Del Mar City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
July 16, 2024 City Council Special Open Session Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
From: Ricardo del Río <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 1:31 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>; LOSSANcorridor <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer <terra.lawson[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Red Dot Public Comment SANDAG LOSSAN CEQA
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.
Amended July 11, 2023
SANDAG LOSSAN
California Environmental Quality Act Review Questions
Incorporating Value Analysis
Submitted by: Ricardo del Río Chavira
I. AESTHETICS.
a)What will be the aesthetic impact on homeowners who’s property is located near or within view of a Value Analyzed world-class 21 mile Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside including costal access akin to the New York City High Line that supplants the data verified(1.SANDAG 2023 State of the Commute Rail Ridership) underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside featuring gigantic portals? b) What would be the aesthetic impact of removal of the entire rail berm bisecting Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and restoring the lagoon aesthetically in such a manner recognizable to Del Mar Man-our Indigenous predecessor, then declaring, naming, honoring the 21 mile Value Analyzed segment as Del Mar Man-Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor and replacing it with a proven Value Analyzed (1) more accessible electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring costal access?
c) What would be the aesthetic impact of supplanting the (1) Value Analyzed underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside, honoring Del Mar Man and our Indigenous predecessors , and replacing it with a (1) proven, more accessible Value Analyzed electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring more stops with costal access to a Value Analyzed world-class 21 mile Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor akin to the New York City High Line? July 16, 2024 Item 01
New York City High Line
d) What certified or accredited agency or firm will evaluate the degree of benefits; Value Analyze or adverse effects on the scenic vista created by supplanting the (1) underperforming subsidized diesel-powered rail line and creating a 21 mile Value Analyzed world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line as opposed to the currently proposed gigantic north and south portals on the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and replacing it with a proven (1) more accessible electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring costal access?
e) New York City High Line: In addition to five million people a year who visit the 1.7 mile long High Line, it has attracted another devoted following: a fan base that includes warblers and other migratory birds, 33 native bee species and various butterflies, including painted ladies. Extrapolate the cultural value of a 21 mile Value Analyzed world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor.
III. AIR QUALITY.
July 16, 2024 Item 01
a) What are the current air quality readings near the currently proposed LOSSAN northern and southern portals and to what degree will the future diesel-powered tunnel result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? b) Are there comparable existing diesel-powered portals which serve as models for the public to evaluate/view?
c) What would be the impact on Air Quality by supplanting the (1) underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail line and replacing it with a proven (1) more accessible electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring costal access to a world-class 21 mile Value Analyzed Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
a) How would removal of the rail berm bisecting Los Peñasquitos Lagoon as well as removal of the (1) underperforming Value Analyzed diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside have substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) How would removal of the rail berm bisecting Los Peñasquitos Lagoon as well as removal of the (1) underperforming government-subsidized dieselpowered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) How would removal of the rail berm bisecting Los Peñasquitos Lagoon as well as removal of the (1) underperforming government-subsidized dieselpowered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
July 16, 2024 Item 01
a)What are the current seismic/vibration readings along the proposed dieselpowered tunnel corridor in terms of actual elevation and/or distance and depth in relation to all residential structures?
b) Does the Certifying Agency project potential adverse effects including vibration and/or seismic ground shaking caused by all diesel-powered rail service throughout the currently proposed tunnel corridor? c) Would sedimentary sandstone subjected to large scale boring degrade and become unstable as a result of the diesel-powered project, and potentially result in on- or-off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction? d) What would be the potential impacts on Geology and Soils by replacing the current (1) underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside with a proven Value Analyzed (1) more accessible electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring costal access to a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
a)What are the current diesel-powered greenhouse gas emissions at the proposed northern and southern portal locations?
b) Will the nature of the currently proposed portals concentrate the dieselpowered generated greenhouse gas emissions directly that may create a significant impact on the environment and to living beings? c) What would be the potential impacts on diesel-powered Greenhouse Gas Emissions by replacing the current (1) Value Analyzed underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside with a proven Value Analyzed (1) more accessible electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring costal access to a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
a) What is the emergency response plan and scope of emergency evacuation associated with a low-incidence/high-impact unforeseeable or foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death?
b) Would the public be better served in terms of safety and value from reducing hazards by transitioning from an (1) Value Analyzed underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail to shipping of July 16, 2024 Item 01
military material and hazardous materials from marine terminal to marine terminal in the same manner use to supply Hawaii?
c) To what degree is (2)VOICE OF O.C. Trains vs. Beaches – $ 1 Billion BNSF Baloney BY LAURIE GIRAND Apr 29, 2024 an accurate prorata Value Analysis of the economic impact of diesel-powered freight on the San Diego region? XII. NOISE.
a) What are the current noise/vibration readings near the proposed northern and southern portals as well as along the diesel-powered tunnel corridor? b) To what degree will the future tunnel corridor result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in noise/vibration?
c) What will be the degree of exposure to residences/people along the dieselpowered tunnel corridor from generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
d) What is the projected permanent increase in ambient noise levels throughout the entire project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) What would be the potential impacts on Noise by replacing the current (1) Value Analyzed underperforming government-subsidized diesel-powered rail line with a proven (1) more Value Analyzed accessible electric light rail system along the I-5 corridor featuring costal access to a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line?
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
a) Would the proposed double track rail configuration from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside include commercial and residential rezoning in order to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) in the same manner as NCTD has proposed along the Sprinter Rail Line?
b) How will the effort to address the pressing need for affordable housing in San Diego County including the potential construction of affordable housing units at the Del Mar Fairgrounds by 2030 influence the proposed special events platform, or small station designed to serve the Del Mar Fairgrounds? c) How would a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessor Scenic Corridor stimulate the population featuring a wide variety of accessible world-class cultural and sporting events akin to the New York City High Line?
July 16, 2024 Item 01
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? Police protection? Other public facilities? b) What would be the adverse impact of supplanting the existing (1) Value Analyzed underperforming diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside with a world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessors Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line featuring costal access from a proven (1) electric light rail system along I-5?
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.
a) To what degree does (1) SANDAG State of the Commute Report and (2) VOICE OF O.C. Trains vs. Beaches – $ 1 Billion BNSF Baloney BY LAURIE GIRAND Apr 29, 2024 have in establishing policy measures of Value Analysis and effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Can the marine terminals associated with LOSSAN as identified by the United States Department of Defense Strategic Rail Corridor (Camp Pendleton and the Port of San Diego) be more efficiently; in greater capacity and safety be served through Value Analysis in the same manner as Hawaii is served? c) What would be the adverse impact of supplanting the existing (1) Value Analyzed underperforming diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside with a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessors Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line featuring costal access from a proven (1) electric light rail system along I-5? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly ? b) What would be the adverse impact of supplanting the existing (1) Value Analyzed underperforming diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to July 16, 2024 Item 01
Oceanside with a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessors Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line featuring costal access from a proven (1) electric light rail system along I-5? c) What would be the benefit; the value of supplanting the existing (1) Value Analyzed underperforming diesel-powered rail line from Sorrento Valley to Oceanside with a Value Analyzed 21 mile world-class Del Mar Man Indigenous Predecessors Scenic Corridor akin to New York City’s High Line featuring costal access from a proven (1) electric light rail system along I-5 in terms of cultural and economic stimulation through out the region? (1) 2023 State of the Commute | SANDAG Open Data Portal (2) Girand: Trains vs. Beaches – $ 1 Billion BNSF Baloney Respectfully submitted
RdRC
Sent from my iPad
July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Angelina Neglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 11:43 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Council meeting tuesday July 16th, at 2pm - Regarding Revised Guiding Principles
Attachments: Del Mar Guiding Principals Angie2011-13-23.pdf 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 find my red dot to be read, at the next city council meeting regarding a revised Del Mar Guiding Principles, pertaining to updating info on the LOSSAN Rail Project and protecting Del Mar.
Please see my edits below…so all council members can review, edit, so they can all agree to save del mar based on these revised guiding principles.
Thanks,
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 July 16, 2024 Item 01
CITY OF DEL MAR
GUIDING PRINCIPLES RELATED TO THE LOSSAN RAIL
REALIGNMENT PROJECT
The City Council of the City of Del Mar endorses the following guiding principles regarding the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project.
City Council adoption of these guiding principles establishes the City of Del Mar’s official position regarding this important project. Comments by individual Councilmembers that conflict with these adopted guiding principles are not representative of the City’s position. 9)8)
1) Removing the rail line from the environmentally sensitive and fragile Del Mar Bluffs to an inland location by 2035 is a top priority for the City and the region. This Principles #1 should be modified, or eliminated.
It is NOT a priority of the CIty to remove the rail line from the bluffs if it means a tunnel and eminent domain of homes in Del Mar. Principle #1 should be " We are strongly opposed to any tunnel, and freight trains under Del Mar homes or businesses, and no portals near homes in Del Mar." 2) The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) must thoroughly explore all portal locations that eliminate impacts to, and the need for acquisition of, private property. Instead of this current Principle, can you change it to "We are strongly opposed to eminent domain seizure of any Del Mar homes, property or businesses."
3) It is critically important that SANDAG engage 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. This Principle is not relevant anymore, instead of this current Principle, can you change it to, "A cost-benefit analysis of the rail line from San Diego to Del Mar to San Clemente needs to be initiated and completed as soon as possible." 4) The coming SANDAG studies must include a reasonable range of feasible alternative rail alignments, including the I-5 and proposed Fairgrounds alignments, and must also include a “no project” alternative as required by federal and state environmental laws.
5) An independent, forward-looking cost benefit analysis must be performed comparing the cost and benefits of the proposed final project to the alternatives, and should consider costs due to risks of bluff failure.
6) Del Mar expects to be intimately involved in the SANDAG study process with an opportunity to comment at each stage along the way. This Principle could be eliminated, as it isn't relevant anymore, as you have intimate contact with SANDAG and have the consultant during the study process. 7) Recognizing that elimination of the rail line is not within the power of the City of Del Mar, SANDAG, or the North County Transit District, Del Mar encourages those who want to advocate for closure of the rail line to address their comments to the federal and state governments who hold this authority and their respective representatives. This Principle #7 should be modified or eliminated. it is not appropriate and it is an indirect way of saying that Del Mar supports a train at any cost even if it means a tunnel through the middle of Del Mar.
8) Principles 8 and 9 look fine...
The City Council Council Adopted pledges 11/13/2to 023be open and transparent with the public regarding this important July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Sarah Krietor
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Alternative to train track relocation project Attachments: Replace Southern California trains with VTOLs and small freighters.docx Begin forwarded message:
From: Arthur Pammenter <[email protected]>
Date: July 12, 2024 at 11:46:50 AM PDT
To: Leslie Devaney <[email protected]>
Subject: Alternative to train track relocation project
I am proposing an alternative to the relocation of train tracks through coastal communities that hasn’t been considered yet. I believe the potential for an Advanced Air Mobility System should be studied carefully. These systems are currently being developed by the Department of Transportation, the FAA and NASA all working together. San Diego currently has a Partnership with NASA to develop such a region wide program. I have attached a draft Proposal that lays out the significant advantages such a program could deliver to stakeholders affected by the train track relocation proposals. Please consider this greatly beneficial opportunity. Thank you.
Arthur Pammenter, Ph.D.
858 831-0795
July 16, 2024 Item 01
Replace Southern California trains with eVTOLs
eVTOL – electric Vertical Take Off and Landing vehicle
Rather than sticking to the status quo lets completely rethink how the San Diego to L.A. corridor can be serviced. We should use new emerging technology to replace this hundred years old legacy system. The imperative is to replace the rail line from San Diego to LA due to the erosion of the bluffs along the line in San Diego and San Clemente. Estimates to reconfigure the line are well over $4 billion and probably double that by the time it is completed in 10+ years or so. Until then costly delays and repairs to the current rail line will be constant as the bluffs are eroding steadily and possibly faster each year due to the changing climate.
Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)
As defined in the AAM Coordination and Leadership Act (P.L. 117-203, 136 Stat. 2227), October 17, 2022, “AAM is a transportation system that moves people and property by air between two points in the United States (U.S.) using aircraft with advanced technologies, including electric aircraft, or electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace.”
Proposal
It is proposed that an AAM system replace the current legacy rail line from San Diego to Los Angeles.
This new system will not only have multiple advantages over rail but it will also serve as a nucleus for a more comprehensive regional system that will transform transportation throughout Southern California.
Benefits
• Cost Savings
• Eliminate divisive, costly and destructive construction • Improved service
• Reduced travel time
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Eliminate potential derailments with consequent release of hazardous materials • Implemented more quickly than tunneling to realign rail tracks • Reduced community opposition
• Create new uses for the land currently used by rails
• Seedbed for regional transportation system
Feasibility
Federal Aviation Administration
Transportation is constantly evolving, and each step forward yields new opportunities that fundamentally change how people and goods are being transported. A new era of aviation once only portrayed in movies or science fiction is taking off. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is an emerging aviation ecosystem that leverages new aircraft and an array of innovative technologies to provide the opportunity for more efficient, more sustainable, and more equitable options for transportation.
July 16, 2024 Item 01
October 2023 marks the one-year anniversary of President Biden signing into law the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act which directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish the Advanced Air Mobility Interagency Working Group. The purpose of the AAM IWG is to plan for and coordinate efforts to integrate advanced air mobility aircraft into the national airspace system, particularly passenger carrying aircraft, in order to grow new transportation options, amplify economic activity and jobs, advance environmental sustainability and new technologies, and support emergency preparedness and competitiveness.
