Table of Contents
6-17-2024 Regular Meeting Agenda.pdf
Item 1 - Proclamation - Mary Sterling-Torretti.pdf
Item 2 - Proclamation - Pat Freeman.pdf
Item 3 - Draft Action Minutes Regular Meeting 6-3-2024.pdf Item 4 - List of Demands.pdf
Item 6 - State Mandated Fire Inspections Del Mar 2024.pdf Item 7 - Agreement for Street Sweeping Services.pdf
Item 8 - Agenda Report - PC Appointments.pdf
Item 9 - Agenda Report - San Dieguito Drive Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies.pdf Item 11 - LOSSAN SDLRR NOP.pdf
Item 12 - Agenda Report - FY25 Budget Update.pdf
Item 13 - TOT Ballot Measure.pdf
Item 14 - Council Compensation Ballot Measure.pdf
Item XIV.A,B, ,E,F, H, L, N, XV.C -Council Liaison Report Worden June 2024.pdf Item XV.D - Council Liaison Report - Martinez June 2024.pdf 2 10
11 12
20 38
43 111
134
195
321
376
399
422
424
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
City of Del Mar, Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.
Regular Meeting
Monday, June 17, 2024 at 4:30 PM
Public Participation/Comment: Members of the public can participate in City Council meetings in-person or via written comment (Red Dot). Anyone may address the City Council for up to three minutes, at the Mayor’s discretion, on items on the agenda.
Members of the public wishing to speak on items not on the agenda may do so under Public Oral Communications. Agenda items may be addressed in any order at the discretion of the Mayor. When addressing the Council, please state your name for the record. Any electronic presentations must be received before 9 a.m. on the date of the Council meeting. No PowerPoint presentations can be loaded during the meeting.
In-Person Participation: Please submit a completed “Speaker Slip”, including the item number you wish to speak on, to the City Clerk prior to the Mayor announcing the agenda item. The forms are located near the door at the rear of the Meeting Room. When called to speak, please approach the podium and state your name for the record.
Written Comments: Members of the public can participate in the meeting by submitting a written red dot comment via email to [email protected]. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting and the subject line of your email should clearly state the agenda item you are commenting on.
Remote Participation: Due to technical issues, remote
participation will not be offered at this City Council meeting.
Viewing the Meeting and Access to Agenda Materials: Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the City’s website at: http://delmar.12milesout.com/Video/Live and on Cable TV Spectrum Ch. 24, AT&T Ch. 99 starting at 4:30 PM. Agenda materials and communications from the public on agenda items, “Red Dots”, are available on the City’s website:
http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter and a hard copy of the agenda materials are available at Del Mar City Hall and the Del Mar Library during their business hours.
Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department at 1050 Camino del Mar or by calling (858) 755-9313.
Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Dave Druker
Mayor
Terry Gaasterland
Deputy Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Dwight Worden
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Each person wishing to speak before the City Council on any matter not on the agenda shall submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk when Public Oral Communication is announced. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor and may be asked clarifying questions. Information received during Public Oral Communication may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the City Manager by the City Council. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic presented during oral communications that is not described on the posted agenda.
Note: there is a time limit of 30 minutes for this section of public communications and each speaker will be heard in the order of the submission of their speaker slip. Speakers who have turned in a speaker slip prior to the time oral communications was called on the agenda, but were not heard during the initial time period shall be called to speak at the end of the agenda.
V. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VIII. PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Honoring Mary Sterling-Torretti’s Legacy of Educational Excellence and Leadership at the Winston School
Recommended Action: Mayor Druker will present a proclamation to Mary Sterling-Torretti.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
2. Proclamation Honoring Pat Freeman: A Champion of Literary and Cultural Enrichment in Del Mar
Recommended Action: Mayor Druker will present a proclamation to Pat Freeman.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar and considered separately after the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. If you wish to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, please submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk.
3. Approval of Minutes: June 3, 2024 Regular and Special Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.
Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book
4. Ratification of List of Demands, dated June 17, 2024 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3
5. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4
6. Resolution Accepting State-Mandated Annual Fire Inspections Report Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) accepting a report on the status of all State-mandated annual fire inspections in the City of Del Mar in conjunction with Senate Bill (SB) 1205 and California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 102-5
7. Agreement with SCA for Street Sweeping Services
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve an Agreement with SCA of CA, LLC (SCA) (Attachment A) to provide street sweeping services for an initial three-year period effective July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any subsequent amendments provided for under the Agreement contingent upon satisfactory performance by the contractor and in accordance with the rates identified in Exhibit B to the Attachment A.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1, 901-2
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us X. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS
8. Planning Commission Interviews and Appointments
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council review the Citizen Interest Forms (Attachment A), interview the applicants, and appoint up to two (2) residents to serve as voting members on the Planning Commission for a full fouryear term effective July 1, 2024, and expiring on July 31, 2028.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5
XI. PUBLIC HEARING
9. San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing, Close of Balloting, Tabulation of Ballots, and Resolution Ordering Levies
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Conduct a public hearing to receive public input for consideration; 2) Direct SCI Consulting Group (SCI) to tabulate assessment ballots at the conclusion of the public input portion of the public hearing; 3) Receive the results of the ballots; and 4) If the measure passes, adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) ordering the levy of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1, 901-5
10. Continued to August 26, 2024 Council Meeting: Introduction of Ordinance for Objective Design Standards Manual for Multi-unit/Mixed-Use By-Right Projects
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council continue this item to the August 26, 2024, Council Meeting.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9
XII. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
XIII. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
11. Initial Consideration of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council review the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project (Attachment A), receive public comment, provide initial feedback, and direct staff to work with the Council Rail Subcommittee of Mayor Dave Druker and Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland to draft the City’s preliminary Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us comments on the NOP and return on July 8, 2024, for consideration by the City Council.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1005-2, 1506-1
12. Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget Update
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed update to the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget and take the following actions:
1) Adopt a Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budget (Attachment A); 2) Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Compensation Plans for the Management and Professional, General, Firefighter, and Miscellaneous, Part Time, Temporary and Hourly Employees for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (Attachment B); 3) Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Fixed Charge Assessments for Bonded Indebtedness for Fiscal Year 2024-25 (Attachment C); 4) Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2024- 25 (Attachment D); 5) Adopt a Resolution Approving the Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2024-25 (Attachment E); 6) Adopt a Resolution Setting User Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2024 (Attachment F); and 7) Adopt a Resolution Setting Parking Violation Schedule effective July 1, 2024 (Attachment G).
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 202-3, 202-5
13. Resolution Calling for the Placement of a General Tax Measure on the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election Ballot for Submission to the Qualified Voters of a Proposed Ordinance Amending, Clarifying and Modernizing the City’s Existing Transient Occupancy Tax Regulations Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) calling for the placement of a general tax measure on the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election ballot for submission to the qualified voters of a proposed Ordinance amending, clarifying and modernizing the City’s existing transient occupancy tax (TOT) regulations under Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 3.12 (Exhibit A to Attachment A); and 2) Appoint two Councilmembers to draft an argument in support of the ballot measure and rebuttal, if applicable, for Council consideration and approval on July 8, 2024.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-10, 401-4, 401-9
14. Consideration to Place a Measure on the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election Ballot for Submission to the Qualified Voters of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Section 2.20.030 of the Del Mar Municipal Code Relating to City Council Compensation
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) calling for the placement of a measure on the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election ballot for submission to the qualified voters of a proposed ordinance amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 2.20.030 to increase City Council compensation from $300/month to $950/month, and allowing the City Council to make adjustments to Council compensation via ordinance in accordance with strict limits set by State law (Exhibit A to Attachment A); and 2) Appoint two Councilmembers to draft the argument and a rebuttal, if applicable, in favor of the measure for City Council approval on July 8, 2024.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-1, 401-4, 401-9, 502-1
XIV. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.
A. 22nd District Agricultural Association Community Relations Committee (Martinez/Worden)
Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
B. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Druker/Worden) Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
C. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Quirk) D. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Martinez/Druker) E. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Martinez/Worden) Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
F. League of California Cities – Coastal Cities Group (Worden) Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
G. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Martinez/Druker) H. Regional Solid Waste Association (Worden/Quirk)
Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
I. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Martinez/Druker)
J. SANDAG Borders Committee (Gaasterland)
K. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (Martinez)
L. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group
(Worden/Gaasterland/Martinez)
Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
M. SANDAG LOSSAN Executive Task Force (Druker/Gaasterland) N. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission/JPA (Worden/Quirk/Druker) Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
O. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Worden/Quirk)
Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
P. Other Regional Organization Reports
XV. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 7
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.
A. Arts Advisory Committee (Druker)
B. Clean Water Rate Project
C. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Worden)
Recommended Action: Receive written report (Worden).
D. Del Mar Village Association (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Recommended Action: Receive written report (Martinez).
E. Finance Committee (Druker/Worden)
F. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
G. Human Resources Subcommittee (Druker/Worden)
H. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
I. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk) J. Parks and Recreation Committee (Martinez/Gaasterland) K. Del Mar Railroad Committee (Druker/Gaasterland)
L. Lagoon Committee (Quirk/Worden)
M. Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
N. Shores Advisory Committee
O. Sustainability Advisory Committee (Martinez/Worden)
P. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Quirk/Worden) Q. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (Druker/Gaasterland) R. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XVI. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.
July 8, 2024
Del Mar Village Association Presentation - Breeders Cup Preparations Introduction of Sheriff Captain Shane Watts
Genasys Protect Emergency Communications System Presentation (EMS/Fire) Jimmy Durante Boulevard Bluff Repair Project, Structural Engineering and Landscape Architecture Task Order Authorizations
Riverpath Phase 3 NEPA Approval
St. Peters License Agreement
Ballot Measure Argument - TOT
Ballot Measure Argument - Council Compensation
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting June 17, 2024
Agenda Page 8
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Resolution Finalizing City's Comments on SANDAG Rail Alignment NOP and Authorization for Rail Subcommittee to Provide Additional Comments
XVII. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 12th day of June, 2024 at approximately 6:40 p.m.
___________________________________________ 6/12/2024
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/ Date
City Clerk
1 June 17, 2024 Item 01
1 June 17, 2024 Item 02
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 3, 2024
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Druker called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Dave Druker; Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland; Councilmembers Tracy Martinez, Dan Quirk (arrived at 5:18 p.m.), and Dwight Worden
CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Leslie Devaney reported that there were no recusals for the June 3, 2024, City Council Closed Session meeting and that Councilmember Quirk was absent from the meeting. She reported that for Item A related to a liability claim from Tate Scott the Council voted (4-0-1 with Councilmember Quirk absent) to settle the claim for $11,569.03. The original claim was for $31,859.03. She reported that there were no reportable actions for Items A and C.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Girl Scout Troops 3917 and 3224 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Druker opened public oral communications and the following people spoke:
1) Bill Carpenter
2) Robert L. Simon
3) Jim Stricklin
4) Angelina Neglia
Mayor Druker closed public oral communications.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers Worden reported on the collapse of a portion of the Cost to Crest trail and the San Dieguito Riverpark JPA work with the 22nd Agricultural District to repair the trail.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported on a shark incident resulting in significant injuries to a swimmer that occurred in Del Mar over the weekend and acknowledged the excellent work of the Del Mar Lifeguards and Fire Department in responding to the incident. Community Services Director Jon 1 June 17, 2024 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
June 3, 2024
Edelbrock presented on summer preparations. Council questions focused on the dog leash summer rules and hours and whether traffic flagging efforts will be used to clear the beach area. Current status of CSULB Shark Lab monitoring of sharks offshore. City Manager Jones responded to concerns raised by Bellaire residents related to the condition of the road following recent utility infrastructure work completed by the City.
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1: GIRL SCOUT TROOPS 3917 & 3224 BRONZE AWARD PRESENTATION (CLERK’S
FILE NO. 507-1, 1202-3)
Mayor Druker introduced the item. A presentation was provided by Girl Scout Troops 3917 and 3224.
City Council questions and discussion focused on appreciation to the troop for their work on the project.
There were no public speakers for the item.
ITEM 2: PROCLAMATION HONORING MARK RATHSAM'S 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO DEL MAR (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1201-5)
Mayor Druker presented a proclamation to Deputy Community Services Director/Lifeguard Chief Mark Rathsam recognizing and thanking him for his years of service to the City. Deputy Lifeguard Chief Rathsam thanked the Council and provided comments.
City Council discussion focused on appreciation to Mark for his service to the Del Mar community.
Mayor Druker opened the item to public comment and Betty Wheeler spoke. Mayor Druker closed the item to public comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Sarah Krietor read the titles of the items included on the Consent Calendar. There were no public speakers for the consent calendar items.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WORDEN, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 THROUGH 12. (VOTE 4- 0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK ABSENT)
Ayes: Mayor Druker, Deputy Mayor Gaasterland, and Councilmembers Martinez and Worden; Noes:
0; Recuse: 0; Absent: Councilmember Quirk; Abstain: 0.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 20, 2024 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.
2 June 17, 2024 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
June 3, 2024
ITEM 4: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED JUNE 3, 2024 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.
ITEM 5: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401- 4)
Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.
ITEM 6: BIENNIAL REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE DEL MAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 404-6)
Council received the report and adopted Resolution 2024-22, “A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY OF DEL MAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE”, to reflect changes in staff positions, on consent.
ITEM 7: APPOINTMENT TO THE UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UPAC) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5)
Council appointed Robert (Bob) Preston as a voting member to UPAC to serve a full three-year term starting June 3, 2024, and ending on June 30, 2027, on consent.
ITEM 8: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT TRAILER FROM SONSRAY MACHINERY (CLERK’S
FILE NO. 601-5)
Council approved the purchase of a trailer from Sonsray Machinery in the total amount of $16,000; and authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary paperwork to purchase the trailer, on consent.
ITEM 9: PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR THE SAN DIEGUITO PUMP
STATION
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SOLUTIONS, INC. (CLERK’S FILE NO. 601-5, 907-5)
Council approved the purchase of replacement parts for the San Dieguito Pump Station from Environmental Water Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $16,490; and authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary paperwork to facilitate the purchase, on consent.
ITEM 10: FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 SENATE BILL 1 FUNDING FOR THE CITY’S ANNUAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CLERK’S FILE NO. 901-5)
Council adopted Resolution 2024-23, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND 3 June 17, 2024 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
June 3, 2024
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017”, for the Citywide Annual Pavement Management Program, on consent.
ITEM 11: DEL MAR ANNUAL PREPARATIONS FOR SUMMER SEASON (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1101-1, 1404-1, 1502-10)
Council received a report on the City’s annual preparations for the upcoming summer season, on consent.
ITEM 12: AGREEMENT WITH TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-7, 401-8, 406-1) Council approved a professional services agreement with Townsend Public Affairs to provide state and federal legislative advocacy services for an initial three-year period effective June 3, 2024, through June 2, 2027; and authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement and any subsequent extensions allowed for under the Agreement based on satisfactory performance, on consent.
COUNCIL MEETING RECESS:
The City Council took a meeting recess from approximately 7:40 to 8:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 13: PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR LIVING LEVEES TO PROVIDE FLOOD ADAPTATION (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1404-1, 1404-2)
A presentation was provided by Principal Planner Amanda Lee. Planning and Community Development Director Karen Brindley and City consultants Chris Webb, Principal Coastal Scientist, and Carol Elden, Senior Coastal Engineer, with Moffat and Nichol were available to answer questions.
Council questions focused on how an overflow system would be engineered; whether the City would need to acquire any private property or easements as part of the project; whether there are any other living levee projects underway in the area; whether staff recommends the consultant’s proposal of the three levees; whether the proposal is consistent with the City’s sea-level rise adaptation plan; next steps in the project; whether any trails or the Public Works buildings would be eliminated or relocated due to the project; clarification and basis on estimated total project cost; depth of the San Dieguito River; whether there is an alternative to the 2-to-1 grade; rational for the two foot living levee; reason for the decrease from the initial project cost estimate and the updated cost estimate; how this projects fits within the budget and the City Council Goals and Priorities; whether Del Mar would be responsible for the funding; outside potential funding sources; whether the proposal includes dredging; provisions of the City’s Sea-level Rise Adaptation Plan related to dredging; whether staff plans to present this information to the Lagoon Committee; and whether this phase of the project is considered complete.
Mayor Druker opened the item to public comment and Carol Kerridge spoke. Mayor Druker closed the item to public comment.
4 June 17, 2024 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
June 3, 2024
Council discussion focused on support for the project; desire for staff to provide the same presentation to the Lagoon Committee; importance of the project related to the City’s sea-level rise planning efforts; federal and state funding that may be available to fund the project; and desire to understand the number of homes that may be protected by the living levee project.
Council consensus was for staff to proceed with the project planning as presented and to continue researching grant funding opportunities for the project.
ITEM 14: RIVERPATH DEL MAR EXTENSION PROJECT PHASE 3 PROJECT UPDATE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 803-3)
A presentation was provided by Principal Engineer Karen Falk.
Council questions focused on the amount of grant funding the City has applied for to fund the project; whether the City has spent any City funds to date on the project; whether matching funds would increase chances of receiving grants; consideration and timing for beginning construction; whether the project cost estimate includes a contingency; timing for receiving CDP approval for the California Coastal Commission (CCC); and whether the CCC approval delay is related to the City not having funding for project.
There were no public speakers for the item.
Council discussion focused on outside funding sources for the project and pending state and federal grant applications; timing to receive grant funds if awarded; importance of the project and desire to see it completed; whether a friendly but firm statement from the City Council to the CCC help expedite permit approval would be helpful; and the project’s relationship to the Del Mar Community Plan.
ITEM 15: UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM UPDATE AND TASK ORDER APPROVAL FOR UTILITY SPECIALISTS SOUTHWEST, INC. TO PERFORM UTILITY
UNDERGROUND DISTRICT (UUD) PRE-FORMATION SERVICES FOR UUD 3 (SOUTH HILL) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1001-2)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Project Manager II Martin Boyd and City consultant Duane Stroobosscher with Utility Specialists was available to answer questions. SDG&E representatives Kelli Fitzgerald Franchise Planning & Project Management Manager and Kate Loredo, contract Program Manager with L2 Solutions provided a statement and answered City Council questions.
Council questions focused on the explanation of the SDG&E cost estimates and SDG&E’s efforts to bring more accurate estimates to the City; desire to receive per unit cost estimates from SDG&E; clarification on SDG&E scope of construction work for the undergrounding projects; whether SDG&E outsources their construction work; whether the City could find its own contractor to remove utility poles or whether only SDG&E is permitted to do that work; whether bids expire after a certain time period; clarification on the 20B regulations and funding mechanism and how that ranges; clarification on the SDG&E Tewa Court project reconciliation; net contract versus actual cost billing with SDG&E; overall Citywide Undergrounding Program cost estimate; what is driving increases in City 5 June 17, 2024 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
June 3, 2024
construction and SDG&E costs; and whether there is a liner relationship between the amount of overhead wiring and the length of the trenching.
Deputy Mayor Gaasterland called a point of order related to the City’s Code of Civil Discourse regarding Councilmember Quirk’s conduct towards SDG&E employees.
Mayor Druker opened public oral communication and Jim Jelly spoke. Mayor Druker closed public comment.
Council discussion focused on process for private property owners to underground their laterals; project cost and timing; staff work to determine the financial implications of the updated undergrounding cost information and financing options related to the project; desire to receive cost estimate details from SDG&E; whether the City can complete any portion of the project activities inhouse to reduce costs; initial cost estimates from the Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee (UPAC), SDG&E, Lee & Roe, and Utility Specialists; 42% increase in construction costs estimated by the California Construction Index since 2019; importance of receiving the 1A bids to inform the cash flow analysis and overall Undergrounding Program (UP) budget; appreciation to staff for their work and professionalism on the project; appreciation to the Finance and UPAC committees for their service to the community on the UP; City Council’s commitment to completing these projects; lump sum bidding process used by the City and other public agencies; and timing for completing the Citywide Undergrounding Project.
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WORDEN TO APPROVE A $84,810 TASK ORDER WITH UTILITY SPECIALISTS SOUTHWEST, INC. TO PERFORM UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT (UUD) PRE-FORMATION SERVICES FOR UUD 3 (SOUTH HILL). (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Druker, Deputy Mayor Gaasterland, and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk and Worden; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MARTINEZ TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE TASK ORDER AND MAKE AMENDMENTS BY UP TO $8,490 FOR EXTENDED CONSULTING SERVICES. (VOTE 5- 0)
Ayes: Mayor Druker, Deputy Mayor Gaasterland, and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk and Worden; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
ITEM 16: REVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 THIRD QUARTER AND PROPOSED 2024-25 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET UPDATE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 202-3, 202-5) An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Finance Manager Monica Molina.
Council questions and discussion focused on the transfers being recommended; whether the Council is deferring any items in order to address the partial funding gaps for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) identified by staff; Finance Committee’s support for the proposed budget update; equipment 6 June 17, 2024 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
June 3, 2024
replacement reserve fund; whether there is funding in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget to repave Bellaire Street; and sewer and water enterprise funds and acceptable uses of those funds.
There were no public speakers for the item.
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MARTINEZ TO APPROVE THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AND PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT MANAGER II AS DESCRIBED IN THE AGENDA REPORT. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Druker, Deputy Mayor Gaasterland, and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk and Worden; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WORDEN, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GAASTERLAND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2024-24, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET”. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Druker, Deputy Mayor Gaasterland, and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk and Worden; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION REPORTS
City Council representatives reported on the Clean Energy Alliance; North County Transit District; and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Druker adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
______
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
7 June 17, 2024 Item 03
DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION
JUNE 3, 2024
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Druker called the meeting to order at 3:15 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Dave Druker; Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland (arrived at 3:18 P.M.); Councilmembers Tracy Martinez and Dwight Worden
Absent: Councilmember Dan Quirk
CLOSED SESSION
A) Liability Claim
Claimants: Tate Scott
Agency Claimed Against: City of Del Mar
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.95
Reportable Action: City Council authorized a settlement in the amount of $11,569.03.
City Council voted 4-0-1 to settle, with Councilmember Quirk absent.
B) Conference with Legal Counsel - Initiation of Litigation Number of Cases: One
Description: Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)
Reportable Action: None.
C) Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Cases: Two
Description: 1) RHNA Allocation and Housing Element implementation; and 2) Transient Occupancy Tax Regulations
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Reportable Action: None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Druker adjourned the meeting at 4:17 P.M.
_______________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
8 June 17, 2024 Item 03
1 June 17, 2024 Item 04
2 June 17, 2024 Item 04
3 June 17, 2024 Item 04
4 June 17, 2024 Item 04
5 June 17, 2024 Item 04
6 June 17, 2024 Item 04
7 June 17, 2024 Item 04
8 June 17, 2024 Item 04
9 June 17, 2024 Item 04
10 June 17, 2024 Item 04
11 June 17, 2024 Item 04
12 June 17, 2024 Item 04
13 June 17, 2024 Item 04
14 June 17, 2024 Item 04
15 June 17, 2024 Item 04
16 June 17, 2024 Item 04
17 June 17, 2024 Item 04
18 June 17, 2024 Item 04
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Josh Gordon, Fire Chief
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting State-Mandated Annual Fire Inspections Report REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) accepting a report on the status of all State-mandated annual fire inspections in the City of Del Mar in conjunction with Senate Bill (SB) 1205 and California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4.
BACKGROUND:
On September 27, 2018, the Governor of the State of California signed SB 1205. The bill mandates that every city fire department report annually to its administering authority on its compliance with the Health and Safety Code, Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3. SB 1205 states that the report occur when the administering authority discusses its annual budget, or at another time determined by the administering authority.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The California State Fire Marshal, through the California Health and Safety Code, mandates that certain occupancy types be inspected annually. These mandated occupancy types include private and public schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses, and apartment/condominium buildings in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3.
The purpose of annual fire inspections is to mitigate known hazards, reduce risk to the community and ensure reasonable compliance with the California Fire Code. The Del Mar Fire Department performs the mandated inspections, as well as inspections of local businesses, as part of the Fire Department’s annual fire inspection program. The Fire Department completed 100% of its state-mandated annual inspections within the calendar year 2023.
California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.2 mandates that the local fire department inspect all hotels, motels and lodging houses annually. The Del Mar Fire Department inspected 7 of 7 hotels, motels and lodging houses during the 2023 calendar year. 1 June 17, 2024 Item 06
City Council Agenda Report
State-Mandated Annual Fire Inspections
June 17, 2024
California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.2 mandates that the local fire department inspect all apartments once annually. An apartment shall consist of three or more attached units and excludes all duplex and townhome buildings as defined by code. The California Building Code also specifies that condominiums should be considered apartments for building code application. The Del Mar Fire Department inspected 23 of 23 Group R apartment/condominium complexes during the 2023 calendar year.
California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.3 mandates that the local fire department inspect all public and private schools once annually. The Del Mar Fire Department inspected all Group E Occupancies (1) during the 2023 calendar year.
In total, the Del Mar Fire Department conducted 31 of 31 state-mandated inspections during the 2023 calendar year.
Further, the acceptance of this compliance report via Resolution fulfills the statutory requirements contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3 and 13146.4, as amended by SB 1205.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This matter is an operational item and is not related to the City Council Goals and Priorities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Resolution 2024-XX
2 June 17, 2024 Item 06
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A REPORT
MADE BY THE FIRE CHIEF OF THE DEL MAR FIRE
DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE INSPECTION OF CERTAIN
OCCUPANCIES REQUIRED TO PERFORM ANNUAL
INSPECTIONS IN SUCH OCCUPANCIES PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 13146.2 AND 13146.3 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 was added in 2018, and became effective on September 27, 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 requires all fire departments, including the Del Mar Fire Department, that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections of every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards, as provided; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments, including the Del Mar Fire Department, that provide fire protection services to report annually to its administering authority regarding its compliance with Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar intends to fulfill the requirements of the California Health & Safety Code regarding acknowledgment of the Del Mar Fire Department’s compliance with California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 by adoption of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that the City Council has received the annual report of inspections conducted by the Del Mar Fire Department under California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 in the City of Del Mar, as follows:
A. EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES:
Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade. Within the City of Del Mar, there is 1 Group E occupancy.
During calendar year 2023, the Del Mar Fire Department completed the annual inspection of 1 Group E occupancy. This is a compliance rate of 100% for this reporting period.
3 June 17, 2024 Item 06
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Additional items of note regarding this compliance rate can be found in the accompanying staff report for this resolution.
B. RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES:
Residential Group R occupancies, for the purposes of this resolution, are generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and include hotels, motels, apartments (three units or more), as well as residential care facilities. Within the City of Del Mar, there are 30 Group R occupancies of this nature.
During calendar year 2023, the Del Mar Fire Department completed the annual inspection of 24 Group R occupancies. This is a compliance rate of 80% for this reporting period.
Additional items of note regarding this compliance rate can be found in the accompanying agenda report for this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June 2024. _____________________________
Dave Druker, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
4 June 17, 2024 Item 06
Resolution No. 2024-XX
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 17
th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
5 June 17, 2024 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Michael D’Aquila, Public Works Operation Manager
Diana Martinez, Associate Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Agreement with SCA for Street Sweeping Services REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve an Agreement with SCA of CA, LLC (SCA) (Attachment A) to provide street sweeping services for an initial three-year period effective July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any subsequent amendments provided for under the Agreement contingent upon satisfactory performance by the contractor and in accordance with the rates identified in Exhibit B to the Attachment A.
BACKGROUND:
The City’s current contractor for routine and as-needed special street sweeping services is SCA, and their current contract expires on June 30, 2024.
In preparation to go out to bid prior to the end of the current contract expiration, and consistent with Council direction provided on September 18, 2023, staff researched rates other municipalities were paying for the same services and determined that joining with other municipalities to go out to bid, providing for a larger area of service, would produce cost savings as a result of economy of scale. As such, staff undertook a joint procurement effort with the cities of El Cajon and Solana Beach to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for street sweeping services. RFP #006-25 for the three cities was advertised in March 2024, led by the City of El Cajon.
The scope of the RFP included street sweeping professional services of streets, parking lots, special and emergency sweeping, and other similar sweeping activities required to maintain the City streets and parking lots in a safe and attractive condition. Detailed maps and sweeping schedules were provided for bidding purposes. Areas serviced for the City of Del Mar include Ocean Avenue, Downtown Business District area between 9th-15th 1 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City Council Agenda Report
Street Sweeping Services Contract
June 17, 2024
Streets, primary roads, major arterial streets including center medians, and parking lots.
The proposal deadline was May 1, 2024, and a total of two proposals were received.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Staff carefully reviewed the proposals received based on evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP including contractor experience and history, quality of performance and experience performing similar services, and character, integrity, and reputation. The two proposals are listed below with their corresponding bid amounts.
Contractor Total Bid Amount for all Three Cities
(for Year 1 of the agreement)
SCA of CA, LLC $710,577.19
Guardian Street Sweeping $991,649.57
SCA submitted the proposal with the lowest overall fees and bid amount for the three cities. In addition, staff determined that SCA was the most responsive and responsible contractor based on their extensive experience providing these services in similar roles and at favorable rates.
Based on SCA’s proposed rates, and factoring the number of curb miles and sweeping square footage in the City, Del Mar’s portion of the total bid amount over the up to fiveyear term of the contract would be as follows:
Description of Service Est. Qty.
per Year
Current
Rates
Year 1
Rates
Year 1
Total
Year 2
Total (3%
increase)
Year 3
Total (3%
increase)
Year 4
Total (3%
increase)
Year 5
Total
(3%
increase)
1) Street Sweeping
TOTAL CURB MILES (rate
per curb mile)
656.88
curb
miles
$96.65/
curb
mile
$52.00/
curb
mile
$34,158 $35,182 $36,238 $37,325 $38,444
2) Parking Lot Sweeping
per Mo. (21,618 sq.
ft/month)
259,416
sq.ft.
$0.0076
/sq.ft
$0.0010
/sq.ft $259 $267 $275 $283 $292
3) Estimated Special
Sweeping Services (per
hour)
10 hours $195.00
/hr
$195.00
/hr $1,950 $2,009 $2,069 $2,131 $2,195
4) Estimated Emergency
Sweeping Services (per
hour)
10 hours $195.00
/hr
$195.00
/hr $1,950 $2,009 $2,069 $2,131 $2,195
Estimated Annual Total $68,279 $38,317 $39,467 $40,651 $41,870 $43,126 Estimated Annual
Savings $29,962 $28,813 $27,629 $26,409 $25,153
Under the Agreement that is being recommended for approval, Del Mar’s sweeping price per curb mile will decrease from $97 per curb mile to $52 per curb mile, and price per square foot will decrease from $0.0076 to $0.0010 per square foot, which will result in average annual savings of $27,953. The expected total savings over the initial three-year 2 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City Council Agenda Report
Street Sweeping Services Contract
June 17, 2024
term of the agreement would be approximately $86,000. If the Agreement is extended for an additional two-year period, the total estimated savings for the remaining two-year period would be approximately $51,000.
To ensure that the City’s street sweeping needs continue to be met, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Agreement with SCA (Attachment A). The Agreement would be for an initial three-year period beginning July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027, with an option for the City Manager to extend the agreement for an additional two-year period based upon satisfactory service provided during the initial contract period and for the rates identified in Exhibit B to the Agreement.
A summary of the services to be provided to the City of Del Mar, including locations and frequencies are included as Exhibit A to the Agreement, with more detailed information included in SCA’s proposal (Attachment B).
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
On September 18, 2023, the City Council approved an Agreement with SCA to perform street sweeping services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 and authorized City staff to participate in a regional RFP with other San Diego municipalities to solicit proposals for street sweeping services to ensure the economy of scale effect.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact of the recommended action is approximately $118,500 over the initial three-year term of the contract, which results in a total savings of approximately $86,000 for the initial three-year term, and approximately $137,000 in savings over the potential five-year term in comparison to the City’s current rates. There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item because sufficient funds for these services are already available in the proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Operating & Capital budget presented for Council’s consideration on May 17, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines. The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
NEXUS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
This is an operational item and is not included on the City Council’s list of Goals & Priorities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Agreement for Street Sweeping Services with SCA Attachment B – SCA Proposal
3 June 17, 2024 Item 07
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SCA OF CA, LLC
FOR STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 1st day of July, 2024 by and between the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and a municipal corporation (“City”), and SCA of CA, LLC (“Contractor”) (collectively “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the City desires to employ a qualified firm to provide Street Sweeping Services on City-owned streets and parking lots on a scheduled basis (“Services”). Said work is to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below and as described in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has initially determined that Contractor is qualified based on their experience and ability and willingness to perform the services desired by City; and WHEREAS, Contractor will conduct all the work as described and detailed in this Agreement to be provided to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows:
1. SERVICES.
1.1 Scope of Services. The Contractor shall perform the Services as set forth in the written Scope of Services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. Such services shall be provided at the direction of the City.
1.2. City Modification of Scope of Services. City may order changes to the Scope of Services within the general scope of this Agreement consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions. If such changes cause a change in the Contractor’s cost of, or time required for, completion of the Scope of Services, an equitable adjustment to Contractor’s compensation and/or contract time shall be made, subject to the City’s approval. All such changes shall be authorized in writing, executed by Contractor and City. If such a change results in an extension of the term of this Agreement or increases the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement, no such change shall have any force or effect unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved by the City Council.
1.3. Prevailing Wage Obligation. Contractor is hereby notified that this project is a public work and is subject to State prevailing wages. Pursuant to provisions of section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Current prevailing wage rates and information is available on the Internet at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Contractor shall post a copy of such rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum.
Contractor shall comply with the provisions of sections 1725.5, 1771, 1773.8, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to City, as a penalty, a sum to be determined by the Labor Commissioner for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Agreement, by it or by any subcontractor under it, in violation of the provisions of the Agreement.
4 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
All Contractors and subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations, State of California (DIR) prior to submitting a bid on any public works project, pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. Quotes from Contractors or subcontractors that are not currently registered as required will be deemed nonresponsive and will not be considered. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.
2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Term, Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three (3) years, from the date first written above. The Agreement may be extended for an additional two (2) year period, upon written approval of the Parties.
Time is of the essence for this Agreement and each provision of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.
2.2 Delay. Any delay occasioned by causes beyond the control of Contractor may merit an extension of time for the completion of the Scope of Services. When such delay occurs, Contractor shall immediately notify the Project Coordinator in writing of the cause and the extent of the delay, whereupon the Project Coordinator shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay and grant an extension of time for the completion of the Services when justified by the circumstances provided that no extension of time shall be granted which would extend the time for performance beyond the date specified in section 2.1 above.
2.3 City’s Right to Terminate for Default. Should Contractor be in default of any covenant or condition hereof, City may immediately terminate this Agreement for cause if Contractor fails to cure the default within ten (10) calendar days of receiving written notice of the default.
2.4 City’s Right to Terminate without Cause. Without limiting its rights in the event of Contractor’s default, City may terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving written notice to Contractor. Such termination shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice.
Contractor shall be compensated for all effort and material expended on behalf of City under the terms of this Agreement, up to the effective date of termination. All personal property remaining in City facilities or on City property thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be, at City’s election, considered the property of City.
3. PERFORMANCE AFTER TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement as provided herein, Contractor shall, within such reasonable time period as may be directed by City Manager, complete those items of work which are in various stages of completion and which City Manager determines are necessary to be completed by Contractor to allow the project to be completed in a timely, logical, and orderly manner. Upon termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models, photographs, reports, and other materials prepared by Contractor shall be delivered to the City Manager, upon his request, as property of City.
4. COMPENSATION.
4.1 Total Amount. Compensation to Contractor shall be provided in accordance with the rates described in the Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein. Contractor shall bill the City for work provided and shall present a written request for such payment monthly. City shall pay all invoices in arrears and shall in no event be required to pay for any services provided by Contractor in advance. Contractor acknowledges that it is not guaranteed any particular amount of work. 5 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
4.2 Additional Services. City may, as the need arises or in the event of an emergency, request additional services of Contractor. Should such additional services be required, Compensation therefore shall be paid to the Contractor in accordance with Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit “B.” City and Contractor shall agree to the costs prior to commencement of such work.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is, for all purposes arising out of this Agreement, an independent Contractor. The Contractor has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the Contractor in the performance of said services hereunder, the City only being concerned with the finished results of the work being performed. Neither Contractor nor Contractor’s employees shall in any event be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any retirement benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, any injury leave or other leave benefits, Contractor being solely responsible for all such matters, as well as compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations and laws governing such matters.
