Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-01; City Council; 10174; Oceanside San Diego Commuter Rail Study Final Assessment of Candidate Stations0 W O CL e. Q 1 N 6- CIT. OF CAR.LSBAD - AGEND, BILL AB#TITLE: OCEANSIDE - SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL DEPT. HD. MTG. r % 579 STUDY - FINAL ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE CITY A DEPT. PLN STATIONS CITY MG . RECOMMENDED ACTION: SANDAG and NCTD are recommending that the City Council ADOPT the recommendations of the above -mentioned report and support in concept the proposed commuter rail stations at Grand Avenue and Poinsettia Lane. ITEM EXPLANATION This item was previously discussed at the February 21, 1989 meeting of the City Council. At that time staff recommended that the City Council direct staff to review the proposal with other departments and return with a report detailing their concerns and recommendations. Staff also recommended that this item be presented to the Housing & Redevelopment Advisory Board, During the past few months designs for the proposed Grand Avenue station have been presented several times to the Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Board and Village Merchants Association. In addition, NCTD and SANDAG have submitted traffic studies for both of the proposed station locations. Staff has reviewed these studies and discussed them with representatives from NCTD. Based on a review of these studies staff believes that commuter rail stations can be located at both sites without creating unacceptable impacts on adjacent traffic circulation, In addition there is sufficient space at each site to provide adequate parking for the commuter rail stations. Staff has some concerns about whether a commuter rail station and accompanying parking lot would be the highest and best use for the AT&SF Railroad property at the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and the railroad. This property might be best developed with a combination of retail and office uses. Both SANDAG and NCTD believe that these two stations are necessary for the success of the comma'Cer rail program. The property owner at Poinsettia Lane plans to incorporate the commuter rail station into his project's design. SANDAL has made several presentations to the Village Merchants Association which seemed to address most of their concerns. Council concurrence with the recommendations for the two station locations would only be the first step in the establishment of these stations. The detail design of each station and their exact impact on adjacent properties and City facilities would have to be worked out when development permits were applied for. The Planning Commission would be required to review and approve the Site Development Plan for the commuter rail station at Poinsettia Lane. The Design Review Board would review the design of the commuter rail station of Grand Avenue. For u , s : Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. additional details please see the attached memorandum dated June 1.2, 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The North County T.,-insit Development Board is preparing an environmental impact report evaluating the construction of the proposed commuter rail service. The impacts of the proposed station locations will also be evaluated by this report. FISCAL IMPkrT None at this time. EXHIBITS 1iMemorandum dated June 12, 1989 2:'Agenda Bill No. 9878 3V>Memorandum dated February 10, 1989 53tReport dated November, 1988 JUNE 12, 1989 TO: RAY PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER FROM: Principal Planner COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS AT GRAND AVENUE & POINSETTIA LANE This item was previously discussed at the February 21, 1989 City Council meeting. Since that time staff has had a number of meetings with representatives from SANDAL, North County Transit District, The Village Merchants Association of Carlsbad, Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency and Poinsettia Lane property owners. Poinsettia Lane Station The Newport National Company which is a property owner of the site of the proposed Poinsettia Lane Commuter Rail Station is very much in favor of having a station on their site. They are designing their entire project based around a commuter rail station. Representatives of Newport National have informed staff that they are working on preliminary designs now, and in the near future will be submitting a request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for this site. This project will include the design of the proposed commuter rail station. Staff has no major concerns with the commuter rail station at this site because the existing circulation system appears to be adequate to handle any traffic that would be generated by the station. The applicant's proposal for a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will require a full environmental impact report. This EIR will address any impacts of their proposed project, especially traffic impacts. Grand Avenue Station This station is proposed for existing railroad property at the northeast corner