DISCUSSION:
The 2024 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project, Bid No. 2024-06, was prepared and advertised for construction bids. The City received four bid proposals for Bid No. 2024-
06. On June 11, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., the City Clerk opened the bids. The bids are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Bid Results
Contractor Bid Price
Quality Construction & Engineering $ 927,487.60
Eagle Paving Company $ 1,046,400.00
Griffith Company $ 1,294,409.00
ATP General Engineering Contractors $ 1,343,492.00
The bid submitted by Quality Construction & Engineering was found to be complete and responsive to the bid specifications. Quality Construction & Engineering performed the previous street maintenance project and has a valid contractor’s license. Staff is recommending that Quality Construction & Engineering be awarded the construction contract. The contract amount is based on the City Engineer’s estimated unit quantities and the contractor’s bid unit prices. The final cost of the project will be based on field measurements and the actual completed quantities. The contract allows 60 working days (12 weeks) to complete the work. The project is anticipated to be started in August 2024 and be completed in November 2024.
CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Project funding will be from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Annual Pavement Management Program. The funding includes $200,000 in Gas Tax Funds, $210,000 in TransNet Funds, $300,000 in Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) Funds, and $390,000 in General Funds, for a total budget of $1,100.000.
In addition to the $927,487.60 construction contract, Staff is recommending the remaining budget for a construction contingency of $172,512.40 (approximately 18.6%) for unanticipated changes and additional street repairs, for a total allocated construction budget of $1,100,000.
June 26, 2024
Award 2024 Street Maintenance Project
WORK PLAN:
This project is listed in the FY 2023/24 Work Plan under the Community Character priorities.
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Approve Staff recommendation with alternative amendments/modifications. • Do not approve Staff recommendations.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider adoption of Resolution 2024-076:
1. Awarding a construction contract to Quality Construction & Engineering in the amount of $927,487.60, for the 2024 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project, Bid 2024-06.
2. Approving an amount of $172,512.40 for construction contingency.
3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract on behalf of the City.
4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve cumulative change orders up to the amount of the construction contingency.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Department Recommendation.
_______________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-076
2. Map of Proposed Street Resurfacing
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 2024-076
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING FOR THE 2024
STREET MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the current Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes funding for street maintenance and repairs; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Department utilized a City-wide pavement condition assessment, field reviews and a review of previous street rehabilitation projects to identify the list of streets to be repaired as part of this project; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, four bids for the 2024 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project, Bid No. 2024-06, were received and publicly opened by the City Clerk.
At that time, it was determined that Quality Construction & Engineering was the apparent low bidder with a construction estimate of $927,487.60; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends a construction contingency of approximately
18.6%, in the amount of $172,512.40, for unanticipated extra work and additional street repairs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council awards the construction contract to Quality Construction & Engineering, in the amount of $927,487.60, for the 2024 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project, Bid 2024-06.
3. That the City Council approves an amount of $172,512.40 for construction contingency.
4. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the construction contract on behalf of the City.
Resolution 2024-076
Award 2024 Street Maintenance & Repairs Project
5. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to approve cumulative change orders up to the amount of the construction contingency.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2024, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk
THERESA
SANTA
CHICA
VIA
OVERLAY
SLURRY SEAL
2024 STREET MAINTENANCE
CUMBRES
VIA MIL
*
DIG-OUT LOCATIONS DIG-OUTS IN OVERLAY & SLURRY SEAL AREAS NOT SHOWN. ADDITIONAL DIG-OUTS NOT SHOWN ARE ANTICIPATED.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO
OF
COUNTY
ENCINITAS
DEL MAR VICINITY MAP
OO
REPLACE
SURVEY
CAN OO
AC BERM OO
AC BERM OO
AC BERM OO
AC BERM OO
R&R
DRIVEWAYOO
R&R
SIDEWALK OO
R&R
SIDEWALKOO
CONCRETE &
BERM WORK
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
s REPAINT STRIPING
s
s
*
EL PEDREGAL
*
s
*
*
*
R&R 2 RAMPS OO
R&R 4 RAMPS OO OO
CROSS GUTTEROO
OO
CROSS GUTTER
OO
CROSS GUTTER
CROSS OO
GUTTER
HIGHLAND DR
*
*
REPLACE
SURVEY
CANOO
R&R 2 RAMPS
*
s
Attachment 2
\ '
~
~\ DRI\ VATE 1!Hr'RAR~~ ~ ----------..... •-~ ----;~ - :::~ ---, ~ I
v <>
~ ~ I ~ o<>◊ "'
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # A.8.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Department, Mo Sammak Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Resolution 2024-070 Approving a Professional Services Agreement with
Sweeping Corporation of America of California, LLC, for Citywide Street Sweeping Services
BACKGROUND:
The City’s Street Sweeping function is performed by a private service provider. Based on Staff’s experience with this service and in discussion with other agencies, all indications are that the cost of services are escalating as the service providers are being consolidated in this industry. In an effort to have a better control on this function and take advantage of the economies of scale, Staff collaborated with other agencies to award a contract for a large project. A Request for Bid (RFB) for street sweeping services was posted in March 2024. Staff collaborated with San Diego County Local Government Agencies to initiate a joint RFB, Bid No. 006-25, aimed at securing better value and cost-effective solutions for street sweeping services. The cities involved in this endeavor are the City of Solana Beach, the City of Del Mar, and the City of El Cajon.
The RFB was posted on an electronic procurement system to solicit bids from private industry service providers. Two bids were received by the April 22, 2024, closing date.
This item is before the City Council for the consideration of Resolution 2024-070 (Attachment 1) authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Sweeping Corporation of America of California, LLC, (SCA) for one year and to authorize the City Manager to extend the PSA for four additional oneyear terms at the City’s discretion, for Citywide Street Sweeping Services.
June 26, 2024
Award PSA - Street Sweeping Services
DISCUSSION:
Street sweeping is an important program in maintaining the general appearance of the City for residents and those who visit the City. Street sweeping is also a critical element of the City’s Best Management Practices (BMP) to aid in reducing the amount of trash and other contaminants that enter the storm drain system.
The City’s current program includes sweeping of all City streets once per month and major City streets once per week. The RFB requested line-item costs for the sweeping of all City Streets and for City parking lots. The proposal also solicited a cost for additional “per hour” sweeping for on-call services that may be required after storm events, traffic accidents, bike lane sweeping or scheduled City special events. These as-needed services will also include known areas of high usage that require more sweeping activities. Finally, the City requested that the successful service provider use recycled water during the operation and be equipped to “top load” from the street sweeper directly into a 20-yard dumpster.
The work associated with street sweeping services is not considered a construction project as identified by the California Public Contract Code. As such, the City is able to choose the most suitable firm based on their qualifications. In response to the RFB posted by the three cities (Solana Beach, Del Mar, El Cajon), two bids were received that ranged in cost from $710,577.19 to $991,649.57, as shown below in Table 1.
Table 1: RESULTS FOR 3 CITIES
Contractor Total
Sweeping Corporation of America of
California, LLC
$710,577.19
Guardian Street Sweeping $991,649.57
The bid entails a 3% increase in the contractor’s rates starting from the second fiscal year and continuing for the subsequent four fiscal years. The proposed increase is intended to account for inflationary pressures, rising operational costs, and to maintain the contractor’s viability in delivering services effectively.
Staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement to SCA for Citywide Street sweeping services in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 in an amount not to exceed $99,681 for FY 2024/25 and to increase the annual compensation not to exceed base contract amount by 3% for the four subsequent years. The total cost, including 215 hours for asneeded services for Solana Beach, is shown below in Table 2.
June 26, 2024
Award PSA - Street Sweeping Services
Table 2: RESULTS FOR SOLANA BEACH
City of
Solana
Beach
Monthly
Street
Sweeping
Curb Mile
Rate
Monthly
Parking
Lots
Square
Ft. Rate
Total
Base
Contract
AsNeeded
Sweeping
Services
Per Hour
Rate
Total As
Needed
Services
Yearly
Total
Contract
Amount
SCA FY:2024/
2025
90 Miles
($52 Per
Mile)
133,000
SF.
($0.0010
Per SF.)
$57,756 Not to
Exceed
215 Hours
Per Year
($195 Per
Hour)
$41,925 $99,681
Guarding
Street
Sweeping
FY:2024/
2025
90 Miles
($73.74
Per Mile)
133,000
SF.
($0.0015
Per SF.)
$81,033.2 Not to
Exceed
215 Hours
Per Year
($275 Per
Hour)
$59,125 $140,158
City Staff gave a thorough evaluation of the two proposals and pertinent documents. Staff has determined that SCA is the most qualified candidate and the best fit to provide street sweeping services for the City of Solana Beach. SCA has been the City’s street sweeping service provider since 2021 and Staff has been satisfied with the performance of their work.
SCA is the most qualified company and the best fit for the City due to their responsiveness, accountability, and service delivery. They know the City’s streets well, making the learning curve much more manageable. They are committed to providing high customer service with a comprehensive quality assurance/control program. They currently provide similar services for the City of Poway, City of El Cajon, and City of Del Mar.
CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:
Not a project as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget has appropriated $100,000 in the Street Sweeping Budget Unit of the Public Works Operating Budget for the street sweeping agreement.
Since the proposal from SCA is for $99,681, the agreement would be fully funded in the FY 2024/25 Adopted Budget.
June 26, 2024
Award PSA - Street Sweeping Services
WORK PLAN:
This project is not identified in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Work Plan.
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Reject Staff recommendation and provide further direction to City Staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution 2024-070:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, on behalf of the City, with Sweeping Corporation of America of California, LLC., for Citywide street sweeping services in Fiscal Year 2024/25 in an amount not to exceed $99,681 for Fiscal Year 2024/25.
2. Authorizing the City Manager to extend the agreement for up to four additional years at the City’s option, at an amount not to exceed the amount budgeted in each subsequent year.
3. Authorizing the City Manager to increase the annual not to exceed base contract amount by 3% for FY 2025/26, 3% for FY 2026/27, 3% for FY 2027/28, and 3% for FY 2028/29.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Department Recommendation
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-070
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-070
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
SWEEPING CORPORATION OF AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA
LLC., FOR STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
WHEREAS, a Request for Bid (RFB) for street sweeping services was posted in March 2024. Staff collaborated with two San Diego Local Government Agencies to initiate a joint RFB, Bid No. 006-25, aimed at securing better value and cost-effective solutions for street sweeping services. The cities involved in this endeavor are City of Solana Beach, City of Del Mar, and City of El Cajon; and
WHEREAS, the RFB was posted on an electronic procurement system to solicit bids from private industry service providers. Two bids were received by the April 22, 2024, closing date; and
WHEREAS, street sweeping is an important program in maintaining the general appearance of the City for residents and those who visit the City. Street sweeping is also a critical element of the City’s Best Management Practices to aid in reducing the amount of trash and other contaminants that enter the storm drain system; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Sweeping Corporation of America of California, LLC, (SCA) for Citywide street sweeping services in Fiscal Year 2024/25 in an amount not to exceed $99,681 for Fiscal Year 2024/25 and to increase the annual not to exceed amount by 3% for subsequent years; and
WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding appropriated in the Street Sweeping Budget Unit of the Public Works operating budget to cover the cost of these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement, on behalf of the City, with Sweeping Corporation of America of California, LLC., for Citywide street sweeping services in Fiscal Year 2024/25 in an amount not to exceed $99,681 for Fiscal Year 2024/25.
3. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to extend the agreement up to four additional one-year terms, at the City’s option, at an amount not to exceed the amount budgeted in each subsequent year.
Resolution 2024-070
Award PSA to SCA for Street Sweeping Services
4. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager to increase the annual not to exceed base contract amount by 3% for FY 2025/26, 3% for FY 2026/27, 3% for FY 2027/28, and 3% for FY 2028/29.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.1.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: City Council Consideration of Resolutions 2024-071 and 2024-072 Accepting the Final Engineer’s
Report and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Annual
Assessments for the City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail
Trail Maintenance District
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the City Council adopted a resolution forming the City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) Maintenance District (“District”) under the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Division 15, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highways Code. The District was formed for the purpose of levying and collecting funds for the operation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping, lighting and all appurtenant facilities related to the District.
On May 22, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolutions 2024-046, 2024-047 and 2024- 048 initiating the proceedings for the annual levy of assessments for the District; approving the preliminary CRT Maintenance District Engineer’s Report (Report) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 annual levy of assessments for the District; declaring the City’s intent to provide for the annual levy and collection of assessments for the District; and setting a time and place for the public hearing, respectively.
This item is presented to the City Council to conduct the Public Hearing and to consider Resolution 2024-071 (Attachment 1) accepting the Final CRT Maintenance District Engineer’s Report and Resolution 2024-072 (Attachment 2) ordering the levy and collection of annual assessments for the District for FY 2024/25.
DISCUSSION:
The District’s major costs are for the maintenance and operation of the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT). The maintenance items include landscaping, irrigation and hardscape June 26, 2024
Renew & Levy CRT Maintenance District for FY 2024/25
maintenance, tree trimming and graffiti removal. The costs also include the utility charges for water.
The District budget includes funds for capital replacement costs for possible replacement of the following items: landscape, irrigation, pedestrian/bike path and hardscape items. The capital replacement costs also include an operating reserve of 10% of the direct operating and maintenance costs.
The District’s assessment methodology uses an Equivalent Benefit Unit ("EBU”) System. The EBU method of apportioning benefit is typically viewed as the most appropriate and equitable assessment methodology for districts formed under the 1972 Act. The EBU for the proposed District establishes the single-family detached residential unit as the basic unit, representing 1.0 EBU. The following summarizes the EBU application by land use:
Land Use EBU
Single-Family Residential 1.0 per parcel
Residential Condominium 1.0 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential 0.75 per dwelling unit
Planned Residential Development 1.0 per proposed unit
Commercial/Industrial 1.0 per parcel
Vacant Single-Family Residential 1.0 per parcel
Vacant Multi-Family Residential 0.75 per parcel
Vacant Commercial/Industrial 1.0 per parcel
The methodology also identifies parcels that are exempt from the proposed District.
They may include, but are not limited to, parcels identified as public streets, roadways, dedicated public easements, open space, and rights-of-way. These properties, as well as other publicly owned properties such as schools, the fire station and community centers, are considered to receive little or no benefit from the improvements of the proposed District.
In addition to assigning each property an EBU by land type, the assessment methodology utilizes three zones based on the location of parcels in proximity to the CRT. Properties located the closest to the CRT will receive a greater special benefit than those properties that are located the farthest away from the CRT. A factor is applied to each of the zones according to their locations. The three zones are as follows:
Zone 1:
This zone includes all properties generally located within a few blocks of the CRT. The properties are located east of Acacia Avenue and Sierra Avenue and west of Rios Avenue. Parcels in this zone are assessed the EBU amounts based on land use and are then multiplied by a factor of three.
June 26, 2024
Renew & Levy CRT Maintenance District for FY 2024/25
Zone 2:
This zone includes all properties that are generally located west of Acacia Avenue and those properties located east of Rios Avenue and west of Interstate 5. Parcels in this zone are assessed the EBU amounts based on land use and are then multiplied by a factor of two.
Zone 3:
This zone includes properties located east of Interstate 5. Parcels in this zone are assessed the EBU amounts based on land use and are then multiplied by a factor of
0.5. The following shows the maximum assessment rates proposed to be levied in the FY 2024/25 by land use:
Land Use Description Per
Base
Rate
Zone 1
Base
Rate
Zone 2
Base
Rate
Zone 3
Single-Family Residential
Lot or
Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Residential Condominium
Dwelling
Unit $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Multi-Family Residential
Dwelling
Unit $18.82 $12.54 $3.14
Planned Residential
Development
Lot or
Dwelling
Unit $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Commercial/Industrial Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Vacant Single-Family
Residential Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Vacant Multi-Family Residential Parcel $18.82 $12.54 $3.14 Vacant Commercial/Industrial Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18 Timeshare Units
1 week of
ownership $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00
Exempt Parcels Parcel $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00
Public Owned Parcels Parcel $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00
The 1972 Act requires the City Council to adopt a resolution annually directing the preparation and filing of an Annual Report and a Resolution of Intention to renew the annual assessments for the District. The resolutions declare the City Council's intention to levy and collect assessments and set the date of the public hearing at which the assessments will be levied. The law requires the assessment information to be submitted to the County by August 10th of each year.
June 26, 2024
Renew & Levy CRT Maintenance District for FY 2024/25
Fiscal Year 2024/25 Benefit Fees
Attachment 3 is the proposed Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Engineer's Report for FY 2024/25 (Report). The Report contains an overview of the District, a description of the services and improvements to be maintained, the proposed FY 2024/25 Budget, and the method of apportionment.
The Report identifies and allocates costs and assessments of the District based on provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (1972 Act) and the Streets and Highways Code of California. Per the 1972 Act, the Maximum Assessment may be increased using the lesser of the increase in the San Diego Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) or the maximum of the first year levy beginning in Fiscal Year 2007/2008, known as the Assessment Range Formula (2.0%). The Maximum Assessment adjusted annually by this formula is not considered an increased assessment because it is consistent with the formula approved by the vote in January 2006.
The CPI-U for 2023 was 5.51%. Since the maximum amount the assessment is allowed to increase each year is equal to the CPI-U but not greater than 2.00%, the assessments for FY 2024/25 are proposed to increase by 2.00% per Table 1 of the Report. The City has notified the property owners about levying and collecting the assessment in the Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District by publishing a notice of this public hearing in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:
Not a project as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The District began assessing a benefit charge in FY 2006/07. The CPI-U for 2023 was
5.51%. Since the maximum amount the assessment is allowed to increase each year is equal to the CPI-U but not greater than 2.00%, the assessments for FY 2024/25 are proposed to increase by 2.00% per Table 1 of the Report (and indicated above). The amount of the Equivalent Benefit Unit for FY 2024/25 is $8.36. This is $0.18 more per EBU than last year’s assessment and is consistent with the approval of the District by the vote of the property owners in January 2006.
Based on the above methodology and included in the Engineer’s Report, the CRT is expected to receive $84,177 in benefit charge revenues (total assessment amount). Total annual expenditures expected to be spent on the CRT are $106,231. The shortfall of $22,054, or the difference between the amount expected to be received ($84,177) and the amount expected to be spent ($106,231), will be covered by available projected reserves in the CRT fund of $45,984 on July 1, 2024. The CRT fund should keep reserves equal to approximately 50% of the annual assessment amount. This reserve will be under the 50% recommended maximum fund balance of $42,089. In the future, additional funds will need June 26, 2024
Renew & Levy CRT Maintenance District for FY 2024/25
to be appropriated from non-CRT funding sources to fully fund the maintenance of the Coastal Rail Trail and maintain the recommended operating reserves.
WORK PLAN:
Renewal of the District is consistent with the Fiscal Sustainability section of the proposed FY 2024/25 Work Plan.
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Do not renew the CRT Maintenance District and fund the cost for maintenance of the CRT through the General Fund.
• Provide further direction to Staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing: open the public hearing, report Council disclosures, receive public testimony, close the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution 2024-071, approving the Engineer's Report regarding the Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District.
3. Adopt Resolution 2024-072, ordering the levy and collection of the annual assessments regarding the Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2024/25.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Department Recommendation.
_______________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-071
2. Resolution 2024-072
3. Engineer’s Report for FY 2024/25
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-071
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2024/25 ENGINEER'S REPORT REGARDING THE
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (the “Act"), did by previous Resolution order the Assessment Engineer, Koppel & Gruber Public Finance, to prepare and file the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Engineer's Report for the City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District (District); and
WHEREAS, the Assessment Engineer has prepared and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, California, and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council such report entitled City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Engineer's Report FY 2024/25 (“Report”) as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and reviewed the Report as presented, considered all oral and written comments presented with respect to the District and Report at a noticed Public Hearing and has discussed any necessary or desired modifications to the Report, and is satisfied that the levy for each parcel has been calculated in accordance with the special benefits received from the operation, maintenance and services performed, as set forth in the Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California does resolve as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The Report as presented or as modified, contains the following:
a. Description of Improvements.
b. Diagram of the District.
c. Method of Apportionment that details the method of calculating each parcel's proportional special benefits and annual assessment.
Resolution 2024-071
Approve Engineer’s Report for CRT Assessment District for FY 2024/25
d. The FY 2024/25 Assessment based upon the Method of Apportionment as approved by the property owners pursuant to the provision of the California Constitution Article XIIID Section 4.
e. An Assessment Range Formula for calculating annual inflationary adjustments to the initial “Maximum Assessment” (Adjusted Maximum Levy per benefit unit), also approved by the property owners. f. The FY 2024/25 Annual Budget (Costs and Expenses) and the resulting FY 2024/25 assessment (levy per benefit unit) for the fiscal year. g. The District Roll containing the levy for each Assessor's Parcel Number within the District for FY 2024/25.
3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter on the minutes of the City Council any and all modifications to the Report determined and approved by the City Council, and all such changes and/or modifications by reference are to be incorporated into the Report.
4. The City Council is satisfied with the Report as presented or modified, each and all of the budget items and documents as set forth therein, and is satisfied that the FY 2024/25 annual assessments contained therein are consistent with the assessments approved by the property owners and spread in accordance with the special benefits received from the improvements pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID.
5. The Report is hereby approved as submitted or modified and ordered to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open to public inspection.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and the minutes of this meeting shall so reflect the presentation and approval of the Report as submitted or modified.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the by the City council of the City of Solana Beach by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
Resolution 2024-071
Approve Engineer’s Report for CRT Assessment District for FY 2024/25
_______________________ _____
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ ________________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk ---
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION 2024-072
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS REGARDING THE
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2024/25
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by previous resolutions, initiated proceedings to form and declare its intention to levy and collect annual assessments against parcels of land within the City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District (“District”), for the Fiscal Year (FY) commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (Act) to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto; and
WHEREAS, Koppel & Gruber Public Finance, the Assessment Engineer selected by the City Council, has prepared and filed with the City Clerk, and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council the Engineer’s Report entitled City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Engineer's Report FY 2024/25 (“Report”) in connection with the proposed levy and collection of special benefit assessment upon eligible parcels of land within the District, and the City Council did by previous resolution approve such Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy and collect assessments against parcels of land within the District for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council, following notice duly given, has held a full and fair Public Hearing on June 26, 2024, regarding the levy and collection of assessments as described in the Report prepared in connection therewith, and considered all oral and written statements, protests and communications made or filed by interested persons regarding these matters, pursuant to the Act and in accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California does resolve as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. Following notice duly given, the City Council has held a full and fair public hearing regarding the levy and collection of the assessments, the Report prepared in connection therewith, and considered all oral and written statements, Resolution 2024-072
Assessment for CRT District for FY 2024/25
protests and communications made or filed by interested persons regarding these matters.
3. The City Council desires to levy and collect assessments against parcels of land within the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the landscaping, public lighting improvements and appurtenant facilities located within public places in the District.
4. The City Council has carefully reviewed and examined the Report in connection with the District, and the levy and collection of assessments. Based upon its review of the Report, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council and which has been filed with the City Clerk, hereby finds that the City Council determines that:
a. The territory of land within the District will receive special benefits from the operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, lighting, drainage and appurtenant facilities and improvements related thereto. b. The District includes all of the lands so benefited; and c. The amount to be assessed upon the lands within the District, in accordance with the proposed budget for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the net amount among all eligible parcels in proportion to the special benefits, to be received by each parcel from the improvements and services, and is satisfied that the assessments are levied, without regard to property valuation.
5. The Report and FY 2024/25 assessments, as presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk, are hereby confirmed as filed.
6. The City Council hereby orders the proposed improvements to be made; the improvements are briefly described as the operation, administration, maintenance and servicing of all public landscaping, lighting improvements and appurtenant facilities and expenses associated with the District, and that will be maintained by the City of Solana Beach or their designee and all such maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, lighting and all appurtenant facilities shall be performed pursuant to the Act. A more complete description of the improvements is detailed in the Report and by reference this document is made part of this resolution.
7. The San Diego County Auditor shall place on the County Assessment Roll, opposite each parcel of land, the amount of levy so apportioned by the method of Resolution 2024-072
Assessment for CRT District for FY 2024/25
apportionment formula, outlined in the Report and such levies shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 22646 of the Act. After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City Treasurer.
8. The City Treasurer shall deposit all money from the assessments collected by the County for the District into a fund for the Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District, and such money shall be expended to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto described above.
9. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the authorization of the District levy for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025.
10.The City Clerk or Clerk's designee is hereby authorized and directed to file the levy with the San Diego County Auditor subsequent to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
_______________________ _____
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ ________________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk ---
City Of Solana Beach
Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2024/2025
Date May 8, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................1 SECTION II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATION..............................................................3 SECTION III. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 BUDGET ..................................5 A. ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 BUDGET ...............................5 B. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS...................................................7 SECTION IV. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT .......................................................8 A. GENERAL ................................................................................................8 B. GENERAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS ..........................................................8 C. SPECIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS .............................................................9 D. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .......................................................10 E. RATES .....................................................................................................12 F. ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA.....................................................13 SECTION V. ASSESSMENT ROLL.............................................................................14 SECTION VI. ASSESSEMENT DIAGRAM ...................................................................15 City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 1 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
SECTION I. OVERVIEW
A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Coastal Rail Trail (the “CRT”) is a project sponsored by the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach and San Diego for a multi-use pathway (bicycle facilities and pedestrian) that will ultimately extend from the San Luis Rey River in Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego. Each of the sponsoring cities has agreed to construct and maintain the portion of the trail that is located within their jurisdiction. The City of Solana Beach (the “City”) began construction on their portion of the CRT (“City CRT”) in August 2003 by obtaining outside grants and the City CRT was substantially completed in November of 2004.
The City CRT consists of a Class I bicycle trail that is approximately 1.7 miles long. The Solana Beach portion of the CRT starts at the south City boundary at Via de la Valle and extends north to Ocean Street near the north City boundary.
The City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District (“District”) was formed in January 2006 in order to provide funding for the maintenance of certain public improvements including but not limited to the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping and public lighting improvements along the City CRT. This report constitutes the Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report for the District.
The City Council pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (“Act”) and in compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the California State Constitution Article XIIIC and XIIID (“Proposition 218”) and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the “Implementation Act”) desires to levy and collect annual assessments against lots and parcels within the District beginning in the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025 to pay for the operation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping and public lighting improvements along the City CRT. The proposed assessments are based on the City’s estimate of the costs for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 to maintain the City CRT improvements that provide a special benefit to properties assessed within the District. The assessment rates set for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 as set forth in this Engineer’s Report, do not exceed the maximum rates established at the time the District was formed, therefore, the City and the District are not required to go through a property owner ballot procedure in order to establish the 2024/2025 assessment rates.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 2 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
B. CONTENTS OF ENGINEER’S REPORT
This Report describes the District boundaries and the proposed improvements to be assessed to the property owners located within the District. The Report is made up of the following sections.
SECTION I. OVERVIEW – Provides a general introduction into the Report and provides background on the District and the assessment.
SECTION II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS – Contains a general description of the improvements that are maintained and serviced by the District.
SECTION III. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 BUDGET – Identifies the cost of the maintenance and services to be provided by the District including incidental costs and expenses.
