Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, June 17, 2024

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
June 17, 2024 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
June 17, 2024
Item 6– Resolution Accepting State-Mandated Annual Fire Inspections Report

1. Will the annual fire inspections apply to short term rentals if the City adopts a new STR ordinance? The staff report says the requirement for inspections applies to "...private and public schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses, and apartment/condominium buildings...and to local businesses." Seems like this would include STRs?
Response: The State-mandated annual fire inspections are based on building occupancy types – not land use types. These State-mandated inspections do not apply to single dwelling units or STRs. Also, the draft STR Ordinance in process would not require any mandatory inspections of STRs by the City. Instead, per City Council direction, the proposed Ordinance would provide authority for the City to conduct a reasonable inspection, as necessary, to ensure safety compliance or to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance, as part of the future STR permitting process.

Item 8- Planning Commission Interviews and Appointments

1. Planning Commission Terms. Do the Planning Commissioners terming out serve until their replacements are seated, or do they leave office on June 30? I don't see an answer to this in the council policies or in the DMMC. This is important to quorum issues.

Response: The three Planning Commissioners’ terms expire June 30, 2024. However, Section F of the City Council Policy 200 (City Council Advisory Committees, Boards and Commissions) allows Planning Commissioners, whose terms have expired, to continue to officially serve until the vacancies are filled or three months has passed, whichever occurs sooner. Of the three commissioners whose terms are ending, one has reapplied, one has agreed to continuing serving until their seat is filled, and one is unavailable to serve past the expiration of their term.

Item 9 – San Dieguito Drive Improvements Public Hearing, Close of Balloting, Tabulation of Ballots, and Resolution Ordering Levies

1. If the bids come in higher than the estimates used to spread the costs must the process start over, including a new assessment spread and protest cycle?
Response: Once the assessment measure is voted on and the results are certified by the City Council, the amount of the assessment for each property could be lowered by the Council but cannot be increased absent another ballot measure process. An increase to an assessment requires a majority vote by the effected property owners. (Cal. Gov. Code § 53755.5). Therefore, if costs are greater than expected, any increase in costs would be June 17, 2024 Items 6, 8 ,9, 13 & 14
borne by the City or other funding source, unless City Council direction is to proceed with another ballot measure. This was discussed at a prior public meeting of the City Council.

The estimated project cost was conservatively prepared by MBI and it is unlikely that there will be significant increases to the project as part of the bid process. If costs are less than expected, the City Council would be asked to provide direction as to whether to keep the assessment amounts the same (as long as the assessment amount still does not exceed the special benefits received) or lower the amount of the assessment to reflect some or all of the cost savings.

2. The lengthy proposed Resolution confirms the Engineer's Report identified 54% as the public share including direct and indirect benefits: " 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 later recites that the engineer's report is accepted and confirmed: "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 also recites that the range of benefits is confirmed: " That the general benefits and the contribution of City funds (ranging between 54% to 70% of the overall cost of the improvements)..." But, I don't see where the Resolution provides support for setting the actual assessments at a 70% public share. The Engineer's report just sets a range between 54% to 70%. Shouldn't the Resolution provide a nexus between the report and the actual percentage of sharing between public and private? Page 51 of the Engineer's Report states the conclusion that: “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 cost, which must be considered and approved by the Del Mar City Council.”

Response: The Engineers Report and the Resolution allow the Council to support a general benefit contribution between 54% to 70%. It is not necessary to articulate a set percentage as long as the Council stays within this range. The Resolution states:
“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;” The 54% contribution can be thought of as a floor or the minimum amount the City should pay for the general benefits provided to the public; while the 70% should be thought of a June 17, 2024 Items 6, 8 ,9, 13 & 14
ceiling, because going beyond that percentage basis may be considered a gift of public funds.

A general benefit range was provided to give the Council flexibility in determining the exact percentage amount they deem the most appropriate. The support for a higher percentage has been articulated in the Resolution and the Engineer’s Report by recognizing that they are a number of general public benefits; namely the improved roadway access for emergency response and improved coastal access to the lagoon.

On April 15th, City Council approved staff’s recommendation to contribute 70% of the project costs. The proposed assessment rate in the engineer’s report, ballot and resolution reflects this percentage share.

Item 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

1. Why is the deadline for the impartial analysis (Aug 16) after the deadline for arguments (Aug 15)? Shouldn't those preparing arguments be able to see the impartial analysis before they submit arguments?
Response: These deadlines are established by the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters (ROV) in accordance with the requirements established by the California Elections Code. Because the City consolidates its elections with the County of San Diego, the City must comply with the deadlines established by the ROV.

2. I suggest the following minor edit in the first Resolution: " Section 11. If the voters approve the Measure, the Mayor (or in their the Mayor's absence, the Deputy Mayor).

Response: This administrative edit can be read into the record at the meeting, if a majority of the Council directs staff to do so.

3. The 2nd Resolution has a note at top: "(NOTE: Additions are highlighted in bold italics and deletions are highlighted in strikeout)." All the WHEREASES are new but not highlighted. I suggest either a note that the WHEREASES are new, or that they be highlighted.

Response: To clarify, the Agenda Report includes only one Resolution (Attachment A) and the Ballot Measure (Ordinance) (Exhibit A to Attachment A) for voter consideration.

The “whereases” or recitals are not codified and are therefore not considered changes to the Del Mar Municipal Code, which is why they are not shown in bold italics. The Ballot Measure is printed in the voter information and highlighting is not permitted. As such, staff recommends the formatting in the proposed ballot measure remain unchanged.

June 17, 2024 Items 6, 8 ,9, 13 & 14

4. Is there risk that fees normally charged by STRs and treated as part of "rent" may be transferred from the STR to the platform operator to avoid including them in "rent and then transferred back in some way to the STR operator as a work around?
Response: Transient lodging facilities are required to comply with the regulations set forth in Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 3.12, which includes collecting and remitting Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the City on all “rent” charged to guests. As such, transient lodging facilities must charge TOT on any “rent” charged to guests and remit it to the City. Failure to comply with the requirements of the DMMC, for example by transferring rent to another entity and not collecting/remitting TOT at the time the rent is charged to the guest, could result in penalties as stated in DMMC Section 3.12.070.

Item 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

1. The ballot language doesn't indicate that the voters are being asked to increase the current pay rate of $300 per month to $950 per month. Many may see this as misleading. In fact the proposed language implies the opposite by saying the measure will ensure that council compensation is "limited." Here's the language: "Shall the Municipal Code be amended to comply with the City Council compensation formula under Government Code Section 36516 to: (i) ensure the salary of Councilmembers is set and strictly limited by State law, commencing at $950/month; and (ii) authorize the salary of Councilmembers to be adjusted within the limits of State law by ordinance considered publicly during at least two City Council meetings?" Response: The phrasing of the ballot question is consistent with other agencies who have taken similar action. The Council may revise the ballot question at its discretion, within the requirements and regulations established by the California Elections Code.

2. Does the council have the option to limit the Measure to the increase to $950 per month per state law without the added change to allow future increases by ordinance? Del Mar voters have a history of liking voter approvals, and of displeasure when they are taken away. Why not separate the two and let voters vote on each?
Response: The City is currently budgeting for two ballot measures, one related to TOT and one related to Council compensation. The Council could separate the actions into two Ballot Measures. Separating the actions would result in an estimated $15,000 in additional election costs, which are currently not budgeted.

3. Is there a conflict of interest issue for councilmembers to draft arguments who will receive the pay increase if it passes?
June 17, 2024 Items 6, 8 ,9, 13 & 14
Response: No. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed and determined that there is not a conflict of interest.

