north county transit district camp pendleton...

NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT

CAMP PENDLETON PASSENGER RAIL STATION

CONSTRAINTS REPORT

Prepared by:

Parsons Brinckerhoff

401 B Street, Suite 1650

San Diego, CA 92101

Prepared for:

810 Mission Avenue

Oceanside, CA 92054

June 2013

North County Transit District

Camp Pendleton Passenger Rail Station

CONSTRAINTS REPORT

Prepared by:

Theresa Dickerson Date

Technical & Quality Review by:

Maisoon Afaneh Date

Approved & Released by:

Stephanie S. Oslick, MS, AICP Date

Revision Date Description Theresa Dickerson 6/26/2013 Corrected minor typo, added schematic

Constraints Report

Camp Pendleton Passenger Rail Station i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT .................................................. 1

2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................ 3

2.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 HOW PROJECT SATISFIES PURPOSE ................................................................................................... 3

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 ALTERNATIVE SITES ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ........................................... 8

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................................................. 10

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 11

3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.1 Historical and Archaeological Resources .......................................................................... 13 3.4.2 Human Remains .................................................................................................................... 14

3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ................................................................................................................ 14

3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 15

3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 15 3.7.1 Water Quality and Drainage .................................................................................................. 15 3.7.2 Floodplain ............................................................................................................................... 16

3.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................................................................ 16 3.8.1 Property Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 16 3.8.2 Consistency with Applicable Plans ..................................................................................... 16 3.8.3 Community Disruption .......................................................................................................... 16 3.8.4 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 17 3.8.5 Public Services and Utilities ................................................................................................. 17 3.8.6 Farmlands ............................................................................................................................... 18

3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION ...................................................................................................................... 18

3.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 19

3.11 PARKS AND RECREATION .................................................................................................................. 19

3.12 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ....................................................................................................... 19

4.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 20

4.1 PROPOSED TECHNICAL STUDIES ....................................................................................................... 20

4.2 RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT ................................................................................... 21

4.3 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................................................ 21

5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 22

Constraints Report

Camp Pendleton Passenger Rail Station ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.0.1 - Project Location ...................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2.2.1 – Station Layout ........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3.3.1 – Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.0-1 – Environmental Constraints ...................................................................................... 9 Table 3.3-1 – Species of Concern .............................................................................................. 13 Table 4.3.1 – Permits and Approvals .......................................................................................... 21

Constraints Report

Camp Pendleton Passenger Rail Station 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT

The North County Transit District (NCTD), in coordination with the United States Marine Corp (USMC), is proposing to extend the COASTER commuter train north from Oceanside to a proposed Camp Pendleton Passenger Rail Station that would be built within Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton (Figure 1.0.1, Project Location). The new station would support current and on-going development on the base and would be in line with the Base Master Plan, which encourages high-density transit-oriented development. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of existing environmental conditions in the project area; assess potential impacts associated with extending the track and constructing a new station, and potential mitigation or minimization measures that could reduce potential impacts; and identify future studies, documentation, and permits that would be required for the development of the project..

Section 2.0 of this report provides the project purpose and need and a description of the proposed project. Section 3.0 contains the identification of environmental constraints. Section 4.0 provides the conclusions of this constraints analysis. Section 4.0 also provides a description of the technical studies, type of environmental report, and permits that are anticipated to be required in order to complete the environmental clearance for the proposed project. References are provided in Section 5.0.

Constraints Report


Figure 1.0.1 - Project Location

Constraints Report


2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 PURPOSE

The MCB Camp Pendleton, which has a daytime population of about 70,000, is the largest employer in San Diego County generating over 35,000 vehicle trips per day. With limited public transit connections, no train station and limited bus service, the opportunities to reduce traffic congestion and increase transit ridership is limited. The purpose of the proposed project is to expand current NCTD services within the MCB Camp Pendleton by providing direct access to a COASTER transit station. The proposed project is expected to serve military personnel, a majority of whom already live on the key transit corridors served by COASTER and SPRINTER commuter trains. The proposed project would also support plans to extend the COASTER’s southern terminus beyond Santa Fe Depot to the San Diego Convention Center.