of Grand Avenue and, the AT&SF railroad. The area is presently occupied by Bauer umber's, storage facility. It is staff's understanding that this facility is there on a 30 day lease. As shown by Exhibit "A" the AT&SF Railroad owns approximately a 9.7 acres in this area. Much of this property is presently occupied by a variety of commercial/industrial uses. Some of these uses are on the property with a 30 day lease while others are there without any type of lease or permission from the railroad. SANDAG and NCTD did a number of studies on this site and presented them to staff and the Village Merchants Association at a couple of their meetings. The most acceptable plan was presented to the Village Merchants Association in May (see Exhibit "B"). This plan provided for approximately 150 parking maces in the right-of-way, adjacent to the commuter rail platfc_m. The plan also included an information booth and public restrooms. In addition this plan showed how the parking area could be expanded to handle a total of 240 parking spaces or even 360 parking spaces. The station location study which accompanies this memo shows that I the station will probably only need 50-150 spaces in 1995. The design presented by the NCTD and SANDAL shows that substantially more parking can be provided than will be needed when the commuter rail first starts out. It also shows that there is more than ample room to provide additional parking as the commuter rail becomes more popular in the future. Some concerns were expressed by the Police Department and downtown merchants about a potential crime problem with all the empty cars sitting there. The NCTD pointed out that they will have undercover security personnel that will patrol these parking lots to deter thefts and vandalism. The possibility of a gated entry system to deter car thefts was also discussed. These are the types of details that will be worked out when the detailed development proposals are submitted for this site. SANDAG representat-Lves also pointed out that this parking will be available for public use during evening hours and on weekends. NCTD is proposing a bus transfer point on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from the proposed commuter rail station. This will allow buses to use Grand Avenue and Beech Avenue to circulate out to Carlsbad Boulevard. This will keep heavy bus traffic off State Street. Pedestrians will be able to access the commuter rail station by walking across the railroad tracks as shown on the plan. At the present time NCTD has approximately 2 million dollars in funding available for the construction of the Grand Avenue Commuter Rail Station, bus transfer point and parking areas. Approximately $800,000 of this is from UMPTA funds which are from the federal government. There is $200,000 in NCTD funds and $1,000,000 in Proposition A Tram,•iet Funds. The actual construction of the site would require appi-,-- 1. of a Major Redevelopment Permit by the Design Review Board. .t that time staff could do a detailed review of the site, parking, turn movements, loading and unloading areas. The problem of relocating the existing commercial uses that exist on the portion of the railroad property that would be utilized for the commuter rail station would also have to be addressed by NCTD and SANDAL at that time. MICHAEL G. HOWLS Principal Planner arb Attachments Kt 0 OD CST X uj Im 3AV L-L PMA A. 4 A ELM AVE z s— Jp— e C$aIST1AJ4Ew CW WAY 4 0- M Ae (3 lie -Swl3AV H0338 �r :6 (:Nv 2AV JQ co sit �,l m OF - - -------- 00 75 Xf II LU FIGURE 4-2 C, t OF CARLSBAD — ACENLA SILL AB#_ yf�1e TITLE: INFORMATION ITEM - OCEANSIDE - SAN DIEGO : MTG. 2/21/89 COMMUTER RAIL STUDY - FINAL ASSESSMENT DEPT. PL- OF CANDIDATE STATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION: "Ir DEPT. HD.. CITY ATT�, CITY MGR: 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 1981. 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 northeast corner of Poinsettia Lane and the A.T. & S.F. Railroad, a vacant 50 acre 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 ar4 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. Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. Y—L�lf ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The North County Transit Development Board is preparing an Environmental Impact Report evaluating the instruction of thq 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 dateo February 10, 1989 2) Report dated November, 1988 3) 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 indicated 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 fur 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 •a representatives from the 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 existing 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 other 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. MH:af -2- c-rail.mem m Sharon Greene and Associates DRAFT OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY FINAL ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE STATIONS November, 1988 i 7Fanspnrtatinn, Economics, F.nt,irnnmentct! Pla)tninq /,V/() •Forth lj)'nucln'ut' • 1'antct'Ana C,'uli%urnicr Q i-0() • (-/ 1 , ; -(d ;O f E E OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY FINAL ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE STATIONS This report documents the results of the evaluation process 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 idenntify 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 precess involved identifying a list of candidate sites. As shown in Figi.