4. Again, why are the arguments due before the impartial analysis? Response: These deadlines are established by the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters (ROV) in accordance with the requirements established by the California Elections Code. Because the City consolidates its elections with the County of San Diego, the City must comply with the deadlines established by the ROV.

5. Can rebuttal arguments address the impartial analysis or must they be limited to rebuttal of the pro/con arguments? If the impartial analysis comes after the argument deadline there is no chance to address the impartial analysis other than if allowed in rebuttal.

Response: The California Elections Code does not regulate the contents of the arguments and rebuttals beyond required formatting and phrasing of the title which is required to be, “Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure” or “Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of the Measure.”

6. Section 6: Will the city clerk synopsis of the Measure be different from the impartial analysis? Will the council have a chance to review a draft? Response: The synopsis required by California Elections Code Section 12111 and referenced in Section 6 of the proposed Resolution is typically the ballot measure question.

7. I suggest the same edit to section 11 as noted above on TOT and the same change regarding WHEREASES mentioned above for TOT.

Response: To clarify, the agenda report includes only one Resolution (Attachment A) and the Ballot Measure (Ordinance) (Exhibit A to Attachment A) for voter consideration. The “whereases” or recitals are not codified and are therefore not considered changes to the Del Mar Municipal Code which is why they are not shown in bold italics. The Ballot Measure is printed in the voter information and highlighting is not permitted. As such, staff recommends the formatting in the proposed ballot measure remain unchanged.

June 17, 2024 Items 6, 8 ,9, 13 & 14
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Josh Gordon, Fire Chief
Prepared by Kseniia Izgarskaia, Senior Management Analyst Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: June 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Red Dot for Item 6: Resolution Accepting State-Mandated Annual Fire Inspections Report
Item 6 on the June 17, 2024, City Council agenda includes adoption of a Resolution accepting a report on the status of calendar year 2023 State-mandated annual fire inspections in the City of Del Mar required by California Health and Safety Code Section 13146.4. The Resolution (Attachment A to the agenda report) Section B – Residential Group R Occupancies, includes clerical errors.

The actual compliance rate for Group R occupancies for the reporting period is 100% and the total number of Group R occupancies is 30 (including 7 hotels, motels and lodging houses; and 23 apartment/condominium complexes).

The attached revised Resolution corrects these clerical errors and is intended to replace the Resolution that was included in the initial agenda packet distribution.

Attachments: Revised Resolution for Item 6 on June 17, 2024, City Council Agenda June 17, 2024 Item 6
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.

June 17, 2024 Item 6
Resolution No. 2024-XX

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 30 Group R occupancies. This is a compliance rate of 80100% 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
June 17, 2024 Item 6
Resolution No. 2024-XX

Page 3 of 3 ends

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
June 17, 2024 Item 6
1 Evy Escalante
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price
From: Hershell Price <[email protected]> Date: June 17, 2024 at 1:58:51 PM PDT
To: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Monica Meredith <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price To: <[email protected]>
Thanks, Hershell. I've been singing that tune since August of last year and the attorney that we spoke with, Doug Carstens, who successfully stopped the freeway tunnel under South Pasadena, said exactly what you are saying. If you've read his lawsuit, which he sent to us, the concerns were all of the same ones Del Mar has. He considered his most important point of advice to us was that the city of Del Mar MUST publicly speak out against the train tunnel in Del Mar. Residents and City Council must be on the same page. What's the benefit to Del Mar of not fighting against a Del Mar tunnel? If none, then why are they not supporting the fight? It is mind boggling.

Monica
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:50 AM Hershell Price <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: FW: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 Dear Mayor and City Council members,
We have already been told by SANDAG that Rail Tunnel Alternatives A, B and C will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the Notice of Preparation.

Please be advised that both Alternative B and Alternative C are Existential Threats to our City and should not be supported by City Council based on the following:

1. Both enter the failing bluff on Jimmy Durante Boulevard just north June 17, 2024 Item 11
2 of Camino Del Mar. The homes above will have to be taken by eminent domain.

Route B veers off to the southeast under many homes as it proceeds toward Carmel Valley Road. Those homes under that route will be endangered as well as those on either side. This does not have to happen if Alternative A is selected as the only route that the City of Del Mar would strongly recommend and support.

2. Alternative C follows a path that runs along Camino Del Mar and will disrupt our existing business community for many years into the future. Most will never recover and cease doing business. Our tax revenues from those enterprises will be diminished and affect the City's ability to build the infrastructure projects needed as time goes by. In so many ways it will be a disaster and should not be supported at all. At the southern end of Route C, it then crosses the Penasquitos Lagoon which will have to be double-tracked.

That means that another berm will have to be constructed, thereby causing irreparable harm to that lagoon.

3. Lawsuits will disrupt the completion of both Routes B and C with the possibility of neither ever being completed. Those routes are a disaster waiting to happen if we support either.

4. All of us in Del Mar know this and the City Council must do the right thing and give its unanimous support to Route A. Why should that be so hard to do given the evidence that resident and activist Angelina Neglia and her growing number of warriors have presented to both the City and to SANDAG.

5. I believe that all candidates for the upcoming campaign for City Council must make clear where they stand on this issue and specifically state which option(s) they support. For the future of Del Mar, there is only one option, and it is Alternative A, the environmental route underground to Hwy I-5. It does not harm our city - including not taking of any homes - and must be our only choice.

Thank you for your consideration of Alternative A as our only choice.

Hershell Price
Resident of Del Mar
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
--
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Karla Leopold <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:07 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Bill Leopold
Subject: Item 11, Red Dot letter, June 17, 2024
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council members,
We have already been told by SANDAG that Rail Tunnel Alternatives A, B and C will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the Notice of Preparation.

Please be advised that both Alternative B and Alternative C are Existential Threats to our City and should not be supported by City Council based on the
following:

1. Both enter the failing bluff on Jimmy Durante Boulevard just north of Camino Del Mar. The homes above will have to be taken by eminent domain.

At the southern end of Route C, it then crosses the Penasquitos Lagoon which will have to be double-tracked.

That means that another berm will have to be constructed, thereby causing irreparable harm to that lagoon.

3. Lawsuits will disrupt the completion of both Routes B and C with the possibility of neither ever being completed. Those routes are a disaster waiting to happen if we support either.

Thank you for your consideration of Alternative A as our only choice.

All the best,
Karla and Bill Leopold
125 11th St.

Del Mar CA 92014
858-344-5375
Sent from my iPhone
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Peter Cramton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 2:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dave Druker; Dwight Worden-Private; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Patrick
Subject: Item 11: Initial Consideration of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Del Mar City Council,
SANDAG's ploy to pit Del Mar and Solana Beach against each other with the A, B, and C choices is a clear manipulation. Option A is undeniably the best for Del Mar, while B and C are clearly designed to favor Solana Beach. SANDAG is fully aware of this. They are essentially provoking us to quarrel over these options, with the intention of shrugging and saying, "We can't please everyone, so we'll go with B (or C)." This is a blatant attempt to divide and conquer; we must not fall for it.

We should reject SANDAG's ill-conceived agenda. Rather, we should point out that none of the options solve the immediate problem or effectively address the long-run problem. There are many in Del Mar who understand that a far better solution is:

1. Immediately stop the destruction of the coast with irresponsible armoring in a pathetic attempt to keep the train running. The fact that the train has been out 300 days since 2022 clearly illustrates this enterprise's hopelessness despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on incremental armoring.

2. Immediately start a replacement bus service from San Clemente to UTC Transit Center, with stops on the route as consumer demand indicates. This solution is feasible and beneficial as it can adapt flexibly to consumer demand. Convert the bus service to an electric bus as soon as possible to further enhance the environmental aspects of this immediate solution.

