HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-17; City Council; 14220; Oceanside-Escondido Rail ProjectAB# ly,&go
MTG. 6/17/97
DEPT. CM
DEPT.HD. -
CITY ATTY. L c
CITY MGR -
TITLE:
ESCONDIDO RAIL PROJECT
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR OCEANSIDE-
I
i 0 0
AlL mEf aF
&L\
NCTD
March 11, 1997
Mayor "Bud" m
ClTY OF CARLSBAD
1200 carlsbad Village Drive
DearMiiyor%yfls: t
The North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB) is seelring feded iimbng 1
Railpraject The United States Congress is in the pmcess of mmhonzu Interma Surface Tmqor~tm Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Through reauth- of ISTEA, Cca of is?: will allocate federal funds for new rail projects throughout the United States. - the~oppcmmyforthe~ + Escondido Rail Project to receive fm funding and thus becl reality for North Saa Diego county.
NSDCI'DB voted last week to cat@ the EIR, with the cities of Vista and Enchitas and the C
Beach and Carlsbad voted mh-y for the project. This vote was one in a saies%ZZ~
the Board to move this project along. Last February, the Board voted for a preferred altrmath included a loop to California State University, San Marcos. The Board, at that time, also expr intenst in looking at alternatives to the loop that might be more cost efficient or effective in prov service to the potential25 to 30 thouand students that willattend CalSState San Marcus.
I have provided some facts and figures as an Attachmt that will characterize ' thepmject. Iwou happy to come to a workshop and give more details about the project.
Community support of the Rail Pqect will greatly improve the opporrtunity to obtain fedexai fuz thilbugh the E'I%A Reauthdon. I am requesting, on behaif of the North San Diego County TI toEEcor Rail pro'e& Resolutions of swrt would be forwarded to Congress, as well as Con-
packard and Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. If it is possible to adopt a mdution bekm A
4,1997, that would he wtly appreciated . ADd 4'" is the deadline for submission of written testhmn the House AppIopriation Subcommi~ on T~a~qorm 'on and Related Agencies.
I realize that this is a short time frame for this qwt. Even ifa workshop cannot be schedukd bt possible adoption of a Resolution in support of the project, I believe it would be advantageous in the run to hold a workshop on this project in the near future. Education and full knowiedge of fkts give all the best oppommity to make the best decisions.
If you have any questionS, you can call me at 432-45 11 or Ms. Roundtree, NSDCIDB's Fk Analyst/Planner, at 966-6550.
..
-'cA ""w
..
opposing the certification. Del Mar abstained from the vote. Escondido, San Marcos, -4
Devehpment Board, that your City Council adopt a resolution of support for the oceaasde a
ChairmanoftheBoard LHPkjC
&City Council Members
WORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT __ n I monr ,I~~~PI Oiconrtae LA 9205.1
c 0 0
ATTACHMENT
(To Letter of March 11,1997, by Lori Bolt Pfeiler)
The oceansde- ' Escondido Light Rail Project consists of the conversion of an existing twenty-nv fmght car conidor into a fight rail system running inland from the & city of Oceanside throu cities of Vista and San Marcos, to the city of Escondido. The project additionally includes a 1.'
alignment on new nght+f-way PO serve California State Universiq San Marcos, Passenger rail s Wiubepnnrided to a total of fifteen stations.
The Ocamde- * FederalTranSitAdmhhatm . (ITA) requires thatannuaiizedcostspernew ridet &e used to measu cost effectiveness of proposed rail projects. The cost effectiveness indicator for this project is $L This costefkcfimess indicatoris less than the $5.00 figure that is considered by FTA to beaver
effectiveproject.
In addition to operating efficiencies, the capital cost of $8.8 million per mile compares extrr, k..ly to otilex soutilem fzammla . rail projects which have been completed or are curzently 1 development. Comparative costs for those projects range hm $31.7 million to $50 million per n
afi-eewaylaneon stateRoute78 is $10 million or $20 million per mile to constnrctafreeway lix
State Route 78, in each direction, Widening State Route 78 from six lanes to eight lanes is estimat cost in excess of $40 miliion.
The Oceanside-Escondido Rail Frqect provides benefits to the residents of North San Diego 01 inciuding improved mobility, improved air quality and economic growth. Ho~izon year 2015 ri& for the rail line is projected to be 5,215,700. Economic benefits include an increase in empioyl
expected by both the construction of the project and the opezation and maintenance of the Service, 1
dt of the multiplier effect, additional secondary jobs will be created as well.
The Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project was approved by the voters of San Diego County thrc Froposition A, the San Diego TranspOrtation Improvement Program, in November, 1987. Since
time, the NSDCTDB has been working through a series of steps to implement this project. \r
add planning and CEQA environmental work complete, the Raii Project is now in exdent psi
Escondido Rail Project is an extremely cost effective public transportab 'on project.