SECTION IV. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT – Describes the basis in which costs have been apportioned to lots or parcels within the District, in proportion to the special benefit received by each lot or parcel.
SECTION V. ASSESSMENT ROLL – The assessment roll identifies the maximum assessment to be levied to each lot or parcel within the District.
SECTION VI. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM – Displays a diagram of the District showing the boundaries of the District.
For this Report, each lot or parcel to be assessed, refers to an individual property assigned its own Assessment Parcel Number (“APN”) by the San Diego County (“County”) Assessor’s Office as shown on the last equalized roll of the assessor.
Following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council will confirm the Report as submitted or amended and may order the collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 3 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
SECTION II. PLANS AND SPECIFICATION
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT
The boundaries of the District are defined as being contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Solana Beach. Solana Beach is located approximately thirty miles north of the City of San Diego in the north coastal area of the County. The City is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the City of Encinitas to the north, the City of Del Mar to the south and the County of San Diego to the east.
The properties within the District include single-family residential, multi-family residential, timeshare, commercial, and industrial parcels. Each parcel has been categorized into three zones based upon their general proximity to the City CRT. Please refer to Section IV D of the Report for a further explanation on the zones included within the District.
B. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MAINTAINED The District provides a funding mechanism for the ongoing maintenance, operation and servicing of landscaping and public lighting improvements that were installed as part of the construction of the City CRT. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, all materials, equipment, utilities, labor, and appurtenant facilities related to those improvements.
The improvements constructed as part of the project that are to be maintained and serviced by the District relate to landscaping and public lighting improvements, and are generally described as follows:
Concrete and decomposed granite trails including landscaping, irrigation, drainage, grading, lighting, and hardscape features.
Concrete paths, trees, plantings, lighting, irrigation, conduit, infrastructure, earthwork, trash receptacles, fencing, node structures (bus shelters, art amenities, garden nodes), drinking fountains, signage, and observation deck.
Open space and irrigated and planted slopes located along the Trail. Public lighting facilities within and adjacent to the City CRT.
Maintenance services will be provided by City personnel and/or private contractors. The proposed improvements to be maintained and services are generally described as follows:
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 4 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS
The landscaping improvements and services to be maintained by the District include but are not limited to landscaping, planting, ground cover, shrubbery, turf, trees, irrigation and drainage systems, hardscape, fixtures, sidewalks, fencing and other appurtenant items located along and adjacent to the City CRT.
PUBLIC LIGHTING AND APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS
The public lighting improvements to be maintained and serviced include but are not limited to the following, which provide public lighting directly or indirectly to the City CRT or to other public areas associated with or necessary for use of the trail:
Maintenance, repair and replacement of public light poles and fixtures, including changing light bulbs, painting, photoelectric cell repair or replacement, and repairing damage caused by automobile accidents, vandalism, time, and weather. Electrical conduit repair and replacement due to damage by vandalism, time and weather.
Service-call maintenance, repair and replacement including painting, replacing worn out electrical components and repairing damage due to accidents, vandalism, and weather.
Payment of the electrical bill for the existing street lighting system. Responding to constituent and business inquiries and complaints regarding the public lighting.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of landscaping and public lighting improvements facilities and appurtenant facilities. This includes repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the landscaping and street lighting improvements, or appurtenant facilities; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping improvements and for the operation of the lighting improvements.
Servicing means the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment and utilities necessary to maintain the landscaping improvements and to maintain and operate the public lighting improvements or appurtenant facilities in order to provide adequate illumination.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 5 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
SECTION III. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
A. ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 BUDGET
A summary of the proposed District Fiscal Year 2024/2025 budget is summarized, by category, in Table 1 shown on the following page:
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 6 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
TOTAL
BUDGET
GENERAL
BENEFIT
PORTION1&2
PROPOSED FY
2024/2025
ASSESSMENT
Operating and Maintenance
Landscape, Irrigation & Hardscape Maintenance Thru an
Outside Contract (Includes Tree Trimming) $68,500 $3,500 $65,000 Utilities (Water) $21,000 $0 $21,000
Utilities (Electricity) $29,500 $29,500 $0
Trail Maintenance (DG & Concrete Paths) $1,400 $0 $1,400 Graffiti Abatement $200 $0 $200
Advertising $700 $0 $700
Total Operating and Maintenance Costs $121,300 $33,000 $88,300 Capital Replacement
Landscape & Irrigation Replacement $3,600 $100 $3,500
Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Replacement $2,500 $0 $2,500
Hardscape Features Replacement (water fountain, art
work, bus shelter) $2,600 $100 $2,500
Reserves
Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Reserve Collection $0 $0 $0
Total Capital Replacement and Reserves $8,700 $200 $8,500 District Administration Costs
County SB 2557 Costs $598
County Electronic Data Processing Costs $602
City Administration/Consultant Costs $8,231
Total Administration Costs $9,431
TOTAL BUDGET $106,231
LESS OPERATING RESERVES USED IN FY2 ($22,054)
TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT $84,177
Total Parcels in the District 13,105
Total Parcels Levied 5,658
Total Equivalent Benefit Units 10,069.13
Proposed Levy Per Equivalent Benefit Unit $8.36
Inflation Percentage Applied to Proposed Levy Per EBU 2.00% Beginning Balance as of 7/1/24 $45,984
FY 2024/2025 Collection $84,177
Expenditures ($106,231)
Projected Ending Balance as of 6/30/253 $23,930
Maximum Recommended Cash Flow Reserve Amount $42,089
1. While the cost of the electricity is not 100% general benefit, the City is paying for the entire cost through other available funds and none of the cost is being allocated to the parcels located within the District.
2. The CRT landscaping cost is greater than the available funding from the District so other available funding is being utilized to cover the difference.
3. The City is developing a plan on how to utilize the operating reserves on the CRT in the future.
ADMINISTRATION COSTS
AMOUNT TO LEVY
OPERATING RESERVES
Table 1
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
2024/2025 BUDGET
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT AND RESERVES
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 7 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
B. DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET ITEMS
The following is a brief description of the major budget categories that includes the detailed costs of maintenance and services for the District included in the table above.
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS – This includes the costs of maintaining and servicing the landscaping and lighting improvements. This may include, but is not limited to, the costs for labor, utilities, equipment, supplies, repairs, replacements and upgrades that are required to properly maintain the items that provide a direct benefit to properties located within the District.
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT AND RESERVES – These items provide a funding source to pay for items that wear out over time, other unanticipated items not directly budgeted for and for the replacement of the landscaping, pathways and hardscape features located along and adjacent to the City CRT.
ADMINISTRATION COSTS – This includes the indirect costs not included above that are necessary to pay for administrative costs related to the District, including the levy and submittal of the assessments to the County to be placed on the Fiscal Year 2024/2025 County equalized tax roll, responding to property owner inquiries relating to the assessments and services, and any other related administrative costs.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 8 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
SECTION IV. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
A. GENERAL
The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include the construction, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping and public lights and appurtenant facilities.
Streets and Highways Code Section 22573 requires that maintenance assessments be levied according to benefit rather than the assessed value.
“The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
In addition, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act require that a parcel’s assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost for the proportional special benefit conferred to that parcel. A special benefit is a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on property located within the assessment district. Article XIIID and the Implementation Act further provides that only special benefits are assessable and the City must separate the general benefits from the special benefits. They also require that publicly owned properties which specifically benefit from the improvements be assessed.
B. GENERAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The improvements described in Section II B of this Report are for the special benefit, enhancement and use of properties within the District. However, the City CRT was constructed as a portion of a much larger regional trail that eventually will extend from the City of Oceanside to the north to the City of San Diego to the south. Residents and property owners located in each of the cities along the trail will receive a special benefit from the construction and maintenance of the trail within their city. Residents from each of these cities will have an opportunity to use the entire trail upon completion including the portion in Solana Beach which creates a general benefit.
Additionally, included among the different property types in the City are timeshare units.
Though individuals may purchase and “own” their timeshare unit, their ownership rights are limited and temporary (typically one week per year.) Owners of timeshare units have an opportunity to use the CRT while vacationing in the City. Due to the limited ownership time-frame of timeshare owners, their special benefit is limited and thus considered as part of the general benefit similar to the general benefit to the public at large.
The general benefit portion of the assessment has been determined by looking at each participating city’s trail length as a factor or the entire trail. The City of Solana Beach’s portion of the CRT is 1.7 miles compared to the entire proposed trail length of 44.0 miles.
Comparing the length of the City CRT to the total length of the CRT results in a general benefit of 3.86%. Engineering also determined that timeshares add an additional 2.0% City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 9 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
general benefit impact. For rounding purposes after adding the two components (3.86% +
2.0%) the general benefit is considered to be 6.0% overall to the public at large. The budget has been allocated to parcels based on their special benefit share. In addition, the City is paying 100% of the electricity costs, totaling $29,500, for the District through funds available from other sources resulting in over 30% of the costs paid directly by the City.
C. SPECIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Each of the proposed improvements and the associated costs and assessments within the District has been reviewed, identified and allocated based on special benefit pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, the Implementation Act, and the Streets and Highways Code Section 22573.
Proper maintenance and operation of the City CRT landscaping, hardscape, open space and public lighting provides special benefit to adjacent properties by providing community character, security, safety and vitality. Additionally, one of the purposes of the trail is to facilitate alternative transportation opportunities in order to reduce air pollution and vehicular traffic congestion which provide special benefit to the properties within the District.
TRAIL AND LANDSCAPING SPECIAL BENEFIT
Landscaping and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, provide beautification, shade and enhancement of the desirability of the surroundings, and therefore increase property values. Specifically, they provide a sense of ownership and a common theme in the community providing aesthetic appeal, recreational and health opportunities and increased desirability of properties.
PUBLIC LIGHTING SPECIAL BENEFIT
The operation, maintenance and servicing of public lighting along and adjacent to the City CRT provide safety and security to properties along City CRT specifically as follows:
Improved security, deterrence of crime and aid to police and fire protection. Reduced vandalism and damage to the improvements and property. Increased business activity to the coastal community during nighttime hours.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 10 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
D. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To establish the special benefit to the individual lots or parcels within the District, an Equivalent Benefit Unit system based on land use is used along with a Zone Factor based on geographic proximity to the City CRT.
EQUIVALENT BENEFIT UNITS
Each parcel of land is assigned an Equivalent Benefit Unit in proportion to the estimated special benefit the parcel receives relative to other parcels within the District. The single family detached (“SFD”) residential property has been selected as the basic unit for calculating assessments; therefore, a SFD residential parcel equals one Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”).
The EBU method of apportioning benefit is typically seen as the most appropriate and equitable assessment methodology for districts formed under the 1972 Act, as the benefit to each parcel from the improvements are apportioned as a function of land use type, size and development. A methodology has been developed to relate all other land uses to the SFD residential as described below.
EBU APPLICATION BY LAND USE:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — This land use is defined as a fully subdivided residential parcel in which a tract map has been approved and recorded. This land use is assessed 1.0 EBU per lot or parcel. This is the base value that all other land use types are compared and weighted against (i.e. Equivalent Benefit Unit or EBU).
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM — This land use is defined as a fully subdivided residential parcel that has more than one residential unit developed on the property with individual unit ownership. This land use is assessed 1.0 EBU per dwelling unit.
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — This land use is defined as a fully subdivided residential parcel that has more than one residential unit developed on the property not available for individual unit ownership. This land use is assessed 0.75 EBU per dwelling unit.
PLANNED-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — This land use is defined as any property not fully subdivided with a specific number of proposed residential lots or dwelling units to be developed on the parcel. This land use type is assessed at 1.0 EBU per planned (proposed) residential lot or dwelling unit.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL — This land use is defined as property developed for either commercial or industrial use. This land use type is assessed at 1.0 EBU per parcel.
VACANT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — This land use is defined as property currently zoned for single-family detached residential development, but a tentative or final tract map has not been submitted and/or approved. This land use is assessed at 1.0 EBU per parcel.
VACANT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — This land use is defined as property currently zoned for multi-family residential development, but a tentative or final tract map has not been submitted and/or approved. This land use is assessed at 0.75 EBU per parcel.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 11 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
VACANT COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL — This land use is defined as property currently zoned for either commercial or industrial use. This land use is assessed at 1.0 EBU per parcel.
EXEMPT PARCELS — This land use identifies properties that are not assessed and are assigned 0.0 EBU. This land use classification may include, but is not limited, to lots or parcels identified as public streets and other roadways (typically not assigned an APN by the County); dedicated public easements, open space areas and right-of-ways including greenbelts and parkways; utility right-of-ways; common areas, sliver parcels and bifurcated lots or any other property that can not be developed; park properties and other publicly owned properties that are part of the District improvements or that have little or no improvement value. These types of parcels are considered to receive little or no benefit from the improvements and are therefore exempted from assessment.
PUBLIC OWNED PARCELS — This land use identifies properties that are not assessed and are assigned 0.0 EBU. This land use classification includes other typically non-assessed parcels that are not considered exempt parcels and may include, but is not limited, to lots or parcels identified as schools, government owned buildings, fire and police stations, and administration offices. These types of properties are considered to receive little special benefit from the improvements and any benefit that they may receive is considered to be part of the City’s general benefit contribution to the District.
ZONE FACTOR
The District was divided into three zones based on the proximity of parcels in location to the City CRT. Properties located the closest to the trail will receive a greater special benefit as compared to those parcels the farthest away. In order to calculate this into the assessment a factor is applied to each parcel according to the following Zone location.
ZONE 1 PROPERTIES – This Zone is defined as properties located adjacent to or within a few blocks of the City CRT improvements. This includes all properties that are generally located east of Acacia and Sierra Avenue and west of Rios Avenue. Parcels located in this zone use the EBU amounts derived above based on land use and then multiplied by a proximity factor of three (3).
ZONE 2 PROPERTIES – This Zone is defined as properties located close to the improvements but not adjacent to the City CRT or properties defined as Zone 1 Properties.
This includes all properties that are generally located west of Acacia Avenue and also those properties located east of Rios Avenue and west of Interstate-5. Parcels located in this zone use the EBU amounts derived above based on land use and then multiplied by a proximity factor of two (2).
ZONE 3 PROPERTIES – This Zone is defined as properties located the furthest away from the City CRT improvements. This includes all properties that are located east of Interestate5. Parcels located in this zone use the EBU amounts derived above based on land use and then multiplied by a proximity factor of 0.5.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 12 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
The following table summarizes the EBU and Zone Factors based on land use.
In order to determine the maximum annual assessment rate for each type of land use described above, the following formula is applied:
Applicable EBU * Applicable Zone Factor*Maximum Assessment Rate per 1.0 EBU=Assessment Rate per Unit/Parcel.
E. RATES
Table 3 below shows the maximum assessments rates proposed to be levied in Fiscal Year 2024/2025 by land use. Because the San Diego Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) was over 2.00% for 2023 (5.51%), the maximum assessments were increased by 2.00% as allowed for in the assessment range formula discussed below.
Land Use Description
Equivalent
Benefit Units
(EBUs) Per
Zone 1
Multiplier
Zone 2
Multiplier
Zone 3
Multiplier
No. of EBUs
for Property
in Zone 1
No. of EBUs
for Property
in Zone 2
No. of EBUs
for Property
in Zone 3
Single Family Residential 1.00 Lot or Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 0.50 Residential Condominium 1.00 Dwelling Unit 3.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 0.50 Multi-Family Residential 0.75 Dwelling Unit 3.00 2.00 0.50 2.25 1.50 0.38 Planned Residential Development 1.00
Lot or Dwelling
Unit 3.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 0.50
Commercial/Industrial 1.00 Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 0.50 Vacant Single Family Residential 1.00 Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 0.50 Vacant Multi-Family Residential 0.75 Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 2.25 1.50 0.38 Vacant Commercial/Industrial 1.00 Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 2.00 0.50 Timeshare Units 0.00
1 week of
ownership 3.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exempt Parcels 0.00 Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Public Owned Parcels 0.00 Parcel 3.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 2
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
EQUIVALENT BENEFIT UNITS AND ZONE FACTOR BY LAND USE
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 13 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
F. ASSESSMENT RANGE FORMULA
The purpose of establishing an Assessment Range Formula is to provide for reasonable inflationary increases to the annual assessments without requiring the District to go through an expensive balloting process required by law in order to get a small increase. On July 1, 2007 and each year thereafter, the Maximum Assessment Rate shall be increased by the lesser of Local CPI-U in the San Diego County area or 2.0%. The CPI-U used shall be as determined annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics beginning with the CPI-U rate increase for 2006.
Beginning in the Fiscal Year 2007/2008 the Maximum Assessment may be increased using the lesser of the increase in the CPI-U from first year levy (the Assessment Range Formula) or 2.0%. This Assessment Rate Formula would be applied every fiscal year thereafter and a new Maximum Assessment will be established to include the allowable increase.
The Maximum Assessment adjusted annually by this formula is not considered an increased assessment. Although the Maximum Assessment will increase each year, the actual assessment will only reflect the necessary budgeted amounts and may remain unchanged. Increases in the budget or an increase in the rate in one year from the prior year will not require a new 218 balloting unless the rate is greater than the Maximum Assessment adjusted to reflect an increase in the CPI-U.
Land Use Description Per
Base Rate for
Zone 1
Base Rate
for Zone 2
Base Rate
for Zone 3
Single Family Residential Lot or Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18 Residential Condominium Dwelling Unit $25.08 $16.72 $4.18 Multi-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $18.82 $12.54 $3.14 Planned Residential Development
Lot or Dwelling
Unit $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Commercial/Industrial Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18
Vacant Single Family Residential Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18 Vacant Multi-Family Residential Parcel $18.82 $12.54 $3.14 Vacant Commercial/Industrial Parcel $25.08 $16.72 $4.18 Timeshare Units
1 week of
ownership $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Exempt Parcels Parcel $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Public Owned Parcels Parcel $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
EQUIVELANT BENEFIT UNITS AND ZONE FACTOR BY LAND USE
Table 3
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 14 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
SECTION V. ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District shall be the parcel as shown on the County Assessor's map for the year in which this Report is prepared.
A listing of parcels assessed within the District, along with the proposed assessment amounts, has been submitted to the City Clerk, under a separate cover, and by reference is made part of this Report. Said listing of parcels to be assessed shall be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller and included on the property tax roll for each parcel in Fiscal Year 2024/2025. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel or parcels shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report. Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amount applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 15 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
SECTION VI. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The parcels within the District consist of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land located in the City. A reduced copy of the boundary map of the area is attached. 900· 450• o· 900·
SCALE : 1" = 900'
,
KOPJPEL GRUBEIR PUBL I C J: 1 1'.AN E
334 'Via Vera Crus Suite 21111 Ban Ila-. Callfomla tlli078 PboDe ('NICI) 610-0280 ru ('NICI) 610-0288 (05-057) APRIL 2005
CITY OF
SAN DIEGO
SHEET 1 OF 1
FILED IN THE omcE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH THIS __ DAY OF ------~ 2005.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE l\1THIN MAP SHOl\1NG PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF THE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, CITY OF SOLANA
BEACH COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS APPROVED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIHE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH AT A REGULAR MEETING ~6;~~y ~~L~E~~L~ifoN-NO-. -==--D_A_Y_o_F .:=========---
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
NOTE· FOR PARTICULARS OF TIHE LINES AND DIMENSIONS OF ASSESSOR'S PARCELS, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE MAPS OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
ASSESSOR OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDS, WHICH MAPS SHALL GOVERN FOR ALL DETAILS RELATING TIHERETO.
PROPOSED BOUNDARY MAP OF
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City of Solana Beach Coastal Rail Trail Maintenance District Page 16 Fiscal Year 2024/2025 Engineer’s Report 4/19/2024
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
COASTAL RAIL TRAIL MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2024/2025
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by City Council.
Report Submitted By:
By: ________________________________
Scott Koppel
Koppel & Gruber Public Finance
By: ________________________________
Mohammad Sammak
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.2.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Engineering Department
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: City Council Consideration of Resolutions 2024-073 and 2024-074 Accepting the Final Engineer’s
Report and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Annual
Assessments for the City of Solana Beach Lighting
Maintenance District for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25
BACKGROUND:
In 1987, the City Council (Council) approved formation of the City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District (District) under the provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, Division 15, Part 2, of the California Streets and Highways Code. The District was formed for the purpose of levying and collecting funds for the installation, operation and maintenance of street lighting facilities within the City.
On May 22, 2024, Council passed Resolution 2024-049 approving the Preliminary Lighting Maintenance District Engineer’s Report (Report) for proceedings for the annual levy of assessments within a special lighting district and Resolution 2024-050 declaring intention to provide for an annual levy and collection of assessments and setting June 26, 2024, as the date of the Public Hearing.
This item is presented to the Council to conduct the Public Hearing and consider approving Resolution 2024-073 (Attachment 1) accepting the Final Lighting Maintenance District Engineer’s Report and Resolution 2024-074 (Attachment 2) ordering the levy and collection of annual assessments for the District for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25.
DISCUSSION:
The District is the successor agency to portions of San Diego County Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 3 (LMD1 and LMD3). Ballots issued in 1982 and 1984 to levy assessments for LMD1 and LMD3 were approved to have a maximum charge of June 26, 2024
Renewal and Assessment for Lighting Maintenance District for FY 2024/25
$25.00 per benefit unit. This maximum benefit unit charge will not apply to Zone B of the District as it was formed after Solana Beach was incorporated.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Union-Tribune as required by Streets and Highways Code and is the only public hearing to receive public input required by law.
The assessment information is to be submitted to the County by August 10th of each year.
The current benefit fee for Zone A is $8.80 per single-family unit per year and $1.62 per single-family unit per year in Zone B. Zone B consists of the portion of the City adjacent to San Elijo Lagoon and a segment of the City between San Andres Drive and Interstate 5.
This zone is the City’s “dark sky” area designated in the General Plan as neighborhoods that seek to preserve their traditional semi-rural character, a major component of which is very low levels of nighttime illumination. Zone A consists of all other properties in the City except those in Zone B.
Attachment 3 is the Final Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25. The basis for spreading the cost of constructing, operating, maintaining and servicing improvements to the benefiting parcels is based on vehicular trip generation rates. Vehicular trips are directly proportional to the concentration and activity associated with each parcel of land. Derivation of Street Lighting Benefit Units, as shown in the Engineer’s Report, is based on the most current trip generation rates published by the San Diego Association of Governments. The improvements include those designated in the District boundaries and shown in the Street Light Master Plan.
Fiscal Year 2024/25 Benefit Fees
The total annual amount to be assessed for street lighting is $75,270 for FY 2024/25.
There is no proposed increase to the annual assessment charged to each property, but the total amount collected has decreased (a total reduction of $1,512) due to land use changes in Zone A, including the property at the Solana Highlands Apartments along Nardo Avenue being classified as vacant land.
CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:
Not a project as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The District has been financed by a benefit charge and by using the District’s share of one percent ad valorem property tax revenues since FY 1989/90. The amount to be collected from the benefit assessment is proposed to be $8.80 per benefit unit in Zone A and $1.62 in Zone B, which is unchanged from last year.
WORK PLAN:
This item is not identified in the proposed FY 2024/25 Work Plan.
June 26, 2024
Renewal and Assessment for Lighting Maintenance District for FY 2024/25
OPTIONS:
• Approve Staff recommendation.
• Do not confirm the Lighting Maintenance District Engineer’s Report and annual levy of assessments.
• Provide further direction to Staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing: open the public hearing, report Council disclosures, receive public testimony and close the public hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution 2024-073 confirming the diagram and assessment and approving the City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District Engineer’s Report.
3. Adopt Resolution 2024-074 ordering the levy and collection of annual assessments for FY 2024/25 and ordering the transmission of charges to the County Auditor for collection.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Department Recommendation.
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-073
2. Resolution 2024-074
3. FY 2024/25 Lighting Maintenance District Engineer’s Report ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 2024-073
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2024/25 ENGINEER’S REPORT REGARDING THE
SOLANA BEACH LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (the “Act"), did, by previous Resolution 2024-049 adopted on May 22, 2024, order the Assessment Engineer, to prepare and file the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Engineer's Report for the City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District (District); and
WHEREAS, the Assessment Engineer has prepared and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, California, and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council such report entitled City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District Engineer's Report FY 2024/25 (“Report”) as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and reviewed the Report as presented, considered all oral and written comments presented with respect to the District and Report at a noticed Public Hearing and has discussed any necessary or desired modifications to the Report, and is satisfied that the levy for each parcel has been calculated in accordance with the special benefits received from the operation, maintenance and services performed, as set forth in the Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California does resolve as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The Report as presented or as modified, contains the following:
a. Description of Improvements.
b. Diagram of the District.
c. Method of Apportionment that details the method of calculating each parcel's proportional special benefits and annual assessment. d. The FY 2024/25 Assessment based upon the Method of Apportionment determined that all costs and expenses of the work and incidental expenses have been apportioned and distributed to the benefiting parcels in accordance with the special benefits received.
Resolution 2024-073
Approve Lighting District Engineer’s Report for FY 2024/25
e. The FY 2024/25 Annual Budget Costs and Expenses and the resulting FY 2024/25 assessment levy per benefit unit for the fiscal year. f. The District Roll containing the levy for each Assessor's Parcel Number within the District for FY 2024/25.
3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter on the minutes of the City Council any and all modifications to the Report determined and approved by the City Council, and all such changes and/or modifications by reference are to be incorporated into the Report.
4. The City Council is satisfied with the Report as presented or modified and each and all of the budget items and documents as set forth therein, and is satisfied that the FY 2024/25 annual assessments and spread is in accordance with the special benefits received from the improvements pursuant to the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID.
5. The Report is hereby approved as submitted or modified and ordered to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open to public inspection.
6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and the minutes of this meeting shall so reflect the presentation and approval of the Report as submitted or modified.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the by the City council of the City of Solana Beach by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
________________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_____________________________ ________________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION 2024-074
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS
REGARDING THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH LIGHTING
DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/25
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by previous resolutions, initiated proceedings to form and declared its intention to levy and collect annual assessments against parcels of land within the City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District (District), for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of California, beginning with Section 22500 (Act) to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Assessment Engineer has prepared and filed with the City Clerk, and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council, the Engineer’s Report entitled City of City of Solana Beach Lighting Maintenance District Engineer's Report Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 (Report) in connection with the proposed levy and collection of special benefit assessment upon eligible parcels of land within the District, and the City Council did, by previous Resolution 2024-073 adopted on June 26, 2024, approve such Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy and collect assessments against parcels of land within the District for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025 to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council, following notice duly given, has held a full and fair Public Hearing on June 26, 2024, regarding the levy and collection of assessments as described in the Report prepared in connection therewith, and considered all oral and written statements, protests and communications made or filed by interested persons regarding these matters, pursuant to the Act and in accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIIID.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California does resolve as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
Resolution 2024-074
Assess for Lighting District for FY 2024/25
2. The City Council desires to levy and collect assessments against parcels of land within the District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the landscaping, public lighting improvements and appurtenant facilities located within public places in the District.