3. Develop a rails-to-trails conversion of the 61 miles from San Clemente to San Diego to create a vibrant trail for walkers, runners, cyclists, e-cyclists, and others to move along our beautiful coast in a healthy, low-cost, and safe way that harnesses the transformation in mobility that is happening now. The trail will complement our beautiful coast. It is flexible, low-cost, and complementary to our key tourist industry, lifestyle, and culture.

4. Urge the State legislature to ask the California Council on Science and Technology to conduct an independent, forward-looking study examining the transport issue from a broad perspective to further optimize and identify the best long-term solution for the region, the state, and the nation.

If the City Council decides not to look beyond the SANDAG agenda, its response should emphasize that it does not reflect the views of many residents of Del Mar, who believe that a broader look at the issue is essential to avoid destruction and the waste of tens of billions of dollars.

Kind regards,
Peter Cramton
901 Highland Ave, Del Mar, CA 92014
June 17, 2024 Item 11
2 Peter Cramton
[email protected] cramton.umd.edu +1 530 408 6698
University of Maryland
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Don Billings <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:59 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Public Comment for 6/17/2024 Del Mar City Council meeting, Agenda Item 11, SANDAG NOP for Rail Realignment.

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

Good afternoon,
Solana Beach Mayor Lesa Heebner recently sent out a widely distributed community alert about SANDAG's NOP on the rail realignment. I would like her words submitted for the public record for agenda item #11 at today's Del Mar City Council meeting. I would like the entirety of Mayor Heebner's comments read into the record during the agenda item.

I read her communication to mean that she considers this to be existential for Solana Beach and its residents, and suggests that Option A represents an attempt by Del Mar to dump the tunnel problem on Solana Beach. Solana Beach considers the “fairgrounds” option to be a non starter, full stop.

Thank you,
Don Billings
Message below from Mayor Heebner:

Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I am writing today to bring to your awareness a real threat to Solana Beach, and ask for your help in shutting it down.

As we all know, the railroad tracks must come off the bluff in Del Mar. We all agree this must happen. SANDAG has evaluated many possible routes, and released a “Notice of Preparation” with 3 Alternatives labeled A, B, and C for further study in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). All include either a bored tunnel or a cut-and-cover tunnel.

Alternative A was recently proposed by a group of Del Mar residents who do not want a tunnel in their City. So they removed it from Del Mar and placed it in Solana Beach. This tunnel would require lowering our railroad trench so it can eventually be deep enough to go underneath the San Dieguito Lagoon. Starting at Lomas Santa Fe, at a 2% grade, it would deepen, creating a cut-and-cover tunnel from the Belly Up, under Via de la Valle and to the Midway area in the Fairgrounds before transforming to a bored tunnel.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
2  Alternative A will take 7—12 years to build during which Solana Beach will experience noise, dust, vibration, traffic disruption, increased GHG emissions and air pollution from trucks carrying away the demolished walls and dirt of our existing trench.  It is highly doubtful passenger (Coaster and Amtrak) or freight trains will be able to operate south of Solana Beach during the 7—12 years of construction.  In addition to demolishing the investment already made to lower the tracks in Solana Beach, it will likely destroy the south half of our Coastal Rail Trail, including Betsy Shultz’ iconic arches, and/or...
 …it is likely that construction crews would need to take 50-feet or so of each of the properties east of the trench for construction purposes, endangering 60+ naturally occurring affordable multi-family homes on S. Cedros.
 Alternative A would also require the Via de la Valle vehicle bridge to be re-built.  Stevens Creek would need to be diverted and/or pumped to prevent flooding during heavy rain storms within the FEMA designated floodplain in Solana Beach and inside the proposed tunnel.

And there’s more!
 In Alternative A, the Fair and most likely the Races will be shut down for 5—10 years as the cut-and-cover tunnel joins a bored tunnel in the Fairgrounds at the historical location of the Ferris Wheel and other amusement rides.  This location will be one of the staging areas for Alternative A, occupying approximately 8-10 acres of the Fairgrounds during construction.  The soon to be built San Dieguito Railroad Bridge and Seasonal Platform at the Fairgrounds would also have to be demolished.
 While there is a Seasonal Platform in Alternative A, it’s 7-stories below ground vs at grade. Just imagine train loads of people relying on elevators to get to the surface! This comes at an extraordinary price tag!
 At $4.14 Billion, Alternative A costs twice as much as Alternatives B ($2.28 Billion) or C ($1.85 Billion) without even considering the loss of the region’s $30 million investment (in 1999 dollars) of lowering the tracks in Solana Beach, the $254 million San Dieguito Bridge and Seasonal Platform, and unknown millions for our Coastal Rail Trail and the Via de la Valle Vehicle Bridge.
 Add to this the $237 million/year generated from the Fair that will NOT be spent and the $680 million/year in annual activities from the Fairgrounds that will NOT be spent…times 5—10 years!
 All freight and passenger rail will be shut down, both having exponential economic impacts on the Port and our Regional and State economies.  Finally, this route is designated by the Military as a Strategic Rail Corridor. Ceasing rail operations for construction will endanger our National Security.

SANDAG did not engage with Solana Beach on Alternative A, yet they held Workshops and Office Hours in Del Mar for many months. If not for the loud and persistent voices of some Del Mar residents, Alternative A would never have been June 17, 2024 Item 11
3 included. Solana Beach residents and other stakeholders were not informed or consulted. This was not right! It’s time for SANDAG to hear from voices outside of Del Mar!
Economic impacts are not studied in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but they are largely known as mentioned above, and alone should eliminate Alternative A from further study.

Similarly, what is already known about the potential environmental impacts of Alternative A demonstrate their significance and again, should eliminate Alternative A from further study.

Both Alternatives B and C are more direct, shorter, and far less expensive routes that utilize less-intrusive, less-polluting bored tunnels in 90% of their configurations.

For all the reasons noted above and more, we need comments from Solana Beach residents that oppose consideration of Alternative A due to its known costs, economic consequences to the region, and environmental impacts during construction.

And we need your comments ASAP (see below for suggested comments).

This is a call to action.
 The 45-day scoping period for comments closes on July 19th, but the sooner the better.
 Should you wish to attend the Scoping Meeting to learn more about all 3 Alternatives and voice your comments in person, the meeting is tomorrow evening, Tuesday June 18th at 6pm at the San Diego Marriott (11966 El Camino Real near Carmel Valley Road). The group of Del Mar residents who created and have pushed for Alternative A will be there in force. It is important that our residents and businesses show up, too.

It’s critical that our voices are also heard!
Written comments may be mailed to SANDAG at 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, with attention to Tim Pesce OR emailed with the subject line “SDLRR Project NOP” to [email protected]; or online at SANDAG.org/railrealignment.

Suggested email/letter/verbal comments:
“I oppose further consideration of Alternative A. Please remove it before any further work on the EIR is done. At double the cost of the other Alternatives, the serious economic consequences to the region, and many environmental impacts to Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, the Fairgrounds and the San Dieguito Lagoon, Alternative A does not warrant the expenditure of any additional taxpayer money.”
Should you have any questions, feel free to email me or call me at 858 922 3434.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
4 Best,
Lesa
Lesa Heebner, Mayor
City of Solana Beach
& 2nd Vice Chair, SANDAG Board of Directors
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Jonnell Agnew <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:45 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Hershell Price
Subject: Fwd: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please forward this red dot letter to all council persons. I wholeheartedly agree with everything written here. City council must endorse route A and nothing else. Must protect our homes and businesses. And push for train track relocation now. Too many people riding the train are taking their lives in the hands of sandag. God only knows when the train will tumble over the bluff to the ocean. It is not worth the lives of anyone for sandag to drag their feet moving the tracks. I remember it has been over 25 years ago when sandag knew they needed to move the train tracks. They have delayed long enough.