According fo Sm Diego Association of Govenunents (SANDAG), the average cost per de to con!
to secure federal funding. .
p.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I
19
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 97-497
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PROJECT AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT
THROUGH THE ITNERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTAITON
EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) REAUTHORIZATION
CARLSBAD SUPPORTING THE OCEANSIDE-ESCONDIDO RAIL
WHEREAS, the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project will convert
an existing twenty-two mile freight car corridor into a light rail system
running inland from the coastal City of Oceanside through the cities of
Vista and San Marcos to the city of Escondido and provide light rail
service on new right-of-way to California State University San Marcos;
and,
WHEREAS, the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project is an
extremely cost effective public transportation project with an operating
cost effectiveness indicator of $4.61 which is less than the $5.00 figure
considered by the Federal Transit Administration to be very cost
effective; and,
WHEREAS, capital costs of $8.8 million per mile is much less
than the costs of similar rail projects and/or of the cost of widening Sate
Route 78; and,
WHEREAS, the Oceanside-Escondido Rail project will improve
the mobility, the air quality and enhance the economic growth for
residents of North San Diego County with an annual ridership projected
of more that 5 million by 2015; and,
F
f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 I
25
e 0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of
Carlsbad supports the request for Federal Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act funds,
1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 17th day of
June , 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, and Hall
NOES: None
ATTEST:
. ALETHA. L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk /
0 0
June 13,1997
TO: MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
Assistant to the City Manager FROM:
AGENDA ITEM #I5
Attached for your information is a copy of the minutes from the North County
Transit District (NCTD) meeting at which the NCTD Board certified the Final
Subsequent EIR for the Oceanside to Escondido Rail Project.
Please let me know if you have any questions. m-
LORI LIEBERMAN
Attachment
c. Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
-
om in under bud1
Ing at seven years i informing the Board
C* RESOLUTION NQ, 97-81 - CERTIFICATION OF 'ME FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OCEANSIDE TO ESCONDIDO RAIL PROJECT, ADOPTION OF
FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION, MON ITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
Leslie Blanda, Principal Planner, presented this item to the Board. She described the history behind the Oceanside - Escondido rail line and the detailed events leading up to today with the aide of projected overlays anc
charts, pointing out all the various studies and analyses that have been
dane.
effective than any other rail project in Southern California, and informed the 6oard that the letters, as we71 as public comentr, received at the
Public Hearing held on this subject have been responded to. SEIR, as ell as the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program were sent to all organizations, agencies and individuals
who provided comments on either the draft EA/SEIR or the Preliminary Final SEIR. Escondido Rai 1 Project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which is comprised of the representatives of the Planning and En ineering
representatives from the County of San Oiego, SANDAG and Caltrans. concluded by stating staff recommends the Board adopt Resolution No. 97-01 and direct staff move forward with the next step in the implementation process. Environmental Services, David Levy of Frederk A. Harris, and Shauna
Anderson, of Ogden Environmental.
Mr. Jung summarized the written and oral comments received regarding the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and provided an overview to the responses to those comments that came up most frequently with the ai de of projected over lay charts.
She stated that the Oceanside - Escondido project is more cost
The final
These materials were also sent to all members of the Oceanside -
departments of each of the cities in the co~idor as we 3 I as She
She then introduced Mr. Rod Jung, the Project Manager for Ogden
9 PA= “f#
Mr. Jung Cmnted on the positive paints of the project (reducing pollut.ion, energy consumption, and providing an economic stimulus in tt community)- He pojnted out the adverse affects that can be mitigated z Snfod the Board that they received 13 letters on the draft EAISEIR t were very helpful in providing very useful input, but they did not alte the conclusions or findings of the document. He went on to describe so of the most coaslon cownents recefved and their responses to them. He pointed out that 22 letters have been received and 16 people spoke at t public hearing: He infamed the Board that all comments Were consideret equally, and they found that noise, traffic, ‘safety and land use were tt issues raised most frequently.
MY, JUW WEW~ on to descriee th~ socially~econmfc impacts, pointing OUI that Safety is a major concern of saclal-economic NCTD, He stated that unauthorized use of the right-of-way is against the law and all chfldrer. well as adults need to be educated and alerted to safety hazards on an operating rail line. He added that the District participates in a nationwide program called Operation Lifesaver and further described this progmn and other safety pragrams and devices (warning signs, warnfng be f 1 s , patro 1 1 i ng , outreach programs, etc . ) .