-ze 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 (Sammis 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 Sitee A: northeast quadrant of Miramar Rosd/ATSF tracks Site B: south of Miramar Road, end of Frost Mar Place -1- Figure l POTENTIAL STATION SITES 1 soal¢R 9 5��� 10 12 12L Ci'-eanside " �` c>aS�O at c VISTA _ �� MONiE V, OCEAN• SIDE I T Cpf ` : Fr AO r Carlsbad (Elm) 13 14 �R 15 . R 16. 17 SAN MARCOS Carlsbad (Palomar Aij-port pmd) A OMARLAKE Carlsbad (Poinsettia) 19 20 ��N MARCOS 21 22 Carlsbad (Samads Property) !ALAGO O LAGOO La Caau `�siy i• = O ��+E L�.,���� T- r+�...� Frr-n�tas (La Costa) lA 51 eucadia AV RQ r +4 E initas (.FirKinitas Boulevard: Z OLIVENNAIN RO 27 sites A* BB, C, and D) 24 25 26 1:AKinitaS ;ingy,,,,,, i f•� �� LAKE I NOocfS Cardil I 1h By Sea A CRANAOA 0 Solana Beach (Lucas Santa Fe) NA 9 BE C 3 SANf f 'ro 31 32 £ �{,�� "All Del ,"i1L .Ede Gardens Q VIA 0 alfbIts arch C S h Del CF1i 1J Mar I"B" �r 9 Q DEL MAR • y $ 34 35 c°2 36 Sorrento Valley "A!' PoX'` MIAA IIe>3� Sorrento Valley "B" a 38 z9 39rt.nfo / ,o 40 Mi alm r "A" I LLL and f B" uiAAVSR Mlrsenr� Gilman Drive nrvere T = y 45 Fp`h _ 46 1 SQPo _ Jolla WIRE- , OTirre r/�^1Linda;,S�T 54 lM $$!pN Visfa Friars Road HISS/ON Lilt Old Town Old 6G El Ocean Besc 5� p 2 4 Town o o` m San Diego Depot oror S N Roaevill Iy San Diego Convention Center — o. 64 OF CORONA 0 2 SAN 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 enviroivaental 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 MTDH'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 Potential 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- Table 1 OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL STUDY CANDIDATE STATION LOCATIONS pDTENTIAL STATION LOCATIONS POST MILE LOCATION KEY ISSUES (E) Ordanside Multimodal Center 226.3 S. side of Hilt Street -Parking availability. between 1st and Topeka -Additional platform and in Oceanside. on east terminal improvements side of ATSF tracks. needed. Carlsbad (Elm Avenue) M2-229.3 Site of old station. -Parking and compatibility N. of Elm, east of with downtown commercial Washington Street on 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 233-134 N. of Poinsettia, W. -Good access and site of Avda. Encinas, on compatability. east side of ATSF -Potential noise effects tracks. on mobile home parks due to acceleration of trains. Carlsbad (Sammis Property) Between 7-33-234 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) N2-235.1-A N. of La Costa, E. of -Access, environmental and (Deleted) Carlsbad a., S. of community accessibility Batiquitos Lagoon, on issues. west side of ATSF -City prefers site be tracks. removed from consideration. 4 pg1E4TIAL STATION LOCATIONS ' Encinitas (D) Encinitas (C) Encinitas (8) Encinitas (A) POST MILE LOCATION About 238 S. of F Street and Vulcan Av., easr side of ATSF tracks, near Lumberyard complex. #2-237.7-8 Ai out 238 About 238 Encinitas (Birmingham Drive) #2-239.8 Solana Beach (Lomas Santa Fe) Roughly 241 Del Mar- Site "A" (Deleted) 243.5 N. of Encinitas 8, on W. side of ATSF tracks with parking on botn sides of tracks. S. of Encinitas R., midblock site on east side of ATSF tracks between D and E Sts. Behind La Palome, on west side of ATSF tracks at D Street. Linear site on E. of Vulcan (San Elijo) Av, N. of Birmingham (Chesterfield). on E. side of ATSF tracks. On N. side of Lamas Santa Fe, west of ATSF tracks across from Western lumber. Between Jimmy Durante Drive, and S-21, near 20th Street, S. of Del Mar Race Track. On W. side of ATSF tracks. 5 KEY ISSUES -Potential access and parking constraints. -Access to site is via Vulcan Av. or F Street. F Street is 2-tans through residential neighborhood and does not continue past tracks. -Location north of Encinitas B. makes site less well integrated into Downtown. -Site would be directly compatible with a future relocation of the Civic Center to Downtown. -Site is well integrated with Downtown and would Likely be easier to implement than the other two locations. -Site well located with respect to commercial activities and beach. -Access via Birmingham Ov. would require widening, with taking of residences. Extension of Birmingham across tracks has also been proposed. -Parking, station access and land availability constraints. -Potential impact on linear park which parallels the ATSF tracks. and Old 101. -Seasonal access problems with Del Mar Race Track. -Environmental/design constraints (slough). Part of City's Lagoon Preservation Plan. -Site deleted from consid- eration by Technical Advisory Committee. STATION LOCATIONS POST MILE LOCATION KEY ISSUES ,goV1AL P Nar- Site "B" 2" Between Coast B. and -Access and parking (E)Del S-21, N. of. 15th St, constraints at existing east side of ATSF station. tracks. Site "A" Roughly 248 City -owned site S. of -Potential access improve - 5orrmto- 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. 