Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, December 5, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

199 December 5, 2022 Item 01

SANDAG COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Initial Screening Matrix of Potential Improvements
Legend: Initial indications are favorable. Consider advancing to preliminary conceptual design Potential minor issue. Evaluate options to avoid & mitigate. Consider advancing to preliminary conceptual design Potential major issue. Evaluate options to avoid & mitigate. Consider eliminating Not applicable or neutral effect
# Location Facility Type Engineering, Bluffs & ROW: West Side
Engineering, Bluffs & ROW: East
Side
Visual Impacts Pedestrian Connectivity & Coastal
Access
Consistency with Existing
Movement Patterns
Consistency with Prior Facilities,
Studies & Recommendations
Parking Regulatory Feasibility Noise Impacts Preliminary Screening 12/14/2021
12 Melanie Way OC Overcrossing - Requires disturbing native bluffs - Alley with narrow ROW - Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Steep bluffs west of rail would
require visually impactful structure
- East elevation (~15ft above rail)
would require ascent and pose visual
impacts
- Narrow alley poses more visual
impacts to adjacent properties than
streets
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Not included in prior key studies or
recommendations
- Alley with no on-street parking
- Off-street parking 2 blocks away at
Civic Center or Del Mar Shores Park
- Environmentally sensitive area west
of rail could restrict development
(also affected DMB projects)
- No anticipated noise impacts Eliminate: Impacts to native bluffs/ESA, limited parking, narrow
alley ROW, visual impacts
13 9th Street OC Overcrossing - Requires disturbing native bluffs - Feasible with structure spanning rail - Connects to proposed east side trail
- Steep bluffs west of rail would
require visually impactful structure
- East elevation (~15ft above rail)
would require ascent and pose visual
impacts
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Not included in prior key studies or
recommendations
- On-street parking
- Off-street parking 1.5 blocks away
at Del Mar Shores Park
- Environmentally sensitive area west
of rail could restrict development
(also affected DMB projects)
- No anticipated noise impacts Eliminate: Impacts to native bluffs/ESA, visual impacts
14 Shippey Lane OC Overcrossing - Requires disturbing native bluffs - Alley with narrow ROW - Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Steep bluffs west of rail would
require visually impactful structure
- East elevation (~15ft above rail)
would require ascent and pose visual
impacts
- Narrow alley poses more visual
impacts to adjacent properties than
streets
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Adjacent to site recommended by
City (7th/8th)
- Adjacent to site recommended by
1995 TRAC study (8th)
- Alley with no on-street parking
- Off-street parking 0.5 blocks away
at Del Mar Shores Park
- Environmentally sensitive area west
of rail could restrict development
(also affected DMB projects)
- No anticipated noise impacts Eliminate: Impacts to native bluffs/ESA, limited parking, narrow
alley ROW, visual impacts
15 7th Street/8th Street UC Undercrossing - Large fill/slide area provides opportunity for ramps or stairs
- Existing wall and/or planned DMB5
wall & grading can be incorporated
- Feasible with box culvert
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Likely to have little visual impact - Provides connectivity benefit by closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Frequent crossing area
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Site recommended by City
- Site recommended by 1995 TRAC
study
- On-street parking
- Off-street parking 1.5 blocks away
at Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Advance 7th St/8th St UC for further PDT review
16 8th Street OC Overcrossing - Drainage outlet/slide area could accommodate stairs. But ramps to
north would require disturbing
adjacent native bluffs
- Planned DMB5 wall can be
incorporated
- Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- East elevation (~15ft above rail)
would require ascent and pose visual
impacts
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Frequent crossing area
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Site recommended by City
- Site recommended by 1995 TRAC
study
- On-street parking
- Off-street parking 1 block away at
Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Advance 1 OC in 6th/7th/8th area for further PDT review
17 Little Orphan Alley OC Overcrossing - Large fill/slide area provides opportunity for ramps or stairs
- Existing wall and/or planned DMB5
wall & grading can be incorporated
- Potential natural path (no
structures)?
- Alley with narrow ROW
- Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- East elevation (~15ft above rail)
would require ascent and pose visual
impacts
- Narrow alley poses more visual
impacts to adjacent properties than
streets
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Adjacent to site recommended by
City (7th/8th)
- Adjacent to site recommended by
1995 TRAC study (8th)
- Alley with no on-street parking
- Off-street parking 1 block away at
Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Advance 1 OC in 6th/7th/8th area for further PDT review
18 7th Street OC Overcrossing - Large fill/slide area to north provides opportunity for ramps or stairs
- Existing wall and/or planned DMB5
wall & grading can be incorporated
- Potential natural path (no
structures)?
- Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- East elevation (~20ft above rail)
would require ascent and pose visual
impacts
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to existing DG trail (7th to
Sea Cliff Way)
- Frequent crossing area
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Site recommended by City - On-street parking
- Off-street parking 1.5 blocks away
at Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Advance 1 OC in 6th/7th/8th area for further PDT review
19 Sherrie Lane OC Overcrossing - May require disturbing native bluffs - Planned DMB5 wall can be
incorporated
- Alley with narrow ROW
- Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Good elevation for overcrossing
(~25ft above rail) minimizes visual
impacts
- Narrow alley poses more visual
impacts to adjacent properties than
streets
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to existing DG trail (7th to
Sea Cliff Way)
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Adjacent to site recommended by
City (7th/8th)
- Adjacent to site recommended by 2
Council members (6th)
- Alley with no on-street parking
- Off-street parking 2 blocks away at
Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Advance 1 OC in 6th/7th/8th area for further PDT review
20 6th Street OC Overcrossing - May require disturbing native bluffs - Planned DMB5 wall can be
incorporated
- Feasible with structure spanning rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Good elevation for overcrossing
(~30ft above rail) minimizes visual
impacts
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to existing DG trail (7th to
Sea Cliff Way)
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Site recommended by 2 Council
members
- On-street parking
- Off-street parking 2.5 blocks away
at Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Advance 1 OC in 6th/7th/8th area for further PDT review
21 Sea Cliff Way OC Overcrossing - Slide/fill area feasible for stairs to beach with wall
- Alley with narrow ROW
- Feasible with tall structure spanning
rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Good elevation for overcrossing
(~35ft above rail) minimizes visual
impacts
- Narrow alley poses more visual
impacts to adjacent properties than
streets
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to existing DG trail (7th to
Sea Cliff Way)
- Near existing goat trails to beach
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Not included in prior key studies or
recommendations
- Alley with no on-street parking
- Off-street parking 3 blocks away at
Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Eliminate: Very limited parking, narrow alley ROW
22 4th Street OC Overcrossing - Fill area feasible for stairs to beach - Existing wall can be incorporated &
reinforced
- Feasible with tall structure spanning
rail
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- High east elevation (~50 ft above
rail) and lack of landing space would
require large, visually impactful
structure
- Provides connectivity benefit by
closing large gap between existing
rail crossings
- Good connectivity to existing
network
- Connects to proposed east side trail
- Not used for crossing today due to
elevations, but likely would be used if
facilities existed
- Site recommended by 1976
Community Plan
- On-street parking
- Off-street parking 4.5 blocks away
at Del Mar Shores Park
- No known regulatory feasibility
issues
- No anticipated noise impacts Eliminate: Visual impacts, very limited parking

Page 2 of 3 ends

200 December 5, 2022 Item 01

Page 3 of 3 ends

201 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Coastal Connections
Conceptual Planning Study

APPENDIX D

ROUGH ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE COST ESTIMATES
Summary of Cost Estimates .......................................................................................2 Concept 1: North-South Trail, Full (Seagrove Park to 4h St)......................................3 Concept 1: North-South Trail, Segment A (Seagrove Park to 11th St)........................7 Concept 1: North-South Trail, Segment B (11th St to 8
th St) .....................................10
Concept 1: North-South Trail, Segment C (8
th St to 4th St) .......................................13 Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Ramps & Stairs to Beach .................16 Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Stairs to Beach.................................19 Concept 4: At-Grade Crossing at 7th 8th Streets, Ramps to Beach .........................22 Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8th Streets, Stairs to Beach ...........................25 Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th-8th Streets, Ramps to Beach ...............................28 Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th-8th Streets, Stairs to Beach..................................31 202 December 5, 2022 Item 01

SANDAG COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Summary of Cost Estimates (DRAFT)
11/30/2022
Concept 1: North-South Trail (Full Trail, Seagrove Park to 4th St) $5.1 million $3.7 million $8.8 million $0.8 million $9.6 million Concept 1: North-South Trail (Segments A-C)
Segment A: Seagrove Park to 11th Street $2.3 million $1.7 million $4.0 million $0.4 million $4.4 million Segment B: 11th Street to 8th Street $2.0 million $1.5 million $3.5 million $0.3 million $3.9 million Segment C: 8th Street to 4th Street $1.6 million $1.2 million $2.8 million $0.3 million $3.1 million Total of Concept 1: North-South Trail (Segments A-C) $5.9 million $4.5 million $10.4 million $1.0 million $11.4 million Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Ramps & Stairs to Beach $5.4 million $3.9 million $9.3 million $0.9 million $10.2 million Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Stairs to Beach $3.0 million $2.2 million $5.2 million $0.5 million $5.7 million Concept 4: At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8th Streets, Ramps to Beach $4.9 million $3.5 million $8.4 million $0.8 million $9.2 million Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8th Streets, Stairs to Beach $3.0 million $2.2 million $5.2 million $0.5 million $5.7 million Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th-8th Streets, Ramps to Beach $6.8 million $4.9 million $11.7 million $1.1 million $12.8 million Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th-8th Streets, Stairs to Beach $3.7 million $2.7 million $6.4 million $0.6 million $7.0 million Notes: YOE is Year of Expenditure. All values rounded to the nearest $100,000.

Construction
Contract
Design, Env. &
Support
Total Project
(2022 $)
Est. Escalation
to 2023-2027
YOE
Total Project
(YOE $)
203 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 153,000 Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 63,800
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 178,500 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 153,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 701,300
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 153,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 63,800
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 306,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 357,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 76,500
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $1,058,300

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 102,000
Total 3.00% $153,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 2.6% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 323,319 $ 323,319
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ 29,520 $ 29,520
Structures 1 LS $ 2,153,930 $ 2,153,930
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 657,110 $ 657,110
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
$3,485,885
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 300,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 1,200,000
$5,100,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 306,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 10,200 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 5,100 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 178,500 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 765,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 10,200 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 306,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 51,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,632,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $8,779,600
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Full, Seagrove Park to 4th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Full DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 4 204 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Full, Seagrove Park to 4th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 701,300 $ 19,636
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 1,346,300 $ 75,393
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 3,029,400 $ 305,969 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 3,029,400 $ 339,293 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 673,200 $ 94,248
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 834,539
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 9,614,139 Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Full DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 4 205 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing and Grubbing 26,140 SF $ 0.25 $ 6,535
6' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 26,140 SF $ 10 $ 261,400
Excavate & Fill: 8th St Culvert Area 98 CY $ 64 $ 6,272 Excavate & Fill Other Areas 506 CY $ 64 $ 32,384
Import Earthwork 408 CY $ 41 $ 16,728
Subtotal $ 323,319
Civil Improvements
6" AC Berm 60 LF $ 12 $ 720
Curb Ramp 9 EA $ 3,200 $ 28,800
Subtotal $ 29,520
Structures
Culvert (Dual 36" RCP): North of 8th St 480 LF $ 380 $ 182,400 Wall: Seagrove Park South 550 SF $ 154 $ 84,700
Wall: South of 13th St 900 SF $ 154 $ 138,600
Wall: North of 12th St 615 SF $ 154 $ 94,710
Pedestrian Bridge: Lois Ln 396 SF $ 290 $ 114,840
Pedestrian Bridge: Sea Orbit Ln 570 SF $ 290 $ 165,300
Timber Walkway Over Ditch: Sea Orbit Ln-11th St 1,362 SF $ 200 $ 272,400 Timber Walkway Over Ditch: 11th St-10th St 2,952 SF $ 200 $ 590,400 Precast Ditch Crossing: 10th St 3.6 CY $ 2,200 $ 7,920
Precast Ditch Crossing: 9th St 2.7 CY $ 2,200 $ 5,940
Precast Ditch Crossing: 8th St 1.0 CY $ 2,200 $ 2,200
Timber Walkway Over Ditch: 7th St-8th St 2,400 SF $ 200 $ 480,000 Precast Ditch Crossing: 7th St 4.7 CY $ 2,200 $ 10,340
Precast Ditch Crossing: 6th St 1.9 CY $ 2,200 $ 4,180
Subtotal $ 2,153,930
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 13th St 554 LF $ 130 $ 72,020 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Lois Ln 132 LF $ 130 $ 17,160 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 12th St 370 LF $ 130 $ 48,100 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Sea Orbit Ln 188 LF $ 130 $ 24,440 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 11th St 35 LF $ 130 $ 4,550 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 10th St 63 LF $ 130 $ 8,190 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 9th St 48 LF $ 130 $ 6,240 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 8th St 207 LF $ 130 $ 26,910 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 7th St 83 LF $ 130 $ 10,790 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 6th St 32 LF $ 130 $ 4,160 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Sea Cliff Wy 35 LF $ 130 $ 4,550 Bollards: 9th St Plaza 8 EA $ 500 $ 4,000
Benches: 9th St Plaza 6 EA $ 4,000 $ 24,000
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 246,000 $ 246,000
Subtotal $ 657,110
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
Implementation 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
Subtotal $ 322,006
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Full, Seagrove Park to 4th St) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022
Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Full DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 4 206 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Full, Seagrove Park to 4th St) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022
BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE) $ 3,485,885
Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Full DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 4 of 4 207 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 69,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 28,800
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 80,500 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 69,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 316,300
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 69,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 28,800
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 138,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 161,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 34,500
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $477,300