Mr. Jung descrfbed the definition of land use and emphasized that the Dra EA/SEIR acknowledges the changes in physical conditions and proposes a series of mitigation measures that reduce the affects to an insignificatr level. He also cited some of the studies done that actually show property
values increasing around rail station locations and described same of the studies done with regard to property values along the right-of-way, pointing out that residential property values did not change significant7
Mr. Jung described the concerns regarding traffic, pointing out that one ( the things that result from providing rail transit is that it begins to divert some of the regional traffic. He also comnented on the concerns
regarding noise and informed the Board that noise measurements were taken along the right-of-way. He described the difference between the day and night noise levels (LDN’s) and how they predict future conditions. He
informed the Board how they will be addressing these noise concerns by Stating they will be upgrading the rail bed and modifying the freight operating book of rules to allow the freight trains to idle further away
from residential areas.
Ted Cole commented that he heard there was a way to lower the horn decib’le: at night, Administration regulations that stipulate a certain decible level at a certain distance.
Mr. Sung pointed out that once they begin to look more closely at the alignment and the surrounding areas in the final design stage, they will be able to address the specifics of mitigatfon. He then described in detail how this would be done and pointed out that all technical studies follow required or accepted methodologies. He concluded by stating a17 the
comments received on January 16th have been addressed and included in the Final SEIR, and the Final SEIR does meet the CEQA test for certification.
mf(lmS0FTtfE awul =IN6 OF THE m w I11 !k m lRANsIT MMLE
-5
BOIRbualbF-6; -7
Mr. Jung replied that the SEIR adheres to Federal Railroad
-.--
m11umoFTHE Mi OF THE MIRTH SAW DIEGO 0 IT DEVELOPNEWT BOA] PAGE FW -x
David Druker asked if the warning bells are for at grade crossings. Mr. Jung replied, yes.
Joe Kellejian asked what the sound level difference is between the DMU u and the Coaster train. Mr. Jung stated the Coaster has a diesel locomot and the:DMU unit is powered by the same motor as a bus. Mr. Kellejian asked if a study has been conducted regarding the difference between a bi and a ON. Mr. .lung replied no, but a lot of studies have been done to show the different noise levels of different technologies. Ms, B\anda pointed Out, hWeVer, that preMnary sound readings were done between I
Regio Sprinter and a bus when idling and they found the Regio Sprinter tc be quieter.
LOU Aspell asked if the readings took into consideration the number of times the train operates. Mr. Jung replied that the LDN metric reading specifically takes this into account and does reflect the frequency of trains as well as the time of day or night.
Joe Kellejian asked if there has been any specific studies done as tu the percentage of increased traffic when the operation is in full operation. Mr. Jung stated that the Traffic Analysis Comparison is done by looking a' what the existing traffic values are and then projecting future developmer
and traffic, Mr. Levy of Frederic R. Harris described the Traffic Analysis report by pointing out the projected traffic conditions in the year 2000 as we71 as 2015 with and without the project, and clarified that the three sites of concern at Cittacado, Melrose and Crouch will be mitigated to a less than significant level of impact.
Joe Kellejian commented on how the City of Solana Beach had a lot of concerns prior to the Coaster running and none of the concerns ever materialized, Ted Cole asked what the Current ADT's are 4n SoIana Beach.
Mr. Bill Farquahr, Associate Planner, replied that on Lomas Santa Fe itself, its 19,000 and going up and down Highway 101, its about 21,000.
John Meyer, 1366 Orinda Place, Escondido, CA addressed the Board. He stated he is a 30 year home owner in San Diego County and heads two transportation consulting practices with off ices in tos Angeles and Orange
County. He stated his Board was faced with the same struggle ttiey are facing today on a project in excess of one billion dollars, and that federal and local funding was hanging in the balance, as well as State legislation co-sponsored by Bob Frazee. In spite of these pressures, they elected to take another look at the questions raised regarding the EIR and
in the process saved millions of dollars in legal fees. a project that took advantage of the fast developing new construction
techniques and electronic devices while displaying utmost sensitivity to the environment, as we1 1 as addressing most of the concerns expressed by the surrounding communities. He stated he wants to see NCTD's rail project succeed, as a more efficient mass transit technology will give much needed relief to the anticipated increased congestion on Highway 78, but urged the
Board to take a deep breath and reject the EIR, as the document is
SePiously flawed and will no doubt be challenged, and that the challenge will likely succeed. He added that the EIR is weak in all categories subject to mitigation and the more he hears about the noise abatement
The end result was
- --
mR6 OF TIE IioRTH SMI DIE
and noise mitigation, the more wurried he is. He suggested the Board reflect before making a decision IS there is a horrendous cost for this kind of litigatfon on all concerned. The resu'lt will likely be a length1 delay at best or a total dabandomtent of the project at worse. He stated let's all work together for a better and inrproved end product and suggest, the Board establish an adv4sory comittee of retired expert transit professionals to work on the project, at no cost,
Oarren Cooper, 2502 Jacarand8, Carlsbad, CA addressed the Board. He pointed out that they will not be saving money in bus service with this project as other costs will go up. He pointed out that traffic on HighwaJ 78 wi 11 shSft to Citracado and Escondido Avenue because they wi 11 be tryir to get to the mil stations and winded the B~t~rd of @he linear inductior, presentation made to them that cost $4 million, which 3s cheaper than the DMU at $23.8 million a mile. He also questioned how the Board could have already have chosen a year ago the Seimans DMU before the EIR was presente and other technologies presented.