2.2 HOW PROJECT SATISFIES PURPOSE

The proposed project would add a third track with a center platform between the new station track and MT-1 at a location within MCB Camp Pendleton near the Stuart Mesa Housing Complex (Figure 2.2.1, Station Layout). The center platform would serve both MT-1 and the new track. The new station would provide for continuous service on the Coaster line from the Santa Fe Depot Transit Center in the heart of San Diego’s Downtown District to MCB Camp Pendleton extending service from the Oceanside Transit Center to the Marine Corp base. The Coaster would utilize the existing LOSSAN tracks running mixed with Inner City Amtrak, BNSF freight, and Metrolink Commuter rail service to access the new Camp Pendleton Station. The proposed project may also provide for limited or continuous service on the Amtrak Intercity Rail Service. The expansion supports the goals of the Base Master Plan, which encourages transit-oriented development, and the Navy’s incentive programs that encourage personnel to use public transit.

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project includes the realignment of existing rail tracks, the addition of a center Coaster station platform, a park-in-ride lot with about 225 parking spaces, four bus bays, and two access roads. The proposed project would use the existing LOSSAN tracks, from a point just north of the Santa Margarita River to a point just north of NCTD’s Stewart Mesa Rail Yard. In addition to the realignment of existing track, the proposed project also includes construction of 0.5 miles of new track. Additional facilities include a security-guard building, security fencing and turnstiles, male and female bathroom facilities, potable water and fire hydrant. The site improvements will include drainage facilities and detention areas as required to accommodate on- and off-site storm water runoff. The proposed track-work and platform would be predominately within NCTD’s right-of-way, whereas the park-in-ride facility, and access roads are predominately within MCB Camp Pendleton property. The proposed project would also preserve an area for a future track and station platform for the NCTD Sprinter Line.

Constraints Report


Figure 2.2.1 – Station Layout

Constraints Report


2.4 ALTERNATIVE SITES

Three potential sites for the new station were considered and evaluated in a Draft Station Alternatives Analysis (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012) conducted for the proposed project.

These included the following:

Site 1: Stuart Mesa

Located adjacent to the existing Stuart Mesa Maintenance Facility for both COASTER and Metrolink commuter trains, Site 1 is proposed on the inland side of the railroad right-of-way and would be integrated into the new Stuart Mesa development currently being planned by the United States Marine Corp.

Constraints Report


Site 2: Fallbrook Wye

Site 2 has the station located adjacent to the Exchange Post and within proximity to the new hospital, located across Vandergrift Boulevard. This location is on the east leg of the Fallbrook Wye, which is off the mainline of the San Diego Subdivision.

Site 3: Wire Mountain Road

The third proposed site is located adjacent to Wire Mountain Road between the railroad crossing of Interstate 5 and Wire Mountain Road. This location was identified as an option of providing similar connectivity as Site 2, but located along the San Diego Subdivision mainline.

Constraints Report


The Draft Station Alternatives Analysis was conducted to evaluate the three sites based on their ability to support rail operations and provide safe and efficient access. The analysis also considered the physical and environmental constraints that each site presented. The Alternatives Analysis recommended Site 1, the Stuart Mesa Location, as it scored the highest under four criteria; rail operations, access, physical constraints, and environmental constraints. This Constraints Analysis evaluates the potential issues related to development of the proposed station at the Stuart Mesa location.

Constraints Report


3.0 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

This section evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project on environmental resources. This preliminary evaluation was based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for evaluating effects to environmental resources and generally follows the outline provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, this preliminary evaluation considers the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for environmental evaluation. The analysis in this chapter is preliminary in nature to understand the potential environmental impacts, and is not meant to be used for compliance with CEQA and NEPA.

Based on the current project alignment, 0.25-mile and 0.5-mile buffers from the track were established to provide a basis to evaluate project constraints and impacts. The project area referenced in the sections that follow is the area within the 0.5-mile buffer. Table 3.0-1 provides an overview of the potential environmental constraints and effects indentified, based on the preliminary data analysis and windshield surveys. For each resource, the table lists the constraints, potential impacts, and responsible agency or agencies. Details are provided in the sections that follow.

