
as "COUNTY"; and
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to
as "CITY"; and
THE CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to
as "COMMISSION"; and
THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, a statutorily
created transportation board,
hereinafter referred to as "NCTDB."
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, under Section 99400.5 of the California Public Utilities
Code, the COUNTY has authority to finance the construction and
maintenance of multimcdal transportation terminals anywhere within the
boundaries of San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1982, the COUNTY's Board of Supervisors
approved an Agreement with NCTDB to study the feasibility of
constructing five transit centers to be located throughout the County
of San Diego, including a transit center to be located in the City of
Carlsbad; and
WHEREAS, the study concluded that it is necessary and feasible to
construct a transit cen°.er in the area of Grand and Washington in the
City of Carlsbad, hereinafter referred to as "PROSECT"; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has need of and desires to reach an Agreement
with NCTDB, CITY and COMMISSION in carrying out the responsibilities of
the parties hereto for the financing, construction, maintenance and
operation of the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the.PROJECT is included for design and construction in the
COUNTY's FY 1988/89-FY 1993/94 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program and in the NCTDB's FY 1986-90 Short Range Transit Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION 1
COUNTY AGREES:
1. To provide project management by appointment of a County
Supervisor to represent the COUNTY and act as officiating member on the
Project Management Team.
2. To provide a Project Manager who reports to the Project Management
Team and to provide other staff support to insure the continued,
cooperative and comprehensive coordination for the implementation of
the PROJECT. Staff support shall include, but is not limited to,
securing consultant services, preparation of environmental and other
documents, facility design, right-of-way acquisition, management of
construction, and liaison with other agencies.
2. To provide a maximum of $100,000.00 in Transportation Development
Act (TDA) fund support toward PROJECT development costs. Said
contribution may be increased at the discretion of the COUNTY.
3. To act as the lead agency and to use its best efforts to construct
the PROJECT at a site to be determined during the preliminary
engineering of the PROJECT, said site to be in the vicinity of Grand
and Washington in the City of Carlsbad.
4. To be responsible for all preliminary engineering, design and
construction of the PROJECT, including construction management and
inspection. The necessary work shall be performed in accordance with
NCTDB, CITY, COMMISSION and COUNTY standards. All contracts and/or
subcontracts let in connection with the PROJECT shall be in accordance
with UMTA third -party contracting guidelines.
5. To furnish NCTDB, COMMISSION and CITY conceptual design,
preliminary plans and specifications for their review and comment. The
COUNTY shall, in good faith, respond to all comments by the parties
hereto. The final drawings shall be approved or disapproved by NCTDB,
COMMISSION and CITY within thirty (30) days of submittal by the COUNTY.
6. That property acquired or built with assistance from Urban Mass
Transportation Administration (UMTA) shall be managed in accordance
with UMTA Circular 5010.1.
90a
7. That the Director, COUNTY Department of Public Works, shall be the
contract administer for the COUNTY in all matters pertaining to this
Agreement and is hereby authorized to make administrative decisions
necessary to carry out the full intent of this Agreement.
6. That the project shall be owned by the NCTDB.
SECTION 2
CITY AGREES:
1. To provide project management by appointment of a City Council
member to represent the CITY on the Project Management Team.
2. To submit all PROJECT input through the Management Team and the
Project Manager to insure continued, cooperative and comprehensive
coordination during the implementation of the PROJECT.
3. To provide necessary staff support as may be required by the
Project Manager during preparation of environmental documents, facility
design, right-of-way acquisition, construction liaison.
4. To allow COUNTY to act within the CITY's jurisdiction according to
Section 99400.5 of the Public Utilities Code in implementing the
PROJECT within the City of Carlsbad.
5. To the extent permitted by law, to waive all development, license,
review and inspection fees arising from the PROJECT.
6. That the PROJECT shall be owned by the NCTDB.
SECTION 3
COMMISSION AGREES:
1. To provide project management by, as a whole, serving on the
Project Management Team.
2. To submit all PROJECT input through the Management Team and the
Project Manager to insure continued, cooperative and comprehensive
coordination during implementation of the PROJECT.
3. To act as the lead agency during the right-of-way acquisition phase
of the PROJECT. This would include initiation and administration
through the Project Management Team and condemnation proceeding in the
event any condemnations are required.
4. That property acquired or built with assistance from UMTA funding
shall be managed in accordance with UMTA Circular 5010.1.
5. To act as lead agency according to Section 21067 of Vae Public
Resources Code which defines the lead agency as "the public agency
which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
project which may have a significant effect upon the environment,"
during the preparation of an approved environmental document.
-3-
6. To provide
Project Manager
facility design,
the PROJECT.
necessary staff support as may be required by the
during the preparation of environmental documents,
right-of-way acquisition, construction and liaison for
7. To the extent permitted by law, to waive all development, license,
review and inspection fees arising from the PROJECT.
8. To allow the COUNTY to act within the COMMISSION's jurisdiction
according to Section 99400.5 of the Public Utilities Code in
implementing the PROJECT within the City o-' Carlsbad.
9. That the PROJECT shall be owned by the NCTDB.
SECTION 4
NCTDB AGREES:
1. To provide management by ap .ointment of a Board member to represent
NCTDB on the Project Management Team.
2. To submit all PROJECT input through the Management Team and the
Project Manager to insure continued, cooperative and comprehensive
coordination during implementation of the PROJECT.