3. The City Council has carefully reviewed and examined the Report in connection with the District, and the levy and collection of assessments. Based upon its review the Report, a copy of which has been presented to the City Council and which has been filed with the City Clerk, the City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The territory of land within the District will receive special benefits from the operation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, lighting, drainage and appurtenant facilities and improvements related thereto. b. The District includes all of the lands so benefited. c. The amount to be assessed upon the lands within the District, in accordance with the proposed budget for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025, is apportioned by a formula and method that fairly distributes the net amount among all eligible parcels in proportion to the special benefits, to be received by each parcel from the improvements and services, and the assessments are levied without regard to property valuation.
4. The Report and FY 2024/25 assessments, as presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk, are hereby confirmed as filed.
5. The City Council hereby orders the proposed improvements to be made; the improvements are briefly described as the operation, administration, maintenance and servicing of all public landscaping, lighting improvements and appurtenant facilities and expenses associated with the District, and that will be maintained by the City of Solana Beach or their designee and all such maintenance, operation and servicing of the landscaping, lighting and all appurtenant facilities shall be performed pursuant to the Act. A more complete description of the improvements is detailed in the Report and by reference this document is made part of this resolution.
6. The San Diego County Auditor shall place on the County Assessment Roll, opposite each parcel of land, the amount of levy so apportioned by the method of apportionment formula, outlined in the Report and such levies shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected pursuant to Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 22646 of the Act. After collection by the Resolution 2024-074
Assess for Lighting District for FY 2024/25
County, the net amount of the assessments, after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the City Treasurer.
7. The City Treasurer, shall deposit all money from the assessments collected by the County for the District into a fund for the Solana Beach Lighting District, and such money shall be expended to pay the costs and expenses of operating, maintaining and servicing the improvements and appurtenant facilities related thereto described above.
8. The adoption of this resolution constitutes the authorization of the District levy for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025.
9. The City Clerk or Clerk's designee is hereby authorized and directed to file the levy with the San Diego County Auditor subsequent to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the by the City Council of the City of Solana Beach by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
________________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ ________________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Prepared April 26, 2024 ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025
Prepared by:
Dan Goldberg
Principal Civil Engineer
R.C.E. 57292
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT..........................................3 DESIGNATION OF ZONES........................................................................4 DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT........................................................................4 METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT..............................................................6 DISTRICT FINANCING ..............................................................................6 ASSESSMENT ROLL ................................................................................6 CALCULATION OF ASSESSMENT FEES ................................................7 EXHIBIT 1 – STREETLIGHT ZONE MAP ..................................................8 EXHIBIT 2 – DERIVATION OF STREETLIGHT BENEFIT UNITS..............9 EXHIBIT 3 – BUDGET 2024-2025............................................................11 3 Introduction
The City of Solana Beach (“City”) Lighting Maintenance District (“District”) was formed to provide funding for operation, maintenance and servicing of all lights within the City, owned both by City of Solana Beach and San Diego Gas and Electric as shown on the City’s Streetlight Master Plan. The City Council, pursuant to the provisions of the “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Street and Highway Code of California” (Act), desires to levy and collect annual assessment against lots and parcels within the District beginning in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025. The collected assessments would pay for the operation, maintenance and servicing of the public lighting improvements within the City. The proposed assessments are based on the City’s estimate for the cost for fiscal year 2024/2025 to maintain the District that provides a special benefit to properties assessed within the District. The assessment rates set for Fiscal Year 2024/2025, as set forth in this Engineer’s Report (“Report”), do not exceed the maximum rates established at the time the District was formed, therefore, the City and the District are not required to go through property owner ballot procedure to establish the 2024/2025 assessment rates.
This report describes the District boundaries and the proposed operation, maintenance and services to be assessed to the property owners located within the District. For this Report, each lot or parcel to be assessed refers to an individual property and is assigned its own Assessment Parcel Number (“APN”) by the San Diego County (“County”) Assessor’s Office as shown on the latest equalization roll of the assessor.
Following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council will confirm the Report as submitted or amended and may order the collection of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.
General Description of the District
The boundaries of the District are defined as being contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Solana Beach. The properties within the District include single-family residential, multi-family residential, timeshare, multiuse, commercial and industrial parcels.
Section 22573, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (“1972 Act”), requires assessments to be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This section of the 1972 Act states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
4 The 1972 Act also provides for the classification of various areas within an assessment district into different zones where, "...by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of benefit from the improvements. A zone shall consist of all territory, which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements. An assessment district may consist of contiguous or non-contiguous areas."
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state, or the federal government, are not assessable without the approval of the particular agency. For this reason, they are traditionally not assessed.
Designation of Zones
The District consists of two zones in the City of Solana Beach; Zone “A” and Zone “B”.
Properties within Zone “A”, which represent the majority of the parcels in the City, benefit from streetlights on six significant circulation element streets as well as streetlights on their local streets. Properties within Zone “B”, also known as “Dark Sky Zone”, do not have streetlights on their local streets. These properties benefit only from streetlights on circulation element streets and do not benefit from streetlights on local streets. A map showing the boundaries of the District and the zones is on file in the office of the City Engineer and is also attached herein as Exhibit 1.
District Improvements
The public lighting improvements to be maintained and serviced include but are not limited to the following:
• Maintenance, repair and replacement of public light poles and fixtures, including changing light bulbs, painting, photoelectric cell repair or replacement, repairing damages caused by automobile accidents and vandalism, and repairing normal deterioration caused by time and weather.
• Electrical conduit repair and replacement due to damage by vandalism and normal deterioration.
• Service-call maintenance repair and replacement including painting, replacing worn out electrical components and repairing damage due to accidents, vandalism, and normal deterioration.
• Payment of the electrical bill for the existing street lighting system. • Responding to constituent and business inquiries and complaints regarding the public lighting.
5 Maintenance
The City provides services and furnishes materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of public lighting improvements facilities and appurtenant facilities. This includes inspecting lights during daylight as well as evening hours for condition assessment and performing repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the streetlights found to be inoperable in order to provide for the health welfare and safety of the residents in the district.
Servicing
The City workforce along with assistance from private contractors provide all labor, materials, equipment and utilities necessary to maintain and operate the public lighting improvements or appurtenant facilities in order to provide adequate illumination.
City’s Streetlight System
The City’s streetlight system consists of streetlights which are owned by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and streetlights that are owned by the City of Solana Beach. A listing (printout) showing the type, size, location and ownership of the specific streetlights in the City is on file in the Office of the City Engineer. There are currently 801 streetlights in the District of which 149 are located on circulation element streets such as Highway 101, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Via De La Valle, Cedros Avenue, San Andres Drive, Highland Avenue and Stevens Avenue. The remaining 652 streetlights are located on local streets. Approximately 274 streetlights are owned and maintained by SDG&E and the remaining 527 streetlights are owned and maintained by the City of Solana Beach. The City pays SDG&E for the use of their streetlights. For the purpose of this report, all lights have been analyzed regardless of ownership. Additionally, there are 247 bollard lights and 16 pedestrian pole lights on the Coastal Rail Trail that are included in the District.
Streetlight Retrofit
In April 2012, the City entered into an agreement with Chevron Energy Solution (Chevron ES) for a series of energy efficient projects, which included retrofitting all Cityowned streetlights to the latest LED technology. This project replaced the approximately two-thirds of the streetlights throughout the City that are owned and operated by the City. The remaining one-third of the streetlights were not retrofitted because they are owned and operated by SDG&E. Because of this partial ownership arrangement, a few streetlights in some neighborhoods remained unchanged.
Capital Improvement Projects
Since the City-owned streetlights were converted to LED fixtures in 2012, there was not a need for a capital improvement project for the streetlights this past year. 6 Method of Apportionment
The 1972 Act requires that a parcel’s assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost for the proportional benefit conferred to that parcel. To establish the benefit to the individual lots or parcels within the district, an Equivalent Benefit Unit (“EBU”) system based on land use is used along with special consideration based on City’s “Dark Sky Zone”. Each parcel of land in the District was determined by the Engineering Department to have a specific land use. Each land use type was assigned a land use factor determined by trip generation rates developed by San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG). If a land use was not included in the SANDAG’s study, the Engineering Department made a determination as to its probable trip generation compared to that of a single family residential and assigned a land use factor accordingly. Single-family residential units were assigned a land use factor of 1.0 regardless of its size. The theory is that all single-family residential units, regardless of parcel size, generate approximately the same number of trips and therefore receive the same benefit from the use of streets and their appurtenances such as streetlights.
Under this method, vacant lots are assigned an EBU of “0”. Exhibit 2 provides the EBU determination for all land uses within the City.
District Financing
The District will be financed by assessing a benefit assessment and by using the District’s share of 1.0 percent ad valorem tax revenues. The amount to be generated from the benefit assessment is $8.80 per benefit unit in Zone “A” and $1.62 per benefit unit in Zone “B”. As mentioned above, the total amount of revenue to be generated by assessment was calculated from a methodology, which identifies two benefit zones within the District. This methodology assumes that circulation element streetlights provide City-wide benefit and therefore properties located in Zone “B”, the Dark Sky Zone properties, are assessed for this portion of the District’s expenses only. Properties located within Zone “A” are assessed for expenses associated with the streetlights located on the circulation element streets as well as those on local streets. Both the circulation element streetlight benefit and local streetlight benefit are allotted in proportion to the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated by properties within the District to establish equivalent benefit charge per property. These are estimates only because the County Assessor’s information will not be available until August 2024. The City does not assess governmental agencies owning properties within the District. See Exhibit 3 for the proposed District budget.
Assessment Roll
Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District shall be the parcel as shown on the County Assessor’s map for the year in which this Report is prepared. 7 A listing of parcels assessed within the District, along with the proposed assessment amounts, has been submitted to the City Clerk, under a separate cover, and by reference is made part of this Report. Said listing of parcels to be assessed shall be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller and included on the property tax roll for each parcel in Fiscal Year 2024/2025. If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel numbers will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor/Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel or parcels shall be based on the method of apportionment and assessment rate approved in this Report. Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amount applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and assessment rate rather than a proportionate share of the original assessment.
Calculation of Assessment Fees
Following is a calculation of assessment fees for the Solana Beach Lighting District.
There are two zones in this lighting district; Zone “A” and Zone “B”.
Total streetlights on six circulation element streets 149 Total streetlights on local streets 652
Total streetlights 801
Bollard lights on Coastal Rail Trail 247
Pedestrian pole lights on Coastal Rail Trail 16
Total Benefit Units in Zone “A” 8,465
Total Benefit Units in Zone “B” 480
Assessment per Benefit Unit in Zone “A” $8.80
Assessment per Benefit Unit in Zone “B” $1.62
Total Assessment for Zone “A” $74,492
Total Assessment for Zone “B” $778
Total Assessment for the District $75,270
8 EXHIBIT 1
STREETLIGHT ZONE MAP
Dar\,; Sky Areas
Zone B
6 N
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
9 EXHIBIT 2
DERIVATION OF STREETLIGHT BENEFIT UNITS
Traffic generation rates are derived from a report issued by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) dated April 2002. The information in the report is based on the San Diego Traffic Generators manual. Land uses are defined by the County Assessor. Using traffic generated by single family dwellings as 10 per dwelling unit (d.u.) or 40 per acre, the derivation of Benefit Units from land use is as follows:
LAND USE BENEFIT UNITS HOW DERIVED
Vacant Land 0.0 Generates little or no traffic.
Assigned a value of 0.0
Residential 1.0/d.u. 10 trips/d.u.
10 trips/d.u.
Time Shares .02/Time Share 0.2 trips/time share
10 trips/d.u.
Mobilehome/Trailer Parks 0.5/Space 5 trips/d.u. or space 10 trips/d.u.
1-3 Story Misc. Stores 10.0/Acre 400 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
4+ Story Offices/Stores 15.0/Acre 600 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
Regional Shopping Center
Medical, Dental, Animal Hospital
12.5/Acre 500 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
Community Shopping Center 17.5/Acre 700 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
Neighborhood Shopping Center 30.0/Acre 1200 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
10 Hotel, Motel 5.0/Acre 200 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
Convalescent Hospital, Rest Home 1.0/Acre 40 trips/acre 40 trips/acre
Office Condominiums 0.5/Condo 20 trips/condo
10 trips/d.u.
Parking lot, Garage, Used Cars,
Auto Sales/Service, Service Station
7.5/Acre 300 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
Bowling Alley 7.5/Acre 300 trips/acre
40 trips/acre
11 EXHIBIT 3
STREETLIGHT DISTRICT
PROPOSED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Amended Budget
2023-24
Adopted Budget
2024-25
COSTS
Energy $118,500 $120,000
Maintenance 365,648 376,993
Administration 270,443 279,875
Capital Outlay 0 0
Debt Service 70,375 70,375
Contingency Reserve 3,457,689 3,380,498
TOTAL COSTS $4,282,655 $4,227,741
FUNDING
Property Taxes $634,482 $640,827
Benefit Fees 76,006 76,500
Interest 42,525 42,525
Intergovernmental 10,200 10,200
Fund Balance 3,519,442 3,457,689
TOTAL RESOURCES $4,282,655 $4,227,741
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # B.3.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department, Katie Benson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Request for a DRP Modification to the Approved Replacement Single-Family Residence at 446
Seabright Lane to Increase the Floor Area and Trellises (Case #: MOD24-005 Applicants: Darren and Rachel Levitt; APN: 263-061-14; Resolution No. 2024-075)
BACKGROUND:
On October 25, 2023, the City Council (Council) approved a Development Review Permit (DRP) to demolish a single-family residence, construct a replacement single-family residence with a partially subterranean garage, and perform associated site improvements including grading, hardscaping, and landscaping at 446 Seabright Lane.
The Applicants, Darren and Rachel Levitt, are requesting City Council approval of a Modification to the DRP to add 11 square feet of floor area to the main level and reduce floor area in other areas resulting in a net 3 square-foot increase in gross floor area and add two extensions of approved trellises.
The issue before the Council is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Applicants’ request for a Modification to the original project approval as contained in Resolution 2024-075 (Attachment 1). The modified project plans are included in Attachment 2.
DISCUSSION:
The Council adopted Resolution 2023-117 (provided in Attachment 3) on October 25, 2023, approving the original project, which included a replacement single-family residence. After Council approval of the DRP, the Applicants submitted for plan check of building and grading permits. The building permit (B23-0875) for the replacement June 26, 2024
MOD24-005, Levitt – 446 Seabright Lane
residence was found to not be in substantial conformance with the approved project due to an increase of floor area on the main level of the residence beyond the floor area and footprint approved by the Council. The building plans also included additions to approved trellises. Table 1 is a comparison of the Gross Floor Area approved under the DRP and the revised breakdown associated with the Modification.
Table 1 – Gross Floor Area Breakdown Comparison
Approved DRP DRP Modification Total Change
Main Level Living Area
Lower Level Garage
Lower level Living Area
Covered/Enclosed Exterior
2,904 sf
716 sf
369 sf
93 sf
2,915 sf
716 sf
368 sf
86 sf
+ 11 sf
--
- 1 sf
- 7 sf
Subtotal
Off-Street Parking Exemption
4,082 sf
- 400 sf
4,085 sf
- 400 sf
+ 3 sf
Total Proposed Floor Area 3,682 sf 3,685 sf + 3 sf
The modified plans include an eight (8) square-foot reduction in floor area between the lower level living area and covered and enclosed areas. The plans also include an 11 square-foot increase in floor area for the main level living area. These changes result in a 3 square-foot overall increase in the project’s Gross Floor Area.
The modified plans also include reductions and increases to trellises located on the primary dwelling unit and the proposed detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Figure 1 identifies the proposed square footage addition in blue and new trellises in green.
In an effort to move the project along, Staff conditionally approved the building and grading permits with the condition that prior to the foundation inspection, the Applicants would need to either obtain Council approval of a DRP Mod or a Revision to the Building Permit in substantial compliance with the approved DRP.
June 26, 2024
MOD24-005, Levitt – 446 Seabright Lane
Development Review Permit Compliance (SBMC Section 17.68.40):
Pursuant to SBMC Section 17.68.040(L), an amendment (modification) to an existing DRP may be requested and shall follow the same procedures as the DRP. The Council may approve, or conditionally approve, a Modification to a DRP only if all of the findings listed below can be made. Resolution 2022-074 provides the full discussion of the findings.
1. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan and all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance including special regulations, overlay zones, and specific plans.
2. The proposed development complies with the development review criteria.
3. All required permits and approvals issued by the city, including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.
4. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the Applicant obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.
The following is a list of the development review criteria topics set forth in SBMC Section
17.68.040(F):
1. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses
2. Building and Structure Placement
3. Landscaping
4. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking, and Storage Areas
5. Grading
6. Lighting
7. Usable Open Space
The following is a discussion of the applicable development review criteria (1-Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses and 2-Building and Structure Placement) as they relate to the modifications proposed.
Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses:
The modified project could be found to be compatible with the existing development in the surrounding neighborhood as no change to the use is proposed and the adjacent uses are also residential.
June 26, 2024
MOD24-005, Levitt – 446 Seabright Lane
Building and Structure Placement:
The modified project could be found to be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding properties as the added floor area would not reduce the minimum setback from the front property line, and the trellises comply with associated setback encroachment regulations.
In conclusion, the proposed project, as conditioned, could be found to be consistent with the Zoning regulations and the General Plan. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of the project in the attached Resolution 2024-075 for Council’s consideration based upon the information in this report. The Applicants shall provide for and adhere to the conditions of the original project approval in Resolution 2023-117. The Applicants are also required to provide for and adhere to the conditions for the proposed Modification that have been incorporated into the attached Resolution 2024-075. The Applicants have obtained authorization for the project from the California Coastal Commission.
The Council may direct Staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings and conditions it deems appropriate as a result of the Public Hearing process. If the Council determines the project is to be denied, Staff will prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Notice of the City Council Public Hearing was published in the San Diego Union Tribune more than 10 days prior to the public hearing. The same public notice was mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project site, more than 10 days prior to the planned public hearing date of June 26, 2024. Staff has not received any emails, letters or calls in support or opposition of the proposed modification.
CEQA COMPLIANCE:
Categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
WORK PLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Approve the proposed modification by adopting Resolution 2024-075; • Approve modification by adopting Resolution 2024-075 with changes as deemed appropriate by City Council; or,
• Deny the request to amend the project and direct Staff to bring back a Resolution of Denial to a later City Council meeting date.
June 26, 2024
MOD24-005, Levitt – 446 Seabright Lane
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed project meets the minimum objective requirements under the SBMC, is consistent with the General Plan and may be found, as conditioned, to meet the discretionary findings to approve a Modification to the approved DRP. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing: Open the public hearing, Report Council disclosures, Receive public testimony, Close the public hearing.
2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
3. If the City Council makes the requisite findings and approves the project, adopt Resolution 2024-075 conditionally approving a Modification to the approved DRP, for a replacement single-family residence at 446 Seabright Lane, Solana Beach.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Department Recommendation
_________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2024-075 to Approve the DRP Mod
2. Revised Project Plans
3. Approved Resolution 2023-117 for the Original DRP
4. Letter from Applicant
RESOLUTION 2024-075
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO INCREASE
THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA AND ADD TRELLISES AT 446
SEABRIGHT LANE, SOLANA BEACH.
APPLICANTS: DARREN AND RACHEL LEVITT
CASE NO.: MOD24-005 (DRP23-003)
APN: 263-061-14
WHEREAS, Darren and Rachel Levitt (hereinafter referred to as “Applicants”), have submitted a request for modification to the original project approval of a Development Review Permit (DRP) for construction of a replacement single-family residence located at 446 Seabright Lane (Case No. DRP23-003 and Resolution No. 2023-117), pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning), of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the Applicants requested the approval of a Modification to the DRP to allow a three square-foot net increase in floor area and expansions of trellises; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request for modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of SBMC
17.72.030 of the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the request for a modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach found that the project is exempt from the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which exempts minor modifications to existing facilities; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the Hearing, and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:
I. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
II. That the request to modify the DRP is conditionally approved based on the following Findings, and all terms and conditions of Resolution 2023 - 117 are in effect along with the following conditions applicable to the proposed modification:
Resolution 2024-075
MOD24-005 DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane – Levitt
III. FINDINGS
A. In accordance with Section 17.68.040 (Development Review Permit) of the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:
I. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of SBMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), including special regulations, overlay zones and specific plans.
General Plan Consistency: The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of Low Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residential development with a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre.
The development is also consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.
Specific Plans and Special Overlays: The property is located in the SROZ, which specifies development standards to preserve and enhance the existing community character and aesthetic quality of the City of Solana Beach, by providing regulations to ensure and protect the character, traditional scale, and seaside orientation of established residential neighborhoods. The project, as designed, complies with the SROZ maximum allowable floor area.
The entire City of Solana Beach is located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants were required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.
The California Coastal Commission issued a Notice of Permit Waiver Effectiveness (CDP Waiver 6-23-0838-W) for the project on February 8, 2024.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency: SBMC Section 17.20.010(C) specifies that the LMR Zone is intended for residential development in areas characterized primarily by detached single-family homes on both older and newer subdivided lots. SBMC Section 17.20.030 outlines property development regulations, which are analyzed below.
Minimum Yards/Setbacks:
Minimum yard dimensions (setbacks) for the LMR Zone are determined by the setback designator indicated on the City of Solana Beach official zoning map. The setback designator for the subject property is “c”, which requires 25-foot front and rear yard setbacks and 10-foot street and interior side yard setbacks. The proposed residence as well as proposed trellis patio Resolution 2024-075
MOD24-005 DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane – Levitt
covers will be located entirely within the buildable area except for one of the proposed trellises, which legally encroaches into the southern side yard setback by two feet.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio:
The maximum allowable floor area calculation for 10,884 square-foot lot is as follows:
0.50 for first 6,000 ft2
0.175 for 6,000 to 15,000 ft2
3,000 ft2
855 ft2
Maximum Allowable Floor Area: 3,855 ft2
The modified project includes a 2,915 square-foot main level living area, a 716 square-foot lower level two-car garage, a 368 square-foot lower level living area, and an 86 square-foot covered and enclosed exterior area. The subtotal of the proposed gross floor area is 4,085 square feet.
The proposed lower level garage and living area will be partially subterranean and built into the existing grade. However, the lower level does not qualify as a “basement” in the SROZ due to the vertical exposure measured from the finished floor of the main level to the lower of the existing and proposed grade. The maximum exposure of a basement in the SROZ is 3 feet and the proposed exposure of the lower level would be
4.75 feet. Therefore, the entire lower level garage and living area count toward the gross floor area.
The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage and unobstructed, 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed garage will provide two unobstructed parking spaces, and two spaces are required in total for the project; therefore, the project is afforded a 400 square-foot exemption from gross floor area calculation. With the exemption, the total gross floor area of the project is 3,685 square feet, which is 170 square feet below the maximum allowable for the property.
II. The proposed development complies with the following development review criteria set forth in Solana Beach Municipal Code Section
17.68.040.F:
a. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses: The development shall be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to existing development in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. The development as
proposed shall also be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding Resolution 2024-075
MOD24-005 DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane – Levitt
neighborhood. Site planning on or near the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects.
The property is located within the LMR Zone as are the
properties located in the immediate surrounding neighborhood on Seabright Lane and the west side of North Rios Avenue. The neighborhood is also adjacent to five properties in the Medium Residential (MR) Zone on the east side of North Cedros Avenue, an attached condominium “row home” development in the
Medium-High Residential (MHR) Zone on the west side of North Cedros Avenue, three properties in the Light Commercial (LC) Zone on the east side of North Cedros Avenue and north of the intersection with East Cliff Street, residential properties in the Low Residential (LR) Zone located on the east side of North Rios Avenue, and the Solana Beach School District Office in the Public Institutional (PI) Zone located south of East Cliff Street between North Cedros Avenue and North Rios Avenue.
The modified project is found to be compatible with the existing development in the surrounding neighborhood as no change to the use is proposed and the adjacent uses are also residential. b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. Multi-family residential buildings shall be sited to avoid crowding and to allow for a functional use of the space between buildings.
The proposed project includes a replacement single-family residence that would have the appearance of a two-story home from the front of the property on Seabright Lane. The main level of the residence would have a finished floor approximately four feet above the existing grade, and the lower level garage and living area would be built into the existing grade. The residence would be located entirely within the buildable area.
The modified project is found to be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding properties as the added floor area would not reduce the minimum setback from the front property line, and the trellises comply with associated setback encroachment regulations.
III. All required permits and approvals including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits Resolution 2024-075
MOD24-005 DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane – Levitt
have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.
All required permits are being processed concurrently with the Development Review Permit.
IV. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the Applicants obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.
The Applicants have obtained approval from the California Coastal Commission.
V. CONDITIONS:
Prior to use or development of the property in reliance on this permit, the Applicants shall provide for and adhere to the following conditions:
A. Community Development Department Conditions:
I. The Applicants shall comply with all conditions of approval included in Resolution 2023-117.
II. The Building Permit plans shall be in substantial conformance with the modified architectural plans presented to the City Council on June 26, 2024 and located in the project file with a submittal date of June 10, 2024, which identify the modifications subject to the DRP Modification as well as the project plans originally approved by Resolution 2023- 117.
IV. ENFORCEMENT
Pursuant to SBMC 17.72.120(B) failure to satisfy any and all of the abovementioned conditions of approval is subject to the imposition of penalties as set forth in SBMC Chapters 1.1.6 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.
V. EXPIRATION
The Development Review Permit for the project shall expire 24 months from the date of this Resolution, unless the Applicants have obtained building permits and has commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion. An extension of the application may be granted by the City Council according to SBMC 17.72.110.
Resolution 2024-075
MOD24-005 DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane – Levitt
VI. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
The Applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney’s fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicants of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification.
In the event of such election, the Applicants shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicants regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicants shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicants.