Constraints Report


Table 3.0-1 – Environmental Constraints Environmental Resource Constraints Potential Impacts Potential Agency Involvement

Aesthetics I-5, state eligible and county designated scenic highway; natural dark skies, notable geographic features

Effects of construction, context of changes to existing visual quality and character

Department of Defense, Southern California Regional Rail Authority

Air Quality and Climate Change None Localized impacts from parking and vehicle/bus trips

USEPA, California Air Resources Board, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

Biological Resources State and/or federal T&E plants and animals Impacts to seven identified threatened or endangered plant and animal species

US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Cultural Resources Archeological resources, human remains Right of way requirements, grading and excavation activities

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Native American Heritage Commission (if needed)

Environmental Justice None None None

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Pesticides, herbicides, munitions use and storage, underground and above ground storage tanks, hazards associated with rail uses

Explosions, contaminated soils, hazardous releases

Department of Defense, Southern California Regional Rail Authority

Hydrology and Water Quality Adjacent water bodies connecting to the Pacific Ocean

Stormwater and construction runoff California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board

Land Use and Planning Location of existing utilities, vacant farmlands

Utility relocations, service interruptions Utility Providers

Noise and Vibration None None None

Human Remains No known resources Ground disturbing activities on unknown resources

Department of Defense, Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Native American Heritage Commission (if needed), County Coroner

Parks and Recreation None None None

Transportation and Traffic Site access, feeder systems, parking New access roads, additional buses, parking, new travel patterns, construction traffic.

Department of Defense, North County Transit District

Constraints Report


3.1 AESTHETICS

Camp Pendleton South is located in the coastal plains of San Diego County. The coastal plain is relatively flat and offers 360 degree views of surrounding areas. Notable geographic features include the foothills associated with the Cleveland National Forest, the Pacific Ocean, open agricultural fields, the Santa Margarita River, the San Luis Rey River, and the natural open space within Camp Pendleton itself. Few vertical elements exist to block views of distant horizons. Vertical elements include trees, elevated transit or highway systems, and the occasional building or sign. Resources in the area include the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway, which is a state eligible and county designated scenic highway, and the natural dark skies, which are critical for the operation of two local observatories, the Palomar and Mount Laguna.

Views from the Stuart Mesa location would include undeveloped open space within Camp Pendleton to the north and east. To the south and west, views of I-5 and the Pacific Ocean are currently blocked by the Stuart Mesa Maintenance Facility and large, mature vegetation located between the proposed station and I-5. The proposed station is not expected to have a substantial effect on local views or key visual resources. The scale of the proposed structural elements would be minor in comparison to the overall scale of scenic resources and available viewpoints. During the preparation of the environmental document, a technical memo is recommended to evaluate the effects of construction, loss of vegetation, if any, and the context of proposed changes in relationship to existing visual character and quality.

3.2 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The proposed project is located within the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) in the city of Oceanside. The climate in this region is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by dry summers and wet winters. The major influences on the regional climate are the Eastern Pacific high-pressure system, topography, and the moderating effects of the Pacific Ocean. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified San Diego County as a non-attainment area for ozone and as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide. Therefore, an air quality analysis for the project would focus on these criteria pollutants, as well as MSATs. Naturally occurring asbestos is not known to be present in the project area.

During the preparation of the environmental document, an Air Quality Technical Report is recommended to evaluate existing climate and air quality, including data from the California Air Resources Board and USEPA. The report would also discuss federal, state and local air quality regulations and the project’s inclusion in the applicable San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Although the project is not expected to affect regional air quality standards, it may have localized air quality impacts, so a screening analysis would be conducted per the U.C. Davis Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. If necessary, detailed carbon monoxide modeling would be conducted using CALINE4 or CAL3QHC.

The project is located in an attainment area for particulate matter (PM), specifically PM2.5 and PM10. Although a PM analysis is not required for Federal conformity purposes, a PM analysis

Constraints Report


may be warranted if there is either a a significant number or significant increase in the number of diesel vehicles (buses or trains). Additional diesel trains that are expected as part of this project would be included in the particulate matter analysis. An MSAT analysis would be performed following FHWA guidance if local roadway traffic is affected by the project (due to additional parking and/or commuter trips). Proposed construction activities should be evaluated so that standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) can be identified to reduce potential construction impacts.