Sincerely,
Jonnell Agnew
346 9th st
Del Mar ca
626-483-8552
From: Jonnell Agnew <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:30 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Knowledge For The Vote <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price I wholeheartedly agree.

Sincerely,
Jonnell Agnew
626-483-8552
From: Hershell Price <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 11:50:00 AM
To: Knowledge For The Vote <[email protected]> Subject: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price Subject: FW: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 Dear Mayor and City Council members,
We have already been told by SANDAG that Rail Tunnel Alternatives A, B and C 2 will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the Notice of Preparation.

Please be advised that both Alternative B and Alternative C are Existential Threats to our City and should not be supported by City Council based on the following:

1. Both enter the failing bluff on Jimmy Durante Boulevard just north of Camino Del Mar. The homes above will have to be taken by eminent domain.

That means that another berm will have to be constructed, thereby causing irreparable harm to that lagoon.

3. Lawsuits will disrupt the completion of both Routes B and C with the possibility of neither ever being completed. Those routes are a disaster waiting to happen if we support either.

Thank you for your consideration of Alternative A as our only choice.

Hershell Price
Resident of Del Mar
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
1 Evy Escalante
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price
From: Hershell Price <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 12:08 PM
To: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sam Clark <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 - Submitted By Hershell Price To: <[email protected]>
CC: Knowledge For The Vote <[email protected]>, Donna Clark <[email protected]> We the residents at 620 Amphitheatre, Del Mar, CA 92014 concur with these statements. We intend to pursue any and all legal means available to us to support and get adopted Option A.

Kind Regards,
Sam and Donna Clark
Sam W. Clark, IV

SAMCAM, LLC
5924 Norway Road
Dallas, Texas 75230
M: 214.729.6169
[email protected]
On Jun 17, 2024, at 11:50 AM, Hershell Price <[email protected]> wrote:

June 17, 2024 Item 11
2 Please be advised that both Alternative B and Alternative C are Existential Threats to our City and should not be supported by City Council based on the following:

1. Both enter the failing bluff on Jimmy Durante Boulevard just north of Camino Del Mar. The homes above will have to be taken by eminent domain.

That means that another berm will have to be constructed, thereby causing irreparable harm to that lagoon.

3. Lawsuits will disrupt the completion of both Routes B and C with the possibility of neither ever being completed. Those routes are a disaster waiting to happen if we support either.

Thank you for your consideration of Alternative A as our only choice.

Hershell Price
Resident of Del Mar
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].

June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 11:30 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 11, Red Dot Letter, City Council Meeting June 17th, 2024 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please be advised that both Alternative B and Alternative C are Existential Threats to our City and should not be supported by City Council based on the following:

1. Both enter the failing bluff on Jimmy Durante Boulevard just north of Camino Del Mar. The homes above will have to be taken by eminent domain. Route B veers off to the southeast under many homes as it proceeds toward Carmel Valley Road. Those homes under that route will be endangered as well as those on either side. This does not have to happen if Alternative A is selected as the only route that the City of Del Mar would strongly recommend and support.

2. Alternative C follows a path that runs along Camino Del Mar and will disrupt our existing business community for many years into the future. Most will never recover and cease doing business. Our tax revenues from those enterprises will be diminished and affect the City’s ability to build the infrastructure projects needed as time goes by. In so many ways it will be a disaster and should not be supported at all. At the southern end of Route C, it then crosses the Penasquitos Lagoon which will have to be double-tracked. That means that another berm will have to be constructed, thereby causing irreparable harm to that lagoon.

3. Lawsuits will disrupt the completion of both Routes B and C with the possibility of neither ever being completed. Those routes are a disaster waiting to happen if we support either.

5. I believe that all candidates for the upcoming campaign for City Council must make clear where they stand on this issue and specifically state which option(s) June 17, 2024 Item 11
2 they support. For the future of Del Mar, there is only one option, and it is Alternative A, the environmental route underground to Hwy I-5. It does no harm to our city – including not taking of any homes – and must be our only choice.

6. Thank you for your consideration of Alternative A as our only choice.

Hershell Price
Resident of Del Mar
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 10:50 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot Item 11
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Del Mar City Council,
Does the City know if the SDLRR Project includes the removal of the existing tracks from the coastal bluff and other locations that will no longer be part of the new alignment? The NOP Project Description states the project is to “relocate the existing single-track alignment…and will include removal of existing stabilization infrastructure, consistent with the California Coastal Commission’s conditions of approval for the Del Mar stabilization projects.” It does not mention removal of the existing track from the bluff. Does the “whole of the action” include removal of the existing single track from the coastal bluff and other locations that will no longer be part of the new alignment? Will there be a dedication of any of this property for public use? Or will NCTD retain all of its rights to its current ROW and also expand its ROW with takings of private property for the portals, associated permanent facilities, and an underground ROW for the tunnel? Note that per the 2017 report from SANDAG, the North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard would involve a taking of 7.4 acres of residential property, which is approximately 30 R1-10 lots. This is in addition to the impact of the portal on remaining adjacent properties and properties with a new tunnel easement underneath.

Draft comment for SANDAG:

1. To adequately assess impacts on the AESTHETIC resources of the area, SANDAG should provide the public with three-dimensional models (physical or computer graphic) of the alternative portals, permanent facilities, private and public property takes, elevated Jimmy Durante Boulevard, new above ground track alignment with elevated berms, floodwalls, U-structures, and cut and cover tunnels with their locations, designs and any landscaping details.

2. To adequately assess impacts on the HYDROLOGY of the San Dieguito River Floodplain, for the Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard, SANDAG should consider the effect of alteration of the 100-year floodplain caused by raising the current trackbed south of the San Dieguito River on a higher berm and protecting its descent to the portal (which is below the 100-year floodplain) with flood walls, a U structure, and a cut and cover tunnel (with floodgates at the portal). This effectively divides the 100-year floodplain of the North Commercial District and North Beach neighborhood in two. Will this alter the flooding potential of the North Commercial District or North Beach neighborhood? If so, how will this be mitigated? This should take into consideration flooding from both heavy rain events and tidal surges with expected sea level rise over the anticipated lifetime of the tunnel.

Current 100-Year Floodplain
June 17, 2024 Item 11
2 Presumed New 100-Year Floodplain with North Portal Under JDB Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Angelina Neglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 11:05 AM
To: Ashley Jones; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Re: List of questions for NOP - to be submitted as a red dot for tomorrow night council meeting
Attachments: NOP Questions for SANDAG V2.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Ashley,
I revised the document, so please can you submit this document for tomorrow night’s council meeting…I appreciate it…as a red dot…thanks again,
Angie
Angelina Neglia
Healthcare/Educational Advocate
[email protected]
(858) 945 8827
CALTASH 2024 Recipient, Advocating for People with Disabilities 2024 Nominee, Senator Blakespear’s “Women Who Inspire” in our community On Jun 16, 2024, at 10:14 AM, Angelina Neglia <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Ashley,
Please find attached my red dot letter and NOP questions for XIII, "City Council Other Business," Item 11, Agenda item at the Del Mar City Council meeting tomorrow night. Regarding the Initial consideration of the NOP of a draft EIR for the LOSSAN Rail realignment. This will be submitted to the SANDAG tomorrow at the Scoping meeting.