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, you are hereby notified that the 90-day period to protest the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution commences on the effective date of this resolution. To protest the imposition of any fee, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution you must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020. Generally the resolution is effective upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 26th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ ______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk 446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE RESIDENCE
NEW CONSTRUCTION / 446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE, SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT MODIFICATION
OWNER INFORMATION
DARREN AND RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(858) 342-2441
PROJECT TEAM
ARCHITECT
CIVIL ENGINEER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
M E P ENGINEER
WATERPROOFING CONSULT ANT
LIGHTING DESIGNER
VICI NITY MAP
9 SAFDIE RABJNES ARCHITECTS
925 Fort Stockton Dnve
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 297-6153
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYlNG
7868 Silverton Ave, Suite J, San Diego, CA 92126
{658) 271-9901
VIRJDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 Na11cy Ridge Dnve, San Diego, CA 92121
(760) 736-0296
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 Manch1!5ter AYe, Surte 203, Enci111tas , CA 92024
(760) 652-9257
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(9-49) 324-6999
THEIA LIGHTING
(215) 983-2084
Q
I /
Q
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT PESCRJPTION I SCOPE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING ONE (1) STORY HOUSE. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ONE (1) STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WTH PARTIALLY SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE/1..0\NER
LEVEL AND NEW ACCESSORY DWEWNG UNIT
PROJECT ADDRESS 446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOL..AJ\IA BEACH, CA 92075
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
263-061-14-00
= GROSS LOT SIZE
NET LOT SIZE
LEGAL PESCB!PIION
10,900 SQ FT (0.25 ACRES)
10,900 SQ FT {0.25 ACRES)
THE SOUTHERLY 95 39 FEET OF LOT 15. INTHE CITY OF SOL.ANA BEACH, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SEABRIGHT ACRES, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2373, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DECEMBER 10, 1946. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 112 FEET, THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHERLY 95 39 FEET DRAWN PARALLEL W TH AND DISTANT 95 39 FEET NORTHERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 15
USE ANO OCCUPANCY
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE {R-3)
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (R-3)
ADU {R-3)
APPLICABLE BUILQING CQDE
- 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)
- 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)
- 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)
• 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)
- 2022 CALFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)
- 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEC)
- 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC)
- 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CGBSC) COMPLIANCE \MTH THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2022 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS IS NECES~Y FOR THIS PROJECT REGISTERED, SIGNED, ANO DATED COPIES OF THE APPROPRIATE CF1R, CF.2R, ANO CF3R FORMS SHALL BE
MADE AVAILABLE AT NECESSARY INTERVALS FOR BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEW FINAL COMPLETED FORMS Will BE AVAILABLE FOR THE BUILDING DINNER
JURISQICTIONAL AUTHORITY
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
~
LMRc (LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL)
OVERLAY ZONES
SCALED RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE (SROZ)
COASTAi.. OVERLAY ZONE
CONSTRUCTIQN TYPE
TYPE V•B
NFPA 1:30 SPRINKLER SYSTEM" 0AS MITIGATION FOR HOSE PULL REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONAL FIRE SPRINKLER COVERAGE \IYILL BE PROVIDED IN All BATHROOMS AND CLOSETS, REGARDLESS
OF SIZE
NUMQER OF STORIES
EXISTING 1 LEVEL
PROPOSED 1 LEVEL, WITH PARTIAL!. Y SUBTERRANEAN LONER LEVEL
STRUCTU RE HEIGHT
16'-0" MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE EXJSllNG GRADE (PER SSMC 17 63 040) PROPOSED PARKING q (2) OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, PER SSMC 17 52 o.lO(A) REQUIRED SETBACKS I V.SEMENIS {PER SSMC TABLE 17 20 030-D) FRONT 25 FT
9 REAR 25FT SIDES 10 FT
EASEMENT($) NONE
REFERRED SUQMITT Al,.S
1 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
2. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM (PV)
SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS FOR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE, 'WHO SHALL REVIEW THEM AND FORWARD THEM TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL \MTH A NOTATION
INDICATING THAT THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIE'NED AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE IN GENERAL CONFORM,6J>,1CE WITH THE DESIGN OF
THE BUILDING THE DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THEIR
DESIGN AND SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA CALCULATION
LOT SIZE 10,664 SQ FT
6,000 X 0.50 =
4884x0175 =
3,000 SQ FT·
655 SQ FT.··
TOTAL ALLOWED J.655 SO FT
·o 50 FOR FIRST 6,000 SF OF LOT AREA, PER SSMC 17 46 040(C)(1) ••• PER S9MC 17 •a 040(C)(1)(c). ~REQUIRED PARKING GARAGES (200 SF PER SPACE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 400 SF FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE) SHAJ..l BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO ~
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE (REF. SBGR-439/
NON-LANDSCAPED AREA
' BUILDING AREA
IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE
PERMEABLE HARDSCAPE
NON-IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE
IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE
WATER FEATURES
TOTAL LOT AREA
PROPOSED GRAPING (R£F. SBGR-'39)
SITE GRADING
EXISTING
2,229 SQ FT
664 SQ FT
osQ FT
osa FT
7,991 SQ FT
osa FT
10.884 SO FT
PROPOSED
3,246 SQ FT
764 SC FT
2,100 SO FT
0 SC FT
4,754 SQ FT
OSQ FT 10.884 SO FT
CUT 332CY
Fill 173 CY
EXCAVATION FOR THE FOOTINGS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION 25 CY
REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION (PENDING GEOTECH)
TOTAi.. GRADING 530 CY
TOTAL EXPORT i59 CY
(P) GRADING
(Pl GRADING IN SLOPES :>25%
SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
AREA TO BE GRADED
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION FOR FOOTINGS
VOLUME OF EXCAVATION ANO RECOMPACTION
VOLUME OF CUTTING
CUT SLOPE RATIO
VOLUME OF FILL
FILL SLOPE RATIO
VOLUME OF SOIL IMPORTED/EXPORTED
RETAINING WALL LENGTH
RETAINING WALL HEIGHT FROM EXISTING GRADE
RETAINING WALL HEIGHT FROM FINAL GRADE
530CY
(NONE)
NIA
10,68A SF
25CY
(PENDING GEOTECH)
332C Y
NIA
17:3C Y
21 3'-0''H
159cY
310FT
VARIES 0-35FT
VARIES 0-75FT
SHEET INDEX
01 GENERAL
G-001 TITLE SHEET
OA ARCHITECTURE
A-000 SITE PLAN
A-001 SITE SURVEY
A-002 DEMOLITION PLAN
A-003 AREA CALCULATIONS
A-100 FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL
A-101 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL
A-102 ROOF PLAN
A-200 BUILDING ELEVATIONS - NORTH I SOUTH
A-201 BUILDING ELEVATIONS· EAST /WEST
A-300 BUILDING SECTIONS· EAST I WEST
A-301 BUILDING SECTIONS - NORTH I SOUTH
c SAFDIE RABJNES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RA BINES
ARCH I TECTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO. CA 92103
P (619)297-i153
Wf/W.Hldllffilbine:&.com
= DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
A46 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075
CML ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7866 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
L,ANQSCAPE ARC HITEC T·
VIR IDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
«03 M~CHESTER AVE, SUITE 20:3
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E.P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPROOFING CQNSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(9A9) 324-6999
LIGHTI NG DESIGN:
THEIA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 98~2084
(REFER TO COVER SH:ETFOR /JORE. CONTACT~ 1/0N/
REVISIONS
No Ol!Scnption Date
01 f'REl1M BlUXNGPERMITSUSl,ITTAI. I~
0'2 BUt.DIN:if'ffiMllSUBMITTAl
~ 6Ul.DNGP£RM/TSVSMITTAl.#2
L Bllt[)NG?f™TSV3MITTAl.#3
O!. ORPMOOIFO.T!Ctl
Issue Date5/221202-4 12:02:13 PM
SRA PrOject Number
2215
TITLE SHEET
G-001
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
506 SEABRIGHT LANE
(Pl MASONRY SITE WALL PER SORSO C·Ol .
REF. CIVIL
b
(E} SEWER CLEANOUT TO BE RELOCATED
(P) WATER METER LOCATION
(P) DRIVEWAY RETAINING WALL
(P) VEHICULAR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE
(DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER SORSO G-14, t REF. CIVIL)
g
,r-----------+-~
T6E~~~:~~~~~:~~- _ ___ _
<Pl LANDs_~EAREA.REF. ~:=---- \
1 ~g~;10G1
~!r~~
(Pl HOOE ;;~Re~-PliiMBIN w:~~Lf,:ti_~l~~:ii:fliP.~!
(P) 42"H FENCE (REF. LANDSCAPE), GARAG&'LOWER LEVEL PER SBMC 17..20.040(0) REQUIREMENTS (ZONE LmRc) co!r~~ ~ T~~!~Ari;,1~~:,;---,.. _;===;== =~•=·; ·=·;·=~-1:~·-=;··=;·=·;·=·;,=·~·='~'=~-~===;=:~:, },~:lf5;~~~~ i ~-~ ;;~~~E==1~;;J ~58' :7 (P) PEDESTRIAN ENTRANC~ 1 "I (E) TREE TO BE REMOVE I (E) TRECS TO REMAIN \ I~i~:6~~NB~~~\CT~~~~-----..:
REF CI\IIL
(P) 10'.Q""WIDE OECOMPOSE'D-----
GRANITE SURFACE TO BE GRADED AT
2~ MAX. FR~ PL TOWAAO CURB
(ALL PR IVATE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE
REMOI/EO TO ACCOMMODATE THIS).
REF. CIVIL
I
Ii
1! n
j- " t~T P)
:1
~ it
\ ,,.. +I" ~,.-smNOl' l .. :: .. :: .. :: .. :--=J.:: .. :: . .. :: .. ::. ::, o ~, µ•.,1,r_ ~8 •'J...----,srn<TRVCTUlflOPl.. !~ f ~~
a
~
7 109'· 11:Y&"
HElt5 F£ATlJUSUMMU,Y
The lc,llowmc 1111vmnu1Vol tl'lc lc,turl"i !hat must W twlo -~e nhcd b-1 • <IH"tll"d HEIU Jla1cr u I cond nen tor-~ .. Ille mo<:cltd Clle<IY perf~,ict lor lh111omp"'!" tnllY!,,s AdclitiOl'III ce:611 ,s pr.:,,r,i:lfc! in 111, bu~:t.nr ab u btlow. Rec,itertd CJ1JIJ ,nd CFJl'U ,r, lt<l!Jitrd IP be a:mcilet:ed In tl'!t HE~ iw1.1uy CN1 "Y 1~i,l 1:>I\ ..-,11a'i.11:in IQIII
lu!ld,n& .,, IHU&t-/ red...:NI mfil:ru,on
lrd::ior:a lfQ,.,~,ty ~ntli.1,cn
Kld'leflf4"£'1'hood
1,1;,,...,,..,,.A.irflo·..,
Vcrihtdf[N't£R2
Vc"'t,cdSEEIVSEER2
VHilltdRrln161ntCi1'1'e
A.irfl:,w l111t.ab.1.1bl,(O(Hl't14!1Cl.l•.J7!
hn !ff,ocy ~IIS/CFtA
VNfliedlO'f
Venlltd IIHt pump ra!td 1,u: n.;: c:ip1~
W1!~r·,ourae:I :her~! ,n ,orn1·c1tu 111111 JS011' {S0,'1,.S) O,.,ctlo,u ond:iar uni:., l:x1t....:! t111,""'ri~ co,,,1,uontd 1::,u {SO l.-4 I I) 0un1,o;iu, .. 1•"inc
Oucu llJU{td @fl\lltl',' Ill tondi:io'l!'d i.p;IIU' ronnn...a b',' ou:t lf~QCt \Khl'IC lllQUl~lO Sl't:CW. FU.TUf!U
O,.,mw,1nh,ahlcfflof,,1ul1uon
l<l)Oled1l;:bfl:or mcond1tl:>ntd10M
Ho11·sUr>i:..rdd.1Ctloc.il!Qnll1'!IQQ\!Of'IO\lwl th1111!1!;) VJn Jble cap-,city neu p~mp cempl .. nu Ol)ho,'I j,crihutlOII dct~!1 from VCHP St.ifi ~II0'1, App.cr,d1>, I , ~!>d MJ) Nortl\..-e11 fntrgy l ltit1tl\Cy ,IJ~an,e \NHAJ rattd ho 1 puMp wit er hN.tc·, ,pec,I" br•r>d/mcdcl, er cqJ1wkn:, mu~: be ,nstJI t d (E) FENCE TO BE REMOVE.CANO REPLACED. IF
REQUIRED
REPLACEMENT TO BE 6'-0"H INOOO FENCE
(FROM PRE-EXISTING GRADE).
PER SSMC 17.20.040(0) REQUIREMENTS
(P) MAS~RY SITE WALL PER SORSO C-01 ,
REF. CIVIL
b
la
A-3l1
"
l MIOROOF
: ~;:-,
l ~!
b
REPLACEMENT TO BE ll'•O"H WOOD FENCE
(FROM PRE-EXISTING GRADE).
PER SSMC 17.20.0.0(0) REQUIREMENTS
(P) BELOW-GRADE
DETENTION BASIN
"'""'™"'
25'-0112'
STRUCll.RETOPL
STRUCTI.IRETOPL
b
iii
lfJ-011("
~STRU.::TU\ETDPL
(E) FENCE TO BE REMOVED ANO REPLACED
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
517NRIOSAVE
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
509 N RIOS AVE
WITH 6'-0-H 'NODD FENCE (FROM PRE-EXISTING ORAOE),
PER SSMC 17.20.040(0) REQUIREMENTS
q
~~L
t, .. 1 m,u·l
'
~ (P} ADU TRELLIS SHALL NOT OCCUPY
MORE THAN 30% OF THE REQUIR ED REAR
YARD AREA NOR MORE THAN 1/3 Of THE
LOTWIOTH
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
432 SEABRIGHT LANE
b
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
427 N RIOS AVE
SITE PLAN NOTES
FIRE SAFETY NOTES
1. AS MITIGATION FOR HOSE PULl. REQUIREMENT, ADDITIONAL
FIRE SPRINKLER COVERAGE WILL BE PROVIDED IN ALL
BATHROOMS ANO CLOSETS, REGARDLESS OF SIZE.
2. ROOF GUTTERS SH,AJ__L BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO
PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS JN
THE GUTTER. AJ...l ROOF GUTTERS AND 00\NNSPOLJTS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS {REF
CRC R337.5.4).
3. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, GABLE VENTS, CRAWLSPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED
WlTH 114" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS EQUIVALENT PROTECTION.
4. ALL ROOFING TO BE CLASS "A" FIRE RATED.
5. SURFACE DRAINAGE SHALL BE DIVERTED TO A STORM
SEWER CONVEYANCE OR OTHER APPROVED POINT OF
COLLECTION THAT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD. LOTS
SHALL BE GRADED TO CRAIN SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM
FOUNDATION WALLS. THE GRADE SHALL FALLA MINIMUM OF
6' vVITHIN THE FIRST 10 FEET. (CRC R-401 .3, SECTION 1804.4)
OVERLAY ZONES
1. SCALED RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE (SROZ)
2. COASTALOVERLAY ZONE
REQUIRED SETBACKS / EASEMENTS
(PER SBMC TABLE 17.20.030-D)
FRONT: 25 FT.
REAR: 25FT.
SIDES: 10 FT.
EASEMENT(S): NONE
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA CA1,CULATIQN
LOT SIZE
6,000 X 0,50::
4 884 X 0.175::
TOTAL ALLOWED
10,884 SQ. FT.
3,000 SQ. FT."
855 SO. FT."'
J.~ SQ FT.
·a.so FOR FIRST 6,000 SF OF LOT AREA, PER SBMC 17.48.040(C)(1) ··o.175 FOR ADDITIONAL SF OF LOT AREA 6,001-15,000 SQ FT., PER SBMC 17.48.04~C)(1)
•·• PER SBMC 17.48.040(C)(1)(c), "REQUIRED PARKING GARAGES (200 SF PER SPACE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 400 SF FOR A SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE) SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION OF FLOOR AREA RA TIO "
LEGEND
PROPOSED NEW WALLS MATCHLINE
t# SECTION MAAK 0-- ROOF TAG
B BUILDING ELEVATION MAIN
MARK CONTOUR
LINE
0-- KEYNOTE SECONDARY
CONTOUR LINE
0-·- GRID LINE 0- WALL TAG
PROPERTY LINE V4 FLOOR TAG
SETBACK LINE
LEVEL ELEVATION
LINE "'80VE I BELOW
c SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
ARCHITECTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
P (619)297-6153
www.sai'di9bi~.com
CLIENT
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT 446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML ENGINEER·
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VIRIDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E P. ENGINEER:
120 OEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5226
WATERPRQORNG CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THEIA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 983-2084
(REFER TO COVER 5'-EET FOR/JORE CXJHTACT INFORMATION}
REVISIONS
No D@scription Dal@
Cl PtiEUM'BUi.01NGPERMlTSUB!dTTAI. ~
02 E!UILOitlGPERMITSUiiMITTAI.
~ E!UILDING?ERMITSUBMITTAl.#2
0,t SUILOitlG PEAAOT SUBMITTAL #J
~ ORPMOOIFJCATlON
Issue Date Seal@
~
'''"'"
OS,13/2<1
,,..,,,,.
6/10J2024 3:15:30 PM As Indicated
SRA ProJect Numb@r
2215
SITE PLAN
A-000
SCALE: l" = 16'
\
\
\
~~ENSEN ENGl~~G & SURVEY!~
7688SII.\/EllONAWl\J!:, SUilE'J', SAA DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 921216 TElB'HONE: (858)271.ml EMAL'CEANDSOAOLCOM
\
\
\
r
\
\
\
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tl1ESOUlHBl!.Y95.39 FEET Of lOT 15, IN'!Hc OlYOFSOIANABEAa-1, COUN1Y Of SAN DIEGO,STATE OFCAUFORN!A,SEABR!GH! AC!lel, ACCO!lOING 10 MAPlH!3lOOF NO, 2373, FLS> IN 11£0FF!CE OFlHE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN llCEGO COllN1Y DECEMBER 10, 1~. EXCEPTING lHERB'ROM 1HE EASTERl.Y 112 Fer, 1HE NORIHERLV LINE OF SAD SOUlHERI..V
95.39 FEET DAAWN PARAll.El. WITH ANO DISTANT95.39 FEET NORIHSll.Y - AT RIGHT IINGl.fS FllOM 1HE SOU1HERI.Y LINS OF SAD LOT 15.
NOTES
1. l'ASEMENlS, AGREEMENTS. DOCtJt/ENTS AND 01HER MA'ITE!lS WHCH AffiCT 1HIS PROP811Y MAY EXIST, BUT CANNOT BE Pl.OTTS), SEE T11lE IS'ORT,
2. THE PRECISE LOCAllON Of UNOERGllO\JNO li1Ll1lfS COIJID NO! BE DE!8lMNEO IN 1HE Ra.D, PlllORTO IW( EXCAVAllON UllJ1Y COMPANIES WU NEED TO MAAKOUTlHE UllJ1Y LOCAllONS,
3. lHE ADDRSSSFORlHE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS446SEAB!l!GHT LANE,SOIANA BEACH.
CA9'1!115.
4 lHE ASSESSOR PARCaNUMBal l'OFI lHESUIIJECTPROPER1YIS263--061-14.
5. lit' IOTA!. AAfA OFM SIJllJECT PAACa IS 0.25 AalE5.
TITLE REFERENCE
llllE INFO!lMAllON l'OFllHISSURVEY IS FllOMFIDEUlYNATIONAI. 1Tfl£AMENDED PllSlMNAR'f REPORT ORDER NO. 0019C!91-992-S01-2MM DA'IID APRIL 22. 2022.
BENCHMARK
O!YOF SOIANA BEACH S!JRVEY CONTRO!.SlATION '!NC-43', a.EVA110NJ2.469' MEAN SEA LEVEL (N.G.V D. 1929).
PRB.IMINAJlY
PATR!CK F, CHRlSIENSEN, P.LS. 7208 Dato
Pnlparad!ly:
CH~ ENGff',(!:ERNG &. SURVEYiNG
7888 SllVEITTON AVENUE, SUITE •.r SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
07-24-22
PHONE (B58)271-'l901 EMAll.,C!:ANDSOAOLCOM
P!ojectAdci'oo!,
446SEAllR!GHTlANE
SOIANA BEACH, CA 92075
Project Name:
LE\IITT R5IOENCe
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
-5:
lle\llllon4:
-· 3:J!.20-23 AllDE!l ROOfS?OiS
Revl:lon2: 9-2S-22AfYJTieSf[JT.l.S
-1:7-2S-22CHANGS)SCA1Jc
Orlg!nai Dato: JUI.¥ 2,1, =
Sheet 1 Of l
DEP# ----------
' I
\\
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
506 SEABRIGHT LANE
(El BE02 .,,
145SF !::!
(El UVINGIOINlNG ROOM
489SF
L__
I
,
' ' ' '
' '
' ' ' ' I
Do
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
432 SEABRIGHT LANE
' '
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
517 N RIOS AV£
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIOUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD
U.N.O.
2. INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.N.0
3 DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL OF THIS SHEET ONLY,
U.N.O.
4. KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE AN ACCUMULATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND SECTIONS
NOT ALL ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5 REFER TO WALL, FLOOR, AND CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES
6. ALL ROOFING TO BE CLASS 'A' FIRE RATED.
7. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO LIGHTING ORDINANCE.
B. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
9 REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL ANO PLUMBING
DRA\N'INGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
10 ROOF VENTS, DORMER VEITTS, GABLE VENTS, CRAWLSPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL ee COVERED
WITH 1/4" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION
11. ALL ROOF DRAINS, DECK DRAJNS ANO RAJSEO PLANTER
DRAINS SHALL CONNECT TO DRAIN LINES CONCEALED FROM
SIGHT ANO DIRECTED TO FLOW@ 1% SLOPE TO ON SITE
RAIN WATER CISTERN. REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE
DRA\N'INGS FOR MORE INFORMATION
12. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING WALL ASSEMBLIES AND
THICKNESSES IN FIELD
13 1/8" FLOOR PL.ANS CONTAIN: OVERALL LAYOUT & OVERALL
DIMENSIONS (REF. A-100-A-103)
14. 11'" FLOOR PL.ANS CONTAlN: SPATIAL LAYOUT, WAU TAGS,
COOR & WINDOW TAGS, OPENING DIMENSIONS,
DIMENSIONAL CLEARANCES (REF. A-400 • A-402).
DEMOLITION NOTES
1. (E) HOUSE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED
(FOUNDATIONS, FLOORS, WALLS ANO ROOFS).
2. (E) FENCE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, IF REQUIRED.
3. (E) FENCE TO BE REMOVED ANO REPLACED, FlER CITY
STANDARDS.
4. (E) PAVING TO BE REMOVED.
----------' 5 (E) PLANTING TO BE REMOVED.
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
sog N RIOS AV£
NEIGHBORING HOUSE
427 N RIOS AV£
DEMOLITIO~ ~~o~~ 0 f/)
6 {El TREE TO BE REMOVED
7. (El TREE TO REMAIN.
8 (E) SEWER CLEANOUT TO BE RELOCATED.
9. (E) WATER METERS.
10 (E) IRRIGATION BOX.
11. (E) OVERHEAD PO'vVER LINES TO BE BURIED UNDERGROUND
AND POWER METER TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, PER
ELECTRICAL PLANS
EXISTING HOUSE AREA
UVINGIDINI NG ROOM
UVINGROOM
KITCHEN
BEDROOM 1
BATHROOM1
BEDROOM 2
8ATHROOM2
BEDROOM 3 TOTAL HABffABLE AREA
GARAGE AREA
◄89 SO. FT.
322 SQ. FT. 109 sa. FT.
HO SQ FT.
34 SO. FT. 145 SQ FT.
48 SQ FT
96 SO-FT 1,413 SQ. FT.
U-0 SQ. FT.
c SAFD/£ RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
ARCHITECTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO. CA. 92103
P (6191297-6153
www.Slldinbines.com
CLIENT
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML ENGINEER·
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT·
VIR!OIAN L..NiDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN OlEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAi,. ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E.P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPROOFING CONSULTANT: WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THEJA LIGHTING DESIGN
{215) 983-208,4
(REFER TDCOVERSIEETFORI.KJRE CONTACT JtRJRJ»,OONJ
REVISIONS
No Descnpt1on Date
~ PREUM 8\Jl.0INGPERMIT SUBMITTAL 1o'05/13
~ Blll.OIIKi PERMIT SueMITTAI.
~ BUILDINGPERMITSUeMITTAL.n
~ 61.ALOING?ERMITSUSMITTAL•J
~ DWMODIFICATICtJ
Issue Date
$122/2024 12:01:57 PM
SRA ProJect Number
2215
Scale
1"i:10'~ "
DEMOLITION PLAN
A-002
-, -~ ~-~-'>.-',e>!---j- LOWER LEVEL LIVING
AREA
l>&OSQ. FT.I
L __ L_ NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR WALL SURFACES I
/ ,: cc; s I OWEL
/ UNI
342SC
____J_S'-1 " ~_____,.________~~~ fw'!I" Hl'-2112" 111'· 1" --'-----.>- ___,____.,_._ - I 1SNOTE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR WALL SURFACES AREA PLAN - FIRST LEVEL 02 CJ\ 1/16" = 1'-0" \.V
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT SCOPE
NEW ONE (1) STORY SINGLE.FAMILY RESIDENCE, \YITH
SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE/BASEMENT ANO ACCESSORY
OWEWNGUNIT
PROJECT ADDRESS
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
263-051-14-00
LOT SIZE
GROSS LOT SIZE:
NET LOT SJZE.
10,000 SQ FT. (0.25 ACRES)
10,900 SQ. FT. (0.25 ACRES)
AREA CALCULATION
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA CAL,CULATJON
LOT SIZE
6,000 X 0.50"'
4 88-4 X Q 175::
TOTAL. ALLOWED
10,884 SQ FT
3,000 SQ FT'
ass sa FT ··
J.855 SQ FT
•o 50 FOR FIRST 6,000 SF OF LOT AAEA. PER SSMC 17 48.040(C)(1) ··o 175 FOR ADDITIONAL SFOF LOT AREA 6,001-15,000 SQ FT , PER SSMC 17.48.04~C){1)
'' ' PER SSMC 17 48.040(C)(1)(c), "REQUIRED PARKING GARAGES (200 SF PER SPACE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 400 SF FOR A SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE) SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO •·
LEGEND
D MAIN LEVEL LIVING AREA
~ LOWER LEVEL LIVING AREA
D LOWER LEVEL GARAGE
D COVERED / ENCLOSED EXTERIOR AREAS
D ACCESSORY D'NELUNG UNIT
c SAFOIE RA BINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
A RC HI TE C T S
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO. CA 92103
P (619)297-6153
WNN.sa'dimbines.com
£.1..!s.!il
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE. SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VtR ID!AN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DrEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUfTE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E.P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPRQ OFlNG CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSUL TING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THEIA LIGHTING DESIGN
{215) 983-2084
(REFER TOCOVfR S>EETFORMOREC01m,cr1NFORMA.TION)
REVISIONS
No Oescni:(lon Oat@
01P-"'--9.JM61Jl!X!IGPErJ.tTSUBMfrAL~
0'2 BUtOINGPERMllSUBMITTAL
~ BU!..DINGPER.\.UTSU8MlTTALll2
~ BlltOIHGPERMllSI.IBMlTTAl.lll
05 DFlf>MQ)IFICATIOO
lnue Date Scale
~
~
~
~
5122/202. 12:01:58 PM M lndk:atod
SRA PrOJ@ct Numbe1
2215
AREA
CALCULATIONS
A-003
I
:\
I
I
\
1.•~· ~:;:raACK .. · .• \:
I I
I I
\ ',
I
1. i
I
25'·0"
REAR SETBACK
I
I
i
I
I
I
L _______ :_--::_--::_--::t_~_--::_--::Jf :_-________ J FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL G)1 Cf\
1/8"~1'·0" 'U
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIOUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE i::X7ERIOR FACE OF STUD U.N.O. 2 IN~ERIO~ DIME~,'SION~-ARE r,1EASL1.:,EDTC FACE JF Flt,ISH U.N.0
3. Pl ANS CONTENTS
A 1/6" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: GRIJ DJMC:',JS/ot~S. OVEF,ALL LAYOUT.& OVERALL01ME.NSIONS (REF A-101 ~A-102).
B 114" FLOOR Pl.ANS CONTA!N: OVERALL ROOM i::!NlSI-'
JIME.t<SIONS, FLOCK, ROOF, WAf.,L, CEL rw, c::.oR ,!.,
WlNDOWTAGS (RE:F. A-400• A-40'2}.