According to Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professions on How to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (AEP March 5th, 2007), an individual project does not generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may participate in a potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHGs. It is noted that the assessment of GHG impacts should include a discussion of key variables that are increasing vehicle fuel economy; near-zero carbon vehicles that may come into the market during the design life of this project; the recently adopted low-carbon transportation fuel standards in California; and changes in driver behavior as the U.S. economy and oil prices change.

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Sensitive plant and animal species data collected from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) were mapped within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed project (Figure 3.3.1). Results are shown in Table 3.3-1. Due to the proximity of the Santa Margarita River and the Oceanside Marina, the proposed project has the potential to affect nine state and/or federal threatened or endangered plant and animal species.

Formal analyses should be conducted to determine the extent of such impacts to sensitive habitats and/or species. Impacts to sensitive plant or animal species would require coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If the project has impacts on species or habitat, there may be a requirement for special mitigation or constraints on construction depending on the type of habitat or species affected. Impacts to habitat or species would require approval from the resource agencies (Biological Opinion for impacts to federally-listed species or a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit for impacts to state-listed species).

Constraints Report


Figure 3.3.1 – Biological Resources

Constraints Report


Table 3.3-1 – Species of Concern Latin Name Common Name Federal

Status (USFWS)

State Status (CDFW)*

CNPS List**

Phacelia stellaris Brand’s Star Phacelia Candidate None 1B.1 Polioptila californica californica

Coastal California Gnatcatcher

Threatened SSC NA

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Western Snowy Plover

Threatened SSC NA

Perognathus longimembris pacificus

Pacific Pocket Mouse Endangered SSC NA

Eucyclogobius newberryi Tidewater Goby Endangered SSC NA Riparia riparia Bank Swallow None Threatened NA Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi

Belding’s Savannah Sparrow

None Endangered NA

Sterna antillarum browni California Least Tern Endangered Endangered, SFP

NA

Astragalus tener var. titi Coastal Dunes Milk-Vetch

Endangered Endangered 1B.1

Rallus longirostris levipes Light-Footed Clapper Rail

Endangered Endangered, SFP

NA

*California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status: SSC = Species of Special Concern, SE = State Endangered, SFP = State Fully Protected **California Native Plant Society List: 1B.1 = Plants seriously rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere. 1B.2 = Plants fairly rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere.

3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.4.1 Historical and Archaeological Resources

Cultural resources are found throughout the County and are reminders of the County’s prehistoric and historic past. The cultural environment consists of the remains of prehistoric and historic human activities. The project vicinity is urbanized with a new housing complex located adjacent to the project site. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed for the Camp Pendleton VII (CP7) Military Family Housing project, which encompasses the Stuart Mesa location (Final Environmental Assessment Report for Camp Pendleton VII Military Family Housing Report (CP7 EA), June 2011). According to the CP7 EA a record search, which included a one-mile radius from the housing project site, identified no cultural resources. Two prehistoric sites (CA-SDI-12,572 and CA-SDI-17,912) were identified and are located near the housing project footprint but outside of the project’s current Area of Potential Effects. Twenty-four additional sites were identified within one-mile of the housing project site boundary. These sites are mainly shell mounds (shell middens) with associated artifacts, as well as, lithic scatter and historic refuse and features.

Effects to the above resources would either be limited or would not occur. However, it is recommended that further study be conducted during the environmental process to evaluate potential impacts of right-of-way requirements on archeological resources. Potential impacts

Constraints Report


require coordination with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer.

3.4.2 Human Remains

According to aerials images and GoogleEarth, there are no formal cemeteries located within a 0.5 mile of the project boundary. There may be a potential for human burials outside of formal cemeteries. In addition, there are some sensitive locations within the project area that indicate the possibility of discovering human remains. Discovery of human remains requires immediate suspension of work in the vicinity and notification to the County Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be prehistoric the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission who will appoint a Most Likely Descendent. The Most Likely Descendent will work with the project proponent to ensure respectful treatment of burials.

3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 established responsibility for federal agencies to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. Should a federal nexus, such as funding or permitting, become a part of the proposed project, the effects of the project on minority and low-income populations would need to be addressed.

