Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
March 4, 2024 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 6:23 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 2, Del Mar Bluff Stabilization, City Council meeting 03.04.2024 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.
Dear City Council and SANDAG,
I strongly request that the stabilization phase 5 of Del Mar Bluff is postponed until the mitigation fund has been returned to its rightful place in the budget. No mitigation fund - no stabilization, as requested by the Coastal Commission in June 2022.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
Del Mar
1 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project
Phase 5
Construction Update
Del Mar City Council | Item Number
Allie DeVaux, Senior Engineer
March 4, 2024
1 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Agenda
| 2
Project Overview
Sub text, if necessary
Construction
Sub text
Public Outreach
Sub text
Future Access
Improvements
Sub text
2 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Project Overview
3 3 March 4, 2024 Item 02
The LOSSAN
San Diego
Segment
A Critical Corridor
| 4
4 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Project Area
Del Mar, CA
| 5
Torrey Pines Overhead Bridge MP
245.7
Coast Boulevard
MP 244.1
5 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Bluff Retreat
| 6
6 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Stabilizing Rail Track
Soldier Piles (with tiebacks, where required)
| 7
7 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Proposed and Existing Seawalls
2,098 FT
1,118 FT
| 8
8 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Drainage Improvements
| 9
9 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Construction
10 10 March 4, 2024 Item 02
| | 11
Grade Beam
Construction
DMB Phase 4
|
CIDH Pile
DMB Phase 2 & 3
Concrete Delivery
DMB Phase 2 & 3
Construction Methods
Bluff Top
11 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Beach Work - Removeable Seawalls, Grading, Vegetation
| 12
12 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Drone Footage
| 13
13 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Construction Methods
Beach
| 14
• 18th Street Staging and Access
• Beach Access and Work Areas
• Work at Street Ends
• Beach Access from State Parks
14 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
18th Street Staging Area
| 15
Staging and access for:
• Construction of seawall
extensions
• Construction of drainage
outlet on beach near 15th St
• Fill Placement and
revegetation above seawalls
• Removal of existing drainage
chute near 12th St
• Modification of drainage outlet
on beach near 8th St
• Construction of drainage
outlet on beach south of 6th St
15 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Example Beach Access Plan
| 16
16 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Street Ends
Temporary Construction Access Points:
• Coast Boulevard
• 11th Street
• 10th Street
• 4th Street
• Torrey Pines State Beach Access Road
Temporary Encroachments During Construction Work:
• 13th Street – Water line extension and irrigation control installation • 12th Street – Construction of storm drain
• Sea Orbit Lane – Drainage improvements
• Little Orphan Alley – Irrigation control installation • 4
th Street – Drainage improvements
| 17
17 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Existing
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Biological Mitigation
• Wetlands
— Permanent impact to 0.18 acre of wetlands will be mitigated for at the San Dieguito Lagoon W-19 site
• Uplands
— Sloped areas disturbed or graded during construction will be revegetated with appropriate native bluff species
• Endangered Species
— California Gnatcatcher habitat will be avoided
• No construction will occur within 300 feet of habitat during the nesting season
— A biologist will conduct nesting bird surveys
• Grunion
— Construction will not occur during Grunion runs, which typically occur late at night outside of standard construction hours | 18
18 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5 Timeline
| 19
Final Design
& Permitting
Fall 2022
Bidding
Winter
2022/2023
Notice to
Proceed
February 5, 2024
Commission
Hearing
June 2022
On Site Work
to Begin
Mid/Late March
2024
Completed
Spring 2027
19 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Public Outreach
20 20 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Community Outreach
Objectives • Raise awareness — bluff stabilization efforts — overall corridor use and safety • Communicate early and often — surrounding residents — rail corridor commuters • Educate — continued need for stabilization efforts — necessity of on-going work | 21
21 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Community Outreach (Cont.)
Outreach Methods
• Mailers/postcards
• Fact sheets
• Email blasts
• Social media
• Project website
• Project hotline/email
• Signage
| 22
• 3rd party coordination
• Tables at Farmers Markets
• Door-to-door outreach
• City Council meetings
• Stakeholder communications
• Press/media outreach
Hotline: (858) 549-RAIL
Email: [email protected]
22 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Future Access Improvements
23 23 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Bluffs 5
Sand and Recreation Mitigation
Federal Coastal Consistency Certification Condition:
Carry out a capital improvement project to plan, design, environmentally review, and construct three coastal access and recreation features once agreed between SANDAG, NCTD, and City of Del Mar including:
• A pedestrian railroad crossing
• A beach accessway from the bluff top to the beach
• A blufftop trail between 4th St and Seagrove Park
Projects will be informed by Coastal Connections Planning Study. | 24
24 March 4, 2024 Item 02
North – South Trail
North – South Trail
• Seagrove Park to 4th St (0.8 miles)
• Accessible
• Connections to every street end (no alleys)
| 25
25 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Undercrossing and Beach Access
Undercrossing at 7th-8th St, ramps or stairs to beach
• Feasible from engineering perspective
• Preferred Concept by Del Mar City Council
• Eliminates noise impacts compared to at-grade crossings • Aligns with existing movement patterns
• Integrated with SANDAG planned seawalls
| 26
26 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Del Mar Access Improvements Estimated Timeline
| 27
Regional
Transportation
Improvement
Program
Approval
February 2024
Release
Design
RFQ
March 2024
Begin
Preliminary
Engineering &
Environmental
Clearance
May 2024
SANDAG
Board
Approval of
Budget
October 2023
Begin Final
Design
May 2025
Ready to
Advertise for
Construction
Mid 2026
27 March 4, 2024 Item 02
28 Stay connected with SANDAG
Explore our website
SANDAG.org
Email: [email protected]
Follow us on social media:
@SANDAGregion @SANDAG
28 March 4, 2024 Item 02
“The Environmental
I-5 Alignment”
The “Environmentally Safer I-5 Lagoon
Alignment” Solana Park Option
Coalition for Safer Trains
Del Mar City Council Meeting
March 4, 2024
1 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Who we are, and What is at Stake?