C. 114" ClMENSlON PLANS CONT/IJN' GRJD D!MENS'ONS
FINISHED Olt,tENSICNS, CLEP,RN,.CES.
D. 1/2" FLOOR Pl.ANS CONTAIN: CABINETRY A"ID CLE.AR.NACE '.)IMi;NSIONS FINIS~ MATE:RIALS PLUME' NG F''>;IURES
j 4 KJ~~-7:~c~~~;~~MA2lEAN ACCUMULAt10N OF
l ITE\1S FOUND CN THE 0 LANS ELE\i/',TIONS, ANO SECTJC:,.JS _j s. ~~;E~~~~~~~6g~.N~~·6~uc;Gs~El~s FoR R-vALUEs
1 6. ALLR00;::1fslGlOBEC'...ASS't.·FtRERATED
1 7. r1
~~;~~g~~,~~1a~OMPLY WIT ti THE CITY OF SAN OiEGO
• 8 REFER TO STRU::TURt,L ORf-'/</INGS FOR ADDITIOi~AI.
I 9. ~ftrt~i~GHAN!CAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ORAW'IN:;s FOF; ADOIT,oNAL I\IFOR'/AT!Oi~ 1 FLOOR PLAN NOTES
1. TH S PRCJECT t.~usr COMPL, 1MTh MUNICIPALCJDE
REQ\JIReMENTS FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE
NOT TO EXCEE'.) 25-FEET PER SBMC- 17.20 C30(G)
2. PR1JV!O!:; 9UILD.NG ADDRESS NUMF;E;RS V,S16LE /.J1D LEGiBlE
FROM THE STREET OR RDAO FRONTING THE PROPERTY PER
FHPS PO'.JCY p.C0-06 (!JFC 90144)
J PER CRC RJ07.2. SHOl','S:R cc,MPARTMENTS ANO BATH<UBS 'MTH INSTALLEO SHO\\'ER HEADS SHALL BE FINISHED "WITH A NCNA8S'.)K8!:fli SUR~ACE Tl--fAT E/-:'"ENDS TOA '-iEIGH-FO NOT LESS THAN 6 FEEi .A.BOVE THE FLOOR.
4 DUCTS IN THE GARAGE AND DUCTS PENETRATING THE; WA.LL$ OR CEltl>JGS S':.APAA,\T/NG THE 0',\'EWl G FRCM THE GARPGE. SHALL SE CONSTRUCTED OF MIN. NO 20 GA SHEET
STEIR OR OTHER APPROVED MATERlk. AND SHALL HAVE NO
OPENINGS INTC THE G~RAG::':
A PLUMBING FIXTURE CERTIFICATION MUST BE COMPLETED
ANO SlGNED av EITHER A WCENSEO GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
A PLUMBING SL'BCOWRAClClR, OR THE S,_Jll.OING O\NNER
CERTIFYING THE FLOW RATe OF TH!i FIX1URES iNSTALLEO A
COPY OF THE CERT!F1CAT!ON CAN BE OBTAINED FROM TI-tE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
6. PER CRCR905.9 ... 1, AMIN. ROOF !DECK SL.OPE OF 1/4"PER FOOT (2%) IS REQUIRED
FIRE SAFETY NOTES
1. ROOF GUTTCRS SHALl BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVEN--:-THEACCUf.',L..'LATlrn~ oi: LE/WES AND lEBR!S 1r1 THE GUTTER ALL ROOF GUrTE.RS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHA.LL
BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATEt?!A.LS 11'.'?EF
CRC R3::7,5.4}
2 ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, GA8LE VENTS. CRAWLSPACE VENTS 0~ OT~R S!U'LAA. CP;;:NINGS SHP ... :. BE COVERED V'Y,TH 1/4· NON-';:;OMBUSTIBLS CORROSION RES!S";"ANT t,'.ETAL MESH OR OTHER P.PPROVEO MATERIAL THAT Or-FE.RS
ECUtVAL!::N-T PROTECTFON
3. AU... ROOFING TO BE CJ\.SS 'A' f!RE RATED.
AGING-IN-PLACE (CRC R32T)
1. REJNFORCEMENT FOR GAAB BARS AT LEAST ONE.BATHROOM
ON THE ENTRY LEVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED 'MTH
REINFORCEMENT l~JSTAL~EO IN ~CCO~DANCf 'MT'"' SECTl::JN R327. 1. 1 REiNFORCEMENT SHAU. BE M,N!MUM 2X8 SOL'O
LUMBER, LOCATED BETWEEN 32" .AND39-1/4" ABOVE THE
FIN!Sf~ED FLOOR FLUSH v~1TH W·\LL Ff~J\MlNG ON 8CTH sm:c:
WM..LS OF THE FIXTURE.
2. ELECTRICAL Ol/TLETS. SV,1TCH, ANO CONTROL HEIGHTS SHALL BE LOCATED NO r,nRE ';"HAN 4S ME.AS'JREC FROtt THE I ;~6~~~~~g~a:l J?ftt1~~;f~l=J5~e:1~~~~fo . FLOOR (R3'.27 1.2) I OVERLAY ZONES 1. SCALED ;;;;ESIDEMTIAL OVERU\Y ZC1~ ;f (SR::,z) I 2. COASTALOVERLAYZONE
I i2~~~;r~i~ ~~~~~1s SPACES, PER saM-: 17 s2 ~JO(A}
KEYNOTES
LEGEND
&::!l!llllill:J PROPOSED NEV/ WALLS MATCHUNE
~ SECT,ON MA.qK ➔ ROOF TAG
B BUIL.Dl'~G ELEVAT!O"J Mt..!N
MARK CONTOUR
u~~E
0-- KEYNOTE SECONDARY
CONiOUR UNE
©-·- GRID LINE 0- WAJ....L TAG
PROPERTY UNE 0-- FLOOR TAG
SETBACK UNE
LEVEii. ELEVATION
LINE ABOVE/ BELOW
c SAFOTE RAB TN ES AKCHITEC TS
~~f"i""l"'IR:~1l'lffl!IF@E'.Jl'IIIII(;&
446 &448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075
W,;;.,Wf,;:;JWilj'LW.::iW..W:W
SAFDIE RABINES
ARCHITECTS
!"12::i FORT STOCl<7'JNDRI·,c
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
? [619)717-6153
't.WN.s:fde.-=bioes.,-.,m
S:"'.:' ~-.·;-..a.::-::-.:liiillllt-- ·-·· --- ·-:.-•. -: - .!.lJ!illI
DARREN & RACHEL L~JTT
445 SEA3RIGH-:- LA.NE
SOLANA 8EACH, CA 92075
CIVIL t;NGINEfR: CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
783851~'/ERTDrlAVE SUITEJ
SAN DIEGO, CA92126
t.ANQ§CAPe; ARCHITECT:
VIR:lDIAN LANDSCAPE 6520 NP~CY R'DGE m~:ve, SANDI.EGO. CA92121 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALl.S ENGINEERING
1WJ3 MftNCHESTER AVE, SL'!TE 202 DlC!N1:;,S, CA 92024
M.E.P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREE2 ENGINEERING
(310) 384-5228
WATERPROOflNG CQNSULJANT•
\VARHORSE CONSUL TING SERVICES
l:149) 3-24-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THE1A LIGHTING DE-SiGN
(215) 983-2084
. •.:?ER r,:; ~?VER $-iETFC"< !/QRE i;:.:;·,TACT !',· :::RMAk 'i! ~:-~~w .. ~w:=:w . ·
~
.~
)
~
REVISIONS
I
N~ D;,scopt::,n: Date
~ AAELW B\4.0111:;Paw;TSUN,TTt.~ ~.::1L_-
_____:__:_ f .. OlflG:-:-,;M;rsc- 1.'JiTA!
~ &III.Pll,3t'ER'-!iSuaM!ri~#2
.....::_::_ J' OIN!;,f~-,.ust "ffTA:. ~
~ 0~!.'0a'.l1FIC\Tl:'.:a'i
-- .... ....
- ?~.: __
~
~
0$/2:,,{4
.... .... .. Issue Date Scale
5/22/2024 12:01 58 PM A!l lndic;:ited
SRA Project Nt11T'ber
2215
JIIIIL.;,~~:,:~.~-•. Jllllll;k .. :'.-e,L
FLOOR PLANLOWER LEVEL
A-100
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
I
\'
I
I
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIDUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD
U.N.O.
2. INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.N.O.
3. PLANS CONTENTS·
A 1(8" FLOOR PL.ANS CONT.AI N: GRID DIMENSIONS. OVER.All LAYOUT & OVERALL DIMENSIONS (REF. A-101 -A-102)
8 . 1/-4 " FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: OVERALL ROOM FINISH
DIMENSIONS, FLOOR, ROOF, WALL, CEILING, DOOR &
IMNDOW TAGS (REF. A-400 - A-402)
C. 1/,f ' DIMENSION PLANS CONT.AIN: GRID DIMENSIONS,
FINISHED DIMENSIONS, CLEARANCES
D. 1/2" FLOOR PL.ANS CONTAIN: CABINETRY AND CLEARNACE
DIMENSIONS: FINISH MATERIALS, PLUMBING FIXTURES,
ELECTRIC.AJ... t.. APPLIANCE TAGS.
4. KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE AN ACCUMULATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PLANS, ELEVATIONS. AND SECTIONS
NOT .AJ...L ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5. REFER TO WALL, FLOOR, AND CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES '1=======~==========~== ======='.'p:;:==============::=;:::::::f::SS::========::==:fJ ---------------7 6 ALL ROOFING TO BE CLASS 'A' FIRE RATED. r ------,.----7:,-~=c:------t-------:-:------ ____________ __,_ _ _ ___ ~----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ 7. ~~~~~gJg~il~~iCOMPLY 'MTH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO A-:llll
2'-\'
!BEDROOM 11
111 SF
!BEDROOM 21
111SF
I I
I 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tI
I
I
l• 1\
I 11
I\·
1H
,s-~ _____ ---,1,.
µ;---;:;FROill sETS.<CK I
l \1
;,
I
1-
r'"-
:::; G:_ _;
I L,
I
_ j PRIMARY BEDROOM) __ _
275SF
IHALLWAY 11
ITVROOMI
1U SF
lu v rNG ROOMI 1;
275 SF
TRELLIS RE~OVED
......_ ,,.._ r-,
:=. JOINING ROOMI :=) 271 SF
~ AOUTDHOJS
'---
I
:r;;::;;;:;;;;:;;;;::::;;;F,;l-~~9,.,...J. - - J
REAR SETBACK
I I
i/
1 1
I I
IS ADOEO I I
-------------------t 8. REFER TO STRUCTURAL. DRA'MNGS FOR ADOlTIONAl
INFORMATION
9. REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DRAINING$ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
1. THIS PROJECT MUST COMPLY WtTH MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE
NOT TO EXCEED 25-FEET PER SSMC 17.20.030(G)
2 PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE
FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY PER
FHPS POLICY P-00-06 (UFC 901.4 4)
3. PER CRC R307.2, SHOWER COMPARTMENTS AND BATHTUBS
WITH INSTALLED SHOvVER HEADS SHALL BE FINISHED 'vVITH A
NONABSORBENT SURFACE THAT EXTENDS TO A HEIGHT FO
NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR.
4. DUCTS IN THE GARAGE AND DUCTS PENETRATING THE
WALLS OR CEILINGS SEAPARATING THE DVYEWNG FROM THE
GARAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MIN NO 26 GA. SHEET
STEEL OR OTHER Af'PROVEO MATERIAL AND SHALL HAVE NO
OPENINGS INTO THE GARAGE
5 A PLUMBING FIXTURE CERTIFICATION MUST BE COMPLETED
AND SIGNED BY EITHER A LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
A PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR, OR THE BUILDING O'vVNER
CERTIFYING THE FLOW RATE OF THE FIXTURES INSTALLED. A
COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
6, PER CRC R905.91 , AMIN. ROOF/ DECK SLOPE OF 1/4" PER FOOT (2%) IS REQUIRED.
FIRE SAFETY NOTES
1. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED 'MTH THE MEANS TO
PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN
THE GUTTER. All ROOF GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS (REF
CRC R337.5.4)
2. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, G,0,SLE VENTS, CRAWLSPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED
WITH 1/4" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION
3. ALL ROOFING TO BE CLASS "A" FIRE RATED.
AGING-IN-PLACE (CRC R327)
1. REINFORCEMENT FOR GRAB BARS AT LEAST ONE BATHROOM
ON THE ENTRY LEVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH
REINFORCEMENT INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE \IIIITH SECTION
R327 1.1 REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 2X8 sou□
LUMBER, LOCATED BETWEEN 32" AND 39-1f4" ABOVE THE
FINISHED FLOOR FLUSH WITH WALL FRAMING ON BOTH SIDE
WALLS OF THE FIXTURE
2. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, S'MTCH, AND CONTROL HEIGHTS
SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 48" MEASURED FROM THE
TOP OF THE OUTLET BOX AND NOT LESS THAN 15' MEASURED
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OUTLET BOX ABOVE THE FINISHED
FLOOR (R327.1.2)
OVERLAY ZONES
1 SCALED RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE (SROZ)
2 COASTAL OVERLAY ZONE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(2) OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, PER SBMC 17.52.040(A)
KEYNOTES
LEGEND
= PROPOSED NEW WALLS MATCHLINE
$ SECTION MARK ~ ROOF TAG
B BUILDING ELEVATION MAIN
MARK CONTOUR
LINE
CD-. KEYNOTE SECONDARY
CONTOUR LINE
©---- GRID LINE 0- WN...l TAG
PROPERTY LINE 0--- FLOOR TAG
SETBACK LINE
s LEVEL ELEVATION
LINE ABOVE f BELOW
c SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
ARCH I T E CTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO. CA 92103
P (619) 297-6153
www.s:tldiembines.com
= DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CIVIL ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VIRIDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E.P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERP ROOFING CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSUL TING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THElA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 9B3-2084
{REFER 10COVERSl£ETFORUORE OONTACr!HFORMAOOH)
REVISIONS
No Oescnptmn Date
~ PR::.LIM' 6Ul.DltM3PBWJliSU8MtTTAl ~
02 BUlOlNGPERMtlSUSMITTAL
~ BUll(J(NG?EIWJTSUSMITTAl. 112
~ BUILDl.'«i?ERMITSIJ&MITTAl.13
~ 0flS> MOOfflD.ilO'l
Issue Date Scale
~
~
~
"""''
6'10/2024 3:15:35 PM As indicated
SRA Project Number
221 5
FLOOR PLAN - MAIN
LEVEL
A-101
r
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIDUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD
U.N.O.
2. INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.N.O.
3. PLANS CONTENTS:
A 1/11" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: GRID DIMENSIONS, OVERALL
LAYOUT & OVERALL DIMENSIONS (REF. A-101 • A-102).
B. 1/J." FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN : OVERALL ROOM FINISH
DIMENSIONS, FLOOR, ROOF, WALL, CEILING, DOOR &
'vVINDOW TAGS (REF. A-400- A-402).
C. 114" DIMENSION PLANS CONTAIN: GRID DIMENSIONS,
FINISHED DIMENSIONS, CLEARANCES
D. 1(2" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN : CABINETRY ANO CLEARNACE
DIMENSIONS; FINISH MATERIALS, PLUMBING FIXTURES,
ELECTRICAL & APPLIANCE TAGS.
4 KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE AN ACCUMULATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PLANS, ELEVATIONS, ANO SECTIONS
NOT ALL ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5. REFER TO WALL, FLOOR, AND CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES.
L_\ ______=· _ ·-=----~-=--..a .......... _=_..-J .............. _ .-.._~ I~~ --=-· = -~~-----~-~ ---~-~---------~ .. -,.-.~--=-------------.. •-=--=--==-cc-= -==.:,a:"~~-= -=::.::.::..::-:_::-:_::-:.=.::.::~-=-=-=:::::;=- - 1------------------i ~· ~~1°~0£Jj!£:i~~~s~t~ ~~R:~~~ITY OF SAA DIEGO - 1 ...,. 8. REFER TO STRUCTURAL ORAvVINGS FOR ADDITIONAL ~ INFORMATION
9. REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
1 - ~ DRA\NINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I
I
I
I
\
STORM DRAIN AND ii5
OVERFLON 00\NNSPOUT
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I ~
I I
I 2s-~ _ ___ _ _,\..
t-1o-- - ---;F:;;;RONTSrn,<eK \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L ______ _
I
L
25'-~
REAR SETBACK
!LOWR.OOf
l,_,;~="""T.O PARAPE
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
1. THIS PROJECT MUST COMPLYVVITH MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE
NOT TO EXCEED 25-FEET PER SBMC 17.20.030(G)
2. PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS VISIBLE mo LEGIBLE
FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY PER
FHPS POLICY P-Q0.06 (UFC 901.4.4)
3. PER CRC R307.2, SHO'NER COMPARTMENTS ANO BATHTUBS
WITH INSTALLED SHO\.VER HEADS SHALL BE FINISHED \MTH A
NONABSORBENT SURFACE THAT EXTENDS TO A HEIGHT FO
NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR
4. DUCTS IN THE GARAGE AND DUCTS PENETRATING THE
WALLS OR CEILINGS SEAPARATING THE mvELLING FROM THE
GARAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF M!N. NO. 26 GA. SHEET
STEEL OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAi.. ANO SHALL HAVE NO
OPENINGS INTO THE GARAGE
5 A PLUMBING FIXTURE CERTIFICATION MUST BE COMPLETED
MO SIGNED BY EITHER A LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
A PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR, OR THE BUILDING OWNER
CERTIFYING THE FLOW RATE OF THE FIXTURES INSTALLED. A
COPY OF THE CERTIFICATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
6. PER CRC R905.9.1, AMIN ROOF / DECK SLOPE OF 1/4"' PER FOOT (2'4) IS REQUIRED
FIRE SAFETY NOTES
1. ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WTH THE MEANS TO
PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBR!S IN
THE GUTTER. All ROOF GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS (REF.
CRC R337.5.4).
2. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, GABLE VENTS, CRAVVI...SPACE VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS S1-t.ALL BE COVERED
WITH 1/4'" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION.
3. All ROOFING TO BE CLASS "A" FIRE RATED
AGtNG4N-PLACE (CRC R327)
1. REINFORCEMENT FOR GRAB BARS: AT LEAST ONE BATHROOM
ON THE ENTRY LEVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED \MTH
REINFORCEMENT INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WTH SECTION
R327.1.1. REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE MINIMUM 2X8 SOLID
LUMBER, LOCATED BETINE.EN 32" AAD 39-1/4"' ABOVE THE
FINISHED FLOOR FLUSH 1NITH WALL FRAMING ON BOTH SIDE
WALLS OF THE FIXTURE.
2. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, SWITCH, AND CONTROL HEIGHTS
SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 48" MEASURED FROM THE
TOP OF THE OUTLET BOX AND NOT LESS THAN 15" MEASURED
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OUTLET BOX ABOVE THE FINISHED
FLOOR (R327.1.2)
OVERLAY ZONES
1 SCALED RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE (SROZ)
2. COASTAL OVERLAY ZONE
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(2) OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, PER SBMC 17 52.040(A)
KEYNOTES
6.0 TRELLIS · REF. A-615
7 .5 ROOF OR DECK DRAIN/OVERFLOW DRAIN, A-603
8 7 F1RE PLACE VENT
LEGEND
= PROPOSED NEW WALLS MATCHLINE
$ SECTION MARK 0-- ROOF TAG
B BUILDING ELEVATION MAIN
MARK CONTOUR
LINE
0-- KEYNOTE SECONDARY
CONTOUR LINE
0-·- GRID LINE 0- WALL TAG
PROPERTY LINE 0-- FLOOR TAG
SETBACK LINE
5l LEVEL ELEVATION
LINE ABOVE / BELOW
c SAFDfE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
A R C H IT EC TS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN OIEGO, CA 92103
P (519)297-6153
www.szldienlbine:5.com
QJ.00
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOI.ANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: VIRID!AN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINfER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E.P, ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPRQQFING CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN· THEIA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 983-2084
(REFER TO COVER SIEETFORJ#JRE CONUCT/,'IFOIWATIOH)
REVISIONS
No Description Date
_!!___ PRELIM SOl.OIMGPERMITSUe.vlTTAL ~
~ BlllOIUG PER»JTSVSMITTAl
~BLALOlflG PERMITSUSMITTAl.112
~ BIJLOOKi PERt.llT SIJSYJTTAl #3
05 ORf'MOOIFICATIOl
Issue Date Scale
~
tM/1112.t
~
~
6/1 0/2024 3:15:38 PM As indicated
SRA Project Number
2215
ROOF PLAN
A-102
PL A-JOI A-301
l - - - - - - - --- - - - __ J _, A.E~ A-100 "I
I I I
- - - - - :- - - - - - - - - - -- -[25-0"MAAIMUM BUILOJNGHEIGHT - - - - - -- (PER SBMC 17.2D,OJO{G)J
I
-------- I
------~- ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - (E) NEIGHBORING HOUSE
l A.JOI
25' - o· FRONT SETBA.CK
REF. A-100
I
I ----------------L------------------ ---r ------- sr-1· ------------- "·"'
=----=----=---~-::-:::+Ji;f!r;l;i;;;;.;;;;:;;:;;;;;;:t;:::;;:;::!:~ ;:;;i;:;::::1::=- ______ 7 _ ADU LEVEW~ PROPOSED GRADE ADU LEVEL (F.G.) S EXISTING GRADE 82' - 9" (P) RETAINING WALL
REF CML
(E) 11'-0"H FENCE TO ee REMOVED ANO REPlACE0
PER CffY STANOAAOS
A-301
PL
25 • O" FRONT SETBACK l REF. A-100
25' • O" REAR SETBACK
REF. A-100 l ------ ..... ~ [25.-0"MAXIMUMBUILD'"GHEIGHT ' I (PER SBMC 17.20.0JO(G)) I I [115'-0'" HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE _l_ - {PER SSMC 1715~0: _ - - - - --- __ - t- _________ _ _____ - - - - /7SOUTH ADU ELEVATIOO
.-...~----.-. -.-'.. I (REF ~A-200)
I
I
l _________ _
TV ROOM LEVEL F.
BS'-2"
TV ROOM LEVEL F.
MAIN LEVEL F.
- - -=----==---- - - - - - - - - - - - ___J MAIN LEVEL a'; GJl $ r- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -7 7fVING ROOM LEVEL IF F\ 83-0" ~ PRIMARY BEDROOM se:votm <EJ &'-O"H FENCE 10 ee I LIVING ROOM LEVEL Ji·~}. S tBO OPEtllrG AF f l REMOVED AND REPLACED ::= ::=::=::=::=y=::= :: PERCITYSTANDARDS ::=~=::=::=::= ::=::=::=::=::=::l _ ~:::~:~;~~ PL
25' • O" REAR SETBACK L I REF A-100
-:- ---i---c,:~ :~,~~:B~l:D~H: :E~G~:- - J - ~ {PER SSMC l720030(Gl) I I [16'-0'" HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE I (PER SSMC 17.!IJ.04-0) - - --- t- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - -'- - - --- I ~ rn I !MOIi'
92.50'
TO TRELLIS
--------
I
I
(E)6'-0"H FENCE TOBE---~
REMOVED AtlO REPLACED
Pf.R CITY STANDARDS
LOW'ROOF
TO P,._RAPET
GENERAL NOTES
1 GRlDLINES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD U.N.0 .
2. INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.NO
J. DIMENSIONS SHOVVN AAE TYPICAL OF THIS SHEET ONLY,
U.N.O.
4 KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE AN ACCUMULATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PLANS, ELEVATIONS, ANO SECTIONS NOT ALL ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5. REFER TO WAL~ FLOOR. AND CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES 6 ALL ROOFING TO BE ClASS 'A' FIRE RATED 7 THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY VI/ITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO LIGHTING ORDINANCE.
8. REFER TO STRUCTUR.AJ.. DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION,
9 REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DRAvVINGS FOR AODITlONAL INFORMATION.
10. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, GABLE VENTS, CRAVVL.SPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED
'NITH 1/4" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION
11. ALL ROOF DRAINS, DECK DRAINS AND RAISED PLANTER
DRAINS SHAU. CONNECT TO DRAIN LINES CONCEALED FROM
SIGHT ANO DIRECTED TO FLOW@ 1•.4 SLOPE TO ON SITE
RAIN WATER CISTERN. REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE
DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION
12. 1(8" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: OVERALL LAYOUT & OVERAU
DIMENSIONS (REF. A-100- A-103)
13 1f<l" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: SPATIAL LAYOUT, WAU TAGS,
DOOR & WINDOW TAGS, OPENING DIMENSIONS,
DIMENSIONAL CLEARANCES (REF A-400-A-402)
ELEVATION NOTES
1 PER SDMC 132.0505 AND PROP-O· THE HIGHEST POINT OF
THE ROOF, EQUIPMENT, OR AJ,N VENT, PIPE, ANTENNA OR
OTHER PROJECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET ABOVE
BASE OF MEASUREMENT (REFERENCE DATUM)
2 PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS VISIBLE AND
LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE
PROPERTY PER FHPS POLICY P-00-06 (UFC 901 4 4)
3 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE MEASURES FOR BRUSH
MANAGEMENT, OPENINGS IN WAL.LS ADJACENT TO BRUSH
MANAGEMENT ZONES, ALONG \'VITH A 10 FT
PERPENDICULAR RETURN, SHALL BE UPGRADED TO DUAL·
TEMPERED, DUAL-GLAZED PNAES REF ll.2
KEYNOTES
6 D TRELLIS- REF. A-615
8 7 FIRE PLACE VENT
9 11 CEMENT PLASTER STUCCO
LEGEND
$ SECTIONMAAK
0- KEYNOTE
0-·- GRIOUNE
~ LEVEL ELEVATION
LINE ABCM: / BELOW
MATCHUtlE
KEY PLAN
I
A
2 @
GD
@
CURTAIN PNIEL TAG
ODOR TAG
WINDOW TAG
A
3 (J) c SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
ARCHITECTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO. CA 92103
P (619) 297-6153
www.utdinbints.com
CLIENT
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT 446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML fN~NEfR:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
L,ANQSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VIRIDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER·
QUAl..l.S ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203 ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M E,P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPROQFING CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSUL TING SERVICES
{949) 324--6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THEIA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 9133-2084
(REFER ro coVER Sl-£1:TFORAORE CONTACT/NH}RMA OON)
REVI SIONS
No Hcnption Date
01 PRfli!.! 8\.UlfNGPERl.ll SUBl,IITIAL lVJSm
02 BU\.DltoG PERMITSUS!JJTTAL """'' OJ BUU:IING PERMITSUBMlTTAL •? ~ BUll..[)t,Z PERUJT SUBMITTAL -l
~ ORPMOOIFICA.~
Issue Date Scale
5122/2024 12:02:06 PM As indicated
SRA ProJect Number
2215
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS -
NORTH / SOUTH
A-200
PL
10' · O" SIDE SETBACK I
1 A-300
2 A-300 PL
I ,o-. O"' SIDE SETBACK
REF. ,t,.100 REF. A-100
I I I I
(E} NEIGH&ORI NG HOUSE
----t--:,::7 - -1 i---_ _j- -------L_f:~-§~~~:~~~~;.;-H;-- --------------- ---~ ---.~;- -- t - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - ---- - ----- (PERSB
(E) 6'-0"H FENCE TO 8E
REMOVED ANO REPLACED.