Racial and ethnic composition for the major statistical area (MSA) and sub-regional area (SRA) within the area around MCB Camp Pendleton is based on data collected from San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG and 2010 Census Data). The majority of individuals in SRA 43 (Camp Pendleton) were white (62 percent), with the minority population of 38 percent. The percentage of minority population within County of San Diego is 52 percent.

To identify the presence of low-income populations in the project area, median household income and poverty status data from the 2010 U.S. Census was analyzed. The estimated median household income for the SRA 43 (Camp Pendleton) was $46,650. The countywide estimated median household income was $62,771. This shows that income for military personnel at MCB Camp Pendleton is lower than the surrounding civilian population. As of 2010, the region had an estimated 13 percent of the population living below poverty levels. The population living below poverty levels within SRA 43 (Camp Pendleton) was estimated at 12 percent, which is similar to the proportion population within the County.

Based on the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Environmental Justice Guidance (December 1997), one of the thresholds used to determine a minority population is the “meaningfully greater” threshold, which can be defined as approximately 10 percentage points greater than the county-wide average. Accordingly, the threshold figure for the project area would be any minority population greater than 62 percent, which is 10 percentage points greater than the San Diego County minority population of 52 percent. The “meaningful greater” threshold figure for low-income populations would be 23 percent, which is 10 percent greater than the San Diego County low-income population of 13 percent. Minorities comprise approximately 38 percent of the population in the project area, and low-income groups comprise approximately 12 percent. Because the minority and low-income populations in the project area

Constraints Report


are below the “meaningfully greater” thresholds for the same groups in San Diego County, no impacts related to environmental justice are expected to occur related to the proposed project.

3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Preliminary information on potential hazardous waste issues was obtained using the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker. Three contamination sites are located within 2,000 feet of the proposed project. All three sites are closed cases involving soil contamination within an area proposed for new military housing. The contaminants of concern were pesticides legally applied during the sites history of farming operations. Remediation was conducted on the sites and the cases were closed as of April 2012. Additional information obtained from the CP7, EA indicate that portions of the Stuart Mesa East Agricultural Fields were remediated in March 2011, and that a final work plan for remediation of the remaining portions of the fields was developed in April 2012. The remediation included excavation and confirmation sampling. The EA indicated that additional sources of contamination and hazards were related to installation restoration sites, underground and above ground storage tanks, and military hazards, such as unexploded ordnance and training activities.

A preliminary site assessment would be required to address the potential effects of the proposed project related to the sites historic use as agricultural fields and its location within an active military base. In addition, soils surrounding railroad tracks and ballasts, utility poles, transformers, railroad ties, striping, and structures that would be affected during construction should be tested for hazardous waste contamination. The site assessment and surveys would identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with on- or off-site release and provide appropriate minimization, avoidance, and mitigation measures to prevent unnecessary exposure to contaminants during construction activities.

3.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.7.1 Water Quality and Drainage

The proposed project is located in the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit, which incorporates the DeLuz and Ysidora Hydrologic Areas. The project is specifically within the Ysidora Hydrologic Area. Several surface water bodies including O’Neill Lake, Santa Margarita River, Santa Margarita Lagoon, and Del Mar Boat Basin are located within this hydrologic area. The Santa Margarita Lagoon is listed as a 303(d) impaired water body. The lagoon is located about two miles from the proposed project site and is considered too far to have the potential for affecting the project.

According to the CP7 EA, MCB Pendleton encompasses 10 distinct watersheds. Four of which are large enough to provide potable and irrigation water to the base. The proposed project is located within both the the Cockleburr and Santa Margarita watersheds. The Cockleburr watershed is part of the San Juan Hdrologic Unit and San Onofre Hydrologic Area. The primary source of drinking water for the base is from existing groundwater resources located within the base boundaries. The project has the potential to affect local water sources as a result of construction activities. The project would not require a large amount of water to operate and

Constraints Report


therefore, is not expected to deplete local water supplies. The need for a specific study addressing water quality and drainage is not anticipated.

3.7.2 Floodplain

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the proposed project is situated in proximity to the Santa Margarita River but is not located within the 100- or 500-year floodplain for this river. The proposed project is not expected to affect or be affected by the existing floodplains, which are located south of the project site. A specific study addressing flooding and floodplains would not be needed.