Coalition to Save Del Mar and bring a
6 acre park to Solana Beach
- Group of 3,000 Del Mar Residents
- More than 2M visitors per year come to Del Mar
- Beaches, shopping, dining, hotels, hiking & scenic views - Del Mar Races, concerts, fair ($3M per year tax revenue will be lost) - Millions in tax revenue from visitors will be lost for the City and State - SANDAG cannot demolish the northern access of Del Mar (or any other town), at CDM and Jimmy Durante taking 8-10 acres of land and 50+ homes by eminent domain for a decade of construction and demolition to build a Cut & Cover tunnel and Portal
- When CDM and Jimmy Durante are rebuilt, SANDAG told us, the road and bridge will be
70 to 100 feet higher, taking views of any homes that are left, and lowering their value, living next to a toxic portal
2 March 4, 2024 Item 02
LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency: Rail Realignment
– Project Goals Elevate Minimizing community
Impact
1. Relocate the tracks away from
eroding coastal bluffs
2. Minimize community impacts
3. Improve rail travel times and
encourage rail ridership
4. Enhance coastal access and
improve safety
5. Preserve wetlands in Los
Penasquitos Lagoon
(why is San Dieguito Lagoon not
addressed?)
SANDAG Evaluation Criteria for Realignment
Project Downgraded Minimizing Community
Impact
SANDAG Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Table
Evaluation Criteria Description
Weight
(percen
t)
Safety improvements
Provides safety improvements, such as elimination of grade crossings 15
Travel Time
Minimizes overall travel times through considerations of proposed alignment geometry, grades, tie-ins, and stations 14
Connectivity and travel demand
Provides connectivity and access to future mobility hubs like University Town Center and Sorrento Mesa and includes the potential to connect with
other transit services like higher-speed rail 13
Operation and maintenance costs
Minimizes costs related to the operation and maintenance within the project limits 10
Potential environmental consequences
Minimizes impacts and maximizes benefits on environmentally sensitive areas, mitigation requirements, permitting schedule, and reduction in greenhouse gases 9
Operational complexity (post
construction)
Minimizes complexity of requirements for operations and maintenance of a tunnel, including ventilation system and maintenance access 9
Capital costs Minimized capital costs 8
Constructability, construction impacts,
and duration
Minimizes construction complexity, including geotechnical aspects, tunnel depths, tunneling technologies, and schedule.
Limits construction impacts on the public, including on local roads, utilities, traffic, and material hauling 7
Potential ROW impacts (Right
of Way)
Minimizes temporary and permanent impacts
on public and private properties, acquisition
costs, and schedule 6
Railroad operation impacts (during
construction)
Minimizes impacts on existing railroad operations during construction 5
Other community impacts Minimizes impacts on the community 4 100
Score of 1-5, with 5 being the best option.
SANDAG’s evaluation criteria does not support
the objectives of Lossan
3 March 4, 2024 Item 02
SANDAG’s Definition of “Safety”
• SANDAG’s Definition of Safety is “Get the Tracks off the Bluffs” • Elimination of grade crossings
• SANDAG puts “Safety” of residents second from the bottom of your list of weighted criteria
• SANDAG puts the “Impacts to the Community, livability, health and economic etc.” at the bottom of your list of weighted criteria • SANDAG puts the taking of homes, and impacts on homeowners at the bottom of your list of weighted criteria
• SANDAG’s weighted criteria needs to reflect and follow the “LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency’s Rail Realignment Criteria”
4 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Location of SANDAG’s Proposed
North Portal
Where is BNSF in this
discussion?? If this Project is about freight, why has BNSF been so silent? We know from meetings with SANDAG that BNSF doesn’t
contribute to the maintenance of these tracks
BNSF has a 2024 capital plan to spend $2.88B nationally, and plans on spending $230M just in California on it’s core network. Why is BNSF not involved in this alignment
project?
We want Del Mar City Council to go on record to formerly request BNSF to state they support this project and invest in it?
Why is SANDAG not working with BNSF utilizing the
Barstow Freight Depot down the I-15 to San Diego Port?
Create economies of scale.
5 March 4, 2024 Item 02
SANDAG’s proposed Cut & Cover Tunnel for North
Portal, at CDM and Jimmy Durante
• Cut-and-Cover is the oldest method of
tunneling
• Cut-and-Cover is the simple method of
construction for SHALLOW Tunnels, usually
30-40 feet, but depths to 60 feet are not
uncommon
• A Cut-and-Cover Tunnel involves
demolishing
8-10 acres, then digging a trench, the
construction of a tunnel, and then
returning the surface to its original state. As
such, it is a disruptive and destructive
technique
• It is usually the least expensive most
economical construction method
• Once the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel is
completed and the road is raised 70-100
feet with a large berm built alongside,
views for any houses left will be gone, and
road noise and vibration will be increased
6 March 4, 2024 Item 02
SANDAG’s 2 Construction Staging Areas both roughly triangular, the end of the Bored Tunnel and the area of the cut-and-cover tunnel and U-Structure (Elongated Rectangle)
+ One Construction staging area is in NCTD land just
south of Public works property and is 4.35 acres
+The other construction staging area is the south
corner of the North Commercial District and measures
3.54 acres. This land would presumably be taken by
eminent domain from the current owners and the
current buildings demolished. Many businesses taken
+The two Areas are not connected, are not wide
enough to stage trucks and tunneling equipment
+ The Cut-and-Cover section would destroy Del Mar,
take homes, business and roads
+ The Cut-and-Cover section will destroy Del Mar’s
Emergency Route north out of town
7 March 4, 2024 Item 02
8-10 Acres of land to be demolished, Huge Impact
to Del Mar and Residents
+Visual depiction of 10 acres at the proposed CDM Portal + The perimeter distance is 2,640 feet, which equates to an area of 10 acres. We can move the border to any shape, but this shows what might be a more realistic space would be required to construct a portal
+ As opposed to the 2 narrow triangles SANDAG used to depict 7.9 acres in the same area
+ This perimeter would directly affect about 30 homes
+ The tunnel depth would not exceed 35 feet for 1,900 feet in distance, affecting an additional 13 homes
+ With the tunnel at less than 35 feet below these additional homes, they would need to be “taken” as well, as they would not be livable
+ Or course, this 35 feet depth is half the depth that is generally accepted construction dept for tunnels
+ 2% Grade = 2 feet of depth every 100 feet of distance. So, for the tunnel to get to a depth of 35 feet, it needs a length of 1900 feet
8 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Train Tunnel-Induced Vibrations • Trains moving along an underground railway will excite the rail and
underlying track structure. These
vibrations will radiate into the
surrounding ground, i.e. rock, soil
and homes as ground-borne
vibrations.
• The composition of the ground will
also affect the amplitude and
velocity of the propagating vibration.