The U.S. government has mobilized behind the eVTOL (Electric Vertical Take-Off and Land) industry. The F.A.A. aims to support operations of aircraft that use new means of propulsion at scale (1) in one or more places by 2028. Innovate28 (I28) is an FAA initiative that will culminate in integrated AAM operations with OEMs and/or operators flying between multiple origins and destinations at one or more locations in the U.S. by 2028. I28 will leverage public-private partnerships to identify key locations and use cases of interest to AAM industry stakeholders while promoting an all-hands-on deck approach to ensure the necessary steps are taken to enable these operations.
NASA
The FAA is working closely with NASA which has a program called the Advanced Air Mobility National Campaign to test the concept (2). NASA is delivering data to guide the industry's development of electric air taxis and drones and to assist the Federal Aviation Administration in safely integrating these vehicles into the national airspace. This will set the stage for a flourishing industry by 2030.
Cost Savings
Unlike helicopters, which use expensive fossil fuels to power their engines, eVTOLs are powered by electricity. As a result, eVTOL fleets are significantly more cost effective to operate than their conventional helicopter counterparts. They are also much quieter than helicopters and so are less disruptive to their surrounding environments. Beta Technologies, which is only one of at least eight companies developing next-generation aircraft, expects the vehicles to create new opportunities because they are quieter than helicopters and are expected to be 60 to 70 percent cheaper to operate.
SANDAG’s proposed tunneling construction is projected to cost over $4 billion. Cost overruns are inevitable as are delays due to opposition from affected communities and unforeseen difficulties in the process. People who will lose their houses to eminent domain laws will stand in the way. Those who own homes above the tunnel will oppose the project. Communities that lose significant revenue such as the loss of use of the Del Mar Fairgrounds will mount legal challenges.
An AAM system can utilize existing right of way property such as current train stations and parking lots to create small vertiports to service communities. The eVTOLs are projected to cost a relatively affordable $500,000 each. Since they are powered by electricity their fuel costs will be far less than the diesel fuel currently used. The construction of the required infrastructure will be significantly more economical than the tunneling operation. There will be no cost to purchase homes that will be destroyed by construction. Legal fees will be reduced due to less community opposition.
Regional Service
Replacing train stations with eVTOL stations would provide faster and more convenient service. Because eVtols take off and land vertically their landing pads require relatively little space. This means they can be placed in many locations, similarly to today’s helicopters. eVTOLs are more flexible than trains so July 16, 2024 Item 01
point to point flights could operate like express trains do but there can also be service that stops at each station. The new stations could simply replace the old train stations using the same acreage. Or new stations in more strategically located points could easily be created. For instance, a stop could be created at the Del Mar Fairgrounds allowing easy connections for the Fairgrounds and the Del Mar racetrack.
This new system will initially replace the ten stops the current train services. Once it is in place and running other communities will want to link up with it since the benefits will be so obvious. This will inevitably create a wide transportation system throughout Southern California. This will benefit all inhabitants of Southern California and not just those few that ride the train to and from Los Angeles.
Convenience
The current Pacific Surfliner schedule operates one train every two hours from San Diego to Los Angeles, a trip that takes three hours to complete. An AAM schedule could operate one flight every fifteen to thirty minutes, providing a much more flexible schedule for passengers. Since eVTOLs fly faster than a train travels the complete journey will be accomplished in much less time. Currently the train makes ten stops between these two cities. It will be possible to use custom point-to-point flights based on customer reservations that could be made even more quickly and include more locations.
Climate Impact
Replacing trains for passenger service will reduce carbon emissions and aid in reaching the goal of saving our climate. Climate change increases risk to the safety, effectiveness, equity, and sustainability of our transportation infrastructure and the communities it serves. Rail’s reliance on diesel fuel leaves a large challenge in reducing GHG emissions from the rail industry. Amtrak trains run on diesel, a highly polluting fuel. Trains on rails cause dust, debris, and exhaust particles from the train's engine to become airborne. These particles can include particulate matter, such as soot and smoke, and various gases, such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
Studies conducted by the California Air Resource Board and the University of Southern California have found people living near rail lines and rail yards have lowered life spans, increased asthma, heart and lung disease rates, and a risk of cancer because of the exposure to particulate matter that comes from trains. The maintenance of rail infrastructure and the construction of new train lines can have significant environmental impacts in the long run. In fact, one study found that railway infrastructure contributes an additional 141% of greenhouse gas emissions (4) over emissions from car passenger traffic.
Projected Availability
The eVTOL space is rapidly developing. Joby Aviation announced that it had signed an agreement with Dubai’s Road and Transport Authority (RTA) to launch air taxi services there as early as 2025.
Meanwhile, Wisk Aero, a subsidiary of Boeing, announced an accord it says will let its autonomous Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) service develop routes that connect points across the Greater Houston, Texas, region, such as downtown Houston, the area’s three major commercial airports, and the suburb of Sugar Land located southeast of the city.
The proposed tunneling operation is projected to take at least ten years before it is ready and with the inevitable delays and cost overruns it is likely to take far longer. The AAM system should be operational within those ten years or even sooner. The impediments for this system are far fewer than the hotly opposed train track relocation project.
July 16, 2024 Item 01
NASA’s Involvement and Support
NASA’s Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) research will transform our communities by bringing the movement of people and goods off the ground, on demand, and into the sky. This air transportation system of the future will include low-altitude passenger transport, cargo delivery, and public service capabilities. NASA is working with city and state governments to brainstorm the ways that air taxis and drones, and the infrastructure for this new transportation system, could be integrated into city planning.
NASA is exchanging information with these governments to identify the best practices for how a local government could design this system.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/armstrong/nasa-is-creating-an-advanced-air-mobilityplaybook-2/ NASA coordinating with City and State governments
NASA is exchanging information with governments to identify the best practices for how a local government could design this system. Each city or state government involved will create a joint document with NASA using computer modeling software to describe how this could work in their locality.
San Diego
According to Jamie Turner ([email protected]) at NASA who is the Partner’s liaison for the program, San Diego already has a formal Partnership with NASA to develop the above mentioned joint document to describe how an AAM can work here. The individual in charge of this Partnership appears to be Randy Wilde, ([email protected]) Senior Policy Advisor in charge of transportation, infrastructure, environment and climate. More information about the progress of this program has been requested from him.
NASA is also working with the following to develop joint documents to describe how eVOTOLs can work in their locality:
•North Central Texas Council of Governments
•The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT),
•the City of Orlando Florida,
•Massachusetts Department of Transportation,
•Minnesota Department of Transportation
Replace trains to ship cargo
The amount of cargo carried by train from San Diego to L.A. is minimal, only .04% of California’s rail cargo. This could be reduced even more and whatever is absolutely necessary could be carried by trucks or freighters to L.A. According to NASA, in the future eVTOLs will also be able to carry cargo so this is another possibility. NASA and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) are exchanging information to advance autonomous cargo aircraft operations. NASA and Northrop Grumman are investigating the use of large Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) for cargo transportation between airports and/or other National Airspace System (NAS) access points.
Alternative uses for train line
With the removal of the train tracks there are several potential uses of the space as well as additional benefits.
July 16, 2024 Item 01
• Rails To Trails - Since 1986, Rails to Trails Conservancy supported the creation of tens of thousands of miles of rail-trails and multiuse trails nationwide by building and championing infrastructure, advocating for public funding for trails and active transportation, and inspiring more people to make trails part of their everyday lives. • Reduced Disruption to Communities – The tunneling proposals call for homeowners to lose their precious homes through eminent domain. The Fairgrounds will be torn up and become unusable for years resulting in loss of considerable income.
• Potential for housing – the track line and surrounding space could be sites for housing for low income and homeless individuals and families.
Transportation System of the Future
This new transportation system could be in place much faster and simpler than digging tunnels and creating havoc in the affected communities. It would be cheaper, quicker and more efficient than using the old, antiquated rail system. This line will also become the nucleus of a regional transportation system which will take Southern California through the rest of this century. California is the leader in technological acumen; we should not let Texas beat us to the punch in this new era. Why wait decades? Let’s leap frog past trains into the new generation of transportation! The time is NOW! Proposal
SANDAG partners with NASA to create a joint document to describe how an Advanced Air Mobility System could work in Southern California to replace the need for a rail line from San Diego to Los Angeles.
1. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/AAM-I28-Implementation-Plan.pdf
2. https://www.nasa.gov/mission/aam/
3. 3 Challenges to Solve Before We can Commute By Air Taxi: https://spectrum.ieee.org/evtol2661135407
4. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac1242 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Sarah Krietor
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 1:19 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Special Meeting 07.16.2024, NOP questions 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.
Dear City Council, here are my NOP questions for SANDAG that I hope you will take into consideration when presenting yours.
1. Will all routes be studied with the same thoroughness and with safety as first priority?
2. Will the investigators keep close contact with you and suggest slight changes that may work better but still keep the same main route?
3. Will you extend the investigation of Route A to instead of going under the lagoon and into Solana Beach, stay along I-5 and circumvent Solana Beach altogether and run the railroad along I-5, as suggested by Encinita’s mayor Tony Krants at the SANDAG meeting as of
06.28.2024. This is clearly what is the best fit for the future instead of this patch work of Route A, B, and C.
4. Will the route that was suggested by a Solana Beach citizen at SANDAG’s presentation at Solana Beach City Council meeting I June, 2024, to run the rail road on a bridge over the lagoon over to I-5 be studied?
5. What will happen with the current rail road on the bluff once the tunnel has been built and trains rerouted to the new route? According to the old deed, the area, i.e. what is now your ROW, will go back to its rightful owners once the rail road is no longer used, which at this point I suppose is The City of Del Mar. Is this included in your realignment plans?
6. Yet another freight train carrying hazardous material derailed on Friday, July 5, in North Dakota.
The rails had water on each side which complicated the clean-up. In case of a derailment in the tunnel, what are your clean-up and rescue plans when toxic material spills in a tunnel where the toxic fumes will be more concentrated, and, I assume, therefor more flammable and explosive?
7. You provided noise impacts for Route B and C, but none for A. What is the noise impact for homes for Route A?
8. Can the construction vehicles and machinery for Route A in Solana Beach mainly be coming in via Coast Blvd in Del Mar to decrease as much disturbance as possible for Solana Beach? July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 9. Since impact on Solana Beach is included for Route A, will the impact on Solana Beach for the planned double tracking along South Cedros, that will happen regardless, be included for Route B and C?
10. Since the realignment is planned to last for 100 years, have Sea Level Rise been taken into consideration for the South Portal of Route C and the cross-lagoon tracks over Los Penasquito’s lagoon?
11. As above, have Sea Level Rise been taken into consideration for the North Portal for Route B and C that are being bult on flood plain?
12. For the Cut-and-Cover in Solana Beach for Route A (the trench along South Cedros), does the trench have to widened? Does the trench have to widened for the double tracking, that will happen regardless, for Route B and C? SANDAG conveyed to the Coalition for Safer Trains in numerous meetings to excavate the trench to double track you need to straighten the sides of the trench. Please confirm.
13. During the Sandag presentation with Solana Beach City Council, Sandag said that they would need the complete ROW along South Cedros during construction to create Route A. That cannot possibly be true? Please explain why. Why not use the west side only where there is plenty of room?
14. How much of your ROW do you need along South Cedros for construction of the double tracking, which will happen regardless, for Route B and C?
15. Can the cut-and-cover for Route A in Solana Beach be made stable enough to hold a park above? If not, what is the weight limit per square foot that the cover can withstand and what would that correspond to in layman talk? Can you please include this potential park in your plans? Please confirm.
16. Are the costs for the planned trestle over the San Dieguito River mouth, flood walls and flood protection and the double tracking included in Route B and C since none of it will be needed for Route A?
17. Why are you not putting the construction of the trestle on hold until we know what route will be chosen for the tunnel? The trestle will not be needed if any I-5 alignment is chosen and hundreds of millions of dollars will be wasted. Does it not make more sense to put that construction on hold?
18. Will the Fair have to close down during construction, and if so, for how many years for each route? Please define in detail because Option A has the portal in the Solana Beach Trench, and also SANDAG located a Portal at the North west section of the fairgrounds.
19. Will the Races have to be stopped during construction, and if so, for how many years for each route?
20. During Sandag's meeting with Solana Beach City Council, Sandag said that the tunnel will have to be 100 feet below the lagoon for Route A. To the Del Mar people, you have said the distance between a home and the tunnel only needs to equal one tunnel width for Route B. Which one is it? 100 feet or 30 feet (one tunnel width)? If the tunnel opening is in the Solana Beach Trench in Option A, then the train would be approximately 140 feet underground before it hits via de la Valle. If the July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 Portal SANDAG proposes in Option A is located at the northwest section of the fairgrounds, how deep would the train be under the river?
21. Will homes in Solana Beach be taken by eminent domain with Route A?
22. How many homes will be taken by eminent domain, and where, for Route A, B, and C, respectively.
23. Do your estimated costs include the cost for eminent domain, litigation and cost increases for project due to delays?
24. When looking closer at the NOP map for Route A's northern portal position, it seems to be at a different location than the one that was suggested by Angelina Neglia's group. This new position seems to be much more disturbing for The Fairground businesses. Why did you move it? Could you please put back and include Angie's suggested portal location, as it is not located in the floodplain and utlizes the already existing SB trench, which is not in a floodplain. Please confirm you will also study the tunnel opening in the trench as proposed by the Coalition for Safer Trains.
25. How will a tunnel under Camino del Mar (Route C) affect groundwater levels and flow for the bluff and all homes west of Camino del Mar? Will the changed water flow (water now being forced above or under the tunnel in more concentrated masses) destabilize the nearby bluff even more?