Jody OSetel, 1332 Kilby lane, Vista CA addressed the Board. She stated shl supports mass transit and the Oceanside - Escondido rail, however, is not in support of the EXR because specific concerns have not been addressed. She urged the Board to table their decfsion on this until specific issues
have been addressed. She informed the Board that she was contacted by m,
levy and dialog has started with regard to her concerns, but the decument
still does not address specific mitigation measures or all the environmental reports.
Mr. Bill Jarvis, 1213 Sandra Circle, Vista, CA addressed the Board. He stated he is in favor of a good transit system and gave each Board member
5.28. He then asked them to take a $3.00 out of their pocket and give it to him, as it was mentioned at the last meeting that every dollar you soend, you get back $.28. He asked the Board to think about this when they
vote today, and if they vote yes, the rest of the people present should get
a $1.00, too. He stated that they have probably made up their minds already on how they were going to vote, but he hoped with this illustration and honest prayer from the people behind him that the light might shine a
little brighter and might change their vote to no. He also pointed out that if there were a car pool lane on Highway 78 and a Highway Patro?man every 1/2 mile, there w~uld be RO traffic problems. iie also stated that he feels subsidies or grants sheuld not be used for this project and he disagrees with several things the EZR shows. He concluded by stating he does not know how the neigboring cities could vote for such a project as
Nancy Gosnell, 1454 Phillips Street, Vista, CA addressed the Board. She stated she agrees with Mr. Jarvis, as there is no such thing as free money.
She stated her concern with noise and that she found the proposed measures to alleviate some of the other problems comical, as adding more be77s, and putting up more signs. bells three times a week to 507 times a week. She stated she would like to
see some kind of inland rail system, but does not thfnk it needs to run 72
times a day and start at 5:OO a.m. and run until 11:OO p.m. questioned if this pruject really is the least expensive rail project in California because they do not really know what it is going to cost for
mitigation. graffitti and there is a cost to maintain these, as well.
tnere is going to be a horrendous traffic prahlem-
She pointed aut that they are going from ringing
She also
She also pointed out that putting up walls is going to attract
-_- -
~RCIZSOFW w mffi w TE wTt( %M &COWlY -IT DRIEU#
6c 1997 PAGE SI) BoAw,HELDFEBR
Richard Johnson, 221 N. El Camino Real, b18, Oceanside, CA addressed th Board. He stated he is a senior citizen, President of a social club, a on the Board of the Mobile Homeowner's AssociatSon. He stated he is in
favor of this proJect and did a survey in his park. He then presented Board with a petition with 144 signatures representing senior citizens are in favor of this project. He stated he represents all the senJor citizens and underprivileged people in North County who ride buses and trains and cannot afford cars. He added that he does not understand thi apposition to the inland rail line, and pointed out that rail is the future. He then cited SANDAG's prediction of population growth of 415 within the next 20 years, and Escondido is the fastest growing city in 5 Diego County. He concluded by informing the Board that he takes up to 3
senior citizens down to SM Nego on the Coaster and they wcdd like to to Vista, San Marcas, and Escondido, as well.
Mr. Charles Bras, Cownunity Development Director and Cfty Engineer, City Vista, 600 Eucalyptus Ave., Vista, CA addressed the Board. He requested time to set up easels for his presentation.
Chairman Pfeiler announced a five minute recess.