5orrento- Site "B" #2-249.1 Just S. of I-5/I-805 -Would require decking split. S. of Sorrento station over flood channel. Valley Road. About -Feeder/shuttle service 2 miles east of UCSO 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 8. turning movements. Miramar -Site "A" #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, light rail and transit feeder services. Miramar -Site "B" #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. STATION LOCATIONS POST MILE LOCATION KEY ISSUES p,IegTIAL Drive Roughly 257 E. of I-5, northeast -Access and parking Dila>� 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. friars Road #2-263.7-6 Potential site if MTDB -Requires prior decision by proceeds with light MTDB on potential extension rail to Mission Bay of Mission Valley LRT line and Sea World. N. of west to Mission Bay. Friars Rd. at Anna Av. -Site is in industrial area 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. old Town #2-263.89-A S. of San Diego River -Major interface for Floodway and southeast commuter rail, light rail, of the I-5/1-8 transit and park -anal -ride. interchange. E. of -Site well located with Pacific Hwy. on Y. respect to Old Town Park side of ATSF tracks. and tourist/commercial activities. (E) San Diego Depot 276.5 H. of Kettner Ave. and -Commuter rail platform and H. of Broadway. On train storage needs require western edge of coordination with Amtrak, downtown. On E. side Santa Fe and MTDB. of ATSF tracks. San Diego Convention Cerer Roughly 277 In vicinity of proposed -Requires coordination with MTDB LRT station at Santa Fe, MTDB and City foot of First Street re land availability and and J, at Convention track requirements. Center. -Desirability of station depends on location to be selected for commuter rail train storage at southern terminus. (E)=Existing station. 7 Encinitas (La Costal: access, environmental, and community compatibility constraints; and Del Mar Site "A": access and environmental compatibility issues. LP,VEL 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 Radiu%; Freeway and Arterial Access Proximity to dearest 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 Corr. 'rns Potential Displacements -8- 'r� 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 consideration. Key factors eliminate the nine sites from below for: Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad (Sammie Property) Encinitas Boulevard: Sites Sorrento Valley "All Miramar "A1l Gilman Drive Friars Road sites were dropped from further supporting the decision to consideration are summarized B, C, and D 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 Cal'' Poinsettia instead of Palomar Airport Road. Consideration of this site could be reactivated if the alternate location proved unavailable. { Carlsbad (Sammis Pro erty) 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 1985 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. j 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 site could be reactivated if negotiations with the developer of the Poinsettia site were not successful. Encinitas Boulevard: Bites 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 tha 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 station. 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 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 accessible 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 design and construction. -11- Miramar, 'All: This site, located on the north side of Miramar Road, was originally identified in order to coordinate the 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 Miram,,'r "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 Rose 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- 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 Bay, 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 (Granal) 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 S- 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 algorithra 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- Y i i � iii III i Yi I i Figure 2 CANDIDATE STATION SITES Oceanside Carlsbad (Grand) I Carlsbad (Poinsett Encinitas Lo San Diego v v qp qAG @ n ^ �O p vJ V •O ^ M N C Q� 0 H t;, 'Q Y h 'O •O !� � � N O N p A •O O MV O O N O n M A N M^ � 't1 � H P Yl Ip� ^ H^� � V N� ^ .• h P P P � N O O 4^ •° O^ N p @ N •O J ^ mmN .�pp PpQ e qpp N N p P M V °• _7 ,v N N p @^ O^ N O O .p •p I.. ' f: C N N M N N N N O O O O l q O A °• N N N H ...ppp 111ZryI p V ^N M O •% N M M 1!1 H ^ � o @ M Qp' �pp C N Nqn •O A A A e N y N M J r N e nn A N t° �/ d N •O .