26. Does Route C even have a chance to get through Coastal Commission with your complete destruction of Los Penasquito's lagoon? Have you taken into consideration the environmental, ecology and avian organizations protests?
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: mark rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 8:53 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Fwd SDLLR Project NOP Comments/Questions to SANDAG- regarding Lossan Realignment Project- red dot comment
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.
Red dot comment regarding NOP
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: mark rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Date: July 10, 2024 at 12:26:28 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mark Rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd SDLLR Project NOP Comments/Questions to SANDAG- regarding Lossan Realignment Project SANDAG
401 B St
Suite 800
San Diego CA 92101
Attn: Tim Pesce
Dear SANDAG Lossan Project Team,
I am writing to provide comments/questions regarding the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report dated June 4, 2024 ( NOP) for the Lossan Rail Realignment, as follows:
1. My understanding from Management presentations is that each alignment in the NOP will be compared against Project Objectives as developed by the Project Management Team, and that no particular weighting will be given to the objectives.
The Objectives, as currently proposed, are listed in the attached SANDAG slide.
SANDAG has noted it will primarily be relying on yet secured federal funding. Our federal policy as outlined by US Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg is “Profit and expediency must never outweigh the safety of the American people. We at US DOT are doing everything in our power to improve rail safety, and we insist the rail industry do the same……”
(a)Please explain why safety is so narrowly defined in the objectives. The definition of safety be broad based including both during construction and train operation, and should not be limited as currently narrowly defined.
July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 b) Please explain why safety, as more broadly defined, is not given the highest ranking in the objectives.
2.Any realignment has the potential to have significant adverse risks and consequences to affected communities; some more so than others. At SANDAG’s Board meeting of June 28, 2024 several Board members expressed concerns on all 3 proposed routes and noted that all 3 proposed routes all unacceptable to either Solana Beach or Del Mar for exactly the same reasons . Please explain why effects on communities both during and after construction (including potential health risks), along with safety, are not of the highest priority particularly given the potential catastrophic risks and since all proposed routes are double tracked and faster than the current route.
Please explain how effects on communities will be measured and evaluated.
Safety and effects on communities should be given the highest priority and weighting. 3) The Realignment is meant to have a 100 year life. Please explain why a project objective does not include the building of a durable alignment that will withstand the projected effects of climate change,. Please explain how alternatives B & C, which involve building on a flood plain will meet this objective. Please explain if you anticipate higher operating costs for operating in floodplain in alternatives B & C, and how such costs are taken into account in the cost/benefit analysis. 3) Project objective #5 is very broadly defined, not measurable and gives SANDAG tremendous leeway and justification for conclusions reached. This objective as drafted should be eliminated. Any new objective should be more narrowly restated and measurable. 4) Will Alternative A-EL which was presented by Dave Clemons at the Solana Beach SANDAG city council meeting of June 26,2024 be explored for feasibility?
5) Will an alignment along Interstate 5, by -passing or relocating the existing Solana Beach train station, such as proposed by Mayor Danny Kranz, be explored for feasibility. 6) Please explain how the Value Analysis proposed at the June 28, 2024 SANDAG board meeting will be performed, the stakeholders involved, SANDAG’s role in the Analysis and how conclusions reached from this Analysis may effect the evaluation of currently proposed or new potential routes. 7) Please explain what additional public outreach will take place during the NOP and Environmental Impact Report ( EIP) time periods.
8) Please explain if SANDAG will seek to confirm or correct statements from citizens and public officials, rather than making no comment or stating “it cannot be determined at this time”. Even if the answers are qualified (e.g. “based on current assumptions”), the public and SANDAG’s Board are better served by answering the question. Examples of public statements that need clarification and correction and for which I seek clarification via this comment include: potential road closures and for how long , potential shut down of the fairgrounds ( what portions and for what length of time) , potential loss of homes/businesses via eminent domain to complete construction under each alternative, how many homes/businesses will a tunnel go under and how deep under a home will a tunnel be under each alternative.
Respectfully,
Mark Rittenbaum
Del Mar resident
July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dwight Worden-Private; Dan Quirk; David Druker; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot for July 16th Special City Council Meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Del Mar City Council,
Thank you for your time and effort in preparing the City’s response to the LOSSAN SDLRR Project and including the input of many residents. Thank you to all the residents who gave input and continue to contribute and advocate for our City. Thank you to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation for separately advocating for the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and playing a critical role in making the “Knoll near I-5” the clear front runner for a south portal location.
The CITY OF DEL MAR GUIDING PRINCIPLES RELATED TO THE LOSSAN RAIL REALIGNMENT PROJECT, while not part of the City’s response to the NOP, are a statement of some basic principles intended to help guide the City and its Council in its ongoing efforts to advocate for the best interests of the City. As more ideas and information have been flushed out since they were first adopted, I think some changes and edits are now warranted. Below are current versions of some of the Principles in black text and suggested edits in red text. Also included is a proposed new Guiding Principle. I believe these edits refocus some points to better reflect the interests of the City and its residents, the region, the regional natural environment, and even the long-term interests of the railway.
Current:
1) Removing the rail line from the environmentally sensitive and fragile Del Mar Bluffs to an inland location by 2035 is a top priority for the City and the region.
Proposed Edit:
1) Removing the current railway alignment and its associated infrastructure from coastal bluffs, coastal lagoons and coastal floodplains to inland locations away from the coastline and outside of coastal floodplains and areas of anticipated sea level rise influence should be a top priority for the region. Doing so reflects responsible use of public money in the face of anticipated climate change and sea level rise and will contribute to the long-term resilience of the transportation infrastructure of the region. ___
Current:
2) The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) must thoroughly explore all portal locations that eliminate impacts to, and the need for acquisition of, private property.
Proposed Edit:
2) The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) must give highest preference to railway alignments and portal locations that minimize impacts to privately owned property and place the new alignment in and under existing publicly owned property to the greatest extent possible. ___
July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 Current:
5) An independent, forward-looking cost benefit analysis must be performed comparing the cost and benefits of the proposed final project to the alternatives, and should consider costs due to risks of bluff failure.
Proposed Edit:
5) An independent, forward-looking cost benefit analysis must be performed comparing the cost and benefits of the proposed final project to the alternatives. Among many other factors, this should consider long-term costs due to risks of flooding of railway infrastructure located in the floodplain and areas of anticipated sea level rise influence, the possible need to re-relocate such infrastructure in the future due to sea level rise, the cost of any needed ongoing coastal bluff armoring, and the cost of armoring or realignment of other sections of the LOSSAN Corridor that are necessary to meet the objectives for the entire LOSSAN Corridor from San Clemente to San Diego.
___
Current:
10) With regard to study of a potential Fairgrounds rail alignment, SANDAG must respect and protect the operational, economic, environmental and planning needs of the 22nd DAA and of the proposed Del Mar housing program on the Fairgrounds, and as a key stakeholder, the 22nd DAA must be proactively engaged by SANDAG throughout the process.
Proposed Edit:
10) The City of Del Mar and its elected representatives have a duty to advocate for the best interests of the City. It appreciates and understands that the 22nd District Agricultural Association has a duty to advocate for the best interests of the Fairgrounds. When these interests are in conflict, the City will advocate for the best interests of the City.
___
Proposed New Guiding Principle:
11). The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) must give highest preference to railway alignments and portal locations that restore and preserve natural resources of the region that have been degraded by the current railway alignment, including especially its coastal lagoons and bluffs.
Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: m <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 9:43 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fw: Sandag rail transit proposal
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: m <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 at 09:33:06 AM PDT
Subject: Sandag rail transit proposal
To whom it may concern,
Use the existing rout.
Protect the bluffs with a retaining wall, stanchions as needed.
Reinforce the rail tracks.
Build beach access ways beneath the tracks. where necessary We were able to build the Coronado Bay bridge more than 60 years ago, so I know that we have the engineering capabilities to do what I suggest for a lot less money, time and inconvenience. Use a bus service as necessary, while this process is iis in the works Sincerely, Henry Beauloye
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Angelina Neglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 10:08 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Ashley Jones; Terry Gaasterland; David Druker Subject: document to submit to read at Council meeting tomorrow at 2pm Attachments: Coalition Guiding Principles.pdf
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.
Hello to you all,
Please find my comment red dot letter to read tomorrow at the council meeting for the Lossan meeting on the CC agenda. This is being submitted to SANDAG as well.
Please can you submit to all council members.
Thanks
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 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 www.safertrain.org
July 15, 2024
Dear SANDAG LOSSAN Project Development Team,
SUPPORT FOR THE I-5 OPTION A ROUTE, BUT NOT THE FAIRGROUNDS PORTAL The Coalition for Safer Trains thanks your team working on this LOSSAN Rail Project. As Del Mar residents, we oppose any relocation route that tunnels under homes and businesses and therefore strongly support Route A in the Notice of Preparation (NOP). We do not, however, support the North Portal which you designed and associated with Option A in your NOP. The portal that is associated with Option A in the NOP proposes a Cut and Cover Tunnel, Portal, Event Platform, and Staging Area at the northwest section of the Fairgrounds. The NOP states the tunnel will go under the Fairgrounds. The Fairgrounds has been very active in opposing this construction on their property. As a result, we are concerned that the Project Development Team’s design and association of this north portal with the only Option that avoids tunnelling under homes and businesses, will doom Option A. Clearly the Project Development Team must adopt an alternative north portal while retaining or adding I-5 routes that circumvent the City of Del Mar, rather than tunneling under homes and businesses.
In interviews by SANDAG given to the Del Mar Times and Union Tribune, the Project Development Team on behalf of SANDAG has implied that residents have suggested the Fairgrounds’ portal as part of Option A. The Coalition for Safer Trains never proposed this in our Option A to SANDAG. Rather, putting this massive amount of infrastructure at the mouth of a river, next to the beach/ocean, in a floodplain is not a viable option for the long term given the climate change crisis. The placement of the tunnel opening in the Coalition’s proposed Option A in the Solana Beach Trench is not in a floodplain, so it would not be affected by flooding, sea level rise, or increased run off from the river out to the sea.
Our proposed Option A portal would also remove the trestle bridge, tracks and berm from the floodplain and out of the river/lagoon. Our Option A will open up the water way, instead of damming it. Our Option A takes all of this infrastructure out of the seawater, and puts it underground.
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 FEMA has taken new steps to ensure that new structures and infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, police and fire stations, sewage treatment plans, rail lines and bridges are protected from flooding. FEMA states any new construction must be built in a way so as to prevent flood damage, whether by elevating new construction above the expected height of a flood or, if that’s not feasible, by building in a safer location. FEMA’s new rule also makes it clear that building and infrastructure decisions must reflect risks now and also in the future, as climate change makes flooding more frequent and severe. This new rule will enhance resilience in flood-prone or low-lying floodplain areas, communities next to the ocean or rivers, by taking future flood risk into consideration when planning any new building or infrastructure. FEMA states “flood damage is likely to reach $40 Billion in average annual losses this decade, according to Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers.”
NOP ROUTES B AND C SHOULD BE REJECTED
Routes B and C would maximize the negative impact to the surrounding community (principally Del Mar, but also the Fairgrounds and Solana Beach). The proposed north Portal location associated with Routes B and C at the intersection of Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante would put the infrastructure, along with the Cut and Cover Tunnel in the floodplain. The building of this infrastructure is projected by SANDAG to involve demolishing 7-10 acres of land, and condemning and seizing 35-50 homes and businesses at this location. SANDAG has conveyed to the public that this area will be demolished hence cutting off or greatly impeding access in and out of the north portion of Del Mar for a decade during construction. In addition, these roads cannot handle the traffic from the Fairgrounds already. This construction will also prevent Fairgrounds attendees, (Kaboo, Races, Fair etc.), and tourists from coming to Del Mar to eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, and shop. How is SANDAG going to compensate the businesses, restaurants and hotel owners for lost business for a decade? How is SANDAG going to compensate Del Mar City for lost sales tax, TOT tax, and lost (permanent) property taxes from homes that will be seized by eminent domain? When the Coalition for Safer Trains met with the Del Mar Fire Department and First Responders regarding this construction, they expressed extreme concern about how they would be able to access Del Mar in an emergency. They are proud of their fast response, and do not see how they will access Del Mar when every second counts. Please explain how First Responders will be able to access Del Mar from the North during the decade of construction? With only limited ways to enter and leave Del Mar, how does SANDAG propose residents evacuate from the North end of Town in case of an emergency (earthquake, fire, Tsunami)? Highway 101 is not be a feasible way north. Please respond.
It should be noted, in the Los Angeles Times, July 2, there was an agreement between Disney Hall’s landlord, the Music Center, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which commits the Metro to procedures to ensure that trains running through a tunnel 135 feet underground, perhaps the most sensitive stretch of it 1.9 mil, 1$Billion downtown Regional Connector Project won’t add audible vibrations. The agreement sets out a 3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 process for what will happen if those preventative measures fail – with a Music Center lawsuit to collect damages for the worst-case scenario. As SANDAG has shown us in their tunnel and portal design and topographic drawings there will be homes 25 to 60 feet above or next to the tunnel in Options B and C. How will these homes not feel ground borne vibration, and not suffer severe noise impacts from the trains? Please respond.