Thanks,
Angie
<NOP Questions for SANDAG V1.docx>
Angelina Neglia
June 17, 2024 Item 11
2 Healthcare/Educational Advocate
[email protected]
(858) 945 8827
CALTASH 2024 Recipient, Advocating for People with Disabilities 2024 Nominee, Senator Blakespear’s “Women Who Inspire” in our community June 17, 2024 Item 11
https://safertrain.org/
Questions for SANDAG NOP Scoping Meeting
LOSSAN Rail Alignment Project
June 18th, 2024
Submitted by, “The Coalition for Safer Trains”
Dear SANDAG LOSSAN Project Team,
On behalf of the Coalition for Safer Trains, we are submitting these questions to the SANDAG LOSSAN Project Team to respond to, based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP). We are writing to support and endorse the SANDAG Option A Alternative which is the I-5 route.

We understand SANDAG will review the short list of three rail alignments and now proceed to the Environmental Impact Report and Studies for each route.

This Coalition letter asks questions pertaining to all three Rail/Tunnel Alternatives A, B and C. We appreciate all the efforts and controlled steps SANDAG is going through to arrive at the safest best alternative for all parties; including citizens of the community, and rail stakeholders.

We expect to see specific areas of the Tunnel analysis which include, but not limited to:
cultural and historic resources, geology and soil settling, seismic hazards, construction impacts, air quality, health risks/assessment, traffic, water quality and usage, and cumulative impacts. We also would like to see adequate consideration of the potential for Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM) failures, and the resulting impacts.

First, the construction and operation of the tunnel project will compromise air quality and pose significant health risks for the communities in the vicinities of the north and south portals. The EIR needs to also address construction emissions, and use the correct significant thresholds, and offer mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to the extent feasible.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Second, the tunnel project will raise significant geotechnical issues. Boring a tunnel of this magnitude has never been accomplished successfully in Torrey Sandstone under a densely populated residential town. This could cause a variety of unintended consequences such as dangerous sinkholes, destruction of underground infrastructure and vibration damage to vulnerable and historic structures. Also, it should be noted is the fact that the tunnel will cross a known active earthquake fault, exposing the community to the risk of major earthquake damage.

Third, a tunnel project would create significant traffic impacts. Boring the tunnel from the South Portal through and under the entire length of the City of Del Mar going north to where the Cut and Cover tunnel and North Portal will be constructed at Jimmy Durante/El Camino Real. This will require the removal of literally millions of tons of rock and dirt, some of which may be contaminated, which will require many hundreds of thousands of construction haul truck trips that could significantly disrupt the vital northern access to Del Mar. Further, if one of the twin boring machines breaks down, (a likely event given the porous and unusual topography in the Del Mar hill), the emergency staging areas and rescue equipment will jeopardize normal traffic flow and access into and out of Del Mar.

Del Mar attracts residents and upwards of two million visitors annually from all over the world, who come to enjoy the beautiful dog-friendly beaches, hiking trails, scenic views and the many shops and dining opportunities located within the Del Mar village. Del Mar attracts tourists and residents to the Power House Concerts, Farmers Market and Summer Solstice Events during the summer. All of these community attractions provided by Del Mar will be disrupted or canceled due to the northern access being either closed or greatly diminished and the huge construction staging areas. The lives of the residents, and tourists to Del Mar will be negatively impacted for a decade, because of the increased traffic and gridlock conditions created by the construction of the North Portal. Using highway 101 for a decade is not a suitable possibility.

On a typical day, hundreds of cars utilize Jimmy Durante and El Camino Real to access Del Mar to conduct commerce, go to the beach, and many residents live where the North portal is being proposed for Options B and C. As a responsible Coalition for our community, we must express our serious concern with the North Portal location and tunnel under the entire length of Del Mar. Numerous studies have shown anyone living near a portal or tunnel are especially vulnerable to health risks from air pollution – including cancer and reproductive system damage. We are worried that the tunnel alternative Options B and C – both during construction and operation – will harm the health and well-being of the community and residents nearby.

In light of the potential for these significant problems, the Coalition for Safer Trains is highly concerned, and hopes the EIR will adequately disclose the analyzes for all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts from the proposed Project alternatives, June 17, 2024 Item 11
especially the tunnel. We ask SANDAG, to conduct a comprehensive and independent financial feasibility study thorough and accurate investigation of potential environmental impacts to the community and other possible less invasive transportation options.

Kind Regards,
Angelina Neglia
Coalition for Safer Trains
NOP Questions:

Hazardous Cargo/Freight Trains:

Background: Given East Palestine, Ohio is 3.15 sq miles, almost 5,000 residents. 1,500 to 2,000 residents were evacuated. Norfolk Southern is paying a class action claim of $600M within a 20-mile radius of the accident and person injury claims within a10-mile radius. In comparison, Del Mar is 1.77 sq. miles and has 4,000 residents. Solana Beach has 14,000 residents.

Question 1: What are the worst-case scenarios have you studied regarding accidents involving dangerous and hazardous materials for any tunnel option under the City of Del Mar, San Diego, Fairgrounds and Solana Beach? If you have not, why not? Question 2: If there is a freight train accident, explosion, toxic spill, derailment, or fire in the tunnel under the City of Del Mar, how will the community not be destroyed?
Question 3: What will be the disproportionate destruction on human, economic, and financial impact to the City of Del Mar if Options B or C are chosen? June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 4: Why do the residents and businesses located above or near a tunnel, with trains carrying hazardous materials/weapons have no say to regulate, or the power to question BNSF, SANDAG, NTCD regarding the risk to the community, and impact if an accident happens?
Question: 5: As BNSF is obligated to carry any freight, including nuclear weapons, ammunitions, toxic chemicals etc., what are the provisions to protect the City of Del Mar, San Diego, Solana Beach and the Fairgrounds? Does the public have a say to control what is transported on freight trains under densely populated residential areas? If no, why not?
Background 6: Given SANDAG has stated the typical freight train will have at least 118 freight rail cars, and 5 locomotives. The typical freight train averages between 6,900 feet to 9,247 feet. If the train is 9,247 feet long, that is equivalent to 1.7 miles. That is longer than the City of Del Mar.

Question 7: If that freight train derails, explodes etc., how will SANDAG protect the City of Del Mar? Please explain this risk and resolution for all three alignment options.

Question 8: How long are current freight trains running on the bluffs? Question 9: How long will the freight trains be once the tunnel is built?Question 10: How will SANDAG obtain sensitive input from the military about their transportation forecasts for the next 20-30-50 years, especially during wartime? Question 11: Please provide freight train tunnel examples under densely populated residential communities carrying hazardous freight and high-speed passenger trains.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 12: If the San Clemente rail problem or alignment is not solved, why would SANDAG and other government agencies spend the money to build this tunnel prior to that happening? Even though Senator Blakespear has created a Sub Committee with each rail agency involved we have not seen these rail agencies actively working together on one cohesive transportation plan. We ask how are the rail agencies in Southern California working together to create one cohesive transit system across the 351 miles of LOSSAN Corridor? If so, please provide the cohesive transit plan. If San Clemente rail alignment isn’t solved, spending $4-5 Billion in Del Mar, seems premature. Please explain? Question 13: What is SANDAG’s response to resident’s who suffer documented medical illnesses from living next to a Portal and freight trains? Question 14: How will SANDAG prevent these documented illnesses, or provide medical payments into the future? If SANDAG disclaims responsibility, then who will be responsible?
Question 15: Please explain BNSF’s role in this project in terms of carrying hazardous materials, chemicals and weapons through and under a densely populated town? How will BNSF and SANDAG ensure there will NEVER be an explosion, derailment, or fire in the tunnel?
Question 16: Will BNSF, SANDAG and NTCD be liable for any of these accidents? If so, what is the recourse for residents and business that could be destroyed?
Vibration Dampening:

Question1: For any tunnels under private properties and businesses, does SANDAG anticipate installing state-of-the-art vibration dampening technology, such as the Springed System installed for the tracks that were built under the London opera house on the newly-constructed Elizabethan Line? (SANDAG's report states that somewhere between 2,200 and 2,800 residences will be severely impacted by vibration from a freight train.) If this dampening process has not yet been considered, why not, and when in your planning process will this happen?
Question 2: How will SANDAG respond to any damage from both high-speed passenger and freight trains ground borne vibration, during construction, and after construction spanning years? This involves TBM damage, cracked slabs, fissures, sinkage, water diverted drainage because of the tunnel, and land movement in the porous Torrey sandstone? What assurances from SANDAG will protect the residences through mitigation and/or indemnity? Question 3: How will SANDAG compensate residents who suffer any documented medical illnesses from living with ground borne vibration not only going through the resident’s home but also experienced going through the resident’s body? What will be the process, and how will they be compensated now and into the future?
Background: As per SANDAG website under FAQ’s – “Will the tunnel cause vibrations, noise or damage to residents?” SANDAG states. “During the June 17, 2024 Item 11
environmental phase, we will study the potential impact of construction and train traffic on residents. A team of our experts will evaluate noise and vibration reduction methods that will work best in this specific situation. Our Goal is to deliver a solution that minimizes vibration and noise.” Question 4: Given the tunnel and portals are not built, please confirm how will SANDAG measure impulse/noise, frequency and impact; with a Sound Level Meter (SLM) or (ISLM) or Dosimeter? How will your team of experts evaluate the noise and vibration impacts for a train horn, wheels screeching, locomotive noise, whooshing sound of the train going into the tunnel portal, high speed passenger and freight train noise and vibration?
Question 5: Is SANDAG going to manufacture the noise and vibration for the purpose of testing this? This type of testing is not real and is not representative of long-term noise and vibration impacts to residents, ground/soil/topography, homes, and businesses. Our coalition is requesting an independent noise and vibration expert analysis to address this issue. Please respond.

Noise Impacts:

Question 1: How will SANDAG dampen noise emanating from the trains, portal and tunnel impacting residences and businesses for each alignment option? Question 2:

How extensive will noise disruption be in terms of distance from construction to affected residences and businesses?
Background: SANDAG has documented in your reports that with the Camino Del Mar Alignment, the Moderate Noise Impacts will be 103 houses, and Severe Noise Impacts will be 2,724 households. With the Crest Canyon Alignment Option, the Moderate Noise Impacts will be 112 homes, and Severe Noise Impacts will be 2,280 households.

Question 1: Please provide the Noise Impacts for all Alignment Options, and how you arrived at the results.

Question 3: Please tell us how SANDAG will address these environmental noise impacts for residents and businesses for all three Alignment Options.

Question 4: Please show the analysis of how SANDAG recorded Noise levels (given there is no tunnel or portal built), and how they compare with The City of Del Mar’s, the Del Mar Fairground’s Noise Ordinances. Please supply for all three Alignment Options.

Question 5: Please state the noise level from exhaust fans running 24/7 and how they will impact homes?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 6: Please supply a life size mock-up of each ventilation building, with specifications, at each proposed Portal site for the public.

Question 7: For Alignment A, where the tunnel opening would be in the base of the newly excavated trench to accommodate the double tracking, please confirm how far north this can be located, and based on the 2% grade how deep the tunnel will be underground before it hits Via de la Valle Road?
Background: For Alignment A, the SANDAG NOP document shows a Cut and Cover Tunnel in the north west section of the Fairgrounds. Option A from the “Coalition for Safer Trains” didn’t propose a Cut and Cover Tunnel at this location.

Question 8: Please explain why this was put into the “Coalition for Safter Trains” Option A Alignment? We were proposing a TBM down in the already excavated trench/tunnel, then underground all the way to the I-5 transportation corridor.

Question 9: For Alignment A please explain where the staging area will be? Could it be located in the Solana Beach Train Station parking lot? Engineering:

Question 1: What does SANDAG anticipate with regards to geotechnical impacts such as long-term settling, water drainage, impact of earthquakes, sealevel rise, composition of soils, settlement of the tunnel for each alignment option?
Question 2: What are the long-term impacts of a double bore versus a single bore tunnel system for each alignment?
Question 3: What will the impact be to the San Dieguito river-hydrology, and will it compromise the ability of Del Mar to build a Living Levee System to protect from flooding?
Question 4: What are the incremental costs of double tracking in Solana Beach versus Option A tunnel approach?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 5: What are the incremental costs for construction of Options B and C to build tracks, trestle bridge, portal and tunnel in the floodplain and 100-year-old sea level rise areas?
Question 5: What are the incremental construction costs to the I-5 tunnel alignment?
Portals:

Question 1: Can SANDAG create a life size model of the North Portal Option for Options B and C located at Jimmy Durante/Camino Del Mar location? This could be drones mass, plastic sheet, to scale model, story poles, etc. to show exact dimensions and mass.

Question 2: Please provide exact addresses of residential property and commercial property that is expected to be taken by eminent domain for each portal option north and south.

Question 3: Please provide exact addresses of residential and commercial property that will be within 500 feet (near, or above) of the Portal and Tunnel for all Options.

Question 4: For Options B and C, SANDAG provided Cut and Cover Specifications illustrating that the tunnel will be 25-35 feet below homes located at Luzon Ave, and at Jimmy Durante and Camino Del Mar North portal location.

Please confirm exactly which residences and businesses will be affected with each alignment utilizing this North Portal. (Options B and C).

Background: We understand with Options B and C, that when demolishing the 8-10 acres of land and taking approximately 30 homes by eminent domain to build the Cut and Cover Tunnel, and North Portal at Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante that when SANDAG rebuilds this area, you will build a 70–100- foot berm and raise the roads.

Question 5: Please confirm this information, and the affect it will have to residences on Jimmy Durante/Camino Del Mar that are left after construction? Will these residents be looking at a 70-100-foot berm?
Question 6: Will other homes lose their views? Please address for all alignment options.

Background: Please explain the Portal/Tunnel opening in Option A I-5 Alignment in the Solana Beach Trench, which will be further excavated to accommodate double tracking.

Question 7: Is this construction to lower the train at 2% grade in the trench considered a Portal, Cut and Cover Construction or Tunnel opening? Question 8: For Option A, please explain why SANDAG included a Cut and Cover Tunnel, at the Northern end, as the Coalition for Safer Trains proposed alignment option did not include this method of construction? Why? Question 9: If a Cut and Cover tunnel option was constructed for Option A, how far south would the tunnel be excavated?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 10: What would be the impact to the Fairgrounds for Option A? Questions 11: Where would the staging area be for Option A? Question 12: In Options B and C, it looks like the North Portal has not moved from where originally proposed. Did SANDAG consider moving the North Portal further North (but still south of the river), such as to minimize portal impacts on homes and businesses? If not, why? Why not?
Question 13: Please illustrate with Option A, where the tunnel/portal opening can be located just south of the Solana Beach Train station, and with a 2% grade (to support freight), the tunnel/train can potential be approximately 135 feet underground before it hits Via de La Valle.

Question 14: Please explain with Option A the ventilation options for the tunnel inside the trench. We have read in SANDAG documents, that you can have a large ventilation building housing exhaust fans running 24/7, or you could also have ventilation shafts at intervals along with tunnel path. Please illustrate and explain each ventilation option.

Question 15: What depth does the tunnel need to be for no impact from noise and vibration?
Question 16: Please explain the ventilation plans for Options B and C with a tunnel running under the entire length of Del Mar.