The vibration will go thru the porous
Torrey Sandstone cracks, fissures
weakening the land
• Once the vibrations reach a home
they can either be felt by residents
as whole body vibrations, or heard
as low-frequency rumble, i.e.
ground-borne noise.
• Vibrations can also cause structural
damage, like sink holes, cracked
slabs etc.
Source: “Interactions Between Tunnels and Unstable Slopes”, Lionel Causse, Rober Cojean, Jean-Alain Fleurisson 9 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Tunnel Induced Ground Surface Settlement (GSS)
• Shallow tunnels in urban areas are close to adjacent buildings and municipal pipelines. GSS due to tunneling can cause damage to those Infrastructures surrounded (homes pipelines etc.) • Deep tunnels are constructed within stiff rock generally, which means to the stratum is relatively stable and settlement of ground is limited. As seen at Dana Point and San Clemente the collapses are within the deep bedrock caused by drainage, train vibration and soil composition have caused the sink hole effect deep down, then everything falls down. Erosion is not only at the top of the bluffs • Compared with deep tunnels, tunnels in shallow depths are always surrounded by soft soil. Del Mar has many caves and fissures underground, so if a tunnel was put through where would the water run? • In Urban areas such as Del Mar the resulted settlement of the ground cannot be neglected. IN other words, the construction of a tunnel in urban areas is more complicated than in less populated areas • Tunnel excavation disturbs the original stress statement of ground inevitably, as a result ground settlement is induced, this poses a threat to nearby structures and infrastructures Source: Chen et al., 2019, Moghaddasi and Noorian-Bidgoli, 2018, Zhang et al., 2020 10 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Impact of Tunnel Boring Machines
• For those residents that will have a Tunnel
Boring Machine (TBM) under their homes,
the settling can continue for several years
• According to several research papers: The
construction of tunnels usually leads to
some surface settlement. Often this
settlement is of little importance in a rural
area, but may cause significant damage
where surface structures are present in a
densely populated town with homes and
underground infrastructure
• GSS induced by the TBM is unpredictable.
There are currently no known models for
predicting the settlement precisely
• As Del Mar is made up of Fragile Torrey
Sandstone, we have underground fissures,
caves, sink holes, earthquakes, water
drainage, and erosion underground, we live
in a very unstable environment before a
tunnel is being built
11 March 4, 2024 Item 02
What’s at Stake?
• We are here to express concerns about any SANDAG Tunnel Options under Del Mar and its environmental, safety, and health impacts to the town and residents. • The destruction of the north end of Del Mar for a decade, and eminent domain of homes • We know the tracks must come off the bluffs
• Improved public transport and regional rail service to move freight are important, but not at the cost of destroying Del Mar when there is a better environmental and safer option • The negative impact of SANDAG’s Alignment Project on the communities of Del Mar, Solana Beach and the Fairgrounds will devastate homes, businesses, health and livability of residents for decades. This project will impact the value and quality of life in homes above the tunnel and near the double wide OPEN trench in Solana Beach
12 March 4, 2024 Item 02
RISKS OF PROPOSAL CURRENTLY
FAVORED BY SANDAG
Safety and Health:
• Freight trains carrying explosive and toxic materials will be routed under many residents’ homes
• Do we want an East Palestine, Ohio disaster under Del Mar Homes?
• BNSF carries Hazardous Materials Cargo (“Hazmat Cargo”) BNSF is obligated to carry the hazardous materials
• The railroads have opposed safety legislation both before and after the East Palestine Disaster
• Why force Del Mar and San Diego residents to take these risks?
• High litigation risk against SANDAG, NCTD, and their Boards, and freight carriers
• SANDAG’s San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track (SDSVDT) Alternatives Analysis states that “more than
2,392 homes will suffer severe Noise Impacts”
• High Litigation Risk: This foreseeably can lead to
detrimental short term and long-term health effects
which can lead to individual and class action lawsuits
against SANDAG.
13 March 4, 2024 Item 02
SANDAG’s LACK of Public Outreach
• Our Coalition met every business owner on the east side Camino Del Mar
• Not ONE business owners knew anything about SANDAG Alignments or Outreach Program
• Not ONE of the businesses knew SANDAG’s proposed alignments includes a North Portal which will be built 2 blocks from the center of town
• Not ONE of the businesses knew the northern access to town will be destroyed, disrupted or closed for a decade
• Not ONE of the businesses knew their store will be in jeopardy of losing business from Fairgrounds, Races, Concerts and possibly going out of business
• They were outraged that SANDAG did not reach out to any of the businesses
• How did SANDAG specifically reach out to the businesses in Del Mar? 14 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Trestle Bridge Background
• The Trestle Bridge - a separate project with separate funding - was NOT based on any alignment options being created now, with no forethought on the continuum of the rail service north and south of the bridge. Separate siloed project
• According to documents from SANDAG, the trestle bridge replacement in the San Dieguito Lagoon never went through EIR environmental review. Instead, it received a federal (FTA) approval for NEPA exemption based on ALL improvements being in existing ROW, and would replace/upgrade existing facilities.
• The Seasonal Platform for the Fairgrounds is a new Project to build something that does not currently exist. It is solely for the purpose of serving Fairgrounds Events. Did SANDAG misrepresented the nature of the platform in their exemption request? They did no State or Federal environmental study at all for this new structure
• This bypassed the Coastal Commission – Timeline:
12/2020 – NEPA exemption application, Trestle Bridge Project did not do a Federal NEPA Environmental Study
• 2022 – FTA approval for exemption
• Feb 14, 2024, SANDAG confirmed there was no EIR prepared for this project. • The proposed new double track bridge will be 9 feet higher, plus double the current width, blocking views from the Fairgrounds, and will further impact the contaminated river flow
• January 2020, SANDAG and TCTD had the FULL Project 90% design completed • Why was the public not informed about this?
• Common sense dictates this project should be put on hold until we all decide on the best environmental alignment option after all EIR
15 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Constraints of a Tunnel between
Via de la Valle and JDB/CDM and the Trestle Bridge
• Essentially all of this area where SANDAG wants to put a tunnel, portal and trestle bridge is in the 100-year floodplain and is vulnerable to sea level rise
• To mitigate this, SANDAG’s various proposals for portals in this area would need to have floodwalls and floodgates to protect the portal so the tunnel does not flood
• The Coastal Commission is a strong proponent of managed retreat. Does SANDAG want to build a new tract that not only courses across the outlet of one of Southern California’s ecologically sensitive lagoons but that would also be threatened by flooding and sea level rise? • Wouldn’t it be better to invest in an alignment that is better protected against sea level rise?