- = N O JOO M ..pp a�rrtt N A p N N M ^ •° N P O O N C p � V r. Y t9 N N ry ry O WY S N p Z@ °� d N A l0 N f�1 •° O M@ J V p P O O p N A < O yd d S UI N^ p pepp N e A N y� O 6 O ..r 'pp B O pYYO ^ N Y4 N M^ A NG A M •O N v�1 pP. m A J N Yi vVN m N O Y1 O ^ ^ ^ O O N M 1\ d O w• m d P mgmN O^ 0 0 N yU O v N N •O N O p g p y Q O U q U LL U O P U 4 jC Y < S •" N N �Li < W P P O O G O. U 2 p M m fryy �,OOV C M m.pp � m A •� f� O N ^^ V P N . N� M QAN' Y• N J A � M N M M ^ � �� M N � J �[ t O t ~ Y ppy ry fy !rP_� .yp < 9P .Y m _ eaO �, ryM pp N ^ oo f�yy O� m 0 O O C AAA ppC ^ N N V N d N p Ap,� A � O N� ^ ^ d O M O N O �••� P P ry M .N- m 4�j M P V N A d O A •E O O ^ N N^ ^^ V N d n H> lP1 M Y N W N V V M �V-• V m^ N :2 v Y yU, N .p d V pp O N M1 MMnfl � V O •Op ^ � 'p � N O M n 0 O V P M A n � ,Pp Mj N fV a0 P O P � M m v v d •� ^ to 6 �� � •p N� A n .O � O A o O M V d A � m n N ^ ^ Y a a �^ e J P P ry M yy�� n N Y imp M m A P V N P M d A m. u 1� N N• N O O O g L U U U C C C O Y U OI Y p C O L U Y C Y U N C N L L u u c c N ' C t m ^ O C C m q C C ll U `N u O u u u u u N U u u u G o ?: m u _ u u N station. It was ,text assumed that 75t of the patronage would require parking. The resulting range of estimated parking requirements are shown in Table 4. This information was then incorporates: 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 s- ition 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 would be located within the Transit Center area, immediately south of the existing center and parking area, across Tyson Street. The proposed site backs onto Larson Steel, -which is expected to be moving in the near future. -17- Table 4 OCEANSIDE-SAN DIEGO COMMUTER RAIL SEP. CE 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 3.50-250 150-250 150-250 150-250 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 center; 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 SANDAL 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 reXuiied 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. Three 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 commercial and limited industrial use. Designated as Subarea 3 of 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 illustrates 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 general 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 developments, 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 visu:+l 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. Incinitas (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 eor 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 benefite 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 Pr®posed Cardiff Commuter Flail Station ..a •r�T[ ENCINI -2'7- 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 Lomas Santa Fe Drive with the ATSF tracks. Primary access is provided via Lomas Santa Fe Drive, a major arterial which interchanges with I-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 2 NCTD bus routes: one a north - south route operating on Camino Del Mar from Oceanside to UCSD via Del Mar; the other running from Escondido via Solana Beach to Cardiff. Presently occupied by Western Lumber Company, development of a station at this location would require relocation 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 \ by the Sea �o n.n DEL -29- Santa Fe r,rive 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-way. 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 te.. 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 Rail Station -31- Amtrak Station that considered ten alternate locations for the station. The constraints presented at the current site were 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 -3 2- Figure 10 Proposed Sorrento Valley Commuter Rail Station '�--•� I IOS PINASOUIIOS -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 I)iego. Access 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 ATSF, 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 SANDAL. The commuter rail service concept for the Miramar station would be chiefly a destination station. Feeder/distribution service to and from jobs at University wne Center, along La Jolla Village Drive, and at the Univex. .1 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- H av s4 r. O .14 41 CA H m a a 41 a O U Rf •rl ra Q) N O 04 O 04 i I I , I t I l I I 1 I I I I I t j h} -35- 1� 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 SANDAL 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 Deoot 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- m Figure 13 Proposed Santa Fe Depot Commuter Rail Station coA cuxz- AM VrA x SUP"nLy V.1 HA; -39- Figure 14 Proposed San Diego Convention Center Commuter Rail Station T Dom OYI1vA N/L 1OWNTOWN ENL4RGEMENr -40- 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. Bast 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 to bring commuter trains to this location, a second track could be required from the Santa Fe Depot south. MTDB.is presently in negotiation with the Santa 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 hail 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 the-e 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 between 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 Mar. 