Mr. Bras announced that on February 4, 1997 the Vista City Councl'l revis the Final SEIR for the Oceanside - Escondido Rail Project and at that meeting presentatfons were made by the City staff and NCTD staff, and testimony was received from a number of citizens of Vista. As a result o that meeting, he stated he was directed to appear before the Board today present evidence that there are serious defects in the EIR document and request that they do not certify it, He stated that the defects need to corrected before they certify the document, and it is the City of Vista's position that the document does not comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act nor the National Environmental Palicy Act baaed
on the potential impacts that occur in the City of Vista, He stated the City has identified four major impact deficiencies in the EIR. noise and vibration, visual, disruption of traffic on Escondido Avenue anc the traffic impact due to the location of the proposed station on Phillips
Street. He stressed the importance of the Board understanding the frequency of trains proposed to use the rail service through Vista, and tt data presented in the EIR indicate that there could be a maximum of 72 trains per day in addition to the original six trains per week. Thus, it
could be estimated to have a maximum of 510 trains per week. He added tha
this is the underlying thread that has not been adequately addressed and causes the deficiencies in the EIR. He then went on to elaborate on the deficiencies of nodse, poCnting out that if double tracks are installed,
some homes will be as close as 43 feet from the track. pictures of the homes that would be affected, and pointed out that a wall would have to be placed 15-18 feet high in order to provide sound
deadening. He stated the solution and specific mitigation to this has not been addressed in the EIR. The report simply states that sound walls, landscaping, birms and other structures wi I1 be constructed to correct the problem. He pointed out that the purpose of an EIR is to identify the impacts and to specif ical ly propose mitigation to Correct those impacts, which has not been done.
be mitigated, and no where in the report is this mentioned.
-T
They are
He displayed
He stated that there are even areas that cannot
~~FM~~~RTHSAHDI MllWrYTRAaSrTOfVEUlR
PAE SEVER
Mr. Bras asked each amber of the Board to actually visualize what the impact of 510 trains per week would have on thefr Iffe, their family and the value of theBr property should they live this close to the track, particularly when you consider the noise and associated noise from the gates and &her faciltties. He stated that the visua7 impacts of the project:have not been addressed and described with pictures the traffic impacts along Escondido Avenue and Phillips Street. He also stated that the traffic count on Escondfdo Avenue during the week of Sept. 16, 1996 reveals that there is now 40,160 cars crossing the tracks. The EIR statr a total of 34,000 cars per day and predict that there will be 41,000 car3 by the year 2015, He emphasized that they are already at 41,000 cars a day, and that there are same basic flaws in the way the traffic analysis was put together, Me mnc3ugie;f by ststjng that their focus is on the deficiencies of the EIR, not the mertts of the project, and strongly feel the project as presented would cause adverse environmental impacts to the
City of vista, He stated they feel this can be &;gated by changing the design of the project to include a grade separation crossing at Escondido
Avenue and relocating the Phillips Street station to another crossing.
Edna Meier, 157 112 Hannalei Drive, Vista, CA addressed the Board. She voiced her concern with the loss of property values and questioned how mut of a loss will people have to take. She also commented on the noise problem and that some af the tracks are on the flood plain.
Kathy Machen, 1221 Sandra Circle, Vista, CA addressed the Board. She comented on how the project will affect the quality of life, not just fur those in Vista, but in Oceanside, San Marcos and Escondido, as well, as
they will all be hearing the horns whistling at night. issues trave not been addressed in the EIR and it is very biased. She quoted a portion of the document that states "however, destruction of family gatherings and meals, loss of sleep and subsequent effect on work and school and emotional distress are not appropriate topics for an environmental document".
it isn't suppose to address the environment of the people affected the most.
Kurt Miller, 1345 Kilby Lane, Vista, CA addressed the Board. He raised the validity of the EIR by quoting Section 1.5, "This project enjoys tremendous
community support and endorsement. Areas of controversy do not exist. I' He stated this statement is an example and evidence of the lack of depth and scope of the report and the fact that a growing opposition continues to
mount as evidenced by the City of Vista's recent stand in opposition, the COllnty Supervisor's concerns, severa 1 NCTO Board members, numerous taxpayers, businessmen and residents, it is apparent this project does not
have the great support it claims. He also stated that the fact that the notification process, as spelled out in NEPA and CEQA, states that all interests of residents and businesses have been met, whereas the letter of law may have been satisfied, but its intent was not, and not a77 residents were informed. He added that if NCTD had taken the initiative to actively inform those residents and businesses wlthin a close proximity, then this
backlash would not be so surprising. He added that questions of intent may require a legal challenge to determine whether or not the public awareness and education were nurtured or hindered for some purpose, He then quoted
a
- r.
She stated the
She questioned what the document is all about if
IN bF nE WORTH SAW DX& WIT DmOP
- PAGE EI6HT
Dick Fifer, "If you treat anyone with dignity and respect, they will trc you the same way.m He questioned, if this process respects the residenl
and the prmtse vf this proposal is progress, why then are not more progressive alternatives given a chance, such as a monorail system. He also stated that the mysterious tourism factor sited makes little sense, the train does not go to the Wild Animal Park, Leggo land, or even the mall. He also pointed out that the project will increase traffic and th EIR does not even address the recent derailments, and the break even ridershjp numbers are assumed, inflated, and unattainable and make it a financial risk to both the County and NO, as well as a legal risk,
Mr. Miller went on to state that the EIR indicates responses were made tc cancerned letters, but a ~n-~espo9sc 4s more precise. He painted out tt
mitigation costs and methods are never spelled out and merely claim they will be below a level of significance. He stated this is not only vague,
but unacceptable, and voters are Sure to labe? chis as a 160 million dall
pork-belly project and urged the Board to vote no on this project.