3.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING

3.8.1 Property Acquisition

The proposed project would be constructed on land owned by MCB Camp Pendleton and NCTD right-of-way. The land owned by MCB Camp Pendleton (approximately 18 acres with access road 1 and 15 with access road 2) has been zoned for residential use, but is currently vacant. No acquisition of residences or commercial properties would be required. It is assumed that the existing agricultural sheds at the northwest corner of the project site will be demolished and removed by the MCB Camp Pendleton prior to construction of this project. A development agreement between MCB Camp Pendleton and NCTD would be needed for use of base land and to construct and operate the proposed station.

3.8.2 Consistency with Applicable Plans

The proposed stations are consistent with and support current and on-going development on the USMC Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton. The MCB Camp Pendleton master plan encourages high-density transit-oriented development, which is in line with development of a transit station within the MCB Camp Pendleton property. The proposed project is consistent with and would support plans to extend the COASTER’s southern terminus beyond Santa Fe Station to the Convention Center. The project is consistent with the County’s General Plan, which encourages a multimodal transportation system and a system that supports development patterns. The project would comply with the County’s policies related to regional coordination of agencies to provide travel choices; maximization of transit service; and facilitation of ridership.

The project site is over 2,000 feet inland of the ocean’s mean high tide line and therefore, is anticipated to be outside of California’s coastal zone. However, coordination with the California Coastal Commission's federal consistency coordinator may be required to determine whether the project has an effect on the coastal zone. A Coastal Consistency Determination or Negative Determination, as appropriate, may need to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review in order to address project consistency with the California Coastal Act.

3.8.3 Community Disruption

Community cohesion in the project area is facilitated by nearby community center and elementary school at the Stuart Mesa Housing Complex. Also, there are numerous small

Constraints Report


community parks (playground basketball courts and a baseball field) which are located within the Stuart Mesa Housing Complex. Project construction and operation would not affect these or other community resources and would not disrupt the established communities in the project area. Community disruption is not expected to be an issue for the proposed project.

3.8.4 Population and Housing

There are approximately 36,925 active duty Marines and Sailors assigned to MCB Camp Pendleton. These service members, combined with their families and Base civilian employees, result in a daytime population of more than 60,000 (CP7 EA, June 2011). In addition to the daytime population, more than 28,000 retired military and 21,000 reservists depend on MCB Camp Pendleton’s services and facilities. MCB Camp Pendleton is currently being evaluated for extensive infrastructure and support improvements as part of the Grow the Force Initiative. The population of MCB Camp Pendleton is expected to substantially increase as a result, which would be evaluated under separate actions. Grow the Force would include an increase of approximately 3,000 personnel at MCB Camp Pendleton and the placement and use of temporary and permanent facilities. At present, the Grow the Force project includes approximately 60 construction projects at MCB Camp Pendleton, which are being evaluated under separate actions.

The project site is located within the North County West Major Statistical Area (MSA) and Camp Pendleton Subregional Area (SRA) 43. The city of Oceanside is south of MCB Camp Pendleton and is located in SRA 42 (Oceanside). The total county population is projected to increase 42 percent from 2000 to 2030. The North County West MSA expects a slightly lower increase of 34 percent. SRA 42 (Oceanside) projects a 31 percent increase in its population. SANDAG anticipates that the population of SRA 43 (MCB Camp Pendleton) would increase only 6 percent from 2000 to 2030. Population growth factors at MCB Camp Pendleton differ greatly from surrounding jurisdictions.

Currently, MCB Camp Pendleton has a shortage of 1,780 on-base housing units (CP7 EA, June 2011). This number is based on the average size of the military family housing (MFH) waiting list and is adjusted with operational requirements of the USMC. Available vacant land on the former Stuart Mesa Agricultural fields adjacent to the proposed project area is planned for 351 MFH. Housing projects within MCB Camp Pendleton are currently being planned in order to deal with the shortage in MFH. The proposed station project construction and operation would have limited effects on population and housing, as the project would neither encourage nor hinder population and housing growth in the project area.