IF REOVIREO 1
PL A-300
I - - - - , - ,,- l.=25'-0" MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
{PERSBMC 1720030(GJ)
I [ 16'-0" HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE
(PER SBMC 17.63.0..0J
-----L - ---------- - - - ----
I ~·-o- ~~--+--------~ ADU SETBACK
"·"' T.O TRELLIS
··-·--······-····· •·••·· •·•••··· ·•·••
=: :.=:. - :=':_":-=~,t!~~ PS~~~~- :,:;::=; :~;;;::;;: ~-~-;;-;;,;::;;,. ;::;;:;-l~-:;-~~-:;;:-~-;;-~~ -:y-::::·(::: I D:ISTIHG GRADE 82 • g· (P) RETAINING WALL
REF CIVIL
(E) 6'-Q'"HFENCE TOBE
RE MOVED ANO REPLACED
If REQUIRED
- - - - - - - - - - - L25'-0" MAXJMUM BUILDING HEIGHT - ~ - - (PER SSMC 17,20.0JO(G))
[
16'-0" HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE I (PER SSMC 17.63.040) ----------- - - _______ _______ _ _ __ L __
92.50' !M.~ ·
TO TRELLIS
(El 6'·0"H FENCE TO SE
REMOVED ANO REPLACED,
IF REQUIRED
LOW ROOF T.O. PARAPET
TV ROOM LEVEL F.
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIDUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD
U.N.O.
2 INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.N.O.
3. DIMENSIONS SHOWN AAE lYPICAL OF THIS SHEET ONLY,
U.N.O.
4. KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE AN ACCUMULATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND SECTIONS
NOT ALL ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5. REFER TO WALL, FLOOR, AND CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES.
6. ALL ROOFING TO BE CLASS 'A' FIRE RATED 7. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CllY OF SAN DIEGO LIGHTING ORDINANCE.
8. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
9. REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
10. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, GABLE VENTS, CRAVYt.SPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED
WITH 1/4" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESIST.ANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION.
11. ALL ROOF DRAINS, DECK DRAINS AND R.AJSED PLANTER
DRAINS SHAU. CONNECT TO DRAIN LINES CONCEALED FROM
SIGHT AND DIRECTED TO FLOW@ 1" SLOPE TO ON SITE
RAIN WATER CISTERN. REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE
DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION
12. 1/8" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: OVER,6J..L LAYOUT & OVERALL DIMENSIONS (REF. A-100-A-103).
13. 1/.(" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: SPATIAL LAYOUT, WALL TAGS, DOOR & VVINDOW TAGS. OPENING DIMENSIONS,
DIMENSIONAL CLEARANCES (REF. A-400 • A-402)
ELEVATION NOTES
1. PER SDMC 132.0SOSAND PROP-0: THE HIGHEST POINT OF
THE ROOF, EQUIPMENT, OR ANY VENT, PIPE, ANTENNA OR
OTHER PROJECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET ABOVE
BASE OF MEASUREMENT {REFERENCE DATUM),
2. PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS VISIBLE AND
LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE
PROPERTY PER FHPS POLICY P-00-06 (UFC 901.4.<1 )
3. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE MEASURES FOR BRUSH
MANAGEMENT; OPENINGS IN WAU.S ADJACENT TO BRUSH
MANAGEMENT ZONES, ALONG WITH A 10 FT PERPENDICULAR RETURN, SHALL BE UPGRADED TO DUALTEMPERED, DUAL-GLAZED PNAES. REF. L1 .2
KEYNOTES
6.0 TRELLIS - REF. A-615
8.7 FIRE PLACE VENT
9.11 CEMENT PLASTER STUCCO
LEGEND
$ SECTIDtlMARK @ CURTNN PNIEL TAG
0-e OD DOOR TAG
KfYN011'
0-·- @ WINDOW TAG GRIOLINE
s LML ELEVATION
Lit,E ABOVE / BELOW
MA.ltHUNE
KEY PLAN
r
2)
f[) c SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
AR C H / TECT S
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
P (619)297-6153
Wfft.Slfd!Mlbine1.c:om
£lill!!
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92D75
CML ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7888 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VIRIDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M£P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREE2 ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPROOFING CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THEJA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 963-2084
/REFER TD COVER SJ£ETFORUJRECONT>.CTl/iFORJU,'OOH}
REVISIONS
No Descript10n Date
" P-..a!M Bll.DIIKiPEAAITSUSMITTAL ,,,.,,, 02 BIALDINGPERMITSIF.!MlTTAL ,,,.,,, " BUILDII.GPERMJTSL'S.V)TTAl.f? ~
" BIALDING PERMIT SU9~JTTAI. "J ~
~ l);;pt.lOOIFICATION
""""'
Issue Date Scale
51221202( 12:02:0e PM As indicated
SRA ProJect Number
2215
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS - EAST
/WEST
A-201
PL
f
I
I
25' • rr FRONT SETBACK
REF.A-100
95.5&'
-- - - - --- - --- - - - t - - - - --- ---T.~l~!t<;>:~_ I
I
9-C' ·O"
T.O. TRELLlS
________ _ __________ L __________ _
==- =- =- =- =- =- =- =- =- ]_ =- =- =- =- =- =- =- .....2%- ------- - - ~
=----=----=----=--.:-=_---=----=--_-=.:-_-=.: _-=-t ---=----=----=----=--- I EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
PL
25' • o· FRCWT SETBACK
REF A-100
I
I ---------------r---;~------- ------- ---------- , j HIGH ROOF j TO PARAPET
I I ""'
I I -~O~R~~
- -----=-=---=-~=-:....-=~ - - - - - -+--------------=+--- -- - --------------------+ -------------- ' I I I I
---- -----------------1--------- -----1 __ e
=-=-=========--t-=::----------- __ L_ _
--------------,-----,c~~::;
CEXISTING GRADE
A-301
1 A-301
A-301 PL
,. • 0- REAR SETBACK l REF. A-100 _ __ ____ _
------t- _ _ _ ___ _ __ ___ J I
I L25'-0" MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
(PER SBMC 17.20.030(G))
: _[16'.()" HEIGHT A80VE EXISTING GRADE I ____ --- l (PERSBMC17.6J.~ )------1 - - - - , ---- - - I HIGHC~}!N~. S
---~--~--~--~--~--~ J -- -~--~--~--~--_J _ __ _ _ _ MID C~~N~ I TV ROOM LEVEL F.F (El NEIGHBORltlG HOUSE
EAST I WEST BUILDING SE~~.l~~-J. 0
PL
25' - O" REAR SETBACK
REF. A-100 l - -------- - - ~------------~..,...-r -------- L2s-0· MAXJMUM auILOtNG HEIGHT I I ~=~- I [
16"-0" HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADEi
(PER SSMC 17 53.0CO) ~ .OIi' I 9H~'
~--...,.. _____ L -------- ----- T.~A=T_J__ _ __ I ,,.., I I------~---------------- HIGH C~~,I~~ S
--i- ---------------- LOWC~~!~g. S
I
I MAI N LEVEL {F.A s
_ ~ _____ ~ ~ ~ ~ __ J-1AIN ~EVEL8;.~~; S
I I ~ ~ (E) 6'•0"H FENCE TO BE
REMOVED ANO REPLACED
PER CITY STAN OAR OS
1~- -- ---------17 UVINGROOM LEVEL:~~F~l s
LIVING ROOM EVEL F.G.
82'-3"
L.J I I
L.J
EAST / WEST BUILDING SETi~,1?~_02, 0
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIOUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD
U.N.0 .
2. INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.N.0 .
3. DIMENSIONS SHOVVN AAE TYPICAL OF THIS SHEET ONLY,
U.N.O.
4 KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE .AN ACCUMULATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND SECTIONS.
NOT ALL ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5. REFER TO W/JJ...l, FLOOR, .ANO CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES 6. All ROOFING TO BE CLASS 'A' FIRE RATED.
7. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY \N'ITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO LIGHTING ORDINANCE.
8 REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRA'MNGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
9 REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DRA'MNGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
10. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, GABLE VENTS, CRAWLSPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED
WITH 1/4" NON-COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION.
11. ALL ROOF DRAINS, DECK DRAINS AND RAISED PLANTER
DRAINS SHALL CONNECT TO DRAIN LINES CONCEALED FROM
SIGHT AND DIRECTED TO FLOW@ 1% SLOPE TO ON SITE
RAIN WATER CISTERN. REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE
DRAVVINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION
12. 1/8" FLOOR PL.ANS CONTAIN: OVERALL LAYOUT & OVERALL DIMENSIONS (REF. A100- A 103).
13. 1f4" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: SPATIAL tAYOUT, WALL TAGS,
DOOR & VVINDOW TAGS, OPENING DIMENSIONS,
DIMENSIONAL CLEARANCES (REF. A-400-A-402).
SECTION NOTES
1. PER SOMC 132.0SOSAND PROP- □ THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE
ROOF, EQUIPMENT, OR N-JY VENT, PIPE, ANTENNA OR OTHER
PROJECTION S1-W..L NOT EXCEED 30 FEET ABOVE BASE OF
MEASUREMENT {REFERENCE DATUM).
2 PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS VISIBLE ANO LEGIBLE
FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY PER
FHPS POLICY P-00-06 (UFC 901.4 4)
3 ROOF GUTTERS SI-W..L BE PROVIDED \MTH THE MEANS TO
PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN
THE GUTTER ALL ROOF GUTTERS .A.ND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS REF.
CRC R337.5.4 / SDMC 149.0327{e)(1)
4. PROVIDED INSULATION SHOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING
VALUES PER T-24 (REF WALL. FLOOR AND ROOF TYPES FOR
MORE INFORMATION)
A EXTERIOR WALLS R-21
8. FLOOR R-19
C. ATTIC/ ROOF R-38
KEYNOTES
6.0 TRELLIS· REF. A-615
8 3 CURTAIN PANEL SYSTEM
8.6 FLUSH GARAGE DOOR
8.7 FIRE PLACE VENT
LEGEND
B
0-4
©-·-
PROPOSED WALLS
SECTION MARK
BUILDING
ELEVATION
KEYNOTE
GRID LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
KEY PLAN
LEVEL ELEVATION
LINE ABOVE / BELOW
MATCHLINE
MAIN CONTOUR
LINE
SECONDARY
CONTOUR LINE
1 1 .... --...,I~ c____Jr- - -~
I
c SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABI N ES
ARCH I TE C T S
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
P (619)297-61S3
www.sllldienibineucm
~
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7BBB SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VIRIDIAN LANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
M.E.P. ENGINEER:
120 DEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPROOFING CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
LIGHTING DESIGN:
THElA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 983-2084
(REFER TO COVER SI-EET FORMORECONTACTIHFORW.noNJ
REVISIONS
No DescnpMn Date
" PREUM 81..1.DIOOPERMITSUBMTI"'-. ,,...,, 02 SUllllNGPERMITSVSl,IITTAI. 03,0S,:1J " SUlDtNG PERMIT SVSWTTAI. • 2 ~
"' BIJILDtllGPERMITSl.QIITTAl.il3 OS/1Y.2A
05 Dlv'MOOlflC.t.TIOO "'"'"'
Issue Date Scale
5122/202412:02:10 PM As indicated
SRA ProJect Number
2215
BUILDING SECTIONS
- EAST /WEST
A-300
PL
10' • D" SIDE SETBACK I
REF. A-1O0 ---------------------- I _____ I ___________ _ I I
I I
- - 95.75' L25'-0" MAXIMUM 8UILOll4G HEIGHT
MID ROOF
T.O. PARAPET
T.O. TRELLIS
(PER SSMC 17.20.030(GJ)
(PER SSMC 17 .53,CMO)
PL
2 110· • D" SIDE SETBACK
A-300 REF. A·100
---------i-------+--- ----------- 94.0,' I
T.
I.OW O. PARAPET ROOF I 91-6"
- ------ - --- - - - - ----- - - --1-- - - --1-- -- - - - - - - -- 1 I
94.D<T _[1S'-O" HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE
- ----- --------------------- T.~T~L~S_ J_ ___________ __ _ ===--=--=--==--=--=====+--=--=
PL
------ --------------- r E OPOSeooRAOE
REF (P) RETAINING WALL. J EXISTING GRADE . CIVIL I
{El 6'-0-H FENCE TO BE
REMOVED ANO REPLACED.
IF REQUIRED I
L.O' SIDESETBACK ~
I
----~----- ------------_j L:1: ::1~1:~ S
--- I ---- - - ------------------.,.~
lo 1N1NG ROoM I
171 SF
I (El NEIGHBORING HOUSE
j I EXISTING GRACE
I PROPOSED GRADE
I (P)RETAlNINGWALL.
REF. CIVIL I (E) 6-0-H FENCE TO BE
REMOVED ANO REPLACED,
IF REQUIRED I
=;==_==========~;==~ __ MAINLEVE\!_f~jl S
I LIVING ROOM LEVE~~~F,jl S
I LIVING ROOM LEVEL F.G.
82'-Y
I
i
NORTH / SOUTH BUILDING SETi~,I~~-~-0
PL
~IO' . ~ SlDE SETllACK I A-300 "I REF. A-100 l -------- -------------2--~-'_'"_1 '1 r: -L~s._;~~~l~l;.;l;;---------- {PER SBMC 17.20.0JO(G)) (E) NEIGHBORING HOUSE 9553'
~ --~ L_ - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - _J 16'-0"HEIGHTABOVE EXISTING GRADE ------L------t-------------- 1 97,0,'
HIGH ROOF I T.O. PARAPET
~ ·-0-
~--....,-- 1
=----=----=----=----=----=--=----=----=----=----=----=--= -± _ =-
EXISTING GRACE
.. • ,
~----. _____ ['.PERSBMC17113F"7 ----- I _ _ HIGH c~;.1~g. l9 __....,__.,._ - - -=-~- -~-~-- -_- ---- _-_-.=J_J~--- - ~M~ID~C~Ess~~,s,l~"eis-. _,.,.S I TV ROOM LEVE~_/:~-
! MAIN LEVEL F.F
(E) NEIGHBORING HOUSE 84' - 2" I LOWER LEVEL HIGH CEILING l!w t-: ~-~~~~-~~:=::_ lJ __ MAIN LEVE~:~~:; S
IVING ROOM LEVEL F.F. I U - ~
LOWER LEVEL LOW CEILING
82' -11"
LIVING ROOM LEVEL F.G.
NORTH / SOUTH BUILDING SETi~-1~~-~ 0
GENERAL NOTES
1. GRIDUNES ARE MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD
U.N.0.
2 INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE MEASURED TO FACE OF FINISH
U.N.O.
3. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL OF THIS SHEET ONLY,
U.N.O
4 KEY NOTES ON THESE SHEETS ARE AN ACCUMUlATION OF
ITEMS FOUND ON THE PlANS, ELEVATIONS, ANO SECTIONS
NOT ALL ITEMS ARE FOUND ON EACH SHEET.
5 REFER TO WALL, FLOOR, AND CEILING TYPES FOR R-VALUES
6. ALL ROOFING TO BE CLASS 'A' FIRE RATED.
7 THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WTH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
LIGHTING ORDINANCE.
8. REFER TO STRUCTURAL. DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
9. REFER TO MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING
DRAWNGS FOR ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION.
10. ROOF VENTS, DORMER VENTS, G,la,BLE VENTS, CRAWLSPACE
VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED
vVITH 1/4" NON•COMBUSTIBLE CORROSION RESISTANT METAL
MESH OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL THAT OFFERS
EQUIVALENT PROTECTION.
11. ALL ROOF DRAINS, DECK DRAINS ANO RAISED PLANTER
DRAINS SHAU. CONNECT TO DRAIN LINES CONCEALED FROM
SIGHT ANO DIRECTED TO FLOW@ 1% SLOPE TO ON SITE
RAIN WATER CISTERN. REFER TO CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE
DRAININGS FOR MORE INFORMATION
12. 1/r FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: OVERALL LAYOUT & OVERALL
DIMENSIONS (REF. A 100 - A 103).
13. 11'" FLOOR PLANS CONTAIN: SPATIAL LAYOUT, WALL TAGS, DOOR&. WINDOW TAGS, OPENING DIMENSIONS,
DIMENSIONAL CLEARANCES (REF. A.400- A.402).
SECTION NOTES
1 PER SDMC 132.0SOS ANO PROP-0: THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE
ROOF, EQUIPMENT, OR ANY VENT, PIPE, ANTENNA OR OTHER
PROJECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET ABOVE BASE OF
MEASUREMENT (REFERENCE DATUM).
2 PROVIDE BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE
FROM THE STREET OR RO.AO FRONTING THE PROPERTY PER
FHPS POLICY P-00-06 {UFC 901 4 4)
3 ROOF GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED INITH THE MEANS TO
PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES ANO DEBRIS IN
THE GUTTER. All ROOF GUTTERS ANO DOWNSPOVTS SHALL
BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS. REF
CRC R337.5.4 / SOMC 149.0327(e)(1)
4. PROVIDED INSULATION SHOULD HAVE THE FOLLOIMNG
VALUES PER T-24 (REF. WALL, FLOOR ANO ROOF TYPES FOR
MORE INFORMATION):
A. EXTERIOR WALLS R-21
B. FLOOR R-19
C. ATTIC I ROOF R-38
KEYNOTES
8.3 CURTAIN PANEL SYSTEM
6.7 FIRE PLACE VENT
LEGEND
~
©---
PROPOSED WALLS
SECTION MARK
BUILDING
ELEVATION
KEYNOTE
GRID LINE
PROPERTY LINE
SETBACK LINE
KEY PLAN
2 LEVEL ELEVATION
LINE ABOVE / BELOW
MATCHUNE
M.AJNCONTOUR
LINE
SECONDARY
CONTOUR LINE
c SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
446 & 448
SEABRIGHT
LANE
RESIDENCE
446 & 448 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
SAFDIE RABINES
ARCHITECTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103
P (619)297-6153
--«.satdiefflbines.com
CLIENT
DARREN & RACHEL LEVITT
446 SEABRIGHT LANE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
CML ENGINEER:
CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
7688 SILVERTON AVE, SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA92126
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
VIRIDIAN tANDSCAPE
6520 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE,
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
QUALLS ENGINEERING
4403 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 203
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
ME P. ENGINEER:
120 OEGREEZ ENGINEERING
(310) 364-5228
WATERPROOFING CONSULTANT:
WARHORSE CONSULTING SERVICES
(949) 324-6999
U GHTING DESIGN:
THEIA LIGHTING DESIGN
(215) 983-2084
(REFER TD COVER 'SIEETFORWRECOHTACTINFORMAOON)
REVISIONS
No Descnpt1on Date
01 PRELIM BULOINGPEF.MITSUSJ.ITTAI. '12W2J
02 6UILDD«i?ERM!TSUEiMITTAL
~ SUILDIHGPERMITSUSt.UTTl\l.12
CM BUILDIHGP-eRMJT SUSMITTAL IJJ
l'.6 ~ MOO!F!CAT!Ctl
Issue Date
5122/2024 12:02:11 PM
SRA Pro1ee1 Numbe1
2215
Scale
As lndlc21t•d
BUILDING SECTIONS
- NORTH / SOUTH
A-301
RESOLUTION 2023-117
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT TO
DEMOLISH A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A REPLACEMENT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH A PARTIALLY SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
AT 446 SEABRIGHT LANE, SOLANA BEACH.
APPLICANTS: DARREN AND RACHEL LEVITT
CASE NO.: DRP23-003
APN: 263-061-14
WHEREAS, Darren and Rachel Levitt (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants"), have submitted an application for a Development Review Permit (DRP) pursuant to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC); and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 17.72.030; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on October 25, 2023, the City Council received and considered evidence concerning the proposed application; and WHEREAS, the City Council found the application request exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, this decision is based upon the evidence presented at the Hearing, and any information the City Council gathered by viewing the site and the area as disclosed at the hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does resolve as follows:
I. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
II. That the request for a DRP to demolish a single-story single-family residence, construct a replacement 3,366 square-foot single-family residence with a 716 square-foot partially subterranean two-car garage, and perform associated improvements at 446 Seabright Lane, is conditionally approved based upon the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions:
Ill. FINDINGS
A. In accordance with Section 17.68.040 (Development Review Permit) of the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code, the City Council finds the following:
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
I. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable requirements of SBMC Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), including special regulations, overlay zones and specific plans.
General Plan Consistency: The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Low Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and intended for single-family residential development with a maximum density of four dwelling units per acre.
The development is also consistent with the objectives of the General Plan as it encourages the development and maintenance of healthy residential neighborhoods, the stability of transitional neighborhoods, and the rehabilitation of deteriorated neighborhoods.
Specific Plans and Special Overlays: The property is located in the SROZ, which specifies development standards to preserve and enhance the existing community character and aesthetic quality of the City of Solana Beach, by providing regulations to ensure and protect the character, traditional scale, and seaside orientation of established residential neighborhoods. The project, as designed, complies with the SROZ maximum allowable floor area.
The entire City of Solana Beach is located within the Coastal Zone. As a condition of project approval, the Applicants will be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver, or Exemption from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building or grading permits.
Zoning Ordinance Consistency: SBMC Section 17.20.01 0(C) specifies that the LMR Zone is intended for residential development in areas characterized primarily by detached single-family homes on both older and newer subdivided lots. SBMC Section 17.20.030 outlines property development regulations, which are analyzed below.
Minimum Yards/Setbacks:
Minimum yard dimensions (setbacks) for the LMR Zone are determined by the setback designator indicated on the City of Solana Beach official zoning map. The setback designator for the subject property is "c", which requires 25-foot front and rear yard setbacks and 10-foot street and interior side yard setbacks. The proposed residence as well as proposed trellis patio covers will be located entirely within the buildable area.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio:
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
The maximum allowable floor area calculation for 10,884 square-foot lot is as follows:
0.50 for first 6,000 ft2
0.175 for 6,000 to 15,000 ft2
Maximum Allowable Floor Area:
3,000 ft2
855 ft2
3,855 ft2
The proposed project includes a 2,904 square-foot main level living area, a 716 square-foot lower level two-car garage, a 369 square-foot lower level living area, and a 93 square-foot covered and enclosed exterior area. The subtotal of the proposed gross floor area is 4,082 square feet.
The proposed lower level garage and living area will be partially subterranean and built into the existing grade. However, the lower level does not qualify as a "basement" in the SROZ due to the vertical exposure measured from the finished floor of the main level to the lower of the existing and proposed grade. The maximum exposure of a basement in the SROZ is 3 feet and the proposed exposure of the lower level would be
4.75 feet. Therefore, the entire lower level garage and living area count toward the gross floor area.
The SBMC parking regulations require two off-street parking spaces per single-family residence. When required spaces are provided in a garage and unobstructed, 200 square feet of floor area is exempted for each required space. The proposed garage will provide two unobstructed parking spaces, and two spaces are required in total for the project; therefore, the project is afforded a 400 square-foot exemption from gross floor area calculation. With the exemption, the total gross floor area of the project is 3,682 square feet, which is 173 square feet below the maximum allowable for the property.
Maximum Building Height:
The maximum building height for the LMR Zone is 25 feet. The maximum building height (or tallest portion) of the proposed residence will be 20.41 feet measured above the proposed grade (or 95.58 feet above MSL). The highest portion of the residence will be 97.08 feet above MSL (or 15.98 feet above the pre-existing grade).
The proposed residence will not exceed 16 feet in height from the preexisting grade. Therefore, the project is not subject to the requirements of SBMC Chapter 17.63 - View Assessment and the approval of an SOP. As a condition of approval, the Applicants will be required to submit a height certification to certify that the tallest portion of the building would not exceed
20.41 feet in height measured above the proposed grade (or 95.58 feet Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
above MSL) and the highest portion of the building would not exceed 16 feet in height measured above the pre-existing grade (or 97.08 feet above MSL).
Required Off-Street Parking:
A single-family residence requires two off-street parking spaces, pursuant to SBMC Section 17.52.040 and the Off-Street Parking Design Manual (OSPDM). A total of two off-street parking spaces are required by the project and two unobstructed 9-foot by 19-foot parking spaces will be accommodated in the proposed garage.
Fences, Walls and Retaining Walls:
Within the front yard setback, the SBMC Section 17.20.040(0) allows fences and walls, or any combination thereof, to be no higher than 42 inches in height as measured from existing grade, except for an additional 2 feet that is at least 80% open to light. Fences, walls and retaining walls located within the rear and interior side yards are allowed to be up to 6 feet in height with an additional 2 feet that is 50% open to light and air. Fence and wall height is measured from the pre-existing grade.
Currently, the plans show replacement perimeter fences and walls that will enclose the side and rear yards with a six-foot tall wooden fence and approximately two-foot tall retaining walls. A combination fence and wall will wrap around the southwest front yard in compliance with the requirements of SBMC 17.20.040(0) and 17.60.070(C). If the Applicants decide to modify any of the fences and walls or construct additional fences and walls on the project site, a condition of project approval indicates that they would be required to comply with the Municipal Code.
Water Efficient Landscape:
The project is subject to the current Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) of SBMC Chapter 17.56. A Landscape Documentation Package is required for new development projects with an aggregate landscape equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building permit, plan check, or development review. The Applicants provided a conceptual landscape plan that has been reviewed by the City's third-party landscape architect, who has recommended approval. If the project is approved, the Applicants will be required to submit detailed construction landscape drawings that will be reviewed by the City's third-party landscape architect for conformance with the approved plan and the WELO. In addition, the City's consultant will perform an inspection during the construction phase of the project to verify compliance.
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
11. The proposed development complies with the following development review criteria set forth in Solana Beach Municipal Code Section
17.68.040.F:
a. Relationship with Adjacent Land Uses: The development shall be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to existing development in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the surrounding neighborhood. The development as
proposed shall also be compatible in scale, apparent bulk, and massing with such existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Site planning on or near the perimeter of the development shall give consideration to the protection of surrounding areas from potential adverse effects.
The property is located within the LMR Zone as are the
properties located in the immediate surrounding neighborhood on Seabright Lane and the west side of North Rios Avenue. The neighborhood is also adjacent to five properties in the Medium Residential (MR) Zone on the east side of North Cedros Avenue, an attached condominium "row home" development in the
Medium-High Residential (MHR) Zone on the west side of North Cedros Avenue, three properties in the Light Commercial (LC) Zone on the east side of North Cedros Avenue and north of the intersection with East Cliff Street, residential properties in the Low Residential (LR) Zone located on the east side of North Rios Avenue, and the Solana Beach School District Office in the Public Institutional (Pl) Zone located south of East Cliff Street between North Cedros Avenue and North Rios Avenue.
b. Building and Structure Placement: Buildings and structures shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and designed in a manner which visually and functionally enhance their intended use and complement existing site topography. Multi-family residential buildings shall be sited to avoid crowding and to allow for a functional use of the space between buildings.