• The North Portal in the Solana Beach Trench is located above the 100-year floodplain and would be inherently protected from future floods and sea level rise with out the need for floodwalls or floodgates From the SANDAG
Alignment document, page
551, of the 2023
Alternatives Analysis
Appendices: “Along portal
structures where the
alignment is within the sea
level rise area of influence,
the tracks shall be protected
against 100 year flood
profile accounting for up to
7.1ft of sea level rise. The
tunnels shall be protected
thru use of flood walls
along u-structures and at
portals……”
16 March 4, 2024 Item 02
The Environmental Safer I-5 Alignment
• Start in the Solana Beach Trench, south of the SB Train Station, construct the Portal, cover trench with a 6-acre park/green space on top. Easy access for people to cross over to both sides of town • We know SANDAG can excavate, double track while keeping a rail line in service, in the trench • We know there is enough space (7,000 feet) to accommodate a 2% grade (for freight) to be underground in a tunnel (135 feet down) by the time the train is under Via de la Valle • We know you can build a coffer dam and construct the underground Event Platform at the Fairgrounds.
Event Platform can be anywhere above the tunnel on the Fairgrounds, State owned land • Fairgrounds doesn’t want the tunnel under the Fairgrounds incase of a derailment or explosion and potential loss of life. So we propose putting the tunnel and Event Platform at the outer limits of the Fairgrounds parking lot along side the river on the south side. This limits risk. Why would the Fairgrounds and SANDAG want to put the tunnel under Del Mar, a densely populated town? Are our lives, homes and town less important? The risk is real. • The Tunnel cold be under the River at the South end of the Fairgrounds, or under “State” owned Fairgrounds land instead of taking people’s homes and livelihood • We know the train can curve UNDER THE FAIRGROUNDS AND LAGOON to the I-5 corridor to link up with the Pump Station 65 Portal at the southern end of town, as there are even tighter curves, and lower speeds in Orange and LA Counties on the new double tracks 17 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Location of Tunnel and Event Platform
– No Impact to Fairgrounds Business
• Tunnel can be located under the river away from the Fairgrounds • Event Platform can be located anywhere the tunnel goes • Tunnel will not be under any buildings or pavilions
• Tunnel will not impact Fairgrounds Business, attendees etc. • Tunnel is in a safer location for everyone
• We understand the Fairgrounds doesn’t want the tunnel under their land, incase of a derailment, explosion, toxic spill etc. They want to minimize loss of life. Our Alignment option puts the tunnel away from any densely populated area, no buildings, pavilions, or homes. Are our lives less important? • Lets Remember: One year later, Pennsylvanians living near the East Palestine Derailment site are still sick. 38 train cars derailed in East Palestine, 20 of the cars contained hazardous chemicals like vinyl chloride, ethylhexyl acrylate and butyl acrylate. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen. • SANDAG/BNSF wants to increase freight trains per day, longer trains, more locomotives, more pollution and more risk – lets work together to minimize risk for all stakeholders 18 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Both Portals Away from Homes
19 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Excavating Solana Beach Trench,
Double Track
20 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Keep Rail Service Operational
21 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Completed Full Double Track Service
22 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Some Facts • Why is SANDAG
pursuing 110mph
speed in the tunnel
under our homes?
• The new double tracks
in Orange and LA
Counties up to Union
Station there are
multiple 90-degree
curves and speeds
ranging from 35 to 45
mph
• Our Engineers have
confirmed you can
build an Event Platform
and tunnel under the
Fairgrounds, and
Lagoon basin with no
environmental impact
23 March 4, 2024 Item 02
The Solana Park Alignment
Environmental Tunnel Underneath the Lagoon to I-5
must be studied in 2024
Why?
- No Eminent Domain (thus, no lawsuits, no delays in construction, no higher costs) - No destruction 2 blocks from the center of town, at the north end of town (Jimmy Durante & CDM) - No lost Sales & TOT tax revenue (from fairgrounds, businesses, hotels, shops) - No lost property tax revenue to the County (as no homes will be demolished) - Northern access to town won’t be destroyed (keep the Emergency route open) - We get the railroad out of 2 lagoons, no bridge in San Dieguito River (Use $53M funding towards this project). Environmental benefits with a tunnel under lagoon and a south portal near Pump Station. The Environmental benefit would out weigh any extra cost for a longer tunnel. Plus it can be built with no disruption to the road system - No negative impact to Solana Beach, Del Mar, or Fairgrounds. Businesses can stay open - No risk of toxic chemicals/waste, ammunition, derailments or fires in tunnels under homes, less risk of losing lives - No noise or exhaust pollution, no vibration, cracked slabs, no ventilation fans running 24 hours a day at each portal near resident’s homes
24 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Pros for Solana Beach
• Solana Beach currently has a gaping open trench
which divides Beach side, East side Shopping District
and homes. The City’s downtown is cut in half, with
limited ways to cross over. We propose an accessible
beautiful 5+ acre park/green space across the trench,
which will make the area more attractive than the
open trench and connect residents of Solana Beach.
• This option will unite the two and people from both
sides of SB can now easily walk to Del Mar Dog Beach
or Solana Beach
• Park increases activity, and property values. Homes
are within a more direct walking route to the beach
• Homes and businesses are by a park instead of a huge
open unsightly trench with trains swooshing by every
7 mins. Do Solana Beach residents know the trench
will be deeper and wider?