6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. Contractor agrees that it has the financial resources, service experience, completion ability, personnel, and experience in dealing with public agencies necessary for performing the Scope of Services and that such performance shall be in accordance with the standards customarily adhered to by an experienced and competent Contractor using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable Contractors practicing in the same field of service in the State of California. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness, and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to City. Additionally, Contractor and all of Contractor’s employees or agents shall secure and maintain in force such permits and licenses as are required by law in connection with the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement.
7. AUDIT OF RECORDS.
7.1 At any time during normal business hours and as often as may be deemed necessary, the Contractor shall make available to a representative of City for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and shall permit City to audit, examine, and/or reproduce such records. Contractor shall retain such financial and program service records for at least four (4) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.
7.2 The Contractor shall include the City’s right to audit under this section in any and all of their subcontracts and shall ensure that these sections are binding upon all subcontractors.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY. All services performed by Contractor, including, but not limited to, all drafts, data, correspondence, proposals, reports, research and estimates compiled or composed by Contractor, pursuant to this Agreement, are for the sole use of the City, its agents and employees. Neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. This provision does not apply to information that (a) was publicly known, or otherwise known to Contractor, at the time that it was disclosed to Contractor by the City, (b) subsequently becomes publicly known through no act or omission of Contractor or (c) otherwise becomes known to Contractor other than through disclosure by the City. Except for any subcontractors that may be allowed upon prior agreement, neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. The sole purpose of this section is to prevent disclosure of City’s confidential and proprietary information by Contractor or subcontractors. 6 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
9.1 Contractor shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws, regulations, and policies applicable to public contracts and procurement practices, including, but not limited to, California Government Code §§ 81000 et seq. (Political Reform Act) and §§ 1090 et seq. Contractor shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the City in which the Contractor has a financial interest as defined in Government Code § 87103. Contractor represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests, which would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the City.
9.2 Contractor shall comply with all of the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. The Contractor shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 (Assuming Office Statement) within thirty (30) calendar days of the City’s determination that the Contractor is subject to a conflict of interest code, if applicable. The Contractor shall also file a Form 700 (Annual Statement) on or before April 1, disclosing any financial interests held during the previous calendar year for which the Contractor was subject to a conflict of interest code.
9.3 If, in performing the Services set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor makes, or participates in, a “governmental decision” as described in Title 2, section 18701(a)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the City that would otherwise be performed by a City employee holding a position specified in the department's conflict of interest code, the Contractor shall be subject to a conflict of interest code requiring the completion of one or more statements of economic interests disclosing the Contractor’s relevant financial interests.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by Contractor under this Agreement shall be considered the property of City. Contractor shall be permitted to reference and use said materials for use in future studies, work, and marketing so long as said materials are considered “public documents” and are not subject to attorney-client privilege, or the subject of pending closed or executive session discussions.
11. INSURANCE
11.1 Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than “A” and “VII” and are admitted to do business in the State of California, unless otherwise approved in writing by the City’s Risk Manager.
11.2 Contractor’s liabilities, including but not limited to Contractor’s indemnity obligations, under this Agreement, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. All policies of insurance required hereunder must provide that the City is entitled to thirty (30) days prior written notice (ten (10) days for cancellation due to non-payment of premium) of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy or policies. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this Agreement.
11.3 Types and Amounts Required. Contractor shall maintain, at minimum, the following insurance coverage for the duration of this Agreement:
7 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
11.3.1 Commercial General Liability (CGL). Insurance written on an ISO Occurrence form CG 00 01 07 98 or equivalent providing coverage at least as broad which shall cover liability arising from any and all personal injury or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of $2,000,000. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
11.3.2 Commercial Automobile Liability. For all of the Contractor's automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).
11.3.3 Workers' Compensation. For all of the Contractor's employees who are subject to this Agreement and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, a Workers' Compensation policy providing at minimum $1,000,000 employers' liability coverage.
The Contractor shall provide an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives.
11.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions are the responsibility of the Contractor and must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, or (2) the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
11.5 Additional Required Provisions. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
11.5.1 The City, its officers, officials, employees, and representatives shall be named as additional insureds. The City's Additional Insured status must be reflected on additional insured endorsement form which shall be submitted to the City.
11.5.2 The policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by the City, as reflected in an endorsement which shall be submitted to the City.
11.6 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this Section 11. The endorsement should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City’s forms provided those endorsements conform to City requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.
12. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
12.1 Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend (with attorneys approved by City), and hold harmless the City, and its officers, officials, agents and employees (the “Indemnified Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or 8 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
relate to the Contractor, its employees, agents, and subcontractors performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor’s duty to indemnify under this section shall not include liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct by the City or its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees. Contractor's indemnification obligations shall not be limited by the insurance provisions of this Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that any payment, attorney's fees, costs or expense City incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the City's self-administered workers' compensation is included as a loss, expense, or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
12.2 This indemnity is in addition to any other rights or remedies which City may have under the law or this Agreement. In the event of any claim or demand made against any party which is entitled to be indemnified hereunder, City may, at its sole discretion, reserve, retain or apply any monies due to Contractor under this Agreement for the purpose of resolving such claims; provided however, that City may release such funds if Contractor provides City with reasonable assurances of protection of the City's interest. The City shall, in its sole discretion determine whether such assurances are reasonable.
12.3 Contractor agrees that its duty to defend arises upon an allegation of liability based upon the performance of services under this Agreement by Contractor, its officers, agents, representatives, employees, sub-Contractors, or anyone for whom Contractor is liable and that an adjudication of Contractor’s liability is not a condition precedent to Contractor's duty to defend.
13. SUBCONTRACTORS.
13.1 The Contractor’s hiring or retaining of third parties (i.e. subcontractors) to perform services related to the Project is subject to prior approval by the City.
13.2 All contracts entered into between the Contractor and its subcontractor shall also provide that each subcontractor shall obtain insurance policies, which shall be kept in full force and effect during any and all work on this Project and for the duration of this Agreement.
The Contractor shall require the subcontractor to obtain all policies described in section 11 of this Agreement in the amounts required by the City, which shall not be greater than the amounts required of the Contractor.
13.3 In any dispute between the Contractor and its subcontractors, the City shall not be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve the dispute. The Contractor agrees to defend and indemnify the City as described in section 12 of this Agreement should the City be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve any such dispute or should the City incur any costs in responding to third-party discovery requests.
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Contractor shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for 9 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
training, including apprenticeship. Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by City setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
15. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party shall be delivered to the persons listed below. Any such written communications by mail shall be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee five (5) calendar days after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted below.
If to City: If to Contractor:
City of Del Mar SCA of CA, LLC
City Clerk Regional Vice President
1050 Camino del Mar 4141 Rockside Road, Ste 100
Del Mar, CA 92014 Cleveland, OH 44131
[email protected] [email protected]
16 ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement and any portion thereof shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the Contractor’s duties be delegated or sub-contracted, without the express written consent of the City.
17. RESPONSIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT. City shall not be responsible nor held liable for any damage to persons or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or failure of any equipment used by Contractor or any of Contractor’s employees or subcontractors, even if such equipment has been furnished, rented, or loaned to Contractor by City. The acceptance or use of any such equipment by Contractor, Contractor’s employees, or subcontractors shall be construed to mean that Contractor accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless City from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of such equipment.
18. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISC. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Agreement shall be brought in the county of San Diego, California.
Contractor hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.
19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Contractor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local governments applicable to this Agreement, including California Labor Code section 1720, et seq., relating to payment of prevailing wages for public works projects, if applicable. Contractor shall indemnify and defend the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability incurred due to any failure on the part of Contractor to comply with any applicable Laws.
To the extent Contractor is required to comply with prevailing wage requirements, Contractor does hereby acknowledge that they are aware of, have read, and understand the terms and implications of SB 854 and Contractor and any subcontractors ensure that they are familiar with and comply with its requirements. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the registration requirement with the Department of Industrial Relations, State of California (DIR), pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. As of March 1, 2015, in compliance with SB 854, the City requires all affected Contractors and Contractors to be registered with the DIR prior to submitting a bid or proposal on any eligible District project. As of April 1, 2015, failure to comply with the requirements of SB 854 by any Contractor or Contractor, including registration with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5, shall be a material breach of this Agreement which may be terminated by the City in its sole and absolute discretion. Where applicable, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. 10 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
20. CONTRACTOR’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986. Contractor certifies that Contractor is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and Contractors that are included in this Agreement.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matters herein. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein.
22. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Contractor and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, and no verbal understanding of the Parties, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless agreed to in writing by both Parties.
23. NO WAIVER. No failure of either the City or the Contractor to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.
24. SEVERABILITY. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
25. DRAFTING AMBIGUITIES. The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each Party. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement.
26. LEGAL FEES. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by either party hereto against the other party hereunder to enforce or interpret any of the provisions, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of any tortious conduct by either party incident to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In any action or suit brought to enforce this Agreement, the damages available shall be limited to specific performance or other such equitable relief that the court may order.
27. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Agreement and the Exhibits, the main body of this Agreement shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Agreement, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Agreement, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Agreement.
28. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED. All Exhibits referenced in this Agreement are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference.
11 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
29. SIGNING AUTHORITY. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF DEL MAR,
a municipal corporation
By: ____________________________
Ashley Jones, City Manager
SCA of CA, LLC,
a California corporation
By: __________________________________
Brad Becker, Regional Vice President
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
12 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A) Services to be provided to the City of Del Mar include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Routine Sweeping - street and parking lot sweeping, and other similar sweeping activities required to maintain the City streets and parking lots in a safe and attractive condition. • Special Sweeping - occasional special sweeping will be required by the Contractor to include: add-on scheduled and non-scheduled street sweeping of special events, spills, and unusual conditions or any other sweeping requested by the City not included in routine/scheduled sweeping.
• Emergency Sweeps - occasional sweeping will be required by Contractor to include nonhazardous spills, accident clean-ups, and unusual conditions which would require afterhour, weekend, and holiday responses. On-site responses to emergency sweeps shall be within one (1) hour of notification by the City.
• New Services - in the event the City desires to extend the street sweeping program to include new streets, alleys, or public parking lots constructed after the effective date of this agreement, the contractor shall be paid monthly at the appropriate curb mile rate identified in the Fee Schedule (Exhibit “B”).
• Re-Sweeps - re-sweeps are those required by the Contractor when, after inspection by the City, are deemed by the City in its sole discretion not to meet stated performance standards, or when a street or section has been missed during the regularly scheduled street sweeping. Re-sweeps shall be completed at no additional cost to the City and at the sole expense of the Contractor.
B) Routine Sweeping is to be provided in accordance with the following schedule:
1st Monday - beginning at 5:30AM to 3:00PM
Posted Area:
• Ocean Ave (first Monday only) – Southbound (8:00am-10:00am) & Northbound Parking Lots (5:30am-8:00am)
• Public Works @ 2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd
• 17th Street Community Services
1st and 3rd Monday - beginning at 5:30AM to 3:00PM
Business District (5:30am-8:00am)
• Along Camino Del Mar from 9th Street to 15th Street (5:30AM-9:30AM) Primary Roads
• Major Arterials Streets: Camino del Mar, Via de la Valle, Carmel Valley Rd.
Jimmy Durante Blvd.
o Curb and gutters
o Right Collection Lanes
o Bike Lanes
Posted Areas
• Stratford Court (4th St-15th St) Southbound (8:00am-10:00am) • Coast Blvd. (17th St. – 23rd St.) Southbound (8:00am-10:00am) • One hundred blocks of 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 23rd Streets between Ocean Front and Coast Blvd. - North and South side of the streets 13 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
1st Wednesday - beginning at 8:00AM to 3:00PM
Center Medians of Major Arterial streets
• Major Arterials streets: Camino del Mar, Via de la Valle, Carmel Valley Rd.
Jimmy Durante Blvd.
1st and 3rd Wednesday - beginning at 8:00AM to 3:00PM
Posted Areas (8:00am – 10:00am)
• Stratford Court (4th St-15th St) Northbound (8:00am-10:00am) • Coast Blvd. (17th St. – 23rd St.) Northbound (8:00am-10:00am) Center Medians of Coast Blvd.
• Coast Blvd. adjacent to Powerhouse Park
C) In addition to the summary of services and schedule listed above, Contractor shall perform the full scope of services in accordance with the City of Del Mar specifications and other special and technical provisions listed in the joint Request for Proposals #006-24 Street Sweeping Services for the Cities of El Cajon, Del Mar, and Solana Beach. The full Request for Proposals #006-24 is on file with the City and a copy will be provided to the Contractor. 14 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agreement for Street Sweeping Services
EXHIBIT “B”
FEE SCHEDULE
1) Contractor shall be compensated in accordance with the following fee schedule, as requested for each Option Period 1-4 by the Contractor in the RFP #006-24 Proposal. The work amounts are estimated, and the Contractor shall be compensated based on the actual work performed in accordance with the specified rates.
Description of Service Quantity
per Year
Year 1
Rate
Year 1
Total
Year 2
Rate
(3%
increase)
Year 2
Total
Year 3
Rate
(3%
increase)
Year 3
Total
1) Street Sweeping Option
Period 1
Option
Period 2
• Ocean Ave - 0.28 curb
mile/month (once per month) 3.36
• Business District - 2.66 curb
mile (twice per month) (5.32/
month
63.84 • Primary Roads / Major Arterial
Streets / Posted Areas - 13.7
curb mile (34.8/ month)
417.6
• Center Medians of Major
Arterial Streets - 13.7 curb
mile/month (once per month)
164.4
• Center Median of Coast Ave -
0.32 curb mile (twice per
month) – 0.64/month
7.68 TOTAL CURB MILES 656.88 $52.00/
curb mile $34,157.76 $53.56/ curb mile $35,182.49 $55.17/ curb mile $36,240.07 2) Monthly Parking Lot
Sweeping (21, 618.00 sq. ft
per month)
259,416.00 $0.0010/
sq.ft $259.42 $0.00103/ sq.ft $267.20 $0.00106/ sq.ft $274.98 3) Estimated Special
Sweeping Services (per hour) 10 hours $195.00/hr $1,950.00 $200.85/hr $2,008.50 $206.88/hr $2,068.76 4) Estimated Emergency
Sweeping Services (per hour) 10 hours $195.00/hr $1,950.00 $200.85/hr $2,008.50 $206.88/hr $2,068.76 Estimated Annual Total $38,317.18 $39,466.69 $40,652.56 2) In the event the Agreement is extended for an additional 2-year term pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Agreement, the Contractor shall be compensated in accordance with the following fee schedule:
Description of Service Quantity
per Year
Year 4 Rate
(3% increase)
– Option
Period 3
Year 4
Total
Year 5 Rate
(3% increase)
– Option
Period 4
Year 5 Total
1) Street Sweeping TOTAL CURB MILES 656.88 $56.83/curb
mile $37,330.49 $58.53/curb mile $38,447.19
2) Monthly Parking Lot Sweeping (21,618 sq.
ft/month)
259,416.00
sq.ft $0.00109/sq.ft $282.76 $0.00112/sq.ft $290.55
3) Estimated Special Sweeping Services (per
hour) 10 hours $213.09/hr $2,130.90 $219.48/hr $2,194.80 4) Estimated Emergency Sweeping Services
(per hour) 10 hours $213.09/hr $2,130.90 $219.48/hr $2,194.80 Estimated Annual Total $41,875.05 $43,127.33
15 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of El Cajon
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF EL CAJON, DEL MAR, & SOLANA BEACH (006-25), bidding on 05/01/2024 2:00 PM (PDT)
Printed 05/01/2024
PlanetBids
16 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of El Cajon
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF EL CAJON, DEL MAR, & SOLANA BEACH (006-25), bidding on 05/01/2024 2:00 PM (PDT)
Printed 05/01/2024
PlanetBids
17 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of El Cajon
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF EL CAJON, DEL MAR, & SOLANA BEACH (006-25), bidding on 05/01/2024 2:00 PM (PDT)
Printed 05/01/2024
PlanetBids
18 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of El Cajon
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF EL CAJON, DEL MAR, & SOLANA BEACH (006-25), bidding on 05/01/2024 2:00 PM (PDT)
Printed 05/01/2024
PlanetBids
19 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Business
Search
The California Business Search
provides access to available
information for corporations,
limited liability companies and
limited partnerships of record with
the California Secretary of State,
with free PDF copies of over 17
million imaged business entity
documents, including the most
recent imaged Statements of
Information filed for Corporations
and Limited Liability Companies.
Currently, information for Limited
Liability Partnerships (e.g. law firms,
architecture firms, engineering
firms, public accountancy firms, and
land survey firms), General
Partnerships, and other entity types
are not contained in the California
Business Search. If you wish to
obtain information about LLPs and
GPs, submit a Business Entities
Order paper form to request copies
of filings for these entity types. Note:
This search is not intended to serve
as a name reservation search. To
reserve an entity name, select Forms
on the left panel and select Entity
Name Reservation ? Corporation,
LLC, LP.
Basic Search
A Basic search can be performed
using an entity name or entity
number. When conducting a
search by an entity number,
where applicable, remove "C"
from the entity number. Note, a
basic search will search only
ACTIVE entities (Corporations,
Limited Liability Companies,
Limited Partnerships,
Cooperatives, Name
Reservations, Foreign Name
Reservations, Unincorporated
Common Interest Developments,
and Out of State Associations).
The basic search performs a © 2024 CA Secretary of State C Login alifornia
Secretary of State Business UCC
SCA OF CA, LLC (202113410513)
Request
Certificate
05/07/2021
Active
Good
Good
Good
Good
DELAWARE
Limited Liability Company -
Out of State
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD,
SUITE 100
SEVEN HILLS, OH 44131
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD,
SUITE 100
SEVEN HILLS,OH44131
05/31/2025
1505 Corporation
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
AMANDA GARCIA
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
GABRIELA SANCHEZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
DAISY MONTENEGRO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
BEATRICE CASAREZBARRIENTEZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
JESSIE GASTELUM
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
JOHN MONTIJO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
DIANA RUIZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
SARAI MARIN
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
EMANUEL JACOBO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
Initial Filing Date
Status
Standing - SOS
Standing - FTB
Standing - Agent
Standing - VCFCF
Formed In
Entity Type
Principal Address
Mailing Address
Statement of Info
Due Date
Agent
CA Registered
Corporate (1505)
Agent Authorized
Employee(s)
Home
SSeeaarrcchh
Forms
Help
Skip to main content
20 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Advanced Search
Disclaimer: Search results are
limited to the 500 entities closest
matching the entered search
criteria. If your desired search result
is not found within the 500 entities
provided, please refine the search
criteria using the Advanced search
function for additional
results/entities. The California
Business Search is updated as
documents are approved. The data
provided is not a complete or
certified record.
Although every attempt has been
made to ensure that the information
contained in the database is
accurate, the Secretary of State's
office is not responsible for any loss,
consequence, or damage resulting
directly or indirectly from reliance
on the accuracy, reliability, or
timeliness of the information that is
provided. All such information is
provided "as is." To order certified
copies or certificates of status, (1)
locate an entity using the search;
(2)select Request Certificate in the
right-hand detail drawer; and (3)
complete your request online.
contains ?keyword? search. The
Advanced search allows for a ?
starts with? filter. To search
entities that have a status other
than active or to refine search
criteria, use the Advanced
search feature.
An Advanced search is required
when searching for publicly
traded disclosure information or
a status other than active.
An Advanced search allows for
searching by specific entity types
(e.g., Nonprofit Mutual Benefit
Corporation) or by entity groups
(e.g., All Corporations) as well as
searching by ?begins with?
specific search criteria.
Results: 1
202113410513
Advanced © 2024 CA Secretary of State
California
Secretary of State Business UCC
SCA OF CA, LLC (202113410513)
Request
Certificate
05/07/2021
Active
Good
Good
Good
Good
DELAWARE
Limited Liability Company -
Out of State
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD,
SUITE 100
SEVEN HILLS, OH 44131
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD,
SUITE 100
SEVEN HILLS,OH44131
05/31/2025
1505 Corporation
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
AMANDA GARCIA
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
GABRIELA SANCHEZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
DAISY MONTENEGRO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
BEATRICE CASAREZBARRIENTEZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
JESSIE GASTELUM
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
JOHN MONTIJO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
DIANA RUIZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
SARAI MARIN
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
EMANUEL JACOBO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
Initial Filing Date
Status
Standing - SOS
Standing - FTB
Standing - Agent
Standing - VCFCF
Formed In
Entity Type
Principal Address
Mailing Address
Statement of Info
Due Date
Agent
CA Registered
Corporate (1505)
Agent Authorized
Employee(s)
Home
SSeeaarrcchh
Forms
Help
Skip to main content
21 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Entity
Information
Initial
Filing
Date
Status Entity
Type
Formed
In
Agent
© 2024 CA Secretary of State
California
Secretary of State Business UCC
SCA OF CA, LLC
(202113410513)
05/07/2021 Active
Limited
Liability
Company
- Out of
State
DELAWARE
C T
CORPORATION
SYSTEM
SCA OF CA, LLC (202113410513)
Request
Certificate
05/07/2021
Active
Good
Good
Good
Good
DELAWARE
Limited Liability Company -
Out of State
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD,
SUITE 100
SEVEN HILLS, OH 44131
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD,
SUITE 100
SEVEN HILLS,OH44131
05/31/2025
1505 Corporation
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
AMANDA GARCIA
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
GABRIELA SANCHEZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
DAISY MONTENEGRO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
BEATRICE CASAREZBARRIENTEZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
JESSIE GASTELUM
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
JOHN MONTIJO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
DIANA RUIZ
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
SARAI MARIN
330 N BRAND BLVD,
GLENDALE, CA
EMANUEL JACOBO
330 N BRAND BLVD,
Initial Filing Date
Status
Standing - SOS
Standing - FTB
Standing - Agent
Standing - VCFCF
Formed In
Entity Type
Principal Address
Mailing Address
Statement of Info
Due Date
Agent
CA Registered
Corporate (1505)
Agent Authorized
Employee(s)
Home
SSeeaarrcchh
Forms
Help
22 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Data current as of 5/2/2024 9:01:52 AM
Home | Online Services | License Details
Contractor's License Detail for License #
1107868
DISCLAIMER: A license status check provides information taken from the CSLB license database. Before relying on this information, you should be aware of the following limitations.
Business Information
SCA OF CA LLC
4141 ROCKSIDE ROAD SUITE 100
CLEVELAND, OH 44131
Business Phone Number:(216) 777-2755
Entity Ltd Liability
Issue Date 07/31/2023
Expire Date 07/31/2025
License Status
License is under suspension for the following reasons:
Classifications
B - GENERAL BUILDING
Bonding Information
Contractor's Bond
This license filed a Contractor's Bond with WESTERN SURETY COMPANY.
Bond Number: 66699182
Bond Amount: $25,000
Effective Date: 06/20/2023
LLC EMPLOYEE/WORKER BOND
This license filed a LLC Employee/Worker Bond with WESTERN SURETY COMPANY.
Bond Number: 66699152
Bond Amount: $100,000
Effective Date: 06/20/2023
Workers' Compensation
This license has workers compensation insurance with the SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY
CORPORATION
Policy Number:LDS4068227
Effective Date: 06/01/2023
Expire Date: 06/01/2024
CSLB complaint disclosure is restricted by law (B&P 7124.6) If this entity is subject to public complaint disclosure click on link that will appear below for more information. Click here for a definition of disclosable actions.
Only construction related civil judgments reported to CSLB are disclosed (B&P 7071.17). Arbitrations are not listed unless the contractor fails to comply with the terms. Due to workload, there may be relevant information that has not yet been entered into the board's license database. License is under suspension for Lack of Qualifier.
23 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Copyright © 2024 State of California
Liability Insurance Information
This license has liability insurance with SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION Policy Number: GL6676535
Amount: $2,000,000
Effective Date: 06/01/2023
Expiration Date: 06/01/2024
Back to Top Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy Accessibility
Accessibility Certification
24 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Search Reset
Public Works & Prevailing Wage Contractor
Registration Search
Enter at least one criteria to display registered Public Works & Prevailing Wage contractor(s) matching your selections.
Note: Search results will display all of the Public Works & Prevailing Wage Contractor Registrations, both current and expired. Make sure a proper registration fiscal year is selected when performing a search.
Input Label
1107868
From Date:
(mm/dd/yyyy)
mm/dd/yyyy
To Date:(mm/dd/yyyy)
mm/dd/yyyy
County City
Crafts (Select all that apply)
Asbestos
Boilermaker-Blacksmith
Bricklayer/Brick Tender
Carpenter
Carpet, Linoleum, Resilient Tile Layer
Cement Mason
Consultant
Driver (On/Off Hauling)
Drywall Installer/Lather/Finisher
Electrical Utility
Electrician
Elevator Constructor
Field Surveyor
General Building
General Engineering
Glazier
Inspector/Field Soils, Material Tester
Iron Worker
Laborer
Landscape
25 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Apply
Marble Mason/Finisher
Operating Engineer
Painter
Parking/Highway/Improvement
Plasterer/Tender
Plumber
Roofing
Sheet Metal Worker
Stator Rewinder
Teamster
Terrazzo Worker/Finisher
Tile Setter/Finisher
Water Well Driller
Search Results: 1 found
Showing Page 1 of 1
Registrations
Print PDF Export
SCa of CA, LLC View Details Add to My List
Detail: Registration History
DBA
Previous Next
Add all to my list My List (0)
Registration
Number:
PW-LR-1000880302
Status: Active
CSLB Number: 1107868
Legal Entity Type: LLC
Mailing Address: 4141 Rockside Road, Suite 100
Seven Hills
OH 44131
County: Los Angeles
Craft: Operating Engineer;Parking/Highway/Impr…
Email: [email protected]
Effective Date Expiration Date
3/31/2022 6/30/2024
Name
26 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Company Profile
Reset
Company Profile
Search
Company Complaints
Company Performance
& Comparison Data
Enforcement Actions
Consumer Complaint
Study
Workers' Compensation
Workers' Compensation
Complaint & Requests
for Action/Appeals
Contact Information
Additional Information
View
Financial Disclaimer
Company Profile Search Lines of Insurance Search Other Insurance Entities Company Profile
LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY
701 Brazos St Ste 1500, Austin, TX 78701-3293
800-444-6870
Show All Name History Agent for Service Reference Information Lines of Business Financial Statements Name History
Legal Name Name Status Effective Date
LEXON INSURANCE COMPANY Current
Agent for Service
Full Name Attn Or C/O Full Address
Contact
Phone
Effective From
Date
Melissa
DeKoven
Corporation Service
Company
2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833- 3505 888-690-2882 03/15/2019
27 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Reference Information
Company ID (EID)
CA #
NAIC
NAIC Group
NAIC Group Name
Identification
106618
5113-6
13307
3219
Sompo Grp
Category
Category Type
Status
License Category
Classification
Insurer
Property &
Casualty
UnlimitedNormal
Admitted
State Name
Origin
Country
Form
Location
Texas
Foreign
-
Stock
Lines of Business
The company is authorized to transact business within these lines of insurance. For an explanation of any of these terms, please refer to the glossary.
Lines of Business
Surety
Financial Statements
California Department of Insurance Disclaimer
The Annual and Quarterly Financial Statements are submitted to the California Department of Insurance ("CDI") pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 900 and 931 and California Code of Regulations Section 2308.1. The information is furnished to the CDI by California admitted insurers and is provided to the public "AS IS" pursuant to California Insurance Code Section 12921.2.
The CDI does not guarantee the truth, accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the data contained in the insurers' Annual and Quarterly Financial Statements and expressly disclaims any liability for any errors, omissions, or the result obtained from the use of such data. Year
28 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Privacy Policy ADA Compliance Site Map Employment Opportunities Internships Free Document Readers Scheduled Site Maintenance Copyright © California Department of Insurance
Individuals who are unable to access the Annual and Quarterly Financial Statements may contact the CDI at [email protected] for additional information.
29 June 17, 2024 Item 07
CITY OF EL CAJON
Invitation to Bid for
Street Sweeping Services for
the Cities of El Cajon, Del
Mar, and Solana Beach
BID NUMBER: 006-25
Response Submitted by: SCA of CA, LLC
Bids Due: Monday, May 1, 2024, 2:00 p.m.
30 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Cover Letter
April 22, 2024
City of El Cajon
Bid Number ITB 006-25
Purchasing Division
200 Civic Center Way
El Cajon, CA 92020
Dear Purchasing Division Team, and City of El Cajon Administrators, SCA of CA, LLC (“SCA”), is pleased to respond to the joint proposal solicitation, Invitation to Bid (ITB), for Street Sweeping Services for the Cities of El Cajon, Del Mar, and Solana Beach. Our team has had the privilege to serve as the professional street sweeping service supplier to the Cities of El Cajon, Del Mar, and Solana Beach for several years.
We are excited about the future, and we look forward to the opportunity to continue to build upon our partnership with your Cities. Our San Marcos team is part of your community, and our team members are your neighbors and friends.
Our team has been serving Southern California for many years. The SCA team possesses an in-depth knowledge of each City. We have the team in place to work with your Public Works teams to meet and exceed your requirement to maintain a continuous level of cleanliness of City streets and parking lots, to assure protection of the environment in addition to preserving the health, safety, and welfare of each community.
We offer the most experienced team of sweeper operators and an expert support team to ensure we utilize the most efficient routes, and quickly respond to any emergency needs. Our thorough understanding of the street sweeping needs of each City and municipality sets us apart from other providers.
SCA is a local company that puts money back into our communities. We will apply our in-depth knowledge of the Cities of El Cajon, Del Mar, and Solana Beach to set a higher standard for street sweeping services and to drive continuous improvement in our operations. You can rest easy knowing that we operate in full compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 704.807.8020.
Respectfully,
Brad Becker | Regional Vice President | 704.807.8020 | [email protected] 31 June 17, 2024 Item 07
BID NO. 006-25
CHECK LIST
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO COMPRISE A
COMPLETE BID
Any Addendum to the bid that is issued prior to the bid opening Noncollusion Declaration
Bidder’s Bond (may use bonding company form in lieu of City form; Attorney-inFact signature for Surety must be notarized; Power of Attorney for Attorney-inFact must be included) **NOTE: Original Bid Bond shall be submitted in a sealed envelope indicating the Bid Number and Name of Bid before the due date and time as provided in the Information for Bidders.
Designation of Worker Classifications
Designation of Subcontractors (must include subcontractor(s) license number, DIR contractor registration number)
Bidders Statement Regarding Insurance Coverage
Experience Statement
Public Agency Clause
Option to Renew
_____ CARB – Off-Road Diesel Regulation Amendments
______Acceptance of City of Del Mar Standard Agreement
Bidder’s Organizational Information
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND WILL ONLY BE
COMPLETED BY THE AWARDED BIDDER
Sample of Performance Bond (Principal and Attorney-In-Fact Signatures Must Be Notarized) Sample of Labor and Material Bond (Principal and Attorney-In-Fact Signatures Must Be Notarized) Sample of Certification by Contractor
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Federal Funding ______YES ___X__ NO
If Yes: Check for Non-Debarred Status (website: https//www.sam.gov) Attach a copy of SAM print out.
Contractor’s license meets requirements of Item 6.10 of the General Conditions ____Yes____No ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Please note that the original bid bond was delivered to the City of Ej Cajon on 4/19/2024 *
*
32 June 17, 2024 Item 07
33 June 17, 2024 Item 07
PROJECT:
Bid No.:
RFI No. Received
1 03/27/24 Who is the current company providing the service and how much is the monthly price?
Sweeping Corporation of America Currently provides street sweeping services for the Cities of El Cajon, Del Mar and Solana Beach. Scope of services and contract pricing varies between Cities, and ranges from the following rates: $43.26 to $96.65 per curb mile for regular street sweeping, $0.00069 to $0.0076 per square foot for parking lots and $196.00tp $257.88 per hour for emergency sweeping services.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Request
006-25
Answer
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF EL CAJON,
DEL MAR, & SOLANA BEACH
006-25
34 June 17, 2024 Item 07
SCA of CA, LLC
35 June 17, 2024 Item 07
36 June 17, 2024 Item 07
37 June 17, 2024 Item 07
38 June 17, 2024 Item 07
39 June 17, 2024 Item 07
40 June 17, 2024 Item 07
BID NO. 006-25
DESIGNATION OF WORKER CLASSIFICATIONS
***to be submitted by ALL BIDDERS***
In compliance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773.3, the City shall notify the Department of Labor Relations Division of Apprenticeship Standards of any contract awarded under section 1777.5.
Bidder shall provide the following information for California Labor Code Section 1777.5 contract work. List name(s) of general contractor and sub-contractor next to all applicable classifications:
CLASSIFICATIONS
□Asbestos _______________________________________________________________________ □Boiler Maker _______________________________________________________________________ □Bricklayers _______________________________________________________________________ □Carpenters _______________________________________________________________________ □Carpet/Linoleum _______________________________________________________________________ □Cement Masons _______________________________________________________________________ □Drywall Finisher _______________________________________________________________________ □Drywall/Lathers _______________________________________________________________________ □Electricians _______________________________________________________________________ □Elevator Mechanic ______________________________________________________________________ □Glaziers _______________________________________________________________________ □Iron Workers _______________________________________________________________________ □Laborers _______________________________________________________________________ □Millwrights _______________________________________________________________________ □Operating Eng _______________________________________________________________________ □Painters _______________________________________________________________________ □Pile Drivers _______________________________________________________________________ □Pipe Trades _______________________________________________________________________ □Plasterers _______________________________________________________________________ □Roofers _______________________________________________________________________ □Sheet Metal _______________________________________________________________________ ✔ SCA of CA, LLC
41 June 17, 2024 Item 07
BID NO. 006-25
DESIGNATION OF WORKER CLASSIFICATIONS (cont’d)
□Sound/Comm _______________________________________________________________________ □Surveyors _______________________________________________________________________ □Teamster _______________________________________________________________________ □Tile Workers _______________________________________________________________________
Printed Name of General Contractor:
SCA of CA, LLC
42 June 17, 2024 Item 07
BID NO. 006-25
DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS
***to be submitted by ALL BIDDERS***
**Bidder must identify specialty item if applicable. The description of the specialty item must match that of the Specialty Items as listed in the Special Conditions.
In compliance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (commencing at section 4100), part 1, division 2 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California) (“Chapter 4”) and any amendments thereof, each bidder shall set forth below: (a) The name, the location of the place of business, and the California contractor license number of each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the prime contractor in or about the construction of the work or improvement, or a subcontractor licensed by the State of California who, under subcontract to the prime contractor, specially fabricates and installs a portion of the work or improvement according to detailed drawings contained in the plans and specifications, in an amount in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor's total bid or, in the case of the bids or offers for the construction of streets or highways, including bridges, in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater and (b) The portion of the work that will be done by each subcontractor under this act.
The prime contractor shall list only one subcontractor for each portion as is defined by the prime contractor in his or her bid.
If a prime contractor fails to specify a subcontractor or if a prime contractor specifies more than one subcontractor for the same portion of work to be performed under the contract in excess of one-half of one percent of the prime contractor's total bid, bidder shall be deemed to have agreed that bidder is fully qualified to perform that portion himself, and that bidder shall perform that portion himself.
No prime contractor whose bid is accepted shall (a) substitute any subcontractor, (b) permit any subcontract to be voluntarily assigned or transferred or allow it to be performed by anyone other than the original subcontractor listed in the original bid, or (c) sublet or subcontract any portion of the work in excess of one-half of one percent of the prime contractor's total bid as to which his original bid did not designate a subcontractor, except as authorized in the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. Subletting or subcontracting of any portion of the work in excess on one-half of one percent of the prime contractor's total bid as to which no subcontractor was designated in the original bid shall only be permitted in cases of public emergency or necessity, and then only after a finding reduced to writing as a public record of the authority awarding this contract setting forth the facts constituting the emergency or necessity.
A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in Chapter 4, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to section 1725.5 of the Labor Code. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by sections 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform the public work pursuant to section 1725.5 of the Labor Code at the time the contract is awarded.