The proposed project includes a replacement single-family residence that would have the appearance of a two-story home from the front of the property on Seabright Lane. The main level of the residence would have a finished floor approximately four feet above the existing grade, and the lower level garage and living area would be built into the existing grade. The residence would be located entirely within the buildable area and would Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
include a 2,904 square-foot main level living area and a 93 square-foot covered and enclosed patio. The proposed project also includes a partially subterranean 716 square-foot two-car garage and 369 square-foot living area.
c. Landscaping: The removal of significant native vegetation shall be minimized. Replacement vegetation and landscaping shall be compatible with the vegetation of the surrounding area. To the maximum extent practicable, landscaping and plantings shall be used to screen parking areas, storage areas, access roads, and other service uses of the site. Trees and other large plantings shall not obstruct significant views when installed or at maturity.
Drought tolerant plant materials and water conserving irrigation systems shall be incorporated into all landscaping plans.
The proposed landscape plan includes a variety of shrubs and perennials as well as a turf area. The existing elm, magnolia, and eucalyptus trees located in the front yard will be maintained with the project.
The Applicants are required to submit a landscape construction plan in substantial conformance with the planting plan presented to the City Council. Generally, any alternative tree and shrub species proposed during the plan check or construction phase shall have the same (or lesser) mature height and location as the conceptual plan approved by the City Council in order to be approved ministerially by Staff. Otherwise, increases in trees or shrub mature heights or adding new planting locations would require City Council approval of a Modification to the DRP.
Additionally, any replaced plant species must be consistent with the water use requirements of the plants replaced, provided that the replaced vegetation does not result in mixing high water use plants with low water use plants in the same hydro-zone. A condition has also been added to require that native or droughttolerant and non-invasive plant materials and water-conserving irrigation systems are required to be incorporated into the landscaping to the extent feasible.
d. Roads, Pedestrian Walkways, Parking and Storage Areas: Any development involving more than one building or structure shall provide common access roads and pedestrian walkways. Parking and outside storage areas, where permitted, shall be screened from view, to the extent feasible, by existing topography, by the placement of buildings and structures, or by landscaping and plantings.
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
The two required off-street parking spaces will be located within the partially subterranean garage, which will be accessed by a new driveway located on the northern side of the property from Seabright Lane. Pedestrian access to the property will be located in the center of the property. Refuse containers will be located behind a fence on the northern side yard.
e. Grading: To the extent feasible, natural topography and scenic features of the site shall be retained and incorporated into the proposed development. Any grading or earth-moving operations in connection with the proposed development shall be planned and executed so as to blend with the existing terrain both on and adjacent to the site. Existing exposed or disturbed slopes shall be landscaped with native or naturalized non-native vegetation and existing erosion problems shall be corrected.
The Applicants are proposing 325 cubic yards of cut to excavate the area of the driveway and the partially subterranean garage and living area. The project also includes 173 cubic yards of fill to raise the grade in the front (west) side of the property creating relatively flat areas surrounding the proposed residence. There will be 335 cubic yards of excavation for footings and remedial grading associated with the project. The project will result in 152 cubic yards of export off site and 833 cubic yards of aggregate (total) grading.
f. Lighting: Light fixtures for walkways, parking areas, driveways, and other facilities shall be provided in sufficient number and at proper locations to assure safe and convenient nighttime use.
All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding areas per SBMC 17.60.060 (Exterior Lighting Regulations).
A condition of project approval requires that all new exterior lighting fixtures comply with the City-Wide Lighting Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC 17.60.060). All light fixtures shall be shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area.
g. Usable Open Space: Recreational facilities proposed within required usable open space shall be located and designed to maintain essential open space values.
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
The project consists of the construction of a single-family residence with an attached garage on a developed residential lot. Usable open space and recreational facilities are neither proposed nor required according to SBMC Section 17.20.040.
As a condition of approval, the Applicants will be required to pay the City's Park Impact Fee.
111. All required permits and approvals including variances, conditional use permits, comprehensive sign plans, and coastal development permits have been obtained prior to or concurrently with the development review permit.
All required permits are being processed concurrently with the Development Review Permit.
IV. If the development project also requires a permit or approval to be issued by a state or federal agency, the city council may conditionally approve the development review permit upon the Applicants obtaining the required permit or approval from the other agency.
The Applicants shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits.
V. CONDITIONS:
Prior to use or development of the property in reliance on this permit, the Applicants shall provide for and adhere to the following conditions:
A. Community Development Department Conditions:
I. The Applicants shall pay required Fire Mitigation, Park Development and Public Use Facilities Impact Fees, as established by SBMC Chapter 15.60, Chapter 15.65, Chapter 15.66, and Resolution 2018- 147.
II. The Building Permit plans must be in substantial conformance with the architectural plans presented to the City Council on October 25, 2023, and located in the project file with a submittal date of October 16, 2023.
Ill. Prior to requesting a framing inspection, the Applicants shall be required to submit a height certification, signed by a licensed land surveyor, certifying that the building envelope is in conformance with City Council approval on October 25, 2023, and that the tallest portion Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
of the structure will not exceed 20.41 feet measured above the proposed grade (or 95.58 feet above MSL) and the highest portion of the structure will not exceed 16 feet in height measured above the preexisting grade (or 97.08 feet above MSL).
IV. Any proposed onsite fences, walls and retaining walls and any proposed railing located on top, or any combination thereof, shall comply with applicable regulations of SBMC Section 17.20.040 and
17.60.070 (Fences and Walls).
V. The Applicants shall obtain required California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Waiver or Exemption as determined necessary by the CCC, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
VI. The Applicants shall provide a full Landscape Documentation Package in compliance with SBMC Chapter 17.56 and in substantial conformance with the conceptual landscape plan included in the project plans presented to the City Council on October 25, 2023, prior to Building Permit issuance and consistent with the building construction and grading plans. The Applicants shall obtain and submit landscape security in a form prescribed by the City Engineer in addition to the grading security. The landscape plan and installation will be reviewed and inspected by the City's third-party landscape professional. The landscape security deposit shall be released when applicable regulations have been satisfied and the installation has passed inspection by the City's third-party landscape professional.
VII. Native or drought tolerant and non-invasive plant materials and water conserving irrigation systems shall be incorporated into any proposed landscaping and compatible with the surrounding area to the extent feasible.
VIII. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall be in conformance with the Citywide lighting regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (SBMC 17.60.060).
All light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded so that no light o.r glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area.
IX. Construction vehicles shall be parked on the subject property at all times when feasible. If construction activity prohibits parking on the subject property, the Applicants shall ensure construction vehicles are parked in such a way to allow sufficient vehicular access on Seabright Lane and minimize impact to the surrounding neighbors.
X. The Applicants shall connect to temporary electrical service as soon as feasible to the satisfaction of the City.
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
IV. Pursuant to SBMC 17.68.040 subsection K, the signed final development plan shall be the official site layout for the property and shall be attached to any application for a building permit for the subject property. Any subsequent revisions or changes to the final development plan as approved by the Council will require an amendment to the approved DRP.
B. Engineering Department Conditions:
I. Per Solana Beach Municipal Code Section 11.04, the Applicants are required to construct all public improvements along the street frontage.
In this instance, this will include constructing a low profile mountable 9" x 9" x 12" concrete curb along the frontage of Seabright Lane and install a 1 O' wide stabilized, compacted, Decomposed Granite (D.G.) at 2 percent maximum from the property line down toward the curb to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
II. The Applicants are required to obtain an Encroachment Permit in accordance with SBMC Section 11 .20 for any work performed in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to, the concrete driveway apron, sloping curb, Decomposed Granite (D.G.) surface, and concrete swales across DG surface and mailbox.
Ill. An Encroachment Maintenance Removal Agreement (EMRA) shall be recorded against this property for all improvements in the public right of way including, but not limited to, the five-foot wide Decomposed Granite (D.G.) path, bio-swale, mailbox, landscaping, and irrigation.
IV. All construction demolition materials shall be recycled according to the City's Construction and Demolition recycling program and an approved Waste Management Plan shall be submitted.
V. Construction fencing shall be located on the subject property unless the Applicants have obtained an Encroachment Permit in accordance with chapter 11.20 of the SBMC which allows otherwise.
VI. The Applicants shall obtain a Grading Permit in accordance with Chapter
15.40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code. Conditions prior to the issuance of a grading permit shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The Applicants shall obtain a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
On-site grading design and construction shall be in accordance Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
with Chapter 15.40 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code.
b. The Applicants shall obtain a soils report prepared by a registered soils/geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
All necessary measures shall be taken and implemented to assure slope stability, erosion control and soil integrity. The grading plan shall incorporate all recommendations contained in the soils report.
c. The Applicants shall provide a drainage report prepared by a registered civil engineer. This report shall address, if required, the design for a detention basin and corresponding outflow system to ensure the rate of runoff for the proposed development is at or below the rate of runoff for the pre-existing condition. All recommendations of this drainage report shall be incorporated into the Preliminary Grading Plan. A detention basin easement(s) shall be recorded for maintenance of the detention basins by the property owner( s) in perpetuity, prior to the release of the Grading Bond and Security Deposit.
d. The Applicants shall show all retaining walls and drainage structures. Retaining walls shown on the grading plan shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standards or be designed by a registered civil engineer. Engineering calculations for all designed walls with a surcharge and nonstandard walls shall be submitted at grading plan check. Retaining walls may not exceed the allowable height within the property line setback as determined by the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code. Contact the Community Development Department for further information. e. The Applicants are responsible to protect the adjacent properties during construction. If any grading, construction activity, access or potential construction-related impacts are anticipated beyond the property lines, as determined by the City Engineer, the Applicants shall obtain a letter of permission from the adjoining property owners. All required letters of permission shall . be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
f. The Applicants shall pay a grading plan check fee in accordance with the current Engineering Fee Schedule at initial grading plan submittal. Inspection fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the grading permit.
g. The Applicants shall obtain and submit grading security in a form prescribed by the City Engineer.
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
h. The Applicants shall obtain haul permit for import/ export of soil.
The Applicants shall transport all excavated material to a legal disposal site.
i. The Applicants shall submit certification from the Engineer of Record and the soils engineer that all public or private drainage facilities and finished grades are functioning and are installed in accordance with the approved plans. This shall be accomplished by the Engineer of Record incorporating as-built conditions on the Mylar grading plans and obtaining signatures of the Engineer of Record and the soils engineer certifying the as-built conditions. j. An Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan shall be prepared by the Applicants. Construction Best Management Practices shall be developed and implemented to manage storm water and non-storm water discharges from the site at all times during excavation and grading activities. Erosion prevention shall be emphasized as the most important measure for keeping sediment on site during excavation and grading activities.
Sediment controls shall be used as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on site.
k. The Applicants shall show all proposed on-site private drainage facilities intended to discharge water run-off. Elements of this design shall include a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis verifying the adequacy of the facilities and identify any easements or structures required to properly convey the drainage. The construction of drainage structures shall comply with the standards set forth by the San Diego Regional Standard
Drawings.
I. Post-Construction Best Management Practices meeting City and RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-001 requirements shall be
implemented in the drainage design.
m. No increased cross lot drainage shall be allowed.
n. Prior to the foundation inspection, the Applicants shall submit a building pad certification statement from a soils engineer and an engineer or land suNeyor licensed in Land SuNeying per SBMC
15.40.230E.
C. Fire Department Conditions:
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
I. BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility per the 2022 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 503.1.1 .
Hose pull exceeds 150 feet. Mitigation for not meeting hose pull will be additional fire sprinklers to include all bathrooms and closets regardless of size.
II. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS: Prior to delivery of combustible building construction materials to the project site all the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department and per the 2022 California Fire Code Chapter 33:
a. All wet and dry utilities shall be installed and approved by the appropriate inspecting department or agency.
b. As a minimum, the first lift of asphalt paving shall be in place to provide a permanent all-weather surface for emergency
vehicles; and
c. Water supply for fire protection (fire hydrants and standpipes) shall be installed, in service and accepted by the Fire Department and applicable water district.
Ill. OBSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS DURING CONSTRUCTION: All
roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width during construction and maintained free and clear, including the parking of vehicles per the 2019 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 503.4 and 503.2.1.
IV. ADDRESS NUMBERS: STREET NUMBERS: Approved numbers
and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4" high with a ½" inch stroke width for residential buildings, 8" high with a ½" stroke for commercial and multi-family residential buildings, 12" high with a 1" stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required where deemed necessary by the Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers per the 2019 California Fire Code Chapter 5 Section 505.1.
Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
V. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM-ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY
DWELLINGS: Structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installed. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted as Deferred Submittal and approved by the Solana Beach Fire Department prior to installation per the Solana Beach Municipal Code Title 15 Building and Construction Chapter 15.32 Fire Code Section 15.32.230 Section 903.2 (NEW) or Section 903.2.01 (ADDITIONS, REMODELS) or Section 903.2.02 (NEW COMMERCIAL). Mitigation for not meeting hose pull will be additional fire sprinklers to include all bathrooms and closets regardless of size.
VI. Class "A" Roof: All structures shall be provided with a Class "A" Roof covering to the satisfaction of the Solana Beach Fire Department and per the 2019 California Building Code Chapter 15 Section 1505.
VII. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATIONS (Solar Panels): Solar Photovoltaic systems shall be installed per Solana Beach Fire Department requirements and per the 2022 California Fire Code Chapter 12 Section 1205.
V. ENFORCEMENT
Pursuant to SBMC 17.72.120(8) failure to satisfy any and all of the abovementioned conditions of approval is subject to the imposition of penalties as set forth in SBMC Chapters 1.1.6 and 1.18 in addition to any applicable revocation proceedings.
VI. EXPIRATION
The Development Review Permit for the project shall expire 24 months from the date of this Resolution, unless the Applicants have obtained building permits and has commenced construction prior to that date, and diligently pursued construction to completion. An extension of the application may be granted by the City Council according to SBMC 17.72.110.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
The Applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicants of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may Resolution 2023-117
DRP23-003
446 Seabright Lane - Levitt
elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification.
In the event of such election, the Applicants shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicants regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicants shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicants.
NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, you are hereby notified that the 90-day period to protest the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution commences on the effective date of this resolution. To protest the imposition of any fee, dedications, reservations or other exactions described in this resolution you must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020. Generally the resolution is effective upon expiration of the tenth day following the date of adoption of this resolution, unless the resolution is appealed or called for review as provided in the Solana Beach Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, held on the 25th day of October, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers - Heebner, Edson, Becker, MacDonald
Councilmembers - None
Councilmembers - Zito (Recused)
Councilmembers - None
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION
ss.
I, ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk of the City of Solana Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution 2023~117 conditionally approving a Development Review Permit to demolish a single-family residence and construct a replacement single-family residence with a partially subterranean garage at 446 Seabright Lane, Solana Beach, Applicant: Darren and Rachel Levitt, Case: DRP23-003 as duly passed and adopted at a Regular Solana Beach City Council meeting held on the 25th day of October, 2023 and is the original on file in the City Clerk's Office.
SAFDIE RABINES ARCHITECTS
925 FORT STOCKTON DRIVE | SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 | 619.297.6153 | www.safdierabines.com | 1
TRANSMITTAL
Recipient: Katie Benson
Senior Planner
City of Solana Beach
635 S Highway 101
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Project: 446 Seabright Lane
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2024
RE: 446 Seabright Lane Development Review Permit Modification – Narrative Requesting Modification ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dear City Council Members,
We are back before you today to review a minor adjustment to our previously approved Development Review Permit application, seeking to increase the overall Gross Floor Area by three (3) square feet. This overall Gross Floor Area, if approved, would still fall within the Maximum Allowable Floor Area by 170 square feet.
As you are well aware, the DRP process requires significant attention to detail from the architecture and civil engineering teams in designing a home. However, the subsequent process of a Building Permit application requires the meticulous attention of various engineers and consultants, such as structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers. It is in this process that various cost saving measures or design flaws are corrected and fine-tuned for the construction process.
In our case, we found one such issue that our structural engineers identified, resulting in the Northwest corner of the living room expanding by only a few square feet. This increase in building footprint has no impact whatsoever on any views, grading, or storm water generation that could create potential conflict.
Our building and grading permits have been reviewed by all disciplines including Fire, Engineering, Landscape and Building, and have been conditionally approved subject to this approval here tonight.
Thus, we are hopeful that you will approve this request.
Darren Levitt, Owner
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.1.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development Department – Joseph Lim, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: SANDAG NOP – LOSSAN Rail Realignment Update
BACKGROUND:
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has initiated the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project (PROJECT). A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was released on June 4, 2024 and a Scoping Meeting was conducted on June 18, 2024.
The City of Solana Beach has invited SANDAG staff to present on the proposed project and answer questions and provide an opportunity to submit public comment on the NOP for this project.
OVERVIEW:
The SDLRR Project proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment located along a terrace on the coastal bluffs of Del Mar. SANDAG is soliciting input on the Project, including three (3) alternatives that are under consideration. The new alignment would relocate existing rail service from the coastal bluffs, to a new alignment away from the bluffs, primarily located within tunnels, and may include aerial structures, berms, and other designs to accomplish specific Project objectives. Those stated objectives are as follows:
• Improve rail service reliability by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar.
• Maintain passenger rail service to the existing train stations serving Solana Beach and Sorrento Valley and accommodate direct rail access to the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds).
• Minimize impacts in the surrounding communities during and after construction. • Avoid and/or minimize impacts on biological, cultural, and recreational resources of national, state, or local significance, including publicly owned parks, beaches, June 26, 2024
SANDAG NOP - LOSSAN Rail Realignment
wetlands, ecological reserves, wildlife, or waterfowl refuges, and any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Help meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan by increasing passenger and freight train capacity, further reducing travel times, improving reliability, and accommodating additional rail service. • Improve coastal access and safety by eliminating at-grade railroad crossings and minimizing other pedestrian-rail points of interaction.
SANDAG staff will be at the Council meeting to further discuss and present the information regarding the proposed project, CEQA process, and solicit input as part of the NOP process. Links to the NOP and the SANDAG Alignment Screening Report that was released on May 31, 2024 are listed as attachments below.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:
The City Manager recommends the City Council receive the presentation from SANDAG; ask questions of SANDAG staff; provide feedback regarding the proposed Project, objectives, and alternatives; and allow the public to provide comment on the presentation. ________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. SANDAG Notice of Preparation - SDLRR-Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (sandag.org)
2. SANDAG Alignment Screening Report - sd-lossan-rail-realignment-screening2024-06-03.pdf (sandag.org) Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 1 Notice of Preparation
of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
June 4, 2024
Subject
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San DiegoLos Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project (Project) located in the cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, California.
Introduction
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is initiating the preparation of a Draft EIR for the SDLRR Project and is issuing this NOP to initiate scoping to solicit input on the Project, including alternatives under consideration and environmental effects. SANDAG has decided to forego preparing an Initial Study (CEQA Guidelines 15063(a)) and move directly into the preparation of a Draft EIR. In addition to soliciting input from the public, SANDAG is requesting feedback from agencies as to the scope and content of environmental information that is relevant to an agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the SDLRR Project (e.g., if this Draft Environmental Impact Report [EIR] will be used by an agency to issue an approval for the SDLRR Project).
The SDLRR Project may require approvals and/or permits from agencies that would be subject to environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
A NEPA Lead Agency has not yet been identified. Once the NEPA Lead Agency is identified, that agency will formally initiate the NEPA process.
Background
The San Diego Subdivision is an approximately 60-mile section of the 351-mile LOSSAN Rail Corridor, linking San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo from the Orange County line to the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego. The LOSSAN Rail Corridor is the second busiest intercity passenger rail corridor in the United States and supports commuter (COASTER), intercity (Pacific Surfliner), and freight (BNSF) rail services. Currently, three quarters of the San Diego Subdivision is double tracked, resulting in a total of approximately 15 miles of single track and 45 miles of double track.
SANDAG Responsibilities
The San Diego Regional Transportation Consolidation Act (Senate Bill [SB] 1703 Peace) assigned SANDAG the responsibility for planning, funding allocation, project development, and construction in the San Diego region for all transit projects, including heavy rail. The North County Transit District and San Diego Metropolitan Transit System retained the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the rail services. As such, SANDAG is the CEQA Lead Agency for rail line construction projects proposed in San Diego County. In its role as the Metropolitan Planning Organization under federal and state law, SANDAG is also responsible for the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and a Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies transportation infrastructure investments and programming of transportation funding over a 30-year Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 2 timeframe within the San Diego region in consideration of projected economic and population growth. The 2021 Regional Plan combines the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy to achieve the regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. SANDAG’s current plan was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in December 2021, with an amendment approved in October 2023.
As described in the 2021 Regional Plan, the regional vision for the San Diego Subdivision would result in an increase in commuter rail service operating at higher speeds in order to reduce travel times and provide a competitive alternative to driving, as well as aiding in continuation of goods movement through the region. The 2021 Regional Plan contemplates double tracking the remaining single-track segments of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor within San Diego County, modifications to the track configuration to accommodate higher speeds, and relocation of rail track into more climate resilient areas.
The segment of the San Diego Subdivision within the SDLRR Project area has experienced temporary closures and speed reductions resulting from bluff collapses, erosion, and repair work to stabilize the bluffs and protect the rail corridor from more substantial erosion effects.
Four bluff stabilization projects have been completed in Del Mar since 2003, with the construction of Phase 4 recently completed in 2021. A fifth stabilization project (Phase 5) began construction in spring 2024. Phase 5 focuses on addressing additional seismic and stabilization needs, installing additional support columns, and replacing aging drainage structures to support the existing tracks.
In addition to the stabilization projects, several emergency repairs have been required since 1996 due to bluff failures that threatened train operations. While the Phase 5 stabilization project addresses safety and operational concerns with a 30-year design life, the stabilization projects and emergency repairs do not provide a long-term solution for sea level rise and the ongoing coastal erosion that pose substantial safety and economic risks to the region. Bluff retreat is estimated to occur at an average rate of 0.4 to 0.6 foot per year; however, large episodic bluff failures can result in more than 20 feet of bluff edge retreat in a single event.
The California Coastal Commission has required that SANDAG evaluate realignment of the rail corridor off the bluffs to a more resilient location as part of their condition of approval for Phases 4 and 5 of the above-mentioned stabilization work. Further stabilization and emergency repair projects are likely to be required until the rail corridor is relocated from the coastal bluffs.
Study Area
The Project is located within portions of the cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, as depicted on Figure 1. The Project study area begins at Solana Beach Station in the north and ends at the Sorrento Valley Station in the south. The study area is generally bounded to the west by the Pacific Ocean and to the east by Interstate 5 (I-5).
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 3 Figure 1. Project Location
Note: Within the San Diego Subdivision, right-of-way north of Milepost 245.6 is owned by North County Transit District and right-of-way south of Milepost 245.6 is owned by Metropolitan Transit System. The Future Special Events Platform has been approved and fully funded but will be constructed as part of the San Dieguito Double Track Project.
0 Pacific Ocean
\
207.4
Solana Beach
SOLANA
BEACH
SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY
Future Special Events
Platform at Del Mar
Fairgrounds
•
SAN DIEGO ®
248.7
Sorrento Valley C)
I Station ><e-._
I 249.25
I
Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track
- Alignment - San Diego Subdivision
Future Special Events Platform
Existing Station
5 Miles ()
OCEANSIDE
... \.
VISTA
I
' \
SAN MARCOS ESCONDIDO
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
POWAY
§ ..- LAMESA
• -.,,.... LEMON
~ GROVE
267.5 @
,J ~CO~ONADO -NATIONAL \ ® CITY
® CHULA VISTA
\
IMPERIAL
BEACH
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 4 Planning Documents and Prior Studies
The Project is part of a larger program of improvements to be implemented on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor to enhance the reliability of existing services between San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Previous planning and environmental studies have been undertaken to analyze the potential for realigning the San Diego Subdivision in the Project study area away from the coastal bluffs and primarily within tunnels through the cities of Del Mar and San Diego.
• In 2007, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) finalized the Los Angeles—San Diego Final Program EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)1
, and on March 18, 2009, a Record of
Decision2 was published which records the decisions the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) made for proposed improvements to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between Los Angeles and San Diego. The Program EIR/EIS carried forward two alternatives proposing tunnel options that deviated from the existing railroad alignment. • In August 2014, the California Coastal Commission unanimously approved the North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and Resource Enhancement Program (PWP/TREP). Jointly prepared by SANDAG and Caltrans, the PWP/TREP is a single, integrated document that establishes a framework for comprehensively planning, reviewing, and permitting of multimodal transportation improvements along a 27-mile corridor in North San Diego County that maintains and enhances public access and protects sensitive coastal resources. The scope of improvements discussed within the Project study area includes two conceptual alignments for a “rail tunnel to move the existing rail alignment away from the Del Mar bluffs, which are susceptible to failure and unable to accommodate double tracking due to significant excavation, stabilization and ongoing maintenance needs of such a facility” (Chapter 4). • In December 2017, SANDAG published a report entitled Conceptual Engineering and Environmental Constraints for Double Track Alignment Alternatives Between Del Mar Fairgrounds and Sorrento Valley3 that analyzed the feasibility of five potential options for relocating the existing San Diego Subdivision onto a new alignment with a double track tunnel away from the Del Mar bluffs. The study included conceptual engineering and preliminary construction costs for each alignment option. 1 Web Page: https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/los-angeles-san-diego-lossan-corridor-program-finalprogrammatic-eireis PDF: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-10/2.2.11%20LOSSAN%20Programmatic% 20EIR-EIS%20%282007%29_PDFa.pdf
2 Web Page:
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/los-angeles-san-diego-lossan-corridor-program-eireis-recorddecision PDF: https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/192/LOSSAN_ROD_FINAL_2009.pdf 3 Web Page: https://www.SANDAG.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-andprograms/featured-projects/lossan-rail-improvements-del-mar-bluffs/del-mar-bluffsstabilization/alignment-alternatives-and-environmental-constraints-study-2017-2023-09-08.pdf Appendices: https://www.SANDAG.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-andprograms/featured-projects/lossan-rail-improvements-del-mar-bluffs/del-mar-bluffsstabilization/alignment-alternatives-and-environmental-constraints-study-2017-appendices-2023- 09-08.pdf
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 5 • In September 2018, Caltrans released the 2018 California State Rail Plan, which established a statewide vision describing a future integrated rail system that provides comprehensive and coordinated service to passengers through more frequent service, and convenient transfers between rail services and transit. The plan recognized the challenges coastal erosion and sea level rise pose to the railroad tracks atop the eroding bluffs in Del Mar. It noted that about 50 trains on weekdays (mostly passenger), traverse the Del Mar Bluffs, and sea level rise will accelerate erosion of the bluffs, threatening stability and the viability of the route. The plan states “erosion by 2100 could eliminate the rail line completely, as well as adjacent homes, absent preventative measures.” • In December 2021, SANDAG adopted the 2021 Regional Plan, which envisioned an expanded system of transit services to reduce greenhouse gases from automobiles, while promoting safe, clean, and economically friendly ways to move goods throughout the region and beyond. The 2021 Regional Plan envisioned the relocation, straightening, and double tracking of the rail line through the study area to a more climate resilient location that could reduce travel time and service reliability.