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 46,000
Total 3.00% $69,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 5.9% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 99,482 $ 99,482
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ 9,600 $ 9,600
Structures 1 LS $ 870,550 $ 870,550
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 295,720 $ 295,720
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
$1,597,358
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ -
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 600,000
$2,300,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 138,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 4,600 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 2,300 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 80,500 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 345,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 4,600 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 138,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 23,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $736,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $4,033,600
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment A, Seagrove Park to 11th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg A DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 208 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment A, Seagrove Park to 11th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 316,300 $ 8,856
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 681,300 $ 38,153
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 1,366,200 $ 137,986 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 1,366,200 $ 153,014 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 303,600 $ 42,504
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 380,514
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 4,414,114 Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg A DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 209 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing and Grubbing 7,652 SF $ 0.25 $ 1,913
6' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 7,652 SF $ 10 $ 76,520
Excavate & Fill Other Areas 277 CY $ 64 $ 17,728
Import Earthwork 81 CY $ 41 $ 3,321
Subtotal $ 99,482
Civil Improvements
Curb Ramp 3 EA $ 3,200 $ 9,600
Subtotal $ 9,600
Structures
Wall: Seagrove Park South 550 SF $ 154 $ 84,700
Wall: South of 13th St 900 SF $ 154 $ 138,600
Wall: North of 12th St 615 SF $ 154 $ 94,710
Pedestrian Bridge: Lois Ln 396 SF $ 290 $ 114,840
Pedestrian Bridge: Sea Orbit Ln 570 SF $ 290 $ 165,300
Timber Walkway Over Ditch: Sea Orbit Ln-11th St 1,362 SF $ 200 $ 272,400 Subtotal $ 870,550
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 13th St 554 LF $ 130 $ 72,020 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Lois Ln 132 LF $ 130 $ 17,160 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 12th St 370 LF $ 130 $ 48,100 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Sea Orbit Ln 188 LF $ 130 $ 24,440 Signage 1 LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 295,720
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
Implementation 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
Subtotal $ 322,006
$ 1,597,358
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment A, Seagrove Park to 11th St) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg A DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 210 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 60,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 25,000
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 70,000 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 60,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 275,000
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 60,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 25,000
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 120,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 140,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 30,000
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $415,000

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 40,000
Total 3.00% $60,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 6.8% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 98,795 $ 98,795
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ 13,520 $ 13,520
Structures 1 LS $ 788,860 $ 788,860
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 207,890 $ 207,890
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
$1,431,071
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ -
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 500,000
$2,000,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 120,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 4,000 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 2,000 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 70,000 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 300,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 4,000 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 120,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 20,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $640,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $3,525,000
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment B, 11th St to 8th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg B DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 211 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment B, 11th St to 8th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 275,000 $ 7,700
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 610,000 $ 34,160
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 1,188,000 $ 119,988 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 1,188,000 $ 133,056 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 264,000 $ 36,960
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 331,864
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 3,856,864 Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg B DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 212 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing and Grubbing 7,600 SF $ 0.25 $ 1,900
6' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 7,600 SF $ 10 $ 76,000
Excavate & Fill: 8th St Culvert Area 98 CY $ 64 $ 6,272 Excavate & Fill Other Areas 101 CY $ 64 $ 6,464
Import Earthwork 199 CY $ 41 $ 8,159
Subtotal $ 98,795
Civil Improvements
6" AC Berm 60 LF $ 12 $ 720
Curb Ramp 4 EA $ 3,200 $ 12,800
Subtotal $ 13,520
Structures
Culvert (Dual 36" RCP): North of 8th St 480 LF $ 380 $ 182,400 Timber Walkway Over Ditch: 11th St-10th St 2,952 SF $ 200 $ 590,400 Precast Ditch Crossing: 10th St 3.6 CY $ 2,200 $ 7,920
Precast Ditch Crossing: 9th St 2.7 CY $ 2,200 $ 5,940
Precast Ditch Crossing: 8th St 1.0 CY $ 2,200 $ 2,200
Subtotal $ 788,860
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 11th St 35 LF $ 130 $ 4,550 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 10th St 63 LF $ 130 $ 8,190 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 9th St 48 LF $ 130 $ 6,240 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 8th St 207 LF $ 130 $ 26,910 Bollards: 9th St Plaza 8 EA $ 500 $ 4,000
Benches: 9th St Plaza 6 EA $ 4,000 $ 24,000
Signage 1 LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 207,890
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006 Subtotal $ 322,006
$ 1,431,071
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment B, 11th St to 8th St) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg B DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 213 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 48,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 20,000
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 56,000 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 48,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 220,000
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 48,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 20,000
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 96,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 112,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 24,000
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $332,000

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 32,000
Total 3.00% $48,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 8.4% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 99,284 $ 99,284
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ 12,800 $ 12,800
Structures 1 LS $ 494,520 $ 494,520
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 153,500 $ 153,500
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
$1,082,110
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ -
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 400,000
$1,600,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 96,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 3,200 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 1,600 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 56,000 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 240,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 3,200 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 96,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 16,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $512,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $2,847,000
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment C, 8th St to 4th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg C DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 214 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment C, 8th St to 4th St) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 220,000 $ 6,160
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 515,000 $ 28,840
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 950,400 $ 95,990
FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 950,400 $ 106,445
FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 211,200 $ 29,568
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 267,003
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 3,114,003 Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg C DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 215 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing and Grubbing 8,375 SF $ 0.25 $ 2,093.75
6' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 8,375 SF $ 10 $ 83,750
Excavate & Fill Other Areas 128 CY $ 64 $ 8,192
Import Earthwork 128 CY $ 41 $ 5,248
Subtotal $ 99,284
Civil Improvements
Curb Ramp 4 EA $ 3,200 $ 12,800
Subtotal $ 12,800
Structures
Timber Walkway Over Ditch: 7th St-8th St 2,400 SF $ 200 $ 480,000 Precast Ditch Crossing: 7th St 4.7 CY $ 2,200 $ 10,340
Precast Ditch Crossing: 6th St 1.9 CY $ 2,200 $ 4,180
Subtotal $ 494,520
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 7th St 83 LF $ 130 $ 10,790 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): 6th St 32 LF $ 130 $ 4,160 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Sea Cliff Wy 35 LF $ 130 $ 4,550 Signage $ 1 LS $ 2,000 $ 2,000
Light Fixtures $ 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) $ 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 153,500
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
Implementation 1 LS $ 322,006 $ 322,006
Subtotal $ 322,006
$ 1,082,110
Coastal Connections Concept 1 (North-South Trail: Segment C, 8th St to 4th St) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 1 N-S Trail Estimate Seg C DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 216 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 162,000 Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 67,500
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 189,000 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 162,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 742,500
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 162,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 67,500
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 324,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 378,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 81,000
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $1,120,500

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 108,000
Total 3.00% $162,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 2.5% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 125,157 $ 125,157
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ - $ -
Structures 1 LS $ 1,242,728 $ 1,242,728
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 1,992,088 $ 1,992,088
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
$3,679,973
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 300,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 1,300,000
$5,400,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 324,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 10,800 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 5,400 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 189,000 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 810,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 10,800 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 324,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 54,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,728,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $9,288,000
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Coastal Connections Concept 2 (At-Grade Crossing 11th St, Ramps/Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 28, 2022 Estimated By:

Concept 2 AG 11th Ramps-Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-28 Sheet 1 of 3 217 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 2 (At-Grade Crossing 11th St, Ramps/Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 28, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 742,500 $ 20,790
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 1,417,500 $ 79,380
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 3,207,600 $ 323,968 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 3,207,600 $ 359,251 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 712,800 $ 99,792
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 883,181
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 10,171,181 Concept 2 AG 11th Ramps-Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-28 Sheet 2 of 3 218 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing & Grubbing 9,588 SF $ 0.25 $ 2,397
8' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 9,588 SF $ 10 $ 95,880
Excavate & Fill 420 CY $ 64 $ 26,880
Subtotal $ 125,157
Civil Improvements
$ -
$ -
Subtotal $ -
Structures
Retaining Walls 6,932 SF $ 154 $ 1,067,528
Natural Stairs Between 11th Street & Railroad 22 LF $ 800 $ 17,600 Natural Stairs to Beach 197 LF $ 800 $ 157,600
Subtotal $ 1,242,728
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): View Overlook 29 LF $ 130 $ 3,770 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Northern Ramps 760 LF $ 130 $ 98,800 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Natural Stairs 196 LF $ 130 $ 25,480 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Seawall Ramp 83 LF $ 130 $ 10,790 Galvanized Handrail 2,808 LF $ 250 $ 702,000
Channelized Fence at Railroad Crossing (48" HT) 328 LF $ 36 $ 11,808 Emergency Swing Gate 2 EA $ 6,000 $ 12,000
30" High Visibility Panels 24 EA $ 60 $ 1,440
3' Wide Detectable Warning Strip 300 SF $ 60 $ 18,000
CPUC Signal/Gate System 1 LS $ 470,000 $ 470,000
Signal House 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 1,992,088
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) &
Implementation 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Subtotal $ 320,000
$ 3,679,973
Coastal Connections Concept 2 (At-Grade Crossing 11th St, Ramps/Stairs to Beach) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 2 AG 11th Ramps-Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-28 Sheet 3 of 3 219 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 90,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 37,500
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 105,000 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 90,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 412,500
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 90,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 37,500
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 180,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 210,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 45,000
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $622,500

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 60,000
Total 3.00% $90,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 4.5% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 56,675 $ 56,675
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ - $ -
Structures 1 LS $ 175,200 $ 175,200
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 1,463,538 $ 1,463,538
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
$2,015,413
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 200,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 700,000
$3,000,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 180,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 6,000 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 3,000 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 105,000 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 450,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 6,000 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 180,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $960,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $5,220,000
Coastal Connections Concept 3 (At-Grade Crossing 11th St, Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Concept 3 AG 11th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 220 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 3 (At-Grade Crossing 11th St, Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 412,500 $ 11,550
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 847,500 $ 47,460
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 1,782,000 $ 179,982 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 1,782,000 $ 199,584 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 396,000 $ 55,440
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 494,016
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 5,714,016 Concept 3 AG 11th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 221 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing & Grubbing 4,499 SF $ 0.25 $ 1,125
8' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 4,499 SF $ 10 $ 44,990
Excavate & Fill 165 CY $ 64 $ 10,560
Subtotal $ 56,675
Civil Improvements
$ -
$ -
Subtotal $ -
Structures
Natural Stairs Between 11th Street & Railroad 22 LF $ 800 $ 17,600 Natural Stairs to Beach 197 LF $ 800 $ 157,600
Subtotal $ 175,200
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): View Overlook 29 LF $ 130 $ 3,770 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Natural Stairs 196 LF $ 130 $ 25,480 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Seawall Ramp 83 LF $ 130 $ 10,790 Galvanized Handrail 1,089 LF $ 250 $ 272,250
Channelized Fence at Railroad Crossing (48" HT) 328 LF $ 36 $ 11,808 Emergency Swing Gate 2 EA $ 6,000 $ 12,000
30" High Visibility Panels 24 EA $ 60 $ 1,440
3' Wide Detectable Warning Strip 300 SF $ 60 $ 18,000
CPUC Signal/Gate System 1 LS $ 470,000 $ 470,000
Signal House 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 1,463,538
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) &
Implementation 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Subtotal $ 320,000
$ 2,015,413
Coastal Connections Concept 3 (At-Grade Crossing 11th St, Stairs to Beach) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 3 AG 11th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 222 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 147,000 Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 61,300
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 171,500 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 147,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 673,800
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 147,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 61,300
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 294,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 343,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 73,500
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $1,016,800

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 98,000
Total 3.00% $147,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 2.8% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 202,400 $ 202,400
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ - $ -
Structures 1 LS $ 854,800 $ 854,800
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 1,967,242 $ 1,967,242
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
$3,344,442
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 300,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 1,200,000
$4,900,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 294,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 9,800 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 4,900 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 171,500 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 735,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 9,800 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 294,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 49,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,568,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $8,440,600
Coastal Connections Concept 4 (At-Grade Crossing 7th-8th St, Ramps to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Concept 4 AG 7th-8th Ramps Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 223 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 4 (At-Grade Crossing 7th-8th St, Ramps to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 673,800 $ 18,866
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 1,298,800 $ 72,733
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 2,910,600 $ 293,971 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 2,910,600 $ 325,987 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 646,800 $ 90,552
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 802,109
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 9,242,709 Concept 4 AG 7th-8th Ramps Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 224 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing & Grubbing 11,638 SF $ 0.25 $ 2,910
8' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 11,638 SF $ 10 $ 116,380
Excavate & Fill 1,240 CY $ 64 $ 79,360
Pipe Culvert East of Railroad 15 LF $ 250 $ 3,750
Subtotal $ 202,400
Civil Improvements
$ -
$ -
Subtotal $ -
Structures
Retaining Walls 5,400 SF $ 154 $ 831,600
Natural Stairs Between 7th St & Railroad 29 LF $ 800 $ 23,200 Subtotal $ 854,800
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Ramps 642 LF $ 130 $ 83,460 Galvanized Handrail 2,661 LF $ 250 $ 665,250
Channelized Fence at Railroad Crossing (48" HT) 1,887 LF $ 36 $ 67,932 Emergency Swing Gate 1 EA $ 6,000 $ 6,000
30" High Visibility Panels 10 EA $ 60 $ 600
3' Wide Detectable Warning Strip 600 SF $ 60 $ 36,000
CPUC Signal/Gate System 1 LS $ 470,000 $ 470,000
Signal House 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 1,967,242
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) &
Implementation 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Subtotal $ 320,000
$ 3,344,442
Coastal Connections Concept 4 (At-Grade Crossing 7th-8th St, Ramps to Beach) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 4 AG 7th-8th Ramps Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 225 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 90,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 37,500
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 105,000 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 90,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Total 13.75% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 412,500
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 90,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 37,500
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 180,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 210,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 45,000
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Total 20.75% DESIGN TOTAL $ 622,500