43 June 17, 2024 Item 07
44 June 17, 2024 Item 07
45 June 17, 2024 Item 07
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :
INSURER E :
INSURER D :
INSURER C :
INSURER B :
INSURER A : NAIC #
NAME: CONTACT
(A/C, No): FAX
E-MAIL ADDRESS:
PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext): PHONE
INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR WVDADDL
INSD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$ PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
AUTOS ONLY
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS NON-OWNED OWNED SCHEDULED
ANY AUTO
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEEE.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH- STATUTE PER
(MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EFFLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $
$
OCCUR
CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ MED EXP (Any one person) $
EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED
PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO- JECT LOC
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
CANCELLATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED
AUTOS ONLY
4/16/2024
HUB International Midwest Limited
1411 Opus Place, Suite 450
Downers Grove IL 60515
630-468-5600 [email protected] Axis Surplus Insurance Company 26620 SWEECOR-01 Navigators Specialty Insurance Company 36056 SCA of CA, LLC
4141 Rockside Road, Suite 100
Seven Hills OH 44131
Safety National Casualty Corporation 15105 Federal Insurance Company 20281 1654530709 C X 2,000,000 X 1,000,000 X Contractual Liab 5,000 X XCU Cov Incl 1,000,000 4,000,000 X Y GL6676535 6/1/2023 6/1/2024
4,000,000
C
2,000,000 X
X X
CA6676536 6/1/2023 6/1/2024
A X 5,000,000 X
P-001-000882635 6/1/2023 6/1/2024
5,000,000 X
0 C
X
N
Y LDS4068227 (CA) 6/1/2023 6/1/2024
1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
C
B
D
Stop Gap Liability - OH
Pollution Liability
Crime
GL6676535
CH23ECPZ01ECGIC
8400-2199
6/1/2023
6/1/2023
6/1/2023
6/1/2024
6/1/2024
6/1/2024
Limit:
Each Incident/Ded:
Limit:
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Re: Street Sweeping Services for the City of El Cajon
City of El Cajon, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and volunteers are included as additional insureds under General Liability, when agreed in a written contract, subject to policy terms, conditions and exclusions. A waiver of subrogation applies under Worker’s Compensation in favor of the additional insureds listed, when agreed in a written contract, subject to policy terms, conditions and exclusions. 30 Day Notice of Cancellation applies in accordance to policy terms and conditions.
City of El Cajon
Attn: Purchasing Division
200 Civic Center Way
El Cajon CA 92020
46 June 17, 2024 Item 07
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective: 06/01/2023 Policy No. GL 6676535 Endorsement No.
Named Insured: SWEEP AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC Premium $ Included Insurance Company Safety National Casualty Corporation
Countersigned By ________________________________
(Countersignature by the Broker or Agent shall only occur in the mailing states that require countersignature)
SNGL 047 0514 Safety National Casualty Corporation Page 1 of 1
SPECIAL NOTICE OF CANCELLATION SERVICE
PROVIDED TO IDENTIFIED THIRD PARTIES
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
CHANGE
The following new provision is added to A. Cancellation of the COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS or such other applicable state cancellation endorsement:
As a special service to you, if we cancel this policy for any reason other than non-payment of premium, within thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of cancellation, we will mail a copy of such written notice of cancellation to all third persons whose name and address have, during the applicable policy period, been placed on file with us through your broker of record due to third party contractual requirements relating to such notice.
As a special service to you, if we cancel this policy for non-payment of premium, within ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation, we will mail a copy of such written notice of cancellation to all third persons whose name and address have, during the applicable policy period, been placed on file with us through your broker of record due to third party contractual requirements relating to such notice.
If we have been provided with an electronic address of such third parties, at our election we may send notice of cancellation to such third parties by electronic mail.
Notice of cancellation of coverage provided to a certificate holder is a courtesy only. Failure to provide such notice will not extend the policy cancellation date, negate the cancellation of the policy, nor confer any rights nor expectations upon the certificate holder nor subject us, our agents nor representatives to liability for failure to provide notice.
47 June 17, 2024 Item 07
CG 20 10 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 2 POLICY NUMBER: GL 6676535 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 10 04 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations
City of El Cajon, its elected and appointed
officials, officers, employees and volunteers
c/o City of El Cajon
Attn: City of Clerk's Office
200 Civic Center Way
El Cajon, CA 92020
Any location where you are required by a
written contract to add a person or
organization as an additional insured
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.
A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for bodily injury , property
damage or personal and advertising injury
caused, in whole or in part, by:
1. Your acts or omissions; or
2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your
behalf;
in the performance of your ongoing operations for
the additional insured(s) at the location(s)
designated above.
However:
1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted by
law; and
2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.
B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following additional
exclusions apply:
This insurance does not apply to bodily injury or
property damage occurring after:
1. All work, including materials, parts or
equipment furnished in connection with such
work, on the project (other than service,
maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or
on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the
location of the covered operations has been
completed; or
2. That portion of your work out of which the
injury or damage arises has been put to its
intended use by any person or organization
other than another contractor or subcontractor
engaged in performing operations for a
principal as a part of the same project.
48 June 17, 2024 Item 07
C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:
If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:
1. Required by the contract or agreement; or
2. Available under the applicable Limits of
Insurance shown in the Declarations;
whichever is less.
This endorsement shall not increase the
applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the
Declarations.
49 June 17, 2024 Item 07
POLICY NUMBER: GL 6676535 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
CG 20 37 04 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR
CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Name Of Additional Insured Person(s)
Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations City of El Cajon, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and volunteers
c/o City of El Cajon
Attn: City of Clerk's Office
200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020
Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations.
A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to
include as an additional insured the person(s) or
organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only
with respect to liability for bodily injury or
property damage caused, in whole or in part, by
your work at the location designated and
described in the Schedule of this endorsement
performed for that additional insured and
included in the products-completed operations
hazard .
However:
1. The insurance afforded to such additional
insured only applies to the extent permitted
by law; and
2. If coverage provided to the additional insured
is required by a contract or agreement, the
insurance afforded to such additional insured
will not be broader than that which you are
required by the contract or agreement to
provide for such additional insured.
B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these
additional insureds, the following is added to
Section III – Limits Of Insurance:
If coverage provided to the additional insured is
required by a contract or agreement, the most we
will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the
amount of insurance:
1. Required by the contract or agreement; or
2. Available under the applicable Limits of
Insurance shown in the Declarations;
whichever is less.
This endorsement shall not increase the applicable
Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations.
CG 20 37 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 1 Any location where you are required by a
written contract to add a person or organization as an
additional insured
50 June 17, 2024 Item 07
THIS FORM APPLIES ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING STATE(S) IF COVERED BY YOUR POLICY. IF A STATE IS NOT LISTED BELOW, THIS FORM DOES NOT APPLY IN THAT STATE.
AL, CA, DE, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, PA, SC, VA, WV This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective 06/01/2023 Policy No. LDS4068227 Endorsement No.
Insured SWEEP AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC Premium $ Included
Insurance Company Safety National Casualty Corporation
Countersigned By ________________________________
WC 99 99 35 (07 12) Page 1 of 1
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 99 99 35
SPECIAL NOTICE OF CANCELLATION SERVICE
PROVIDED TO IDENTIFIED THIRD PARTIES ENDORSEMENT
As a special service to you, if we cancel this policy for any reason other than non-payment of premium, within thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of cancellation, we will mail a copy of such written notice of cancellation to all third persons whose name and address have, during the applicable policy period, been placed on file with us through your broker of record due to third party contractual requirements relating to such notice.
As a special service to you, if we cancel this policy for non-payment of premium, within ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation, we will mail a copy of such written notice of cancellation to all third persons whose name and address have, during the applicable policy period, been placed on file with us through your broker of record due to third party contractual requirements relating to such notice.
If we have been provided with an electronic address of such third parties, at our election we may send notice of cancellation to such third parties by electronic mail.
Notice of cancellation of coverage provided to a certificate holder is a courtesy only. Failure to provide such notice will not extend the policy cancellation date, negate the cancellation of the policy, nor confer any rights nor expectations upon the certificate holder nor subject us, our agents nor representatives to liability for failure to provide notice.
51 June 17, 2024 Item 07
THIS FORM APPLIES ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING STATE(S) IF COVERED BY YOUR POLICY. IF A STATE IS NOT LISTED BELOW, THIS FORM DOES NOT APPLY IN THAT STATE.
AL, AZ, CA, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, LA, MD, MI, MS, MO, NC, NJ, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective 06/01/2023 Policy No. LDS4068227 Endorsement No.
Insured Premium $ Included
Insurance Company Safety National Casualty Corporation
Countersigned By ________________________________
WC 00 03 13 (04 84)
© 1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance.
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 00 03 13
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.
SCHEDULE
WHERE A WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS IS REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT,
SUCH ADDITIONAL ENTITIES SHALL BE CONSIDERED AUTOMATICALLY SCHEDULED BY THE COMPANY.
INDIVIDUALLY SCHEDULED WAIVERS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE NOR NEGATE THIS BLANKET WAIVER.
52 June 17, 2024 Item 07
53 June 17, 2024 Item 07
54 June 17, 2024 Item 07
✔
✔✔
✔
33 3
3 55 June 17, 2024 Item 07
56 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Affirmation of Fleetwide Compliance
Certification ID: 28703
This certificate affirms that
Sweeping Corporation of America
285 Pawnee Street
Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92078
has attested in the Clean Truck Check electronic reporting system to report a complete list of vehicles subject to Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance (HD I/M) Regulation and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) hereby verifies that as of 2/28/2024, all of the attested vehicles are compliant with the Clean Truck Check. *
A complete list of the attested vehicles is listed in the following page(s). *This Affirmation of Fleet Wide Compliance shall be used for the fleet's purposes of proving their fleet compliance status with their freight contractors and brokers. This Affirmation of Fleet Wide Compliance shall not constitute proof of a vehicle compliance with the Clean Truck Check beyond the issued date.
57 June 17, 2024 Item 07
58 June 17, 2024 Item 07
59 June 17, 2024 Item 07
60 June 17, 2024 Item 07
61 June 17, 2024 Item 07
62 June 17, 2024 Item 07
From: Adriane Leavitt
To: Mara Anna Romano; Richard Anderson; Tyler Haskell; Brad Becker Cc: Aaron Jones; David Richards; Morgan Foley; Holly Savage; Katy Trent Beyerle Subject: RE: City of El Cajon Bid #006-25 Document/Information Request Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:51:23 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image005.png
CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Mara,
Thank you for your email.
I have checked with our Fleet leadership team. They have indicated that we do not maintain off-road diesel fleet certification since all of our equipment is ‘on-road’.
Additionally, per the attached information from the CARB site, two engine sweepers are exempt from this requirement/certification.
Thank you,
Adriane Leavitt
Contracts and Proposal Manager
Sweeping Corp. of America
216-393-0656
[email protected]
www.sweepingcorp.com
From: Mara Anna Romano <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 1:26 PM
To: Adriane Leavitt <[email protected]>; Richard Anderson <[email protected]> Cc: Aaron Jones <[email protected]>; David Richards <[email protected]>; Morgan Foley <[email protected]>; Holly Savage <[email protected]>; Katy Trent Beyerle <[email protected]> Subject: RE: City of El Cajon Bid #006-25 Document/Information Request ***This message was received from outside your organization. Please be cautious of its contents, including links and attachments.***
Good morning Adriane,
Thank you for the information, however, the request was for the CARB Certificate of Reported Compliance for Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation with the Off-Road Diesel Fleet Identification number (not the CARB Advance Clean Fleets Regulation with TRUCRS Fleet Identification number). Please provide this certificate by end of business today.
Regards,
Mara Romano, CPPB
City of El Cajon Purchasing Agent
From: Adriane Leavitt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Mara Anna Romano <[email protected]>; Richard Anderson <[email protected]> Cc: Aaron Jones <[email protected]>; David Richards <[email protected]>; Morgan Foley <[email protected]>; Holly Savage <[email protected]>; Katy Trent Beyerle <[email protected]> 63 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Subject: RE: City of El Cajon Bid #006-25 Document/Information Request CAUTION: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon Mara,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding our response. We appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification/additional information. Please feel free to reach out to us (Rick Anderson – 310-740-1601), copied here or myself should you require further clarification. Thank you.
1. Please refer to the attached Certificate of Compliance with the California Air Resources Board for SCA of CA, LLC.
2. Also, you required clarification regarding the reference in our response in the ‘Designation of Worker Classification’. We have checked the line item ‘Operating Engineer’ as the related job classification to our sweeper driver. We list ‘SCA of CA, LLC’ and the ‘contractor’ since we will be the primary supplier and we will not be using any subcontractors.
64 June 17, 2024 Item 07
Adriane Leavitt
Contracts and Proposal Manager
Sweeping Corp. of America
216-393-0656
[email protected]
www.sweepingcorp.com
From: Mara Anna Romano <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 6:46 PM
Cc: Aaron Jones <[email protected]>; David Richards <[email protected]>; Morgan Foley <[email protected]>; Holly Savage <[email protected]>
Subject: City of El Cajon Bid #006-25 Document/Information Request 65 June 17, 2024 Item 07
***This message was received from outside your organization. Please be cautious of its contents, including links and attachments.***
Good Afternoon,
Please provide a response before the due date and time provided.
Regards,
Mara Romano, CPPB, Purchasing Agent
City of El Cajon | 200 Civic Center Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 441-1787
66 June 17, 2024 Item 07
67 June 17, 2024 Item 07
68 June 17, 2024 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Denise Galvan, Management Analyst
Kseniia Izgarskaia, Senior Management Analyst
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Interviews and Appointments REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Citizen Interest Forms (Attachment A), interview the applicants, and appoint up to two (2) residents to serve as voting members on the Planning Commission for a full four-year term effective July 1, 2024, and expiring on July 31, 2028.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission (PC) is charged with the administration of the Community Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and Map, and review of related plan applications. The Commission conducts public hearings and considers land use applications such as variances, conditional use permits, coastal development permits, zoning ordinance interpretations, and determinations of allowable uses.
There are three upcoming vacancies on the PC due to the term expirations of Claire McGreal, Philip Posner, and Ted Bakker on June 30, 2024. The City advertised the vacancies and received two Citizen Interest Forms from Devin Capps and Philip Posner (Attachment A). A third Citizen Interest Form was submitted but withdrawn before the recruitment closing deadline. Both applicants have indicated that they meet the requirements of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 2.34.020 (Attachment B) to serve as voting members on the PC.
Philip Posner is completing his second term on the PC. Pursuant to Council Policy 200 “Committees – City Council Advisory Committees, Boards and Commissions” (Attachment C) Section E.2, the number of consecutive terms an individual may serve on a committee is two. However, the City Council has the flexibility to make an exception if they feel it is to the benefit of the committee to re-appoint an individual for a third term.
Pursuant to Council Policy 200 Section C.2, Council shall hold interviews for appointments to the PC only when applications received exceed the number of vacancies.
However, staff recommends that the Council make an exception in this special 1 June 17, 2024 Item 08
City Council Agenda Report
Planning Commission Interviews and Appointments
June 17, 2024
circumstance, due to the lack of a PC quorum that will happen if none of the three vacancies are filled by July 2024. Without a quorum, the PC will be unable to hold meetings and fulfill their important role for the City. Staff recommends that the City Council review the Citizen Interest Forms, interview the applicants, and vote to appoint up to two (2) applicants to serve on the PC as voting members for a full four-year term beginning on July 1, 2024, and expiring on July 31, 2028.
Pursuant to Council Policy 200 Section C.6, an applicant must receive three affirmative votes in order to be appointed. If three affirmative votes are not received, the Council can choose to vote again or to direct staff to reopen the vacancy to solicit additional interest.
If one or both applicants are appointed to the PC by the City Council, there will be at least one remaining vacancy on the PC, which City staff will continue to advertise until filled by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Citizen Interest Forms
Attachment B - Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.34.020
Attachment C - City Council Policy 200
2 June 17, 2024 Item 08
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law
DEL MAR CITIZEN INTEREST FORM
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Last Name First Name Middle Initial
Home Street Address* City, State
Business Street Address (if applicable) City, State
Home Phone Number Business Phone Number E-mail Address
II. APPLICATION DETAILS
I am interested in serving on the following Committees, Board(s) or Commission(s) in order of preference (indicate 1st, 2nd choice, etc.):
___ Arts Advisory Committee ___ Parks and Recreation Committee ___ Design Review Board ___ Planning Commission
___ Finance Committee ___ Sustainability Advisory Committee ___ Lagoon Committee ___ Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee ___ Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee ___ Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee ___ Other(s) (please indicate):_______________
Qualifications for appointment and/or reasons for application (attach additional pages as needed):
Education:
*Applicants are required to provide a physical residency address. Mailing addresses or Post Office boxes will not be accepted. The City will maintain all residency addresses strictly confidential.
Capps Devin R
Del Mar, Ca. X
I am a California licensed general contractor with extensive experience in homebuilding. I served on the Heritage Ranch Community Service District Board for over seven years, including one year as President and one year as Vice President. As a new resident of Del Mar, I am eager to contribute to the community. My experience on the waterboard and in homebuilding equips me with valuable insights and skills that would be beneficial to the planning commission.
High school 
3 June 17, 2024 Item 08
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law Relevant Experience (job or volunteer etc.):
Name all of the Del Mar Committees/Boards/Commissions that you now serve on:
Please name all the Boards/Commissions/Committee/Task Forces that you have served on in the past, and if you can, the dates of your service:
Optional: Please list three Del Mar residents who can provide a reference**:
NAME STREET NAME (no house
number)
Phone Number
**Due to Brown Act limitations that restrict communications between Councilmembers regarding upcoming actions of the City Council, please do not include a current sitting Councilmember as a reference for your appointment.
Residency
Month Year
I have been a resident of California since:
I have been a resident of San Diego County since:
I have been a resident of Del Mar since:
What part of town do you live in? Geographic diversity is desirable and will be taken into account.
Check the neighborhood map to verify your neighborhood. ☐ North Bluff
☐ North Beach
☐ South Beach
☐ Village Center
☐ South Bluff
☐ South Hills
☐ North Hills
☐ Valley
Are you a full-time or part-time resident of Del Mar? ☐ Full-time ☐ Part-time Is Del Mar your primary place of residence? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Are you a registered voter in Del Mar? ☐ Yes ☐ No From February 2017 to March 2024, I served as Director of the Heritage Ranch Community Service District, including terms as President and Vice President. I led initiatives to install solar power and improve water quality, gaining significant experience in infrastructure and governance. As a California licensed general contractor, I have built numerous homes and collaborated with local governments on development projects, making my skills and background a valuable asset to the planning committee.
None
February 2017 to March 2024, I served as Director of the Heritage Ranch Community Service District. Heritage Ranch is a private community just out side of Paso Robles, California.
Vard Hunt Camino Del Mar 
Lisa Longworth Camino Del Mar 
Alex Hernandez  Camino Del Mar 
7 50 3 1
3 1
✔
✔
4 June 17, 2024 Item 08
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law III. COMMITTEE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
The following are additional questions related to specific committees. Please answer the questions only for the committee(s) you are applying for.
1. Arts Advisory Committee
Membership on the Arts Advisory Committee is set by category. Which membership category do you best fit in? Select all that apply. (Note that City staff, consultants, and vendors are precluded from serving on the Arts Advisory Committee.)
☐ Resident with an art background
☐ Resident without an art background
☐ Business Owner- Art related business
☐ Del Mar Foundation Representative
☐ Del Mar Village Association Representative
☐ Ex-Officio (non-voting) – with Art related expertise
☐ Other (please explain): _________________________________________________ Describe your experience and skills as they relate to the world of community art and fine art.
Why in your opinion is public art valuable to the Del Mar community? What is your public art philosophy?
2. Finance Committee
The Finance Committee is looking for applicants with financial expertise and background.
Please describe your experience reviewing financial reports, conducting financial studies or any related experience. Please include any experience specific to public entities.
What aspects of the City’s finances most interest you and why? 5 June 17, 2024 Item 08
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law
3. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee
Membership on the Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee is set by category. Which membership category do you best fit in? (Select all that apply)
☐ Current (or within past 5 years) Finance Committee Member ☐ Business Community Member
☐ At-large Resident Member
☐ Other (please explain): ____________________________________________________
4. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee
Which membership category do you best fit in? (Select all that apply) ☐ Business representative (can be a non-resident)
☐ Resident
☐ Other (please explain): ____________________________________________________ Do you have any special expertise or experience related to traffic and parking? If yes, please explain:
5. Parks and Recreation Committee
The Parks and Recreation Committee is looking for applicants with an interest in the City’s parks and open spaces.
Please describe your personal or professional experience related to parks, open spaces, trails, public recreation or any similar experience.
What aspects of the City’s parks and recreation most interest you and why?
6. Lagoon Committee
The Lagoon Committee is looking for applicants interested in the preservation of the lagoon and surrounding area.
What aspect(s) of being on the Lagoon Committee most interest you and why? 6 June 17, 2024 Item 08
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law
7. Shores Advisory Committee
The Shores Advisory Committee is looking for applicants interested in the Shores Park property and planning process.
What aspects of being on the Shores Advisory Committee most interest you and why? Please describe your vision for the future of Shores Park.
8. Sustainability Advisory Committee
The Sustainability Advisory Committee members are community leaders on environmental issues.
In what ways would you like to contribute to a more sustainable world either in your personal life or on a broader community level?
Please describe any outreach or public education efforts you have participated in related to environmental issues or in other areas. Do you have skills or experience in outreach that you could bring to the Sustainability Advisory Committee?
9. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee
The Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee is seeking applicants with an interest in the citywide undergrounding project.
Is your utility service undergrounded? What involvement did you have, if any? What aspects of being on the Utility Undergrounding Advisory Committee most interest you? 7 June 17, 2024 Item 08
8 June 17, 2024 Item 08
9 June 17, 2024 Item 08
10 June 17, 2024 Item 08
11 June 17, 2024 Item 08
12 June 17, 2024 Item 08
13 June 17, 2024 Item 08
14 June 17, 2024 Item 08
15 June 17, 2024 Item 08
16 June 17, 2024 Item 08
Created: 2024-04-03 15:46:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 8)
Chapter 2.34 – Planning Commission
2.34.020 Membership.
A. The Planning Commission shall consist of five members who are registered voters of the City of Del Mar and maintain residency within the City's municipal boundaries. Residency shall be maintained for no less than six months prior to appointment and if a Commissioner ceases to reside within the City during their membership on the Planning Commission, the appointment of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated. For the purposes of this section, residency shall mean someone who maintains residence and is physically present in the City of Del Mar for no less than six months per calendar year.
B. Members shall serve staggered, four-year terms.
(Ord No. 931 , § 1, 9-18-2017)
17 June 17, 2024 Item 08
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200
CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 04/04/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-25
PAGES: PAGE 1 OF 6
POLICY:
A. Vacancies
It is the City Council policy to advertise vacancies of the City Council advisory committees, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission on the City website for a minimum of 10 calendar days, and at least once in the Del Mar Weekly and/or through CivicSend eblast.
Upcoming vacancies may also be announced by the City Manager or Council Members at City Council meetings. The deadline for interested citizens to file a Citizen Interest Form (application) is by the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on a Friday.
B. Council Appointments to City Council Advisory Committees
1. It shall be the policy of the City Council to direct its liaisons to each Council advisory committee to make recommendations to the full Council regarding appointments to City Council advisory committees.
2. If by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such committees is equal to the number of vacancies, or less than the number of vacancies when recruiting for multiple vacancies, the Council liaisons to the specific committee shall determine whether to extend the deadline or review the Citizen Interest Form(s) and/or interview the applicant(s), and make a recommendation to Council that the applicant(s) be appointed to serve on the committee.
3. If by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such committees is more than the number of vacancies, then the Council liaisons to the specific committee shall review the Citizen Interest Forms and/or interview the applicant(s). Council liaisons shall then make a recommendation to Council as to which applicant(s) should be appointed to serve on the committee. If the Council liaisons determine the applicants are not qualified or do not meet the needs of the committee, the application period may be reopened by the Council liaisons in order to solicit additional interest.
4. If the Council liaisons to a committee cannot agree on a recommendation for appointment(s), they shall direct staff to prepare an agenda report for the next available City Council meeting where the City Council will vote on the appointment without discussion. Three affirmative votes are needed in order for the City Council to make an appointment. If an applicant does not receive the necessary votes, the Council may re-vote or may direct staff to reopen the vacancy to solicit additional interest. 18 June 17, 2024 Item 08
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200
CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 04/04/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-25
PAGES: PAGE 2 OF 6
5. Applicants nominated to serve on a Council advisory committee are encouraged, but not required, to attend the City Council meeting when the City Council is scheduled to consider their appointment to serve on the Committee.
6. In the event that there is only one Council liaison to an advisory committee, the Mayor will act as the second Council liaison for the purposes of reviewing Citizen Interest Forms to recommend to the City Council for appointment.
7. Prior to the City Council meeting where the Council will vote on an appointment, any Council member can request an un-redacted copy of all qualified Citizen Interest Forms in order to review applicant information and contact interested applicant(s) prior to the meeting if so desired.
8. In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 “Commissions, Boards and Committees: General Provisions”, it shall be the City Council’s policy to select for appointment the candidates who received three affirmative votes by the City Council. In the case where a candidate does not receive three affirmative votes, the Council may revote or direct the City Clerk to re-advertise the vacancy.
9. When there are open vacancies for City Council advisory committees, other than Planning Commission or Design Review Board, the City Clerk will bring forward to the City Council the names of the candidates, the number of vacancies, and the liaison recommendation(s).
The City Council will then vote on the recommendation to fill the vacancies. When the Council liaisons to a committee agree on a recommendation for appointment, the item will be included on the consent calendar. When the Council liaisons to a committee do not agree on the recommendation for appointment, the item will be brought forward as a Council Business item as described in Section B(4) of this policy.
10. If the spouse or significant other of a City Council member is an applicant to fill a vacancy on an advisory committee, the City Council member must recuse themselves from voting on that appointment.
C. Council Appointments to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission
1. The City Council shall make appointments to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board in accordance with the membership requirements of Chapter 2.34 “Planning Commission” and 2.38 “Design Review Board” of the Del Mar Municipal Code, respectively.
19 June 17, 2024 Item 08
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200
CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 04/04/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-25
PAGES: PAGE 3 OF 6
2. It shall be the policy of the City Council to hold interviews for appointments to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board only when applications received for such commission or board exceed the number of vacancies.
3. Interviews shall be public and televised as part of the City Council meeting.
4. If, by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such board or commission equals or is less than the number of vacancies, then there shall be an automatic extension of time to accept applications.
5. Prior to the City Council meeting where the Council will vote on an appointment, an un-redacted copy of all qualified Citizen Interest Forms will be provided to the full City Council in order to allow the full Council to review applicant information and contact interested applicant(s) prior to the meeting if so desired.
6. In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 “Commissions, Boards and Committees: General Provisions”, it shall be the City Council’s policy to select for appointment the candidates who received three affirmative votes by the City Council. In the case where a candidate does not receive three affirmative votes, the Council may re-vote or direct the City Clerk to re-advertise the vacancy.
7. When there are advertised vacancies for Planning Commission or Design Review Board, the City Clerk will bring forward to the City Council the names of the candidates and the number of vacancies. After interviewing candidates in a public forum, the City Council will vote on the candidates to fill the vacancies. The City Clerk will read aloud the vote of each Council member.
8. Because of conflicts of interest which might exist, or which might give the appearance to the public of existing, and in order to preserve public confidence in the City’s vital planning processes and avoid questions of fairness and bias, prejudice or influence, the immediate family member, of a City Council member, Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner may not serve or be appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. For purposes of this policy, immediate family member is defined as an individual’s parent, child, spouse, significant other, or sibling living.
9. In accordance with Section C(8) of this policy, should an immediate family member of a Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner be elected to serve on the City Council, said Board Member or Commissioner shall be required to resign from their position no later than the day prior to the day the City Council member’s term of office commences.
20 June 17, 2024 Item 08
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200
CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 04/04/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-25
PAGES: PAGE 4 OF 6
D. City Advisory Committee Membership Categories
1. Subject to the membership limits set forth in Section E(6) of this policy, the City Council may designate seat(s) for ex-officio members in a committee’s charter. Exofficio members are non-voting subject matter experts who may be residents or nonresidents.
2. Subject to the membership limits set forth in Section E(6) of this policy, the City Council may designate membership categories for business representatives in a committee’s charter. Business representatives are business owners or operators whose business has a physical entity within the City of Del Mar and who have a current City of Del Mar business license.
E. Concurrent Committee Assignments, Term Limits and Length, Membership Size and Rotation of Chair and Vice Chair
1. It shall be the policy of the City Council to limit the number of concurrent appointments that any one individual has to City Council advisory committees, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission. The limit of concurrent appointments shall be two. If an individual has two concurrent appointments, they will not be eligible to serve on ad hoc committees, except in special circumstances as determined by the Council or Council liaisons.
2. The number of consecutive terms an individual may serve on a committee is two, as further described in Section E(5) below. However, the City Council has the flexibility to make an exception if they feel it is to the benefit of the committee to re-appoint an individual for a third term. Committee members who would like to continue to serve another term once their appointed term has expired must re-apply by filing a Citizen Interest Form prior to the advertised deadline for applications. Former committee members must wait one year from the expiration of their second consecutive term before being appointed to the same committee.
3. The term length for all City Council advisory committees shall be three years. Terms will expire on the last day of the month.
4. The term length for voting members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board shall be four years, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Sections
2.34.020 and 2.38.020, respectively. The term length for ex-officio members on the Design Review Board shall be two years, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.38.020.
21 June 17, 2024 Item 08
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200
CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 04/04/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-25
PAGES: PAGE 5 OF 6
5. In order to ensure that terms remain appropriately staggered, individuals appointed to fill an unexpired vacancy shall finish the remainder of the term of the vacating committee member. If the balance of the vacant term is less than six (6) months, it shall not count as a term towards the two-consecutive-term limit.
6. All City advisory committees have a maximum committee membership of seven (7) to nine (9) total members, including ex-officio members, at the recommendation of the committee’s Council liaisons and approval of the full City Council. If a committee membership size is to be reduced via attrition, attrition shall not affect members who complete their first term and are eligible and wiling to serve a second term. However, such members must be recommended for reappointment by the committee’s Council liaisons, and their reappointment shall be confirmed by the full Council at a Council meeting.
7. It shall be the policy of the City Council that the members of each advisory committee appoint a chair, vice chair and secretary at the last meeting of the calendar year, with the new chair serving at the first meeting of the new year, and that the these positions rotate annually among all the committee members. It is recommended that the vice chair assist with committee responsibilities and provide for a succession plan for chairing the committee. In the event a committee does not have volunteers to serve as chair and vice chair, then the committee has the flexibility to allow consecutive appointmentsto the chair/vice chair or secretary positions, i.e. rotation of such positions among the members is not required if there are no volunteers to serve in those positions.
At the discretion of the committee, the vice chair and secretary positions may be filled by the same committee member.
8. It shall be the policy of the City Council that the members of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission appoint a chair and vice chair at the last meeting of the calendar year, with the new chair serving at the first meeting of the new year, and that the these positions should rotate annually among all the members. The functions of a secretary for the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, such as preparing minutes, will be managed by City staff.
F. Incumbents to Serve Until New Appointments Confirmed It shall be the policy of the City Council to allow an incumbent on a City Council advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission, whose term has expired to continue to officially serve until the vacancy is filled or three months has passed, whichever occurs sooner.
22 June 17, 2024 Item 08
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200
CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY
COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 04/04/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-25
PAGES: PAGE 6 OF 6
G. Attendance Policy for Boards, Commissions, and Committees In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, if a member of a City advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission is absent from three regular, adjourned, or special meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaisons to the commission, board, or committee shall determine whether the absence was for cause. If an advisory committee, which does not include the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, does not have two Council liaisons, then the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor shall act as liaisons to that commission, board, or committee for this purpose. If the liaisons do not agree about whether the absences were without cause so as to warrant removal, the item will be presented to the full City Council to make the determination.
H. Formation and Dissolution of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
1. New committees must be formed by Resolution of the City Council and must include a committee charter detailing, the committee mission/purpose, type of committee (standing or ad-hoc), membership requirements, conflict of interest requirements, and open meeting requirements.
2. If the newly formed committee is an ad-hoc committee, the Resolution and charter should include a sunset date. The sunset date can be extended by Council action, if necessary.
3. Committees may be dissolved by Resolution of the City Council at any time or during the annual review of the City Council Local Appointments. Ad hoc committees shall automatically be dissolved on their sunset date unless extended in advance by the City Council.
I. City Council Review of City Board, Commission, and Committee System At least every four (4) years the City Council shall establish a subcommittee or alternative process to review the City’s boards, commission and committee system to provide recommendations to improve committee efficiencies to the City Council. However, the City Council may, in its discretion, elect to review the City’s boards, commission and committee system outside of the four (4) year review as it deems necessary. 23 June 17, 2024 Item 08
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Martin Boyd, Principal Engineer
Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing, Close of Balloting, Tabulation of Ballots, and Resolution Ordering Levies
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Conduct a public hearing to receive public input for consideration; 2) Direct SCI Consulting Group (SCI) to tabulate assessment ballots at the conclusion of the public input portion of the public hearing; 3) Receive the results of the ballots; and 4) If the measure passes, adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) ordering the levy of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-14, included as Attachment B, initiating the Proposition 218 ballot process with property owners who receive an identified special benefit from the SDD Project. Adoption of the resolution preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report and ordered the mailing of the Notice of Hearing and ballots to owners of the benefiting properties so they could vote on the measure. The City Council also adopted Resolution 2024-15, included as Attachment C, which clarifies the ballot procedures for the City to follow.
Ballots were mailed out to property owners on April 30, 2024, with a June 17, 2024, deadline to submit ballots. As of the time of distribution of this agenda report, 25 ballots had been returned. These ballots have remained sealed and will be opened and tabulated by SCI at the conclusion of the public comment portion of the City Council public hearing to be held on June 17, 2024. If the measure passes via a 50% weighted vote by amount of assessment of the ballots received, the City Council will consider adopting a Resolution, included as Attachment A, which will officially approve the Engineer’s Report, accept the tabulation, and order the levying of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and future years until the assessment has been satisfied.
1 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies June 17, 2024
BACKGROUND:
San Dieguito Drive (SDD) is an approximately 1,000 linear foot private road with public access in the City of Del Mar that extends from the intersection of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to Oribia Road. The road is not part of the City’s public streets system and is not owned or maintained by the City. However, there is an easement on San Dieguito Drive that grants the City right-of-way for road and utility purposes (i.e., sewer, water, gas, power, and telephone lines).
Currently, San Dieguito Drive is in a deteriorated condition and in need of repair. For decades, the City has provided information and discussed alternatives with the adjacent property owners of San Dieguito Drive about how they could develop a road of sufficient quality and standards so that it could be considered for acceptance into the City’s streets and roadways system and added to the City’s regular street maintenance schedule. Unfortunately, efforts among residents over the years to address the road condition have been unsuccessful, and the road condition has continued to decline.
In an effort to work with the residents to explore improving the road to an acceptable condition and for the City to participate in doing so, the City Council authorized a task order with Michael Baker International (MBI) to conduct a Preliminary Engineering Assessment (Phase 1) for SDD, totaling $64,500. The intent of Phase 1 was to better understand the condition of the road and develop conceptual design alternatives and costs that could serve as the basis for a future capital improvement project to improve the road.
As an outcome of Phase 1, the City Council reviewed four potential design alternatives to improve San Dieguito Drive on September 5, 2023, and approved further study of the alternative known as the “Minimal Alternative” design. As a next step in the process, the Council authorized a $155,400 task order with MBI to proceed with the Road Improvement Design, Construction Documents and Easement Acquisition (Phase 2) for SDD. The initial amount of the task order was subsequently increased by $25,882, as approved by the Council on April 1, 2024, to include necessary potholing, mark-outs, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) work to complete the design and permitting for the project.
The Minimal Alternative envisions a roadway with a standard centerline crown with 16 feet of asphalt and 3.5-foot concrete rolled curbs for an improved width of 23 feet and a minimum 20 feet of travel-way for public safety vehicle access. The adjacent property owners support this design as expressed during several neighborhood meetings with staff and to the City Council, because it maintains the rural character of the neighborhood as envisioned in the City’s Community Plan and is the least impactful to existing private improvements, while providing the minimum necessary improvements to upgrade the road to public standards.
The preliminary estimated cost to design and construct the Minimal Alternative was $1.3 million. This amount included all costs associated with the project including Phase 1 and 2 engineering, environmental review, assessment consultant services, and construction.
Separate from the actual design of the road improvements is the determination of how the proposed improvements and related costs will be paid for, who will contribute, and what the appropriate proportionate share should be for the project beneficiaries. To assist with this, 2 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies June 17, 2024
on October 16, 2023, the City Council approved an agreement with SCI to perform assessment engineering services including an analysis of the project scope and cost, special (private) and general (public) benefits resulting from the improvement project, planning and feasibility activities, development of a Proposition 218-compliant Engineer’s Report, balloting services, and community outreach for the purpose of forming an assessment district to fund the residents’ portion of the costs to improve SDD.
It should be noted that SCI is a highly qualified assessment engineering and public finance consulting firm that assists public agencies with revenue measures and administration. SCI has significant expertise in the area of assessment districts and is one of the few firms in California with experience in forming assessment districts for road improvements and maintenance. The Engineer of Work for this project, John Bliss, has over 20 years of assessment district experience and has formed more assessment districts than anyone else in the State of California.