Greg Sylvester, 1225 Sandra Circle, Vista, CA addressed the Board. corrected Mr. Jung's statements with regard to LDN metric measurements by reading part of the EIR that states there is a 5 db penalty to sound leve
in the evening from 7-10 p.m. and a 10 db penalty to sound levels at nigh1 from 30 p.m. - 7 a.m. He also pointed out that they will not know how muc
the project is going to cost until all the mitigated factors come into
play, and stressed the serious burden on all the taxpayers, not just those in Vista. further .
Cheryl Roy, Escondido, CA addressed the Board.
to the project due to the increased traffic it will cause at Escondido Ave
Kristin Nelson-Sick, 3188 San Helena Drive, Oceanside, CA addressed the Board. She stated she and her neighbors are upset because they were never
notified of the project, and they are concerned with the number of trains
per day and the noise levels and the freight trains at night. She also painted out that the train they tested for noise levels was only going bmph, not 60 mph, and questioned if there would be enough ridership to
support the project.
Arie DeJong, Liberty Recycling, 805 E. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA
addressed the Board. He stated that Liberty Recycling is building a new recycling facility in Escondido and did not have any problems until they were alerted that NCTD would be eliminating access off Mission Road, He stated they have come up with an alternative that has been approved by the
City of San Marcos, pointing out the importance of rail access for his business and requested that their alternative be included in the EIR.
Michael Cochrane, 713 Camellia Street, Escondido, CA addressed the Board. He stated he has been fighting against this project for years, and that he went to SANDAG to review records of ridership reports for 1996 and 1995.
He stated that Router 320, 302, 316, 318 and 312 will cross a third of the rail line and suggested the Board review Mhere all the people get on and off the buses. He pointed out that Route 310 gets fed 3/4 of its passengers from the existing buses and only 1/4 cash, which means everybody
that is going to ride the rail have already paid into the buses. He also commented on the traffic problems that will occur when waiting for the trains to go by.
He
He urged the Board to vote no until this can be evaluated
She voiced her opposition
PAGE All
General Counsel announced that a fetter has been presented from Mr. Jaror Knott, representfng La Salina Mobile Village, 203 Kristy Lane, Oceanside CA indicating that $f the flooding and runoff probJems could be solved,
they would suppopt the project; if not, there position remains in oppos it5 on.
Sandra kola, 1233 Sandra Cfrcle, Vista, CA addressed the Board. She
stated she is a housewife and has lived in Vista for 25 yean. She v&t her QpQQsttlUn to the prOject stating her yard is only 30 feet from the
tracks8 She eXpRSSed concern with regard to noise and other problems ail questioned if the project is really cost-effective. She stated she would rather see maybe II toll highway along 78 as an alternate route and pointe
out that no users' studOes wse dam $or the project. She questioned hob many people would actually be using it, as Vista's buses are empty. She pointed out the lass of money for taxpayers and decreased property values and added that she bought her house knowing that a freight train ran twict a day, however, had she known there would be a train running 72 times a day, she would not have. She also stated that a sound barrter wall is unacceptable and more horns for safety is good for safety, but the noise I not. She also questioned what would happen with a derailment or crash, pointing aut that it could happen in her yard where her children are p lay i ng .
Julianne Nygaatd asked staff to address the issue of whether the future mitigation, which has not been established yet, was included in the estimated cost of the rail.
Leslie Blanda, Princfpal Planner, replied yes and clarified that a' certain
percentage Of funding is included for mitigation. Mr. Levy of Frederic R. Harris added to this by stating they put one million dollars in for noise
wa 1 1 s and addi t iona I contingency factors for the unknowns, equa 1 I i ng
approximately five million dollars in addition to the one million.
Julianne Nygaard also asked for clarification of the concern regarding the flood plain.
right-of-way floods periodically basically between a two and five year
storm depending on the analysis you use. He pointed out that the right-of- way does not Contribute to or detract from that flood plain; it accurs from
the creek itself. He then described what will be done to protect the right-of-way, which includes the City of Oceanside agreeing to bui Id
retention basins and the project being designed to include flooding control measures to protect itself against floods for up to 50 years.
Colleen O'Harra confirmed that the City of Oceanside will be building
retention basins.