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 re-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-assessmt-nt 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. Carlsbad- Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan, 10/85 (Sammis) Technical Site Plan for Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park. Encinitas- Design Study for Downtown Encinitas, 3/88. Encinitas 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 En(-,initas, 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 Policj 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. Application to California Public Utilities Commission for Separation of the Existing Crossing of Lomas Santa Fe Drive 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. Widening 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. n a (SRO619.434.1711 BAUER LUMBER COMPANY "A SLIVER OR A TRAINLOAD" Cram 2787 State Street L. Bauer Carlsbrd, CA 92008 000 0.00 1 18-49 + 0.19 + 0•16 + 003 p c,,G 18•84 I ,� 3 C/ Oakley G. Parise GENERAL BUILDING CONYRAC701 LICENSE NO. 214136 3215 MAEZEL LANE • CARLSBAD, CA (619) 729-5560 REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER FOR RESPONSE September 8, 1989 ALL REC�=1V!=D The Honorable Buddy Lewis Mayor of Carlsbad & Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: In regard to the proposed commuter train parking lot, I believe that the commuter train is a good idea, and that it would be well used. However, I believe that it will be used by the same people every day who will use our streets and clog our intersections, and add very little support to our downtown shops and offices. I also believe that a small well -run lumber and hardware store is more compatible with the village atmosphere than a huge blacktop parking lot with hundreds of parked cars. As a citizen of Carlsbad and an owner of downtown property, I urge you to consider youx vote very seriously. ncer'ely, i Oak! y G . Parker OGP:jr 7z WE, the undersigned, oppose the location Of a Commuter Rail in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. Center NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS 41 ......... 13- J C, Aw 7 C Iry . ............. v 790 7-b Ll wE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD, WE, the undersigned, oppose the location Of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS alEZ"o ��4 449 RKY Z&7- Cc --------- 4--7 e5f. k7 /0) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . A 64, WE, the undersigned, oppose the IOCatiOn of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. ADDRESS BUSINESS 4 0tv - 'Ob V1111 OL19, C-c- ej 7V-C-T- WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS 6 / r Yh9 'e / —/S 6 ef'(4 �Z God 4, E . Y41-L.... 34 1.1 vrv/3 -I,l z-:-- c/q R 1--5BW.D i e-z>':!�)g v-7 L�1 k- 9a, � 1-71z041t All" &a "Jode �Cb WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS ed / /' +7 3 .............. t , _... I 001'alz��k r WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS i r A wE, the undersigned, oppose the location off' a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADIDRESS BUSINESS J 7.!4 f PRO PLA3'r�' o u QT-" �� WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA CE CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS C° 3 t3Pa 0 /T WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS I ezl/ -2(-A-nC1vD(j' Pon. 7 V' LLV d --v C✓J A'Utz Mo 1-1"O'wo PA-- p WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME r ADDRESS BUSINESS /Z 71�o'1,21-c,50AI - a� / C/-)-02/52*61 ,37,57 AfACIA-- /40-E. �%�'%�eA%i 0 -A A )rA ftv p AA c-, f, L I ra-?er HAi-0 col WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter hail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS L.s L'e . i.7 ,i wA,/,, za s i r.". —�lJ 0 r M t •1 -2Gaf WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. N&ME ADDRESS BUSINESS as lla,4A� t- t�' A n WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CXRLSBAD. NX14E ADDRESS BUSINESS WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS e % 412 °, :r 41 1�l �Q ° �` Az C cr- 9 m "U Q u V, CX\J 4P �LCT09-- WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS �Lu liGc .v _^tee-rL.( .c .� , � � ! L,,,•.., -#t `-1 _ 6661 Lt14P&4,�-D2. gon kr,--v /�4j, 02 i�2 6- 37Sc >t.tn�t� y , _ 1 ' r.' ' WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME n ADDRESS BUSINESS fle le B_ - - -- - ----- - • a WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARZSBAD. "M ADDRESS BUSINESS pv� &410tot t .) WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS_ -2W Ares P,,,,r-S9Y, Qj LON)-SALU Z— v �/5 eA - "CJIQ. ,17 61 -5-1 ev �5 "46o Is 111to ('N NX U, 0 4c's C4- r'-J I 09 ar WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS 6-15�-4 1�1 2- z�- .5 �_`�g A C- L / ( . U I r&f --D A P/0 a) e J, k- T A \j /9 17,6/ 351� � 9'o 744 q2oc)? cl�.-Y'ZooR t WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS -71 41 IN, e " /,, f2 k -�4, 15v 5 -Z zo 40/e- .1 �-LAJ,11,j Cu /" I/ WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. Q., WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CA,Sg�, Center I_vAmE ADDRESS SUSZNESS NAM WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA Or CARLSBAD. "Al 14E ADDRESS BUSINESS pp , ho��n�or� 610a Ave. Encin -s G G(S�C 5e� �erlc iv�c . ��q�� dam- ���' 9 cl o U C; o! W j WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA. OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS t, � - �.