On April 15, 2024, the City Council received a detailed project update on the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project, presentation of the Engineer’s Report related to project benefits, and adopted Proposition 218 resolutions. The following discussion/analysis summarizes the project information from the prior agenda report and provides details related to the staff recommendation.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Resident Outreach/Engagement
Throughout this process, the City has engaged residents to explore ideas/solutions, answer questions and solicit input. This is a typical and standard process for the City and was particularly valuable in developing the Minimal Alternative project design that was ultimately supported by residents and the City Council. All documents and information related to this project and the resident coordination process to date including agenda reports, Q&A handouts, engineering and assessment studies/analysis, and meeting recordings can be found on the City’s website at: https://www.delmar.ca.us/883/San-Dieguito-DriveImprovements-Project.
Over the last few months, staff has continued to engage residents to better understand whether there is enough support to proceed with the actions necessary to formalize an assessment district and construction of the road improvements. This work includes distribution of an informal resident survey by mail, two (2) public neighborhood meetings, individual discussions, and onsite meetings with residents to answer questions, address concerns, and distribute Q&A documents with comprehensive information about the project. 3 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies June 17, 2024
Final Project Design and Estimated Total Project Costs
The final design remains consistent with the Minimal Alternative previously approved by City Council, and includes the following details:
Removal of the existing 17 to 20 feet of deteriorated road. Installation of a new road section with 16 feet of asphalt with aggregate base and 3.5- foot concrete rolled curbs.
Provides a wider roadway for 20 feet of drivable surface. Improves drainage by installing a standard centerline crown, concrete rolled curbs, storm drain pipelines, and storm drain inlets.
Installation of two modular wetlands (stormwater quality Best Management Practices). Installation of a retaining wall at the southwest corner of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to widen the roadway.
Reconstruction of driveways to conform to the new rolled curb profile.
The final project scope includes the necessary elements for the improvements to meet minimum road standards and be accepted into the City’s street system for ongoing maintenance. This is important because although it is not identified (legally precluded) as a special benefit to the property owners in the Engineer’s Report, there is a significant benefit and cost savings to property owners in the release of future maintenance obligations for SDD once the project is complete and the road is accepted into the City’s street system. Another potential benefit that is precluded from consideration as part of the Engineer’s Report is the increase in the market value to the properties that use San Dieguito Drive to access their properties.
The total estimated cost to improve San Dieguito Drive is $1,269,039 (Appendix B of Attachment D). The total estimated cost is refined from the preliminary estimated cost based on the final road improvement design. This estimate includes pre-construction, construction, and project contingency costs. The pre-construction phase costs total $287,282, and include Phase 1 and 2 engineering services, required CEQA determination by MBI, and assessment engineering services by SCI. It should be noted that in addition to these costs, a significant amount of staff time has been invested in the project with no certainty that the project moves forward should the assessment district formation process fail. However, this work has been undertaken by the City in good faith and as a necessary step to bring a final resolution to a long-standing issue of concern between the City and residents about the road’s deteriorating condition that has existed for decades. The estimated total construction phase costs for the project of $902,779 is based on MBI’s final engineer’s construction estimate (Attachment E), cost credits related to the City’s planned X1A Undergrounding Project and storm drain pipe replacement project (that will happen regardless of whether the San Dieguito Drive Improvement Project proceeds), construction management and inspection services, and geotechnical services. A project contingency of $78,978 is included for change orders due to unforeseen field conditions, need for specialty inspections, or any other unanticipated costs during construction.
4 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies June 17, 2024
Coordination with Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) XIA (Crest Canyon) It is anticipated that there will be some cost savings and efficiencies, as well as reduced impacts to property owners, of bidding out and constructing the SDD and UUD X1A projects together. The SDD Project will be included as an additive alternate bid item as part of the UUD X1A bid package that the City could elect to move forward with or not depending on the outcome of the assessment formation process. Bidding the project this way will also help clearly identify the cost for the SDD Project.
If the SDD Project moves forward, the City intends to align the design and construction schedules for the SDD and UUD X1A projects. The current UUD X1A schedule anticipates completion of the design and bid documents by August 2024, followed by the public bidding process, and then anticipated City construction contract award by November 2024. The SDD Project bid package is on schedule to be completed along with UUD X1A.
SCI Engineering Report
Consistent with City Council action on October 16, 2023, SCI prepared an Engineer’s Report (Attachment D) to determine the relative private special benefits in proportion to the public general benefits of improving SDD. The report includes an overview of the project, legislative analysis, description of improvements, estimate of costs, method of apportionment, assessment, and assessment diagram.
The Engineer’s Report calculates the assessments for each benefitted parcel (privately owned land) located in the proposed assessment district, identified as Zones A and B, in direct proportion to the general benefits conferred to the general public from the improvements intended for SDD. As further detailed in their report, SCI has determined that at least 54% of the benefits conferred by the Improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the proposed assessment district. However, City Council approved staff’s recommendation to contribute 70% of the project costs based on the special nature of private SDD providing sole access to public Oribia Road and concerns raised by residents regarding the percentage of general benefit identified by SCI.
The basis for the inclusion of identified properties in the proposed assessment district is based on the special benefits those properties will receive from the SDD Project. The assessment zones and recommended proportional assessment contributions are not based on whether those properties have a legal responsibility to maintain the road.
On April 15, 2024, the City Council preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report that identifies a City contribution of $888,239 and a contribution of $380,800 in project costs to be provided by the assessment district if passed by the property owners. The resulting contribution by San Dieguito Drive (Zone A) and Oribia Road (Zone B) property owners’ would be $16,924 and $8,462 per property, respectively. An improvement district map and assessment roll is included as part of Attachment D. If approved by the Council, property owners would be given the opportunity to pay the assessment over a recommended 20‐year period on their property tax bill or pay the entire amount up front. Payments over a 20-year period would be 5 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies June 17, 2024
$846.22 for Zone A (San Dieguito) and $423.11 for Zone B (Oribia) per year and are recommended to be interest free.
Proposition 218 Ballot Process and Resolutions
Proposition 218 requires an Engineer’s Report supporting the proposed assessments, followed by a mailed ballot proceeding of property owners that would be included in the benefit assessment district. The City Council previously adopted a resolution on March 4, 2024, formally appointing SCI as the Engineer of Work and directing them to prepare the Engineer’s Report.
On April 15, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-14, included as Attachment B, which is legally required in order to initiate the Proposition 218 ballot process with property owners who receive an identified special benefit from the SDD Project. Adoption of the resolution preliminarily approved the Engineer’s Report and ordered the mailing of the Notice of Hearing and the ballots to owners of the benefiting properties so they could vote on the measure. The City Council also adopted Resolution 2024-15, included as Attachment C, which clarifies the ballot procedures the City will follow. This provides transparency for the public and is intended to answer procedural questions in advance for elements of the balloting process, which are not defined in Proposition 218 or otherwise in California law.
A time period greater than the minimum required 45 days was provided for the return of the assessment ballots. As part of the recommended action for this agenda item, City Council will hold a public hearing to receive public input for consideration. Assessment ballots must be returned and received prior to the close of the public input portion of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public input portion of the hearing, SCI shall begin tabulation of the ballots at the direction of the Council, including those ballots received during the public hearing. SCI will provide the results of the responsive assessment ballots submitted by property owners to City Council. If the measure passes via a 50% weighted vote by amount of assessment of the ballots received, staff is recommending that the City Council consider adopting a Resolution, included as Attachment A, which will officially approve the Engineer’s Report, accept the tabulation, and order the levying of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2024- 25 and future years until the assessment has been satisfied. The City would pay for all the improvement costs up front and recoup the residents’ share of the SDD Project costs at the rate and over the time period defined in the ballot measure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to the recommended action for this agenda item. As part of the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget Update Report, staff is recommending designating $900,000 to the Capital Reserve to perform the construction work should the assessment district formation measure pass. If the measure passes, staff will recommend transferring Capital Reserve funds to the San Dieguito Drive Capital Improvement Project when the construction bid is awarded.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not 6 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing & Resolution Ordering Levies June 17, 2024
have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
San Dieguito Drive Development is listed as a Tier 2 City Council priority for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution to Conduct a Public Hearing, Consider All Assessment District Protest(s), Approve the Engineer's Report, Confirm the Diagram and Assessment, and Order the Levy of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Attachment B – Resolution 2024-14 Providing Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024-25, Preliminarily Approving the Engineer’s Report, and Providing for the Notice of Hearing, and the Mailing of Assessment Ballots for the of San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Attachment C – Resolution 2024-15 Adopting Procedures for the Proposition 218 Assessment Ballot Proceedings for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Attachment D – Engineer’s Report for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Attachment E – San Dieguito Drive Construction Cost Estimate 7 June 17, 2024 Item 09
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERING ALL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROTEST(S), APPROVING THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND
ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING THE LEVY OF THE SAN
DIEGUITO DRIVE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2024-2025
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 was adopted on November 6, 1996, adding Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution which allows for the establishment of Assessment Districts whereby such assessments are not considered a tax; and WHEREAS, under Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution impose certain procedural and substantive requirements relating to the imposition of assessments; and the City has met those procedural and substantive requirements for formation of an Improvement District and imposition of assessments on those lands specially benefited from those assessments proportional to the benefits conveyed to the public; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2024, the City Council of the City of Del Mar designated SCI Consulting Group, and more particularly John W. Bliss, as a registered professional engineer in the State of California, as the Engineer of Record and as the Engineer of Work and ordered preparation of an Engineer’s Report for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District (the “Improvement District”); and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive (“the road”) is a private road with overlaying utility and public access easements in the City of Del Mar (”City”) on Book 299, page 200 of the County of San Diego Assessor Parcel Maps; and
WHEREAS, residents living along Oribia Road routinely use San Dieguito Drive to access their homes; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive and a portion of Oribia Road are currently not part of the public street system nor is the City obligated to maintain the private road; and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is approximately 17 to 20 linear feet wide and includes adjacent gravel/dirt shoulder areas that are currently used for private and public parking; and
WHEREAS, the asphalt along San Dieguito Drive is in a highly deteriorated condition and the Street needs significant repair; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is classified as a Hillside Residential Street, which is the minimal roadway standard available for residential streets; and ATTACHMENT A 8 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive serves the public interest by providing coastal access to a nearby lagoon and allows for fire apparatus access in the event of wildland fires that may conflagrate in the adjacent hillsides; and WHEREAS, there are both public and private benefits associated with the repair and replacement of the asphalt along San Dieguito Drive; and WHEREAS, over several decades the residents of both San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road have requested the City to improve the private roads that provide public access and accept San Dieguito Drive into the City’s roadway system; and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in extensive outreach and communications with property owners located within the Improvement District, by hosting several publicly noticed neighborhood meetings, holding multiple public workshops, creating an informational webpage, and meeting one-on-one with impacted residents; and WHEREAS, in response to citizen requests and the public’s use of San Dieguito Drive for fire suppression access and in providing public access to the nearby coastal lagoon, the City by this action has and will continue to implement a Proposition 218-compliant, balloted benefit assessment district; and WHEREAS, maintaining and gaining access to a wildland fire near and around the Improvement District is of paramount public concern given the current deteriorated state of San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar is located within the Coastal Zone and public access to coastal resources is a fundamental principal of the California Coastal Act, the Improvement District roadway repairs will ensure a continuation of coastal access for members of the public; and
WHEREAS, SCI Consulting Group prepared an Engineer’s Report to determine the relative special benefits in proportion to the general public benefits of improving San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report has calculated the assessments for each benefitted parcel located within the Assessment District in direct proportion to the general benefits conferred to the public at-large from the improvements intended for San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, a Draft Engineers Report was provided to the residents living along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road and to the general public on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report described the repairs as removing the ATTACHMENT A 9 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
existing 17 to 20 feet of deteriorated road, installing a new road section with 16 feet of asphalt with aggregate base and 3.5-foot concrete rolled curbs, providing a wider roadway for 20 feet of drivable surface, improving drainage by installing a standard centerline crown, concrete rolled curbs, storm drain laterals, and storm drain inlets, installing two modular wetlands, installing a retaining wall at the southwest corner of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to widen the roadway, and coordinating removal of poles and undergrounding of electrical and communications; and WHEREAS, the improvements project has been estimated to be $1.269 million; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report calculated the net amount to be assessed per benefited parcel in a manner that fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable parcels and proportional to the special benefits conveyed to the public; and WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report concluded that the general benefits conferred upon the public for wildland fire suppression access, improved coastal access, and general community beautification amounts on a lower range scale of 54% of the estimated costs of the improvements themselves; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report divided the special benefits into two benefit zone locations, Zone A includes all homes along San Dieguito Drive while Zone B includes all homes along Oribia Road; and
WHEREAS, the special benefits include improved road access to the homes in both, the Improvement District has been divided in to two zones, Zones A and B, by way of reducing damage to automobiles from colliding into potholes, improved safety of the residents during times of evacuations, improved beautification of their adjoining roads, improved drainage, and the likelihood of receiving higher resale values; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar believes it to be in the best interest of the City, the general public, and the impacted private property owners to confirm and memorialize the City’s procedures and guidelines regarding implementation of the assessment provisions of Proposition 218 and other pertinent statutes relating to assessments; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are not available to improve San Dieguito Drive to bring it up to County road standards; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, authorizes formation of an assessment district, and imposition of assessments to finance construction and improvement of roadways; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar desires to initiate the proceedings for the formation of the San Dieguito Road Improvement District in conformity with Government Code Section 53753 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution; and to improve San ATTACHMENT A 10 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
Dieguito Drive within the proposed Improvement District; and WHEREAS, an Engineer’s Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by the Engineer of Record who is properly licensed in the State of California, is an employee of SCI Consulting Group, and has substantial experience in the formation of improvement districts, (the “Engineer of Work”) has submitted to the City Council (the “Council”), in which a new assessment is proposed to fund the cost to improve San Dieguito Drive within the proposed Improvement District boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar initiated proceedings for the formation of the San Dieguito Road Improvement District in conformity with Government Code Section 53753 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution; and to improve San Dieguito Drive within the proposed Improvement District on April 15, 2024 by adopting Resolution 2024- 14 as further amended by the staff and accepted by Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar, on April 15, 2024, by a duly noticed public hearing, adopted Resolution 2024-15 which provides for the Improvement District procedures for the establishment of a Proposition 218 assessment ballot proceeding; and WHEREAS, the City has provided a time period greater than the minimum required 45-day written mailed notice to each record holder owner for those qualifying assessable parcels of real property interest located within the Assessment boundaries for the proposed Improvement District Assessment, as set forth on the Assessment Diagram and Boundary Map, of a public hearing which was held at a duly noticed regular meeting of the City Council on June 17, 2024, at 4:30 p.m. in the City of Del Mar Town Hall, 1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA, on the issue of whether the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment should be formed and assessments levied and collected as proposed in the Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2024-2025 and subsequent years thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the form of written mailed public notice of the public meeting contained the following information: (a) the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied within the Assessment for fiscal year 2024-2025; (b) the assessment chargeable to each owner’s parcel; (c) the duration of the proposed assessment; (d) the reason for the assessment; (e) the basis upon which and how the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated; (f) the date, time and place of the public hearing as specified in this resolution; and (g) a summary of the voting procedures and the consequences of a majority protest against the formation of the Assessment District and its assessments.
The form of the written mailed public notice also included an Assessment ballot by which each property owner could express their support or opposition to the proposed assessment. The ballot indicated that it must be returned before the conclusion of the public hearing on June 17, 2024, in order to be valid and counted, and that all assessment ballots received by the City, would be tabulated after the conclusion of the public hearing where any protest could be heard, and any other additional public testimony would be received and fully considered at the June 17, 2024 hearing; and ATTACHMENT A 11 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of California Constitution Article XIII-D, an opportunity for protest has been afforded, public testimony allowed, and the assessment ballots mailed to owners of assessable real property within the proposed boundaries of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment, have been received and publicly tabulated by the City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, with assessment ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of each affected parcel; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing written protests and verbal protests were received, public testimony afforded, and all other evidence received, which the City Council noted and fully considered along with the other information received during and prior to the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated as the foundation for the Findings themselves; and
2. The canvass of the assessment ballots submitted by property owners is complete and certified by the City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, and the votes cast are as follows:
Total Number of Valid Ballots Processed: __________
Total Assessment Amount of Valid Ballots: $__________
Total Number of “Yes” Votes Processed: __________
Total Assessment Amount of “Yes” Votes Processed: $__________ Percentage of “Yes” Votes, unweighted: ________%
Total Percentage of “Yes” Ballots, Weighted by Assessment: ________% Total Number of “No” Votes Processed: __________
Total Assessment Amount of “No” Votes Processed: $__________ Percentage of “No” Votes, unweighted ________%
Total Percentage of “No” Ballots, Weighted by Assessment: ________% Total Number of “Invalid” Ballots Processed: _________
Total Assessment Amount of “Invalid” Ballots Processed: $_________ ATTACHMENT A 12 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
3. ______ assessment ballots were returned and received prior to the close of the public hearing on June 17, 2024. This represents a _____% ballot return rate on the 30 ballots mailed. Of the assessment ballots returned, _____ assessment ballots were declared invalid, in that they were either not marked with a “Yes” or “No”, were marked with both a “Yes” and a “No”, were not signed, or the property ownership and barcode information was illegible.
As determined by ballots cast, on an unweighted basis, _____% of the property owners cast ballots in support of the measure. As determined by ballots cast, as weighted according to the amount of assessment for each parcel, _____% of the property owners cast ballots in support of the Improvement District Measure. Since a majority protest, as defined by Article XIIID of the California Constitution, did not exist, this City Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy of assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that:
1. The Final Engineer’s Report for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment, together with the diagram and boundary map of the Assessment contained therein, and the proposed assessment roll for fiscal year 2024- 2025 are hereby confirmed and approved; and
2. That based on the oral and written evidence, specifically including the Engineer’s Report, offered and received at the public hearing, the City Council expressly finds and determines that: (a) each of the several assessed lots and parcels of land within the Assessment will be specially benefited by the Improvements (as described in the Engineer’s Report) in at least the amount of the Assessment apportioned against such lots and parcels of land, respectively; and (b) that there is substantial evidence to support these findings and to determine that the special benefits provided to the properties within the Improvement District are fair and reasonable and proportional to the general benefits conveyed to the; and
3. The assessments imposed on each specially benefited parcel is in proportion to the general benefits received by members of the public; and
4. That the general benefits and the contribution of City funds (ranging between 54% to 70% of the overall cost of the improvements) of the San Dieguito Drive improvements provides significant public benefits from the continuation of coastal access to the nearby San Dieguito coastal lagoon; allows for the efficient, safe, and effective means for emergency response equipment to transit to wildland fires events or gain access to other emergency situations, and provides for the overall community beautification stemming from the improvements; and
ATTACHMENT A 13 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
5. That the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment is hereby formed, and assessments consistent with the Engineer’s Report are hereby levied, pursuant to the provisions of 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”) and Article XIII-D of the California Constitution; and
6. That assessments for fiscal year 2024-2025 shall be levied at the rate of
EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX DOLLARS AND TWENTY-TWO
CENTS ($846.22) per single family equivalent (SFE) benefit unit in Benefit Zone A and FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS AND
ELEVEN CENTS ($423.11) per single family equivalent (SFE) benefit unit in Benefit Zone B, as specified in the Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2024- 2025 with estimated total annual assessment revenues as set forth in the Engineer’s Report; and
7. That road Improvements to be financed with assessment proceeds described in the Engineer’s Report offset by the proportional share from City funds related to the public benefits conveyed, as described above, are hereby ordered; and
8. The assessments will be continued annually for a maximum of 20 years; and
9. Immediately upon the adoption of this Resolution, but in no event later than August 10, 2024, following such adoption, the City shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the Auditor of San Diego County (“County Auditor”).
Upon such filing, the County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the Assessment. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City of Del Mar; and
10. The monies representing assessments collected shall be deposited in a separate fund established under the distinctive designation of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment and not in any way comingled with other funds. Funds collected from the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment shall be expended only for the special benefit of parcels within the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment; and
ATTACHMENT A 14 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
11. The San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Assessment, as it applies to any parcel, may be corrected, cancelled or a refund granted as appropriate, by order of the City Council of the City of Del Mar by a determination from the Assessment Engineer that the Assessment should be revised to be consistent with the method of assessment established in the Engineer’s Report. Any such corrections, cancellations or refunds shall be limited to the current fiscal year.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 17th day of June, 2024. ___________________________
Dave Druker, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTACHMENT A 15 June 17, 2024 Item 09
Resolution No. 2024-XX
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 17th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
ATTACHMENT A 16 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT B 17 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT B 18 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT B 19 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT B 20 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT B 21 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT B 22 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 23 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 24 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 25 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 26 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 27 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 28 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 29 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 30 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 31 June 17, 2024 Item 09
ATTACHMENT C 32 June 17, 2024 Item 09
FY 2024‐25
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
for the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project
April 2024
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution
ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D 33 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Page i
City of Del Mar
City Council
David Druker, Mayor
Terry Gaasterland, Deputy Mayor
Tracy Martinez, Council Member
Dan Quirk, Council Member
Dwight Worden, Council Member
City Manager
Ashley Jones
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
ATTACHMENT D 34 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 4 Legislative Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5 Plans and Specifications ............................................................................................... 8 Description of Improvements.................................................................................................... 8 Fiscal Year 2024‐25 Estimate of Cost and Budget.......................................................... 9 Estimate of Costs ....................................................................................................................... 9 Method of Apportionment ......................................................................................... 11 Method of Apportionment ...................................................................................................... 11 Discussion of Benefit ............................................................................................................... 11 Special Benefit Factors to Parcels ........................................................................................... 12 Benefit Finding ........................................................................................................................ 14 General versus Special Benefit ................................................................................................ 14 Calculating General Benefit ..................................................................................................... 15 Zones of Benefit ...................................................................................................................... 18 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................................ 20 Duration of Assessment .......................................................................................................... 21 Appeals and Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 21 Assessment ................................................................................................................ 22 Assessment Diagram .................................................................................................. 24 Appendix A – Assessment Roll.................................................................................... 26 Appendix B – Project Cost Estimate ............................................................................ 27
ATTACHMENT D 35 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Page iii
This page is intentionally blank
ATTACHMENT D 36 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Introduction
Overview
San Dieguito Drive (“the road”) is a private road with public access in the City of Del Mar (”City”) on Book 299, page 200 of the County of San Diego Assessor Parcel Maps. It is located between Racetrack View Drive and Oribia Road and is not currently part of the public street system or maintained by the City. However, there is a public easement that grants the City right‐of‐way for road and utility purposes (i.e. sewer, water, gas, power, and telephone lines). In order to address public safety and adjacent homeowner concerns, there is a desire to convert this roadway and associated infrastructure from a private road into a public street which would then be part of the City’s street system and maintained by the City. Presently, San Dieguito Drive is a private road, which serves as the only access to homes located in the proposed Assessment District, in very poor condition with cracking asphalt, many potholes, and fails to meet the most basic City road standards all of which impede access to private property and emergency access.
The existing road is approximately 17 to 20 linear feet wide and includes adjacent gravel/dirt shoulder areas that are currently used for parking. The asphalt is in a deteriorated condition and in need of repair. It does not conform to the County of San Diego (“County”) Public Road Standards or City Council Policy 114 – Complete Streets (“Complete Streets Policy”). The proximate property owners served by the road are responsible for its maintenance and improvements, but even after many years of discussions between the City and these property owners, the road is still not in conformance with County standards nor City policy.
According to County standards, the road is classified as a Hillside Residential Street, which is the minimal section available for residential streets such as San Dieguito Drive. The required road section standard consists of two 12‐foot driving lanes and an 8‐foot parking lane. However, the minimum necessary road width is 20 feet, or two 10‐foot driving lanes, to ensure passage for fire trucks. The minimum width for a parking lane is 7 feet.
Parking and walkways must also align with the City’s Complete Streets policy. In addition, due to the location and proximity to the San Dieguito Lagoon, it is important to maintain the coastal access which implements the City’s Local Coastal Program.
On September 6, 2022, the City Council approved a task order for Michael Baker International (“MBI”) to conduct a Phase 1 Preliminary Engineering Assessment to better understand the condition of the road and to develop alternatives and costs for a capital improvement project to improve the road.
ATTACHMENT D 37 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
The Preliminary Engineering Assessment was presented to area residents for feedback on July 13 and August 18, 2023. Four preliminary design concepts were prepared and discussions with area residents and staff resulted in a recommendation of a “Minimal Alternative” to improve the road to public standards without on‐street parking and sidewalks.
The Minimal Alternative includes a road with a standard centerline crown with 16 feet of asphalt and 3.5‐foot concrete rolled curbs for an improved width of 23 feet. This allows for 20 feet, or two 10‐foot driving lanes, to ensure passage for fire trucks.
The proposed project deviates from the Complete Streets Policy and requires approval from the City Council, which was obtained at the City Council meeting held on September 5, 2023. At this same meeting, the City Council approved a task order to retain MBI to proceed with Phase 2 road improvement design, construction documents, and easement acquisition for the Minimal Alternative.
In order to mitigate the negative effects of the sub‐standard road infrastructure which includes reducing impediments to access during times of emergencies and to ensure the road’s long‐term sustainability, the City has proposed a cost‐sharing approach with the affected property owners whereby the City would agree to upgrade the road, its infrastructure, and then transfer maintenance responsibilities to the City.
In order to fund this critical project, the City proposes to implement a Proposition 218‐compliant, balloted benefit assessment district that would include all specially benefitted parcels, and if approved by the required balloting, would place assessments based upon special benefits in proportion to the special benefit conferred on the affected district parcels and in relationship to the entirety of the costs of the proposed improvements. The City, would upon direction of the City Council, provide funding for any general benefits to parcels outside of the proposed assessment district provided by the improvements, as separated and quantified in this Report. If approved by vote of the benefitted parcel owners and by the City, the assessment would pay for the construction of the Minimal Alternative improvements allowing for the road to be considered for inclusion in the City’s street system by the City Council for future maintenance by the City.
Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218 Compliance
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 established new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts.
ATTACHMENT D 38 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
In general, Proposition 218 stated that any existing assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems, or vector control on or before November 6, 1996, would be exempt from the procedures and approval process of Proposition 218, unless the assessments are increased. The San Dieguito Drive Improvement District would impose an assessment exclusively for street maintenance and improvements for those property owners (including the City) that would be specifically benefitted by those Improvements but only in proportion to the general benefits provided to the public.
Proposition 218 defines “increased”, when applied to an assessment, as a decision by an agency that does either of the following:
Increases any applicable rate used to calculate the assessment. Revises the methodology by which the assessment is calculated, if that revision results in an increased amount being levied on any person or parcel.
The formation methodology used to calculate the assessment may be levied in any given year allowing the assessment rate from the prior year to be increased based on corresponding changes in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). These yearly CPI adjustments do not typically require Proposition 218 proceedings.
Assessment Process
This Engineer’s Report (“Report”) describes the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District (the “Improvement District”), the proposed Improvement District boundaries, a description of the facilities, services, and public improvements to be improved and maintained by the assessments (the "Improvements”), and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2024‐25 (the “Assessments”).
Following submittal of this Report to the City Council (the “Council”) for preliminary approval, the Council, by Resolution, may call for an assessment ballot proceeding and public hearing on the proposed establishment of Assessments for the provision of the Improvements.
Generally, if the Council so directs, a notice of assessment and assessment ballot will be mailed to property owners within the Improvement District boundaries who receive special benefits distinct from general benefits from the Improvements. Such notice includes a description of the Improvements to be funded by the proposed Assessments, the proposed assessment amount for each parcel owned, and an explanation of the method of submitting a ballot on the Assessments.
Each notice will include a ballot on which the property owner will mark his or her support or opposition to the proposed Assessments.
ATTACHMENT D 39 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
After the ballots are mailed to property owners, a minimum 45‐day wait period is imposed allowing each property owner to consider the formation of the Improvement District. Following this 45‐day time period, a public hearing will be held for the purpose of allowing the public and property owners to provide testimony regarding the proposed Assessment, and to submit their ballots.
Tabulation of the returned ballots may begin at the conclusion of public testimony. It is anticipated that the ballots may be tabulated on the same evening as the Public Hearing and that the tabulation results may be announced soon after. If a majority of property owner votes (weighted by the amount of the proposed assessment) in opposition to the Improvement District exceed those in favor, the Improvement District will not be formed and the assessments will not be imposed. Otherwise, the Council may take action to approve the levying of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2024‐25, and the assessment information will be provided to the County Auditor/Controller. The County Auditor/Controller will include the Assessments on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2024‐25.
ATTACHMENT D 40 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Plans and Specifications
Description of Improvements
If the assessment is approved, the following Improvements will be made to San Dieguito Drive:
Remove the existing 17 to 20 feet of deteriorated road Install a new road section with 16 feet of asphalt with aggregate base and 3.5‐foot concrete rolled curbs
Provide a wider roadway for 20 feet of drivable surface Improve drainage by installing a standard centerline crown, concrete rolled curbs, storm drain laterals, and storm drain inlet
Install two modular wetlands (stormwater quality BMPs) Install a retaining wall at the southwest corner of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to widen the roadway
If possible, coordinate with the Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) work which includes removal of poles and undergrounding of electrical and communications A detailed description of the Improvements has been developed by MBI and is available to the public at the City offices during normal business hours and via the April 3, 2024 presentation on the City’s website (https://www.delmar.ca.us/883/San‐Dieguito‐Drive‐Improvements‐Project).
ATTACHMENT D 41 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Fiscal Year 2024‐25 Estimate of Cost and Budget
Estimate of Costs
A detailed description of the costs of the Improvements is being developed by MBI and will be made available to the public by the City. The estimated costs of the improvements project is approximately $1.27 million. (See below and Appendix B for the estimate).
CITY OF DEL MAR
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Estimate of Cost
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Total
Budget
Costs
Existing Reserves $0
Capital Improvements Costs $1,269,039
Total Costs of Improvements $1,269,039
Less:
Contribution from City $888,239
Net Cost of Improvements (a) $380,800
Years of repayment (b) 20
Net Cost of Improvements per year to assessed parcels (a/b) $19,040 Assessments to Parcels per Year
Parcels ('c) Zone Rate (d)
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone A (San Dieguito Drive)(c* 14 $846.22 $11,847 Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone B (Oribia Road) (c*d) 17 $423.11 $7,193 $19,040
Additional Benefit Analysis and Clarification
Parcels ('e) Zone Factor (f) Adjusted SFE
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone A 14 1.00 14.00 Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone B 17 0.50 8.50 SFE Units 22.50
Adjusted SFEs Project Costs
Benefit received per SFE 22.50 $1,269,039 $56,402
$ Benefit/SFE Repaymnt Years
Benefit received per SFE per year $56,402 20.00 $2,820
ATTACHMENT D 42 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Special Discussion of Proposed City Contribution
The analysis required to support a Proposition 218‐compliant Engineer’s Report must “separate and quantify” any general benefits resulting from the proposed improvements. The parcels within the proposed Improvement District may only be assessed for the special benefits, not general benefits. Most improvements generate both special benefits and general benefits, and therefore, most Improvement Districts require another, non‐assessment, funding sources to fund the general benefits – typically the governing agency.
For this proposed Improvement District, it is required that another funding source, (in this case, the City), pay at least for the general benefits which have been quantified to be 54% of the total benefit. (Again, see the next section for more details on this calculation.) Because of the long‐standing commitment and history of the proposed Improvement District, it has been proposed that the City additionally absorb proportional costs above the 54%, for pre‐ construction services (preliminary engineering assessment, engineering design, assessment engineering services, and environmental) at the same rate as construction costs. As a result, the City is proposing to contribute up to 70% ($888,239 of the total $1,269,039) of the total costs, which must be considered and approved by the Del Mar City Council.
ATTACHMENT D 43 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Method of Apportionment
Method of Apportionment
The methodology for the Improvement District assumes that all benefited parcels along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road will be included in the District because San Dieguito Drive is the only route of ingress and egress. The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits conferred to the properties over and above the general benefits conferred to real property in the Improvement District or to the general public. Each special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the Improvement District using the following factors:
1. Identification of all special benefit factors and all general benefits derived from the Improvements.
2. Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general.
3. Determination of the relative special benefit within different areas within the Improvement District.
4. Determination of the relative special benefit per property type
5. Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based in proportion to the special benefit it receives from the Improvements. The special benefits consider the location of the parcels in relation to the special benefits, property type, property characteristics, improvements on property and other supporting attributes.
Discussion of Benefit
Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefits provided to each property. General benefits are funded through other means. This approach is found in Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements."
“The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California].” ATTACHMENT D 44 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefits provided to each parcel and that the value of the special benefits must reasonably relate to the assessment imposed. To be clear, special benefits are in proportion to the special benefit conferred on the affected district parcels and in relationship to the entirety of the costs of the proposed improvements. "No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." General public benefits are not included in the assessment because they do not provide the property owner with any particular and distinct benefit.
Special Benefit Factors to Parcels
The Special Benefits from the Improvements are listed below:
Special Improvements to Property Owners’ Own Safety and Reduction in Damage to Private Property
As San Dieguito Drive continues to deteriorate from a lack of maintenance it will continue to impede the ability of emergency equipment to respond to private property from house fires, wildfires, or other hazard conditions. The current private road conditions contain surface conditions that may result in trip hazards and has and will continue to damage bicycles, motorcycles, cars, and other vehicles. Rough road surfaces may cause vehicles to swerve and travel in unpredictable ways that may result in collisions or other accidents. The Improvements, therefore, provide an important, valuable, and desirable improvement to the property owners and their property.
Private Property Improved Emergency Response and Home Use Access As noted above, the current poor road conditions may impede efficient evacuation from private homes along the Road during times of emergencies. The Improvements would fix the deteriorated road surface and widen the road to public standards, resulting in improved evacuation conditions and ensure better access to private homes when ambulances, police, or other emergency response is required by the private homeowner. The improvements also aid in private deliveries to the homes and provide better access for guests visiting the residents. Therefore, the assessments provide improvements that provide a direct advantage and special benefit to properties contained in the Improvement District.
ATTACHMENT D 45 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Improved Emergency Access for Emergency Vehicles to Parcels Emergency vehicles and personnel must use San Dieguito Drive to reach private properties in the Improvement District. The deteriorated condition of San Dieguito Drive makes it much harder for large vehicles, such as fire apparatus, to navigate the Road safely and quickly.
The Improvements would fix the deteriorated road surface and widen the road to public standards, resulting in improved ingress conditions for emergency vehicles and personnel.
Therefore, the assessments provide Improvements that provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Improvement District.
Improved Wildland Fire Safety and Access
Like many communities in California, the City of Del Mar is at elevated risk of wildland fires. The proposed assessment District is in an area designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In the case of a local wildland fire, the need for safe and speedy routes of egress as well as emergency vehicle ingress are important. More detailed information is provided in the City’s Crest Canyon Evacuation Plan.
The Improvements would widen San Dieguito Drive and improve the condition of the road, making it a safer and speedier route of ingress and egress than it is at the present time. Therefore, the assessments provide Improvements that provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Improvement District through improved wildland fire safety. Should the nearby hillsides experience a wildfire condition, the first to be impacted will be the residents living along the Road and as a result, evacuation and fire response will be impacted by the current conditions of the Road. The Improvements will particularly help preserve properties during wildfire conditions and rapid access of emergency equipment could help the general public from the wildfire spreading to other City communities.
Improved Drainage for Parcels
The existing roadway infrastructure does not include adequate drainage facilities. Uncontrolled stormwater and urban runoff, and associated local flooding, indirectly and directly may cause injuries, damage to property, and adversely impact the residents living along the Road. The proposed improvements include upgrades to stormwater drainage which will reduce the risk of flood damage to the private properties benefited by the Assessment District.
ATTACHMENT D 46 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Improved Views and Beautification
The current deteriorated roadway infrastructure creates dust which covers the landscaping and windows of the homes nearby, as well as an unsightly view from those homes and for everyone who travels along the road. The Improvements, by replacing the deteriorated road with one which is new and smooth, provides improved views to properties with direct line‐of‐sight as well as other local properties which benefit from improved views when the road is used. Therefore, the improved and protected views provided by the improvements are another direct and distinct advantage that is uniquely conferred upon each property owner in the Improvement District.
Benefit Finding
In summary, real properties that are located within the boundaries of the proposed Improvement District along the private road are distinctly and directly benefited from the improvements. These benefits include but are not limited to a reduction in damage to personal and real property, enhanced emergency evacuation, improved emergency access during fires, earthquakes and wildland fire events, improved drainage, and improved views and beautification. The Improvements are specifically designed to serve local properties within the Improvement District, not other properties, or members of the general public.