3. To allow the COUNTY to act within the NCTDB's jurisdiction
according to Section 99400.5 of the Public Utilities Code in
implementing the PROJECT within the City of Carlsbad.
4. To provide necessary staff support as may be required by the
Project Manager during the preparation of environmental documents,
facility design, right-of-way acquisition, construction and liaison for
the PROJECT.
5. To bear all costs incurred by the COMMISSION in carrying out
Section 3, No. 3, of this Agreement.
6. To pay all right-of-way and construction costs for the PROJECT,
including costs incurred by the other parties to this Agreement,
excluding COUNTY's design costs.
7. To provide a maximum of $1,000,000.00 toward funding the PROJECT.
Said contribution may be increased at the discretion of the NCTDB.
8. That upon completion of the PROJECT and acceptance of the
construction work by the COUNTY, CITY, COMMISSION and NCTDB, NCTDB
shall assume ownership of the PROJECT and shall be responsible for the
maintenance and operation of the PROJECT.
-4-
SECTION 5
' IT IS FURTHER MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED:
1. That overall project management will be the responsibility of the
COUNTY for PROJECT implementation.
2. That project management will be accompli..ied with a Project
Management Team which shall consist of the entire COMMISSION and one
representative each from the COUNTY, CITY and NCTDB.
3. That agencies' appointees or their alternates will attend regularly
scheduled project management meetings. The object of these meetings
will be to approve PROJECT procedures as well as decide on courses of
action as the PROJECT progresses. This will entail the identification
and agreement on staff support for the Project Manager during the
preparation of environmental documents, facility design, right-of-way
acquisition, preliminary operation and other aspects as necessary for
PROJECT completion.
4. That the Project Manager will supervise and manage the day-to-day
preparation of all work associated with the implementation of the
PROJECT.
5. That this Agreement can be modified, altered or revised with the
written consent of the parties.
6. This Agreement shall terminate upon completion of the PROJECT and
approval of the PROJECT by the parties hereto. However, the ownership
and indemnification clauses shall remain in effect until mutually
agreed upon in writing by the parties.
7. (a) The COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees shall not be
held liable for any claims, liabilities, penalties, fines or for damage
to any goods, properties or effects of any person whatsoever, nor for
personal injuries to or deaths of them, or any of them, caused by or
resulting from any acts or omissions of CITY, COMMISSION or NCTDB,
their agents, employees or representatives; CITY, COMMISSION and NCTDB
further agree to defend, indemnify and save free and harmless COUNTY
and its authorized agents, officers and employees against any of the
foregoing liabilities and any cost and expense, including reasonable
attorney's fees, incurred by the COUNTY on account of any claim
therefore, including improvement services done or provided by CITY,
COMMISSION or NCTDB pursuant to this Agreement; and in the event that a
court of competent jurisdiction should determine that CITY, COMMISSION
or NCTDB has no authority to provide by Agreement the performance of
the hereinabove set services, CITY, COMMISSION and NCTDB nevertheless
agree to assume the foregoing obligations and liabilities by which this
is intended by the parties that CITY, COMMISSION and NCTDB agree to
indemnify and to hold COUNTY harmless from all claims arising by work
done by or any act or omission of CITY, COMMISSION or NCTDB or their
agents, employees or representatives, in connection with or in the
performance of the agreed upon services of work provided for in this
Agreement.
-5-
7. (b) The CITY, COMMISSION and NCTDB, their agents, officers and
employees shall not be held liable for any claims, liabilities,
penalties, fines or for damage to any goods, properties or effects of
any person whatsoever, nor for personal injuries to or deaths of them,
or any of them, caused by or resulting from any acts or omissions of
the COUNTY, its agents, employees -or representatives; COUNTY further
agrees to defend, indemnify and save free and harmless CITY, COMMISSION
and NCTDB and their authorized agents, officers and employees against
any of the foregoing liabilities and any cost and expense, including
reasonable attorney"s fees, incurred by CITY, COMMISSION or NCTDB on
account of any claim therefore, including improvement services done or
provided by COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement; and in the event that a
court of competent jurisdiction should determine that COUNTY has no
authority to provide by Agreement the performance of the hereinabove
set services, COUNTY nevertheless agrees to assume the foregoing
obligations and liabilities by which this is intended by the parties
that COUNTY agrees to indemnify and to hold CITY, COMMISSION and NCTDB
harmless from all claims arising by work done by or any act or omission
of COUNTY or its agents, employees or representatives, in connection
with or in the performance of the agreed upon services of work provided
for in this Agreement.
7. (c) These indemnity provisions are not limited in any way by the
extent of any insurance policy currently in force and held by the
parties hereto.
8. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement may be
personally served on the other parties, by the party giving notice, or
may be formally served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
the following addressees:
COUNTY: Director, Department of Public Works
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue, Building 2 (MS 0332)
San Diego, CA 92123
CITY: Director, Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas
Carlsbad, CA 92009
COMMISSION: Chairman, Carlsbad Redevelopment Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
NCTDB General Manager
North County Transit District
P.O. Box 1099
Oceanside, CA 92054
-6-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
M to be executed as of the day first above written.
CITY OF CARLSBAD CARLSBAD REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BY:
Mayor
ATTEST
BY:
City Clerk
DATE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
BY:
City Attorney
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY:
Chairman of the Board
ATTEST
BY:
DATE:
-7-
BY:
Chairman
ATTEST
BY:
Secretary i
DATE:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
BY:
Clerk, Board, of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
BY:
County Counsel