• Increased passenger and freight trains, noise, air
pollution & vibration will all increase. The covered
Trench with ventilation fans will help filter this
25 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Numbers from SANDAG
• DMB5 $87,520,000
• Bridge and Event Platform $281,193,342
• Double Track Dahlia to Via de la Valle to Bridge ($56,328,000 + $22,536,725 (environmental/design/planning) = $78,864,725
• Total costs just under $500 Million for the above items together • 1.6 mile tunnel under Del Mar $4B
• See details of numbers in your folders
• Our group has spoken with the CA Hi-Speed Rail Authority, and BNSF Barstow Freight Depot, and SANDAG confirmed to us they are not talking to either of them, yet their large scale projects go to the same place
• Why are the 6 rail agencies in southern California not working together to create a cohesive transit plant for California? SANDAG should not be designing and spending billions on their projects without working with SAN Clemente or Dana Point in Orange County. This is obviously a competition for funding, with no forethought to the consequences for the long term future • Take advantage of economies of scale, better communication, no duplication of routes, better connectivity of routes between rail agencies to gain more coverage for the state, and more efficiency between rail operators
• Better buying power as the 6 rail agencies work together on projects = increased margins and profits 26 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Pros for Fairgrounds
• Train will be underground by Via de la Valle, so no impact to Fairgrounds business • Event Platform can be located anywhere the tunnel goes near the Fairgrounds, even the far side of the southern perimeter; no building or pavilions • Trestle Bridge will be demolished and provide better open views from Fairgrounds to the ocean, and better water flow in the lagoon, instead of a bridge that is higher and double the width. Then SANDAG has to add Floodgates and Flood Walls to protect the bridge from sea level rise, and stop flooding going into your Event Station • Fairgrounds will not hear or see the increased rail service SANDAG is stating will happen
• Fairgrounds attendees will not be subjected to increased noise and air pollution floating eastward from the train if located on double wide track • As the tunnel will take a wide curve either under the river, or around the exterior of the Fairgrounds and to the southern most section of the Fairgrounds parking lot, if there was a disaster, there would be limited loss of life, because there is nothing there 27 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Adopt the Del Mar City Council Resolution
• No Tunnels under homes in Del Mar or Solana Beach
• NO Eminent Domain of any homes or businesses
• No Freight trains under resident’s homes
• Include the Alignment Del Mar residents want
• This common sense option needs to be included so a cost benefit analysis can be done along with other options
•This is beneficial for all Stakeholders
28 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Alignment Option, Safer for Everyone!
29 March 4, 2024 Item 02
1 Melinda Gould
From: K Lare <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2024 3:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; Dwight Worden-Private; Dave Druker; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Eddie Lare
Subject: Red Dot on SANDAG presentation
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.
Hello Del Mar City Council members and City Mayor. I implore you to ask SANDAG to re-fund the underpass and beach access as agreed to in the approval of DMB Phase #5. It is my understanding that SANDAG plans to start first with the sea walls and not do them last as we had believed. So this means that with the funding dropped by SANDAG recently, access for residents and visitors will be cut off from Del Mar to the beach as we wait for them to fund and to start the design development and permit process and then finally build the access. If you started that process now we would be in a lot better shape than if you wait out the timeline and stall on getting the funding in place and starting the design process.
City Council members please be our voice to support the access for all visitors to Del Mar and residents to be able to get to the beach. It is a right that is protected by the Coastal Act. Think about the economic consequences to the city during a 5 year period of being blocked off from accessing the ocean. The time is now to speak up.
Thank you - I would come in person if I could today but appreciate you standing up for all of us on this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Lare
Del Mar Resident
1 March 4, 2024 Item 02
Red Dot Comments on Item 2 of Del Mar City Council Mee7ng on March 4, 2023 I have one point to make: no sea walls!
I understand the need to stabilize the bluffs so that we don’t have a catastrophic event with a train plunging into the ocean. However, sea walls are not needed to achieve this goal. Stabilizing the bluffs from above will provide sufficient stability. Sand replenishment, as is being done in Solana Beach, is an alterna7ve to consider as well. And this is not to men7on that the long-term goal is to relocate the tracks from these fragile bluffs to an inland loca7on.
Now, if you s7ll insist, for whatever reason, that seawalls are an absolute requirement, then I would like to remind you of your obliga7on to provide access to the beach below. The Coastal Commissions’ approval of your proposed bluff stabiliza7on requires that you provide access to the beach below. According to SANDAG’s presenta7on, there is a 3-year gap between seawall installa7on and the construc7on of access paths. Such access is not only important for people (residents, visitors, tourists) frequen7ng the beach, but it is absolutely essen7al for safety reasons.
Let me elaborate: seawalls will increase erosion of the beach and will reduce the size of the beach. This will make it impossible for lifeguards to reach someone who has injured themselves.
Especially at high 7de, the only access for emergency response will be from above. If you do proceed with these sea walls, then you have to provide access to the beach below. Without such access, it will be on you if an emergency team cannot save someone who has been injured, a surfer who was bashed into the seawall because there was no more beach, a kid who was stung by a s7ng ray, a swimmer biYen by a shark, or a hiker with a health condi7on or has suffered a heart aYack… there are countless scenarios that will require emergency responses.
I am asking you not to build these seawalls that will destroy our beach, but if you must, then you must provide easy access down the bluffs to the beach below. As it stands now, we will not have beach access for 3 years. This is unacceptable.
Karl Willert, 131 Sea Cliff Way in Del Mar
1 March 4, 2024 Item 02
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Martin Boyd, Project Manager II
Clement Brown, Assistant City Manager
Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: March 1, 2024
SUBJECT: Red Dot for Item 8: San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project Update and Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Formation of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Item 8 on the March 4, 2024, City Council agenda includes an informational update on the proposed San Dieguito Drive Improvement Project, including next steps in the process, and recommends adoption of a Resolution Initiating the Proceedings for the Formation of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District. The Resolution formally designates SCI Consulting Group as the Engineer of Work for purposes of the proceedings and directs them to prepare an Engineer's Report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act and Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
The attached revised Resolution is intended to replace the Resolution that was included in the initial agenda packet distribution on February 28, and provides additional important and relevant background information. This is the Resolution to be considered for adoption by the City Council for adoption on March 4, 2024.
Attachment: Revised Resolution for Item 8 on March 4, 2024, City Council Agenda 1 March 4, 2024 Item 08
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
FORMATION OF THE “CITY OF DEL MAR – SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT” AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is a private road with public use provided through an easement that grants the City right-of-way for road and utility purposes (i.e., sewer, water, gas, power, and telephone lines); and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is not part of the City’s public streets system and is not owned or maintained by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has been working with San Dieguito Drive property owners to ensure that access along the private road is properly maintained for emergency vehicles and allows for the maintenance of the City’s utility easement; and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive abuts a high fire severity area that requires the City to use San Dieguito Drive during emergency events; and WHEREAS, the City owns public utility rights along San Dieguito Drive and it is necessary to access underground utilities from time to time; and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is in deteriorating condition and does not meet either City of Del Mar or County of San Diego standards, creating a public safety hazard, and WHEREAS, the City has explored various funding methods for the repair and maintenance of San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained SCI Consulting Group in conformance with State law to develop an Engineer’s Report to determine how an assessment district would allocate costs between the City and the benefitted property owners; and WHEREAS, improving San Dieguito Drive will provide special benefits to property owners along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road; and
WHEREAS, formation of an Assessment District and allocating costs of road improvements to the property owners of San Dieguito Drive, Oribia Road, and the City based on the benefits received is an equitable way to distribute costs; and WHEREAS, the California Constitution and statutory law allows affected property owners to vote to form an Assessment District, participate in public meetings, protest assessments, and share the costs of the improvements based on the benefits received to their property interest.