General versus Special Benefit
Article XIIIC of the California Constitution requires cities to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not also paying for general benefits conferred to the public. The assessment may fund special benefits but not general benefits. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefits are provided in this section. Total benefits are often expressed by:
There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for general benefit. However, general benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits received by other properties. General benefits have been described by an indirect, derivative advantage and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.
Total
Benefit =
General
Benefit + Special Benefit
ATTACHMENT D 47 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
The starting point for evaluating general and special benefits is the current, baseline level of service. The assessment is intended to fund Improvements “over and above” this general, baseline level and the general benefits estimated in this section are over and above the baseline.
This is expressed by:
General
Benefit
=
Benefit to Real
Property Outside
the Improvement
District
+
Benefit to Real Property
Inside the Improvement
District that is Indirect and
Derivative
+
Benefit to
the Public
at Large
The Assessments described in this Report are intended to fund improvements that are directly and particular to the special benefits conveyed to the homeowners. Therefore, a basis has been established for minimal or zero general benefits from the Assessments.
Calculating General Benefit
In this section, the general benefit is liberally estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the assessment.
Benefit to Property Outside but Proximate to the Improvement District Here, properties located within the Improvement District receive special benefits from the improvements because those properties uniquely adjoin the Improvements and because these Improvements are along a private road not enjoyed by the public at large. As San Dieguito Drive is not a public thoroughfare; it is primarily used to gain access to those homes located within the Improvement District.
Additionally, the southern portion of San Dieguito Drive leads only to the parcels on Oribia Road which are also included in the Improvement District, while the northern portion leads to a portion of Racetrack View Drive; however, this area contains no homes or other structures within the City of Del Mar. On the immediate north side of Racetrack View Drive is San Dieguito Lagoon, which is unbuildable.
Therefore, in a typical analysis based on these geographic conditions, it would be concluded that the Improvements do not provide special benefits to properties outside the Improvement District. (i.e. like in a typical utility undergrounding district in which the parcels with utilities that are undergrounded receive special benefit while those adjacent parcels do not and are not assessed.) ATTACHMENT D 48 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
However, San Dieguito Drive provides an important access‐related asset for the control of wildland fires and other emergencies, that provide benefit to parcels outside of the proposed Improvement District. Therefore, additional general benefit analysis is warranted. Wildland fires, and the associated smoke and embers, do not stay within defined boundaries, and the access, special infrastructure (including special fire hydrants), location and topography of San Dieguito Drive provides an important facility for the protection of parcels that are outside, but relatively near the Improvement District. In other words, there are certainly parcels outside of the proposed Improvement District that will receive improved wildland fire protection benefits that will be provided by the proposed Improvements.
In this case, the Engineer of record is tasked with quantifying the relative (special) benefit received from the Improvements to the parcels within the Improvement District versus relative (general) benefit to the parcels outside, but proximate to, the Improvement District. It is clear the benefit diminishes as distance from the Improvements increases, but a fair and accurate proportion must be established.
Various analyses were considered and the chosen analytical approach relies on the work done in support of the City Fire Department’s Crest Canyon Evacuation Plan from March 7, 2022, (Microsoft Word ‐ Agenda Report_Wildfire Evacuation Plan final draft.docx (delmar.ca.us)). In this plan, a regional analysis of the City is described including, and most relevantly, Population Zones (Figure 1 on page 5) and Scenario B Evacuation (Figure 5 on page 18). The Scenario B Evacuation analysis focuses on a wildland fire approaching from the east through Crest Canyon Park toward the San Dieguito Drive area. Both figures include a zone with proposed Improvement District and surrounding affected areas – labeled Zone F in Figure 1. Review of the report indicates that Zone F includes 89 homes including the 31 already in the proposed Improvement District. Of the 89 homes in Zone F, 27 of the homes are on Racetrack View Drive and east of San Dieguito Drive.
Since wildland fires in this area move from east to west, these 27 homes receive no benefit from the proposed improvements to San Dieguito Drive.
Therefore, the remaining 62 homes receive benefit from the improvements. Of these, 31 homes are in the proposed Improvement District and 31 homes are outside of it. As a result, 50% of the benefit (31 of 62) is special benefit, and 50% (100% total benefit minus 50% special benefit) is general benefit.
Benefit to Property Inside the District that is Indirect and Derivative The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the proposed Improvement District may seem difficult to calculate given the particular facts of each Improvement District. However, the proposed improvements to San Dieguito Drive are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the baseline level of service and the unique proximity, access and views of the Improvements enjoyed by benefiting properties in the proposed Improvement District. Hence, no allowance for general benefit that is indirect or derivative is assigned.
ATTACHMENT D 49 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Benefit to Property to the Public at Large
The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that San Dieguito Drive is used by individuals who are not property owners; or others directly linked to property owners such as visitors, delivery drivers, landscaping services, construction personnel, employees, or other service providers, in the Improvement District1 .
Surveys of park and recreation facility usage conducted by SCI Consulting Group have found that less than 4% of a park district’s facility usage is by those who do not live or work within District boundaries. Although there is no park available to the public within the Improvement District boundaries to draw the general public to drive down San Dieguito Drive, some members of the public may use it to access the lagoon and Crest Canyon Park or its trails. Based on these facts, it is estimated that less than 4% of the users of the road are members of the general public. (Similar analyses of the percentage of daily car trips in residential areas not associated with local properties confirms the 4%.) Further, when people outside the Improvement District use the road, they diminish the availability of the road for people within the Improvement District. Therefore, liberally 4% of general benefits are allocated for people within the Improvement District.
This estimate is supported by the fact that there are occasional users of San Dieguito Drive who park for the fairgrounds and/or beach, and for birdwatchers Combining these measures of general benefits, we find that 54% of the benefits from the Improvements are general benefits to the public at large and/or property in the Improvement District.
Total General Benefits
Using a sum of these measures of general benefit, we find that approximately 54% of the benefits conferred by the Improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the Assessment.
1 . When San Dieguito Drive is used by those individuals, the facilities are not providing benefit to property within the Improvement District. Use under these circumstances is a measure of general benefit. For example, a non‐resident who is drawn to use the road to provide services to a property in the Improvement District would provide special benefit to that property as a result of his or her use of the Improvements. Conversely, one who uses road but does not provide any services within the Improvement District boundaries does not provide special benefits to any property and is considered to be a measure of the general benefits.
ATTACHMENT D 50 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
The City’s total budget for the Improvements is $1.27 million. Of this total budget amount, the City is proposing to contribute up to $888,239, or 70% of the cost, which is significantly more than the required 54% amount attributable to the general benefits resulting from the Improvements.
Again, to be clear, this analysis supports the requirement that at least 54% of the revenue to pay for the Improvements must come from a source other than this assessment, but it can be more.
In this case, the City is proposing to exceed this requirement and financially contribute up to 70% of the costs, which must be considered and approved by the Del Mar City Council.
Zones of Benefit
The Improvements will be made to San Dieguito Drive and are uniformly distributed along the length of the road. The parcels along San Dieguito Drive are designated as Zone of Benefit “A” or “Zone A." The special benefit is distributed uniformly within Zone A because the Improvements are uniformly distributed along the road.
The Improvement District also includes properties on Oribia Road that are not on San Dieguito Drive but use it as the primary route for ingress and egress. These properties are designated as Zone of Benefit "B" or "Zone B". Like Zone A, the special benefit is distributed uniformly within Zone B. Like the residents along San Dieguito Drive, the residents along Oribia Road enjoy the same special benefits as listed above. Each Oribia Road resident will have improved access for emergency response and private use access, reduction in property damage from flooding and impacts to their private vehicles, better private delivery to their homes, and safer evacuation access during times of emergencies.
The Improvements related to some of the special benefits in Zone B are generally equal to those in Zone A; however, some special benefits, such as drainage and views, are lower. A Weighting and Scoring Analysis was conducted to determine the relative distribution of the special benefit in Zone A versus Zone B, and is shown in the Table below:
General Benefit =
50.0 % (Outside the district)
0.0 % (Indirect and derivative)
+ 4.0 % (Public at Large)
= 54.0 % (Total General Benefit)
ATTACHMENT D 51 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Zone
Safety/
Damage Evacuation
Emergency
Access
Wildland
Fire Drainage
Views and
Beautification
Normalized
Special
Benefit
Weighting: 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 50%
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
B 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.1 0.1 0.50
Therefore, the Zone B parcels receive 50% of the special benefit of Zone A parcels.
Special Notes on Weighting and Scoring Analysis
The six special benefits identified above (Improvement to Public Safety and Reduction in Damage to Property; Improved Emergency Evacuation Access; Improved Emergency Access for Emergency Vehicles; Improved Wildland Fire Safety; Improved Drainage; and Improved Views and Beautification) have been given a weight and a score for each zone. This Weighting and Scoring Analysis approach is widely used to calculate and quantify values in multi‐attribute and qualitative environments, and is commonly used for Proposition 218‐compliant Engineer’s Reports.
The primary special benefits resulting from the proposed Improvements include Improvement to Public Safety and Reduction in Damage to Property; Improved Emergency Evacuation Access; Improved Emergency Access for Emergency Vehicles; and Improved Wildland Fire Safety, and these attributes are very significant in the evaluation of the overall utility of the parcels. And to be clear, these primary special benefits to the parcels in the proposed Improvement District are over and above the general benefits conferred. Thus, they have been assigned a full weighting of 100%. Improved Drainage is a less significant special benefit and has been assigned a weight of 75%. Views and Beautification, while important, is less significant in its effect on the overall utility of each parcel, so it has been assigned only a 50% weighting.
Since the relative effect and value of all these 6 special benefits is directly proportional to proximity (with closer proximity resulting in higher benefit), and all the parcels in Zone A are adjacent to the improvements, they have been given a full score of 1 in Zone A.
The scoring for Zone B requires more analysis and more discussion. Safety/Damage, Evacuation, and Emergency Access attributes require close proximity to receive a full score, and receive a lower score as the proximity decreases. The proposed improvements (including road widening, improved pavement quality and capacity, improved drainage, etc.) provide a higher level of direct access improvement to the Zone A parcels. For example, heavy emergency equipment can get closer to a specific home in Zone A, and maneuver better and turn better along San Dieguito Drive resulting from the proposed improvements in ways that are not conferred on the Zone B parcels.
Of course, the Safety/Damage, Evacuation, and Emergency Access special benefits are comprehensively conferred to Zone B parcels, but not as much, because there are not improvements proximate to specific houses.
ATTACHMENT D 52 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Hence, because the proposed Improvements are not as proximate to Zone B, and don’t include the house‐specific direct access improvements, these three special benefits have been assigned a score of 0.5 in Zone B. However, the beneficial effect from the proposed Improvements to Improved Wildland Fire Safety are potentially more widespread (including smoke and ember effective distances), and have less of direct linkage to nearby proximity, so this attribute has been scored a full 1 for both Zone A and Zone B. On the other hand, drainage and views are only very minimally improved for Zone B resulting in the proposed Improvements to San Dieguito Drive, so they have been scored 0.1.
Each parcel within the Improvement District has been shown to receive a direct benefit, and the District’s boundaries have been narrowly drawn to include only parcels that specifically benefit from the assessment. Because the benefits are spread across the Improvement District by the narrowly drawn zones, the allocations of the assessments to each property owner has a direct relationship to the locality of the improvement standard.
Method of Assessment
As stated, the first step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit conveyed to each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a single‐family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single Family Equivalents (“SFE”). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. For the purposes of this Report, all properties are designated with an SFE value, defined as each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single‐ family home located on a parcel. For reference, the "benchmark" property is the single‐family detached dwelling that is one Single Family Equivalent or one SFE.
A qualifying assessment provides specific Improvements conferred directly to properties located in the proposed Improvement District. Here, the Improvement District includes only two types of properties: Single family homes and vacant land. Each single‐family home is assigned one SFE.
Vacant property does not receive any special benefits from the proposed Improvements; accordingly, vacant parcels are not assigned an SFE value. If any of the currently vacant parcels are developed while this Improvement District is in effect, then this proposed assessment will apply to that newly developed parcel beginning in the fiscal year it is developed, provided that San Dieguito Drive is that property’s means of ingress and egress.
ATTACHMENT D 53 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Duration of Assessment
The City Council can elect to spread the costs of these Improvements over a period of years. This reduces the annual cost burden to each individual property owner. In addition, the City wants to limit the amount of time it must wait to recoup its costs to a reasonable period of time. Therefore, it is recommended that the improvement costs be spread over a twenty‐year period of time commencing in fiscal year 2024‐2025. Property owners will also be given the opportunity to pay the entire amount of the proposed 20‐year assessment for their property to the City up front rather than paying it off over 20 years on their property tax bill.
Appeals and Interpretation
Property owners have a right to appeal the assessment determination. A property owner who feels that the assessment levied against their property is in error (as a result of incorrect information) may file a written appeal to the City Manager or their appointee. The filing of an appeal is limited to the current assessment year, or if filed prior to July 1, for the upcoming fiscal year.
Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City Manager will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Manager determines based on reasonable viable evidence that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes may be made.
If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Manager may authorize a refund to the property owner of the approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the City Manager or their designee may be appealed to the City Council subject to DMMC Section 1.12.010.
ATTACHMENT D 54 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Assessment
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2024 the City Council of the City of Del Mar passed a Resolution (which shall be incorporated by reference) that directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file the above stated San Dieguito Drive proposed Improvement District report and the report provided an estimate of costs, a map diagram for the proposed Improvement District, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Improvements to be imposed on all parcels that are specially benefitted within the Improvement District; and NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned engineer, by the direction provided by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, hereby recommend the following assessments to support the funding of the Improvement District.
The Assessment Diagram is attached and incorporated into this report which provides the boundaries of the Improvement District. Each parcel is identified by its Assessor Parcel Number that appears on the San Diego County Property Assessment Roll.
I have assessed and approved the net amount of the costs of the Improvements, including incidental costs to each benefited parcel within the Improvement District. These assessments are in accordance with the special benefits conveyed to each parcel from the Improvements that have been described in the “Estimate of Costs” and the “Method of Assessment” contained in this report.
The assessments have been allocated to those parcels within Improvement District in direct proportion to the special benefits conveyed to each property.
Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of San Diego.
ATTACHMENT D 55 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2024‐25 for each parcel or lot of land within said San Dieguito Drive Improvement District.
Dated: April 9, 2024
Engineer of Work
By: ____________________________
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091
ATTACHMENT D 56 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram, with Zone A in blue and Zone B in pink.
ATTACHMENT D 57 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Below is a copy of the Improvement District map with each parcel numbered to match the numbers in the Assessment Roll on the next page.
ATTACHMENT D 58 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Appendix A – Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the Improvement District and the amount of the assessment) is shown below.
Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report. These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.
ATTACHMENT D 59 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Appendix B – Project Cost Estimate
Below are the estimated costs for the improvement project.
Pre-Construction Costs
Phase 1 Engineering (MBI) $ 64,500
Phase 2 Engineering (MBI) $ 165,797
Assessment Engineering (SCI) $ 41,500
CEQA (MBI) $ 15,485
Subtotal $ 287,282
Construction Costs
Construction Estimate $ 876,846
Construction Estimate Credit ($87,067)
Construction Management Services $ 95,000
Geotechnical Services $ 18,000
Subtotal $ 902,779
Project Contingency* $ 78,978
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE $ 1,269,039
*10% of Construction Estimate minus Construction Estimate Credit for an additional savings of $8,707 and total project savings of $95,774.
ATTACHMENT D 60 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 3/20/2024
Item Description
Total
Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
1 Mobilization, Demobilization and Cleanup 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00
3 Traffic Control Implementation and Construction Staging 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control (Includes SWPPP Development & Implementation and Erosion Control)
1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
5 Construction Survey Staking 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 6 Record Drawing (As-Builts) 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Subtotal= $169,500.00
7 Remove Existing AC Pavement Section. 4.5" Minimum 20163 SF $3.50 $70,570.50 8 Remove and Reinstall Mailbox 10 EA $350.00 $3,500.00
9 Remove Existing AC Berm / Dike / Curb 40 LF $3.00 $120.00 10 Remove and Reinstall Wooden Fence 100 LF $25.00 $2,500.00 11 Remove and Reinstall Landscaping Block Wall 140 LF $80.00 $11,200.00 12 Remove Storm Drain Curb Inlet Structure 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13 Adjust Water Vault to Finish Grade 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 14 Adjust Water Valve to Finish Grade 7 EA $500.00 $3,500.00 15 Adjust Water Meter Box to Finish Grade 1 EA $610.00 $610.00 16 Adjust Gas Valve to Finish Grade 1 EA $500.00 $500.00 17 Irrigation Relocation 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Subtotal= $116,000.50
18 Site Grading (Export) 220 CY $58.00 $12,760.00
19 Remedial Grading 1,194 CY $50.00 $59,693.50
Subtotal= $72,453.50
20 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement 453 TN $170.00 $77,010.00 21 Aggregate Base (AB) 375 CY $50.00 $18,750.00
22 Gravel Parking Area (4" thick) 1924 SF $9.00 $17,316.00 23 Rolled Curb, Type B, per SDRSD G-4A 1697 LF $50.00 $84,850.00 24 Residential Concrete Driveway 678 SF $17.00 $11,526.00 25 Asphalt Concrete Driveway 1505 SF $8.00 $12,040.00
26 Type G Curb and Gutter per SDRSD G-02 75 LF $45.00 $3,375.00 27 Type H Curb and Gutter per SDRSD G-02 235 LF $45.00 $10,575.00 28 6" Curb per SDRSD G-01 64 LF $45.00 $2,880.00
29 Type 6 Masonry Retaining Wall 2.5 CY $1,335.00 $3,337.50 Subtotal= $241,659.50
30 18” RCP Storm Drain 16 LF $450.00 $7,321.50
31 24” RCP Storm Drain 41 LF $650.00 $26,390.00
32 Curb Inlet, Type 'C', Per SDRSD D-03A 2 EA $10,500.00 $21,000.00 33 Modular Wetland 2 EA $45,000.00 $90,000.00
34 Splash Pad 1 EA $250.00 $250.00
Subtotal= $144,961.50
35 Traffic Sign and Post 9 EA $600.00 $5,400.00
36 Striping 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00
37 Caltrans Midwest Railing 14 LF $250.00 $3,500.00
Subtotal= $10,900.00
38 Hydroseed 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00
Subtotal= $7,000.00
Sub-Total= $762,475.00
Contingency $114,371
Total with Contingency $876,846
Landscaping / Erosion Control Improvements
15%
General
Removals, Relocations, and Adjustments Improvements
Earthwork
Surface Improvements
Drainage Improvements
Traffic Improvements
ATTACHMENT E 61 June 17, 2024 Item 09
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project (Attachment A), receive public comment, provide initial feedback, and direct staff to work with the Council Rail Subcommittee of Mayor Dave Druker and Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland to draft the City’s preliminary comments on the NOP and return on July 8, 2024, for consideration by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Del Mar City Council has closely monitored the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) LOSSAN Rail Realignment project (Project) since public outreach began in 2020.
The Project includes studying options for removing the rail line from the fragile Del Mar bluffs to an inland location by 2035 to secure the long-term reliability of the transit line. The Project has generated a high level of community concern and engagement.
To date, the City Council has adopted a resolution in support of a robust public education and outreach process (Attachment B) along with City Council Guiding Principles (Attachment C) specific to the Project. In addition, the Council-appointed Rail Subcommittee and City staff holds frequent meetings with SANDAG officials and other key partners, including City of San Diego District 1 Councilmember Joe LaCava, to discuss the Project and provide timely input.
The Rail Subcommittee also meets with Del Mars’ State and Federal elected representatives to discuss the Project and participates in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency meetings facilitated by State Senator Catherine Blakespear.
While SANDAG is leading and has ultimate authority over the Project, the City has been keeping the public informed, sharing information in a timely manner, and staying actively engaged on the Project through the following efforts:
• Frequent postings on the City’s website (delmar.ca.us/838/SANDAGNCTD-RailProjects), social media accounts and Del Mar Weekly newsletter; • Making accommodations for SANDAG to host public workshops and office hours at City Hall and arranged for presentations during City Council meetings; 1 June 17, 2024 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project NOP – Initial Feedback
June 17, 2024
• Helping to connect locally-organized residents with State and Federal representatives and other project stakeholders;
• Connecting the Del Mar Village Association with SANDAG representatives and providing timely information to ensure that local businesses and commercial property owners are engaged and informed;
• Monthly coordination meetings between City staff and SANDAG staff on all LOSSANrelated project affecting Del Mar, including the Rail Realignment Project; and • Councilmembers and staff staying in regular contact about the Project with key stakeholders from the Del Mar Fairgrounds, City of Solana Beach, California Coastal Commission and other agencies.
On February 5, 2024, the City Council received a presentation from SANDAG that provided a recap of the work that has taken place to date on the Project, a summary of public feedback received, and information about the upcoming environmental review process (https://delmar.12milesout.com/video/meeting/bad81412-6f93-4f8a-a97e-ba1265611b0c).
The first step in the environmental review process is the issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an associated public scoping meeting. More specifically, the NOP is the preliminary step in the State’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process that will determine the technical studies needed to develop an EIR for the Project. The NOP is a public process that gives the public and stakeholders the opportunity to inform what alignment alternatives will be included in the environmental review, the environmental concerns and potential impacts to be studied, and the opportunity to provide general feedback, questions and comments about the Project. The figure below includes SANDAG’s tentative schedule for the upcoming environmental review process for the Project.
or shops
Field ffice
ours Town
alls
and
Technical
studies and
analysis Draft
R developed
and released
for comment
Responses
and final
document
released
developed
and released
for comment
which
determines
final
alignment
2 June 17, 2024 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project NOP – Initial Feedback
June 17, 2024
SANDAG released the NOP on June 4, 2024, with an extended 45-day public comment period through July 19, 2024 (Attachment A). SANDAG’s L SSAN Rail Realignment webpage (https://www.sandag.org/projects-and-programs/featured-projects/del-mar-bluffsand-lossan-rail-improvements/lossan-rail-realignment) was also updated to include an “Alignments Screening Report” ( xhibit to Attachment A) According to SANDAG, the intent of this report is to “document assess, and incorporate into the formal environmental review process for the Project the alignments developed as a result of previous planning studies, additional design, and public engagement in advance of the commencement of the formal environmental review process ”
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The City has until July 19, 2024, to 1) review the scope of the NOP to ensure it addresses the concerns that have been raised by the community (e.g., noise, vibrations, risks associated with freight/military munitions, acquisition of private property, alignments to be studied, etc.) and aligns with the Council’s Guiding Principles for the Project, and 2) draft and submit official comments to SANDAG. In order to ensure sufficient time for public review and comment, the Council previously directed staff to formally request a 15-day extension to the NOP comment period, that if granted by SANDAG, would provide for a 60-day NOP public comment period through approximately August 2, 2024. The City’s extension request is currently under consideration by SANDAG.
At a high level, the NOP includes a description of the project area, summary of prior planning document and studies for the Project, history of public outreach efforts, Project objectives, description of the Project, potential portal locations (i.e., where the rail line transitions from above grade to below grade), and three (3) Alternative Alignments to be evaluated during the environmental review process. The three alignments to be further analyzed include:
1. Alternative A – I-5 Alignment
2. Alternative B – Crest Canyon Alignment
3. Alternative C – Camino del Mar Alignment
The following figure shows the approximate locations of the proposed portal locations and three alignments.
3 June 17, 2024 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project NOP – Initial Feedback
June 17, 2024
In the NOP, the following potential environmental impacts will be studied for all three alignments:
1. Aesthetics
2. Air quality
3. Biological Resources
4. Cultural Resources
5. Energy
6. Geology and Soils
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
10. Land Use and Planning
11. Mineral Resources
12. Noise and Vibration
13. Population and Housing
14. Public Services
15. Recreation
16. Transportation
17. Tribal Cultural Resources
18. Utilities and Service Systems
19. Wildfire
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance
In addition, the Draft EIR will address cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and other mandatory CEQA topics.
Next Steps
On June 17, 2024, the City Council will focus on providing an overview of the NOP, solicitation of public comment, and an initial discussion by Council about how the NOP aligns with the City’s Guiding Principles and concerns expressed by Council and the public regarding the Project.
The following day, Tuesday, June 18, 2024, SANDAG will host a public scoping meeting for the environmental review process for the Project. The meeting will be held from 6:00 to 7:30 PM at the San Diego Marriott Del Mar, 11966 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA. At the meeting SANDAG will seek input on the NOP, including the alternatives under consideration and 4 June 17, 2024 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project NOP – Initial Feedback
June 17, 2024
potential environmental effects. The meeting will include a presentation on the Project/NOP and the opportunity for both oral and written public comments. City staff will be in attendance in a listening and information-gathering capacity and will not be making formal comments.
Written comments on the NOP can be submitted to SANDAG outside of the scoping meeting via mail at 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, ATTN: Tim Pesce; via email with submit line “SDLRR Project N P” to [email protected]; or online at SANDAG.org/railrealignment.
A second City Council discussion on Del Mar’s response to the NOP will take place on July 8, 2024, which will be to review a draft City response to the NOP prepared by staff and the Council Rail Subcommittee, Mayor Dave Druker and Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland, for Council consideration for adoption and direction to submit to SANDAG before the close of the public comment period.
Staff has received some preliminary questions and comments on the NOP from the City Council, which is summarized in Attachment D. Staff recommends the City Council use this information as starting point for discussing the City’s official response to the NOP.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
NEXUS TO COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
City involvement in major SANDAG initiatives, including the LOSSAN Rail Realignment project, is a Tier 1 City Council priority.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Exhibit 1 to Attachment A – Alignments Screening Report Attachment B – Resolution 2023-33
Attachment C – Guiding Principals
Attachment D – Preliminary Questions and Comments on the NOP 5 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Notice of Preparation
of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 4, 2024
Subject
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San DiegoLos Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project (Project) located in the cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, California.
Introduction
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is initiating the preparation of a Draft EIR for the SDLRR Project and is issuing this NOP to initiate scoping to solicit input on the Project, including alternatives under consideration and environmental effects. SANDAG has decided to forego preparing an Initial Study (CEQA Guidelines 15063(a)) and move directly into the preparation of a Draft EIR. In addition to soliciting input from the public, SANDAG is requesting feedback from agencies as to the scope and content of environmental information that is relevant to an agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the SDLRR Project (e.g., if this Draft Environmental Impact Report [EIR] will be used by an agency to issue an approval for the SDLRR Project).
The SDLRR Project may require approvals and/or permits from agencies that would be subject to environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
A NEPA Lead Agency has not yet been identified. Once the NEPA Lead Agency is identified, that agency will formally initiate the NEPA process.
Background
The San Diego Subdivision is an approximately 60-mile section of the 351-mile LOSSAN Rail Corridor, linking San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo from the Orange County line to the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor is the second busiest intercity passenger rail corridor in the United States and supports commuter (COASTER), intercity (Pacific Surfliner), and freight (BNSF) rail services. Currently, three quarters of the San Diego Subdivision is double tracked, resulting in a total of approximately 15 miles of single track and 45 miles of double track.
SANDAG Responsibilities
The San Diego Regional Transportation Consolidation Act (Senate Bill [SB] 1703 Peace) assigned SANDAG the responsibility for planning, funding allocation, project development, and construction in the San Diego region for all transit projects, including heavy rail. The North County Transit District and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System retained the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the rail services. As such, SANDAG is the CEQA Lead Agency for rail line construction projects proposed in San Diego County. In its role as the Metropolitan Planning Organization under federal and state law, SANDAG is also responsible for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and a Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies transportation infrastructure investments and programming of transportation funding over a 30-year Attachment A 6 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 2 timeframe within the San Diego region in consideration of projected economic and population growth. The 2021 Regional Plan combines the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy to achieve the regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. SANDAG’s current plan was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in December 2021, with an amendment approved in October 2023.
As described in the 2021 Regional Plan, the regional vision for the San Diego Subdivision would result in an increase in commuter rail service operating at higher speeds in order to reduce travel times and provide a competitive alternative to driving, as well as aiding in continuation of goods movement through the region. The 2021 Regional Plan contemplates double tracking the remaining single-track segments of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor within San Diego County, modifications to the track configuration to accommodate higher speeds, and relocation of rail track into more climate resilient areas.
The segment of the San Diego Subdivision within the SDLRR Project area has experienced temporary closures and speed reductions resulting from bluff collapses, erosion, and repair work to stabilize the bluffs and protect the rail corridor from more substantial erosion effects.
Four bluff stabilization projects have been completed in Del Mar since 2003, with the construction of Phase 4 recently completed in 2021. A fifth stabilization project (Phase 5) began construction in spring 2024. Phase 5 focuses on addressing additional seismic and stabilization needs, installing additional support columns, and replacing aging drainage structures to support the existing tracks.
In addition to the stabilization projects, several emergency repairs have been required since 1996 due to bluff failures that threatened train operations. While the Phase 5 stabilization project addresses safety and operational concerns with a 30-year design life, the stabilization projects and emergency repairs do not provide a long-term solution for sea level rise and the ongoing coastal erosion that pose substantial safety and economic risks to the region. Bluff retreat is estimated to occur at an average rate of 0.4 to 0.6 foot per year; however, large episodic bluff failures can result in more than 20 feet of bluff edge retreat in a single event.
The California Coastal Commission has required that SANDAG evaluate realignment of the rail corridor off the bluffs to a more resilient location as part of their condition of approval for Phases 4 and 5 of the above-mentioned stabilization work. Further stabilization and emergency repair projects are likely to be required until the rail corridor is relocated from the coastal bluffs.
Study Area
The Project is located within portions of the cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, as depicted on Figure 1. The Project study area begins at Solana Beach Station in the north and ends at the Sorrento Valley Station in the south. The study area is generally bounded to the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the east by Interstate 5 (I-5).
Attachment A 7 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 3 Figure 1. Project Location
Note: Within the San Diego Subdivision, right-of-way north of Milepost 245.6 is owned by North County Transit District and right-of-way south of Milepost 245.6 is owned by Metropolitan Transit System. The Future Special Events Platform has been approved and fully funded but will be constructed as part of the San Dieguito Double Track Project.
Attachment A 8 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 4 Planning Documents and Prior Studies
The Project is part of a larger program of improvements to be implemented on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor to enhance the reliability of existing services between San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Previous planning and environmental studies have been undertaken to analyze the potential for realigning the San Diego Subdivision in the Project study area away from the coastal bluffs and primarily within tunnels through the cities of Del Mar and San Diego.
• In 2007, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) finalized the Los Angeles—San Diego Final Program EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1
, and on March 18, 2009, a Record of
Decision2 was published which records the decisions the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) made for proposed improvements to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego. The Program EIR/EIS carried forward two alternatives proposing tunnel options that deviated from the existing railroad alignment. • In August 2014, the California Coastal Commission unanimously approved the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (PWP/TREP). Jointly prepared by SANDAG and Caltrans, the PWP/TREP is a single, integrated document that establishes a framework for comprehensively planning, reviewing, and permitting of multimodal transportation improvements along a 27-mile corridor in North San Diego County that maintains and enhances public access and protects sensitive coastal resources. The scope of improvements discussed within the Project study area includes two conceptual alignments for a “rail tunnel to move the existing rail alignment away from the Del Mar bluffs, which are susceptible to failure and unable to accommodate double tracking due to significant excavation, stabilization and ongoing maintenance needs of such a facility” (Chapter 4). • In December 2017, SANDAG published a report entitled Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Constraints for Double Track Alignment Alternatives Between Del Mar Fairgrounds and Sorrento Valley3 that analyzed the feasibility of five potential options for relocating the existing San Diego Subdivision onto a new alignment with a double track tunnel away from the Del Mar bluffs. The study included conceptual engineering and preliminary construction costs for each alignment option. 1 Web Page: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/los-angeles-san-diego-lossan-corridor-program-finalprogrammatic-eireis PDF: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-10/2.2.11%20LOSSAN%20Programmatic% 20EIR-EIS%20%282007%29_PDFa.pdf
2 Web Page:
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/los-angeles-san-diego-lossan-corridor-program-eireis-recorddecision PDF: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/192/LOSSAN_ROD_FINAL_2009.pdf 3 Web Page: https://www.SANDAG.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-andprograms/featured-projects/lossan-rail-improvements-del-mar-bluffs/del-mar-bluffsstabilization/alignment-alternatives-and-environmental-constraints-study-2017-2023-09-08.pdf Appendices: https://www.SANDAG.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-andprograms/featured-projects/lossan-rail-improvements-del-mar-bluffs/del-mar-bluffsstabilization/alignment-alternatives-and-environmental-constraints-study-2017-appendices-2023- 09-08.pdf
Attachment A 9 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 5 • In September 2018, Caltrans released the 2018 California State Rail Plan, which established a statewide vision describing a future integrated rail system that provides comprehensive and coordinated service to passengers through more frequent service, and convenient transfers between rail services and transit. The plan recognized the challenges coastal erosion and sea level rise pose to the railroad tracks atop the eroding bluffs in Del Mar. It noted that about 50 trains on weekdays (mostly passenger), traverse the Del Mar Bluffs, and sea level rise will accelerate erosion of the bluffs, threatening stability and the viability of the route. The plan states “erosion by 2100 could eliminate the rail line completely, as well as adjacent homes, absent preventative measures.” • In December 2021, SANDAG adopted the 2021 Regional Plan, which envisioned an expanded system of transit services to reduce greenhouse gases from automobiles, while promoting safe, clean, and economically friendly ways to move goods throughout the region and beyond. The 2021 Regional Plan envisioned the relocation, straightening, and double tracking of the rail line through the study area to a more climate resilient location that could reduce travel time and service reliability.
• In June 2022, the California Coastal Commission issued a Federal Consistency Certification (No. 0005-21) for the Del Mar Bluff Stabilization V project, which required the removal of all shoreline armoring after the expiration of the 30-year authorization period.
The 30-year authorization period was to “allow SANDAG to protect the important railway line while planning of the pursuing [its] relocation.”
• In August 2023, SANDAG released the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track Del Mar Tunnels Alternatives Analysis Report, which refined five potential alignment alternatives based on the previous conceptual engineering study and evaluated them against a set of performance criteria. Two of these alternatives were advanced to 10 percent conceptual engineering and were further analyzed for engineering and environmental considerations. Based on feedback from stakeholders and community groups, four additional potential tunnel portal locations were then also evaluated to further minimize impacts on the community and private properties. Additional conceptual alignments were considered at a high level to demonstrate potential connections between various portal locations.
Recent Public Outreach
Leading up to the release of the NOP, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the description of the Project and the range of alternatives to be identified in the NOP. The meetings are listed below and videos for many of these meetings are available on the SANDAG website.
• July 24, 2023: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council • August 30, 2023: SD LOSSAN Rail Realignment Del Mar Community Open House • October 4, 2023: LOSSAN Tunneling Workshop
• October 19, 2023: LOSSAN Virtual Information Session
• November 6, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Del Mar
• November 7, 2023 – December 19, 2023: Weekly Community Field Office Hours • November 15, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Carmel Valley • February 5, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council Attachment A 10 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 6 • March 19, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Torrey Pines Community Planning Board Project Objectives
The Project objectives are as follows:
• Improve rail service reliability by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar.
• Maintain passenger rail service to the existing train stations serving Solana Beach and Sorrento Valley and accommodate direct rail access to the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds).
• Minimize impacts in the surrounding communities during and after construction. • Avoid and/or minimize impacts on biological, cultural, and recreational resources of national, state, or local significance, including publicly owned parks, beaches, wetlands, ecological reserves, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. • Help meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan by increasing passenger and freight train capacity, further reducing travel times, improving reliability, and accommodating additional rail service. • Improve coastal access and safety by eliminating at‑grade railroad crossings and minimizing other pedestrian-rail points of interaction.
Project Description
SANDAG proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment of the San Diego Subdivision potentially through the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-track alignment between the Solana Beach Station and the north end of Sorrento Valley in the City of San Diego.
The new alignment would relocate existing rail service from along the coastal bluffs to a new alignment away from the bluffs, primarily located within tunnels through Del Mar and San Diego. The new alignment may include aerial structures and berms. The relocation and double tracking of the alignment would eliminate reliability risks caused by bluff erosion and provide greater track capacity and a higher operating speed for trains that use the corridor, enabling projected increases in service and minimizing conflicts with pedestrians.
The Project will include removal of existing stabilization infrastructure, consistent with the California Coastal Commission’s conditions of approval for the Del Mar stabilization projects.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, the SDLRR Draft EIR will consider a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of Project alternatives. In accordance with CEQA, SANDAG has identified alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR based on their potential feasibility, ability to attain the majority of the Project objectives, and potential to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (California Code of Regulations title 14 § 15126.6).