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 60,000
Total 3.00% $ 90,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 4.5% $ 135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 72,557.36 $ 72,557.36
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ - $ -
Structures 1 LS $ 316,784 $ 316,784
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 1,325,421 $ 1,325,421
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
$ 2,034,762.36
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 200,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 700,000
$ 3,000,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 180,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 6,000 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 3,000 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 105,000 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 450,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 6,000 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 180,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 30,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $960,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $5,220,000
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Coastal Connections Concept 5 (At-Grade Crossing 7th-8th St, Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Concept 5 AG 7th-8th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 226 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 5 (At-Grade Crossing 7th-8th St, Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 412,500 $ 11,550
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 847,500 $ 47,460
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 1,782,000 $ 179,982 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 1,782,000 $ 199,584 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 396,000 $ 55,440
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 494,016
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 5,714,016 Concept 5 AG 7th-8th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 227 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing & Grubbing 4,917 SF $ 0.25 $ 1,229
8' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 4,917 SF $ 10 $ 49,170
Excavate & Fill 288 CY $ 64 $ 18,408
Pipe Culvert East of Railroad 15 LF $ 250 $ 3,750
Subtotal $ 72,557
Civil Improvements
$ -
$ -
Subtotal $ -
Structures
Retaining Walls 1,096 SF $ 154 $ 168,784
Natural Stairs Between 7th St & Railroad 20 LF $ 800 $ 16,000 Natural Stairs to Beach 165 LF $ 800 $ 132,000
Subtotal $ 316,784
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): View Overlook 21 LF $ 130 $ 2,665 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Natural Stairs 43 LF $ 130 $ 5,590 Galvanized Handrail 1,281 LF $ 90 $ 115,290
Channelized Fence at Railroad Crossing (48" HT) 1,421 LF $ 36 $ 51,156 Emergency Swing Gate 1 EA $ 6,000 $ 6,000
30" High Visibility Panels 12 EA $ 60 $ 720
3' Wide Detectable Warning Strip 600 SF $ 60 $ 36,000
CPUC Signal/Gate System 1 LS $ 470,000 $ 470,000
Signal House 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 1,325,421
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) &
Implementation 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Subtotal $ 320,000
$ 2,034,762
Coastal Connections Concept 5 (At-Grade Crossing 7th-8th St, Stairs to Beach) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 5 AG 7th-8th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 228 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 204,000 Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 85,000
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 238,000 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 204,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 935,000
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 204,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 85,000
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 408,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 476,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 102,000
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $1,411,000

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 136,000
Total 3.00% $204,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 2.0% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 366,151 $ 366,151
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ - $ -
Structures 1 LS $ 3,527,380 $ 3,527,380
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 480,715 $ 480,715
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
$4,694,246
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 400,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 1,600,000
$6,800,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 408,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 13,600 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 6,800 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 238,000 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 1,020,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 13,600 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 408,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 68,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $2,176,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $11,661,000
Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Coastal Connections Concept 6 (Undercrossing 7th-8th St, Ramps to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Concept 6 UC 7th-8th Ramps Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 229 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 6 (Undercrossing 7th-8th St, Ramps to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 935,000 $ 26,180
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 1,750,000 $ 98,000
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 4,039,200 $ 407,959 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 4,039,200 $ 452,390 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 897,600 $ 125,664
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 1,110,194
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 12,771,194 Concept 6 UC 7th-8th Ramps Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 230 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing & Grubbing 22,410 SF $ 0.25 $ 5,603
8' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 22,410 SF $ 10 $ 224,100
Excavate & Fill 2,132 CY $ 64 $ 136,448
Subtotal $ 366,151
Civil Improvements
$ -
$ -
Subtotal $ -
Structures
Retaining Walls 20,970 SF $ 154 $ 3,229,380
Furnish Bent Cap 2 EA $ 30,000 $ 60,000
Erect Bent Cap 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000
Furnish Abutment 2 EA $ 30,000 $ 60,000
Erect Abutment 2 EA $ 20,000 $ 40,000
Furnish Precast Slab Girder 2 EA $ 25,000 $ 50,000
Erect Precast Slab Girder 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000
Furish Precast Wingwall 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000
Erect Precast Wingwall 2 EA $ 4,000 $ 8,000
Remove and Re-Install Track 20 TF $ 1,000 $ 20,000
Subtotal $ 3,527,380
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): View Overlook 90 LF $ 130 $ 11,700 IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): Ramps 834 LF $ 130 $ 108,355 Galvanized Handrail 2,474 LF $ 90 $ 222,660
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 480,715
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) &
Implementation 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Subtotal $ 320,000
$ 4,694,246
Coastal Connections Concept 6 (Undercrossing 7th-8th St, Ramps to Beach) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 6 UC 7th-8th Ramps Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 231 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal

ENVIRONMENTAL
Agency Environmental Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 111,000 Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 46,300
Agency Environmental Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
Design-Preliminary Engineering (30%) 3.50% x CCE $ 129,500 Environmental Clearance 3.00% x CCE $ 111,000
Independent Peer Reviews 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
PA&ED Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
Total 13.8% ENVIRONMENTAL TOTAL $ 508,800
DESIGN
Agency Design Admin-SANDAG 3.00% x CCE $ 111,000
Agency Program Mgmt-SANDAG 1.25% x CCE $ 46,300
Agency Design Admin-NCTD 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
Design-30% to 60% 6.00% x CCE $ 222,000
Design-60% to Final PS&E, Bid Support 7.00% x CCE $ 259,000 Independent Peer Reviews 1.50% x CCE $ 55,500
PS&E Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
Total 20.8% DESIGN TOTAL $767,800

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS
Legal 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
Communication 2.00% x CCE $ 74,000
Total 3.00% $111,000

RIGHT OF WAY
Property Acquisition 1 LS $ - $ -
Temporary Easements 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Right of Way Contingency 35% x R/W Costs $ 35,000
Total 3.6% $135,000

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE
See Sheet 3
Site Civil 1 LS $ 131,033 $ 131,033
Civil Improvements 1 LS $ - $ -
Structures 1 LS $ 1,651,210 $ 1,651,210
Architectural & Lighting 1 LS $ 373,240 $ 373,240
Site Mitigation (SWPPP) 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
$2,475,483
Contractor Mobilization 7.5% X BCE $ 200,000
Constractor Demobilization 2.5% X BCE $ 100,000
Time Related Overhead (Per Caltrans Contract) 0% X BCE $ - Construction Contingency 35% X BCE $ 900,000
$3,700,000
ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS Years
Agency Construction Admin. (SANDAG) 6.00% x CCE $ 222,000 Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. (SANDAG) 0.20% x CCE $ 7,400 Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 0.10% x CCE $ 3,700 Design Support During Construction 3.50% x CCE $ 129,500 Construction Management 15.00% x CCE $ 555,000
NCTD PTC & Signal Support & Testing 0.20% x CCE $ 7,400 Flagging Services 6.00% x CCE $ 222,000
ACC Contingency 1.00% x CCE $ 37,000
Total 32.0% ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $1,184,000

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Non-Tidal Wetlands 0 Acre $ 228,590 $0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (2022 Dollars) $6,406,600
Coastal Connections Concept 7 (Undercrossing 7th-8th St, Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

Base Construction Estimate (BCE)

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION TOTAL

LEGAL / COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL
Concept 7 UC 7th-8th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 1 of 3 232 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Conceptual
WSP & Villa Civil
Item Quantity Unit Unit
Price Amount* Subtotal
Coastal Connections Concept 7 (Undercrossing 7th-8th St, Stairs to Beach) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:

Revised: November 30, 2022 Estimated By:

COST ESCALATION
Year of Expenditure Annual %
(Construction)
Annual %
(Design
Consultant)
Cumulative Escalation
(Construction) Expenditures** TOTAL Escalation
FY23 PA&ED 4.4% 2.8% 4.4% $ 508,800 $ 14,246
FY24 PS&E 2.9% 2.8% 7.3% $ 1,013,800 $ 56,773
FY25 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 10.1% $ 2,197,800 $ 221,978 FY26 Construction 2.8% 2.8% 12.9% $ 2,197,800 $ 246,154 FY27 Closeout 2.8% 2.8% 15.8% $ 488,400 $ 68,376
FY28 2.8% 2.8% 18.6% $ -
Estimated Escalation $ 607,527
PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS $ 7,014,127 Concept 7 UC 7th-8th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 2 of 3 233 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Construction Cost Estimate Design Level: Conceptual
Estimated By: WSP & Villa Civil
Item QTY Unit Unit
Price Cost Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION
Site Civil
Clearing & Grubbing 6,059 SF $ 0.25 $ 1,515
8' Decomposed Granite (DG) Path, stabilized for accessibility compliance 6,059 SF $ 10 $ 60,590
Excavate & Fill 1,077 CY $ 64 $ 68,928
Subtotal $ 131,033
Civil Improvements
$ -
$ -
Subtotal $ -
Structures
Retaining Walls 8,065 SF $ 154 $ 1,242,010
Furnish Bent Cap 2 EA $ 30,000 $ 60,000
Erect Bent Cap 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000
Furnish Abutment 2 EA $ 30,000 $ 60,000
Erect Abutment 2 EA $ 20,000 $ 40,000
Furnish Precast Slab Girder 2 EA $ 25,000 $ 50,000
Erect Precast Slab Girder 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000
Furish Precast Wingwall 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000
Erect Precast Wingwall 2 EA $ 4,000 $ 8,000
Remove and Re-Install Track 20 TF $ 1,000 $ 20,000
Natural Stairs to Beach 139 LF $ 800 $ 111,200
Subtotal $ 1,651,210
Architectural & Lighting
IPE Post & Cable Fence w Guardrail (42" HT): View Overlook 886 LF $ 130 $ 115,180 Galvanized Handrail 1,334 LF $ 90 $ 120,060
Signage 1 LS $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Light Fixtures 1 LS $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Misc. Architectural Elements (decorative tile, decorative cairn, rock/pebble, etc.) 1 LS $ 82,000 $ 82,000
Subtotal $ 373,240
Site Mitigation
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) &
Implementation 1 LS $ 320,000 $ 320,000
Subtotal $ 320,000
$ 2,475,483
Coastal Connections Concept 7 (Undercrossing 7th-8th St, Stairs to Beach) Per WSP Concept Estimate Dated: November 23, 2022

BASE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE (BCE)
Concept 7 UC 7th-8th Stairs Estimate DRAFT 2022-11-30 Sheet 3 of 3 234 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Coastal Connections
Conceptual Planning Study

APPENDIX E

SANTA CLAUS LANE AT-GRADE CROSSING APPROVAL

MATERIALS
Application to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).....................................2 Application Attachments ...........................................................................................14 CPUC Decision.......................................................................................................113 235 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
236 December 5, 2022 Item 01
237 December 5, 2022 Item 01
238 December 5, 2022 Item 01
239 December 5, 2022 Item 01
240 December 5, 2022 Item 01
241 December 5, 2022 Item 01
242 December 5, 2022 Item 01
243 December 5, 2022 Item 01
244 December 5, 2022 Item 01
245 December 5, 2022 Item 01
246 December 5, 2022 Item 01
247 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
248 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
249 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
250 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
251 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
252 December 5, 2022 Item 01
253 December 5, 2022 Item 01
254 December 5, 2022 Item 01
11-21-16
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
255 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
256 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
257 December 5, 2022 Item 01
258 December 5, 2022 Item 01
259 December 5, 2022 Item 01
260 December 5, 2022 Item 01
261 December 5, 2022 Item 01
262 December 5, 2022 Item 01
263 December 5, 2022 Item 01
264 December 5, 2022 Item 01
265 December 5, 2022 Item 01
266 December 5, 2022 Item 01
267 December 5, 2022 Item 01
268 December 5, 2022 Item 01
269 December 5, 2022 Item 01
270 December 5, 2022 Item 01
271 December 5, 2022 Item 01
272 December 5, 2022 Item 01
273 December 5, 2022 Item 01
274 December 5, 2022 Item 01
275 December 5, 2022 Item 01
276 December 5, 2022 Item 01
277 December 5, 2022 Item 01
278 December 5, 2022 Item 01
279 December 5, 2022 Item 01
280 December 5, 2022 Item 01
281 December 5, 2022 Item 01
282 December 5, 2022 Item 01
283 December 5, 2022 Item 01
284 December 5, 2022 Item 01
285 December 5, 2022 Item 01
286 December 5, 2022 Item 01
287 December 5, 2022 Item 01
288 December 5, 2022 Item 01
289 December 5, 2022 Item 01
290 December 5, 2022 Item 01
291 December 5, 2022 Item 01
292 December 5, 2022 Item 01
293 December 5, 2022 Item 01
294 December 5, 2022 Item 01
295 December 5, 2022 Item 01
296 December 5, 2022 Item 01
297 December 5, 2022 Item 01
298 December 5, 2022 Item 01
299 December 5, 2022 Item 01
300 December 5, 2022 Item 01
301 December 5, 2022 Item 01
302 December 5, 2022 Item 01
303 December 5, 2022 Item 01
304 December 5, 2022 Item 01
305 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
306 December 5, 2022 Item 01
307 December 5, 2022 Item 01
308 December 5, 2022 Item 01
309 December 5, 2022 Item 01
310 December 5, 2022 Item 01
311 December 5, 2022 Item 01
312 December 5, 2022 Item 01
313 December 5, 2022 Item 01
314 December 5, 2022 Item 01
315 December 5, 2022 Item 01
316 December 5, 2022 Item 01
317 December 5, 2022 Item 01
318 December 5, 2022 Item 01
319 December 5, 2022 Item 01
320 December 5, 2022 Item 01
321 December 5, 2022 Item 01
322 December 5, 2022 Item 01
323 December 5, 2022 Item 01
324 December 5, 2022 Item 01
325 December 5, 2022 Item 01
326 December 5, 2022 Item 01
327 December 5, 2022 Item 01
328 December 5, 2022 Item 01
329 December 5, 2022 Item 01
330 December 5, 2022 Item 01
331 December 5, 2022 Item 01
332 December 5, 2022 Item 01
333 December 5, 2022 Item 01
334 December 5, 2022 Item 01
335 December 5, 2022 Item 01
336 December 5, 2022 Item 01
337 December 5, 2022 Item 01
338 December 5, 2022 Item 01
339 December 5, 2022 Item 01
340 December 5, 2022 Item 01
341 December 5, 2022 Item 01
342 December 5, 2022 Item 01
343 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A1612014
FILED
12-21-16
04:59 PM
344 December 5, 2022 Item 01
345 December 5, 2022 Item 01
346 December 5, 2022 Item 01
210041314 - 1 -
SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1 Date of Issuance February 9, 2018

Decision D.18-02-005 February 8, 2018

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Santa Barbara County
for authority to construct a pedestrian
at-grade rail crossing, Santa Claus
Lane, at Mile Post 375.96, Union Pacific
Railroad Santa Barbara Subdivision,
proposed CPUC Number, 001E-375.96-
D; USDOT 450433W.