2 March 4, 2024 Item 08
Resolution No. 2024-XX
NOW, THEEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct; and
2. The Council hereby proposes the formation of a landscaping and lighting district pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500 thereof) (“the Act”). The Council reserves the right to rescind this proposal at any time prior to the mailing of the ballots; and
3. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes the establishment of an assessment for, among other things, road improvement, maintenance, and repair, and the purpose of the proposed landscaping and lighting district shall be to improve San Dieguito Drive; and
4. The new landscaping and lighting district proposed in this Resolution is hereby given the distinctive designation of the "City of Del Mar – San Dieguito Drive Improvement District" (the “Assessment District”), which proposed landscaping and lighting district is primarily described as all properties in the City with an address along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road all of which use San Dieguito Drive for egress; and
5. It is proposed the Assessment District undertake the following improvements:
installation of improvements to San Dieguito Drive, which may include but are not limited to, widening of the road, installation of curbs and gutters, repaving, landscaping, street frontages, drainage systems, lighting, fencing, and labor, materials, supplies, utilities and equipment, as applicable. Installation means the construction of road improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks and drainage; and
6. SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is directed to prepare an Engineer's Report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act and Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file the Engineer's Report with the City Clerk of the City of Del Mar for submission to the City Council.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 4
th day of March, 2024.
_____________________________________
Dave Druker, Mayor
City of Del Mar
3 March 4, 2024 Item 08
Resolution No. 2024-XX
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
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. 2024-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 4th day of March, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 March 4, 2024 Item 08
STAFF RED DOT
CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
MARCH 4, 2024
Item 8 - San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project Update and Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Formation of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District 1) Why are we having a Council agenda item on San Dieguito Drive if the SCI report isn't completed?
This agenda item is an informational update to the Council and public on the status of assessment engineering services task order with SCI. As part of the agenda item, the City Council is also being asked to approve a resolution to initiate the “proceedings” in preparation for future Council consideration to initiate the Prop 218 ballot process to form an assessment district for the resident portion of the proposed San Dieguito Drive Improvement Project (SDD Project), formally designate SCI Consulting as the Engineer of Work for the process, and directing them to complete an Engineer’s Report.
2) Why hasn't SCI been able to complete its report in the past 4+ months? Since the City Council approved an agreement with SCI Consulting on October 16, 2023, they have been undertaking a process to consider the proposed scope of the improvements, assess the related general public benefit and special benefits to private properties, developed an informal survey and informational handout, and complete a draft preliminary Engineer’s Report.
3) Why is Council being asked to initiate the process for an assessment district if we don't have the SCI report?
Council is being asked to initiate the “proceedings” in preparation to consider forming an assessment district at a future meeting. Additionally, Council is being asked to designate SCI Consulting as the Engineer of Work for the process and direct them to complete the Engineer’s Report. As indicated in the agenda report, taking this action does not obligate the Council to move forward with the Prop 218 process to form an assessment district.
The Council will be presented with the final Engineer’s Report prior to being asked to consider whether to proceed with the Prop 218 ballot process to form an assessment district. Staff and the consultant are planning to bring the final report along with a recommendation whether to proceed with the Prop 218 process ballot process in April 2024.
4) Why is some information from the report such as the 70/30 cost allocation split being publicly released without the supporting detail and justification? Similar to providing residents with the opportunity to review and provide input on the Phase 1 Engineering design options prior to them be finalized and formally presented 1 March 4, 2024 Item 08
to the City Council for consideration, as a next step in the process of resident engagement, residents will receive a presentation on the preliminary Engineer’s Report and will have the opportunity to ask questions and provide input. The supporting details and justification for the identified general public and special private benefits, and proportional share of costs, is included in the draft preliminary Engineer’s Report. The final report will include the recommended percentage spilt.
This collaborative process worked well during the Phase I Engineering phase of the project and resulted in a Council approved concept design for the improvements to SDD. The goal is to obtain property owner feedback on the assessment engineering findings early enough in the process that any issues raised and input provided can be considered and addressed as appropriate in the final Engineer’s Report. 5) This 70/30 split is materially different from the previous City traffic analysis suggesting a 50/50 split so it is important for the Council and the public to understand why.
Property owners have informally been asked to provide input on a potential 30% contribution, and related estimated resulting dollar amount per property. The final Engineer’s Report will provide a recommended percentage spilt based on the special benefits provided to each homeowner’s property resulting from the SDD Project. The recommended resident contribution will be based on the special benefits (above and beyond general public benefit) that each property would receive should the SDD Project move forward.
For clarification, the City conducted an informal traffic analysis early in the process to provide a basic understanding of road use between San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road properties. This was never intended to establish the basis for the sharing of project costs between the City and residents. As will be further detailed in the final Engineer’s Report, the recommendation for assessment contributions is based on special benefits, not the volume of use attributable for any particular property. 6) Why is the detail being released 1 day after this Council meeting? A preliminary working draft of the Engineering Report will be shared with affected property owners in a meeting on March 5, 2024, to help them understand the process for forming an assessment district, general and special benefits to be provided by the proposed improvements, potential City/resident contributions to the project, etc. This is an informational meeting geared toward educating residents as to the approach and contents of the Engineer’s Report, provide them with the opportunity to ask questions, and provide input. This is an important part of the process in preparing to bring a final Engineering Report and recommendation as to next steps for the City Council’s consideration, which staff and the consultant are planning to do in April 2024. 7) Why does staff think a resident meeting on 3/5 is a better venue to address resident and community questions rather than the 3/4 City Council meeting? 2 March 4, 2024 Item 08
To be clear, this process has been a collaborative one between the City and property owners. All steps in the process to date and those planned moving forward are being done at the guidance and direction of the City Council, including the planned resident meeting on Tuesday, March 5, 2024.
It is not uncommon for preliminary working documents to be presented to residents/property owners during this type of process for consideration and feedback.
However, it would not be standard practice to present preliminary working draft documents to the City Council for consideration. These types of reports are typically presented to the City Council once finalized and ready for consideration by the City Council in preparation for Council direction/action.