The Coalition for Safer Trains has met with the military specifically Stracnet, and discussed their use of the LOSSAN Rail line. They mentioned during cliff failures in both Del Mar, and San Clemente, the military was not heavily impacted that much as they have other options for moving military cargo. They did state they like the Port of San Diego as they have a good relationship with the Port, and the Port infrastructure is better set up to handle roll on and roll off cargo. But they stated they have the use of both ports in Los Angeles, Port of Tacoma, Port of Everett, and Ports of Oakland and Concorde. We did discuss the concern of the weight of their freight trains carrying M1 Abram Tanks, and the M88 Recovery Vehicle which is a 70-ton vehicle! This is the largest armored recovery vehicle (ARV) used in the United States Armed Forces. They stated they do 5 to 7 train loads per year. Due to the topography and constitution of the porous Torrey Sandstone Stracnet did wonder if the hill could handle the weight of a freight train carrying 500 DOD car loads, per year, which they stated was over 32,000 tons.
Stracnet and the Coalition for Safer Trains, asks how SANDAG will test the soil composition for the entire hill of Del Mar from North to South? Just taking boring samples at portal locations, and the close surrounding area is not sufficient. Also, it should be noted, up on Crest Road, there is a sign stating no trucks over 7 tons. So, there is a clear concern about how the Del Mar hill will handle this immense weight underground with options B and C? Please respond.
It should also be noted,
The Coalition for Safer Trains read the LOSSAN, Los Angeles to San Diego Proposed Rail Corridor Improvements Studies, dated April 2003. On page 35 it talks about an I-5 Alternative, “which would further reduce the lagoon being impacted by creating an alignment that avoids much of the Penasquitos Lagoon.” The report also states “it would also have the least noise and vibration impacts.” The report also states “this alignment would further reduce potential impacts to San Dieguito Lagoon.” As this was discussed as an alternative in 2017 as well, it warrants the EIR study, but the Coalition for Safer Trains requests SANDAG look at all possible I-5 alternatives, combinations and modifications including the Option A the Coalition for Safer Trains proposed with the tunnel opening in the Solana Beach trench, which will be further excavated to accommodate the double tracking. Please respond.
It should be noted while SANDAG enters the EIR study stage for this project, the Coalition for Safer Trains is meeting with Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside and other cities in between to discuss possible alignment options utilizing the I-5 transportation corridor.
Please see below, the Coalition for Safer Trains, Guiding Principles we have adopted. We ask SANDAG to respond to the comments we have included in this document. 4 July 16, 2024 Item 01
4 Kind Regards,
Angelina Neglia, on behalf of:
Coalition for Safer Trains
COALITION FOR SAFER TRAINS
GUIDING PRINCIPLES RELATED TO THE LOSSAN RAIL
REALIGNMENT PROJECT
The Coalition for Safer Trains endorses the following guiding principles regarding the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project. The Coalition for Safer Trains' adoption of these guiding principles establishes the Coalition for Safer Trains official position regarding this important project.
1) We support removing the rail line from the environmentally sensitive lagoons and fragile Bluffs from Del Mar to San Clemente, to an inland location by 2035 as a top priority for the region.
2) We are strongly opposed to any tunnel or freight train under homes or businesses. 3) The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) must thoroughly explore all alignment alternatives and portal locations that eliminate impacts to the communities from Del Mar to San Clemente.
4) We are strongly opposed to eminent domain, the government seizure and acquisition of private property and businesses.
5) The San Diego region already suffers from the impacts of the climate crisis in the form of drought, air pollution, extreme heat, species stress, increased storms, negative health impacts, wildfires, coastal erosion, landslides and sea level rise. Continued infrastructure construction in the flood zone will exacerbate coastal flooding of low-lying areas and beaches, already sand starved due to river damming with bridges, rail berm infrastructure, and cliff “stabilization.” These impacts will become more severe as global GHG emissions continue. In 2018, the United States' Fourth National Climate Assessment made it clear that climate change will wreak havoc across the United States of America, and that the current pace and scale of climate action is not sufficient to avoid more substantial damage to the economy, the natural environment, communities, and to human health over the coming decades. We strongly oppose any infrastructure built in a floodplain when there are safer, feasible, less impactful, and more environmentally friendly alternatives.
5 July 16, 2024 Item 01
5 6) It is critically important that SANDAG engage 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 any decisions being made. Cities and citizen groups should be permitted to make presentations to the SANDAG Board, which appears from its meetings to be ignorant of the consequences of this project. Limitations of one minute to public comment at SANDAG Board or committee meetings renders public outreach a sham. 7) It is critically important that a thorough cost-benefit analysis of this project as well as the relocation of the rail line from Del Mar to Oceanside be conducted as soon as possible. Neither the passenger carriage nor the relatively small amount of freight carried on the rail line justifies the massive disproportionate destruction of Del Mar and other communities and financial outlay called for by the track relocation. Alternative means of transport must be explored.
8) An independent, forward-looking cost benefit analysis must compare the cost and benefits of the proposed final project as compared with other alternatives, and should include Costs of Relocation due to ROW Acquisitions, Eminent Domain Costs, and Costs due to delay of project, Litigation and compensation to hotels, business owners, and City of Del Mar for the loss of business and property/tot/sales taxes for the decade during construction.
9) The coming SANDAG studies must include a reasonable range of feasible alternative rail alignments, including the I-5 and proposed Solana Beach/Fairgrounds alignments, and must also include a “no project” alternative as required by federal and state environmental laws.
10) The Coalition for Safer Trains expects SANDAG to be open and transparent with the public as the studies are being pursued.
Angelina Neglia, on behalf of:
Coalition for Safer Trains
Adopted July 1st, 2024
6 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
4 July 16, 2024 Item 01
5 July 16, 2024 Item 01
6 July 16, 2024 Item 01
7 July 16, 2024 Item 01
8 July 16, 2024 Item 01
9 July 16, 2024 Item 01
10 July 16, 2024 Item 01
11 July 16, 2024 Item 01
12 July 16, 2024 Item 01
13 July 16, 2024 Item 01
14 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 10:50 AM
To: LOSSANcorridor
Cc: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: NOP Del Mar tunnel, Del Mar CIty Council meeting 07.16.2024 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 Del Mar City Council and Lossan group,
With the NOP presented and discussed, it is clear that there are more problems than can be solved with each and every one of the routes suggested. You need to take a step back and take a look at the big picture. Tony Krants, mayor of Encinitas, suggested at the last SANDAG meeting on June 28, 2024, to relocate the whole line to run along I-5, instead of this patchwork in and out of the coast.
To run the train along/under/between I-5 is the only thing that makes sense and where the train belongs. The Fairground would still get their event platform but on their eastern end instead of their western end.
We all need to push for this. Along I-5 is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Tony Krantz is a long time train fantast and he would not have suggested this if he had not thought it through properly. All towns will be happy not having a train cutting the town in two, and those towns interested can run shuttles from the I-5 train stations into the center of their towns. There would be no tunnel under homes or eminent domain and the train would be where it's supposed to be. This would also free up all towns along the way for a better public transportation that can handle more than a 2% steep grade (freight train limit).
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
Del Mar
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 1:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot #2 for July 16th Special City Council Meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Del Mar City Council,
In its 2017 report, SANDAG estimated "7.4 acres of full take of residential parcels" for the North Portal Under JDB (=CCHS). In its 2023 report, SANDAG stated optimization of the track profile (height of the track bed) and tunnel configuration (tunnel diameter, twin-bore tunnel spacing) “could result in an approximately 77% reduction in potential impacts to private properties.” However, it is important to note the optimizations that could result in reduced impacts to private properties depend on design refinements that are uncertain and it is not clear when this uncertainty will be resolved. If these uncertainties are not resolved before the preferred route is chosen or the draft EIR is released, the impact of the project on private properties will not be knowable then.
First, BNSF must agree to amend its Shared Use Agreement (SUA) with NCTD to allow for smaller tunnel diameters than are currently allowed in the SUA. While the 2023 report states “BNSF indicated that the BNSF clearance envelope (which is smaller than the SUA criteria) should be used as a minimum requirement,” BNSF is under no obligation to amend the SUA to allow for this. (In addition, it is important to know whether a smaller tunnel diameter will increase the risk of accidents in the tunnel due to reduced clearance).
Second, the design refinements are dependent on the level of protection from flooding required for the track bed and portal. This will likely influence the ability to obtain funding for the project. The North Portal Under JDB involves locating the track bed and portal in the 100-year FEMA floodplain of the San Dieguito River. This floodplain is also susceptible to sea level rise. The 2023 SANDAG report relied on the 2018 California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance to determine the amount of sea level rise to factor in. Despite projecting the project will be complete in 2035, it used the medium-high risk aversion sea level rise prediction for 2100 for the La Jolla gauge (7.1 feet), which would only be 65 years from completion of the project, not 100 years that is typical for infrastructure projects. It then states that “[d]uring preliminary engineering, these assumptions should be re-evaluated taking into consideration any new state sea level rise guidance adopted since the time of this report."
The Draft State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2024 Science and Policy Update was subsequently released for public review. For critical infrastructure projects, it recommends extreme risk aversion to sea level rise and that “[e]xtreme risk aversion projects should be resilient to high end sea level scenarios, when feasible.” For the La Jolla gauge, the high end sea level rise projection for 2040 (approximately 100 years after projected project completion in 2035) is 10.9 feet. This is 3.8 feet higher than the 7.1 feet used in the SANDAG 2023 report. If this level of protection against combined sea level rise and flooding is required for regulatory compliance, the SDR bridge (and floodwalls) would have to be higher and this would likely result in more private property impacts than suggested in the 2023 report. 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 In addition, the effects on river hydrology caused by the replacement of both the CDM Bridge and SDR bridge has not been studied, and this might impact the required height of the SDR Bridge, floodwalls, and portal.
Third, it is not clear what depth of cover would be required at the portals. Per the 2023 report, “At the current conceptual level of design development and with minimal geotechnical information available, a depth of cover equal to one tunnel diameter was used to determine the depth of the tunnel at portal locations.” This cuts both ways. If less depth of cover is required, houses just above the portals that are not required to be taken will be more severely impacted by the tunnel just underground. If more depth of cover is required, more properties will likely be taken.
As currently proposed, the track bed gently (<2%) descends after the replacement SDR Bridge and would be protected from flooding to the elevation of the 100-year floodplain plus 7.1 feet to account for possible sea level rise (14.7+7.1 feet at SDRB, 17+7.1 feet where track exits floodplain to the south). The portal would be below the floodplain and must be protected from flooding by floodgates. Given the maximum 2% grade and the constraint to tie into the replacement SDR Bridge, if the required level of flood protection is higher than assumed in the 2023 report, the portal must be raised as well, impacting more properties.
The concern is that if the exact height of the SDR Bridge, track bed, portal and required cover is not known when the draft EIR is issued (if Alt B or C is chosen as the preferred alignment), it will not be possible to determine the magnitude of the impact of the project on private property. SANDAG can subsequently make design changes to accommodate any required modifications and make a finding that this will not result in significant effects on the environment in a “subsequent review” analysis. It would only be required to support this finding with the very low burden of substantial evidence (which is basically any evidence a single reasonable person in the world would agree with). Since taking private properties is not considered an effect on the environment under CEQA, it would be difficult to rebut this finding, more property takes would happen than indicated in the draft EIR, and a new EIR would not be required. 2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 Per the 2023 report, “At this early stage of the project, a number of factors need to be finalized before the final configuration can be determined; these include construction contracting methodology, final alignment route, potential impacts to private properties, and geotechnical conditions. Even when these factors are known, it may be beneficial to allow the design and contracting community to determine the final tunnel configuration, as long it fulfills all environmental, funding, and technical requirements and demonstrates that potential impacts to the Del Mar communities are minimized to the extent possible.” This is not reassuring.
The City should consider raising these concerns with its expert CEQA consultants to help determine if they have merit and, if so, how best to address them.
This does not even consider the general lack of wisdom of choosing to place any of the railway infrastructure in a floodplain susceptible to sea level rise or whether a 100-year anticipated lifetime for the engineering design of a project involving a train tunnel under residential properties with a portal in the floodplain is sufficient. To do so is to repeat the mistakes that led to the problem in the first place, and to do so when there is now knowledge regarding the threat of climate change and sea level rise to coastal infrastructure.
In addition, it is worth pointing out that essentially the entire Fairgrounds is in a FEMA floodplain that is also susceptible to sea level rise. Despite this, the inclusion of a seasonal events platform for the Fairgrounds is an objective of the project. Investing in the long-term existence of a fairground and horse racing track in a coastal lagoon and floodplain susceptible to sea level rise is not a good objective for this project and should not drive selection of the route.
Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 2:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Public Meeting for July 16th, 2024 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
I am grateful for your thoughtful consideration of inviting each member of our community to give our thoughts on this huge Del Mar undertaking.
As I'm sure you are aware, that putting a tunnel under a built-out potentially fragile coastal hillside while at the same time hearing warnings from local climate scientists, along with local, regional, and statewide authorities that we need to be prepared for volatile unpredictable coastal storms... is a huge, complicated, and possibly high-risk task.
I have seen no mention of possible volatile unpredictable coastal storms for our area mentioned in the Environmental Section of the NOP.
I believe the Environmental Section of this NOP is sorely lacking vital information.
I believe that as we begin to work together for a more intensive study of the Del Mar tunnel project proposed by SANDAG, we need to include a focus on the area of safety and wellness not just for our residents directly affected, but the entire hillside, our community, and the passengers and cargo on the trains.
I think there is AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM! That is…multiple risks of possible PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTERS for our hillside and community.
I understand that when the idea of the tunnel project was first brought forward around 10 years ago, the proximity of the effects of Global Warming were not as apparent. In Del Mar, we felt the bluff was secure for a while. Sure, we knew the train would need to be moved off the bluff in the future…but never imagined it would happen in our lifetimes. No one envisioned that Global Warming would come so fast and have such possible debilitating effects on our town, our region, our state, and the entire globe so quickly.