Application 16-12-014
(Filed December 21, 2016)

DECISION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

TO CONSTRUCT AN AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN-RAIL

CROSSING AT SANTA CLAUS LANE, ACROSS THE UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD SANTA BARBARA SUBDIVISION LINE TRACK

IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Summary
This decision grants the County of Santa Barbara authorization to construct a public at-grade pedestrian-rail crossing over the Union Pacific Railroad Santa Barbara Subdivision Line track in the County of Santa Barbara.

The new crossing will be identified as Santa Claus Lane, California Public Utilities Commission Crossing (CPUC) Number 001E-375.96-D and United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) Number 450433W. This decision also requires the closure of Lompoc private at-grade highway-rail crossing, across from West Ocean Avenue and La Salle Canyon Road, located on the Union Pacific Railroad Lompoc Branch, Santa Barbara County, identified as California CPUC Number 001EH-5.49-X and US DOT Number 745413D.
347 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 2 -
This proceeding is closed.

Discussion
The County of Santa Barbara (County) proposes to construct a new public at-grade pedestrian-rail crossing (crossing) at Santa Claus Lane over a single track of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Santa Barbara Subdivision Line at Mile Post 375.95. Along approximately 1,370-foot segment of this railroad track, the Pacific Ocean lies to the west and State Route (SR) 101 lies to the east. Santa Claus Lane runs parallel east of the tracks connects with SR 101 off-ramp and Padaro Lane intersection to the north, and SR 101 on-ramp and Sand Point Road intersection to the south.

The Santa Claus Lane roadway shoulders serve as vehicle parking for restaurants and shops in the area. There are several trails along this railroad track segment that visitors use to trespass the UPRR right-of-way and track to access the beach in an unsafe manner. UPRR operates three freight trains a day at 40 MPH, and Amtrak operates 12 passenger trains a day at 50 MPH on the track.

In the Application, the County, in cooperation with the California Coastal Commission (CCC), states that the crossing is necessary to provide a safe and legal public access to the beach. Without the crossing, the only way visitors access the beach is by trespassing across the UPRR right-of-way and track. The County prepared the Santa Claus Lane Pedestrian Rail Crossing Railroad Grade Separation Study (Study) to assess the practicability of grade-separated and atgrade pathway configurations, as well as not opening any new crossing. The Study concluded that the proposed Santa Claus Lane crossing configuration offers a safe and practicable alternative to the existing condition, provided that 348 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 3 -
specific safety treatments are implemented. The County estimates peak daily traffic of 1,400 pedestrians utilizing the crossing when it is opened.

The County will install the following crossing safety treatments as specified in the application and plans:
 Paved pathway approximately 18 feet wide with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant treatments, including detectable warning tactile strips at each pedestrian approach to the track ;  36 inches high pedestrian channelization handrails; Two Pedestrian Commission Standard 9 (flashing light signal assembly with automatic gate arm) warning devices, mounted on the landward and seaward approaches to the crossing;
 Push-to-open emergency swing gates on both sides of the crossing;  Precast concrete crossing panel surface across the track;  High-strength weathered steel (Corten) fence, approximately four feet high along the railroad right of way, at both landward quadrants, with a lockable sliding gate, approximately four feet high, that operates to close the Corten fence gap at the crossing during hazard conditions;
 Post-and-cable fence, approximately four feet high along the railroad right of way, at both seaward quadrants; and
 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) compliant signage and striping, including R15-8 “LOOK” signs and UPRR Standard “NO TRESPASSING” signs.

In Support of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC/Commission) goal of reducing the number of at-grade rail crossings in California, the at-grade 349 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 4 -
highway-rail crossing identified as CPUC Number 001EH-5.49-X and US DOT Number 745413D located on the UPRR Lompoc Branch will be closed.

Environmental Review and CEQA Compliance
The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) applies to discretionary projects to be carried out or approved by public agencies. A basic purpose of CEQA is to inform governmental decision makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects of the proposed activities. Since the project is subject to CEQA and the Commission must issue a discretionary decision in order for the project to proceed (i.e., the Commission has the exclusive authority to approve the project pursuant to Section 1202 of the Public Utilities Code), the Commission must consider the environmental consequences of the project by acting as either a lead or responsible agency under CEQA.

The lead agency is either the public agency that carries out the project,1 or the one with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.2 Here, the County is the lead agency for this project, and the Commission is a responsible agency because it has jurisdiction to issue a permit for the project. As a responsible agency under CEQA, the Commission must consider the lead agency’s environmental documents and findings before acting on or approving this project.3 As a responsible agency, the Commission is responsible for mitigating or avoiding only the direct or indirect environmental

1 CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), Section 15051(a). 2 CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), Section 15051(b). 3 CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15050(b) and 15096.
350 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 5 -
effects of those parts of the project which it decides to carry out, finance, or approve.4
On May 26, 2016, the County issued the Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (FMND), for Santa Claus Lane Pedestrian At-Grade Rail Crossing, within which the Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures were summarized.

On June 7, 2016, the County filed a Notice of Determination (NOD), approving the project and adopting the existing FMND. The NOD states that (1) the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (2) a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; (3) mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project; (4) a mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project; (5) a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) was not adopted for this project; (6) findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and (7) the project did require discretionary approval from a state agency.

Impacts identified under CEQA, relating to the construction and implementation of the rail-crossing aspects of the overall project, are within the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The County’s CEQA process identified impacts in the following areas as potentially significant without mitigation measures incorporated: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and water resources/flooding. However, specific mitigation measures applied to each area would ensure that the project would not result in any significant cumulative impacts.

4 CEQA Guideline Section 15096(g).
351 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 6 -
The Commission finds the proposed mitigation measures feasible and reasonable. The Commission reviewed and considered the County’s FMND and NOD as they relate to this at-grade pedestrian rail crossing and finds them adequate for our decision-making purposes.

Filing Requirements and Staff Recommendation
The application is in compliance with the Commission’s filing requirements, including Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, which relates to the construction of a public road across a railroad.

The Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division, Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch has inspected the site of the proposed crossing, reviewed and analyzed the plans submitted with the application, and recommends that the requested authority to construct the subject at-grade pedestrian rail crossing be granted for a period of three years.

Categorization and Need for Hearings
In Resolution ALJ 176-3391, January 19, 2017, the Commission preliminarily categorized this application as ratesetting, and preliminarily determined that hearings were not necessary. No protests have been received. A public hearing is not necessary, and it is not necessary to disturb the preliminary determinations.

Waiver of Comment Period
This is an uncontested matter in which the decision grants the relief requested. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 311(g)(2) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 14.6(c)(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the otherwise applicable 30-day period for public review and comment is waived.

Assignment of Proceeding
Elizaveta Malashenko is the assigned Examiner in this proceeding. 352 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 7 -
Findings of Fact

1. Notice of the application was published in the Commission’s Daily Calendar on December 30, 2016.

2. The County requests authority, under Public Utilities Code Sections 1201- 1205, to construct a new public at-grade pedestrian-rail crossing over the UPRR Santa Barbara Subdivision track in the County of Santa Barbara. The crossing will be identified as Santa Claus Lane, CPUC Crossing Number 001E-375.96-D and US DOT Number 450433W.

3. The County is the lead agency for this project under CEQA, as amended.

4. On May 26, 2016, the County issued the Proposed FMND for Santa Claus Lane Pedestrian At-Grade Rail Crossing, within which the Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures were summarized.

5. On June 7, 2016, the County filed a NOD, approving the project and adopting the existing FMND.

6. The County’s CEQA process identified impacts in the following areas as potentially significant without mitigation measures incorporated: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and water resources/flooding.

However, specific mitigation measures applied to each area would ensure that the project would not result in any significant cumulative impacts.

7. The crossing configuration offers a safe and practicable alternative over no new crossing and the existing “No Trespassing” railroad restrictions, provided a specific list of safety treatments are implemented.

8. The Commission is a responsible agency for this project and has reviewed and considered the lead agency’s FMND, and NOD.
353 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 8 -
Conclusions of Law

1. Safety, traffic, noise, and other impacts related to the crossing are areas within the scope of the Commission’s permitting process.

2. The FMND and NOD prepared by the County as the documentation required by CEQA for the project are adequate for our decision-making purposes.

3. The FMND and NOD were completed in compliance with CEQA.

4. The FMND and NOD reflect the Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

5. The application is uncontested and a public hearing is not necessary.

6. The application should be granted as set forth in the following Order.

7. The proceeding should be closed.

O R D E R
IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The County of Santa Barbara is authorized to construct a new public atgrade pedestrian-rail crossing over the Union Pacific Railroad Santa Barbara Subdivision track at milepost 375.96, in the County of Santa Barbara.

2. The new public Santa Claus Lane at-grade pedestrian-rail crossing shall have the crossing treatments and configuration described above and specified in the application, amendment, and application attachments. The new public Santa Claus Lane at-grade pedestrian rail crossing shall be identified as California Public Utilities Commission Crossing Number 001E-375.96-D and United States Department of Transportation Number 450433W.
354 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 9 -

3. The private at-grade highway-rail crossing located on the Union Pacific Railroad Lompoc Branch, identified as California Public Utilities Number 001EH-5.49-X and United States Department of Transportation Number 745413D shall be permanently closed.

4. The County of Santa Barbara shall construct and maintain the highstrength weathered steel (Corten) fence on the landward side of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.

5. The County of Santa Barbara shall construct and maintain the post and cable fence on the seaward side of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.

6. Union Pacific Railroad shall be responsible for the operation of the sliding gates, locking the gates in the event of high surf to prevent pedestrians from entering the flooded crossing and reopening once determined the crossing is safe to cross.

7. Union Pacific Railroad shall ensure that Emergency Notification Systems Signs are installed to comply with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulation Section 234.309.

8. The County of Santa Barbara shall notify the California Public Utilities Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division, Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch at least five business days prior to opening the atgrade pedestrian-rail crossing. Notification must be made to [email protected].

9. Within 30 days after completion of the work under this order, the County of Santa Barbara shall notify the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch in writing, by submitting a completed California Public Utilities Commission Standard (CPUC) Form G (Report of Changes at Highway Grade Crossings and Separations), of the completion of 355 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 10 -
the authorized work to construct the new pedestrian crossing and close the private crossing. Form G requirements and forms can be obtained at the CPUC web site Form G page at www.cpuc.ca.gov/Crossings/.

This report may be submitted electronically to [email protected].

10.Within 30 days after completion of the work under this order, Union Pacific Railroad shall notify the Federal Railroad Administration of the existence/closure of the affected at-grade pedestrian-rail and highwayrail crossings by submitting a United States Department of Transportation CROSSING INVENTORY FORM, form FRA F6180.71.

Concurrently the Union Pacific Railroad shall provide a copy of the inventory forms to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division, Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch.

This copy of the form may be submitted electronically to [email protected].

11.The County of Santa Barbara shall comply with all applicable rules, including California Public Utilities Commission General Orders, the United States Department of Transportation’s Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Transportation Facilities and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

12.This authorization shall expire if not exercised within three years unless time is extended or if the above conditions are not satisfied.

Authorization may be revoked or modified if public convenience, necessity, or safety so requires.

13.A request for extension of the 3-year authorization period must be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division – Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch at least 356 December 5, 2022 Item 01
A.16-12-014 SED/EIM/RNC/MDR/AGG/MB3/OG1/
- 11 -
30 days before its expiration of that period. A copy of the extension request shall be sent to all interested parties.

14.This application is granted as set forth above.

15.Application 16-12-014 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated February 8, 2018, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH

MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES

CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
357 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Coastal Connections
Conceptual Planning Study

APPENDIX F

MONTGOMERY AVENUE NOISE STUDY WAYSIDE HORN

DEMONSTRATION REPORT
358 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Montgomery Avenue
Noise Study - Wayside
Horn Demonstration
Acoustic Monitoring
Report
Montgomery Pedestrian Crossing Project
City of Encinitas, California
January 6, 2017
359 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Executive Summary
hdrinc.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2

2. PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ 3

3. BACKGROUND FOR HORN USE ...................................................................................... 4

4. NOISE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND ........................................................................................................ 5

4.2 NOISE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................... 6

4.3 EXISTING NOISE MEASUREMENTS............................................................................................... 7

4.4 WAYSIDE HORN DEMONSTRATION ............................................................................................ 12

4.5 WAYSIDE HORN NOISE MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 13

4.6 COMPARISON OF WAYSIDE HORN VS. AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS ..................................... 15

4.7 MODELED NOISE CONTOURS.................................................................................................... 23 360 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Executive Summary
hdrinc.com
i
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Montgomery Ave. Pedestrian Crossing Location Existing Condition .......................... 2 Figure 2-1. Montgomery Ave. Pedestrian Crossing Location Map ............................................... 3 Figure 2-2. LOSSAN Rail Corridor ................................................................................................ 4 Figure 4-1. Typical Noise Levels ................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4-2. Noise Study Area ........................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4-3. Graphical Comparison of Hourly Leq Values ............................................................. 9 Figure 4-4. Graphical Comparison of Hourly Lmax Values ......................................................... 11 Figure 4-5. Photograph of Wayside Horn Demonstration ........................................................... 12 Figure 4-6. Wayside Horn Lmax at ML3a ................................................................................... 13 Figure 4-7. Wayside Horn Lmax at LT1 ...................................................................................... 14 Figure 4-8. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT1 ................................ 15 Figure 4-9. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT2 ................................ 16 Figure 4-10. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT3 .............................. 17 Figure 4-11. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT4 .............................. 18 Figure 4-12. Option 1 Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations ................................... 19 Figure 4-13. Option 2 Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations ................................... 20 Figure 4-14. Option 3 Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations ................................... 21 Figure 4-15. Locomotive Horn Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations ..................... 22 Figure 4-16. Option 1 Wayside Horn Noise Contours ................................................................. 23 Figure 4-17. Option 2 Wayside Horn Noise Contours ................................................................. 24 Figure 4-18. Option 3 Wayside Horn Noise Contours ................................................................. 25 Figure 4-19. Locomotive Horn Noise Contours ........................................................................... 26 List of Tables
Table 4-1. 24-hour Noise Measurement Locations ....................................................................... 7 361 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Executive Summary
hdrinc.com
ii
Table 4-2. Comparison of Measured Hourly Leq .......................................................................... 8 Table 4-3. Comparison of Measured Hourly Lmax ..................................................................... 10 362 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Executive Summary
hdrinc.com
1 Executive Summary
The purpose of the Montgomery Avenue (Ave.) Noise Study (Report) is to present the assessment of existing noise levels, and future noise associated with a proposed wayside horn near a proposed at-grade pedestrian crossing across the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks near Montgomery Ave. in the City of Encinitas, CA. Currently, pedestrians cannot legally cross the railroad at Montgomery Ave.