3.8.5 Public Services and Utilities

The proposed project site is located within the Oceanside Unified School District (OUSD). Stuart Mesa Elementary School is located within MCB Camp Pendleton. The elementary school is not within 0.5-mile of the proposed project site. The project is not anticipated to create an increase in demand on the existing school systems or create a need for new governmental facilities.

Constraints Report


Law enforcement on MCB Camp Pendleton is the responsibility of the Provost Marshal Office (PMO), under supervision of MCB Camp Pendleton Security and Emergency Services. The MCB Camp Pendleton PMO provides Base-wide internal security, as well as a security patrol for the perimeter of the Base. Fire protection services are provided by the MCB Camp Pendleton Fire Department. No security or fire stations are located within a 0.5-mile buffer of the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected have any effects on response times or service ratios for security or fire services. Impacts to public services are not expected as a result of the proposed project. Security and fire protection for the proposed station would be handled by the PMO and may require the development of a security and emergency plan to address service performance requirements.

According to aerial images and Google Maps, existing overhead utility lines are located to the north and west side of the proposed project. Electricity use at MCB Camp Pendleton is provided by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). MCB Camp Pendleton purchases natural gas from SDG&E and the gas is delivered by a SDG&E gas main and distributed throughout MCB Camp Pendleton by means of various lines on-Base. Relocation of electrical, communication or gas utility lines may be necessary in order to construct the project. No existing wastewater, potable water, or stormwater facilities are within the project site (CP7 EA, June 2011). Further analysis will be necessary to determine the potential impacts on utilities within the study area. Coordination with local utility providers also would be required to prevent interruption of services.

3.8.6 Farmlands

A portion of the project site is located on the Stuart Mesa agricultural field which consists of flat, former agricultural lands. The land had been leased for agricultural use; however, the lease expired at the end of December 2008. Since then the land has not been used for agriculture. Although it is not currently used as farmland, the site is designated as Prime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The land has undergone a dig and haul to remove pesticides, thus, the land is not reflective of useable agricultural land. According to the Base Master Plan, this area has been zoned for potential future housing. The project would convert Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use; however, it would be consistent with the current zoning and does not involve other changes to the environment that would result in farmland conversion. The potential effects to farmland are considered minor.

3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION

There are no sensitive land uses (residences, parks, schools, churches) within close proximity (>500’) to the proposed station locations. Land uses surrounding the proposed station sites include open space, commercial uses, and military facilities (including military housing and community facilities). The addition of a new rail station and extension of tracks to the Stuart Mesa location would not affect noise or vibration sensitive receivers as there are none adjacent to or within close proximity to the proposed site. Likewise, construction activities are expected to have little effect on adjacent uses due to existing noise sources, such as the I-5 freeway and the Metrolink commuter rail line. The potential effects of noise and vibration from the proposed project are considered negligible to none and therefore, would not require a separate analysis.

Constraints Report


3.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Paleontological resources are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric life (exclusive of human remains, artifacts or features) that include the localities where fossils are collected and the sedimentary rock formations in which they were formed. The defining character of fossils is their geologic age. Fossils or fossil deposits are generally regarded as being older than 10,000 years, marking the end of the late Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. The majority of fossils within the region are represented by shells and/or tests (hard coverings) of marine invertebrates (corals, mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms). However, important skeletal remains of terrestrial vertebrates (reptiles, birds, and mammals) characterize certain geologic rock units and time intervals. The local terrestrial fossil record also consists of remains and impressions of plants including leaf assemblages and petrified wood.

The project area is within a low to moderate sensitivity level for paleontological resources. Although no known paleontological resources have been identified within the project area, a qualified paleontological monitor and Native American observer may be required during ground disturbing activities as a precaution.

3.11 PARKS AND RECREATION

The closest park and recreational facilities to the proposed station location are Capistrano Park (about 3 miles southeast), San Luis Rey River Trail (about 3.5 miles south), and the California Coastal Trail (about 1 mile east). In addition, there are several small community green spaces and a community center with baseball fields and other recreational facilities within the Stuart Mesa community. The community is located about one mile northeast of the proposed station location and southwest of Stuart Mesa Road. The proposed station is not expected to have any effect on these recreational facilities as they are not in close proximity to the proposed station and the station would not increase the use of the parks or trails.