Question 17: Ventilation System – How long will it run per day and what noise decibel will it be?
Question 18: Please provide examples of other Parks (similar to what the “Coalition for Safer Trains” has included in the Alignment A Option), that have been built over covered trenches such as the one built over train/trench/tunnel in Reno Nevada?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 19: The SANDAG engineers are stating that grading the south Solana Beach trench downward is feasible. If any Amtrak platform changes are needed, could this involve simply shifting the loading area northward by about 150 feet? June 17, 2024 Item 11
Eminent Domain:

1. Please provide exact addresses for residences and businesses that will be taken by eminent domain for all 3 Options?

2. Explain the process for Federal versus State Eminent Domain process. Please explain details for residences, businesses and timeline?

3. What is SANDAG, BNSF, NTCD doing about declining property values for residents now and (already documented by Realtor’s, and property owners), during the two-year dark period of EIR study, as they now need to disclose that a tunnel might be going under their homes and Del Mar?

4. What will SANDAG, BNSF, NTCD do regarding residences that are left near a Portal or Tunnel that are unlivable due to vibration, and noise and other settling damage? Please explain in detail for all alignment options.

Environmental/Community Impacts:

Facts:
 Antarctic sea ice coverage hit record low in 2023
 2023 was the planet’s warmest year on record, according to an analysis by scientists from NOAA.
 The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade.  Global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850-1900) average by

2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).

 NOAA states looking ahead, there is a one in three chance that 2024 will be warmer than 2023 and a 99% chance that 2024 will rank among the top five warmest years.
 Global ocean heat content set a new record in 2023.
 Polar sea ice was scant in 2023
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Background: Noise and vibration impact is high for people who live above or within one-third of a mile of the train.

Question 1: How will SANDAG address this for each option? Question 2: If Option A is chosen what happens to the money that has already been funded for the Trestle bridge? Can it be used towards the Option A budget? Question 3: With Options B and C, the tracks, bridge and Portal are located in the 100-year sea level rise, flood plain. Extra construction will be needed for flood walls, flood gates, higher bridge, berms, levees etc. Please document the extra construction costs for this.

Question 4: With the huge price tag of this Project, and the 100 to 150-year life time of this infrastructure, why propose building this Project in a flood plain with the documented sea level rise and erosion? Please respond.

Nantucket Coastline 2003 and now:

June 17, 2024 Item 11
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Malibu Coastline 40 Years Ago
Malibu Coastline 2013
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 3: We ask SANDAG to show the exact residences and businesses that will be impacted by both noise and vibration for each alignment option.

Background: Even non-hazardous freight posed a threat to local air quality.

Diesel engines emit nitrogen, oxides, particulate matter and other pollution know to contribute to; increased Respiratory illnesses, Cardiac Illnesses, Asthma, Sleep Disruption, Anxiety, shortened life span of 15 years (documented in medical literature). Medical literature states living near a portal or tunnel, the Cancer risk is 500-3,000 chance per million.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 4: We ask SANDAG to address how they will handle medical illnesses and medical costs for the residents now and into the future? Question 5: When will SANDAG, Coaster, Amtrak, BNSF, and NCTD migrate to cleaner/green locomotives?
Question 6: Will the construction start from the South heading north to lessen staging required during construction on the north end for Options B and C? Please explain.

Question 7: With the hi-speed passenger trains going from 44 to 90 per day and mandated to do 110MPH, and freight trains going from 6 to 11 per day, how is SANDAG going to handle the noise, vibration, and vastly increased pollution for all three alignments??
Question 8: Who mandated the high-speed passenger trains go 110MPH under a densely populated residential area? “The Coalition for Safer Trains” have documented many areas in the
LOSSAN Corridor that are double tracked, flatten curves, and the passenger trains are going way slower.

Background: According to several research papers, the construction of tunnels using TBM’s may cause significant damage
to surface structures and underground infrastructure which can continue for years.

Question 9: How is SANDAG going to address any cliff failures, fissures, caves, diverted drainage, underground erosion, sink holes, or home destruction/damage during and after construction, while using either the single or twin TBM machines coming from the South Portal to the North Portal under the entire length of Del Mar? Please address this for all alignment options.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 10: How much land is SANDAG going to demolish for the North Portal at Camino Del Mar, and Jimmy Durante to build the Cut and Cover Tunnel and staging area?
Background: SANDAG, has conveyed to us, and provided design drawings showing SANDAG needs 8-10 acres of land.

Question 11: Please provide the exact topographic drawing illustrating this for Options B and C North Portal.

Question 12: Please provide the exact residences and business that would be taken by eminent domain for this 8-10 acres of construction for the North Portal for Option B and C.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 13: Please illustrate for all three options where the tracks/tunnels/portals for all three alignments, are located within the 100-year-old flood plain level and sea level rise areas. Please see a 9-foot sea level, high tide rise below. Please use a 9- foot sea level rise.

With high greenhouse gas emissions and rapid ice sheet collapse, models project that average sea level rise for the contiguous United States could be 7.2 feet by 2100 and 13 feet by 2150.

Question 14: Please explain which alignment options using the trestle bridge and tracks on the ground will be impacted by sea level rise.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question15: Because of documented sea level rise and SANDAG proposing to build infrastructure that will exist for 100 years, in a flood plain, SANDAG reports they will need to build the Cut and Cover Tunnel at the intersection of Jimmy Durante, and Camino Del Mar in a U Structure, and the North Portal will require flood gates. Please explain these construction specifications, and the added cost to build for Options B and C.

Background: Because of documented sea level rise, the new proposed Trestle bridge which is in Options B and C, will be 9 feet higher and double the width with Flood Walls.

Question 16: Please confirm the specifications for this new bridge and Event Platform.

Question 17: Please explain and document the added cost to the Trestle Bridge to be built in a flood plain/100-year-old sea level rise area? Question 18: Please explain in detail the impact of this increased construction across the lagoon/river to the water flow and tides.

Question 19: If Options B or C are chosen and new Trestle Bridge construction happens, please explain how SANDAG plans to control the vastly increased pollution and pollutants coming from the increased number of trains that will float east ward across the fairgrounds?
Question 20: Please explain the environmental impact on the lagoon and river for all Options.

June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 21: Please detail the environmental impact of Options B and C double tracking across the river with a wider higher bridge (more infrastructure underneath it), and double tracking across two lagoons?
Questions 22: What are the environmental benefits of each alignment option? Question 23: How would the tunnel construction propose to expel exhaust collected from an increased number of vehicles? Would SANDAG utilize air scrubbers, from exhaust tower locations at or near the ends of the tunnel (s)? Economic Impact:

Background: If B or C Options were chosen SANDAG has stated the North Portal at Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante, which is the northern access into and out of Del Mar will be greatly impacted or closed for traffic.

Question 1: Please explain your expectations in detail as to what will happen with Jimmy Durante, and Camino Del Mar and provide a timeline of closures and curtailments.

Question 2: Given the North end of Del Mar access will be limited to nonexistent, please explain how business from the Fairgrounds, (Races, Breeders Cup, Fair, Kaboo, etc.) will be able to access Del Mar? Please explain in detail the economic impact for all 3 options.

Question 3: Given the North end of Del Mar access will be limited to nonexistent, for a decade, please explain in detail how the hotels and businesses will survive for a decade with vastly decreased business and people traffic? Please explain impact for each option. Will SANDAG compensate these businesses, and the City of Del Mar for lost revenue and taxes for a decade? Question 4: Given the North end of Del Mar access will be limited to nonexistent, for a decade, please explain what the Emergency route is for all three alignment options; for Fires, Floods, Landslides, Cliff Rescues, Explosions, Earthquakes, Shark Attacks and Tsunami to access Del Mar? And impact of increased time to respond.

Background: The Del Mar Fire Department is located at the southern edge of the Fairgrounds. Minutes count for heart attack and cardiac emergencies and shark attacks.