As a result of prior planning studies and community engagement, in addition to the No Project alternative, three Project alternatives are proposed for analysis in the Draft EIR, as depicted on Figure 3. Each Project alternative would require a north and south portal, a tunnel connecting the portals, and double tracking of the rail line.
Attachment A 11 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 7 The Project comprises the following infrastructure components, which are also included in each of the three Project alternatives (definitions for several of these components are included in the callout box and depicted on Figure 2).
• Removal of existing rail infrastructure (e.g. rail track, ties, and ballast) on areas no longer needed after
track relocation
• Construction of bridge structures
• Construction of U-structures, retaining walls, and
floodwalls
• Construction of twin-bored tunnels and cut-andcover tunnels • Construction of tunnel portals and associated portal
infrastructure
• Installation of a tunnel system power supply
• Installation of tunnel ventilation systems
• Installation of communication systems, including
signals, switches, and control points
• Modifications to drainage and roadways, as needed
• Relocation of utilities, as needed
• Potential placement of beach-quality sand excavated
from tunnel boring activities onto beach(es) or near
shore, in the vicinity of the study area
• Removal of prior bluff stabilization improvements
consistent with the California Coastal Commission’s
certification of Federal Consistency Certifications
Graded: rail tracks constructed
on flat ground, earthen berms,
or cuts into hillsides.
Floodwalls: a freestanding
structure built along a shore or
bank to prevent encroachment
of floodwaters.
Berm: a segment of track that is
on raised ground.
U-structure: a rectangular
shaped structure with only
three sides that is excavated
from the surface and leaves an
opening in the surface to allow
the track to transition from a
tunnel to the surface level.
Cut-and-cover tunnel: a
rectangular shaped tunnel that
is constructed within a trench
which is excavated from the
surface and then covered after
it is constructed.
Bored tunnel: a circular shaped
tunnel that is constructed using
a tunnel boring machine that
digs or bores through the earth
without removing the ground
above.
Portal: entrance to the tunnel.
Bridge: aerial structure carrying
the rail tracks over roadways,
canyons, or water.
Attachment A 12 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 8 Figure 2. Project Components
North Portals
Two north portal locations have been identified depending on the track alignment.
The portal locations are as follows:
Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
This proposed portal would be located north of the intersection of Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The portal’s infrastructure would cross underneath Jimmy Durante Boulevard, which would be raised. The portal structures would potentially extend into commercial and residential properties.
Fairgrounds North
This proposed portal would be located north of the fairgrounds within the railroad trench in Solana Beach. The portal’s infrastructure would start south of the existing Solana Beach Station.
South Portals
Two south portal locations have been identified depending on the track alignment.
The portal locations are as follows:
Torrey Pines Road
This proposed portal would be located near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and North Torrey Pines Road. The portal infrastructure would cross underneath Carmel Valley Road and potentially extend into residential properties.
Knoll Near I-5
This proposed portal would be located at a knoll south of Carmel Valley Road between I-5 and the segment of Sorrento Valley Road Trail that is closed to public vehicular traffic but open for bikes, pedestrians, and authorized vehicles. The portal infrastructure would be within the undeveloped knoll and extend into the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
Attachment A 13 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 9 Alternative A I-5 Alignment:
As depicted on Figure 4, Alternative A is approximately 6.8 miles in length and would descend immediately south of the Solana Beach Station, enter the Fairgrounds North Portal, then continue south into the fairgrounds, where there would be a new underground special events platform. The alignment would continue under the San Dieguito Lagoon and turn to follow under the I-5 freeway, then continue south and exit at the Knoll Near I-5 South Portal.
The alignment would then rise above ground as it transitions back into the existing railroad alignment north of the Sorrento Valley Station.
Alternative B Crest Canyon Alignment:
As depicted on Figure 5, Alternative B is approximately 5.3 miles in length and would descend immediately south of the rail bridge that spans over the San Dieguito Lagoon and enter the Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard North Portal, then continue south and exit at the Knoll Near I-5 South Portal. The tracks would then rise as it transitions back into the existing railroad alignment north of the Sorrento Valley Station.
Alternative C Camino del Mar Alignment:
As depicted on Figure 6, Alternative C is approximately 4.9 miles in length and would descend immediately south of the rail bridge that spans over the San Dieguito Lagoon and enter the Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard North Portal. This alternative would continue south and exit at the Torrey Pines Road South Portal, bridge over the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and then transition back to the existing railroad alignment. The existing railroad alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would be double tracked, which would require raising and widening the existing berm in the lagoon to address flooding and sea level rise projections.
Potential Environmental Effects
The EIR will address impacts to the following resource categories listed in Appendix G:
1. Aesthetics
2. Air Quality
3. Biological Resources
4. Cultural Resources
5. Energy
6. Geology and Soils
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
10. Land Use and Planning
11. Mineral Resources
12. Noise and Vibration
13. Population and Housing
14. Public Services
15. Recreation
16. Transportation
17. Tribal Cultural Resources
18. Utilities and Service Systems
19. Wildfire
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance
In addition, the EIR will address cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and other mandatory CEQA topics.
Attachment A 14 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 10 Comments Requested
Comments in response to this NOP should be provided to SANDAG at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice (June 4, 2024). Your comments may be submitted in writing to SANDAG no later than July 19, 2024.
SANDAG is seeking input on the Draft EIR scope, including the alternatives under consideration and potential environmental effects. A public scoping meeting is scheduled on June 18, 2024, from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., as noted below. Written comments should be sent to SANDAG, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, ATTN: Tim Pesce; via email with subject line “SDLRR Project NOP” to: [email protected]; or online at SANDAG.org/railrealignment. Comments may also be provided orally or in writing via the public scoping meeting.
Public Scoping Meetings
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9, a public scoping meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2024, from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. at the San Diego Marriott Del Mar, 11966 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130.
Additional Information
For additional information regarding the SDLRR Project, the scoping period, or the environmental process, please contact [email protected] or visit SANDAG.org/railrealignment.
Attachment A 15 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 11 Figure 3. Three Project Alternatives
Attachment A 16 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 12 This page is intentionally blank.
Attachment A 17 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 13 Figure 4. Alternative A I-5 Alignment
Attachment A 18 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 14 This page is intentionally blank.
Attachment A 19 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 15 Figure 5. Alternative B Crest Canyon Alignment
Attachment A 20 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 16 This page is intentionally blank.
Attachment A 21 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 17 Figure 6. Alternative C Camino del Mar Alignment
Attachment A 22 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 18 This page is intentionally blank.
Attachment A 23 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report
May 31, 2024
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 24 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report i
Contents
1 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Description................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Screening Process.................................................................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Comparison of Alignments and Recommendations......................................................................1-4
1.3.1 Evaluation of Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility ....................................1-4
1.3.2 Evaluation of Environmental and Other Considerations...............................................1-6
1.3.3 Summary of Outcomes.......................................................................................................................1-6 2 Introduction and Description of Alignments..........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Description............................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Alignment and Project Components ...................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3 Conceptual Alignments...................................................................................................................................2-5
2.4 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments................................................................................................. 2-7 3 Screening Process..............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility .................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Environmental and Other Considerations............................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations................................................................................ 3-3
3.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects.............................................................................3-5 4 Evaluation of Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility..........................................................4-1
4.1 Conceptual Alignments.................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.1 Alignment P1-A....................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Alignment P1-B....................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Alignment P2........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Alignment P3........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.5 Alignment P4........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.6 Alignment P5........................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.7 Alignment P6-A...................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.8 Alignment P6-B...................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.9 Alignment P7-A...................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.10 Alignment P7-B......................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.11 Alignment P8...........................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.12 Alignment P9...........................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.13 Alignment P10-A....................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.14 Alignment P10-B....................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.15 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................4-6 5 Evaluation of Environmental and Other Considerations ...................................................................5-1
5.1 Conceptual Alignments....................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Potential Environmental Considerations.................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Constructability and Construction Effects.............................................................................5-7
5.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments..............................................................................................5-20
5.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations............................................................................. 5-23
5.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects..........................................................................5-30 Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 25 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report ii
6 Comparison of Alignments and Recommendations ..........................................................................6-1
6.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility ..................................................................................6-1
6.2 Environmental and Other Considerations............................................................................................6-3
6.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations................................................................................6-3
6.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects.............................................................................6-5
6.2.3 Construction Cost Estimates........................................................................................................6-10
6.3 Summary of Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................6-11 Tables
Table 1-1. Conceptual Alignments...............................................................................................................................1-1 Table 1-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments............................................................................................1-2 Table 1-3. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary ....................................................1-5 Table 1-4. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria ...........................................1-6 Table 2-1. Summary of Alignment Components .............................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-2. Conceptual Alignments.............................................................................................................................2-5 Table 2-3. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments...........................................................................................2-8 Table 3-1. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria .......................................... 3-3 Table 4-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility — Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-7 Table 5-1. Conceptual Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components .......................5-1 Table 5-2. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent).................5-2 Table 5-3. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material..................................................................................................................................5-3 Table 5-4. Potential Utility Conflicts ........................................................................................................................5-19 Table 5-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components ................................................................................................................................................... 5-21 Table 5-6. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent).............. 5-24 Table 5-7. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material...............................................................................................................................5-25 Table 5-8. Potential Utility Conflicts ....................................................................................................................... 5-42 Table 6-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary ....................................................6-1 Table 6-2. Summary of Biological Resources and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) ...................6-4 Table 6-3. Approximate Number of Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material.............6-5 Table 6-4. Summary of Alignment Components ..............................................................................................6-6 Table 6-5. Summary of Potential Utility Conflicts .............................................................................................6-8 Table 6-6. Summary of Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction .................................6-10 Table 6-7. Construction Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate.....................................................6-11 Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 26 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report iii
Figures
Figure 1-1. Conceptual Alignments and Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments ..........................1-3 Figure 1-2. Alignment Screening Process.................................................................................................................1-4 Figure 1-3. CEQA Scoping Alternatives ......................................................................................................................1-8 Figure 2-1. Project Location.............................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-2. Alignment Components............................................................................................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-3. Conceptual Alignments.............................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4. Outreach Event Proposed Concepts..................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments...........................................................................................2-9 Figure 3-1. Alignment Screening Process................................................................................................................. 3-1 Figure 3-2. Vertical Profile Design Criteria—Two Percent Slope................................................................. 3-2 Figure 4-1. Twin-Bore and Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration.................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced ..................................................................4-8 Figure 5-1. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced ............................................................... 5-22 Figure 6-1. CEQA Scoping Alternatives ...................................................................................................................6-14 Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 27 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report iv
Acronyms/Abbreviations
Acronym/
Abbreviation Definition
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CP control point
EIR environmental impact report
GIS Geographic Information Systems
LOSSAN Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo
MP Mile Post
mph miles per hour
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SDLRR San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment
TBM tunnel boring machine
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 28 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report v
Terms and Definitions
Term Definition
Alignment The horizontal and vertical location of a track or roadway defined primarily by a series of connected tangents and curves.
Berm A segment of track that is on raised ground.
Bridge Aerial structure carrying the rail tracks over roadways, canyons, or water.
Bored
Tunnel
A circular-shaped tunnel that is constructed using a tunnel boring machine that digs or bores through the earth without removing the ground above.
Control Point A location of train signals used to control the movement of trains.
Cut-andCover TunnelA rectangular-shaped tunnel that is constructed within a trench that is excavated from the surface and then covered after it is constructed.
Design
Speed
A selected speed that is used to determine aspects of the railroad alignment during design, such as curves. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed.
Floodwalls A freestanding structure built along a shore or bank to prevent encroachment of floodwaters.
Graded Rail tracks constructed on flat ground, earthen berms, or cuts into hillsides.
Portal Entrance to the tunnel.
Shoofly Temporary track used to maintain service.
Soft Cost Costs not directly tied to the physical construction of a project. These costs typically include, but are not limited to, expenditures related to project development, environmental reviews, engineering and design services, project management, permits, and legal services.
State CEQA
Guidelines
California Code of Regulations Title 14 – Natural Resources:
https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-14- natural-resources
U-Structure A rectangular-shaped structure with only three sides that is excavated from the surface and leaves an opening in the surface to allow the track to transition from a tunnel to the surface level.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 29 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report vi
The intent of this evaluation is to document, assess, and incorporate into the formal environmental review process for the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project the alignments developed as a result of previous planning studies, additional design, and public engagement in advance of the commencement of the formal environmental review process.
The evaluation employs screening criteria that are informed by CEQA and planning practices to assess each alignment. This evaluation applies the same screening criteria to the publicly proposed alignments (referred to as “stakeholder and outreach alignments" in this report) and the conceptual alignments and, on the basis of this screening, identifies a focused subset of alignments that are recommended for inclusion in the Notice of Preparation of the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project Draft EIR. The Notice of Preparation invites further input on the Draft EIR scope and the alignments identified in the Notice of Preparation.
This evaluation is not intended as, and does not include, an analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA. The environmental impacts of the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project and the project alternatives proposed to reduce or avoid such impacts will be identified in the Project EIR in accordance with CEQA.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 30 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-1
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Project Description
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) proposes to relocate the existing singletrack alignment of the San Diego Subdivision of the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor potentially within the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-tracked alignment away from the coastal bluffs as part of the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project.
Previous planning and environmental studies have been undertaken to analyze the potential for realigning the San Diego Subdivision in the project study area. In August 2023, SANDAG released the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track Del Mar Tunnels Alternatives Analysis Report (Alternatives Analysis Report), which refined five potential alignment alternatives based on previous conceptual engineering studies and evaluated them against a set of performance criteria. After completion of the Alternatives Analysis Report, SANDAG continued to evaluate alignments, including additional portal locations and tunnel configurations (i.e., single or twin bore). In total, 12 conceptual alignments were developed to demonstrate potential connections between the various portal locations and tunnel bore configurations. These alignments are referred to as “conceptual alignments” within this report and are summarized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Conceptual Alignments
Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Conceptual Alignment
North Portal South Portal Bore
1 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Twin Bore 2 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Single Bore 3 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore 4 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Single Bore 5 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore 6 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore 7 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Twin Bore
8 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Single Bore
9 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore
10 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Single Bore
11 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore
12 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore
Between summer 2023 and winter 2024, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the Project and the range of potential alignments. Through these efforts, additional concepts were suggested by stakeholders and members of the public. Based upon the public input received, 14 distinct alignments were Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 31 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-2
developed for analysis in this report from 30 individual concepts. These alignments are referred to as “stakeholder and outreach alignments” within this report and are summarized in Table 1-2. The conceptual alignments and stakeholder and outreach alignments considered in this report are illustrated in Figure 1-1. In total, 26 alignments were considered.
The alignments in this report consist primarily of tunneled sections with additional bridge, Ustructure, and/or graded sections as needed. Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 provides a summary of alignment components and Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2 illustrates each component. Both singlebore and twin-bore configurations were considered for construction of the tunnels, although ultimately a single-bore configuration was eliminated from further consideration.
Table 1-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Stakeholder and
Outreach Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5
P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley
P2 N/A N/A
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road
P5 South Cedros Avenue Pump Station 65
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P8 Old Railroad Wye1 South Los Peñasquitos Lagoon
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive
P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
Notes:
1A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals. Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 32 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-3
Figure 1-1. Conceptual Alignments and Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 33 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-4
1.2 Screening Process
A screening process was developed to evaluate the 26 alignments in support of selecting the alignments that will advance to the formal California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) scoping process. The screening process was informed by the criteria identified in Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The screening process is summarized in Figure 1-2, and the screening criteria are described in more detail in Section 3.
Figure 1-2. Alignment Screening Process
1.3 Comparison of Alignments and Recommendations
1.3.1 Evaluation of Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility The conceptual alignments and stakeholder and outreach alignments were assessed based on their ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility. Each of the conceptual alignments was prepared for an alternatives analysis and was designed specifically to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility criteria. Although all conceptual alignments met project objectives and engineering feasibility, all single-bore alignments were removed from consideration prior to the evaluation of environmental and other considerations because of the increased complexity and community effects associated with the single-bore tunnel configuration.
Therefore, Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were removed from consideration in favor of the similar twin-bore alignments (Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). For the same reasons, a single-bore configuration was not considered for any of the stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Section 4.2 details the assessment of each stakeholder and outreach alignment’s ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility. Based on this evaluation, and as summarized in Table 1-3, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for further evaluation. The remaining stakeholder and outreach alignments were removed from consideration.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 34 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-5
Table 1-3. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
Number of the
Six Project
Objectives Met
Meets
Engineering
Feasibility
Advanced
for
Further
Evaluation
Conceptual Alignments
1 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Portofino Drive 6 Yes Yes
2 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Portofino Drive 6 Yes No1
3 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes Yes
4 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes No1
5 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes Yes
6 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes No1
7 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive 6 Yes Yes
8 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive 6 Yes No1
9 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes Yes
10 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes No1
11 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes Yes
12 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes No1
Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5 1 Unknown2 No
P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley 1 Unknown No
P2 N/A N/A 1 Yes No
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail 3 No No
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road 5
3 Yes No
P5 South Cedros Avenue Pump Station 65 2 Yes No
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 3 Yes No
P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley 3 Yes No
P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 4 Yes Yes
P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley 4 Yes Yes
P8 Old Railroad Wye4 South Los
Peñasquitos
Lagoon
4 No No
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive 4 Yes Yes
P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 4 Yes Yes
P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley 4 Yes Yes
Note: 1Based on a high-level assessment, the single-bore alignments (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) would result in greater impacts and more difficult construction than their twin-bored counterparts (1, 3, 5, 7, and 11), and therefore were removed from further evaluation prior to the assessment of environmental and other considerations.
2As depicted by stakeholders and the public, insufficient information exists to evaluate the alignment against the project objective and/or engineering feasibility.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 35 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-6
3Despite meeting most of the project objectives and engineering feasibility, this alignment was removed from consideration because it is similar to conceptual Alignment 3, which would meet the remaining project objective.
4A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals.
Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
1.3.2 Evaluation of Environmental and Other Considerations Table 1-4 summarize the assessment of alignments in terms of environmental and other considerations. The detailed evaluation is included in Section 5.
Table 1-4. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Description
Potential Environmental
Considerations1
Biological Resources: Acreage of sensitive vegetation communities located within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Land Use: Existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Community Effects: Potential disruption to the adjacent community during construction, including potential acquisitions, noise and dust, physical impacts to local roadways, and truck trips associated with construction material disposal.
Constructability and
Construction Effects
Constructability of Alignment Components: Construction effects associated with each alignment, including the tunnel, portals, and other components required for the alignment, as applicable.
Impacts to Existing Railroad Operations: Effects to existing railroad operation that would occur during construction of the alignment, such as temporary suspension of service, use of a shoofly (temporary track used to maintain service), or extended distance of single-track operation.
Utility Conflicts: Potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities (i.e., sewer or water). Whether a utility can be protected in place or would require relocation would be determined in later stages of design.
Note: 1The evaluation of potential environmental considerations does not indicate whether an alignment would result in significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act or adverse effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. The determination of significance of impacts will occur during the formal environmental review phase of the Project.
1.3.3 Summary of Outcomes
Based on the evaluation provided in this report, the following recommendations have been developed in support of identifying the range of alternatives to advance to the formal CEQA scoping process:
• Alignment 3 is recommended for further consideration in the CEQA scoping process.
This alignment could result in fewer permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, would require the second-fewest number of truck trips, and would generally be compatible with existing land uses. The north portal site associated with Alignment 3 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the north portal site associated with Alignments 7, 9, and 11 (Within Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 36 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-7
Camino Del Mar) and Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North) portal locations. Alignment 3 would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the north portal and the alignment north of the portal compared to the other north portal locations.
• Alignment 5 is recommended for further consideration in the CEQA scoping process.
The south portal for this alignment (Knoll Near I-5) would be located away from residential properties and has received general support from the public. Potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be comparable to Alignment 3 and would be less than Alignments 1, 7, 9, P7-A, P9, and P10-A. The south portal site would also result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the various south portal locations. Alignment 5 would also result in less construction complexity at the north portal site (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) and the alignment north of the portal than Alignments 7, 9, and 11.
• Alignment P7-A is recommended for further consideration in the CEQA scoping process. This alignment would be the most similar to what the public supported in terms of a tunnel alignment that would be parallel to I-5 rather than under residential properties. This alignment would have a north portal within the existing railroad alignment trench located north of the state-owned fairgrounds property. This north portal site, which is common among the five stakeholder and outreach alignments, would have the greatest construction complexity of the various north portal locations.
This alignment would also require construction of a new special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge. However, potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities for Alignment P7-A would be comparable to Alignments 3 and 5, which are also recommended for further consideration. Alignment P7-A would also result in fewer potential major utility conflicts than Alignments P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B.
Alignments 3, 5, and P7-A are recommended to advance to CEQA scoping. The alignments are illustrated in Figure 1-3 and will be referred to as Alternative A: I-5 Alignment, Alternative B:
Crest Canyon Alignment, and Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment in the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). • Alternative A: I-5 Alignment will reflect Alignment P7-A in this report. • Alternative B: Crest Canyon Alignment will reflect Alignment 5 in this report. • Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment will reflect Alignment 3 in this report.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 37 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 1-8
Figure 1-3. CEQA Scoping Alternatives
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 38 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-1
2 Introduction and Description of
Alignments
SANDAG proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor potentially within the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-tracked alignment away from the bluffs, primarily located within tunnels. The San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project is part of a larger program of improvements to be implemented on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor to enhance the safety and reliability of existing services between San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and San Diego. SANDAG, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, is initiating the preparation of a Draft EIR for the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the SDLRR Draft EIR will consider a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives. This report describes and evaluates the alignments considered for the project alternatives with the goal of identifying the alignments that advance into the CEQA scoping process.
Previous planning and environmental studies have been undertaken to analyze the potential for realigning the San Diego Subdivision in the SDLRR Project study area, as defined in Section
2.1. In August 2023, SANDAG released the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track Del Mar Tunnels Alternatives Analysis Report (Alternatives Analysis Report) that refined five potential alignment alternatives based on previous conceptual engineering studies and evaluated them against a set of performance criteria. Two of these alternatives were advanced to 10 percent conceptual engineering and were further analyzed for engineering and environmental considerations. Based on feedback from stakeholders and community groups, four additional potential tunnel portal locations were also evaluated within the Alternatives Analysis Report with the goal of minimizing effects on the community and private properties.
After completion of the Alternatives Analysis Report, SANDAG continued to evaluate alignments, including portal locations and tunnel configurations (i.e., single or twin bore). In total, 12 conceptual alignments were developed to demonstrate potential connections among the various portal locations and tunnel bore configurations. These alignments are referred to as “conceptual alignments” within this report and are summarized in Section 2.3.
Between summer 2023 and winter 2024, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the Project and the range of alternatives.
Through these efforts, additional alignments were identified, and 14 distinct alignments were developed. These alignments are referred to as “stakeholder and outreach alignments” within this report and are summarized in Section 2.4. The evaluation in this report builds on that of the Alternatives Analysis Report to evaluate each conceptual alignment and stakeholder and outreach alignment using the screening criteria discussed in Section 3 and the process summarized in Figure 3-1.
2.1 Project Description
SANDAG proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment of the San Diego Subdivision of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor within the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-tracked alignment away from the coastal bluffs. Building on the Alternatives Analysis Report, the objectives for the Project, described in Section 3.1, aim to improve rail service reliability; maintain passenger rail Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 39 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-2
service; minimize impacts in the surrounding communities and on biological, cultural, and recreational resources; and improve coastal access and safety. Project objectives also include helping meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan. As described in the 2021 Regional Plan, the regional vision for the San Diego Subdivision would result in an increase in commuter rail service operating at higher speeds in order to reduce travel times and provide a competitive alternative to driving, as well as aiding in the continuation of goods movement through the region. The 2018 California State Rail Plan established a statewide vision describing a future integrated rail system that provides comprehensive and coordinated service to passengers through more frequent service, and convenient transfers between rail services and transit, recognizing the challenges of coastal erosion and sea-level rise.
The new alignment would primarily be located within tunnels. The new alignment may include bridges and berms through the Los Peñasquitos and San Dieguito Lagoons. The segment of track to be relocated could be between the Solana Beach Station and the Sorrento Valley Station, represented by Mile Posts (MP) 241.8 and 248.7 of the San Diego Subdivision, depending on the alignment selected. The Project would also require modifications to the signal system between MP 242.1 and MP 249.25. The relocation and double tracking of the alignment would eliminate operational risks caused by bluff erosion and provide greater track capacity and a higher operating speed for trains that use the corridor, enabling projected increases in service and minimizing conflicts with pedestrians.
The project study area is located in San Diego County in the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego. Ownership of the San Diego Subdivision is split between the North County Transit District (north of MP 245.6) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (south of MP 245.6). Figure 2-1 shows the limits of the San Diego Subdivision and identifies the project study area.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 40 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-3
Figure 2-1. Project Location
Note: Within the San Diego Subdivision, right-of-way north of MP 245.6 is owned by the North County Transit District and right-of-way south of MP 245.6 is owned by the Metropolitan Transit System. The Future Special Events Platform has been approved and fully funded but will be constructed as part of the San Dieguito Double Track Project.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 41 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-4
2.2 Alignment and Project Components
The alignments in this report consist primarily of tunnels with additional bridge, U-structure, and/or graded sections, as needed. Table 2-1 provides a summary of alignment components, and Figure 2-2 illustrates each component. For construction of the tunnels, both single-bore and twin-bore configurations were considered, although ultimately single bore was eliminated from further consideration during the evaluation of the conceptual alignments and the stakeholder and outreach alignments, as described in Section 4. The twin-bore alignments consist of two 28-foot internal-diameter bores separated by a distance equal to the tunnel diameter (28 feet).
Construction of the tunnels would require locations for the launch and retrieval of the tunnel boring machine (TBM). The portals serve as the transition point from the tunnel to the ground surface level. It is assumed that the TBM would be launched at the south end of the tunnel and retrieved at the north end. Launching the TBM from the south has been assumed based on the greater construction activities at the launch site, access to the roadway network surrounding the south portal locations, and the proximity to the freeway, which would better accommodate the volume of truck trips associated with activities at the launch site.
Table 2-1. Summary of Alignment Components
Alignment Component Description
Graded Rail tracks constructed on flat ground, earthen berms, or cuts into hillsides.
Floodwalls A freestanding structure built along a shore or bank to prevent encroachment of floodwaters.
Berm A segment of track that is on raised ground.
U-Structure A rectangular-shaped structure with only three sides that is excavated from the surface and leaves an opening in the surface to allow the track to transition from a tunnel to the surface level.
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel A rectangular-shaped tunnel that is constructed within a trench that is excavated from the surface and then covered after it is constructed.
Portal Entrance to the tunnel.
Bored Tunnel A circular-shaped tunnel that is constructed using a tunnel boring machine that digs or bores through the earth without removing the ground above.
Bridge Aerial structure carrying the rail tracks over roadways, canyons, or water.
Figure 2-2. Alignment Components
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 42 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-5
2.3 Conceptual Alignments
The conceptual alignments are based on alignments and portal locations identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report and are defined by their portal locations and tunnel bore configuration (i.e., single or twin bore). The alignments, illustrated in Figure 2-3, share two potential north portal locations and three potential south portal locations. The conceptual alignments are numbered 1 through 12 and are defined in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Conceptual Alignments
Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Conceptual Alignment
North Portal South Portal Bore
1 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Twin Bore 2 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Single Bore 3 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore 4 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Single Bore 5 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore 6 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore 7 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Twin Bore
8 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Single Bore
9 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore
10 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Single Bore
11 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore
12 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 43 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-6
Figure 2-3. Conceptual Alignments
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 44 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-7
2.4 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Leading up to the release of the Notice of Preparation, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the description of the Project and the alternatives to be identified in the Notice of Preparation of the Project Draft EIR. The following stakeholder and outreach events were held:
• July 24, 2023: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council • August 30, 2023: SD LOSSAN Rail Realignment Del Mar Community Open House • October 4, 2023: LOSSAN Tunneling Workshop
• October 19, 2023: LOSSAN Virtual Information Session
• November 6, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Del Mar
• November 7, 2023 – December 19, 2023: Weekly Community Field Office Hours • November 15, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Carmel Valley • February 5, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council • March 19, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Torrey Pines Community Planning Board These outreach events included workshops in November 2023 where participants had the opportunity to provide specific input on alignments and tunnel portal options to be considered. In total, stakeholders and the public identified more than 30 individual concepts for consideration, shown in Figure 2-4. Several of these concepts were similar to each other or to the conceptual alignments. The concepts identified by stakeholders and the public were grouped by similar characteristics and 14 distinct alignments were developed for consideration and numbered P1 through P10. Where applicable and known, each alignment is defined by its north and south portal locations, with variations noted by A or B designations. The evaluation for each alignment assumes a twin-bore configuration based on the high-level screening discussed in Section 4.1. Table 2-3 summarizes the alignments identified during this process, and the alignments are illustrated in Figure 2-5.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 45 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-8
Table 2-3. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Stakeholder and
Outreach Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5
P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley
P2 N/A N/A
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road
P5 South Cedros Avenue Pump Station 65
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P8 Old Railroad Wye1 South Los Peñasquitos Lagoon
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive
P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
Notes:
1A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals. Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
Figure 2-4. Outreach Event Proposed Concepts
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 46 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 2-9
Figure 2-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 47 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 3-1
3 Screening Process
SANDAG staff developed a screening process to evaluate the 12 conceptual alignments and 14 stakeholder and outreach alignments in support of selecting the alignments that will advance to the CEQA scoping process, as shown in Figure 3-1. The screening process was informed by Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Using this screening process, SANDAG staff first evaluated each alignment based on its ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility described in Section 3.1. Alignments that would not meet the project objectives and/or were not feasible from an engineering standpoint were removed from consideration and were not evaluated further within this report. The evaluation of alignments in terms of meeting the project objectives and engineering feasibility is included in Section 4. If an alignment was found to meet project objectives and be feasible from an engineering standpoint, that alignment was carried forward for further evaluation with respect to environmental and other considerations, as described in Section 3.2 and evaluated in Section 5.
Figure 3-1. Alignment Screening Process
3.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility
Each alignment was assessed based on its ability to meet the following project objectives:
• Improve rail service reliability by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 48 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 3-2
• Maintain passenger rail service to the existing train stations serving Solana Beach and Sorrento Valley and accommodate direct rail access to the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds).
• Minimize impacts on the surrounding communities during and after construction. • Avoid and/or minimize impacts on biological, cultural, and recreational resources of national, state, or local significance, including publicly owned parks, beaches, wetlands, ecological reserves, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. • Help meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan by increasing passenger and freight train capacity, further reducing travel times, improving reliability, and accommodating additional rail service. • Improve coastal access and safety by eliminating at‑grade railroad crossings and minimizing other pedestrian-rail points of interaction.
Additionally, the engineering feasibility of each alignment was considered based on the vertical profile design criteria. The design criteria accounts for the alignment grade, expressed as the rise in feet per 100 feet of length. The alignment grade must not exceed 2 percent to be deemed feasible from an engineering perspective, as a 2-percent grade is the operating requirement for freight trains that use the corridor. Figure 3-2 provides a visual representation of this grade. Because 2-percent slopes are very gradual, changing elevation takes a considerable distance.
Figure 3-2. Vertical Profile Design Criteria—Two Percent Slope
3.2 Environmental and Other Considerations
Table 3-1 provides a summary of the categories of evaluation criteria applied to all alignments that met the project objectives and engineering feasibility. The evaluation criteria for environmental and other considerations were used to equally compare the merits across alignments. Additional information on each criterion is provided in the sections that follow.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 49 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 3-3
Table 3-1. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Description
Potential Environmental
Considerations1
Biological Resources: Acreage of sensitive vegetation communities located within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Land Use: Existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Community Effects: Potential disruption to the adjacent community during construction, including potential acquisitions, noise and dust, physical impacts to local roadways, and truck trips associated with construction material disposal.
Constructability and
Construction Effects
Constructability of Alignment Components: Construction effects associated with each alignment, including the tunnel, portals, and other components required for the alignment, as applicable.
Impacts to Existing Railroad Operations: Effects to existing railroad operation that would occur during construction of the alignment, such as temporary suspension of service, use of a shoofly (temporary track used to maintain service), or extended distance of single-track operation.
Utility Conflicts: Potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities (i.e., sewer or water). Whether a utility can be protected in place or would require relocation would be determined in later stages of design.
Note: 1The evaluation of potential environmental considerations does not indicate whether an alignment would result in significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act or adverse effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. The determination of significance of impacts will occur during the formal environmental review phase of the Project.
3.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
This evaluation considered potential permanent effects to existing biological resources and land uses, as well as potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction at launch and retrieval sites.
3.2.1.1 Biological Resources
The evaluation compared the area of sensitive vegetation communities within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each alignment. Effects on sensitive vegetation communities and habitats typically require mitigation pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and CEQA, as well as to obtain federal permits or approvals from relevant agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and/or California Coastal Commission). Sensitive vegetation communities were identified during surveys conducted in 2023 consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Diego Land Development Code Biology Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 50 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 3-4
Guidelines, and the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan definitions1, summarized as follows:
• Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines defines sensitive vegetation communities and other habitat types as land supporting unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants. • Sensitive habitats are defined as environmentally sensitive lands within the City of San Diego’s Land Development Code Biology Guidelines.
• Within the City of San Diego’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan Subarea Plan, sensitive habitat types include those designated as wetlands and Tiers I through IIIB uplands.
Any vegetation community that met these definitions was considered sensitive. Sensitive vegetation communities within and adjacent to the footprint of each alignment include:
• Coastal and valley freshwater marsh – Wetland
• Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) – Tier II Upland • Mule fat scrub – Wetland
• Open water/tidal
• Salt/brackish marsh – Wetland
• Southern coastal salt marsh – Wetland
• Southern willow scrub – Wetland
3.2.1.2 Land Use
The land use evaluation considered the existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each alignment. Alignments with a larger area of existing transportation land uses within or adjacent to the project footprint would be generally more compatible with the existing setting than those adjacent to non-transportation land uses such as recreation/open space. Existing land uses were identified based on 2022 SANDAG land use data. SANDAG performs an annual land use and housing unit inventory in the interest of maintaining a robust and accurate catalog of the existing conditions for any given year.
Existing land uses within and adjacent to the footprint of each alignment include:
• Recreation/Open Space: Wildlife and nature preserves, lands set aside for open space, actively landscaped areas, parks, golf courses, and beaches • Residential: Single-family and multifamily residential properties, and parcels of land that do not contain a dwelling unit but in which the land use is residential serving • Transportation: Railroad and roadway right-of-way and parking lots • Public Institution: Offices, public service facilities, and medical centers • Industrial: Warehousing and certain mixed commercial and manufacturing uses • Hotel/Resort: Hotels, motels, and resorts
• Undeveloped/Vacant: Unoccupied and undeveloped land
• Commercial: Commercial activities found along major streets and shopping areas 1Per the CEQA Guidelines, sensitive vegetation communities include those identified in a local or regional plan, policy, or regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach do not have adopted guidelines to define sensitive vegetation communities.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 51 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 3-5
3.2.1.3 Community Effects
The evaluation of community effects considers the potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction, including potential acquisitions at and near the portals associated with the TBM launch and retrieval sites and physical impacts to local roadways.
Additionally, construction activities may result in effects related to noise and dust. The analysis of construction-related noise, along with measures to minimize noise and dust, will occur during environmental review.
The evaluation also considers construction material disposal in terms of the relative number of one-way truck trips required to dispose of the material excavated from bored tunnels, cut-andcover tunnel, and the U-structure during construction. Generally, the higher the volume of excavated material, the higher the number of truck trips. Truck trips would be required for other construction-related activities, and the number of these trips will be determined during environmental review as further information is developed for the construction schedule. The quantity of excavated material is based on the length of each alignment. Construction methods will be further evaluated during environmental review to determine ways to minimize the number of truck trips.