3.12 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

Access to the proposed project site is currently provided by Stuart Mesa Road via unimproved agricultural roads originating from that roadway. Regional access to the site is from Interstate 5 (I-5). The proposed project would require a new parking facility, a new local access road, changes to the bus feeder system, and a security system to control base access. A traffic study would be required to address future connections to the proposed project site, access to the base from the new station, feeder systems supporting the new transit station, station parking needs, ridership, transit service along the new route, and traffic during construction. The traffic study would also need to address potential changes to existing traffic patterns and evaluation of those affects on current levels of service and volumes. The traffic report should also address the extent of delays and re-routing that would be required to maintain emergency vehicle access and minimize other traffic disruptions during construction. The traffic study would also address potential changes to roads and road crossings during project operation. A Traffic Management Plan would be required to provide specific measures to minimize delays and maintain emergency vehicle access during project construction.

Constraints Report


4.0 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 PROPOSED TECHNICAL STUDIES

The following topic areas would not require a separate analysis either because the resource does not exist within the project area or the project is not anticipated to result in impacts to the resource.

Historic Resources Environmental Justice Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Public Services and Utilities Noise and Vibration Paleontological Resources Parks and Recreation

These topic areas will be addressed in the environmental documentation prepared in support of the proposed project. The following topics would require a separate analysis in order to address issues and evaluate the potential for impacts.

Aesthetics Technical Memorandum - to evaluate the effects of construction, loss of vegetation, if any, and the context of proposed changes in relationship to existing visual character and quality.

Air Quality Technical Report - to evaluate localized air quality and construction impacts. In addition, PM and MSAT analyses may be warranted, if the project results in significant increases in diesel vehicles and if parking or point source traffic are considered issues.

Biological Resources Technical Report - to determine the extent of impacts to sensitive habitats and/or species. Impacts to sensitive plant or animal species would require coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (if least Bell’s Vireo is found to be present) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Project may also require a Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion.

Archaeological Survey Report – to evaluate potential right-of-way requirements on archaeological resources. Potential impacts require coordination with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – to evaluate hazards associated with the sites historic use as agricultural fields and its location within an active military base.

Traffic Study Report – to address future connections to the proposed project site, access to the base from the new station, feeder systems supporting the new transit station,

Constraints Report


station parking needs, ridership, transit service along the new route, and traffic during construction.

4.2 RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

While the proposed project is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts or significant cumulative effects, it does not qualify as a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA or as a Categorical Exemption under CEQA. Therefore, the project would be processed as an Environmental Assessment and Initial Study under NEPA and CEQA respectively.

4.3 PERMITS AND APPROVALS

Table 4.3.1 identifies the permits and approvals under each topic area that may be required.

Table 4.3.1 – Permits and Approvals Resource and Purpose Type of Permit/Approval Permitting/Approval Agency

Air Quality Construction San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

Biological Resources Biological Opinion and/or Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (if needed)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Coastal Zone Federal Consistency California Coastal Commission

Hydrology and Water Quality NPDES Regional Water Quality Control Board

Utilities and Service Systems Station Platform California Public Utilities Commission

Constraints Report


5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

Association of Environmental Professionals. Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professions on How to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents. March 5, 2007

California Natural Diversity Data Base. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bigeodata/cnddb/. Accessed January 30, 2013

County of San Diego. Draft Final Environmental Impact Report – San Diego County General Plan. Updated August 2011.

-----. San Diego County 2011 General Plan. August 2011.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Map Service Center. http://msc.fema.gov/. Accessed October 2012.

Parsons Brinckerhoff. Draft Station Alternatives Analysis. February 3, 2012.

San Diego Area Government. 2010 Census Data. http//www.sandag.org. Accessed March 5, 2013

-----. Regional Growth Forecasts. http://www.sandag.org. Accessed March 5, 2013

State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker-Environmental Data for Regulated Facilities in California. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/. Accessed October 2012.

United States Marine Corp. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Natural Resources Management Plan. http//www.pendleton.marines.mil. Accessed March 5, 2013.

-----. MCIWest - MCB Camp Pendleton Geospatial Information. CDs burned February 2012, November 2012, February 2013, and January 2013.

-----. Final Environmental Assessment Report for Camp Pendleton VII Military Family Housing Report. June 2011.