This study delineated a noise study area using Federal Transit Administration methods. HDR then measured outdoor noise levels continuously for 24 hours at four locations. HDR also measured noise levels associated with a demonstration of a stationary wayside horn. Three different stationary wayside horn options were evaluated in this demonstration. HDR measured noise levels throughout the study area during each of these demonstrations. Results of those measurements are presented in this report, and compared with each other in an effort to help readers understand how noise from each of the wayside horn options compares to existing noise levels in the study area.

Finally this report presents noise contour figures that are based on modeling. The figures depict how the directionality of each of the three stationary wayside horn options affects the way sound is dispersed throughout the study area.

Results of this study indicate that Option 1 introduces the highest levels of wayside horn noise into the study area. Stakeholders may consider this to be the most objectionable and intrusive option. Option 3 introduces the lowest levels of wayside horn noise into the study area, and may be the least intrusive and objectionable.
363 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Introduction
hdrinc.com
2 1. Introduction
Currently, pedestrians cannot legally cross the railroad track near Montgomery Ave. At this location pedestrians routinely trespass onto NCTD property and cross the track. The nearest legal pedestrian crossings are at Santa Fe Drive, 0.8 miles north, and at Chesterfield Drive,

0.5 miles south.

The July 2009 San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project Prioritization Analysis prepared for the California Department of Transportation identifies several track-related and non-track-related projects to improve capacity, ridership, travel times, operational flexibility and reliability, and ontime performance for all passenger train services on the LOSSAN Corridor. The LOSSAN Project Prioritization identifies four Encinitas pedestrian grade separations to meet midterm 2025 goals.

Service levels are projected to increase from a 2012 base year of 50 trains to 79 trains in 2025 for midterm projections according to the LOSSAN Project Prioritization. The proposed pedestrian crossing at Montgomery Ave. will increase safety by providing another safe and legal railroad crossing which will be important as train volumes continue to increase. The crossing at Montgomery Ave. will provide a more direct route to beach access from the surrounding Cardiff community. The location, as shown in Figure 1-1, today experiences a large number of trespassers including over 90 pedestrians per hour crossing the tracks during the 2016 President’s Day weekend.

Figure 1-1. Montgomery Ave. Pedestrian Crossing Location Existing Condition 364 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Project Location
hdrinc.com
3 2. Project Location
The proposed pedestrian crossing is located in the Cardiff By The Sea (Cardiff) community in the City of Encinitas. The project lies within and adjacent to North County Transit District (NCTD) right-of-way west of the intersection of Montgomery Ave. and San Elijo Ave. The proposed project will provide a new connection for pedestrians between the Cardiff community and beach areas to the west through the railroad ROW owned and operated by NCTD at Mile Post 239.36 of the San Diego Subdivision. The maps included as Figures 2-1 and 2-2 respectively identify the project location relative to the local street network and the regional rail network.

Figure 2-1. Montgomery Ave. Pedestrian Crossing Location Map 365 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Background for Horn Use
hdrinc.com
4 Figure 2-2. LOSSAN Rail Corridor

3. Background for Horn Use
The use of a horn for pedestrian crossings is standard practice required by CPUC and the FRA.

In standard application, the locomotive will sound its112 decibel horn when approaching the grade crossing approximately 20 seconds before, or a minimum of ¼ mile away. If the City of Encinitas were to pursue a quiet zone, the locomotive would only sound its horn in emergency situations. Based on other pedestrian crossings in California quiet zones, the CPUC has required the installation of wayside horns at pedestrian only at-grade crossings. The current standards for wayside horns are applicable to roadway crossings and consist of 92 decibel horns. However, at similar pedestrian only quiet zone crossings in San Clemente California, the CPUC approved a modified wayside horn of 80 decibels.

4. Noise Study
This noise study incorporated elements of train and transit noise assessment methods published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Railroad Administration Project Location
366 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
5 (FRA). The noise study area was determined using FTA noise screening assessment procedures. Existing noise levels were measured using FTA methods. Additional measurements occurred during a wayside horn demonstration in which there were three different versions of the wayside horn used. This report presents and compares results of both sets of measurements. This report also presents noise contour figures depicting how propagation of sound from the wayside horn demonstration compares to sound propagating through the study area when locomotive horns are used. These noise contour figures are based on modeling results, not measurements.

4.1 Fundamentals of Sound
Noise is usually defined as sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech communication and hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Under certain conditions, noise may cause hearing loss, interfere with human activities, and in various ways may affect people’s health and well-being.

The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude of sound because it accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude. When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound pressure levels are typically used to account for the response of the human ear to different frequencies. The term “A-weighted” refers to a filtering of the noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the noisiness of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community noise. Figure 4-1 illustrates typical A-weighted sound pressure levels for various noise sources.

Decibels are a logarithmic unit, and therefore combining two noise levels is not a simple arithmetic function. When two noise levels are added together, the resulting noise level is not the arithmetic sum of the two. When two identical noise levels are added together, the result is a three dB increase. If the two noise levels being added together are not identical, the incremental increase will be less than three dB. As the difference between the two noise levels increases, the resulting incremental change decreases. If the difference between the two noise levels is 10 dB or more, there is no incremental change (the resulting noise level is the louder of the two noise levels being combined). For example, when two noise levels differ by 0 to 1 dB and you combine them, you add 3 dB to higher value. When two noise levels differ by 2 to 3 dB, you add 2 dB to the higher noise level. If the difference is 4 to 9 dB, you add 1 dB. And if the difference is 10 dB or more, there is no incremental increase. 367 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
6 Figure 4-1. Typical Noise Levels
Source: FTA 2006
Community noise levels usually change continuously during the day. The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq) is normally used to describe community noise. The Leq is the equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound pressure level that would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying A-weighted sound pressure level during the same time interval. The maximum sound pressure level (Lmax) is the greatest instantaneous sound pressure level observed during a single noise measurement interval.

4.2 Noise Study Area
The boundaries of the noise study area were determined using screening assessment methods published by FTA (FTA, 2006). Based on FTA guidance, a screening distance of 1,200 feet (from the location of the proposed pedestrian crossing) was used to delineate the noise study area. Figure 4-2 shows the noise study area and where noise measurements occurred (those measurements are discussed in the following sections).
368 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
7 Figure 4-2. Noise Study Area

4.3 Existing Noise Measurements
In accordance with FRA and FTA noise assessment methodologies, existing noise levels were measured for a continuous 24-hour period at four locations. Table 4-1 presents the locations where the 24-hour noise measurements occurred.

Table 4-1. 24-hour Noise Measurement Locations

ID LOCATION
1 1729 San Elijo Avenue
2 1805 Westminster Drive
3 Cardiff Elementary School
4 San Elijo State Beach Campground
Results of the 24-hour noise measurements are discussed below. 369 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
8 Table 4-2 presents the results of the 24-hour and 1-hour noise measurements. The table shows the measured Leq at each long term (24-hour) measurement location (LT1, etc.). The Leq is a type of average noise level.

Table 4-2. Comparison of Measured Hourly Leq
HOUR

HOURLY LEQ (DBA)
LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4
0:00 65 57 50 60
1:00 51 50 43 58
2:00 50 46 42 49
3:00 52 46 43 44
4:00 55 47 46 50
5:00 60 55 53 57
6:00 63 61 54 65
7:00 67 58 56 68
8:00 67 57 56 69
9:00 65 54 58 67
10:00 65 58 58 66
11:00 66 54 60 66
12:00 66 56 58 67
13:00 65 55 59 67
14:00 64 57 58 67
15:00 66 59 56 67
16:00 65 61 55 68
17:00 66 61 57 69
18:00 64 60 56 68
19:00 65 54 53 67
20:00 63 54 50 64
21:00 63 54 53 62
22:00 62 61 53 62
23:00 60 56 52 58
370 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
9 Figure 4-3 shows a graphical comparison of the measured Leq values, allowing readers to observe how average hourly noise levels change at each measurement location.

Figure 4-3. Graphical Comparison of Hourly Leq Values
Figure 4-3 above shows that the quietest nighttime hours are between 1:00 am and 4:00 am. 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
24‐Hour Leq
Ambient Hourly Leq ‐ LT1
Ambient Hourly Leq ‐ LT2
Ambient Hourly Leq ‐ LT3
Ambient Hourly Leq ‐ LT4
371 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
10 Table 4-3 presents the maximum noise level (Lmax) measured each hour during the 24-hour measurements.

Table 4-3. Comparison of Measured Hourly Lmax
HOUR

MAXIMUM HOURLY LMAX (DBA)
LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4
0:00 95 80 72 80
1:00 71 68 54 81
2:00 74 57 63 74
3:00 67 53 61 69
4:00 79 60 58 75
5:00 85 75 74 78
6:00 82 90 76 84
7:00 83 75 77 85
8:00 84 77 78 83
9:00 87 74 76 82
10:00 88 86 81 82
11:00 93 73 82 82
12:00 95 76 76 85
13:00 86 76 77 89
14:00 80 76 74 87
15:00 89 78 71 83
16:00 82 78 72 82
17:00 92 77 79 89
18:00 84 78 77 88
19:00 91 74 68 91
20:00 81 77 66 79
21:00 90 77 78 79
22:00 85 80 75 85
23:00 86 78 80 77
372 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
11 Figure 4-4 shows a graphical comparison of the measured Lmax values, allowing readers to observe how maximum hourly noise levels change at each measurement location.

Figure 4-4. Graphical Comparison of Hourly Lmax Values
Figure 4-4 above shows that maximum noise levels fluctuate throughout the day, and during some hours the Lmax is quite loud (above 80 dBA). The Lmax represents the loudest instantaneous noise level each hour, and could have a very short duration. 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level, Ldn (dBA)
Time hh:mm
24‐hour Hourly Lmax
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT4
373 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
12 4.4 Wayside Horn Demonstration
During the demonstration, wayside horns were placed on both sides of the RR tracks using a “cherry picker” or bucket truck on each side of the tracks. The wayside horn demonstration utilized three types of wayside horns. They included:
 Option 1: Conventional Horn
Wayside horns will be sounded at a level of 92 dB(A) at a distance of 100 feet measured from the centerline of the near track. Horns are aimed away from the tracks towards the proposed walkway approaches.
 Option 2: Horn Towards Tracks
Wayside horns will be sounded at a level of 92 dB(A) measured directly above the tracks. Horns are aimed down towards the tracks.
 Option 3: Modified Pedestrian Horn
Option three will be to simulate pedestrian horns that will provide a sound level of 80 dB(A) measured approximately 20 feet from the proposed crossing gates. Noise is emitted from the bollard on each side of the proposed crossing.

Figure 4-5 shows the two bucket trucks used during the wayside horn demonstration.

Figure 4-5. Photograph of Wayside Horn Demonstration
374 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
13 4.5 Wayside Horn Noise Measurements
HDR measured noise from the 3 types of wayside horns used during the demonstration. The duration of each measurement was short and lasted as long as a wayside horn event. The measurements occurred at 10 locations in the study area. Brief ambient noise measurements were performed either before or after each wayside horn simulation, at each measurement location.

Figure 4-6 shows the maximum noise levels (Lmax) measured at ML3a during the wayside horn measurements. It also shows results of an ambient noise measurement performed at that location, without any wayside horn noise present. This facilitates a comparison of wayside horn noise with background noise at this location.

Figure 4-6. Wayside Horn Lmax at ML3a
The individual horn events appear as spikes in the measurement results shown in the graph above; the ambient noise measurement also exhibits spikes that are unrelated to the horn demonstration. Note that maximum noise levels among the data above are fairly comparable. 375 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
14 Figure 4-7 presents the wayside horn noise (Lmax) measured at LT1. It also shows results of an ambient noise measurements performed at that location, without any wayside horn noise present. This facilitates a comparison of wayside horn noise with background noise at this location.

Figure 4-7. Wayside Horn Lmax at LT1
This data shows that wayside horn type 1 is dramatically louder than the other two horn types when measured at this location. This data shows that the horns themselves are calibrated to a fairly constant sound pressure level when they are actuated. This data also shows that horn Types 2 and 3 (Options 2 and 3) are understandably quieter at this location (because they are not pointed directly at the walkway, towards the nearest homes). 376 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
15 4.6 Comparison of Wayside Horn vs. Ambient Noise
Measurements
In this section the Lmax from wayside horn demonstrations is compared with the average hourly noise level (Leq) measured in the project area. These figures also show the Lmax associated with locomotive horn use during train pass-by events. The purpose of this comparison is to show how wayside horn noise will be different from the ambient or background noise throughout the day at each of the 24-hour measurement locations.

Figure 4-8 compares the wayside horn Lmax and hourly Leq measured at LT1.

Figure 4-8. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT1 In this and subsequent graphs, the 24 hourly Leq values appear as the fluctuating line in the graphs. The measured Lmax value associated with each wayside horn option appear as fixed lines. These graphs illustrate how the maximum noise level associated with each wayside horn option compares to the ambient noise level measured throughout the day at each location; it’s intended to provide insight on how loud the wayside horns will be in the ambient acoustic environment at each measurement location.