Several years ago, as a Del Mar Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteer, which I was the lead volunteer of approximately 30 trained resident CERTs, we focused on preparing ourselves and neighbors should an event such as earthquakes, floods, or wildfires occur. Little did we know or expect that these issues would become so very relevant today as important elements in our coastal weather patterns begin to change.
Our hillside of over 2700 households (that’s within the City of DM and our friends in Del Mar Heights) is now under intense scrutiny as a double tracked railroad tunnel (or two single tracks) is/are considered to be placed under this hillside. While we know from local well-known geologists (such as Dr Pat Abbott), the composition of our bluff and our hillside are similar…we question now how well our hillside can hold a huge double tracked 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 railroad with the weight of freight trains. I wonder about that question when I sadly observe how our bluffs have eroded from runoff and undercutting from the stormy coastal storms and are needing to be fortified to support the trains. We are also beginning to see some of these storm erosion and runoff problems in our neighborhood canyons, alleys, and gardens. We need more sandbags now, there is more flooding in our gardens! We hope and wish that the many sink holes though out our town and the larger bluff failures in our town like Anderson Canyon, the hillside above Camino Del Mar were caused by just runoff from storms, but now, as the power of the storms is starting to increase, many of us feel that the writing is on the wall.
We thankfully have not yet experienced major storms, however in recent Climate Change symposiums held here in Del Mar, we’ve learned from our Keynote speakers, all prominent Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO)scientists (who all agree) that we need to prepare for much more unpredictable volatile coastal weather.
Ralph Keeling PhD, the Principal Investigator for the Atmospheric Oxygen Research Group at Scripps, a Del Mar resident and the son of Dave Keeling the scientist who first described Global Warming, warned us in our November Symposium that, ”when we see real climate impacts, it will be too late to try to resolve them”. This includes volatile coastal atmospheric river storms, increasing sea level rise, high winds, wave damage and flooding; along with those risks, the conditions may change causing extreme warming, extensive drought, and strong, more frequent Santa Anas. Dr. Keeling continues by saying, “combined with the increasing temperature, there is a strong possibility of major wildfires due to the air containing more CO2 which makes fires more combustible”. Our guest scientist speakers all agree that these climate related changes are occurring much faster than they previously predicted. Dr Mark Merrifield, who heads the SIO Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaption, warned that for now, our sea level rise measurements are about average with most global regions, but the predictions for the future show that sea level rise will continue to become problematic. He also told us that “coastal storm events will become more extreme”.
So how do these changes affect the placement of a double tracked (or 2 single track) railroad tunnel within our hillside which is planned to accommodate 90 passenger train trips and 11 freight train trips in one day? The military authorities will not promise that as they move freight, they will refrain from transporting hazardous flammable materials or toxic or nuclear waste. These trips are proposed to run under our homes.
Given the high probability of damaging strong Atmospheric River coastal storms, where will the runoff be absorbed in the ground with a huge tunnel buried underground. Will the storm water flow downhill to the homes below? Will the hillsides weaken and possibly cause mudslides like we have witnessed in La Jolla, Anderson Canyon, Camino Del Mar, Palos Verdes, San Clemente, and throughout So CA.? Will we experience larger and deeper sink holes and flooding in our neighborhoods? Actually, we are at risk of this happening without an underground tunnel.
As if that weren’t enough concern, FEMA in their National Risk Index for Natural Hazards considers our Southern California region to be at the highest risk for earthquakes and mudslides in the United States (99 percentile). Along with that information, the California Earthquake Authority considers our region a very high risk for earthquakes due to our proximity to the Rose Canyon Fault located just a few miles off the shore of Del Mar. They also concur that we are at a high risk for mudslides and wildfires.
Has anyone discussed this with the Department of Defense or the Department of Transportation...particularly as they propose to transport passengers and military equipment, and at times to be transporting hazardous flammable materials including toxic and nuclear waste under homes? After thoroughly investigating the particulars of possibly putting a railroad tunnel of this size anywhere under our hillside, or anywhere near the coast of California, I think it will be mandatory to re-review the decision after seriously looking at all possible risks we are facing. In her book, “California Against the Sea…Visions for Our Vanishing Coastline”, author Rosanna Xia, a LA Times environmental reporter, gives a thorough investigation of the already existing multiple problems that California coastal cities are experiencing along 2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 with interviews with many scientists and engineers predicting warnings of high storm and flooding risks for all California coastal cities.
I believe the railroad needs to be moved to a safer location north and inland to reduce risks for Del Mar residents, residents for all coastal towns, and for passengers and cargo being transported on the proposed trains.
SANDAG needs to change its course.
Carol Kerridge RN MPH
3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2024 10:51 PM
To: Ashley Jones; City Clerk Mail Box; Melinda Gould
Subject: SDLRR Notice of Preparation
Attachments: NOP Response TPCPB Final.pdf; LPLF - NOP Comment Letter on LOSSAN Rail Realignment 4879-8722-9901 v.10.pdf
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.
Forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Halpern <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: SDLRR Notice of Preparation
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <terra.lawson[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Mike Hastings <[email protected]>, Jennifer Chavez <[email protected]>
Please find attached the City of San Diego's Torrey Pines Community Planning Board's comment letter for the SDLRR NOP.
Please don't hesitate to contact TPCPB with any questions.
On Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 07:40:21 PM PDT, Denise Ortiz <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Pesce:
Per Attorney Jennifer Chavez’s request, please see the attached letter of today’s date. 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 Best regards,
Denise Ortiz
Denise Ortiz | Practice Specialist
+1 619-338-6575 | direct
[email protected]
SheppardMullin
501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-3598
+1 619-338-6500 | main
www.sheppardmullin.com
Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway, 18th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-3598
619.338.6500 main
619.234.3815 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com
Jennifer L. Chavez
619.338.6664 direct
[email protected]
July 11, 2024
File Number: 96LX-390166
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Mr. Timothy Pesce
SANDAG
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Email: [email protected]
Re: SDLRR Notice of Preparation
Dear Mr. Pesce:
This firm represents the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation (the “Foundation”). The Foundation works with the California Department of Parks and Recreation to protect, restore, enhance, and preserve the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon (“Lagoon”), a State Marsh Natural Preserve (PRC § 5019.71) that is part of the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve (“Reserve”). Since its establishment in 1983, the Foundation has helped lead the effort in restoring, protecting and preserving the Lagoon through stakeholder collaboration and adaptive management informed by 37 years of continuous data generated by our biological monitoring program and partnerships with universities that include the University of California, San Diego and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Impacts to the Lagoon caused by transportation infrastructure that includes the current railway alignment have been well documented in scientific papers, aerial imagery, reports and planning documents that include the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan and its Program level Environmental Impact Report, certified in 2020. With this in mind, the Foundation appreciates the opportunity to comment on SANDAG’s Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Report for the Los Angeles-San-Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project (“Project”).
Please consider the following comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR.
1. Present a Single Proposed Project and Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives.
The EIR should evaluate a single proposed project in detail, and a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. CEQA does not permit a lead agency to evaluate multiple alternatives without selecting a proposed project. (Washoe Meadows Community v. Dept. of Parks & Recreation (2017) 17 CA5th 277, 288.) The Foundation appreciates that SANDAG considered alternatives to remove the railway alignment from the Lagoon and locate it near Interstate 5, but as it moves toward the EIR stage, it needs to select a single alignment as the proposed project. 3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mr. Timothy Pesce
July 11, 2024
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
071124 96LX-390166
While all three alignments described in the NOP (Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C) have the potential to generate impacts to coastal habitats, cultural resources, listed species, public access and viewsheds, the Foundation supports alignments utilizing the “Knoll Near I-5” for the southern portal (Alignment A or Alignment B) and strongly opposes selection of the “Torrey Pines Road” portal location (Alignment C). Thus, the Foundation is supportive of the EIR presenting either Alignment A or B as the proposed project with either Alignment A or B as an alternative. Alignment C would perpetuate and exacerbate significant and unmitigable impacts to the Lagoon and should not be carried forward for further consideration. Alternative C should be treated as an alternative “considered but rejected.” The Foundation also encourages SANDAG to consider additional alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive coastal resources.
2. The Project Objectives Should Prioritize Restoration and Enhancement of Coastal Resources Impaired by Railway Infrastructure. One of the primary, fundamental objectives of the Project should be to support the restoration and enhancement of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, a State Marsh Natural Preserve, to meet SANDAG’s declared Project Goal to “Preserve Wetlands”.
1 Therefore, the Project should proceed in a manner that restores the decades of damage the existing rail alignment has caused to Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. The current location of the tracks through the center of the Lagoon would never be considered in a de novo application.
The placement of the southern portal at the Knoll Near I-5 in Alternative A or B would remove the railroad tracks and berm bisecting the Lagoon and provide an opportunity to correct the unintended consequences of the railway alignment’s role in contributing to the degradation of the Lagoon that includes its listing on the Clean Water Act’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for sediment/siltation due to the existing railway berm that has reduced the Lagoon’s tidal prism by cutting off tidal channels and impounded sediment-laden stormwater runoff in the upper Lagoon since 1925.
2 The Foundation encourages SANDAG to study and carry forward a proposed project that will maximize restoration and enhancement of coastal resources impaired by railway infrastructure to meet the critical Project Goal to “Preserve Wetlands.” Proceeding with Alternative C, on the other hand, would perpetuate the railways’ negative impacts on the Lagoon and potentially generate additional ones by converting the currently lightly-used single track into a heavily-used double track alignment through the center of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, with entirely new areas added at the northwest end. As the NOP states, this would require raising and widening the existing berm in the Lagoon to address flooding and sea level rise projects. The EIR/EIS will need to consider the legacy impacts of the current alignment that have contributed to existing conditions of Lagoon impairment and those that will be generated by implementation of Alternative C, including those that may not be offset by elevating portions of the new double track on additional bridge spans. Additionally, SANDAG will need to consider how their proposed project will impact large-scale restoration of the Lagoon that will be completed prior to realignment of the railway, with Alternative C having the greatest potential for impacts. There 1 See “San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project Update”, NOP PowerPoint presentation prepared by SANDAG, slide 6.
2 See Cole and Wahl. 2000. A Late Holocene Paleoecological Record from Torrey Pines State Reserve, California. Quaternary Research 53, 341-351; ESA. 2018. Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan.
Prepared for Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation.
4 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mr. Timothy Pesce
July 11, 2024
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
071124 96LX-390166
would be new or more severe adverse environmental effects associated with the rail use under Alternative C that include increased noise, vibration, light and other impacts resulting from faster, more frequent train service that would come with double tracking. The analysis of Alternative C should include a detailed discussion of construction-related impacts, including full disclosure of the location of construction staging areas, construction access routes, related impacts on wetlands or other sensitive habitats, the amount and location of additional fill that might be required within or around the Lagoon, the location and impacts associated with the construction of bridge structures in the Lagoon, and the amount and duration of construction related noise, lighting, vibration and other environmental impacts that will result from construction activities. The Lagoon is prone to flooding during rains – please also describe the measures that will be implemented to protect the construction site during weather events (preventing sediment, debris and construction materials and fluids from leaving the construction site).
Alternative C clearly would not further the stated project objective of “avoid[ing] and/or minimiz[ing] impacts on biological, cultural, and recreational resources of national, state or local significance, including publicly owned parks, beaches, wetlands, ecological reserves…” and should be rejected for further consideration on that basis. Alternative C clearly would have significant adverse impacts on the Lagoon and its important biological and wetland resources, which is inconsistent with stated project objectives.
3. The Project Should Avoid Impacts to Sensitive Species and their Associated Habitats to the Maximum Extent Feasible. The proposed project should avoid, or at the very least limit impacts to sensitive species and their associated essential habitats present within the Lagoon within and adjacent to the project site to the maximum extent feasible. Alignment A and Alignment B would avoid much of the Lagoon by relocating the railway alignment adjacent to I-5 with a small portion of adjacent wetland and upland habitat potentially being affected. Alternative C maintains much of the current alignment through the Lagoon while also penetrating an undisturbed area adjacent to the proposed portal and expanding the width and height of the existing rail embankment to accommodate double tracking and sea level rise. As such, Alternative C will likely result in the most impacts to sensitive species and their associated sensitive habitats. Replacing large sections of berm with a bridge proposed as part of Alternative C may improve conditions beyond their existing state but could present an additional suite of impacts to listed species that forage and nest within the vicinity of the existing alignment due to noise, vibration, lighting and other components associated with construction and subsequent rail use. Based on this, the Foundation requests that the proposed EIR/EIS consider potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive species within the Lagoon that include light-footed Ridgway’s rail, coastal California gnatcatcher, western snowy plover, Belding’s savannah sparrow, wandering skipper, yellowbreasted chat, white-tailed kite and other raptors, southern mule deer Iva hayesiana, Artemisia palmeri, and Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri. In addition, the EIR/EIS will need to also consider the direct and indirect impacts to the essential habitats that support these sensitive species which include tidal salt marsh, non-tidal salt marsh, southern maritime chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and coastal succulent scrub. Known locations of some of these listed species is provided in Exhibit A. We also request that analysis of biological impacts consider both benefits and impacts to habitat based on function and value to the Lagoon so that impacts to higher tiered habitat (e.g., coastal salt marsh) are not valued the same as habitat of less value (e.g., impaired wetland, disturbed upland). Additionally, the EIR/EIS should consider the effects of noise, vibration, 5 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mr. Timothy Pesce
July 11, 2024
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
071124 96LX-390166
lighting, and rail-related pollution associated with the construction and use of new infrastructure that includes increased rail speed and volume of rail traffic as they impact wildlife movement, sensitive species and the habitats that support both. How will SANDAG ensure that the project will maximize the avoidance of impacts to sensitive species and their associated essential habitats using both qualitive and quantitative analysis? How will SANDAG mitigate impacts to sensitive species and their habitats that cannot be avoided?