Question 5: If residents and the public suffer from slower Emergency response times, and incur increased medical issues, or die how will SANDAG compensate the families? Address the impact to the community and how Emergency Response will be handled to protect the public for each alignment? Background: The Fire Department has explained to our “Coalition for Safer Trains”, that they have challenges even now with traffic when there are events at the Fairgrounds accessing Del Mar.

Question 6: What is the planned rerouting for Emergency first responders? What will be the estimated response time during and after construction for all 3 alignments?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 7: Given the North end of Del Mar access will be limited to nonexistent, for a decade, please explain how Del Mar will survive economically if Options B and C are chosen?
Question 8: With vastly decreased and impacted TOT Tax, Sales Tax, Short Term Rentals, Property taxes and perhaps decreased revenues from the Fairgrounds, how will SANDAG compensate the City of Del Mar? This city relies on this income to provide services to the City and Residents. If this income vastly decreases it will ruin Del Mar for decades.

Question 9: What is the Tax base Del Mar contributes to the State and Federal compared to Solana Beach? Then compare the number of residents, for Del Mar it is 4,000 residents and 14,000 for Solana Beach. What is the average paid per resident?
Question 10: The City of Del Mar, Solana Beach, San Diego and the Fairgrounds insists on full transparency on location of routes and identifying exact addresses of residents and businesses that will be impacted, due to property values decreasing. Please supply for all three alignments.

Question 11: For Homes that are left next to Portals, that are unlivable, will SANDAG compensate and pay Full Market value for their homes now and in the future?
Question 12: The City of Del Mar, Solana Beach, San Diego and the Fairgrounds insists on best practices rather than minimum standards during construction, as there are many ways to build a tunnel. Please explain your best practices for tunnel/portal construction?
Question 13: What data supports the field of dreams approach that if we build it, and increase train speed and schedules more people will ride it? Please respond as ridership has not increased since Covid.

Question 14: Share with us the economic analysis model that will be used by SANDAG for all three alignments.

Question 15: What are the evaluation criteria and ranking of the criteria that SANDAG will use in making the final decision?
Question 16: SANDAG continues to use the phrase “enhance safety”. This is a low bar when compared to the current bluff situation. Why not consider “substantially improve” safety? Please comment on this.

Question 17: SANDAG states in their Criteria, that Safety is defined, by removing road grade crossings. Please explain the number of road grade crossings in each Alignment option.

Background: SANDAG says in interviews that you want to minimize community and economic impact, but Community and Economic Impact and Eminent Domain are at the bottom of your list in the weighted Criteria.

Question 18: Please explain how you are doing this with all three alignment options?
Question 19: SANDAG has stated you have new Evaluation Criteria now, please supply that to the public.

Question 20: The Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, states “Railroad speed and profits should never take priority over the safety and impact on the June 17, 2024 Item 11
community.” Please explain with each Rail Alignment Option how SANDAG will put the resident’s safety and community impact first?
Question 21: SANDAG defines Safety in your documentation as the number one Priority; as removing the rail lines off the bluffs and removing road grade crossings? Please show how you will be putting the town, the people, the residences, businesses, and safety
and health of the tax paying citizens first when analyzing and defining each rail alignment option.

Transparency:

In the Sandpiper Newsletter, June 2024, Article Titled “Bluff Erosion Urgency”, the SANDAG Acting Director of Engineering and Construction, Omar Atayee, is quoted as saying, “Therefore SANDAG proposes to move the existing train tracks inland. The LOSSAN Rail Realignment project would permanently solve the environmental threats to the rail line and improve service for passengers who depend on it. Based on research,
we know that a tunnel running beneath the hills of Del Mar and San Diego is the best option for the new route.”
Question 1: This sounds like SANDAG has already made its decision to tunnel under the entire length of Del Mar. Please clarify why he would state this? Question 2: Option A provided by residents, which doesn’t involve tunneling under Del Mar, moves the tracks off the bluffs, out of the flood plain, takes the double tracks out of two lagoons, takes the trestle bridge out of river, does not take any residences or businesses by eminent domain, and has the tunnel/portal entrance in the Solana Beach Trench which is not in the flood plain or 100-yearold sea level rise area. Options B and C are completely in the flood plain and 100-year-old sea level rise area. We ask SANDAG how do Options B and C solve the environmental threats Omar Atayee refers to when the bluffs are receding 6 inches per year, tides are increasing, rainfall and runoff is increasing? Question 3: Based on the interactive Climate.gov illustration provided in this document, both Options B and C, place the new Trestle bridge, tracks and north portal in the flood plain, and 100-year-old sea level rise area. Please explain how this is prudent long-term planning and spending with a price tag of $4B when there is a safer Option/alternative that doesn’t involve portals or tracks in the floodplain?
Question 4: Options B and C alignments involve the new Trestle bridge. Please document the added cost of construction for this bridge given it needs Flood Walls and be 9 feet higher.

Question 5: Based on the economic, financial, eminent domain impacts on Del Mar with Options B and C, how will SANDAG pay for the increased costs involving litigation, law suits, eminent domain law suits, lost TOT tax (Hotels and Short-Term Rentals), sales tax, and property taxes?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
Question 6: With the increased impact to the community for Options B and C, and the increased possibility of law suits and delay of the project for years, what is the anticipated increase of construction costs for the entire project? Question 7: What happens if the San Clemente bluff rail alignment is not solved?
Question 8: Has SANDAG considered moving freight over to the I-15 transportation corridor?
Question 9: Has SANDAG considered working with BNSF Barstow Freight Depot to connect to their rail network to utilize the I-15 transportation corridor to the San Diego Port?
June 17, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 7:25 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council meeting 06.17.2024, Item 11
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
In regards to Item 11, Sandag's NOP for the three tunnel route options A,B, and C, only A is acceptable.

Route B demolishes homes of our fellow neighbors, which is completely unacceptable. No more words needed.

Route C destroys our precious Los Penasquito's lagoon with a forever double track, which is also unacceptable. It is also a very shortsighted solution since the southern portal is very close to the ocean and we will be in the very same situation in 50+ years and the tunnel will once again have to rebuilt/moved.

Route A disturbs no one. It will go under part of the Fairground's parking, under the San Dieguito lagoon, under the freeway until it can meet the already there double tracks at the pump station at Sorrento Valley.

South Solana Beach will be whole and not divided by a double tracked busy trench. This is a win win situation. There is no cons with Route A except the price tag, but considering this is forever, for as long as we can foresee the future, it is worth every penny.

City Council needs to take a stand and publicly state that both eminent domain and destruction of Los Penasquito's lagoon is unacceptable - which only leaves Route A.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
June 17, 20254 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Dixie Welsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 3:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fw: Del Mar Rail Realignment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dixie Welsh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 at 02:54:02 PM PDT
Subject: Del Mar Rail Realignment
Dear SANDAG Members,
The only acceptable alignment is Alternative A under Del Mar Fairgrounds, under San Dieguito Lagoon to I-5.

The Fairgrounds has long wanted their own train station & this plan would allow that.

It would negate the need to rebuild the Trestle Bridge & that money has already been secured & can be used to offset the longer route costs. It will increase train travel times by a miniscule amount.

Tunneling under Camino Del Mar will destroy every business in Del Mar, cause 10 years of traffic misery to every resident, and jeopardize homes along that route. Tunneling under Crest Canyon and ruining many homes is also unacceptable. Increased noise levels & vibrations are deleterious to everyone's health.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Mary D. Welsh
155. 15th St #26
Del Mar, CA 92014
June 17, 2024 Item 11

Del Mar City CouncilJune 17, 2024

Del Mar City Council
June 17, 2024