Data in this graph shows that wayside horn Option 1 is dramatically louder than the other two wayside horns at LT1. It also shows that horns 2 and 3 are quieter than hourly Leq values for most of the day and night (except for the quietest hours of the night). Note that the Lmax from train passby events is comparable to the ambient Leq for most of the day. 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
LT1
Ambient Leq
Option 1 Lmax
Option 2 Lmax
Option 3 Lmax
Passby Lmax
377 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
16 Figure 4-9 compares the wayside horn Lmax and hourly Leq measured at LT2.

Figure 4-9. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT2 Data in this graph also shows that wayside horn Option 1 is dramatically louder than the other two wayside horns at LT2. It also shows that horns 2 and 3 are quieter than hourly Leq values for most of the day and night (except for the quietest hours of the night). Again, the Lmax from train passby events is comparable to the ambient Leq for most of the day. 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
LT2
Ambient Leq
Option 1 Lmax
Option 2 Lmax
Option 3 Lmax
Passby Lmax
378 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
17 Figure 4-10 compares the wayside horn Lmax and hourly Leq measured at LT2.

Figure 4-10. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT3 Data in this graph also shows that wayside horn Option 1 is dramatically louder than the other two wayside horns at LT3. It also shows that horns 2 and 3 are quieter than hourly Leq values for most of the day and night, with a few exceptions. However, the Lmax from train passby events is louder than the ambient Leq for most of the day. The figure shows that ambient Leq values are above Option 3 Lmax values at this location for daytime and nighttime hours. The figure also shows that Option 2 Lmax values are closest to the ambient Leq values at this location.
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
LT3
Ambient Leq
Option 1 Lmax
Option 2 Lmax
Option 3 Lmax
Passby Lmax
379 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
18 Figure 4-11 compares the wayside horn Lmax and hourly Leq measured at LT4.

Figure 4-11. Comparison of Wayside Horns Lmax and Ambient Leq at LT4 Data in this graph shows that the Lmax from train passby events is louder than the ambient Leq for most of the day; it is also louder than wayside horn Option 1. Ambient Leq is louder than wayside horns 2 and 3 for most of the day.

The next series of figures presents a comparison of the Lmax measured during each wayside horn option with the ambient hourly Leq; each figure shows data measured at all of the 24-hour measurement locations. The goal of these figures is to show how loud each wayside horn option is at all of the 24-hour measurement locations in a single figure. Readers will be able to understand the effects of each horn on the entire study area through these figures. 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
LT4
Ambient Leq
Option 1 Lmax
Option 2 Lmax
Option 3 Lmax
Passby Lmax
380 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
19 Figure 4-12 shows how the wayside horn Option 1 Lmax at each measurement location compares with the time-varying hourly Leq levels at each location.

Figure 4-12. Option 1 Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations As expected, Option 1 Lmax values are highest at the measurement locations closest to the proposed pedestrian crossing. This Lmax is also higher than ambient hourly Leq values at most locations. This option may be perceived as intrusive by stakeholders throughout the study area because it is louder than average noise levels at most of the measurement locations. 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
Option 1
LT1 Lmax
LT2 Lmax
LT3 Lmax
LT4 Lmax
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT1
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT2
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT3
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT4
381 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
20 Figure 4-13 shows how the wayside horn Option 2 Lmax at each measurement location compares with the time-varying hourly Leq levels at each location.

Figure 4-13. Option 2 Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations As expected, Option 2 Lmax values are lower than Option 1 Lmax values throughout much of the study area. Option 2 Lmax values are also lower than ambient noise levels throughout much of the study area. This option may be less intrusive and less objectionable to stakeholders than Option 1.
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
Option 2
LT1 Lmax
LT2 Lmax
LT3 Lmax
LT4 Lmax
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT1
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT2
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT3
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT4
382 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
21 Figure 4-14 shows how the wayside horn Option 3 Lmax at each measurement location compares with the time-varying hourly Leq levels at each location.

Figure 4-14. Option 3 Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations Maximum noise levels associated with Option 3 are notably below ambient Leq levels at 24- hour measurement locations throughout the study area. Stakeholders may perceive this as the least intrusive wayside horn option.
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
Option 3
LT1 Lmax
LT2 Lmax
LT3 Lmax
LT4 Lmax
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT1
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT2
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT3
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT4
383 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
22 Figure 4-15 shows how the locomotive horn Lmax at each measurement location compares with the time-varying hourly Leq levels at each location.

Figure 4-15. Locomotive Horn Lmax vs. Leq at 24-hour Measurement Locations This figure shows that locomotive horn Lmax values are comparable to ambient Leq values throughout most of the study area.
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Level (dBA)
Time
Locomotive Horn
LT1 Lmax
LT2 Lmax
LT3 Lmax
LT4 Lmax
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT1
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT2
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT3
Ambient Hourly Leq - LT4
384 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
23 4.7 Modeled Noise Contours
This section presents noise contour figures created using an acoustical modeling software called Cadna-A. Cadna is based on international acoustical standards including ISO 9613 (propagation of sound outdoors). The wayside horn options were each modeled a stationary noise sources using the sound pressure levels measured or reported by the manufacturer. If the option has any defined directivity, it was included in the model.

Figure 4-16 shows modeled noise contours associated with the Option 1 wayside horn configuration.

Figure 4-16. Option 1 Wayside Horn Noise Contours
The noise contours are somewhat polar-shaped (with two lobes) focused into and away from the study area. Note the contours closest to LT2 (70 dBA) and 2a (65 dBA). Also note that the 50 dBA contour lines are not visible in this figure. This option introduces the highest levels of wayside horn noise into the study area.
385 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
24 Figure 4-17 shows modeled noise contours associated with the Option 2 wayside horn configuration.

Figure 4-17. Option 2 Wayside Horn Noise Contours
The noise contours are somewhat polar-shaped (two lobes), however they are focused parallel to the rail line. Note the contours closest to LT2 (45 dBA) and 2a (40 dBA). Also note where the 50 dBA contour line is, for comparison with the other noise contour figures. This option introduces less noise into the study area than Option 1. 386 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
25 Figure 4-18 shows modeled noise contours associated with the Option 3 wayside horn configuration.

Figure 4-18. Option 3 Wayside Horn Noise Contours
The noise contours radiate outward equally in all directions (there is no directionality). Note the contours closest to LT2 (40 dBA) and 2a (35 dBA). For comparison purposes, note where the 50 dBA contour line is. Based on modeling results, this option introduces the least amount of noise into the study area.
387 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Encinitas | Montgomery Ave Noise Study
Noise Study
hdrinc.com
26 Figure 4-19 shows modeled noise contours associated with locomotive horn use.

Figure 4-19. Locomotive Horn Noise Contours
Note that the noise contours radiate out into the study area throughout the length of the study area, exposing most of the study area to horn noise. LT2 is between the 55 and 60 dBA contour, and 2a is between the 50 and 55 dBA contours.

In summary, more homes are exposed to noise from horns on locomotives that are moving in both directions (N and S) on the train tracks. Use of a stationary post-mounted wayside horn device dramatically reduces the footprint of homes exposed to horn noise. Option 1 introduces the most noise into the study area; Option 3 introduces the least amount of noise into the study area.
388 December 5, 2022 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Rosemary O'Toole <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:08 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: ITEM 1 SANDAG Draft Coastal Connection Planning Study CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk, DEL MAR,
I would like to submit a RedDot comment on the meeting scheduled today by SANDAG to consider options for train track crossing placement.

I am a 10 year resident of Del Mar living near 6th St and am strongly opposed to any access across the tracks at 7th Street and in favor of access at 11th St. My reasons are as follows:

According to the studies conducted by NCTD, all train deaths over the past 20 plus years have occurred north of 9th Street. So, for safety reasons, the access point should logically be where people are accessing the tracks and getting killed.

This makes sense because 11th street is at track level; therefore it is easier to access the tracks there. People will continue to try to access the tracks at 11th, so putting the access at 7th where no one has been killed in over two decades does not address the safety issue.
2) It will be easier to get approval for an at grade crossing at 11th from the Federal Railroad Safety Administration and the Public Utility Commission because the City and SANDAG can argue that safe access is needed there (not at 7th St) to prevent deaths- since that is where the accidents occur. 3) It will be easier for the City to get funding for the multimillion dollar access because SANDAG can argue an at grade crossing at 11th is necessary for safety reasons because that is where the problem is. 4) The area from 4th to about 9th Street,particularly along Stratford, has significantly more multifamily units (condos, apartments, condominiumized lots) than north of 9th street, which is primarily single family homes on larger lots. As a result, street parking is already a challenge in this area. The City Hall is on 11th street. It has an underground parking structure with public parking- 2 blocks from the access on 11th. 5) As a long time Stratford Ct resident I can attest to the already impossible parking situation at my end of the street. All summer , Fall and Spring, and virtually every weekend of the year, it is impossible to park on the street. Not to mention the crowds that often gather as they prepare to head to the beach or upon their return. Loud conversation, music and automobile noise disturbs any possibility of peaceful existence. Putting a crossing at 7th Street will only make a bad situation unendurable.

Thank you for your consideration,
Rosemary O’Toole
613 Stratford Ct.

Del Mar, CA 92014
1 December 5, 2022 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Udo Wahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:52 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot SANDAG presentation to City 12-5-22
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Above: Swami's crossing looking East
HERE IS MY COMMENT: (Sorry had some trouble formatting) SANDAG at Del Mar City 12-5-22
To: The Del Mar City Council and SANDAG
I am presenting as a 39 year resident of Del Mar
Thank you SANDAG for providing your presentation prior to tonight's meeting. 1 December 5, 2022 Item 01
2 It seems to me that the best option would be an undercrossing at 7th street. This would avoid visual and noise issues that the other options present. As far as whether there should be stairs or a ramp, I think a ramp would be more likely to be acceptable to regulators as it would provide a more accessible option for the public at large, but a stairway would be less intrusive.

However, if an at grade crossing was placed much lower than street level at 7th street that might reduce visual issues and perhaps the noise component.

I wonder if the decibel level of a horn at a pedestrian only crossing must be the same as at a crossing for both peds and vehicles? Could it be much less loud? And can the horns/sounds be positioned somewhat more facing northwest or southwest. If so, that would likely be more acceptable to local residents.

It does not look like an at grade crossing would be low enough though to make that work.

How long would the signal sounds and horn be on for? I noticed that the signal sounds at the 15th St. crossing of a train coming lasted for about 60 seconds and the stationary horn about 40 seconds. Can those times be shortened for a ped crossing? If an undercrossing is chosen it should also provide access to the bluff west of the tracks to beyond where the NCTD right of way ends between 6th and 7th streets and heading south. Something like that has been done in Encinitas at Swami’s where the coastal rail trail blends into the undercrossing.

This is important as there is a lot of bluff and trails that can be enjoyed beyond that right of way to the West.

Also, heading north on the west side of the tracks there is a narrow trail and the ability to walk west of the NCTD right of way hugging the bluff.

In summary, I believe that an undercrossing at 7th street is the best option.

Thank you SANDAG for providing the opportunity for public comment.

Below: Swami's crossing looking West
2 December 5, 2022 Item 01
3 *
Above: 8th St
Below: trail and bluff between 6th and 7th st outside NCTD ROW looking south 3 December 5, 2022 Item 01
4 Below: Narrow trail west of tracks outside of NCTD ROW looking north Below:
11th ST. at grade
4 December 5, 2022 Item 01
5 Aloha!
Udo Wahn M.D.
1227 Stratford Ct
Del Mar
5 December 5, 2022 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Laura Schaefer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 12:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 1 red dot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please enter my public comment into the record for Item number 1 on the December 5, 2022 City Council meeting Agenda regarding the SANDAG presentation regarding safe access to the beach.

Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council:

I am writing to provide my initial thoughts regarding the concepts SANDAG has presented for the proposed walkway and beach access routes.

First, I was only apprised of this late last week, and that was only because I happen to be on a listserve that circulates among a certain group of Del Mar residents. I am concerned that the City did not provide citizens with more notice of this very important issue that will affect all residents of Del Mar, but particularly those residing on or near the bluff. Significantly more notice is provided if a resident is going to install an air conditioner a few blocks away. Surely, this presentation should have warranted more advance and widespread notice to the public. My thoughts are, therefore preliminary as I have not had sufficient time to conduct fact gathering.

Second, as SANDAG and the Coastal Commission is well aware, the City of Del Mar has opposed fencing on the upper bluff south of the area where the train accidents have historically occurred. As WSP's own data in the Trespasser Risk Study establishes, there have been no accidents south of 1 December 5, 2022 Item 01
2 Ninth street in over two decades, and those accidents occurring as far south as 10th Street are few and far between. It is my position that the bluff should be left to its natural state with fencing as suggested by the City in the earlier attempts to negotiate with the NCTD. Unfortunately, NCTD rejected this compromise, and the Coastal Commission has provided this alternative, one that the residents have difficulty embracing.

Third, the two informal access points of crossing identified by the City Council over a decade ago as being candidates for safe access assumed that two access points would be constructed, one at the south end of the bluff, and one at the north. But as a practical matter, the choice that has been provided is a single access.

Having been put in a very less than optimal situation here, I will make the following observations

1. No accidents have historically occurred south of Ninth per WSP's data, and it follows that it makes absolutely no sense to put a "safe access" where no accidents have occurred. It is very unlikely that people that are at the North end of the bluff will use an access in the South Bluff

2. The South Bluff is a densely populated residential area that is far from the commercial "village" area. From Fourth Street to Ninth Street on Stratford, there are multifamily complexes, apartment buildings and condominiums, and condominiumized lots on the streets in the South bluff area. I am very concerned about the parking situation in the South bluff if the access is located in the South, and whether the South Bluff can handle the increase in use.

3. There is more traffic in the North Bluff for this reason. It is closer to the village. The surf breaks are from 9th to 11th and at 15th Streets. They are not at 7th and south.

4. At grade crossings in front of houses is obviously not wanted either. 2 December 5, 2022 Item 01
3 So, those are the issues, and it would seem more desirable to place an access at the median point of 9th or 10th if possible. As a practical matter, I just doubt that people that are at 11th street are going to walk all the way to 7th street to go to the beach.

Laura Schaefer
3 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Adriana Jaramishian, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director DATE: December 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 9: Resolution Memorializing the City Council’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002 Item 9 on the December 5, 2022, City Council agenda is a resolution to memorialize the City Council’s action taken at the November 14, 2022, public hearing related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002.