8) Is Council allowed to discuss the specific cost allocation/split in its "real property negotiations" closed session, or is this something that can only be discussed in open session?
The Council is authorized under State law to discuss the price, terms and conditions related to the proposed improvement project, formation of an assessment district, and acquisition of an easement in closed session, with formal action to be taken by the City Council in a public open session meeting.
9) Who is the City negotiating with? Do any individual residents have legal standing to enter confidential negotiations on behalf of other residents? The City is soliciting input/negotiating with all impacted property owners whose property would be included in a potential assessment district and negotiating the terms and conditions of a new easement for the residents on San Dieguito Drive should the SDD Project move forward. At this point, no information has been submitted to the City that would substantiate that any individual or group of residents are able to “negotiate” with the City on behalf of any other resident(s). 10) Can the City Council revisit the swale design of the road? The agenda item on March 4, 2024, is not noticed to discuss the engineering design for the SDD Project. On September 5, 2023, the City Council discussed options for moving forward with constructing improvements on San Dieguito Drive and directed staff and MBI Engineering in a 4-1 vote to move forward with Phase 2 Road Improvement design, construction documents and easement acquisition for the “Minimal Design” option and authorized fund for the work. As discussed at that meeting, installing a swale down the middle of the road is not a recommended design option for this type of roadway. Swale designs are more common on alleys. More details of that discussion can be viewed at: City Council Meeting Agenda - 9-5-2023 (delmar.ca.us). Furthermore, any significant revisions to the conceptual design at this stage would necessitate a significant task order amendment and delays to the design schedule.
3 March 4, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Barbara Stegma <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2024 4:52 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: March 4 Agenda, Item 8 San Dieguito Drive
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.
I was surprised to read that all Crest Canyon residents had been surveyed with regard to the proposed San Dieguito Road paving project. I never received a survey, and neither did a neighbor I just spoke to. Is there more information out there that we should be aware of? This is a major project with big money involved, and we deserve to be kept informed.
Barbara Stegman
1174 Oribia Road
1 March 4, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2024 4:52 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 9, City Council meeting 03.04.2024
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.
Dear City Council,
In case I may not make it to the March 4, 2024, City Council meeting, may it hereby be known for item 9 that:
I support a Del Mar ad hoc committee for the tunnel project, but I oppose having two seats for outside members from the Torrey Pines community, whether they are voting members or not. Our interests may not always overlap and we should be able to speak freely and without outside pressure. We should of course discuss and consult with the Torrey Pines community and keep each other informed, but outside people should NOT be on the ad hoc group in my humble opinion.
I am also wondering how you will pick the 5 (or 7 if they replace the TP seats) Del Mar residents?
In Section 4 in your Resolution, it says: ”The City Council opposes the movement of hazardous materials, munitions, or other such freight that presents a safety risk through tunnels underneath residential homes”. I cannot find reliable information of what type of hazardous or explosive materials is being moved with the freight trains at particularly the LOSSAN corridor, but mentioned materials moved by freight in California are ethanol, gas oils, sulfuric acids, propane, butane, crude oils (https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/Refinery-Documents-2015yr-Petroleum.pdf), which all are flammable and therefor hazardous.
With the wording in the statement that the City Council opposes movement of hazardous material under homes, it leaves SANDAG with only one option and that’s under the Fairground to I5. All other routes will be under some homes. SANDAG might on the other hand claim that explosives are not a safety risk because the tunnel will be fortified to withstand disastrous events, so please clarify the sentence.
Personally, I think THE most important thing is missing and that’s the Solana Park option, where the downgrade will start directly south of the Solana Beach train station, trench covered, go under the San Dieguito River mouth (with underground Fairground station) and therefor be deep enough once it reaches Del Mar that it can lead to many acceptable routes. Of course the best route for the citizens of Del Mar is to have the tunnel continue 1 March 4, 2024 Item 09
2 under the Fairground parking and over to I5, but for example also under the canyon of Crest Canyon with almost no homes could be acceptable. Perhaps this is what you mean when you say “Under the lagoon and Fairground”, but if so, it needs to be clarified.
Thank you for all your hard work!
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
2 March 4, 2024 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: mark rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2024 6:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 9 on March 4 City Council meeting
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.
I want to express my wholehearted support for the resolutions related to Item 9 on the meeting agenda. Thank you for these proposed actions.
In the resolution included as attachment B to Item 9, under Sections 3 and 4, might the Council consider including “businesses”, along with “private residences” .
Thank you.
Mark Rittenbaum
Sent from my iPhone
1 March 4, 2024 Item 09
1 Red Dot – Agenda Item 9
Submited by Bety Wheeler, Seaview Ave.
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
The purpose of this Red Dot is to raise concerns that if adopted, some of the ac�ons recommended with respect to Agenda Item 9 will serve to alienate the 22nd DAA Board and put at risk Del Mar’s ability to use Fairgrounds property for affordable housing.
I have included below extensive details from discussion at the most recent mee�ng of the Fair Board, but this comment about a poten�al Fairgrounds alignment puts the concern starkly:
“We want to be very clear that if considera�on of a rail project [through the Fairgrounds]…is being considered, that will take our aten�on away and ability to consider housing as part of this plan. So all of the work we just talked about [with respect to housing], if this discussion about the rail goes forward,. . . our aten�on will be redirected…” --22nd DAA Director Mead The Resolu�on in your packet as Atachment B includes the following:
SECTION 5. The City Council requests that SANDAG evaluate, and subsequently prepare an engineering design for, a tunnel underneath the San Dieguito Lagoon and River to the I-5 as part of the upcoming Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [emphasis added] This language requests not only that SANDAG evaluate an alignment that crosses the Fairgrounds(which it has already agreed to do in the EIR], but also specifically asks that SANDAG prepare an engineering design for such an alignment. This language puts at risk the City’s ability to reach an agreement with the Fair Board for affordable housing on the Fairgrounds.
This concern is underscored by the Fair Board’s ac�ons at its last mee�ng, on Feb. 20, when it not only approved the Exclusive Nego�a�ng Rights Agreement (ENRA) with the City of Del Mar, with respect to affordable housing on the Fairgrounds, but also adopted a formal Resolu�on that makes it clear that considera�on of a rail alignment through the Fairgrounds property will nega�vely impact the Fair Board’s willingness to allow affordable housing on its property.