Ted Cote requested clarification on site specifit project drainage and +he
Mr. Levy replied that they met with every city during tbe design process and coordinated their design to be consistent with the master dyainage systems of each of the locations. He further explained how these issues
wou 1 d be addressed 4
a --
mmE!soFTllE -IN6 OF THE lloRfw SAR DX cou#Ty WIT DmOp
- 7.
Mr. Levy stated that the Loma Alta Creek that parallels the
iwact dorrn stream.
PA= TEN i, _-
HImrtES OF TnE ?€flIfffi OF THE WORTH SAR DI WW TRANSIT Dm0
Ted Cole requested clarification on the number of projected passengers the rail.
MS. Bhda stated that there are about 8,500 people per day that ride o Route 302 and Route 320, which are the two routes in the corridor that
traVe?.betWen OK and ETC. She stated that they are eliminating Route which carries approximately 2,600 passengers per day and anticipate tha.. those passengers will take the rail. She also stated that they will rec service on Route 302 and a certain amount of that rjdership will use thc rail. She also painted out that there are going to be new passengers, i well, and clarified that the anticipated 11,000 ridership figure is partially some of their current bus ridership and from growth in the corridor.
Mr. Cole brought up the need for additional parking spaces at the statio1 as well as a shuttle type service, pointing out that this will increase I cost. He gave comparisons of the number af people and cars using the freeway and rail and pointed out that even with the rail they will still have gridlock. He also stated that with 72 trains a day, there will be a minor impact of taking congestion off highway 78, but as long as they run the rail at 54 minutes to get from point A to point B, their not doing
enough.
Mr. Cole went on to address several issues of concern -1 the number of trains that will be operating, pointing out that the Coaster doesn’t even run that many trains; the natural topography of Vista, which is not mentioned in the EIR, pointing out that they are a city of 17 hills, and sound reverberates and is trapped, so the noise will affect more than thosl immediately adjacent to the right-of-way and the visual impacts of walls placed throughout the city.
Further discussion took place with regard to costs for future parking,
Joe Kellejian commented on Mr. Cole‘s concerns, pointing out that the
cities along the coast have dealt with the same problems -- their cities go upward, but still have the same kind of noire problems, He stated there is
no one closer to the tracks then some places in Oceanside and Del Mar, and
they can learn by what they have already. tie suggested Mr. Cole ride the Coaster to see what the impacts are, He also commented with regard to Mr. Cole’s comment about the number of cars going to the stations by pointing
out a lot of people are dropped off.
LOU Aspel 1 requested clarif icatian on the number of passengers the rai 1 will carry. provide for the projected ridership. Ms. Aspell also asked what data is available to show her that people will ride the rail.
Paul Price, Director of Service Development, explained how ridership for the Coaster increased beyond their predictions, pointing out that those initially opposed to it actually became regular passengers and enjoyed the service.
Ms. Aspell asked if those riding the Coaster were surveyed as to what they used for transportation before taking the Coaster. that surveys show that over 80% were single occupant automobile users.
-I:
Ms. Blanda explained how there is sufficient capacity to
Mr. Price clarified
.-
WIuuTEsoFTHERE ah mis OF TWE mTH sa DI &"Y -X1 DRlEUlPW MRY-,_~J_ 1997 . . PA6E nEl lBMRD.HEu)F_EBR
e::
Ms. Aspell asked for clarification on the percentage of those usfng Rout( 320 that will use the rail, Ms. Blanda replied, NW, as Route 320 has increased in ridership 200% over the past ten years. She also pointed ou tbattravef tine hns degenerated as highway 78 has become mbre and more congested. She stated sm Route 320 trips during peak hours take UP to
minutes;and the light rail would only take 54 minutes.
Ms. Aspell asked if the project is employment driven -- is there enough employment on the inland corridor to support the rail.
Ms. Blanda clarjfied that every city in the corridor is growing at a percentage that is over the regional average, therefore, it is both increases in population and employment that will account for the ridershi1
colleges in the corridor, which is projected to be SA6% just Tor CSLJSM, ar s i mi 1 ar for Pa 1 omr Ca 1 1 eg e.
Joe Kellejfan asked If the SANDAG figure of 41% growth is county-wide or for North County. It was clarified the figure reflected North County. Mr. Kellejian then asked fellow Board hers if there war any city in North County that has a moratorium on growth. No one replied, yes, howeve members pointed out they have a cap on the total number of dwelling units.
Ted Cole again stated the EIR has not adequately addressed the natural topography of Vista, He stated there are inadequacies in addressing the mitigation in all areas; the major jntersections in the Cfty of Vista (Escondido Ave., Vista Village intersection, North Drive, QuaJuome, Mar Vlsta, Melrose, Oceanside Blvd. and Bobier), the visual impacts (sound walls), noise levels (horns, gates, steel on steel), impacts of night and day that do not address the gates and steel on steel, slope stability Droblems, and drainage. He added that this type of EIR would not pass through the City of Vista and the City of Vista is pretty liberal with their EIR's,
Pia Harris-Ebert stated she had to leave to attend the open house at her school where she teaches. Marcas City Council's of the project.