The proposed resolution included with this agenda item has been revised to remove Section 7. Section 7 was background information, and a carryover from previous versions of the draft resolution, and, because of the De Novo Council meeting, this section is no longer relevant to the final Council action taken on the application, and thus has been removed entirely from the resolution.

Attachment: Revised TVS21-002 Resolution Removing Section 7 1 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA

REGARDING TREES, SCENIC VIEWS, AND SUNLIGHT
APPLICATION TVS21-002, DETERMINING THAT THE SCENIC
VIEW FROM THE PRIMARY LIVING AREA OF 225 TORREY

PINES TERRACE IS UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCTED BY THREE
(3) TREES LOCATED AT 473 OCEAN VIEW AVENUE, AND THAT

SPECIFIC VIEW RESTORATION MEASURES ARE WARRANTED

AND REQUIRED
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021, Michael and Angela Deftos (“APPLICANT” and Appellant), owners of 225 Torrey Pines Terrace (APN: 301-033-32-00), Del Mar, California, filed a Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application TVS21-002 (“APPLICATION”) requesting that the Planning Commission determine that three Torrey Pine trees, located at 473 Ocean View Avenue (APN: 301-033-04), owned by Harvey and Sheryl White (“TREE OWNER”), create an unreasonable obstruction of scenic views as defined by Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.51.050; and
WHEREAS, the administrative record establishes that a notice of the filing of the APPLICATION was mailed to TREE OWNER on August 5, 2021; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application TVS21-002 which was duly noticed and at which time public testimony and related evidence was received and as summarized as follows:
a. Written documentation submitted with the Application, including information concerning the APPLICANT’s attempts to informally resolve the dispute with Tree Owner.
b. Written and photographic information was submitted by the APPLICANT. c. Written and photographic information was submitted by TREE OWNER. d. Other oral and written testimony was submitted from Staff, APPLICANT, the TREE OWNER, and members of the public.
e. The December 7, 2021, Planning Commission agenda report its facts, analysis, and conclusions are incorporated herein
f. Additional relevant factual information and considerations were submitted during the hearing, including Planning Commissioner disclosures; and WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.51.050 (Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance) states that prior to rendering a decision in favor of the APPLICANT, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings of facts:
2 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 of 8 ends

A. That the APPLICANT contacted the TREE OWNER and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute consistent with DMMC Section 23.51.040(B); and B. That the Scenic View from or the Sunlight reaching the real property of the APPLICANT is being unreasonably obstructed from three trees located on TREE OWNER”S property. In determining whether the Scenic View from and/or Sunlight reaching the real property of the APPLICANT is unreasonably obstructed, the Planning Commission considered several factors, listed below:

1. The extent of alleged Scenic View obstruction, expressed as a percentage of the total Scenic View, and calculated by means of a surveyor’s transit or by photographs or both;

2. Documentable evidence that demonstrates the Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that existed at the time the APPLICANT purchased or began occupying a property, or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter;

3. The quality of the pre-existing Scenic View(s) and/or Sunlight being obstructed;

4. That the implementation of a Restorative Action will not create an unreasonable infringement of the Subject TREE OWNER’s privacy that could not be mitigated;

5. The extent to which the Subject Tree interferes with efficient operation of an APPLICANT’s pre-existing solar energy systems;

6. The extent to which the Subject Tree causes shadows or reduces air circulation and/or light;

7. The extent to which the APPLICANT’s Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other than Subject Tree growth;

8. The variety of Subject Tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements;

9. The aesthetic quality of the Subject Tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;

10. The extent to which the location of the Subject Tree with respect to overall appearance, design, or use benefits the Subject TREE OWNER’s property;

11. The extent to which soil stability is provided by the Subject Tree, considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the Subject Tree’s root system per a report from a licensed soils engineer (if applicable); 3 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 3 of 8 ends

12. The extent to which privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening is provided by the Subject Tree to the owner and to neighbors;

13. The extent to which energy conservation and/or climate control is provided by the Subject Tree;

14. The extent to which wildlife habitat is provided by the Subject Tree;

15. Whether the Subject Tree is a “Protected Tree”, as defined herein and in Chapter 23.50 (Trees);

16. The value of the Subject Tree to the community/neighborhood; and

17. Whether the Subject Tree is located on public right-of-way or City-owned property; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, a determination of unreasonable scenic view obstruction was made by the Planning Commission is consistent with DMMC Section

23.51.050 (A) & (B), and a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Bakker and Farrell was appointed to work with the Applicant, Tree Owners, and aid City staff with the development of an appropriate restoration plan and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the item was then continued to a future Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application TVS21-002 and considered a request for continuance from the Tree Owner; and WHEREAS, the Commission continued the item time certain to the August 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission’s December 7, 2021, considerations and determinations, along with a proposed View Restoration Plan, prepared by the Planning Commission subcommittee, with expert opinions provided by certified arborists Robert Walton (Applicant Arborist), Ted Safford (Tree Owner‘s Former Arborist), and Mark Wisniewski (Tree Owner’s Current Arborist); and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Planning Commission, the following seven factors (as provided in a letter dated August 3, 2022, submitted by the Tree Owner’s representative, Adam Birnbaum, AMB Planning Services LLC) generally reflect the standard protocols involved in implementation and enforcement of TVS restorative actions and were considered in the determination of the required restorative action stated in Section 4 of this Resolution:

1. Confirming the timing for the first-year view-restoration pruning; 4 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 4 of 8 ends

2. Having qualified personnel positioned on the White, Deftos, and Michaels (separate TSVS Applicant – TVS21-003) properties to monitor the pruning, both to maximize the effectiveness of the view restoration and to protect the safety of the trees;

3. Setting a schedule for additional reduction pruning in the following years, in accordance with the Restorative Action Plan;

4. Creating a document to memorialize the White’s commitment to authorize the initial and future year(s) pruning;

5. A plan for staff review and documentation on the effectiveness of the Restorative Actions (perhaps assisted by a designated Planning Commissioner);

6. Selection of a licensed tree-care contractor to perform the work; and

7. Determining and collecting tree care service and monitoring costs per the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance.

WHEREAS, on August 12, 2022, a large branch from the eastern side of tree #1 of the subject applications had failed, resulting in a 40% loss of live foliage on the tree; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s restorative action determination with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Appellant Deftos contends that the action of the Planning Commission (PC) was not consistent with the Municipal Code because:

1. The failure of a large limb of one of the subject trees (Tree #1), three days after the Planning Commission decision on restorative action affects the approved restoration plan in the final Planning Commission resolution.

2. The PC approved restorative action plan: will not “reasonably” restore their scenic views lost by tree growth; involves a 5-year restoration plan in conflict with the DMMC Section 23.51.110; and does not specify the manner in which the trees should be trimmed.

3. The PC’s decision was made in conflict with the Planning Commission Policy Manual and direction given by the Commission on December 7, 2021, to form a subcommittee and return with a restorative action plan for consideration by the entire Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2022 the City Council of the City of Del Mar held an initial consideration hearing to determine if a De Novo hearing was appropriate, and at such time voted to set the matter for a De Novo hearing; and 5 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 5 of 8 ends

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the Del Mar City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal brought by Applicant and considered all oral and written testimony and the record before them as summarized in the below:
a. Written information submitted with the Application, including information about attempts to resolve the dispute.
b. Written and photographic information submitted by the APPLICANT. c. Written and photographic information submitted by the TREE OWNER.
d. Oral testimony from Staff, the APPLICANT, the TREE OWNER, and the members of the public.
e. Other oral testimony and written agenda reports, dated November 14, 2022 incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. f. The Planning Commission hearing record and additional information submitted during the course of the de novo hearing, including any and all City Council disclosures.

WHEREAS, during Council deliberations, the City Council carefully considered several options to restore the Applicant’s scenic view; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressed concern with a multi-year view restoration plan for tree #1; and
WHEREAS, by a majority vote, the City Council ultimately decided that removal of tree #1, and trimming of trees #2-3, is in the best interest of the City and is the most appropriate remedy to restore the Applicant’s scenic view.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Del Mar does hereby find as follows:

Section 1: Determination that Applicant Fulfilled Obligations Consistent with the Municipal Code and that Alternative Resolution Efforts were Attempted.

The APPLICANT contacted the TREE OWNER and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute as set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.050 (A) by offering to attempt to resolve the view blockage dispute through mediation.

Section 2: Determination that Unreasonable Scenic View Obstruction Has Occurred
Based on substantial evidence submitted as part of the administrative record and testimony received during the public hearing on November 14, 2022, including agenda reports, public written and oral testimony, along with photographic 6 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 6 of 8 ends

documentation from the Primary Living Area of the APPLICANT, in accordance with DMMC Section 23.51.050 (B), the City Council finds that scenic views or sunlight are unreasonably obstructed from the primary living area of the residence at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace pursuant to the factors of DMMC 23.51.050 (B) (2) & (3).

Section 3: Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposal and found that the project is listed among the classes of project that have been determined to have a less than significant adverse effect on the environment and are, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304- Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

Section 4: Restorative Action
As determined by the City Council, restorative action on the TVS21-002 application shall be as follows:
1) Remove tree #1
2) For tree #2, use reduction cuts to reduce the height of the canopy approximately 6 feet, and use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the canopy. No more than 20% live foliage shall be removed from tree #2, and work shall cease once 20% live foliage removal has been reached. 3) For tree #3, use thinning cuts to remove 20% live foliage. Work shall cease once 20% live foliage removal has been reached.

Restorative action for trees #2 and 3, shall occur through a schedule for the first two years (Winter 2022-2023 and Winter 2023-2024) that will provide for annual trimmings during the timeframe of November to January. Year four (Winter 2025- 2026) will provide for trimmings to be completed during the timeframe of November to January, and every other year thereafter in perpetuity, as ongoing maintenance in order to restore and maintain the scenic view.

Section 5: Restorative Work and Allocation of Costs
In performing the restorative work described in Section 4, the procedures set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.080 shall be followed. Allocation of costs for the restorative work, in accordance with DMMC section 23.51.080, will consist of a 50/50 cost sharing between the Applicant/Property Owners for TVS21-002 (Deftos) and TVS21-003 (Michaels).
7 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 7 of 8 ends

Section 6: Enforcement
This Resolution shall be enforceable pursuant to DMMC Section 23.51.110.

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that approval of TVS21-002 shall be subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions:

G-7 [Code Compliance]
Approval of this application shall not waive the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) or other applicable City regulations unless specifically waived in this permit authorization.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 5 th day of December 2022.
___________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
8 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 8 of 8 ends

I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5
th day of December 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: Deputy Mayor Martinez, Councilmembers Gaasterland and Quirk NOES: Mayor Worden and Councilmember Druker
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
9 December 5, 2022 ITEM 09
1 December 5, 2022 Item 09
2 December 5, 2022 Item 09
3 December 5, 2022 Item 09
4 December 5, 2022 Item 09

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
December 5, 2022
Item 9 – Resolution Memorializing the City Council’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Application TVS21-002

1. The Sections stipulate that Michaels and Deftos will share the costs of the view restoration plan. Does the cost sharing arrangement for the Michaels and Deftos apply to all trees including the removal of tree 1? This appeal regards trees 1, 2, 3 and not 4, 5 (part of the Michaels TSVS matter).

Staff Response: Yes, the cost sharing arrangement applies to all trees including the removal of tree #1. This arrangement was set for in the determinations and resolutions by the Planning Commission for both the Michaels’ and Deftos’ TSVS applications. The original cost sharing determination would be unchanged by adoption of the proposed resolution before the Council at today’s City Council meeting.
1 December 5, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 8:35 AM
To: Dwight Worden-Private; David Druker-Private; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Terry TG.

Gaasterland
Cc: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 111sea Cliff Hedge Encroachment Appeal
Attachments: 111 Sea Cliff As-Built Planter Plan.pdf; 111SeaCliff-Landscape-MockUp-3(1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Del Mar City Council,
Since the October 18th hearing I have met with the planner on our home development, Matt Bator, at our property. He told me that some local residents asked for this three-foot planting strip to be created on the city right-of-way to further alert people driving in the alley to avoid the bollard protecting the AT&T utility box in the alley, to provide landscaping along the fence, and to provide easier access to the underground utility lines.. AT&T constructed the utility box in the street when the developer agreed to pay to underground all the utility poles and lines on the entire street. The result is we have the most beautiful alley street in Del Mar, and the local residents have much more open ocean views. THE CITY

AND THE LOCAL RESIDENTS HAVE CREATED THIS STRIP OF LAND TO BE PLANTED, AND THEY EXPECT US TO MAINTAIN IT. The idea that we are taking this land for our own private use to expand our property as the City Manager asserts is simply false. If we were involved in the original planning our house e would have much preferred to have our fence along the street be continuously straight along the entire length of our property with a three foot planting area in front as the eastern portion of our fence is designed. The code interpretation reasons for the city manager’s denial of our encroachment application do not take into account the specific circumstances of our property and its development, and they are simply false as local resident and retired lawyer Shirli Weiss’ previous letter to the council clearly explains.

The reason the fence and retaining wall to the west west was pushed to the property line was to avoid impacting the Torrey Pine tree in the northwest corner of our property that, by law, had to be preserved. When the tree died during construction the neighbors did not want a new tree replanted as it would have negatively impacted their ocean views. Pulling the fence three feet south would have made the AT&T utility box that had already been constructed more exposed and vulnerable to damage from emergency vehicles and passing cars. This solution was worked out between the developer, the city and the local residents. The approved grading plan attached hereto shows in the upper left hand corner under the purple mark the as-built diagram of the PLANTER in the city right-of-way that was added to resolve these issues. To reiterate, we inherited this planter to maintain for the benefit of the city and the local residents, and the idea that we trying to grab this land to expand our property is simply false. EVERY resident in the neighborhood supports the hedge because it does not negatively impact their views, they understand and support our need for privacy, and most see it as an opportunity to beautify the street. It is the only way we can protect our privacy without putting a blank, frosted glass wall along half the street. and a hedge is a design solution used by many nearby Del Mar residents. We are attaching a rendering of the proposed hedge for your information. We hope you can support our appeal.