The Report of the 22nd DAA Board’s Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Commitee, in the packet for the Feb. 20 Board mee�ng in support of the ENRA, noted:
“Amid the ENRA discussions, a Del Mar City Councilmember began to publicly support a push for SANDAG to re-study a poten�al realignment of the Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) Corridor through District property. This eventually resulted in the Del Mar City Council’s adop�on of a set of guiding principles, which called explicitly for further study of a so-called Fairgrounds op�on.
However, in response to this push, a leter was sent [by the District] to City to express concerns about how the uncertainty created by this study could impact the si�ng of affordable housing on District's property. District also expressed concerns that such a realignment would impact or lead to the abandonment of SANDAG’s plans for a seasonal rail pla�orm. As a result, District and City collaborated on language for an addi�onal guiding principle to add to City’s official posi�on on the project: “With regard to study of a poten�al Fairgrounds rail alignment, SANDAG must respect and protect the opera�onal, economic, environmental and planning needs of the 22nd 1 March 4, 2024 Item 09
2 DAA and of the proposed Del Mar housing program on the fairgrounds, and as a key stakeholder be proac�vely engaged by SANDAG throughout [the] process.” The Del Mar City Council approved the guiding principle in December.”
The discussion by the Fair Board on Feb. 20 makes it clear that in their view, considera�on of a Fairgrounds alignment affects their ability to conduct master planning for the Fairgrounds property, which in turn affects their willingness to provide Del Mar an affordable housing site on the Fairgrounds.
That the Fair Board approved the ENRA in no way reduces this risk to Del Mar’s housing goal, because it is clear that the Board does not see ENRA as a firm or binding commitment to provide a housing site.
In introducing the ENRA at the Feb. 20 Board mee�ng, Director Mead, on behalf of the Board’s Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Commitee, stated:
“A couple of things we want you to just feel very comfortable with. This is a nego�a�on. Carlene would bring back any par�cular recommenda�ons to the board for considera�on and vote….
Now, I want to be sure that everybody understands, this doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to find a site; but this actually puts us in a posi�on where we can have that discussion…. And, again -- it opens us up to nego�a�on. Doesn’t necessarily mean that we’ll be successful. All of this just gives Carlene the ability to open up those conversa�ons.” MS. BARKETT: Okay. And if we determine that there is no site that would be appropriate, then it dies there.
MR. GELFAND: Right.
MS. ROWLAND: I think it’s a possibility.
* * *
PRESIDENT FRED SCHENK: We’ve not commited to the City of Del [Mar] . . . Remember in contracts, . . .mee�ng of the minds. . . . There hasn’t yet been a mee�ng of the minds.
And the ENRA itself reiterates this:
“During the Nego�a�ng Period, the District and the City agree to work coopera�vely and in good faith to: . . . 4) if the Affordable Development is determined to be feasible and desirable by both Par�es, nego�ate diligently and in good faith the terms of a Lease Agreement for the Development Site. [Art. 1, Sec�on 1.1(a)]
* * *
“(b) If, by the expira�on of the Nego�a�ng Period (as the Nego�a�ng Period may be extended by opera�on of the preceding paragraph), a Lease Agreement has not been executed by the District and the City and is not on an agenda for approval by the Board, then this Agreement shall terminate and neither party shall have any further rights or obliga�ons under this Agreement.” [Art. 1, Sec�on 1.2(b)]
* * *
2 March 4, 2024 Item 09
3 “This Agreement shall not obligate either the District or the City to enter into a Lease Agreement for the Affordable Development or any component thereof. Execu�on of this Agreement by the District is an agreement to conduct a period of exclusive nego�a�ons…, reserving for subsequent Board ac�on the final discre�on and approval regarding the execu�on of a Lease Agreement and all proceedings and decisions in connec�on therewith.” [Art. 3, Sec�on 3.1]
(emphasis added)
The Resolu�on adopted by the Fair Board specifically notes, “SANDAG previously studied an alignment that would run par�ally through the 22nd District Agricultural Associa�on’s property, but found extensive problems with such an idea and had not previously considered it a preferred alterna�ve….” AND the Fair Board clearly iden�fies the affordable housing project as being con�ngent on no Fairgrounds rail alignment – or even a considera�on of such an alignment that would delay the Board’s master planning work.
Right a�er the Board voted in favor of the ENRA with Del Mar, the Board president introduced a proposed Resolu�on on Rail Alignment, as follows: “And now, somewhat related, is an issue that’s equally, if not more important to us, is the considera�on with regard to the SANDAG Rail Realignment Project.”
Director Mead then noted:
“I’ll draw your aten�on specifically [to] sec�ons 1 through 3, which indicates that we are opposed to any realignment – corridor realignment -- that will impact our opera�ons, economic, environmental, or planning needs, as -- given the fact that we are in a planning process today.
Number two iden�fies that public transporta�on is the top priority, but, as we talked about earlier, a seasonal pla�orm which will reduce the traffic coming into Del Mar during the [Fair] is our top priority.
And number three, we want to be very clear that if considera�on of a rail project is going -- is being considered, that will take our aten�on away and ability to consider housing as part of this plan. So all of the work we just talked about [on the ENRA], if this discussion about the rail goes forward,. . . our resolu�on would state our aten�on will be redirected. [emphasis added]
The Board’s President framed the issue as follows:
“In my view, this is a classic example of NIMBY. This is a "Not In My Back Yard" experience here.
You’ve got the residents of Del Mar saying don’t put this rail track in my back yard, and the City of Del Mar saying don’t put the public housing in their back yard. [And] we’re the one whose back yard this is going to be in. . . .Let’s just be mindful of what they’re . . . asking for.
The Board unanimously adopted the Resolu�on.
3 March 4, 2024 Item 09
4 The City Council has to decide whether it will adopt the proposed Resolu�on (Atachment B) and process that not only singles out a Fairgrounds alignment as a Council priority, but also asks SANDAG to prepare an engineering design for that alignment, without regard to what the environmental and technical studies might say about the feasibility of that alignment. This Resolu�on language will almost certainly provoke yet another unnecessary ri� with the Fair Board.
The Fair Board itself has made it clear that a poten�al fairgrounds alignment will interfere with their master planning, and their ability and willingness to provide an affordable housing site for Del Mar.
Changing the resolu�on language so that it does not single out a Fairgrounds alignment for heightened scru�ny, and to more closely reflect the language in the Guiding Principles hammered out between the City and the Fairgrounds, is surely in Del Mar’s interests.
Respec�ully submited,
Bety Wheeler
Seaview Ave.
4 March 4, 2024 Item 09