4. The Project Should Improve Lagoon Hydrology by Reconnecting Historic Tidal Channels and Reduce Impoundment of Storm Water in the upper Lagoon. The EIR must evaluate the project’s impacts on lagoon hydrology and should be designed and carried out in a manner that does not adversely impact the already degraded hydrological function of the Lagoon. The Foundation requests that each alternative be examined in accordance with their ability to improve lagoon hydrology with respect to tidal waters and storm water moving through the system. Special studies need to be conducted to examine the role that the railway berm degrades lagoon hydrology and what improvements (e.g., complete removal, partial removal) could be afforded by each of the proposed Project alternatives. This should be considered for both improving the Lagoon’s tidal prism and reducing the retention time of impounded waters from storm runoff that have contributed to the Lagoon’s impairment and listing on the Clean Water Act’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for sediment and siltation. The special studies will also need to consider how each alternative could support or impact large scale restoration of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon that is being pursued for compliance under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that focuses on improving lagoon hydrology as a key driver for restoring the Lagoon to its historical native habitats. Furthermore, the EIR/EIS should consider changes to local hydrology from the proposed infrastructure (e.g., rail widening, floodwalls, Usections, and cut-and-cover features) and their effect on sedimentation and the balance of halophytic and freshwater habitats. How will SANDAG ensure that the project will improve lagoon hydrology by reconnecting historic tidal channels and reduce impoundment of storm water in the upper Lagoon using both qualitive and quantitative analysis?
5. Impacts on Public Access to Torrey Pines State Beach. Alternative C is the only alternative that will generate impacts to public access and use of Torrey Pines State Beach during the construction of the northern portal and rail realignment adjacent to the Torrey Pines North Beach Parking Lot (North Lot). The North Lot receives approximately 1.8 million visitors annually (based on 2016/2017 fiscal year data) due to its proximity to major roadway infrastructure that includes Interstate 5, Interstate 805, and State Route 56 that make it an easily accessible coastal facility for both nearby communities and those located further inland. The proposed EIR/EIS will need to examine and quantify these impacts since public access to North Torrey Pines State Beach will be limited or precluded during construction. In addition, the proposed EIR/EIS will need to examine how closure and/or limited use of the North Lot will impact the Reserve’s other public parking facilities (i.e., Torrey Pines South Beach Parking Lot and upper Reserve parking) that are already under strain from increased demand by park visitors arriving by private vehicles.
Secondary impacts associated with the lack of adequate parking facilities should also be examined. In addition to restricting public access to the beach, this could include increasing the emission of toxic contaminants in a sensitive coastal environment. To that end, the analysis should consider the potential loading of metals (e.g., zinc, copper) into Lagoon waters due to 6 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mr. Timothy Pesce
July 11, 2024
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
071124 96LX-390166
more frequent and higher volume from braking of vehicles3 along Carmel Valley Road under Alternative C, including the truck trips to remove excavated material from the tunnel boring operation truck loads. How will SANDAG ensure that the project will avoid impacts to public access to Torrey Pines State Beach using both qualitive and quantitative analysis?
6. Opportunities and Constraints for Removing the Existing Railway Berm. The proposed EIR/EIS will need to examine both the opportunities and constraints for removing the existing railway berm in its entirety or in designated sections for the proposed project and all the project alternatives being considered under CEQA analysis. The Foundation requests that technical analysis consider both aquatic and terrestrial environs to assess opportunities and constraints for improving both hydrology and wildlife movement within the Lagoon that are currently comprised by the existing railway alignment, as well as the proposed alignments and their components.
Analysis should also consider opportunities within each alternative that optimize the expansion of foraging and nesting habitat of listed bird species that include Belding’s savannah sparrow, lightfooted Ridgway’s rail and California gnatcatcher that are currently fragmented by the existing alignment. Of course, the analysis should also focus on the avoidance of adversely impacting foraging and nesting habitat of those species. Analysis should also examine the potential for beneficial re-use of the current railway alignment should Alternative C not be selected as the preferred alternative. One example for consideration would be to modify the existing berm into a pedestrian and bike path to support multi-modal transportation within the coastal zone, a priority for SANDAG under their Public Works Plan and Transportation Resource Enhancement Program prepared for the LOSSAN Corridor. This would be accomplished by connecting coastal areas and established regional and local trail networks (e.g., the California Coast Trail) to the commercial areas of Sorrento Valley and the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station. Another potential for beneficial reuse of sections of the existing berm could be used to offset impacts related to sea level rise by providing an onsite source of sediment that could be used to augment elevation profiles of surrounding habitat to ensure that coastal salt marsh and wetland transitional areas are preserved in perpetuity. Should partial or complete removal of the berm result as part of the project, the Foundation strongly advises that all related mitigation efforts to offset impacts to Lagoon resources be focused entirely on the Lagoon rather than an offsite location. How will SANDAG ensure that the preferred alternative considers both opportunities and constraints for removing the existing railway berm using both qualitive and quantitative analysis? How will impacts be mitigated and where?
7. Compliance of the Project under Section 4F (U.S. Transportation Act of 1966) and Actions Permitted in a State Natural Preserve. The proposed project will have to consider impacts to publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historical sites to comply with Section 4F of the U.S. Transportation Act of 1966. SANDAG will need to prove that the project it selects under CEQA/NEPA will comply in a manner that “the use of the property will have a de minimis impact or that there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of the land, and that the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting in such use.” In addition, SANDAG will need to comply with the public resource code as 3 Many brake pads contain metals that wear away a little by little. The metal breaks down into dust each time you apply the brakes. Brake pads can contain as much as 20 percent copper, which is toxic to aquatic life at the base of the food chain. They also contain lead and zinc. (Source: US EPA) 7 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mr. Timothy Pesce
July 11, 2024
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
071124 96LX-390166
it relates to the management, protection and preservation of a State Natural Preserve (PRC 5019.71). State Natural Preserves are considered “distinct areas of outstanding natural or scientific significance established within the boundaries of State Parks System units.” The purpose of Natural Preserves is “to preserve such features as rare or endangered plant and animal species and their supporting ecosystems, representative examples of plant or animal communities existing in California prior to the impact of Euro-American modifications, geological features illustrative of geological processes, significant fossil occurrences or geological features of cultural or economic interest, or topographic features illustrative of representative or unique biogeographical patterns.” Importantly, “Natural Preserves shall be managed to allow natural dynamics of ecological interaction to continue without interference, where possible. Habitat manipulation shall be permitted only in those areas found by scientific analysis to require manipulation to preserve the species or associations that constitute the basis for the establishment of the Natural Preserve.” How will analysis under CEQA/NEPA demonstrate that the project complies with Section 4F of the U.S. Transportation Act of 1966 and the management, protection and preservation of a State Natural Preserve (PRC 5019.71)?
8. Impacts on Aesthetics. Potential impacts on public viewsheds and scenic vistas should be evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS for the Project and each alternative with consideration given to ensuring these new features are avoided to the extent feasible and otherwise designed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding environs. How will SANDAG ensure that the project will avoid or minimize impacts to aesthetics?
9. Impacts on Air Quality. The NOP includes tables estimating the number of truck trips for the alignments under consideration, but the estimates appear limited to truck trips for the disposal of construction material associated with tunnels. It does not appear that truck trips have been analyzed for other aspects of the work to be done for these alignments. Please provide estimates for truck trips for all aspects of each alignment—including, but not limited to, the construction of berms, bridges, site preparation, demolition of homes or other structures, etc. How will SANDAG ensure that the proposed project will avoid or minimize impacts to air quality using both qualitive and quantitative analysis?
10. Joint EIR/EIS. The Foundation encourages SANDAG to prepare a Joint EIR/EIS document rather than deferring the NEPA evaluation to a separate, future process. A joint evaluation provides for a more efficient use of resources by SANDAG, the Foundation and other stakeholders, as well as a more comprehensive and coordinated environmental review.
The Foundation’s position today is consistent with our letter on this topic to Mr. Veeh dated August 27, 2023, and is consistent with positions expressed by our local environmental and community partners: California State Parks, Torrey Pines Community Planning Board, Torrey Pines Conservancy and Sierra Club San Diego, as well as the feedback you’ve received from numerous involved environmental community members over the past year of study. Given that the most commonly cited arguments in favor of public transportation involve reducing private transportation’s negative environmental impacts, it is only logical that SANDAG’s railway realignment be done in a manner which minimizes its negative impacts on Los Penasquitos Lagoon’s fragile environment.
8 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mr. Timothy Pesce
July 11, 2024
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
071124 96LX-390166
We strongly encourage you to take every opportunity to enhance Los Peñasquitos Lagoon’s native and historic environment as you evaluate this project and select an alignment that avoids and minimizes significant adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible. The Foundation appreciates that SANDAG considered alternatives to remove the railway alignment from the Lagoon and locate it near Interstate 5. While all three proposed alignments (Alternative A, Alternative B, and Alternative C) have the potential to generate impacts to coastal habitats, cultural resources, listed species, public access and viewsheds, the Foundation supports alignments utilizing the “Knoll Near I-5” for the southern portal (Alignment A or B) and strongly opposes selection of the “Torrey Pines Road” portal location (Alignment C).
Please do not hesitate to contact the Foundation if you would like to discuss this idea further.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chavez
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4879-8722-9901.10
Enclosure
cc:
SANDAG: Mario Orso, Chief Executive Officer ([email protected]) California Coastal Commission: Commissioner Paloma Aguirre ([email protected]) California State Parks: Darren Smith, Senior Environmental Scientist ([email protected]) Torrey Pines Community Planning Board: Adam Gevanthor, Chair ([email protected]) Torrey Pines Conservancy: Rick Gulley, President ([email protected]) Sierra Club San Diego: Lisa Ross, Chair ([email protected]); David Hogan, Vice Chair ([email protected])
CA State Senate: Senator Blakespear ([email protected]); Alex Davis, Principal Consultant ([email protected]); Aurora Livingston, District Rep ([email protected]) County of San Diego: Supervisor Nora Vargas ([email protected]); Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer ([email protected]); Becca Smith, Policy Advisor ([email protected])
City of San Diego, Mayor’s Office: Dion Akers, Regional Government Affairs Manager ([email protected]); Emily Piatanesi, Community Representative ([email protected]) City of San Diego, District 1: Councilmember Joe LaCava ([email protected]); Brian Elliott, Deputy Chief of Staff ([email protected]); Joaquin Quintero ([email protected]) City of San Diego, District 9: Julio Garcia, Government Affairs Manager ([email protected]) City of Del Mar: Terry Gaasterland, SANDAG Representative ([email protected]) City of Solana Beach: Mayor Lesa Heebner, SANDAG Representative ([email protected]) City of Encinitas: Mayor Tony Kranz, SANDAG Representative ([email protected]) 9 July 16, 2024 Item 01
EXHIBIT A
10 July 16, 2024 Item 01
11 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Page | 1
www.TorreyPinesCommunity.org TORREY PI N ES
COM M UN I TY PLAN N IN G BOARD
R O B E R T G I L L E SK I E , C H A I R 2 5 7 0 PI N E W O O D ST . , D E L M A R , C A 9 2 0 1 4 Ph o n e 8 5 8 - 7 9 3 - 1 7 5 7 F a x 8 5 8 - 6 5 4 - 8 2 0 2 r j g i l l e s k i e @ s a n . r r . c o m July 15, 2024
SANDAG
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
ATTN: Tim Pesce
RE: Notice of Preparation (NOP) Draft EIR, LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project Public Comments Mr. Pesce:
The Torrey Pines Community contains some of the most well-known, diverse habitats in the County. Our sensitive coastal resources, including those of the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve are known throughout the world and have made our community a visitor serving destination that extends benefits far beyond its boundaries and those of the city. Whatever is done regarding the rail line relocation, it must prioritize the preservation of these resources, including the preservation of the visual integrity of the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve viewshed, for the benefit of present and future generations to come.
The Torrey Pines Community Planning Board (TPCPB) appreciates SANDAG's decision to remove the Portofino portal from further consideration. It was the right decision for the environment and the community and will help to preserve the visual integrity of the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve viewshed.
We are proud of our work with you to identify the "I-5 Knoll" as a superior location for the southern portal, and request that you suspend further consideration of Alternative C. We firmly believe that the NOP's Alternative C is wrong for the environment and the community, an opinion shared by every environmental or community interest of which we are aware.
We support all of the conclusions and questions in the attached letter from the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation, and request that it is incorporated into our response. In addition, we note a number of concerns which need to be addressed if Alternative C is carried forward into the DEIR:
1) Alternatives A and B place the southern portal upwind of I-5, but Alternative C would place tunnel venting upwind of our community. The DEIR should include a study of prevailing winds and the impact of the tunnel venting on the community. If negative impacts are expected or experienced, how will they be addressed? How will property owners be compensated? 2) SANDAG has explained that most construction impacts will occur at the southern portal, with the vast majority of excavated material being removed through that location. With Alternatives A and B, the construction impacts would be concentrated adjacent to I-5 and a portion of Old Sorrento Valley Road which has been closed to traffic for many years. With Alternative C the construction impacts would be experienced directly by neighboring homes and businesses, the result of over 100,000 truckloads of excavated material traveling on Carmel Valley Road around the clock for a multi-year period. Please include a detailed study of the construction related 12 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Page | 2
www.TorreyPinesCommunity.org TORREY PI N ES
COM M UN I TY PLAN N IN G BOARD
R O B E R T G I L L E SK I E , C H A I R 2 5 7 0 PI N E W O O D ST . , D E L M A R , C A 9 2 0 1 4 Ph o n e 8 5 8 - 7 9 3 - 1 7 5 7 F a x 8 5 8 - 6 5 4 - 8 2 0 2 r j g i l l e s k i e @ s a n . r r . c o m impacts on these neighborhoods. How will property owners be compensated for these adverse impacts if Alternative C is pursued?