Thank you,
Steve & Cherie Crowe
1 December 5, 2022 Item 10
2 December 5, 2022 Item 10
Project: Crowe Residence
Ligustrum japonicum ‘Texanum’ (Waxleaf Privet)
111 Sea Cliff Way, Del Mar, 92014 9 June 2022
3 December 5, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 11:35 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden-Private; 'Tracy Martinez'; David Druker-Private; 'Dan Quirk'; Terry Gaasterland
Subject: Item 10 Red Dot, Application for Minor Encroachment Permit, December 5, 2022 City Council hearing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Kindly enter my public comment below into the public record for Item 10 regarding the December 5, 2022 City Council meeting Agenda.

Item 10
Dear Honorable Mayor and other distinguished members of the City Council:

I am a long-time Del Mar resident and property owner and a a neighbor of the Crowes. I live at 551 Stratford Court, which is across the street and close to the entrance onto Sea Cliff Way. I walk Sea Cliff Way on my way to Del Mar’s upper bluff typically several times a week. I support Steven Crowe’s Application for an Encroachment Permit to plant a hedge in the 3ft. x 40 ft. public right of way adjacent to the north side of his property at 111 Sea Cliff Way, limited to a height of 6ft from grade.

The City Council should grant the Application because a hedge at the location in question would provide antierosion and aesthetic public benefits to the community and is a modest accommodation in return for the public benefits. The Staff’s recommendation to deny the Application is based on a misapplication of Del Mar’s Code and Policies and the City Council should decline to follow it.

I will address each of the grounds on which the Staff bases its recommendation:
 DMMC 23.28.040(B)(3);
 City Council Policy 110; and
 DMMC 23.28.70C
First, DMMC 23.28.040(B)(3) does not support the Staff Recommendation. That section defines, as “prohibited encroachments:”
“DMMC 23.28.040 – PROHIBITED ENCROACHMENTS (B.3) Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community.” (Emphasis added).

Denial of an Application on the basis of this code section requires a factually supported finding that the proposed encroachment has “no associated public benefit to the community.” The facts fail to support such finding because a hedge clearly would provide several public benefits: First, during rainstorms, Sea Cliff Way is a conduit for the rapid flow of water to the Bluff, contributing to its deterioration and erosion. If the 1 December 5, 2022 Item 10
2 strip were left unimproved (or were paved), it would continue to contribute damaging run-off to the fragile Bluffs. E.G., in a 2” rainstorm, over a thousand gallons of water falls on it and ends up eroding the Bluff. A hedge as proposed by Mr. Crowe would hold the dirt and absorb water in the 120 sq. ft. strip of City land where he proposes the hedge. Ideally, the City would entirely landscape Sea Cliff Way with vegetation to hold water away from the Bluffs during storms. Since that won’t happen, the City should welcome with open arms the public benefit provided by Steve’s contribution to reducing the flow of run-off to the Bluff. The Staff alternatives of interior planting or fogging the Crowe’s glass panels would provide no such benefit. In addition, the hedge, while providing privacy for the Crowes, would also be a privacy shield that “benefits the community” as most members of the public prefer not to see into peoples’ private living areas. Finally, vegetation is more attractive than a wall and greenery against the wall would provide an aesthetic public benefit to the community. Under DMMC 23.28.070D, the City Council can require that the hedge be maintained not to exceed 6ft. in height, which is in character with the neighborhood.

Second, City Council Policy #110 “Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way,” is inapplicable to this situation. It provides in pertinent part:
“Examples of such inappropriate encroachments include: fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; …...” (emphasis added).

City Council Policy #110 addresses the area behind a hedge (so called “walled off area”). Here the area behind the hedge is the private home of the Crowes, not public area. The policy by its terms does not relate to the hedge itself and no one really cares who owns the hedge. The City may not rely on City Council Policy #110 in denying the Application as it is inapplicable.

Third, the Staff cannot validly base its recommendation on its failure to make findings 3, 4 and 6 of DMMC 23.28.70C.

The Staff’s Recommendation states that it cannot make three of the six findings required to grant the requested Minor Encroachment ( 3, 4 and 6 of DMMC 23.28.70C ). Its failure to make those findings is not objectively reasonable and is therefore not legally unsupportable for the following reasons:

The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics. DMMC 23.28.70C, finding #3 First, a hedge would improve the appearance and aesthetics of the public right-of-way and poses no adverse impact to the welfare of the community. Currently the 3ft wide right-of-way is a strip of unimproved dirt. When it rains, it is unimproved mud. Planting and maintenance of greenery would improve the appearance and aesthetics of the right-of-way by substituting greenery for mud. In addition, approximately 15 linear feet of the eastern portion of the right-of-way looks onto pool equipment and the interior of the living area of the Crowe’s home as well as the pool area. There is insufficient room there for an interior hedge. The public has an interest in having this area shielded from view. A hedge is preferable to viewing pool equipment and private living spaces. Thus, the hedge would improve the appearance and aesthetics of this strip for all concerned and is preferable to an interior hedge that is equivalent in height or higher.

The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community. (DMMC 23.28.70C, finding #4)
2 December 5, 2022 Item 10
3 There is no credible argument that the proposed Encroachment will cause any change to the character of the community, rather, it would conform to the character of the community. Hedges to protect privacy in Del Mar are characteristic of the neighborhood because of dense housing. Across Sea Cliff Way directly north of the Crowes’ residence is a property that has a 6ft. hedge and wall which protects the public from having to see into the owners’ interior property as they walk down to the upper bluff and protects the property owners’ privacy with no expense to views of the ocean, which is steps away from Sea Cliff Way. North of the hedged property on the north side of Sea Cliff Way, there are just a string of garages facing Sea Cliff Way. No neighbor is opposed to a 6 ft. hedge on the Crowes’ property. On the south side (the side where the hedge is proposed), the permission to plant and maintain the hedge could easily be conditioned on its continued maintenance at 6ft. under DMMC 23.28.070D. There are many hedges in Del Mar. Some of them block ocean views. The proposed Encroachment would not, one can easily see the expanse of sea over a 6ft. hedge on the way to the Bluff on both sides. Several close-by neighbors have written and spoken in support the Application.

The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use. (DMMC

23.28.70C, finding #6)
The Staff does not explain how the proposed Encroachment would convert “significant areas” of public property to private use. The area of the right of way in question is not “significant” in size or public use. It is a narrow strip area to the south of the path along Sea Cliff Way that leads to the upper bluff. No one walks on it as there is enough room on the hardscape path of Sea Cliff Way to walk to and from the upper bluff.

Thus, there is no reasonablle objective basis for the staff’s failure to make the findings in DMMC section

23.28.70C.

The homeowners facing the Bluffs are the City’s allies in our determination to save the Bluffs from managed retreat and a host of other threats. The Crowes in particular are allies in that effort. Here the Crowes request a modest accommodation that protects their privacy and accords a number of public benefits to the neighborhood and community and is fully supported by Del Mar’s Codes and Policies. The Staff’s recommendation should be declined and Steve Crowe’s Application for Minor Encroachment should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.
858.449.4850
3 December 5, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Reisner, Ralph <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 1:47 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Danute
Subject: re: Item 10--EP Applicant/Appellant: Steven Crowe Applicant’s Address: 111 Sea Cliff Way
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council members,
As residents near the Crowe home, we urge the Council to approve the application for a permit to erect a hedge adjacent to their property. Our request is based on two factors. First, the trail adjacent to the bluff is generally barren and would greatly benefit from additionally plantings, specifically a manicured hedge along the trail.

Second, the bluffs are experiencing significant erosion in large part due to rain water drainage from the adjacent streets. Vegetation such as the proposed hedge has the potential to absorb excess rain water and thus help preservation of the bluffs.

In summary, approval of the the preposed application by the Crowe home, would, in our view, strongly align with the public’s interest in environmental protection.

Respectfully,
Ralph and Danute Reisner
268 Surfiew Ct.

Del Mar, Ca.9201
4 December 5, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: K Lare <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2022 8:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; David Druker; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Eddie Lare Subject: Re: Red Dot for item #10. De Novo of an Appeal of the City Manager’s Decision on Encroachment Permit EP22-064 EP Applicant/Appellant: Steven Crowe Applicant’s Address: 111 Sea Cliff Way
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

December 4, 2022
Re: Red Dot for item #10. De Novo of an Appeal of the City Manager’s Decision on Encroachment Permit EP22-064 EP Applicant/Appellant: Steven Crowe Applicant’s Address: 111 Sea Cliff Way Dear Mayor Worden, City Council Members and City Staff, We write to you to support the encroachment permit requested by the Steve and Cheri Crowe at 111 Sea Cliff Way.

We have read thoroughly the staff’s response to the Crowe’s request for an encroachment permit, and we believe that there are a few items missing from consideration by the staff.

The staff are looking at this as a way for the Crowe’s to use public land for their own benefit when in fact the Crowe’s will be spending their own money to plant, water and maintain plants in a planter that was designated as such on the grading plans for the development of 111 Sea Cliff Way (a copy of the plans are attached). It is true that the Crowe’s benefit from the privacy of the new plantings, but the city also benefits as this will improve the look of the public property and save the city from having to plant and maintain this area themselves.

Failure to maintain this strip along Sea Cliff Way will lead to erosion and mud flowing down the alley which will contribute to the debris that have at times clogged the drains at the bottom of the alley and caused the water to overtop the bluff leading to damaging and irreversible erosion of the bluff.

Thus, this request by the Crowe’s provides a benefit to the public in stopping additional run-off and in beautifying the space and saving the city the money to maintain it.

In reviewing the points outlined by the staff in their response we conclude the following:
1) The proposed Encroachment will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, or the surrounding property; It does not endanger but rather improves health and safety by stopping run-off in this area and improves welfare by presenting a nice-looking alleyway.
5 December 5, 2022 Item 10
2 2) The proposed Encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement; Planting this existing planter with nice, well-maintained plants, does not in any way interfere with the intended use of Sea Cliff Way. The view along this corridor will not be blocked by the hedge. 3) The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics; Nice plantings along the edge of Sea Cliff Way will improve the aesthetics and improve the appearance over a bare dirt planter.
4) The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community; or No change in character - in fact it makes it consistent. The hedge does not cause a change in the character of the community as you can see the rest of the property already has a hedge as does the neighboring property. 5) The proposed Encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public; and In fact, it helps the general public as the Crowe’s will pay for the planting and maintaining of the plants in the planter and this will stop the possibility of run-off of mud into the alley and culvert. 6) The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use. The Crowe’s do not gain any additional property, they do benefit from the privacy, but the planter exists and needs to be planted.

The hedge does not convert public land for private use as the hedge does not give the Crowe’s additional property or more land for their use it just allows them to plant it with a hedge.

We ask Staff and Council to consider the following:

1. There is a run-off issue in this area as evidenced by the attached photos and the torrents of water cascading from Stratford Court and surrounding driveways down this alley. So DMMC §23.28.040 (B)(3) does not apply

2. Staff does not need to worry about not being consistent in their rulings as each situation is different and in this case the Crowe’s do not gain additional square footage for their own use they will just pay to plant and maintain city property for the benefit of the community like others have agreed to do (consider the public gardens such as Crest Rim, Del Mar Library, Community Connections, Del Mar Post Office). Again DMMC §23.28.040 (B)(3) does not apply as it is in the public good.

3. The hedge is in keeping with the character of the community in this area and many other areas of Del Mar that have hedges along the edge of the roads or alleys. The hedge does not block the public view of the ocean along Sea Cliff Way.

4. The Crowe’s do not gain square footage that will be used solely for their use. This is an existing planter that needs to be planted and maintained and does not extend the usable space on their property. So, City Policy 110 does not apply. This policy is intended to stop residents from walling off public property for the use of that resident/owner. This is clearly not the case.

We ask the Staff and Council Members to look at this situation and approve the Crowe’s request for an encroachment permit for this area at 111 Sea Cliff Way.

Respectfully,
Karen and Eddie Lare
161 Sea Cliff Way
Del Mar CA
6 December 5, 2022 Item 10
3 7 December 5, 2022 Item 10
4 8 December 5, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: jen lon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 9:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Approve the Hedge Encroachment Permit in Item 10 of City Council 12/5 Agenda Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
As long-time residents of Del Mar’s southern half, we have enjoyed the privilege of daily walks throughout this portion of the city for over 10 years. We especially enjoy walking along the paths and alleyways that provide us the chance to enjoy the natural world, and that obscure sights of homes, buildings, and walls in heavily populated southern California.

The sight of green plants and ocean blue are a source of peace that benefits all.

This is why we can’t understand why the city staff would deny a permit that allows for a 6' hedge vs. a 6’ wall. Especially since the proposed hedge would obstruct only the view of a building, not of the ocean. What an ideal opportunity for the city to allow something natural and beautiful to take the place of yet another solid wall. This opportunity comes at no cost to the city, only benefits (for everyone) especially those that use this alleyway to walk down to sunset every evening, or walk down to enjoy the views from the bluffs with their family and friends. Almost all of the alleyways that lead to the bluffs could benefit from some natural beautification, but unfortunately most lack the unpaved areas needed for greenery.

We walk along Sea Cliff Way and along the bluff abutting it almost every day, and we love the idea of more nature in this area, not less. Please approve this hedge and let this action be a guide to future city decisions that can maximize nature in Del Mar without cost. We would venture to say that Mother Nature is why every one of us moved here.

Thank you for your time,
Jennifer Lonbom
1 December 5, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bud Marx <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:06 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Comment Re Public Hearing Topic De Novo of Appeal on Encroachment Permit EP22-064.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members, We are next door neighbors of 111 Sea Cliff Way, at 516 Stratford Court. We strongly endorse and support the proposed privacy hedge along the side of their property. The hedge will actually enhance the appearance of the walkway with needed greenery, and it will not obstruct any significant ocean views. In addition the hedge will provide some much-needed privacy from the large volume of daily foot traffic. Sincerely, Oscar and Kathleen Marx
--
Bud Marx
949-933-4614 (cell)
1 December 5, 2022 Item 10

Del Mar City CouncilDecember 5, 2022

Del Mar City Council
December 5, 2022