3.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
3.2.2.1 Constructability of Alignment Components
Construction activities at the south portal launch site would include:
• Clearing and grubbing of the site
• Excavation for the portal
• TBM assembly
• Tunnel launch and subsequent TBM support activities, including removal of materials from excavation and loading materials onto trucks
• Import and storage of materials for the tunnel, including the lining • Construction of permanent portal structures and installation of track and supporting infrastructure
Construction activities at the north portal retrieval site2 would include:
• Clearing and grubbing of the site
• Excavation for the portal
• Decommissioning and dismantling of the TBM
• Removal of material from excavation of the north portal and associated cut-and-cover and U-structure sections and loading material onto trucks • Construction of permanent portal structures and installation of track and supporting infrastructure
2 For all conceptual alignments, the north portal location is anticipated to serve as the TBM retrieval site.
However, for Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B from the stakeholder and outreach alignments, it is anticipated that the TBM would be retrieved from the Del Mar Fairgrounds rather than from the north portal.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 52 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 3-6
For planning purposes, 10 acres has been assumed as the minimum area needed for TBM launch and support of TBM operations during construction. Approximately 7 acres has been assumed to be the minimum area needed for TBM retrieval and portal construction.
Conceptual construction laydown areas for the portals will be identified in future phases of design. These temporary staging areas could be restored to pre-construction conditions at the conclusion of the Project.
Additional alignment components would also be required outside of the tunnel and portal limits. Portions of the alignments that traverse Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would need to be on bridges to avoid impacts to the main water passages and to limit the permanent project footprint or otherwise be constructed on graded berms. The evaluation for constructability compares the requirements for construction of the various alignment components, including, but not limited to, tunnels, portals, and structures.
3.2.2.2 Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction One of the challenges with building any of the alignments would be minimizing impacts on railroad operations during construction, particularly where the new alignment would tie in with the existing railroad tracks. Rail service must be maintained during construction to the extent feasible in order to continue to provide a travel option for those using the COASTER and Pacific Surfliner, as well as to maintain rail freight operations. Therefore, for each alignment, a scenario was developed that would support continued rail service while minimizing the temporary infrastructure required, effects to operation (e.g., speed, length of single-track operation), and cost and schedule implications. Construction phasing and methods to minimize impacts to rail service will be further developed during environmental review.
Generally, shooflies (temporary tracks), temporary turnouts, increased distance of single-track operations, and temporary control points would be required to minimize impacts to railroad operations during construction. The evaluation for railroad operational impacts during construction discusses measures that may be implemented during construction to maintain existing rail operations to the extent feasible.
3.2.2.3 Utility Conflicts
Each alignment was reviewed and evaluated for potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities. For purposes of this study, major wet utilities are defined as water facilities equal to or greater than 16 inches and sewer facilities equal to or greater than 18 inches. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data from the SanGIS website, water and sewer utilities were identified.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 53 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-1
4 Evaluation of Project Objectives and
Engineering Feasibility
4.1 Conceptual Alignments
All conceptual alignments would meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility.
Because each conceptual alignment was prepared for an alternatives analysis, the conceptual alignments were designed specifically to meet the project objectives and comply with the engineering feasibility criteria. However, for alignments with a north portal within Camino Del Mar, a single-bore tunnel (Alignments 8, 10, and 12) would require approximately 350 feet more of cut-and-cover construction within the roadway than a twin-bore tunnel, which would increase the complexity of managing roadway closures and detours. Through high-level screening as the conceptual alignments were further developed, it became apparent that all single-bore alignments would result in more complex construction and community effects than the similar twin-bore alignments. Therefore, the six single-bore alignments (Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) were removed from consideration prior to the evaluation of environmental and other considerations in Section 5.1. The twin-bore alignments (Alignment 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11) were advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.1.
A key differentiator between single-bore and twin-bore tunnels (Figure 4-1) is the minimum depth required beneath the earth’s surface to enter or exit the portal structure. The largerdiameter single-bore configuration would require a much longer transitional structure to provide a minimum of one-diameter of ground cover above the top of the tunnel, which is a best practice for conceptual design. Additionally, the footprint needed to construct the transition structures (U-structure and cut-and-cover tunnel) would be larger due to the increased depth of the portal to accommodate the larger tunnel diameter. This larger footprint would impact access to and through the community, including property effects to support temporary roadways during construction.
A single-bore tunnel configuration was also eliminated for the following reasons:
• The amount of material excavated for a single-bore tunnel is nearly 40 percent greater than the amount of material excavated for a twin-bore tunnel of the same length.
Additionally, a single-bore tunnel requires more reinforced concrete lining. Therefore, single-bore tunnels require more truck trips to remove excavated material and deliver construction materials, which would result in greater construction-related traffic, effects on the community, and construction costs.
• The smaller TBM for a twin-bore tunnel would generally excavate the same length of tunnel faster than a larger TBM required for a single-bore tunnel.
In consideration of the increased complexity of construction and community effects, additional truck trips associated with removal of excavated material and delivery of construction materials, and greater cost, Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were removed from consideration in favor of the similar twin-bore alignments. Additionally, for the reasons described, single-bore tunnels were not considered for any of the stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 54 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-2
Figure 4-1. Twin-Bore and Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration Note: Based on best practices for conceptual design, the minimum depth of ground cover above the top of the tunnel is equivalent to the width of the tunnel. The minimum distance between twin-bore tunnels is equivalent to the width of the tunnel.
4.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Table 4-1 summarizes the assessment of each alignment’s ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility identified in Section 3.1.
4.2.1 Alignment P1-A
Alignment P1-A proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way, although the depiction of the alignment did not identify the point that it would connect to the existing railroad alignment at the north. Alignment P1-A would meet one of the six project objectives by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding bluffs. However, the alignment would not meet the objective to maintain passenger service to the existing Solana Beach Station and would not provide direct access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. A north portal location was not identified, and, therefore, sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility. Therefore, Alignment P1-A was removed from further consideration.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 55 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-3
4.2.2 Alignment P1-B
Alignment P1-B proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way, although the depiction of the alignment did not identify the point that it would connect to the existing railroad alignment at the north. Alignment P1-B would meet one of the six project objectives by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding bluffs. However, the alignment would not meet the objective of maintaining passenger service to the existing Solana Beach Station and would not provide direct access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Additionally, the alignment would not meet the project objective to minimize impacts to the surrounding community as it would result in impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley and at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. As with Alignment P1-A, a north portal location was not identified, and, therefore, sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility.
Therefore, Alignment P1-B was removed from further consideration.
4.2.3 Alignment P2
Alignment P2 proposes a freestanding bridge built to the west of the existing tracks. Though feasible from an engineering standpoint, the alignment would only meet one of the six project objectives. The alignment would not relocate the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar and would not meet long-term resiliency goals with continued storm events and sea-level rise. Alignment P2 would also result in significant effects to the beach and would require grading and support structures that would destroy the coastal bluffs and beach access, thereby affecting recreational and coastal resources. This alignment would also not reduce rail travel times or eliminate at-grade crossings. Therefore, Alignment P2 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.4 Alignment P3
Alignment P3 proposes an alignment that would locate the rail line in a tunnel under the ocean. This alignment would meet three of the six project objectives. This alignment would relocate the tracks, improve rail travel times, and support the objective to enhance coastal access and improve safety. However, Alignment P3 would not maintain rail access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds as the alignment would divert from the existing rail alignment before the fairgrounds. This alignment would also affect Solana Beach and impact biological and recreational resources, including Torrey Pines State Park, Dog Beach, the bluffs, and the Los Peñasquitos wetlands. Additionally, Alignment P3 would not be feasible from an engineering standpoint as the grades for tunneling underneath the ocean floor would exceed 2 percent and, therefore, would not meet the vertical profile design criteria required to maintain rail freight operation. As a result, Alignment P3 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.5 Alignment P4
Alignment P4 proposes a bored tunnel under the public right-of-way of Camino Del Mar. This alignment would meet all project objectives except for reducing rail travel times. Due to the curves required for the alignment to mirror the path of Camino Del Mar, the maximum speed of this alignment would be 50 miles per hour (mph), which could increase rail travel times compared to the existing alignment. Alignment P4 would be feasible from an engineering standpoint; however, it was removed from consideration because it is similar to conceptual Alignment 3 evaluated in Section 5.1, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times.
Therefore, Alignment P4 was removed from further consideration.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 56 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-4
4.2.6 Alignment P5
Alignment P5 proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way, under the San Dieguito Lagoon to South Cedros Avenue in Solana Beach. This alignment would meet two of the six project objectives. This alignment would relocate the tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs and support the objective to enhance coastal access and improve safety. However, Alignment P5 would not be able to accommodate a direct connection to the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would result in impacts to the Cedros Avenue Design District in Solana Beach, businesses in Sorrento Valley, and businesses at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. As depicted by stakeholders and the public, the alignment would not reduce rail travel times. Therefore, Alignment P5 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.7 Alignment P6-A
Alignment P6-A proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way under the San Dieguito Lagoon and Del Mar Fairgrounds to Solana Beach. This alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. The alignment would not reduce travel times and would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, a multi-use path along the rail corridor, and Solana Beach. The alignment would also result in impacts to Stevens Creek and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community; preserve biological, cultural (e.g., historic property), and recreational resources; and reduce rail travel times. In addition to not meeting three of the project objectives, Alignment P6-A is similar to Alignment P7-A, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and was advanced for further consideration. Therefore, Alignment P6-A was removed from further consideration.
4.2.8 Alignment P6-B
Alignment P6-B is similar to Alignment P6-A, except the southern portal is located farther south in Sorrento Valley. This alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. Similar to Alignment P6-A, the alignment would not reduce travel times and would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail (a multi-use path along the rail corridor) and Solana Beach. The alignment would also result in impacts to Stevens Creek and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community; preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources; and reduce rail travel times. Alignment P6-B would also result in additional impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley and at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. Alignment P6-B is similar to P7-B, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and was advanced for further evaluation. Therefore, Alignment P6-B was removed from further consideration.
4.2.9 Alignment P7-A
Alignment P7-A proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way under the San Dieguito Lagoon and Del Mar Fairgrounds to Solana Beach. Alignment P7-A would meet four of the six project objectives. Similar to Alignment P6-A, Alignment P7-A would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. However, Alignment P7-A would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Therefore, Alignment P7-A was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 57 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-5
4.2.10 Alignment P7-B
Alignment P7-B proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way under the San Dieguito Lagoon and Del Mar Fairgrounds to Solana Beach. Similar to Alignment P7-A, Alignment P7-B would meet four of the six project objectives. Alignment P7-B would also result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. The alignment would also result in additional impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley. However, Alignment P7-B would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Therefore, Alignment P7-B was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.11 Alignment P8
Alignment P8 proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, along the I-5 rightof-way and under private property to Del Mar. Alignment P8 would meet four of the six project objectives. However, this alignment would not reduce travel times and would result in significant impacts to Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, not meeting the project objective to preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. Additionally, the inclusion of a tunnel portal immediately following a bridge on flat terrain would not be feasible from an engineering perspective. There is insufficient distance to achieve the necessary 2-percent grade required between the bridge and where the portal location was proposed for this alignment concept, therefore making the alignment infeasible. As a result, Alignment P8 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.12 Alignment P9
Alignment P9 proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, Crest Canyon, and the San Dieguito Lagoon to Del Mar. Alignment P9 would meet four of the six project objectives. Alignment P9 would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. However, Alignment P9 would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, Alignment P9 was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.13 Alignment P10-A
Alignment P10-A proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and the San Dieguito Lagoon to Del Mar. Alignment P10-A would meet four of the six project objectives but would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. However, Alignment P10-A would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, Alignment P10-A was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.14 Alignment P10-B
Alignment P10-B proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and the San Dieguito Lagoon to Del Mar. Similar to Alignment P10-A, Alignment P10-B would meet four of the six project objectives. Alignment P10-B would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 58 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-6
Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. The alignment would also result in additional impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley. However, Alignment P10-B would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, Alignment P10-B was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.15 Summary
Based on the evaluation of project objectives and engineering feasibility, as summarized in Table 4-1, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2. The remaining stakeholder and outreach alignments were removed from consideration. Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B as depicted by stakeholders and the public were modified as each alignment was further developed, as illustrated in Figure 4-2.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 59 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-7
Table 4-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility — Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Stakeholder
and
Outreach
Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
Meets Project Objectives
Meets
Engineering
Feasibility
Advanced
for Further
Evaluation
Improve rail service
reliability by
relocating the
existing railroad
tracks away from
the eroding coastal
bluffs in Del Mar
Maintain passenger rail
service to the existing
train stations serving
Solana Beach and
Sorrento Valley and
accommodate direct rail
access to 22nd District
Agricultural Association
(Del Mar Fairgrounds)
Minimize impacts in
the surrounding
communities
during and after
construction
Avoid and/or
minimize impacts on
biological, cultural,
and recreational
resources
Help meet the goals of the
2021 Regional Plan and the
2018 California State Rail
Plan by increasing
passenger and freight train
capacity, further reducing
travel times, improving
reliability, and
accommodating additional
rail service
Improve coastal access
and safety by
eliminating at-grade
railroad crossings and
minimizing other
pedestrian-rail points of
interaction
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5 Yes No Unknown1 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown No P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley Yes No No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown No P2 N/A N/A No Yes No No No No Yes No
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail Yes No No No Yes Yes No No
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No P5 South Cedros
Avenue
Pump Station 65 Yes No No No No Yes Yes No
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P8 Old Railroad
Wye2
South Los Peñasquitos
Lagoon
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1As depicted by stakeholders and the public, there is insufficient information to evaluate the alignment against the project objective and/or engineering feasibility. 2A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals.
Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 60 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 4-8
Figure 4-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 61 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-1
5 Evaluation of Environmental and
Other Considerations
5.1 Conceptual Alignments
This section summarizes the evaluation of Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the type and approximate length of the various alignment components for each of these alignments, including the length of the tunnel under public right-of-way or property and private property. The alignment components are considered throughout the evaluation of environmental and other considerations in the sections that follow.
Table 5-1. Conceptual Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Bored
Tunnel
(feet)
UStructure
(feet)
CutandCover
Tunnel
(feet)
Bridge
(feet)
Floodwall
(feet)
Graded1
(feet)
Total
Alignment
Length
(feet)
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Public
ROW
(%)
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Private
ROW
(%)
1 13,800 900 700 1,500 800 7,600 25,300 41 59
3 9,800 900 600 6,100 800 7,800 25,900 6 94
5 16,600 2,400 900 100 1,900 6,200 28,000 44 56
7 13,900 1,100 900 1,500 800 7,200 25,300 49 51
9 9,500 1,200 500 6,100 800 7,800 26,000 27 73
11 16,600 2,200 1,200 100 1,900 6,300 28,300 46 54
Notes: 1The graded length includes the berm.
ROW = right-of-way
5.1.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
This section compares the area of sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each conceptual alignment. The section also provides an evaluation of the potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction at TBM launch and retrieval sites, including potential acquisitions and noise and dust. The section also considers physical impacts to roadways and the number of truck trips associated with construction material disposal from excavation of the bored tunnels, cut-andcover tunnel, and the U-structure. Table 5-2 summarizes the acreages of the sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land use designations within and adjacent to the project footprint for each alignment. Table 5-3 presents an estimate of truck trips required for construction material disposal. The sections that follow present the evaluation of these considerations by conceptual alignment.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 62 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-2
Table 5-2. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Biological Resources
Sensitive Vegetation
Communities (acres) Land Use (acres)
Wetlands Uplands Residential
Recreation/
Open Space Transportation
Public
Institution Industrial Hotel Undeveloped Commercial
1 20 2 <1 20 13 1 <1 0 0 0
3 13 3 1 3 27 1 <1 0 0 0
5 15 0 <1 12 12 1 <1 0 0 0
7 17 2 <1 17 22 1 <1 <1 0 0
9 13 3 1 3 37 1 <1 <1 0 0
11 15 0 <1 <1 22 1 <1 <1 0 0
Source: SanGIS 2022, AECOM 2023 biological resource surveys Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 63 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-3
Table 5-3. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material
Conceptual Alignment
Number
Total Excavation Volumes
(Cubic Yards)
Estimated Truck Trips for
Construction Material Disposal1
1 1,716,000 171,600
3 1,273,000 127,300
5 2,294,000 229,400
7 1,819,000 181,900
9 1,220,000 122,000
11 2,351,000 235,100
Note: 1Only accounts for one-way traffic for disposal of construction materials associated with the bored tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnel, and the U-structure.
5.1.1.1 Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 1 footprint could affect 22 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, which would be more than any other conceptual alignment. This alignment could also have the second smallest area of existing transportation land uses (13 acres) and the largest area of recreation/open space land uses (20 acres). As a result of the larger area of non-transportation land uses, the alignment would be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to the other conceptual alignments.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would require the acquisition of private property for the cut-and-cover and U-structure portion of the alignment. This portal location would also be adjacent to residential properties, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway profile for Jimmy Durante Boulevard would be raised to pass over the cut‑and‑cover tunnel where the proposed track alignment would intersect with the existing roadway alignment. The proposed roadway design would maintain the existing width of the roadway and access to residential properties. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing, if necessary.
The Alignment 1 south portal at Portofino Drive would be located on privately owned land but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are located to the west and on the eastern edge of the proposed launch site. Noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile of Carmel Valley Road would not be permanently affected by the bridge for the proposed rail alignment and would remain intact. Vertical clearance from the track overcrossing would be sufficient.
However, bridge construction would result in temporary closures and detours on Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive. This portal location would result in more roadway impacts than Alignments 5 and 11 but fewer than Alignments 3 and 9. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. However, Alignment 1 would result in less excavated material and fewer truck trips for material disposal than Alignment 5, 7, and 11.
5.1.1.2 Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 3 footprint could affect 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. Alignment 3 could also affect 1 acre of residential land use within and adjacent to the footprint, which could require conversion to a transportation land Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 64 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-4
use. The area of existing recreation/open space land uses could be among the smallest (3 acres) compared to the other conceptual alignments and there could be approximately 27 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, larger than Alignments 1, 5, 7 and 11, thus indicating this alignment could be more compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: Construction of the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would require the acquisition of private property for the cut-and-cover tunnel and U-structure portion of the alignment. This portal location would also be adjacent to residential properties, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway profile for Jimmy Durante Boulevard would be raised to pass over the cut-and-cover tunnel where the proposed track alignment would intersect with the existing roadway alignment. The proposed roadway design would maintain the existing width of the roadway and permanent access to residential properties. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing, if necessary.
Private property acquisition would also be required to facilitate construction of the south portal site at Torrey Pines Road for Alignment 3, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The cut-and-cover tunnel of the alignment near the south portal would intersect with Carmel Valley Road, which would need to be decked over, with this decking maintained during portal and tunneling construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile would be maintained. After construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel, the roadway would be restored as a grade-separated crossing over the cut-and-cover tunnel. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing. Construction of this south portal would be the most impactful to the local road network compared to the Portofino Drive (Alignments 1 and 7) and Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5 and 9) south portals. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and North Torrey Pines Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to Alignment 3, only Alignment 9 would result in less excavated material and fewer truck trips.
5.1.1.3 Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 5 footprint could affect 15 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, which would be less than any other conceptual alignment.
There could be approximately 12 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, smaller than all conceptual alignments except for Alignment 1. In addition, Alignment 5 could have less than 1 acre of residential land use requiring conversion to a transportation land use, and the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is also smaller (12 acres) than that of Alignments 1 and 7. As a result, the alignment would be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the other conceptual alignments.
Community Effects: Construction of the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would require the acquisition of private property for the cut-and-cover tunnel and U-structure portion of the alignment. This portal location would also be adjacent to residential properties, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway profile for Jimmy Durante Boulevard would be raised to pass over the cut-and-cover tunnel where the proposed track alignment would intersect with the existing roadway alignment. The proposed roadway design would maintain the existing width of the roadway and permanent access to residential properties. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing, if necessary.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 65 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-5
The Alignment 5 south portal (Knoll Near I-5) would be located on privately owned land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but is not expected to displace buildings. The portal site does not have residential properties in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within the lagoon. Old Sorrento Valley Road and the associated bike trail facilities would be affected by the cut-and-cover tunnel for the proposed alignment and would require temporary relocation. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. This south portal would be the least impactful to local roads during construction compared to the other conceptual alignments. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other conceptual alignments, Alignment 5 would result in the second-highest amount of excavated material and truck trips for material disposal, with only Alignment 11 requiring higher volumes and trips.
5.1.1.4 Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 7 footprint could affect 19 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, which is the second-largest area compared to all conceptual alignments. There could be approximately 22 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, which could be smaller than Alignments 3 and 9 but larger than Alignments 1 and 5. Alignment 7 could have less than 1 acre of residential land uses; however, the alignment could have the second-largest area of recreation/open space land uses within and adjacent to the footprint. For these reasons, Alignment 7 would generally be less compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal site (Within Camino Del Mar) would require acquisition of commercial property. Residential land uses would be located to the east, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction.
Alignment 7 would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar Bridge and construction of a temporary bridge to divert traffic across the railroad and to accommodate portal and track shoofly construction. Access to private properties along Grand Avenue would be affected by construction activities. Additionally, Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar would be reconstructed. Compared to the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard), this north portal location would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
The Alignment 7 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located on privately owned land but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are located to the west and on the eastern edge of the proposed launch site. Noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile of Carmel Valley Road would not be permanently affected by the bridge for the proposed rail alignment and would remain intact. Vertical clearance from the track overcrossing would be sufficient.
However, bridge construction would result in temporary closures and detours on Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive. The majority of construction traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. This portal location would result in more roadway impacts than Alignments 5 and 11 but fewer than Alignments 3 and 9. Alignment 7 would result in a smaller amount of excavated material and require fewer truck trips for material disposal than Alignments 5 and 11 but would result in a larger amount of excavated material and truck trips compared to Alignments 1, 3, and 9.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 66 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-6
5.1.1.5 Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 9 footprint could include 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, similar to Alignment 3. This alignment would also have the largest area of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, at 37 acres. Alignment 9 could affect approximately 1 acre of residential land use within and adjacent to the footprint, and the area of existing recreation/open space land uses (3 acres) would be among the smallest compared to the other alignments. As a result, the alignment would be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the other conceptual alignments.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal site (Within Camino Del Mar) would require acquisition of commercial property. Residential land uses would be located to the east, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction.
Alignment 9 would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar Bridge and construction of a temporary bridge to divert traffic across the railroad and to accommodate portal and track shoofly construction. Access to private properties along Grand Avenue would be affected by construction activities. Additionally, Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar would be reconstructed. Compared to the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard), this north portal location would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
Private property acquisition would also be required to facilitate construction of the south portal site at Torrey Pines Road for Alignment 9, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The cut-and-cover section of the alignment near the south portal would intersect with Carmel Valley Road, which would need to be decked over, with this decking maintained during portal and tunneling construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile would be maintained. After construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel, the roadway would be restored as a grade-separated crossing over the cut-and-cover tunnel. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing. Construction of this south portal would be the most impactful to the local road network compared to the Portofino Drive (Alignments 1 and 7) and Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5 and 9) south portals. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and North Torrey Pines Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other conceptual alignments, Alignment 9 would result in the least amount of excavated material and require the fewest number of truck trips for material disposal.
5.1.1.6 Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 11 footprint could include 15 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, similar to Alignment 5. There could be approximately 22 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, which could be smaller than Alignments 3 and 9. However, Alignment 11 could have less than 1 acre of residential land uses requiring conversion to a transportation land use and the area of recreation/open space is smaller than that of Alignments 3 and 9. For these reasons, Alignment 11 would generally be compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal site (Within Camino Del Mar) would require acquisition of commercial property. Residential land uses would be located to the east, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction.
Alignment 11 would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar Bridge and construction of a temporary bridge to divert traffic across the railroad and to accommodate Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 67 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-7
portal and track shoofly construction. Access to private properties along Grand Avenue would be affected by construction activities. Additionally, Jimmy Durante and Camino Del Mar would be reconstructed. Compared to the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard), this north portal location would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
The Alignment 11 south portal (Knoll Near I-5) would be located on privately owned land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but is not expected to displace buildings. The portal site does not have residential properties in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within the lagoon. Old Sorrento Valley Road and the associated bike trail facilities would be affected by the cut-and-cover tunnel for the proposed alignment and would require temporary relocation. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. This south portal would be the least impactful to local roads during construction compared to the other conceptual alignments. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Alignment 11 would result in the highest amount of excavated material and require the greatest number of truck trips for material disposal compared to the other conceptual alignments.
5.1.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
5.1.2.1 Constructability of Alignment Components
The evaluation in this section considered construction effects associated with the conceptual alignments, including the tunnel, portals, and other infrastructure and structures required to support the alignment, as applicable.
Three potential south portals have been identified. It is assumed that the TBM would be launched from the south portal; therefore, the identification of potential portal locations also considered the footprint and access to and from the site. The portals are as follows:
• Portofino Drive: Near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive • Torrey Pines Road: Near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Camino Del Mar/ N Torrey Pines Road
• Knoll Near I-5: At the knoll adjacent to I-5
Two potential north portals have been identified. It is assumed that the TBM would be retrieved from the north portal. The portals are as follows:
• Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard: Partially within the hillside just north of the intersection of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar • Within Camino Del Mar: Within Camino Del Mar just north of the intersection of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar
Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) Alignment 1 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 13,800 feet. Although the bored tunnel length for Alignment 1 is longer than Alignments 3 and 9, Alignment 1 may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties than Alignment 3 as a larger percentage of the tunnel (approximately 41 percent) is located under public right-of-way or property.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 68 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-8
The Alignment 1 north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar. This portal would be partially buried within the hillside, and the cut-and-cover tunnel would extend across Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The site is partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Locating the construction staging site above anticipated flood levels • Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
The south portal for Alignment 1 (Portofino Drive) would be located at the intersection of Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road. Two sites have been identified to support the TBM launch: the main site would be 9 acres and located north of Carmel Valley Road, and a satellite site of 2 acres would be located south of Carmel Valley Road. The main site would need significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area, and multiple retaining structures would be required to allow for TBM operation. The main site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent flooding. Additionally, due to the elevated structures associated with the alignment near the south portal, there is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected from flooding and/or sea-level rise during future operation.
Alignment 1 would also require approximately 1,500 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, which is substantially less than the bridge required for Alignments 3 and 9, as summarized in Table 5-1. Alignment 1 would require approximately 7,000 feet of new berm within the lagoon to support the alignment. This length is slightly less than that required for Alignments 3 and 9; however, these alignments only require raising and widening the existing berm. Additionally, under Alignment 1, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations creating the possibility that approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for wetland restoration and/or expanded recreational use.
Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 3 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 9,800 feet. Although the bored tunnel length for Alignment 3 is shorter than all conceptual alignments other than Alignment 9, Alignment 3 may require more subsurface easements from private properties as approximately 94 percent of the alignment is located under private property.
The Alignment 3 north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar. This portal would be partially buried within the hillside, and the cut-and-cover tunnel would extend across Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The site is partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 69 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-9
minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Locating the construction staging site above anticipated flood levels • Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
The south portal for Alignment 3 (Torrey Pines Road) would be located at the knoll near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and South Camino Del Mar. Similar to Alignment 1, the site would require significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space. Additionally, a retaining wall approximately 60 feet high would be required to allow the site to be used as a construction laydown area and support construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel. The site, although at less risk to flooding than the Knoll Near I-5 portal, would also be partially below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends and potentially the implementation of abatement measures during construction, depending on the outcome of the assessment. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Alignment 3, along with Alignment 9, would require the longest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, at 6,100 feet. The bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing railroad track. The berm segments for Alignment 3, along with Alignment 9, within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would be approximately 7,200 feet and would be placed adjacent to the existing track alignment and would require a raised elevation to stay above flood levels. This would require a phased approach to maintain rail operations during construction. As such, Alignment 3, along with Alignment 9, would have more complex construction phasing, a potentially larger footprint within the lagoon, and more bridge to be maintained during operation than the other conceptual alignments.
Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 5, along with Alignment 11, would include the longest total bored tunnel length, at approximately 16,600 feet. Although 44 percent of the tunnel would be located under public right-of-way or property, which is greater than the length of Alignments 1, 3, and 9, given the length of the tunnel, Alignment 5 may require more subsurface easements from private properties than the other conceptual alignments.
The Alignment 5 north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar. This portal would be partially buried within the hillside, and the cut-and-cover tunnel would extend across Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 70 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-10
site is partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Locating the construction staging site above anticipated flood levels • Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
The south portal for Alignment 5 (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans.
Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
Alignment 5, along with Alignment 11, would require the shortest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, with a total length of 100 feet and approximately 5,500 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon, shorter than Alignments 1, 3, 7, and 9.
As such, Alignment 5, along with Alignment 11, would have less complex construction phasing and substantially less bridge to be maintained during operation than all other conceptual alignments. Additionally, under Alignment 5, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce impacts within the lagoon under Alignment 5 compared to Alignments 3 and 9.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 71 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-11
Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) Alignment 7 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 13,900 feet. Although the bored tunnel length for Alignment 7 is longer compared to other conceptual alignments, Alignment 7 may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as a larger percentage of the tunnel (approximately 49 percent) would be located under public right-ofway or property.
The north portal for Alignment 7 (Within Camino Del Mar) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and would be fully within Camino Del Mar. The site would be partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The temporary shoofly would also require construction of a new track bed, which would affect existing parallel drainage features.
The Alignment 7 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located at the intersection of Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road. Two sites have been identified to support the TBM launch: the main site would be 9 acres and located north of Carmel Valley Road, and a satellite site of 2 acres would be located south of Carmel Valley Road. The main site would need significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area, and multiple retaining structures would be required to allow for TBM operation. The main site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent against flooding. Additionally, due to the elevated structures associated with the alignment near the north portal, there is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected from flooding and/or sea-level rise during future operation.
As with Alignment 1, Alignment 7 would also require approximately 1,500 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Alignment 7 would also require approximately 7,000 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon, which is slightly less than that required for Alignments 3 and 9; however, these alignments only require raising and widening the existing berm. Additionally, under Alignment 7, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce impacts within the lagoon under Alignment 7 compared to Alignments 3 and 9.
Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 9 would include the shortest total bored tunnel length, at approximately 9,500 feet, and may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties than the other conceptual alignments. The north portal for Alignment 9 (Within Camino Del Mar) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and would be fully within Camino Del Mar. The Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 72 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-12
site would be partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The temporary shoofly would also require construction of a new track bed, which would affect existing parallel drainage features.
The south portal for Alignment 9 (Torrey Pines Road) would be located at the knoll near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and South Camino Del Mar. Similar to Alignment 1, the site would require significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space. Additionally, a retaining wall approximately 60 feet high would be required to allow the site to be used as a construction laydown area and support construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel. The site, although at less risk to flooding than the Knoll Near I-5 portal, would also be partially below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends and potentially the implementation of abatement measures during construction, depending on the outcome of the assessment. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Alignment 9, along with Alignment 3, would require the longest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, at 6,100 feet. The bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing railroad track. The berm segments for Alignment 9, similar to Alignment 3, within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would be approximately 7,200 feet and would be placed adjacent to the existing track alignment and would require a raised elevation to stay above flood levels. This would require a phased approach to maintain rail operations during construction. As such, Alignment 9, along with Alignment 3, would have more complex construction phasing, a potentially larger footprint within the lagoon, and would have more bridge to be maintained during operation than the other conceptual alignments.
Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 11, along with Alignment 5, would include the longest total bored tunnel length of the conceptual alignments, at approximately 16,600 feet. Approximately 46 percent of the tunnel length would be located under public right-of-way or property, more than all alignments other than Alignment 7, which could decrease the number of subsurface easements required from private properties.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 73 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-13
The Alignment 11 north portal (Within Camino Del Mar) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and would be fully within Camino Del Mar. The site would be partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The temporary shoofly would also require construction of a new track bed, which would affect existing parallel drainage features.
The Alignment 11 south portal (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Caltrans park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans. Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would also require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
Alignment 11, along with Alignment 5, would require the shortest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, with a total length of 100 feet and approximately 5,500 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. As such, Alignment 11, along with Alignment 5, would have less complex construction phasing and substantially less bridge to be maintained during operation than all other conceptual alignments. Additionally, under Alignment 11, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce impacts within the lagoon under Alignment 11 compared to Alignments 3 and 9.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 74 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-14
5.1.2.2 Railroad Operational Impacts During Construction This section provides an overview of the construction activities required to maintain railroad operations during construction to the extent feasible. The summary for each alignment focuses on where the new alignment would tie in with the existing railroad tracks and the measures that may be required to minimize impacts. It is assumed that any shutdown of existing rail service would occur during scheduled “absolute work windows.” An absolute work window is a period of 48 hours during which passenger and rail freight do not operate. The period usually begins after the last scheduled passenger train passes through the construction limits during late Friday evening/early Saturday morning and continues until Sunday evening/early Monday morning.
Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove double-track operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds3 along the shoofly would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to current design speeds at this location. • It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Portofino Drive
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service. 3 An operating speed reflects the speed at which a train travels along a segment of track. In comparison, the design speed is used to determine aspects of a segment of an alignment, such as curves, while design of the alignment is underway. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed. Design speeds are compared for purposes of this evaluation, as operating speeds may vary depending on circumstances.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 75 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-15
Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove double-track operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to current design speeds at this location. • It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Torrey Pines Road
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• It is assumed that each track for the new alignment would be constructed in separate phases. The existing rail service would use the first new track when construction of that track is completed while construction continues on the second new track. • A temporary control point would be required near the Sorrento Valley Station. • Construction would be phased to limit impacts to Phase 1 of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon restoration, which would occur west of the existing rail alignment. As such, impacts during construction would be limited to the east side of the existing track alignment.
• Alternatively, a long shoofly track with new embankment could be constructed within the restored lagoon footprint for the length of the alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
• Phased construction would be required for two bridges, with a total length of approximately 6,100 feet within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. • Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
If construction proceeds as described, the alignment near the south portal would not require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service. However, if construction is not phased as described, a shoofly would be required.
Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way to support construction of the new alignment, Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 76 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-16
which would temporarily remove double-track operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to the current design speeds at this location. • It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
• A temporary shoofly would also be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
As currently designed, the southern portion of Alignment 5 would cross over the existing tracks. If this alignment advances into the environmental process, other designs should be explored that would eliminate this crossing in order to minimize impacts to existing railroad operation during construction.
Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) North Portal Within Camino Del Mar
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. • Temporary control points would be installed to support shoofly operations. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 77 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-17
• It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Portofino Drive
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) North Portal Within Camino Del Mar
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. • Temporary control points would be installed to support shoofly operations. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Torrey Pines Road
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• It is assumed that each track for the new alignment would be constructed in separate phases. The existing rail service would use the first new track when construction of that track is completed while construction continues on the second new track. • A temporary control point would be required near the Sorrento Valley Station. • Construction would be phased to limit impacts to Phase 1 of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon restoration, which would occur west of the existing rail alignment. As such, impacts during construction would be limited to the east side of the existing track alignment.
• Alternatively, a long shoofly track with new embankment could be constructed within the restored lagoon footprint for the length of the alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 78 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-18
• Phased construction would be required for two bridges, with a total length of approximately 6,100 feet, within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. • Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
If construction proceeds as described, the alignment near the south portal would not require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service. However, if construction is not phased as described, a shoofly would be required.
Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Within Camino Del Mar
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. • Temporary control points would be installed to support shoofly operations. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to the existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
• A temporary shoofly would also be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
As currently designed, the southern portion of Alignment 11 would cross over the existing tracks. If this alignment advances into the environmental process, other designs should be explored that would eliminate this crossing in order to minimize impacts to existing railroad operation during construction.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 79 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-19
5.1.2.3 Utility Conflicts
Each conceptual alignment was reviewed and evaluated for potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities (i.e., water and sewer facilities). Table 5-4 provides a summary of the potential major utility conflicts identified for each alignment. The ability to protect the utility in place or relocate would be determined during later stages of design. However, the information that follows provides context for the activities that could be required during construction.
Table 5-4. Potential Utility Conflicts
Conceptual Alignment
Number Water Facilities Sewer Facilities Total
1 3 1 4
3 3 0 3
5 4 1 5
7 3 1 4
9 3 0 3
11 4 1 5
Source: SanGIS 2022
Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) Alignment 1 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and one major sewer facility. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 1.
Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 3 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities but no major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 3.
Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 5 could result in potential conflicts with four major water facilities and one major sewer facility. Overall, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location. The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment 5 would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 80 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-20
Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) Alignment 7 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and one major sewer facility. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 7.
Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 9 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities but no major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 9.
Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 11 could result in potential conflicts with four major water facilities and one major sewer facility. As with Alignment 5, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location. The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment 11 would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
5.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Following the evaluation in Section 4.2, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P-9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for continued evaluation in this report. The alignments as depicted by stakeholders and the public were modified as each alignment was further developed, as illustrated in Figure 5-1. This section summarizes the evaluation of each of these stakeholder and outreach alignments in terms of environmental and other considerations. Table 5-5 provides a comparison of the type and length of the various components for each alignment and the percentage of the tunnel under public right-of-way or property or private property. The alignment components are considered throughout the evaluation of environmental and other considerations in the sections that follow.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 81 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-21
Table 5-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components
Stakeholder
and
Outreach
Alignment
Number
Bored
Tunnel
(feet)
UStructure
(feet)
CutandCover
Tunnel
(feet)
Bridge
(feet)
Floodwall
(feet)
Graded1
(feet)
Total
Alignment
Length
(feet)
Percent
of Tunnel
under
Public
ROW or
Property
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Private
Property
P7-A 20,000 2,700 6500 100 900 6,400 35,900 95 5
P7-B 23,400 2,700 6,600 0 200 2,200 35,000 90 10
P-9 16,700 1,300 6,000 1,500 0 7,300 32,800 91 9
P10-A 19,400 3,100 5,900 100 1,100 6,300 35,900 84 16
P10-B 22,600 3,000 6,900 0 400 3,000 35,900 80 20
Notes: 1The graded length includes the berm.
ROW = right-of-way
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 82 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-22
Figure 5-1. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 83 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-23
5.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
This section compares the area of sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each stakeholder and outreach alignment. The section also provides an evaluation of the potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction at launch and retrieval sites, including effects to local roadways, potential acquisitions, noise and dust, and the number of truck trips associated with construction material disposal from excavation of the bored tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnels, and the U-structure. Table 5-6 summarizes the acreages of the sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land use designations within and adjacent to the project footprint for each alignment. Table 5-7 shows an estimate of truck trips required for construction material disposal. The sections that follow present the evaluation of these considerations by stakeholder and outreach alignment.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 84 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-24
Table 5-6. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) Stakeholder
and
Outreach
Alignment
Number
Biological Resources
Sensitive
Vegetation
Communities
(acres)
Land Use
(acres)
Wetlands Uplands Residential
Recreation/
Open
Space Transportation
Public
Institution Industrial Hotel Undeveloped Commercial
P7-A 15 1 <1 17 16 <1 <1 0 0 0
P7-B 1 1 <1 5 19 0 2 0 0 <1
P9 16 3 <1 19 17 0 <1 0 0 0
P10-A 15 1 <1 17 16 <1 <1 0 0 0
P10-B 1 1 <1 5 19 0 2 0 0 <1
Source: SanGIS 2022, AECOM 2023 biological resource surveys Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 85 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-25
Table 5-7. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material
Stakeholder and
Outreach
Alignment
Number
Total Excavation Volumes
(Cubic Yard)
Estimated Truck Trips for
Construction Material
Disposal1
P7-A 5,472,000 547,200
P7-B 5,946,000 594,600
P9 5,342,000 534,200
P10-A 6,190,000 619,000
P10-B 5,360,000 536,000
Note: 1 Only accounts for one-way traffic for disposal of construction material associated with the bored tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnel, and the U-structure.
Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P7-A footprint could affect 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, similar to Alignment P10-A. This area is smaller than that of Alignment P9 but larger than the area for Alignments P7-B and P10-B. There could be approximately 16 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. However, the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is larger (17 acres) than that of Alignments P7-B and P10-B. As a result, the alignment could be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to Alignments P7-B and P10-B.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could affect adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle, as those roadways would be used to provide construction access to the fairgrounds platform site.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 86 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-26
The south portal for Alignment P7-A would be located at the Knoll Near I-5, on privately owned land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are not located in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within the lagoon. Old Sorrento Valley Road and associated bike trail facilities would require temporary relocation due to the cut-and-cover tunnel of the alignment. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. Roadway impacts at this location would be minimal compared to the south portal for the other stakeholder and outreach alignments (i.e., Sorrento Valley and Portofino Drive). The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Alignment P7-A would result in a smaller volume of excavated materials and fewer truck trips for disposal than Alignments P7-B and P10-A, but a larger volume and greater number of truck trips compared to Alignments P9 and P10-B.
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P7-B footprint could affect 2 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. Similar to Alignment P10-B, this area is smaller than that of all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. There could be approximately 19 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. The area of existing recreation/open space land uses is smaller (5 acres) than that of Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. As a result, the alignment could be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could affect adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to effect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 87 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-27
The south portal for Alignment P7-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located on privately owned land and public right-of-way within a commercial district. However, the launch site would not be located near residential properties, and it is expected that tunnel and portal construction would be able to continue without substantial noise and dust abatement measures. Tunneling from this site would involve the acquisition of private properties.
The existing roadway alignment and profile of both Sorrento Vally Road and Carmel Mountain Road would be affected by the portal and would require temporary and permanent realignment, both of which would require private property acquisitions. Access to Sorrento Valley Road to the north would also be temporarily removed. As a result, access to the pump station would be from the north only during construction. This south portal location would result in the greatest impact to the local roadway network. The majority of constructionrelated traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, Alignment P7-B would result in the second-largest quantity of excavated materials and number of truck trips for disposal, with only Alignment P10-A requiring a larger quantity of excavated material and number of truck trips.
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 9 footprint could include 19 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, the largest area compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. This alignment would have a slightly larger area of transportation land uses (17 acres) compared to Alignments P7-A and P1-A but would also have the largest area of recreation/open space land uses (19 acres). As a result, the alignment would generally be less compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could impact adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 88 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-28
The Alignment P9 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located on privately owned land but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are located to the west and on the eastern edge of the proposed launch site. Noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile for Carmel Valley Road would not be permanently affected by the bridge for the proposed rail alignment and would remain intact. Vertical clearance from the track overcrossing would be sufficient.
However, bridge construction would result in temporary closures and detours on Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive. The majority of construction traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. This south portal would be more impactful to the roadway network than the south portal proposed for Alignments P7-A and P10-A, but less impactful than the south portal for Alignments P7-B and P10-B. Compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, Alignment P9 would result in the smallest amount of excavated material and would require the fewest number of truck trips for material disposal.
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P10-A footprint could affect 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. This area is smaller than that of Alignment 9 but larger than the area for Alignments P7-B and P10-B. There could be approximately 16 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. However, the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is larger (17 acres) than that of Alignments P7-B and P10-B. As a result, the alignment could be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to Alignments P7-B and P10-B.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could impact adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
The south portal for Alignment P10-A (Knoll Near I-5) would be on land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Construction at this site would not require acquisition of private property. Residential properties are not located in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 89 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-29
the lagoon. Similar to Alignment P7-A, Old Sorrento Valley Road and associated bike trail facilities would require temporary relocation due to the cut-and-cover section of the alignment. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. Roadway impacts at this location would be minimal compared to the south portal for the other stakeholder and outreach alignments (i.e., Sorrento Valley and Portofino Drive). The majority of constructionrelated traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, Alignment P10-A would result in the largest amount of excavated material and would require the most truck trips for material disposal.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P10-B footprint could affect 2 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. Similar to Alignment P7-B, this area is smaller than that of all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. There could be approximately 19 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. However, the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is smaller (5 acres) than that of Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. As a result, the alignment could be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground special events platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could impact adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
The south portal for Alignment P10-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located on privately owned land and public right-of-way within a commercial district. However, the launch site would not be located near residential properties, and it is expected that tunnel and portal construction would be able to continue without substantial noise and dust abatement measures. Tunneling from this site would involve the acquisition of private properties.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 90 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-30
The existing roadway alignment and profile of both Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road would be affected by the portal structures of the proposed alignment and would require temporary and permanent realignment, both of which would require private property acquisitions. Access to Sorrento Valley Road to the north would also be temporarily removed. As a result, access to the pump station would be from the north only during construction. This south portal location would result in the greatest impact to the local roadway network. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Alignment P10-B would result in fewer excavated materials and truck trips for disposal than Alignments P7-A, P7-B, and P10-A but more than Alignment P9.
5.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
5.2.2.1 Constructability of Alignment Components
Three south portals have been identified for the stakeholder and outreach alignments, with the assumption that the TBM would be launched from the south portal:
• Portofino Drive: Near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive • Knoll Near I-5: At the knoll adjacent to I-5
• Sorrento Valley: Near the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road
One potential north portal location has been identified for the stakeholder and outreach alignments; however, it is assumed the TBM would be retrieved from the Del Mar Fairgrounds rather than at the portal:
• Fairgrounds North: Within the trench for the existing railroad alignment, north of the state-owned fairgrounds property
Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P7-A would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 20,000 feet.
Although the bored tunnel length is longer than Alignments P9 and P10-A, Alignment P7-A may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as 95 percent of the alignment would be located under public right-of-way or property.
The Alignment P7-A north portal would be located within the existing railroad alignment trench north of the state-owned fairgrounds property. The alignment would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 91 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-31
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P7-A (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Caltrans park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans. Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow TBM operation. The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would also require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls anticipated is approximately 200 feet, which is comparable to Alignments P7-B and P10-B, but less than Alignment P10-A.
Alignment P7-A would require approximately 100 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, less than that required for Alignment P9. Alignment P7-A would also require approximately 5,200 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon.
Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce the lagoon impact for Alignment P7-A compared to Alignment P9.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 92 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-32
This alignment would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge as the new alignment would not connect to the future bridge. The alignment would require demolition of the planned special events platform at the fairgrounds.
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P7-B would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 23,400 feet.
Although the required tunnel length is longer than the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, it may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as 90 percent of the alignment would be located under public right-of-way or property.
The Alignment P7-B north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P7-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. The site would need excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The portal location would impact existing drainage in an area with known flooding issues and would require consideration of options to convey drainage under or around the proposed alignment. Additionally, the alignment would travel through the existing intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road, both of which would require reconstruction. The site is largely above the 100-year floodplain; however, flood-abatement measures may be required when reconstructing the roadway. Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls is anticipated to be approximately 200 feet, which is comparable to Alignments P7-A and P10-B, but less than Alignment P10-A.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 93 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-33
Alignment P7-B would not require any bridge in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. The alignment would also include approximately 1,400 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. These impacts are comparable to Alignment P10-B and less than Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use.
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) Alignment P9 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 16,700 feet. The tunnel length for Alignment P9 would be shorter than all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. The alignment may also require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as 91 percent of the alignment would be located under public right-of-way or property.
The Alignment P9 north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The Alignment P9 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located at the intersection of Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road. Two sites have been identified to support the TBM launch: the main site would be 9 acres and located north of Carmel Valley Road, and a satellite site of 2 acres would be located south of Carmel Valley Road. The main site would need significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area, and multiple retaining structures would be required to allow for TBM operation. The main site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent against flooding. Additionally, due to the elevated structures associated with the alignment near the north portal, there is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected from flooding and/or sea-level rise during future operation.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 94 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-34
Alignment P9 would also require approximately 1,500 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. This bridge length would be greater than all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. Additionally, the alignment would include approximately 6,600 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. As such, Alignment P9 would require more complex construction phasing and a larger footprint within the lagoon compared to Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P10-A, and P10-B.
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P10-A would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 19,400 feet. This tunnel length is shorter than all stakeholder and outreach alignments other than Alignment P9; however, the alignment would have a smaller percentage of alignment under public rightof-way or property (84 percent) than all stakeholder and outreach alignments.
The Alignment P10-A north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P10-A (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Caltrans park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans. Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 95 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-35
The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would also require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls is anticipated to be approximately 1,000 feet, which is longer than all other stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Alignment P10-A would require approximately 100 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. This alignment would also include approximately 5,500 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. Similar to Alignment P7-A, the length of bridge would be less than that required for Alignment P9. Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce the lagoon impact for Alignment P10-A compared to Alignment P9.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P10-B would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 22,600 feet.
Compared to the stakeholder and outreach alignments, this tunnel length is the second longest, and has the smallest percentage of the tunnel located under public right-of-way or property (80 percent). As such, Alignment P10-B may require more subsurface easements from private properties.
The Alignment P10-B north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 96 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-36
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P10-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. The site would need excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The portal location would impact an existing drainage in an area with known flooding issues and would require consideration of options to convey drainage under or around the proposed alignment. Additionally, the alignment would travel through the existing intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road, both of which would require reconstruction. The site is largely above the 100-year floodplain; however, flood-abatement measures may be required when reconstructing the roadway. Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls is anticipated to be approximately 400 feet, which is comparable to Alignments P7-A and P7-B, but less than Alignment P10-A.
Alignment P10-B would not require any bridge in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. The alignment would also have limited impacts within the lagoon that would include approximately 2,200 feet of berm to support the alignment. These impacts are comparable to Alignment P7-B and less than Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use.
5.2.2.2 Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 97 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-37
• Design speeds4 along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to Control Point (CP) Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station.
The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
• A temporary shoofly would be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service. 4 An operating speed reflects the speed at which a train travels along a segment of track. In comparison, the design speed is used to determine aspects of a segment of an alignment, such as curves, while design of the alignment is underway. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed. Design speeds are compared for purposes of this evaluation as operating speeds may vary depending on circumstances.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 98 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-38
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Sorrento Valley
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • A temporary control point would be constructed.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 99 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-39
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Portofino
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 100 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-40
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 101 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-41
• A temporary shoofly would also be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively). • Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Sorrento Valley
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • A temporary control point would be constructed.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 102 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-42
5.2.2.3 Utility Conflicts
Each stakeholder and outreach alignment was reviewed and evaluated for potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities. Table 5-8 provides a summary of potential major utility conflicts identified for each alignment. The ability to protect the utility in place or relocate would be determined during later stages of design. However, the information that follows provides context for the activities that could be required during construction.
Table 5-8. Potential Utility Conflicts
Stakeholder and
Outreach Alignment
Number Water Facilities Sewer Facilities Total
P7-A 3 2 5
P7-B 5 3 8
P9 3 2 5
P10-A 3 2 5
P10-B 5 3 8
Source: SanGIS 2022
Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P7-A could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and two major sewer facilities. Overall, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location. The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment P7-A would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P7-B could result in potential conflicts with five major water facilities and three major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment P7-B.
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) Alignment P9 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and two major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment P9.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 103 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 5-43
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P10-A could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and two major sewer facilities. As with Alignment P7-A, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location.
The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment P10-A would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P10-B could result in potential conflicts with five major water facilities and three major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment P10-B.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 104 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-1
6 Comparison of Alignments and
Recommendations
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the SDLRR Draft EIR will consider a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of project alternatives. This section summarizes the analysis of the 12 conceptual alignments and 14 stakeholder and outreach alignments considered for the identification of the project alternatives in the Draft EIR. Each conceptual alignment and stakeholder and outreach alignment was evaluated using the screening criteria discussed in Section 3 and the evaluations presented in Sections 4 and 5. This section provides an overview of the outcomes of the evaluation.
6.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility
The conceptual alignments and stakeholder and outreach alignments were assessed based on their ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility described in Section 3.1.
Each of the conceptual alignments was prepared for an alternatives analysis and was designed specifically to meet the project objectives and design feasibility criteria. Although all conceptual alignments met project objectives and engineering feasibility, all single-bore alignments were removed from consideration, as described in the introduction to Section 4.
Specifically, in consideration of the increased complexity and community effects associated with the single-bore tunnel, Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were removed from consideration in favor of the similar twin-bore alignments (Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Similarly, single bore was not considered for any of the stakeholder and outreach alignments. Section 4.2 details the assessment of each stakeholder and outreach alignment’s ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility. Based on this evaluation, and as summarized in Table 6-1, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for further evaluation.
The remaining stakeholder and outreach alignments did not meet the majority of the project objectives or engineering feasibility and were removed from consideration.
Table 6-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary Alignment
Number
Description of Ability to Meet Project Objectives and
Engineering Feasibility
Advanced for
Further Evaluation
Conceptual
Alignments
1-12
All alignments would meet project objectives and engineering feasibility. The single-bore alignments (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) result in greater impacts and more difficult construction than their dualbore counterparts and therefore were dropped from further consideration.
Yes
Alignments
(1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11)
P1-A The alignment would meet the project objective to relocate the tracks away from the bluffs but would not meet the objective to maintain passenger service to the Solana Beach Station and would not provide direct access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. A north portal location was not identified, and sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility.
No
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 105 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-2
Alignment
Number
Description of Ability to Meet Project Objectives and
Engineering Feasibility
Advanced for
Further Evaluation
P1-B The alignment would meet the project objective to relocate the tracks away from the bluffs but would not meet the project objectives to maintain passenger service or to minimize impacts to the surrounding community. A north portal location was not identified, and sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility.
No
P2 The alignment would be feasible from an engineering standpoint but would only meet one of the six project objectives.
No
P3 The alignment would meet three of the six project objectives and would not meet the required engineering feasibility.
No
P4 The alignment would meet five of the six project objectives and would meet engineering feasibility. The project objective to reduce rail travel times would not be met. Despite meeting the majority of the project objectives and engineering feasibility, this alignment was removed from consideration because it is similar to conceptual Alignment 3, which would meet all of the project objectives and is evaluated in this report.
No
P5 The alignment would be feasible from an engineering standpoint but would only meet two of the six project objectives.
No
P6-A The alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. Alignment P6-A would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. As depicted by stakeholders and the public, the alignment would not reduce rail travel times. Alignment P6-A is similar to Alignment P7- A, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and is evaluated in this report.
No
P6-B The alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. This alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community; preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources; and reduce rail travel times. Alignment P6-B is similar to Alignment P7-B, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and is evaluated in this report.
No
P7-A The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P7-B The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P8 The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives but would not be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
No
P9 The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P10-A The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P10-B The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 106 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-3
6.2 Environmental and Other Considerations
This section summarizes the evaluation of the following alignments that were advanced for further consideration based on the evaluation of project objectives and engineering feasibility:
• Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) • Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) • Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) • Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) • Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) • Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) • Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley)
6.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
Biological Resources and Land Use: Potential permanent effects to biological resources and existing land uses are summarized in Table 6-2.
• Sensitive Vegetation Communities: Alignments 1, 7, and P9 with a south portal at Portofino Drive could affect the largest area of sensitive vegetation communities (19 acres for Alignments 7 and P9 and 22 acres for Alignment 1) compared to the other alignments. Alignments P7-B and P10-B could affect the smallest area of sensitive vegetation communities (2 acres).
• Non-Transportation Land Uses: Alignment 11 could affect the smallest area of existing non-transportation land uses (2 acres), followed by Alignments 3 and 9 (5 acres) with south portals at Torrey Pines Road. Alignment 1 could affect the largest area of existing non-transportation land uses (22 acres) and would be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to the other alignments.
• Transportation Land Uses: The Alignment 9 footprint could affect the largest area of existing transportation land uses (37 acres) compared to the other alignments. • Conclusion: As a result, Alignments 3, 9, and 11 with south portals at Torrey Pines Road or the Knoll Near I-5 would be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to alignments with a south portal at Portofino Drive.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 107 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-4
Table 6-2. Summary of Biological Resources and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) Alignment
Number
Sensitive Vegetation
Communities (acres)
Transportation Land
Uses (acres)
Non-Transportation Land
uses
1 (acres)
1 22 13 22
3 16 27 5
5 15 12 14
7 19 22 18
9 16 37 5
11 15 22 2
P7-A 16 16 17
P7-B 2 19 7
P9 19 17 19
P10-A 16 16 17
P10-B 2 19 7
Source: SanGIS 2022, AECOM 2023 biological resource surveys Note: 1Non-transportation land uses include residential, recreation/open space, transportation, public institution, industrial, hotel, undeveloped, and commercial land uses.
Community Effects
• Acquisitions and Noise and Dust Abatement: All alignments would require the acquisition of private property for construction of the alignment structures. Residential properties would be located adjacent to one or both portals associated with Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and P9; therefore, noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. While construction near the south portal for Alignments 5 and 9 would not occur near residential properties, noise and dust abatement measures may be implemented to protect resources within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Residential properties are not located adjacent to the south portal or the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north for Alignments P7-A, P7- B, P10-A, and P10-B. Dust and noise abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon at the south portal and along the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal given proximity to residential properties. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate all stakeholder and outreach alignments, which could affect adjacent properties and the multi-use trail above the trench. • Physical Roadway Impacts: The south portal site at the Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5, 11, and P7-A) would result in the smallest impacts to the local roadway network compared to the other south portals. The south portal site located in Sorrento Valley (Alignments P7-B and P-10-B) would result in the greatest impacts to the local roadway network.
Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal Within Camino Del Mar (Alignments 7, 9, and 11) would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
The north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard (Alignments 1, 3, 5, and 7) would be the least impactful north portal site to the local roadway network. The Fairgrounds North portal common to all stakeholder and outreach alignments would be less Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 108 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-5
impactful to the local roadway network than the north portal Within Camino Del Mar and more impactful than the Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard north portal. • Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material: As shown in Table 6-3, the number of truck trips required to dispose of construction materials associated with the bored tunnel, cut-and-cover tunnel, U-structure, and portals would range from 122,000 (Alignment 9) to 619,000 (Alignment P10-A) one-way trips. The stakeholder and outreach alignments are longer than the conceptual alignments and would result in more than twice the number of truck trips to dispose of construction materials. • Conclusion: The Fairgrounds North portal would be most disruptive to the surrounding community. This portal would require construction of a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. Significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle. Additionally, properties and the multiuse trail adjacent to the existing railroad trench could be affected during construction, and construction access would affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue.
Table 6-3. Approximate Number of Truck
Trips for Disposal of Construction Material
Alignment Number Truck Trips1
1 171,600
3 127,300
5 229,400
7 181,900
9 122,000
11 235,100
P7-A 547,200
P7-B 594,600
P9 534,200
P10-A 619,000
P10-B 536,000
Note: 1Only accounts for one-way traffic for disposal of construction material associated with the bored
tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnel, and the U-structure.
6.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
The following is a summary of the constructability considerations.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 109 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-6
6.2.2.1 Considerations Regarding Alignment Components
Table 6-4 summarizes information on the components of each alignment. • Alignments 1 and 7 would require the shortest total alignment length at 25,300 feet, and Alignments P7-A, P10-A, and P10-B would require the longest total alignment length, at 35,900 feet.
• Alignment 9 would require the shortest bored tunnel length at 9,500 feet, and Alignment P7-B would require the longest bored tunnel length, at 23,400 feet. • The percentage of the tunnel under public right-of-way or property would be the smallest for Alignment 3 at 6 percent and largest for Alignment P7-A at 95 percent. All five stakeholder and outreach alignments would have the greatest percentage of the tunnel portion of the alignment under public-right-of-way or property. • Alignments P7-B and P10-B with a south portal at Sorrento Valley would not require bridges. Of the remaining alignments, Alignments 5, 11, P7-A, and P10-A with a south portal at the Knoll Near I-5 would require the shortest length of bridge at 100 feet, and Alignments 3 and 9 would require the longest length of bridge at 6,100 feet. • Alignments 3 and 9 with a south portal at Torrey Pines Road would require the longest length of berm to support the alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon at 7,200 feet, and Alignment P7-B would require the shortest length of berm at 1,400 feet. • Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge as the new alignment would not connect to the future bridge.
Table 6-4. Summary of Alignment Components
Alignment
Number
Bored
Tunnel
(feet)
UStructure
(feet)
CutandCover
Tunnel
(feet)
Bridge
(feet)
Floodwall
(feet)
Graded1
(feet)
Total
Alignmen
t Length
(feet)
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Public
ROW or
Property
Percent
of Tunnel
under
Private
Property
1 13,800 900 700 1,500 800 7,600 25,300 41 59
3 9,800 900 600 6,100 800 7,800 25,900 6 94
5 16,600 2,400 900 100 1,900 6,200 28,000 44 56
7 13,900 1,100 900 1,500 800 7,200 25,300 49 51
9 9,500 1,200 500 6,100 800 7,800 26,000 27 73
11 16,600 2,200 1,200 100 1,900 6,300 28,300 46 54
P7-A 20,000 2,700 6500 100 900 6,400 35,900 95 5
P7-B 23,400 2,700 6,600 0 200 2,200 35,000 90 10
P-9 16,700 1,300 6,000 1,500 0 7,300 32,800 91 9
P10-A 19,400 3,100 5,900 100 1,100 6,300 35,900 84 16
P10-B 22,600 3,000 6,900 0 400 3,000 35,900 80 20
Notes: 1The graded length includes the berm.
ROW = right-of-way
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 110 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-7
6.2.2.2 North Portal and Alignment Considerations
• Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portal (Alignments 1, 3, and 5) would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the north portal and the portion of the alignment north of the portal compared to other north portal sites. No significant existing infrastructure would need to be protected or reconstructed at this north portal site.
• Within Camino Del Mar Portal (Alignments 7, 9, and 11) would result in a larger degree of construction complexity at the north portal and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard). This north portal location would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar bridge to initiate the portal construction.
• Fairgrounds North Portal (Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, P10-B) would have the greatest construction complexity of the north portal locations given the need to work within and widen the existing railroad alignment trench, the need to construct a new underground special events platform, coordination with current and future use at the fairgrounds, reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, potential reconstruction of the Jimmy Durante Bridge, and drainage considerations at Stevens Creek.
6.2.2.3 South Portal and Alignment Considerations
• Portofino Drive Portal (Alignments 1, 7, and P9) would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the south portal and alignment south of the portal compared to the other south portal locations. The main portal site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent flooding. There is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected. • Torrey Pines Road Portal (Alignments 3 and 9) would result in the highest degree of construction complexity at the south portal and alignment south of the portal compared to the other south portal locations. The bridge and berm segments within the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would require a raised elevation to stay above flood levels and would require a phased approach to maintain rail operations during construction. • Sorrento Valley Portal (Alignments P7-B and P10-B) would result in a higher degree of construction complexity at the south portal and alignment south of the portal than Alignments 5, 11, P7-A, and P7-B (Knoll Near I-5 south portal). The TBM launch site for this portal would impact existing drainage in an area with known flooding issues and would require implementing a means to convey drainage under or around the alignment. Reconstruction of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road would also be required.
6.2.2.4 Utility Conflicts
Table 6-5 summarizes potential major utility conflicts for each alignment. • Alignments 3 and 9 would result in the fewest potential conflicts with existing utilities, having potential conflicts with three major water facilities and no conflicts with major sewer facilities.
• Alignments P7-B and P10-B would result in the greatest number of potential utility conflicts, with five potential conflicts with major water facilities and three potential conflicts with major sewer facilities.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 111 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-8
• Overall, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a 54-inch trunk sewer and a 36-inch water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5, P7-A, and P10-A). Coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict.
Table 6-5. Summary of Potential Utility Conflicts
Alignment Number Total Discussion
1 4 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 3 3 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 5 5 Potential conflicts with the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main would require extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department. 7 4 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 9 3 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 11 5 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
P7-A 5 Potential conflicts with the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main would require extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.
P7-B 8 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
P9 5 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
P10-A 5 Potential conflicts with the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main would require extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.
P10-B 8 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
Source: SanGIS 2022
6.2.2.5 Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction Table 6-6 summarizes the railroad operational impacts during construction for each alignment.
North Portal
• The alignments at all of the north portals would require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service.
− Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Within Camino Del Mar portals) would require a temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet.
− Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North portal) would require a temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet. These alignments would require the longest shoofly and single-track operation to support construction when compared to the other alignments near the north portal sites.
− For all alignments, the temporary shoofly would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 112 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-9
• Design speeds5for passenger and freight trains operating along the shoofly would differ from current or planned design speeds.
− Design speeds along the shoofly for Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North portal) would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight, which is slower than planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively. This shoofly would result in the greatest reduction in design speeds for passenger and freight trains compared to design speeds along the shoofly at the other north portal locations.
− Design speeds along the shoofly for Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard portal) would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to current design speeds at this location. − Design speeds along the shoofly for Alignments 7, 9, and 11 (Within Camino Del Mar portal) would be the slowest compared to the other north portal locations, at 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight, compared to current design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively.
South Portal
• Shoofly:
− If construction proceeds as described in Section 5.2.2, Alignments 3 and 9 (south portal at Torrey Pines Road) would not require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service.
− Alignments P7-B and P10-B (Sorrento Valley portal) would require a temporary shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet.
− Alignments 1, 5, 7, 11, P7-A, P9, and P10-A (Knoll Near I-5 or Portofino Drive portal) would require a temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet. • Design speed along the shoofly:
− For those alignments that require the shoofly, design speeds would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively.
5 An operating speed reflects the speed at which a train travels along a segment of track. In comparison, the design speed is used to determine aspects of a segment of an alignment, such as curves, while design of the alignment is underway. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed. Design speeds are compared for purposes of evaluation as operating speeds may vary depending on circumstances.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 113 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-10
Table 6-6. Summary of Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction Alignment
Number
North Portal
Shoofly Length (ft)
Restrictive Speed
During Construction
(mph)
(Passenger/Freight)
Southern Portal
Shoofly Length (ft)
Restrictive Speed
During Construction
(mph)
(Passenger/Freight)
1 3,000 50/45 4,000 55/45
3 3,000 50/45 N/A N/A
5 3,000 50/45 4,000 55/45
7 3,000 30/25 4,000 55/45
9 3,000 30/45 N/A N/A
11 3,000 30/45 4,000 55/45
P7-A 6,000 60/40 4,000 55/45
P7-B 6,000 60/40 3,000 55/45
P9 6,000 60/40 4,000 55/45
P10-A 6,000 60/40 4,000 55/45
P10-B 6,000 60/40 3,000 55/45
6.2.3 Construction Cost Estimates
Rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates were developed for each alignment and are provided for context, but were not used as part of the screening process. The rough order of magnitude cost estimates consider the alignment component (e.g., tunnel, bridge, graded), track and signal infrastructure, temporary and permanent roadway modifications, environmental remediation, and temporary supporting infrastructure. The unit costs developed in the Alternatives Analysis Report are used to make it easier to compare current and previous estimates using 2022 dollars. These rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates do not include right-of-way costs, soft costs, or other costs not noted, nor do the costs consider inflation to reflect the year of expenditure during the construction period.
Detailed capital cost estimates will be developed during environmental review.
Table 6-7 summarizes the rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates for each alignment. Construction cost estimates range from $1.79 billion (Alignment 1) to $4.39 billion (Alignment P10-B).
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 114 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-11
Table 6-7. Construction Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Alignment
Number
Construction Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
(2022 $billion)
1 $1.79
3 $1.85
5 $2.28
7 $1.86
9 $1.85
11 $2.29
P7-A $4.14
P7-B $4.29
P9 $3.76
P10-A $4.06
P10-B $4.39
Note: Rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates are based on 2022 dollars. Changes from previously published estimates are due to project refinements and implementation of standard cost categories.
6.3 Summary of Outcomes
Based on the evaluation provided in this report, the following recommendations have been developed in support of identifying the range of alternatives to advance to CEQA scoping:
• Alignment 1 is not recommended for further consideration. While this alignment would have the third-fewest number of truck trips and the lowest construction complexities, this alignment with the south portal at Portofino Drive could permanently affect the largest area of sensitive vegetation communities and non-transportation land uses of the alignments. Additionally, significant opposition to the south portal site at Portofino Drive has been expressed by the public during outreach conducted to date, and an alternative southern portal location with less opposition has been identified to advance to CEQA scoping.
• Alignment 3 is recommended for further consideration. This alignment could result in fewer permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, require the secondfewest number of truck trips, and would generally be compatible with existing land uses. The north portal site associated with Alignment 3 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the north portal site associated with Alignments 7, 9, and 11 (Within Camino Del Mar) and Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North) portal locations. Alignment 3 would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the north portal and alignment north of the portal compared to the other north portal locations. • Alignment 5 is recommended for further consideration. The south portal for this alignment (Knoll Near I-5) would be located away from residential properties and has received general support from the public. Potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be comparable to Alignment 3, and less than Alignments 1, 7, 9, P7-A, P9, and P10-A. The south portal site would also result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the various south portal locations. Alignment 5 would Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 115 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-12
also result in less construction complexity at the north portal site (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 7, 9, and 11. • Alignment 7 is not recommended for further consideration. The alignment, with a south portal at Portofino Drive, could result in one of the largest impacts on sensitive vegetation communities and non-transportation land uses. Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal site associated with this alignment (Within Camino Del Mar) would be the most impactful to the local roadway network. This alignment would also have higher complexity at the north portal site and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal site Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard).
Additionally, strong opposition for the south portal site at Portofino Drive has been expressed by the public during outreach conducted to date. • Alignment 9 is not recommended for further consideration. This alignment is similar to Alignment 3 with a north portal Within Camino Del Mar and a slight difference in the location of the bored tunnel alignment. Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal site associated with this alignment would be the most impactful to the local roadway network. This alignment would also result in the highest degree of construction complexity at the south portal site (Torrey Pines Road) and alignment south of the portal, and a higher degree of construction complexity at the north portal site and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard).
• Alignment 11 is not recommended for further consideration. Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal site associated with this alignment (Within Camino Del Mar) would be the most impactful to the local roadway network. This alignment would also have higher degree of construction complexity at the north portal site and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard). Alignment 11 would result in a higher degree of construction complexity at the south portal (Knoll Near I-5) and alignment south of the portal than Alignments 7 and P9 (Portofino Drive portal). Alignment 11 would also result in more potential major utility conflicts than Alignments 1, 3, 7, and 9. • Alignment P7-A is recommended for further consideration. This alignment would be the most similar to what the public supported in terms of a tunnel alignment that would be parallel to I-5 rather than under residential properties. This alignment would have a north portal within the existing railroad alignment trench located north of the state-owned fairgrounds property. This north portal site, which is common among the five stakeholder and outreach alignments, would have the greatest construction complexity of the various north portal locations. This alignment would also require construction of a new special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge. However, potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities for Alignment P7-A would be comparable to Alignments 3 and 5, which are also recommended for further consideration. Alignment P7-A would also result in fewer potential major utility conflicts than Alignments P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B.
• Alignment P7-B is not recommended for further consideration. This alignment would result in greater community effects compared to other alignments. The Sorrento Valley south portal site would result in the largest impact to the surrounding local roadway network of the various south portal locations.
• Alignment P9 is not recommended for further consideration. The area within and adjacent to the alignment footprint, with a south portal at Portofino Drive, contains the Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 116 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-13
second-largest area of sensitive vegetation communities and non-transportation land uses. Additionally, significant opposition to the south portal site at Portofino Drive has been expressed by the public during outreach conducted to date, and an alternative southern portal location with less opposition has been identified. • Alignment P10-A is not recommended for further consideration. This alignment would be similar to Alignment P7-A; however, Alignment P7-A is more responsive to comments received from the public during the outreach and engagement processes to date.
• Alignment P10-B is not recommended for further consideration. The alignment would result in more community effects compared to the other alignments. The alignment would result in the largest quantity of excavated materials and truck trips for disposal.
The Sorrento Valley south portal site would result in the largest impact to the surrounding local roadway network of the various south portal locations.
Alignments 3, 5, and 7A are recommended to advance to CEQA scoping. The alternatives are illustrated in Figure 6-1 and will be referred to as Alternative A: I-5 Alignment, Alternative B:
Crest Canyon Alignment, and Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment in the Notice of Preparation.
• Alternative A: I-5 Alignment will reflect Alignment P7-A in this report. • Alternative B: Crest Canyon Alignment will reflect Alignment 5 in this report. • Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment will reflect Alignment 3 in this report.
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 117 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Alignments Screening Report 6-14
Figure 6-1. CEQA Scoping Alternatives
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A 118 June 17, 2024 Item 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE SAN
DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CONDUCTING A
ROBUST PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION PROCESS
RELATED TO THE LOSSAN RAIL REALIGNMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor is an intercity rail corridor supporting commuter, intercity, and freight rail services; WHEREAS, this rail corridor is part of our region’s economy and has a role in our nation’s defense by providing direct rail access to several key military bases; and WHEREAS, an approximately 1.5-mile portion of this rail line runs on a single track along the environmentally sensitive and fragile Del Mar bluffs; and WHEREAS, the City has expressed strong support for the relocation of the rails to an inland location by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) as expeditiously as possible; and
WHEREAS, as part of the rail relocation effort, it is critically important that SANDAG comprehensively informs the public of the impacts of all realignment alternatives currently under consideration and facilitates a process that allows for robust public outreach and participation to determine the future placement of the rail line; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, representatives from SANDAG presented a plan for public outreach and participation to the Del Mar City Council related to the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS the City wishes to formally express support for SANDAG’s public outreach plan and further encourages SANDAG to commit to engaging the public through every means possible to ensure a robust public participation process in which the public can participate fully, receive answers to questions, and provide feedback for consideration prior to decisions being made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The City Council expresses support for SANDAG’s public outreach plan and further encourages SANDAG to look for every opportunity possible to engage the public and ensure significant opportunities for public participation and feedback prior to the selection of a final rail realignment and throughout the process.
3. The City Council directs the City Manager to provide a copy of this Resolution to SANDAG.
Attachment B 119 June 17, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2023-33