3) It is not anticipated that eminent domain will be required for construction work or operations at the southern portal if Alternatives A or B are pursued, but there is information from SANDAG board member presentations that Alternative C would require the taking of 7-10 acres at the southern portal, primarily of local homes. Please provide a detailed map indicating which properties will be taken by SANDAG if Alternative C is pursued, along with a detailed map of properties expected to be partially impacted. Please also provide a detailed timeline of when SANDAG expects to remove current occupants from their homes if Alternative C is pursued, along with a detailed timeline of when adverse impacts will be experienced by homes that are not taken.
4) While Alternatives A and B would likely represent a net improvement to the environment of the Los Penasquitos Lagoon, Alternative C would introduce a double track alignment that is substantially higher and wider than the current alignment, as well as penetrating a currently undisturbed area in the NW corner of the lagoon for the proposed new portal. Please provide quantitative and qualitative analyses of how key views from public and private areas, including those from the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve, would be affected. If adverse view impacts are anticipated, how would property owners be compensated? How would these property owners be compensated for the increased noise and other adverse impacts during construction and post construction operations?
5) Although not referenced in the NOP, it is our understanding that SANDAG intends to electrify the rail line once plans to convert to a high-speed alignment are complete throughout the area. An overhead pattern of catenary wires would introduce further man-made visual elements into the Torrey Pines State Reserve viewshed, adversely affecting the existing visual environment. This will impact key views to and from the Reserve and visually degrade one of San Diego’s most iconic and sensitive coastal resource areas. Considering that the San Diego History Center in Balboa Park has a wall-sized historic photo of this view at the entrance to their photo archives, the desecration of this view is not to be taken lightly. Please provide details of how a future electrified track would be accomplished, including diagrams showing any overhead catenary wire system if anticipated.
6) The NOP does not mention need for fencing along the new berms to be constructed for the realignment, but it is logical that if trains are to be run at 110 mph across Los Penasquitos Lagoon that fencing will be required along the tops of the berms to prevent wildlife from impeding the trains at high speed. Will fencing be required, where will it be located, and what will the impacts be to wildlife in the lagoon? Will migration patterns be disturbed, and will the visual environment be further degraded as a result of these man-made improvements? 7) Alternatives A and B would have an area for southern portal construction adjacent to I-5 with no nearby homes in an already environmentally degraded area. In contrast, Alternative C would place the portal adjacent to a residential neighborhood with a construction area in an undisturbed area of lagoon. It appears likely that vehicles would utilize the Torrey Pines State Beach North Lot for construction staging and for removing millions of yards excavated material 13 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Page | 3
www.TorreyPinesCommunity.org TORREY PI N ES
COM M UN I TY PLAN N IN G BOARD
R O B E R T G I L L E SK I E , C H A I R 2 5 7 0 PI N E W O O D ST . , D E L M A R , C A 9 2 0 1 4 Ph o n e 8 5 8 - 7 9 3 - 1 7 5 7 F a x 8 5 8 - 6 5 4 - 8 2 0 2 r j g i l l e s k i e @ s a n . r r . c o m from tunnel boring. Please provide details regarding public access to the Torrey Pines State Beach North Lot and coastal areas, and the impact on neighboring areas if beach users are forced to park in adjacent neighborhoods during construction. Please provide details on these anticipated impacts and whether property owners would be compensated for them.
In summary, we have a long list of concerns with Alternative C. We see many merits to the I-5 Knoll location for the southern portal and thus support Alternative A or B. Again, we strongly encourage you to drop Alternative C from further consideration.
Thank you for your consideration,
Adam Gevanthor
Chair, Torrey Pines Community Planning Board
Cc:
SANDAG: Mario Orso, Chief Executive Officer ([email protected]) California Coastal Commission: Commissioner Paloma Aguirre ([email protected]) California State Parks: Darren Smith, Senior Environmental Scientist ([email protected]) Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation: Mike Hastings, Executive Director ([email protected]) Torrey Pines Conservancy: Rick Gulley, President ([email protected]) Sierra Club San Diego: Lisa Ross, Chair ([email protected]); David Hogan, Vice Chair ([email protected])
CA State Senate: Senator Blakespear ([email protected]); Alex Davis, Principal Consultant ([email protected]); Aurora Livingston, District Rep ([email protected]) County of San Diego: Supervisor Nora Vargas ([email protected]); Supervisor Terra LawsonRemer ([email protected]); Becca Smith, Policy Advisor ([email protected])
City of San Diego, Mayor’s Office: Dion Akers, Regional Government Affairs Manager ([email protected]); Emily Piatanesi, Community Representative ([email protected]) City of San Diego, District 1: Councilmember Joe LaCava ([email protected]); Brian Elliott, Deputy Chief of Staff ([email protected]); Joaquin Quintero ([email protected]) City of San Diego, District 9: Julio Garcia, Government Affairs Manager ([email protected]) City of Del Mar: Terry Gaasterland, SANDAG Representative ([email protected]) City of Solana Beach: Mayor Lesa Heebner, SANDAG Representative ([email protected]) City of Encinitas: Mayor Tony Kranz, SANDAG Representative ([email protected]) 14 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jonnell Agnew <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Train track relocation
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 morning. I live at 346 9th st Del Mar
I oppose any tunneling under our beautiful city
I like the suggestion floating around by other cities to site the train from Oceanside to San Diego along the I 5 freeway right of way. That won't disrupt fair ground activities or our city.
Sincerely,
Jonnell Agnew
626-483-8552
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
RED DOT – AGENDA ITEM 1
To: City Council
From: Betty Wheeler, Seaview Ave.
Subject: City of Del Mar Comments on the NOP for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project Date: July 16, 2024
Because Knowledge for the Vote broadly distributed a message that misstated my position on rail alignment, I am submitting this Red Dot to clearly state my position on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and rail alignment, and to place in the public record a response to the message distributed by Hershell Price through Knowledge for the Vote, given that he refused to distribute my response correcting the record.
I urge the City Council to submit comments that will strengthen the NOP, ensuring that the Environmental Impact Report will be based on a full record analyzing all potential impacts from the alternatives identified in the NOP (or alternatives that may emerge, either from a revised NOP, or from the studies and analysis conducted pursuant to the NOP). It is important to note that CEQA will constrain SANDAG from approving a project alignment when there are feasible and environmentally superior alternatives or mitigation measures. For that reason, Del Mar’s best interests are served by a robust and complete environmental review. Conversely, Del Mar’s interests are undermined to the extent that Del Mar takes a position in favor or in opposition to particular alternatives before we have the evidence in hand to make reasoned judgments.
Rail Alignment: A Decision Firmly Grounded in Evidence, Please Recently, Knowledge for the Vote distributed a message from a local resident stating that I "support SANDAG's inexcusable destruction" of Del Mar. It isn't clear how the author reached the remarkable conclusion that I support the destruction of the city I've called home for 34 years. Perhaps it is because, unlike some in Del Mar, I have not declared that Option A, the fairgrounds alignment, is the only acceptable rail realignment option, and the others are a "travesty" that will result in the destruction of Del Mar.
In making consequential decisions, I believe in evidence first, followed by a decision based on the evidence. I studied environmental law at Georgetown Law, in the heady days when the National Environmental Policy Act and its California counterpart, CEQA, were only seven years old, and citizenactivists and lawyers across the country were wielding these powerful new legal tools to protect the environment from harm. I cut class a few times to watch lawyers help shape these environmental protections in arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. I am still thrilled and grateful that we have these legal tools at our disposal, which require robust environmental study and analysis before a project can go forward. Most importantly, CEQA will constrain SANDAG from approving a project alignment when there are feasible and environmentally superior alternatives or mitigation measures.
Those who have already made up their minds, before we have the benefit of comprehensive environmental studies and analysis to inform our decisions, are essentially following the now-repudiated pre-CEQA model, when decisions could be made without the benefit of comprehensive environmental review, without fully-informed consideration of environmental harm — and often, without the opportunity for public input, as CEQA requires.
I care deeply about the impact of the relocation of the rails on Del Mar's natural and built environment:
the San Dieguito Lagoon and River, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, our bluffs and canyons, the Fairgrounds 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Red Dot – Betty Wheeler – July 26, 2024
(which, after all, includes protected wetlands), and Del Mar's neighborhoods, homes and businesses. I also care about the impact of rail realignment on the natural and built environment in Solana Beach and the City of San Diego, including the Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail, Stevens Creek, the preserved open space by Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road, and the entire fragile web of life, the flora and fauna that depend on the invaluable environmental resources in our region. And I care about Del Mar's and California's climate action plans, which rely on improvements in mass transit to get us to our carbon reduction goals.
At the risk of offending those who have already decided that Option A is "the environmental option," we won't be in a position to determine which alignment is in fact the environmentally superior option, and the alignment that is right for Del Mar and our region, until we have the complete environmental report.
That is why it is so important for Del Mar to make sure that the NOP is comprehensive, allowing SANDAG to make a fact-based determination of the environmentally superior alignment. Once the draft Environmental Impact Report is out, I'll submit strong comments if I think the draft EIR got any of it wrong; and I will support a CEQA-based legal challenge if the environmental studies and analysis are inadequate, or if SANDAG adopts a program alignment when there are feasible, environmentally superior alternatives. But we need to be smart and strategic, which means understanding the CEQA process and engaging it effectively. Jumping to conclusions, before the EIR is out, is ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.
The author of the message I'm responding to named a number of people who "fought to preserve our sweet coastal town." I've worked with most of them, and have called them my friends for many years, including Harvey Shapiro, Lou Terrell, Rosanne and Joel Holliday, and Pat JaCoby. I miss, beyond words, those who are no longer with us. But I have every confidence that if they read what I wrote above, they would see it as squarely within the Del Mar tradition of environmental protection and science-based decision-making.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Wheeler
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Maidy Morhous <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:35 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Council meeting train concern
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 note the following major concern:
1. Immediate need for cost analysis for del mar tunnel project.
2. I am opposed to tunneling under Del Mar homes and businesses.
3. Opposed to any imminent domain seizure of homes, businesses or private land.
Maidy Morhous
Terry Morhous
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: mark rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot comment to City response to NOP
Attachments: SKM_558e24071609500.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please find attached suggested edits to the Del Mar’s response to NOP Sent from my iPhone
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
4 July 16, 2024 Item 01
5 July 16, 2024 Item 01
6 July 16, 2024 Item 01
7 July 16, 2024 Item 01
8 July 16, 2024 Item 01
9 July 16, 2024 Item 01
10 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 11:02 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Ashley Jones
Subject: FW: July 16, 2024 2pm Special Meeting Public Comment.
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 Clerk:
Kindly submit the following comments on the City’s NOP Comment letter to the City Council.
Dear City Council:
I am a long-time resident of Del Mar and a practicing attorney in California. I live at 551 Stratford Court and also own a condominium at 116 Spinnaker Ct. (Del Mar Woods). The latter is in a multi-family condominium complex, one of the oldest neighborhoods in Del Mar with 126 property owners, many senior citizens. It is next to Los Arboles, an apartment complex with low and moderate multi-family income housing. Both complexes are south of 4th St. directly in the path of tunneling described in the NOP’s Route C. In addition, one of the south portal options would locate the portal and several ventilation equipment buildings very close to both multi-family complexes and permanently altering an iconic intersection in Del Mar known for its beauty.
Thank you for striving to protect Del Mar’s interests and for posting the City’s draft NOP comment letter.
Overall, I found the draft letter to be excellent and I support all but one of the guiding principles (“GP”), which I suggest be eliminated. I would also suggest rewording a GP and adding one.
Here are my relatively few comments:
1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
I support all of the Guiding principles except as follows: Number 10 (Fairgrounds support) should be eliminated; and Number 2 (acquisition of private property) should be strengthened. In addition, new Guiding Principle focusing on the health and safety of the community should be added.
GP Number 10: The Fairgrounds is keenly capable of taking care of its own interests and has disclaimed any burden associated with the relocation of the tracks though it pursues the benefit of a new platform. Today the Fairgrounds stated publicly that it would hold the housing element negotiations hostage until Route A is eliminated. While the City Council should not undertake its formal response to this extortion in this meeting, it should eliminate No. 10 as a Guiding Principle as that would tacitly condone removing Route A from consideration. We should not at this time be encouraging SANDAG to build a Fairgrounds platform, which is what GP No. 10 also does. Also, our urging SANDAG to listen to the Fairgrounds’ “planning needs” is harmful to our interests. The Fairgrounds has taken a position starkly adverse to the City’s interests. We should focus on Del Mar’s interests; the Fairgrounds is looking after its own interests to the exclusion of Del Mar. 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 GP Number 2: I think the current statement is too weak. Consider rewording to say:
Del Mar opposes government acquisition of private property for the LOSSAN RAIL REALIGNMENT.
SANDAG must explore all portal locations and track route alternatives, whether or not in the current NOP, that eliminate the need for government acquisition of private property.