Ted Cole continued his statements of concern with regard to the EIR. He stated it fails to address mitigation measures regarding emissions of
standing vehicles at the railroad crossings and areas between the train stations. He added that there is also a large impact on the residential areas in Vista and he does not believe that they will be able achieve the
11,000 passenger figure an the day they open unless they are going to give
everyone a free ride. the District to financially operate the system.
Lou Aspell cammented on her belief in mass transit and the fact that she
use to live in Manhattan. She stated she has a problem with using money that really is not there and does not feel they will generate the revenue necessary. She added that she would have to base her decision as if she were representing Vista and agrees with just about everything Ted Cole has
said. She also stated she feels they should table the decision in Order to address the concerns as this is a very crucial project.
Julianne Nygaard pointed out the ridership that will be generated by the
She expressed her support as well as the San
She left at 6:lO p.m.
He also stated his concerns regarding the ability of
. _-- -.-- -
PAGE TML
Joe Kellejian stated they have been dealing with the project for years i the EIR has to be in place before funding is provided. He then gave tht example of the grade separatfon project in Solana Beach where it has tah seven years to obtain the funding. He added that the population is on11 going to increase In North County and he has seen what can happen to an area when you don? have a vision. He read the definitjon of 'visjon" a pointed aut that this is what will answer the Highway 78 gridlock, point out that there will not be an expansion of this highway. tie stated he i fn support of the pruject and looking toward the future; and there's a quality of life for every North County resident -- ta be able to sanely ! from one place to another. He also commented that this is the lowest co! per mile project in southern California.
Colleen O'ilarra stated the people here today have brought up a lot of va concerns, and she understands, as she lives right by the railroad tracks, but she agrees with staff '5 analysis that they are better off not to deci today how they will mitigate the impacts, but to do that on a very specff basis, once they know exactly what the impact is going to be. She stated her support of the project and pointed out the problems with always waiting for better technology.
Julianne Nygaard stated her support of the project, as we1 1, due to it
providing transportation for students, She referred to Highway 8 and San Diego State and how they are going to eventually build a Trolley out then
at great expense because they didn't do it years ago when they should haw She stressed the importance of public transportation as she does not want to see Southern California paved over. "It's a change for us, but it's a change for the better."
David Druker stated he is torn between making a decision on this. pointed out that Del Mar went through the same thing with the EIR for the Coaster, and he does not think staff did the best job on it or on the EIR for the inland route, however, the need for rapid transportation is extremely important.
Lori Holt Pfeiler stated she and the City of Escondido look at the project
due to growth, as a critical part of transportation. She thanked everyone for corning to the meeting and stated they would continue to address the issues that have been raised.
led Cole asked legal counsel how strong the EIR is, replied, "I prefer to answer that in terms of whether or not it passes minimum standards where I could defend it, in which the answer is yes, and the reason I phrase it that way is that it really is for your Board to decide whether it meets your standards for what you want for your project,
but the question is, do I, in my opinion believe I could defend it if it was challenged in court, the answer is yes."
MOTION BY JULIANNE NYGAARD, SECONDED BY COLLEEN O'HARRA, TO ADOPT
FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.
WIMm OF THE R& EElIN6 OF THE NORTH slvl DIE @ CMHirY WIT DEVELOP r &; 1997 BQIW)HEIl)FEBmR .-
He
General Counsel
RESOLUTION NO. 97-01, CERTIFICATION OF THE FfNAt SUESEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE OCEANSIDE - ESCONDIDO RAIL PROJECT, ADOPTION OF
---la MH DIa c[uRtv -17 om wr 2 PAGE nr Ih
Ted ‘‘le stated he feels the EIR lacks in adequate alternative technology and a7so it is in vfoJation Of the city‘s bnfty Identity Elwent of the City of Vista’s General Plan.
Joe KellcJian statw he wnt5 staff to take all the Concerns given here today, inclusive with Ht. Dedong‘s alternative on access inciude thm on any future design for the project.
JULIANNE NYmD. NAVES: TED cof. LOU ASPELL, ABSTAIN: DAVID D~u~0.b. ABSENT: PIA HARRIS-EBfRf, BiLL HOR\
’ and iry tO& ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: LORI HOLT PFEILER, COLLEEN O’HARRA, JOE KELL JIAN, 6,
\
MOTION CARRIED. .P +Q
k
ADJOURNMENT -
FHE NEXT REGULAR M
_-__ __
’E 1997