�./ .� c�j ,s�/�✓R1 S� Cf �'. <L �� �S � � . J'�ij',��11ur�,/'t'i r//�ilr� [� �GCC,4/]�%1�.� �%'�S7-/;!- uC 1 az D l , r7-.. r T. ��'.. ✓" G "'s� aMrt�' �. � �.,,.. ,tf'� ...:-�-wr ,�'� , w.3�P4r�"..�ti"',,R'' � i [•'�,. i WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME / ADDRESS BUSINESS /. � � /�.//� ���ir.�/1r� �%� i� �/�/2-(!///f 4�i r f�' �� l s'7 2�Y1./Yi_,C/.I /l �C� i �-r.'r--�� �ry , '�►'... .,......... .._ . H '�� /� A Y F s• d c7 c f" n s t i -- — C WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CA_RLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS ke� BUSINESS C WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter '1 Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS �7S ( 5 ! 2 ; S -Clam, 45'h �` 'ZSS\ \a `�� S J h G illy Nis/ V + / WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center ■ in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NA.'KE AMYRESS BUSINESS WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. IN' A0 4 E ADDRESS BUSINESS 17 �� �^��' .G �� � y. . � �:. ^�.J � •1,l.Gf�" f� •a p�^ �y; 9.-� v ra'�,fl (ems % �,��_ I qk-i q3" t �/v W, WE, the undersigned, oppose the Iccation of a Commuter Rail Cent., in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. OTNAME ADDRESS BUSINESS L�It&4" 0�-- a](( WWW'"'IM is C A � PC 'c:E P-4— WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Mail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. ADDRESS wE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS ja V/4-11/j Dolt�A' JV "/ ^✓Y' � � Y/may tV.wyu /� :J�� apJ QCA O WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS la'-e.-4t 3-t ,Z 12,� -F, /7 U /-I /�q- /9 /7 "- I �% _17T �;2 �c� 5 / 75 z0 r-1 t6 Qd-�C1.6eJ 00- 92�-00(g V L Q OL t 2--( �70 ICA Cl-?J C4 7200or—, 7641 - 4�z WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME -} ADDRESS BUSINESS 31, ..........A ... ...- WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESe D WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. C eve&r 57- E ykx� a �.. �s3 � �Ct�ri.H � C��� lc►cs crtu� (-4,r (S bG d /I�s A wE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. ADDRESS BUSINESS ( Utn2C'Az WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ! ADDRESS BUSINESS t 1 1 ),, " l i '`c( j Ca WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS 6�k Ut - ov �3 wWjv-1- b COOT, NS vat zG�� WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAR.LSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS Tom"-�G?•�f rG 2g7- Coe. t sae, AA,4 (/J �- / 0 4L 14 A- P"", / CT—jp� WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME P I A j j PjP-AbQ, ADDRESS BUSINESS 9.4�O fir. T/iZCLJ .(JAN, 0 6L�) 000"'D C- SeL.::� Te ce,- t,, 7 v ,2 WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS ti � �C �� 553 < �' klow e-27-.- A10'r,111, tzC 6j 16 et C, t, St Z/- I _.A�f UR_4,414-1_0 ................ WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. MAMLI n Annnvaa nrtoTrrc+rrn ���/.�A _ 33�2 � S. n `> W'E, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. q'-7 eve 1 �-e &,4�,&-Ap LC e C l cam: M • ` r WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. 1 WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. r*Y ___ WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center 9(g WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS /C 1AC -7 C' 7 WaA�10 �,ZCI-A-J 42C 12% q- 10>1 S-tl- PO rDox �Ie2b a!, La L---A hg- DA C4R4-5 9- - 1P -� .............. M IM, the undersigned, Oppose the Iftation Of A ccmter Rail con ter In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAWAM. NME ADDRESS 9 1--f vs, the undormigned, -Keppelse the location Of ' In downtown VILLAGE i*r Rail center Rz.4 Op CAp a Camu .LSD". NAME BUSINESS, C&,76,t 64 L , On Ms, 00 nnd&r#Agn*dj oppose for location of *all cantr= 4n downtown VILLAGE AREA pr CApjjM. 8 PE, the undersigned, oppose the location of Lt. ccuxbfor flail Centel in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAR RM. WS, the undersigned, Oppose the location of A Camb>iqr nail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA or cXqLS90. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS- I'LC r,,v 6,&—�/' 1'7 —Z5 6 f?epcy ;9 j ; JIME(U) 'IV Up A L L), 173V 'Y Q�rAk 6.61W �Jk ��L�AA i . j I vs, the undersigned, Oppose the Imation I � of • Gaa�nuttr �:.,�� In downtown VILLAGE AREA 0p CARUMM. center NAME 1�►DDRiSS c us, th* undertiontd, In downtown VILLAGE CTPOSO th* 20cation of AREA Op CXV LSD". Rail Center NA' E ADDRESS Iva 14 P ..... ............. ie. '2 (J. C) C -FucoTE s 7- 01 I cgs 00 and*ssigned, Oppose the location of a Commutes Rail Center In downtown VILLAGE AREA 0! CAWBAD. m? 'y�, • &,& CU4J- CA-Q-1R D C",4.,1zL-Z T3A'�> y S (7Af2- L-s (3/---, o i3 L.y [) O. `Lo o lbo cs' L s G3i-4 ID d _ F 4 0* undaroignad, oppose the location of a Comauttr Bail Canter in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAJWRAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS '71^ .-- — n R ',I-- zc� ® 6 Rotas, inn 4 � T— /l (^ / ., \� `• tom- _ - � � -S��i �.+r�• r.r.� 0♦ f 5 � �/2&. , & J-, (-tJdj �a.n�rr o JO-ylc-� gj 1 N, t zrd� �nr , appose tia Iocailan of Cents= in downtown VILLAGE AREA Ol CApj&W. N--!