Propose that Del Mar add new GP:
SANDAG must investigate the health and safety risks to residents in the community that surround each track relocation alternative and should prioritize minimizing negative impacts to health and safety of residents.
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.
Project objectives are addressed in Section IV. on p. 3 of the draft comment letter and p. 5 of the NOP. The Project Objectives listed in the NOP were developed by the Project Development Team which is overwhelmingly represented by rail related agencies and a private, for-profit rail company, BNSF, thus the PDT is grossly imbalanced toward rail interests, not toward minimizing community impacts. This resulted in the PDT prioritizing speed over community impacts in the 2023 Tunnels Analysis Report. The City of Del Mar, which is the City most profoundly affected by the relocation, has no representation on the Project Development Team and did not draft the Project Objectives. It is unclear whether the SANDAG Board even saw them before the NOP.
While the City’s critique of the Project Objectives in the NOP comment letter is all true, I think it needs more specific focus.
Specifically, it should not impliedly accept but rather should question Objective 2 (maintaining the Solana Beach station and making a new stop at the Fairgrounds), which is a main objective that is driving the location of the north portals, which will greatly and negatively impact Del Mar (and Solana Beach, albeit less so).
Connection to Solana Beach Station and the formation of a Fairgrounds platform should not be simply accepted as a given Project Objective, it should be revisited and heavily scrutinized because it comes at such a cost to the Del Mar and Solana Beach communities. Solana Beach itself sought unsuccessfully to rid itself of the SB train station in 2014. We all know Tony Kranz recently suggested eliminating the station. SANDAG should be urged by Del Mar to formulate an alternative that eliminates the station or moves it and associated tracks to a location close to the I-5 to which a relocated I-5 track alignment can connect. In addition, new construction of a Fairgrounds platform comes at way too dear a cost to both the cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach to be implemented. Notably, the Fairgrounds has made clear that while it wants the benefit of a platform, it does not intend to share in the burden of tunneling. The better alternative is larger parking areas and regular shuttle services from one or more other train stations to the Fairgrounds rather than the tearing up of massive amounts of acreage to add a Fairgrounds platform. The elimination of the Solana Beach train station and of a new Fairgrounds stop would give SANDAG so much more added flexibility to design route alternatives that would minimize the relocation impact. This should be encouraged by questioning Project Objective No. 2. If the City is reluctant to outright oppose a new Fairgrounds platform, it should at least ask that Project Objective 2 be seriously questioned and revisited as both goals reflected therein drive the hugely disruptive locations of the north portal options currently proffered.
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
3 3. REQUIREMENTS OF DRAFT EIR
Section IV. of the NOP comment letter lays out all of the potential impacts that need to be included in the draft EIR. I will just comment that I think that the erection of story poles (item p.) is especially important and that the City should continually urge for it to be done. Because in the 2023 SANDAG Tunnels Analysis Report (Chart 3-1, p. 16), the south portal option near the intersection of Camino Del Mar and Carmel Valley Rd carries with it the erection of multiple buildings for ventilation equipment and for office use for rail entities, this dramatic change in the topography and culture of that space should be called out separately: I suggest revising “p” to say:
p. Prior to and in the DEIR, SANDAG should install story poles showing: (a) tunnel ventilation locations at each proposed portal; and (b) the location of buildings for housing emergency ventilation systems and offices.
4. Section II NEPA is Required
Section II of the comment letter references NEPA. The FRA is the federal agency charged with overseeing safety issues. It should be the lead federal agency, not the Surface Transportation Board.
The reference to the STB as an alternative to the FRA should be dropped from the comment letter.
Respectfully,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Court
858.449.4850
Shirli Fabbri Weiss
etired Partner
M +1 858 449 4850
[email protected]
DLA Piper LLP (US)
3 July 16, 2024 Item 01
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
DATE: July 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 1: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project Following distribution of the City Council agenda packet on July 12, 2024, the 22nd District Agricultural Association (22nd DAA) Board of Directors met on July 15, 2024, to discuss their comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board of Directors voted unanimously to authorize their Chief Operating Officer to take the following six actions:
1. Proceed with a response to SANDAG’s Notice of Preparation (NOP);
2. Notify SANDAG of the Board's opposition to Alternative A and any subsequent alignment that disrupts 22nd District Agricultural Association operations;
3. Urge SANDAG to move forward with the construction of the planned doubletracking and seasonal rail platform;
4. Pause affordable housing discussions with the City of Del Mar until and unless the Del Mar City Council officially opposes Alternative A in accordance with the City's December 2023 Guiding Principles;
5. Engage all necessary resources to directly oppose Alternative A and any subsequent alignment that disrupts 22nd District Agricultural Association operations; and
6. Have a 22nd DAA representative attend all meetings related to the LOSSAN Rail Realignment project and provide regular updates on discussions through the Strategic Planning Committee.
Member of the public can view a recording of the 22nd DAA Board meeting here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBIqTS9tEdw&t=2357s.
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
Mayor Druker and Esteemed Councilmembers,
I have thoughts on (i) the city staff’s draft comments to the Notice of Preparation (the “NOP”) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project (the “Project”) and (ii) the City of Del Mar Guiding Principals Related to LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project (the “Guiding Principles”). (i) The draft comments to the NOP should be modified to address the issues with the rail in San Clemente. Section I of the draft comments to the NOP states, “CEQA explicitly defines a project to be studied in an EIR as ‘the whole of an action’ and does not allow breaking a project into smaller pieces to reduce the cumulative effects of a larger project.” The Project set forth in the NOP breaks up what is in fact a larger project: the realignment of the rail throughout the LOSSAN corridor, including San Clemente. That is, the Project must acknowledge that the realignment of the rail in Del Mar is inextricably linked to the successful realignment or protection of the rail in San Clemente. Why spend the money, expend the effort, harm businesses, and force people out of their homes to realign the tracks in Del Mar if the tracks in San Clemente cannot be realigned or protected, if the train cannot operate through San Clemente? This question must be addressed and is evidence that the Project is not as narrow as it purports to be.
The counter argument here is that a San Clemente realignment is not necessary for the Coaster and the military (via Camp Pendleton) to operate through Del Mar. The issue with that argument is two-fold. One, the cost-benefit analysis of undertaking a multi-billion-dollar realignment for a low-ridership passenger service and a very infrequent military train certainly skews in favor of no realignment—closing the rail (or allowing an infrequent military train to pass through). Two, the NOP identifies the Surfliner and BNSF freight in its analysis. If the NOP (i.e., SANDAG) wants to argue that the San Clemente realignment is not linked to the Project, then it needs to modify the Project so that it is defined as a realignment for the North County Transit District and military movement; of course, if defined in this way, the Project’s benefits come nowhere near to justifying the immense costs, both monetary and environmental.
Even if the draft comments do not argue that the Project includes the realignment of other portions of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, Section VIII should at least request that the NOP weigh the costs of the Project against the chances that rail service in San Clemente is suspended, either for extended periods of time, indefinitely, or permanently. If the portion of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in San Clemente is not realigned or protected to ensure near continuous rail service, the Project will permanently damage the environment, our communities, and our ways of life all without providing a benefit anywhere near worth those costs.
Overall, the Project and the realignment/protection in San Clemente are subparts of a larger project, subparts that should be viewed as contingent on one another. (ii) The Guiding Principals need to be adjusted; Del Mar’s approach to the Project would benefit from careful reconsideration.
Sections 4 and 10 of the Guiding Principles should remove reference to the Fairgrounds realignment. The Fairgrounds board voted unanimously against Alternative A and indicated that pursuing such a realignment would preclude further study of affordable housing at the Fairgrounds. As I mentioned in a Red Dot letter dated December 16, 2023, the Fairgrounds has never believed that it could accommodate a tunnel and housing; in fact, in 2023 it stated, “[W]e believe continuing to plan for the siting of an affordable housing development could be imprudent if SANDAG initiates further study of a Del Mar Fairgrounds alignment.” In that Red Dot of December 2023, I implored you and the council to “[Weigh the likelihood of successfully realigning the tracks at the Fairgrounds against the risk of continuing to push for a Fairgrounds realignment.” It has never been clearer that Alternative A (the Fairgrounds 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
realignment) is highly, highly unlikely to be approved. Solana Beach and the Fairgrounds are adamantly opposed to it; its costs are double those of Alternatives B and C. As I stated in my December Red Dot, continuing to push for doomed Alternative A will ensure multiple negative results for the city: a tunnel through Del Mar and massive, luxury-developer initiated, limited local oversight development in our few remaining open spaces. Therefore, considering the high likelihood that Alternative A will not be approved, I request for the sake of Del Mar’s open spaces and for the sake of affordable housing that Del Mar remove reference to the Fairgrounds alignment in Section 4 of the Guiding Principles, Section 10 of the Guiding Principles, and elsewhere.
Instead of continuing to push for doomed Alternative A, Del Mar should revise Section 7 of the Guiding Principles to read: “Del Mar will work with federal and state governments and the respective federal and state representatives of the citizens of Del Mar to (i) analyze the costs and benefits of the realignment and (ii) assess a closure of the railroad based on the aforementioned analysis.” SANDAG will not cooperate with Del Mar. Alternative A was included in the NOP to appease Del Mar, and it would be naïve to believe it is being seriously considered by SANDAG. Del Marmusst petition agencies and representatives that are willing to cooperate with Del Mar and that will honestly respect its citizens and position.
Best,
Noah Gaarder-Feingold
Del Mar Resident
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Tim Haidinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 12:38 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dan Quirk
Subject: Rail line
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council MembersI want to express my strong opposition to a train tunnel through the beach communities. The train is very lightly used, and unbelievably expensive.
I support the Guiding Principles suggested by Council Member Quirk as follows:
1- Del Mar demands the immediate start and timely completion of independent cost-benefit analyses for both the Del Mar tunnel project and the overall 60-mile segment of rail from downtown San Diego through Del Mar to San Clemente. These analyses are urgent and necessary because of the multiple landslides and stoppages in San Clemente, daily ridership along the line that appears to be very low, extremely high project costs, and significant environmental damage including loss of beach and coastal access in San Clemente and Del Mar. The analysis should include a rail-to-trail conversion and comparison for the 60-mile segment.
2- Del Mar is opposed to any tunnel underneath homes or businesses in Del Mar. 3- Del Mar is opposed to any eminent domain seizure of homes, businesses, or private property in Del Mar.
Yours truly, Tim Haidinger
1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
1 Melinda Gould
From: Peter Cramton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 12:56 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dave Druker; Dwight Worden-Private; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk
Cc: Kevin Patrick
Subject: Today's City Council Meeting, Red Dot
Attachments: cramton-patrick-principles-for-the-lossan-rail-corridor.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Del Mar City Council,
We believe that Del Mar's guiding principles on the coastal train need to be broadened. We have done so in the attached (pasted below). Del Mar should not fall into SANDAG's status quo thinking—only considering rail relocation and ignoring retirement. The time for an independent, forward-looking benefit-cost analysis is now.
Kind regards,
Peter Cramton and Kevin Patrick
Del Mar
Del Mar Principles for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor
Respectfully submitted by Peter Cramton and Kevin Patrick, 16 July 2024 (emeritus professors in economics and public health, residing in Del Mar) These principles provide a structured approach to evaluating the future of the LOSSAN rail corridor, balancing current needs with long-term sustainability and regional impacts.
Holistic problem assessment
Recognize that issues with the LOSSAN Rail corridor extend beyond Del Mar. Investigate and document challenges in other corridor sections and collaborate as necessary. For example, San Clemente is also experiencing major train disruptions and is considering multi-billion-dollar solutions. Assess how these challenges are being addressed and at what cost. Consider how other sections' timing and proposed solutions impact decisions in Del Mar. For example, does deciding on a Del Mar solution before San Clemente solutions are proposed make sense? Environmental impact consideration
Ensure that solutions for Del Mar are informed by state-of-the-art environmental impact knowledge. Acknowledge the interconnectedness of Del Mar's environment with its neighboring regions: North, East, and South for populated areas and West with our coastal waters.
Independent, forward-looking benefit-cost analysis
Conduct an independently led benefit-cost analysis of the LOSSAN corridor adjacent to Del Mar. As per Principle 1, this analysis should address the corridor from San Clemente south to San Diego. Address four core areas:
o Rapid innovation in transportation technologies that may offer lower-cost, carbon-free solutions. o Passenger ridership and alternative transit means, such as electric buses or light rail. 1 July 16, 2024 Item 01
2 o Freight usage and alternative freight approaches, such as greater reliance on Long Beach and Los Angeles ports.
o Opportunity costs related to sustaining the train versus using the land in other ways that support transportation, recreation, economic development, and environmental improvements. o Public health issues such as injury prevention and improved health through active mobility because of pedestrian and cyclist access to the present train's corridor.
High burden of proof for disruptive approaches
Given the unprecedented disruption and potential long-term environmental consequences of sustaining the LOSSAN corridor, maintain a high burden of proof for any proposed interventions. Ensure thorough environmental and social impact assessments for any proposed actions.
Due diligence and question assumptions
Perform due diligence and question long-held assumptions. For example, how sound are assumptions related to the train's importance to national defense, transport, and current and future economic needs? Evaluate the train in head-to-head comparisons with alternatives to determine whether it is necessary for these purposes or whether existing and future alternatives should be pursued.
Long-term planning horizon
Recognize that the train has been in place for almost 150 years and that proposed investments will impact infrastructure, potentially lasting another 150 years.
Use this long-term perspective in planning processes and analyses to ensure sustainable and future-proof decisions.
2 July 16, 2024 Item 01