¢ AD_..DAiSS �� - M n AA L — '/� Kc�1SC��c��` rc. �.- f the �undersigned, � Oppose the ioeitioa of � Camwter �itia C�nt�s 4n downtown VILLAGE AREA 0!" CARLSM. � NAME ADDRESS • % • �1-2�J• ..�c,- ,mil �,1 � MR r o QZD • �e,, s-� �,` 6 r r ► > > �� ►l WE, the undersigned, Oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CXRLSBAD, NA.wiE ADDRESS BuSINESS J U, 4 7 . ... ... ..... I i JI �, the r�anQersignesi, oPPaoe the :Wation of • Co�Ywtes Psil Camas � ':. in downtown VILLAGE AREA OT CA1tLSW. E � � 1►DD-� pa � so � Cc., S ), Sq7 Q�S'Jv" r ,�J �alr d d,Qi n�/I r WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS � .GA(Q�t a�aoa� a2 3 o � -ate ' > ! 37JO or- WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS 4_----�91-7�41M'2VL- 9V3 AVI 12-, A"'L CAIs% 1 "C-40 6S (�2c-33'? Y%l i ii�_:J1� !"1•(.� h�/..., J �(\ � � L. L`" f- C 17' - 0"' �ki !' vs, the nnCersigned, oppose the Imation of a Comm�tes flail In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARUM. Center t Mi, the nnQezetgnRdo oppoie the 2oeatios �+� a Caa�ter �itil In Q9wntown VILLAGE AREA Ol CAPISM. Canter NAME 'tTS-- INESS tv S C s � r � v4, • • �� • • r e�wde� "38 0,0 ®Ppoas the Iwat3o• of • Cv�m�utar mail Car�tar in downtown VILLAGE AREA 0p Cli1tISW. ,.JLME. ADDrdiSS 4 SUS--I-IaESS.` TU s 9��Qg p c�C-, �YWS 1/Jz use the unftraionea, oPPoss the location of a Rail Csntsr In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARII.SRAD• NAME ADDRESS it1S,_ IANE_ Sy Cr W-.-A VIw�e (-1 P Mg, the undersIgnad, ®pPose the imatiao of a Camxiter sail Ce»ter in downtown VILLAGE AREA 0! CARLSM. Pb �i-aMP -3-70 the und*rflqn*d' oppos* the A*"ticm of A Corm ut*r nail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA 0? CARLS510. NAMEADDRESS BUSINESS . Z�l 06P- .5'oluaI24 Or 2- O�) LiD,0 Sj-DQk'Y'2"L-eAAX -A yv wE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. � 1 /1. , (9' ,.Iiheuel ki cl�d,10 :2 -7 / 7 1541-H— c/--/ WE, the Undersigned, � , oppose the location of a Coeatn�ter 1ta11 In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAXZBAD. center t NAME ADDRESS �� r, v e-- V 41 « M O�e_ It S7j" - `S7 Z-- "—.r WE# the Undersigned, oppose the Imstico of a rom�,Or Xall In dcwnt*Wn VILLAGE AREA Or CAWNW. Center � NAME ALDRESS BUSINESS 11 V, /1, ------------ - - ti WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center In downtown VILLAGE AREA Or CAWDAD. ✓1!l0 cam% 8U INESS u C- �- (7 t � �5 n � �v Ty S i Aa P � LE6 4 33 WE, th* undersigned, Oppose the Imation of a Cormuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAWBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS Fy c c -57 tie Qdd 0 2j..e F WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. 'vA.'rLE ADDRESS BUSINESS S ?rC�nLr YVl t M ©LA Mis r✓/tic ✓ Da. ILWWJFJ M 1 rv�'ti 0 K �.>4�+�y � u(r:��,( 23�ir 13f>►�'�A UIS� � �2 �/li� L5 S�J NE, tb* undersigned, oppose the Iocation of In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF C�SBAD. a Casanuter Rail Center N1�S►iE 1 TT wwrr AA• • • • • • . . • • • • • • P o . • / WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF' CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS �1 1 I/�Iv1 i r),. � `lar l� I A(" MAF-A--.L � n \ L1�LGQQm n-.n -- G sc�- z 'l 4 WE, the undersigned, Oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. �iz- Y\ NAIKE ----- ADDRESS BUSINESS a t Dkb c)Nc)c64 _/ �. . 130 r WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Cimmuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS 'k _W< 'a-v/ WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NA14F A'I npRgS RTTSTNF.RR 90L U IP/Y L V m4j - WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME ADDRESS BUSINESS CAI ' ..,G y3 ~i3 � w� ... WE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. NAME , P ADDRESS BUSINESS % ®_A // ^ A wE, the undersigned, oppose the location of a Commuter Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSBAD. VAMP AnnRFSS BUSIMRgS I the Oed Oppose the IWAtion Ox a cftma ter fail Center In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSM. lr I �Mq Is kv —sl N—B-S �; (-Lead dnot ,1014,0 L-�V=�koA— q Y' I A 4 0 sibc Jos ro'll"5S 2 1�a��J�,�1 �J VVL 2 7- 7 ,2 O-LO 6 WE, the undai , grlad, oppose the Ioaaticm os a Camuter fall Ce In downtown VILLAGE AREA oJ' CX%LsM. stag i i y- I W 7- A 4 V/ C 2r the undersi,.,ed, oppose the laeation of a Commuter Rail center In downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CAXLSUD. NAME ADDRESS_IBUSINESS A 3 D r.- llfe . -17 4 F IMr 00 undezn fined, oppose the 20C1tion 0, � Coac�utea tail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA 0! CAX SM. NA ADDRESS DUSIWESS/ MBr the undersigned, oppose the location of a Camu'ior Rail Center in downtown VILLAGE AREA OF CARLSM. NA.ME ADDRESS BUSINESS r � r /% X r t '/ Zf 1 IWAS ve MINION r c ', 1-aoc C 1 .r ,. Ks, cn. unalz. ,nlao epos! the ioeotsao of In d�mt*Wn VILLAGE AREA Op ep��p, d Comre�fer Roll C�ntt= i NAME r J4gDREgg iii5--- INES-'`�... 27,, Z' L �/ZL . 7�%v1 /Z ' US, thi underfiviiad, oppose the Iocation of a COM,ier hail Canter in downtown VILLAGE AREA Op CARLShAD. DOS— INES5 -Cdf77 A id