• In June 2022, the California Coastal Commission issued a Federal Consistency Certification (No. 0005-21) for the Del Mar Bluff Stabilization V project, which required the removal of all shoreline armoring after the expiration of the 30-year authorization period.
The 30-year authorization period was to “allow SANDAG to protect the important railway line while planning of the pursuing [its] relocation.”
• In August 2023, SANDAG released the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track Del Mar Tunnels Alternatives Analysis Report, which refined five potential alignment alternatives based on the previous conceptual engineering study and evaluated them against a set of performance criteria. Two of these alternatives were advanced to 10 percent conceptual engineering and were further analyzed for engineering and environmental considerations. Based on feedback from stakeholders and community groups, four additional potential tunnel portal locations were then also evaluated to further minimize impacts on the community and private properties. Additional conceptual alignments were considered at a high level to demonstrate potential connections between various portal locations.
Recent Public Outreach
Leading up to the release of the NOP, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the description of the Project and the range of alternatives to be identified in the NOP. The meetings are listed below and videos for many of these meetings are available on the SANDAG website.
• July 24, 2023: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council • August 30, 2023: SD LOSSAN Rail Realignment Del Mar Community Open House • October 4, 2023: LOSSAN Tunneling Workshop
• October 19, 2023: LOSSAN Virtual Information Session
• November 6, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Del Mar
• November 7, 2023 – December 19, 2023: Weekly Community Field Office Hours • November 15, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Carmel Valley • February 5, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 6 • March 19, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Torrey Pines Community Planning Board Project Objectives
The Project objectives are as follows:
• Improve rail service reliability by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar.
• Maintain passenger rail service to the existing train stations serving Solana Beach and Sorrento Valley and accommodate direct rail access to the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds).
• Minimize impacts in the surrounding communities during and after construction. • Avoid and/or minimize impacts on biological, cultural, and recreational resources of national, state, or local significance, including publicly owned parks, beaches, wetlands, ecological reserves, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. • Help meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan by increasing passenger and freight train capacity, further reducing travel times, improving reliability, and accommodating additional rail service. • Improve coastal access and safety by eliminating at‑grade railroad crossings and minimizing other pedestrian-rail points of interaction.
Project Description
SANDAG proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment of the San Diego Subdivision potentially through the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-track alignment between the Solana Beach Station and the north end of Sorrento Valley in the City of San Diego.
The new alignment would relocate existing rail service from along the coastal bluffs to a new alignment away from the bluffs, primarily located within tunnels through Del Mar and San Diego. The new alignment may include aerial structures and berms. The relocation and double tracking of the alignment would eliminate reliability risks caused by bluff erosion and provide greater track capacity and a higher operating speed for trains that use the corridor, enabling projected increases in service and minimizing conflicts with pedestrians.
The Project will include removal of existing stabilization infrastructure, consistent with the California Coastal Commission’s conditions of approval for the Del Mar stabilization projects.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, the SDLRR Draft EIR will consider a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of Project alternatives. In accordance with CEQA, SANDAG has identified alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR based on their potential feasibility, ability to attain the majority of the Project objectives, and potential to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (California Code of Regulations title 14 § 15126.6).
As a result of prior planning studies and community engagement, in addition to the No Project alternative, three Project alternatives are proposed for analysis in the Draft EIR, as depicted on Figure 3. Each Project alternative would require a north and south portal, a tunnel connecting the portals, and double tracking of the rail line.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 7 The Project comprises the following infrastructure components, which are also included in each of the three Project alternatives (definitions for several of these components are included in the callout box and depicted on Figure 2).
• Removal of existing rail infrastructure (e.g. rail track, ties, and ballast) on areas no longer needed after
track relocation
• Construction of bridge structures
• Construction of U-structures, retaining walls, and
floodwalls
• Construction of twin-bored tunnels and cut-andcover tunnels • Construction of tunnel portals and associated portal
infrastructure
• Installation of a tunnel system power supply
• Installation of tunnel ventilation systems
• Installation of communication systems, including
signals, switches, and control points
• Modifications to drainage and roadways, as needed
• Relocation of utilities, as needed
• Potential placement of beach-quality sand excavated
from tunnel boring activities onto beach(es) or near
shore, in the vicinity of the study area
• Removal of prior bluff stabilization improvements
consistent with the California Coastal Commission’s
certification of Federal Consistency Certifications
Graded: rail tracks constructed
on flat ground, earthen berms,
or cuts into hillsides.
Floodwalls: a freestanding
structure built along a shore or
bank to prevent encroachment
of floodwaters.
Berm: a segment of track that is
on raised ground.
U-structure: a rectangular
shaped structure with only
three sides that is excavated
from the surface and leaves an
opening in the surface to allow
the track to transition from a
tunnel to the surface level.
Cut-and-cover tunnel: a
rectangular shaped tunnel that
is constructed within a trench
which is excavated from the
surface and then covered after
it is constructed.
Bored tunnel: a circular shaped
tunnel that is constructed using
a tunnel boring machine that
digs or bores through the earth
without removing the ground
above.
Portal: entrance to the tunnel.
Bridge: aerial structure carrying
the rail tracks over roadways,
canyons, or water.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 8 Figure 2. Project Components
North Portals
Two north portal locations have been identified depending on the track alignment.
The portal locations are as follows:
Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
This proposed portal would be located north of the intersection of Camino Del Mar and Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The portal’s infrastructure would cross underneath Jimmy Durante Boulevard, which would be raised. The portal structures would potentially extend into commercial and residential properties.
Fairgrounds North
This proposed portal would be located north of the fairgrounds within the railroad trench in Solana Beach. The portal’s infrastructure would start south of the existing Solana Beach Station.
South Portals
Two south portal locations have been identified depending on the track alignment.
The portal locations are as follows:
Torrey Pines Road
This proposed portal would be located near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and North Torrey Pines Road. The portal infrastructure would cross underneath Carmel Valley Road and potentially extend into residential properties.
Knoll Near I-5
This proposed portal would be located at a knoll south of Carmel Valley Road between I-5 and the segment of Sorrento Valley Road Trail that is closed to public vehicular traffic but open for bikes, pedestrians, and authorized vehicles. The portal infrastructure would be within the undeveloped knoll and extend into the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
Graded Floodwalls Berm U·Structure
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Bored Tunnel Portal Bridge
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 9 Alternative A I-5 Alignment:
As depicted on Figure 4, Alternative A is approximately 6.8 miles in length and would descend immediately south of the Solana Beach Station, enter the Fairgrounds North Portal, then continue south into the fairgrounds, where there would be a new underground special events platform. The alignment would continue under the San Dieguito Lagoon and turn to follow under the I-5 freeway, then continue south and exit at the Knoll Near I-5 South Portal.
The alignment would then rise above ground as it transitions back into the existing railroad alignment north of the Sorrento Valley Station.
Alternative B Crest Canyon Alignment:
As depicted on Figure 5, Alternative B is approximately 5.3 miles in length and would descend immediately south of the rail bridge that spans over the San Dieguito Lagoon and enter the Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard North Portal, then continue south and exit at the Knoll Near I-5 South Portal. The tracks would then rise as it transitions back into the existing railroad alignment north of the Sorrento Valley Station.
Alternative C Camino del Mar Alignment:
As depicted on Figure 6, Alternative C is approximately 4.9 miles in length and would descend immediately south of the rail bridge that spans over the San Dieguito Lagoon and enter the Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard North Portal. This alternative would continue south and exit at the Torrey Pines Road South Portal, bridge over the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and then transition back to the existing railroad alignment. The existing railroad alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would be double tracked, which would require raising and widening the existing berm in the lagoon to address flooding and sea level rise projections.
Potential Environmental Effects
The EIR will address impacts to the following resource categories listed in Appendix G:
1. Aesthetics
2. Air Quality
3. Biological Resources
4. Cultural Resources
5. Energy
6. Geology and Soils
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
10. Land Use and Planning
11. Mineral Resources
12. Noise and Vibration
13. Population and Housing
14. Public Services
15. Recreation
16. Transportation
17. Tribal Cultural Resources
18. Utilities and Service Systems
19. Wildfire
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance
In addition, the EIR will address cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and other mandatory CEQA topics.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 10 Comments Requested
Comments in response to this NOP should be provided to SANDAG at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice (June 4, 2024). Your comments may be submitted in writing to SANDAG no later than July 19, 2024.
SANDAG is seeking input on the Draft EIR scope, including the alternatives under consideration and potential environmental effects. A public scoping meeting is scheduled on June 18, 2024, from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., as noted below. Written comments should be sent to SANDAG, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, ATTN: Tim Pesce; via email with subject line “SDLRR Project NOP” to: [email protected]; or online at SANDAG.org/railrealignment. Comments may also be provided orally or in writing via the public scoping meeting.
Public Scoping Meetings
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9, a public scoping meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2024, from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. at the San Diego Marriott Del Mar, 11966 El Camino Real, San Diego, CA 92130.
Additional Information
For additional information regarding the SDLRR Project, the scoping period, or the environmental process, please contact [email protected] or visit SANDAG.org/railrealignment.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 11 Figure 3. Three Project Alternatives
J l \
I
,. I
...... \. r ~ - _,
., I
I
..
LEGEND
- Alternative A
- Alternative B
- Alternative C
,
I
0 -+--
r - .,
L - .J
Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
u
Alternative A
Pacific Ocean
Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track Alignment
Municipal Boundary
0 0.5 Miles
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 12 This page is intentionally blank.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 13 Figure 4. Alternative A I-5 Alignment
r
I
,
J } I ~ . ' .:,
.... r .,.
.. ..J
L
- Bored Tunnel
c::::::::::i Cut-and-Cover Tunnel
Bridge
- Floodwalls
- Graded
\
- .J
I
,
-
0 •
-+--
u a
C,
!!-
;
'!?.
:,;
<:!-,
' .,,
0. ----------------------
L
camino oel Mar
Pacific Ocean
~I>
e"
Los Penasqu1tos .A q,~
Lagoon 0~(,,.e
- - :f' - - -
U-Section ,- , Municipal Boundary 0 L J
Tunnel Segment
Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track Alignment
~
__ , __ _
0.5 Miles C
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 14 This page is intentionally blank.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 15 Figure 5. Alternative B Crest Canyon Alignment
J
.... ,. "\ I y
] r _.,,
• '
~
~
"
~
,. .,.. .J
I
I
I. .,
I
I
.,
I
I.. -,.. San Dieguito
J-:- -- _ Lagoon
I •mmyDu"., - -
SOLANA/ f %
BEACH ! Del Mar ~
;;; Fairgrounds t '0
..
s;
!;1. Under Jimmy
N Durante Boulevard
- - - - ·i - - - - .; -~ - - - - - -
- Bored Tunnel - LI-Section
c::::::::i Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Tunnel Segment
Bridge 0 Portal Location
- Floodwalls • Mile Post Marker
SAN DIEGO
Crest _.,..,..,..,., ............
Canyon -
- .,..,. ... -, ... .,.-
---1. ...__
1., - ""
camino Del Mar
Pac1f1c Ocean
r , Municipal Boundary .. ~
- Graded -+-- Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track Alignment
- - - __ , __ _
0 0.5 Miles C
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 16 This page is intentionally blank.
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 17 Figure 6. Alternative C Camino del Mar Alignment
,.
J
.... r '\
l I ~
.:•
,._
--
- Bored Tunnel
\
I
,. .... .J ..,
I I. .,
L. ~ San D1egu1to
J -- - _ Lagoon
I ,mmyo,,~ - - -
SOLANA/ I "-..
BEACH ;,; Del Mar !!!
/ ~ Fairgrounds ~ t, DEL
MAR
SAN DIEGO
- l.
Crest
Canyon
.,
u a
0 !l-
;
'l!.
:f' \?.
"?s: ;.
i
) r - , /5 ___ ______________ _ -'---=.--.,.._]'"~~~-~i~~s-Rd _ - - - - -
Pac1f1c Ocean
U-Section ,. ,
- Municipal Boundary L .J
c::::::::J Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Tunnel Segment
Bridge 0 Portal Location
- Floodwalls • Mile Post Marker
- Graded -+-- Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track Alignment
- - - - - __, __ _
0 0.5 Miles C
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 18 This page is intentionally blank.
Alignments Screening Report
May 31, 2024
SA DA G San Diego LOSSAN
Rail Realignment Project
Alignments Screening Report i
Contents
1 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Description................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Screening Process.................................................................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Comparison of Alignments and Recommendations......................................................................1-4
1.3.1 Evaluation of Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility ....................................1-4
1.3.2 Evaluation of Environmental and Other Considerations...............................................1-6
1.3.3 Summary of Outcomes.......................................................................................................................1-6 2 Introduction and Description of Alignments..........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Description............................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Alignment and Project Components ...................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3 Conceptual Alignments...................................................................................................................................2-5
2.4 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments................................................................................................. 2-7 3 Screening Process..............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility .................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Environmental and Other Considerations............................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations................................................................................ 3-3
3.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects.............................................................................3-5 4 Evaluation of Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility..........................................................4-1
4.1 Conceptual Alignments.................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.1 Alignment P1-A....................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Alignment P1-B....................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Alignment P2........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Alignment P3........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.5 Alignment P4........................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.6 Alignment P5........................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.7 Alignment P6-A...................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.8 Alignment P6-B...................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.9 Alignment P7-A...................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.10 Alignment P7-B......................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.11 Alignment P8...........................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.12 Alignment P9...........................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.13 Alignment P10-A....................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.14 Alignment P10-B....................................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.15 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................4-6 5 Evaluation of Environmental and Other Considerations ...................................................................5-1
5.1 Conceptual Alignments....................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Potential Environmental Considerations.................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Constructability and Construction Effects.............................................................................5-7
5.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments..............................................................................................5-20
5.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations............................................................................. 5-23
5.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects..........................................................................5-30 Alignments Screening Report ii
6 Comparison of Alignments and Recommendations ..........................................................................6-1
6.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility ..................................................................................6-1
6.2 Environmental and Other Considerations............................................................................................6-3
6.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations................................................................................6-3
6.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects.............................................................................6-5
6.2.3 Construction Cost Estimates........................................................................................................6-10
6.3 Summary of Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................6-11 Tables
Table 1-1. Conceptual Alignments...............................................................................................................................1-1 Table 1-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments............................................................................................1-2 Table 1-3. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary ....................................................1-5 Table 1-4. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria ...........................................1-6 Table 2-1. Summary of Alignment Components .............................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-2. Conceptual Alignments.............................................................................................................................2-5 Table 2-3. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments...........................................................................................2-8 Table 3-1. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria .......................................... 3-3 Table 4-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility — Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-7 Table 5-1. Conceptual Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components .......................5-1 Table 5-2. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent).................5-2 Table 5-3. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material..................................................................................................................................5-3 Table 5-4. Potential Utility Conflicts ........................................................................................................................5-19 Table 5-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components ................................................................................................................................................... 5-21 Table 5-6. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent).............. 5-24 Table 5-7. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material...............................................................................................................................5-25 Table 5-8. Potential Utility Conflicts ....................................................................................................................... 5-42 Table 6-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary ....................................................6-1 Table 6-2. Summary of Biological Resources and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) ...................6-4 Table 6-3. Approximate Number of Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material.............6-5 Table 6-4. Summary of Alignment Components ..............................................................................................6-6 Table 6-5. Summary of Potential Utility Conflicts .............................................................................................6-8 Table 6-6. Summary of Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction .................................6-10 Table 6-7. Construction Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate.....................................................6-11 Alignments Screening Report iii
Figures
Figure 1-1. Conceptual Alignments and Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments ..........................1-3 Figure 1-2. Alignment Screening Process.................................................................................................................1-4 Figure 1-3. CEQA Scoping Alternatives ......................................................................................................................1-8 Figure 2-1. Project Location.............................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-2. Alignment Components............................................................................................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-3. Conceptual Alignments.............................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 2-4. Outreach Event Proposed Concepts..................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments...........................................................................................2-9 Figure 3-1. Alignment Screening Process................................................................................................................. 3-1 Figure 3-2. Vertical Profile Design Criteria—Two Percent Slope................................................................. 3-2 Figure 4-1. Twin-Bore and Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration.................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced ..................................................................4-8 Figure 5-1. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced ............................................................... 5-22 Figure 6-1. CEQA Scoping Alternatives ...................................................................................................................6-14 Alignments Screening Report iv
Acronyms/Abbreviations
Acronym/
Abbreviation Definition
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CP control point
EIR environmental impact report
GIS Geographic Information Systems
LOSSAN Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo
MP Mile Post
mph miles per hour
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SDLRR San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment
TBM tunnel boring machine
Alignments Screening Report v
Terms and Definitions
Term Definition
Alignment The horizontal and vertical location of a track or roadway defined primarily by a series of connected tangents and curves.
Berm A segment of track that is on raised ground.
Bridge Aerial structure carrying the rail tracks over roadways, canyons, or water.
Bored
Tunnel
A circular-shaped tunnel that is constructed using a tunnel boring machine that digs or bores through the earth without removing the ground above.
Control Point A location of train signals used to control the movement of trains.
Cut-andCover TunnelA rectangular-shaped tunnel that is constructed within a trench that is excavated from the surface and then covered after it is constructed.
Design
Speed
A selected speed that is used to determine aspects of the railroad alignment during design, such as curves. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed.
Floodwalls A freestanding structure built along a shore or bank to prevent encroachment of floodwaters.
Graded Rail tracks constructed on flat ground, earthen berms, or cuts into hillsides.
Portal Entrance to the tunnel.
Shoofly Temporary track used to maintain service.
Soft Cost Costs not directly tied to the physical construction of a project. These costs typically include, but are not limited to, expenditures related to project development, environmental reviews, engineering and design services, project management, permits, and legal services.
State CEQA
Guidelines
California Code of Regulations Title 14 – Natural Resources:
https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-14- natural-resources
U-Structure A rectangular-shaped structure with only three sides that is excavated from the surface and leaves an opening in the surface to allow the track to transition from a tunnel to the surface level.
Alignments Screening Report vi
The intent of this evaluation is to document, assess, and incorporate into the formal environmental review process for the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project the alignments developed as a result of previous planning studies, additional design, and public engagement in advance of the commencement of the formal environmental review process.
The evaluation employs screening criteria that are informed by CEQA and planning practices to assess each alignment. This evaluation applies the same screening criteria to the publicly proposed alignments (referred to as “stakeholder and outreach alignments" in this report) and the conceptual alignments and, on the basis of this screening, identifies a focused subset of alignments that are recommended for inclusion in the Notice of Preparation of the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project Draft EIR. The Notice of Preparation invites further input on the Draft EIR scope and the alignments identified in the Notice of Preparation.
This evaluation is not intended as, and does not include, an analysis of environmental impacts under CEQA. The environmental impacts of the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project and the project alternatives proposed to reduce or avoid such impacts will be identified in the Project EIR in accordance with CEQA.
Alignments Screening Report 1-1
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Project Description
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) proposes to relocate the existing singletrack alignment of the San Diego Subdivision of the Los Angeles—San Diego—San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor potentially within the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-tracked alignment away from the coastal bluffs as part of the San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project.
Previous planning and environmental studies have been undertaken to analyze the potential for realigning the San Diego Subdivision in the project study area. In August 2023, SANDAG released the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track Del Mar Tunnels Alternatives Analysis Report (Alternatives Analysis Report), which refined five potential alignment alternatives based on previous conceptual engineering studies and evaluated them against a set of performance criteria. After completion of the Alternatives Analysis Report, SANDAG continued to evaluate alignments, including additional portal locations and tunnel configurations (i.e., single or twin bore). In total, 12 conceptual alignments were developed to demonstrate potential connections between the various portal locations and tunnel bore configurations. These alignments are referred to as “conceptual alignments” within this report and are summarized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Conceptual Alignments
Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Conceptual Alignment
North Portal South Portal Bore
1 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Twin Bore 2 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Single Bore 3 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore 4 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Single Bore 5 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore 6 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore 7 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Twin Bore
8 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Single Bore
9 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore
10 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Single Bore
11 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore
12 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore
Between summer 2023 and winter 2024, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the Project and the range of potential alignments. Through these efforts, additional concepts were suggested by stakeholders and members of the public. Based upon the public input received, 14 distinct alignments were Alignments Screening Report 1-2
developed for analysis in this report from 30 individual concepts. These alignments are referred to as “stakeholder and outreach alignments” within this report and are summarized in Table 1-2. The conceptual alignments and stakeholder and outreach alignments considered in this report are illustrated in Figure 1-1. In total, 26 alignments were considered.
The alignments in this report consist primarily of tunneled sections with additional bridge, Ustructure, and/or graded sections as needed. Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 provides a summary of alignment components and Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2 illustrates each component. Both singlebore and twin-bore configurations were considered for construction of the tunnels, although ultimately a single-bore configuration was eliminated from further consideration.
Table 1-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Stakeholder and
Outreach Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5
P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley
P2 N/A N/A
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road
P5 South Cedros Avenue Pump Station 65
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P8 Old Railroad Wye1 South Los Peñasquitos Lagoon
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive
P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
Notes:
1A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals. Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
Alignments Screening Report 1-3
Figure 1-1. Conceptual Alignments and Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments -- .,
,. -.... _ I
I
-., ,/ -- J
South Cedros Avenue.
-- I I N -
~
..
::E
---------------
LEGEND
- Alignment 1 & 2
- Alignment 3 & 4
- Alignment 5 & 6
- Alignment 7 & 8
Alignment 9 & 10
Alignment 11 & 12
I
I
L
I
I
.,
L
I
SOLANA 1
BEACH 1
1 -
-
-
-
SAN DIEGO
nt P10-A & P10-B
A\lgnme Crest
Al nment P9 Canyon
' -
--- ---
Pacific Ocean
Alignment P1-A & P1-B - Alignment P?-A & P?-B
Alignment P2 - Alignment PB
Alignment P3 - Alignment P9
Alignment P4 - Alignment P10-A & P10-B
Alignment P5
Alignment P6-A & P6-B
--- - - - - - - ..,
• Portal Location
Mile Post Marker r - -, Municipal Boundary L - J
- Existing LOSSAN Corridor
Track Alignment
... - - - - - - - - - -
0 2.000 Feet '------' C
Alignments Screening Report 1-4
1.2 Screening Process
A screening process was developed to evaluate the 26 alignments in support of selecting the alignments that will advance to the formal California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) scoping process. The screening process was informed by the criteria identified in Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The screening process is summarized in Figure 1-2, and the screening criteria are described in more detail in Section 3.
Figure 1-2. Alignment Screening Process
1.3 Comparison of Alignments and Recommendations
1.3.1 Evaluation of Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility The conceptual alignments and stakeholder and outreach alignments were assessed based on their ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility. Each of the conceptual alignments was prepared for an alternatives analysis and was designed specifically to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility criteria. Although all conceptual alignments met project objectives and engineering feasibility, all single-bore alignments were removed from consideration prior to the evaluation of environmental and other considerations because of the increased complexity and community effects associated with the single-bore tunnel configuration.
Therefore, Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were removed from consideration in favor of the similar twin-bore alignments (Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). For the same reasons, a single-bore configuration was not considered for any of the stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Section 4.2 details the assessment of each stakeholder and outreach alignment’s ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility. Based on this evaluation, and as summarized in Table 1-3, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for further evaluation. The remaining stakeholder and outreach alignments were removed from consideration.
Conceptual
Alignments
Stakeho lder &
Outreach Alignments
Evaluation of
Environmental and
Other Cons1derat1ons
Project Objectives
and Engineering
Feasibility
Alignment recommended Environmental
Considerations:
Alignment not recommended
Alignment No Longer
Considered
Biological Resources
Land Use
Community Effects
Constructabili &
Construction Effects:
Alignment and Project
Components
Railroad Operations
Utility Conflicts
Alignment not recommended
Alignment recommended
Alignments Screening Report 1-5
Table 1-3. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
Number of the
Six Project
Objectives Met
Meets
Engineering
Feasibility
Advanced
for
Further
Evaluation
Conceptual Alignments
1 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Portofino Drive 6 Yes Yes
2 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Portofino Drive 6 Yes No1
3 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes Yes
4 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes No1
5 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes Yes
6 Under Jimmy Durante
Boulevard
Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes No1
7 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive 6 Yes Yes
8 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive 6 Yes No1
9 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes Yes
10 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road 6 Yes No1
11 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes Yes
12 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 6 Yes No1
Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5 1 Unknown2 No
P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley 1 Unknown No
P2 N/A N/A 1 Yes No
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail 3 No No
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road 5
3 Yes No
P5 South Cedros Avenue Pump Station 65 2 Yes No
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 3 Yes No
P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley 3 Yes No
P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 4 Yes Yes
P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley 4 Yes Yes
P8 Old Railroad Wye4 South Los
Peñasquitos
Lagoon
4 No No
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive 4 Yes Yes
P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 4 Yes Yes
P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley 4 Yes Yes
Note: 1Based on a high-level assessment, the single-bore alignments (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) would result in greater impacts and more difficult construction than their twin-bored counterparts (1, 3, 5, 7, and 11), and therefore were removed from further evaluation prior to the assessment of environmental and other considerations.
2As depicted by stakeholders and the public, insufficient information exists to evaluate the alignment against the project objective and/or engineering feasibility.
Alignments Screening Report 1-6
3Despite meeting most of the project objectives and engineering feasibility, this alignment was removed from consideration because it is similar to conceptual Alignment 3, which would meet the remaining project objective.
4A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals.
Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
1.3.2 Evaluation of Environmental and Other Considerations Table 1-4 summarize the assessment of alignments in terms of environmental and other considerations. The detailed evaluation is included in Section 5.
Table 1-4. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Description
Potential Environmental
Considerations1
Biological Resources: Acreage of sensitive vegetation communities located within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Land Use: Existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Community Effects: Potential disruption to the adjacent community during construction, including potential acquisitions, noise and dust, physical impacts to local roadways, and truck trips associated with construction material disposal.
Constructability and
Construction Effects
Constructability of Alignment Components: Construction effects associated with each alignment, including the tunnel, portals, and other components required for the alignment, as applicable.
Impacts to Existing Railroad Operations: Effects to existing railroad operation that would occur during construction of the alignment, such as temporary suspension of service, use of a shoofly (temporary track used to maintain service), or extended distance of single-track operation.
Utility Conflicts: Potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities (i.e., sewer or water). Whether a utility can be protected in place or would require relocation would be determined in later stages of design.
Note: 1The evaluation of potential environmental considerations does not indicate whether an alignment would result in significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act or adverse effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. The determination of significance of impacts will occur during the formal environmental review phase of the Project.
1.3.3 Summary of Outcomes
Based on the evaluation provided in this report, the following recommendations have been developed in support of identifying the range of alternatives to advance to the formal CEQA scoping process:
• Alignment 3 is recommended for further consideration in the CEQA scoping process.
This alignment could result in fewer permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, would require the second-fewest number of truck trips, and would generally be compatible with existing land uses. The north portal site associated with Alignment 3 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the north portal site associated with Alignments 7, 9, and 11 (Within Alignments Screening Report 1-7
Camino Del Mar) and Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North) portal locations. Alignment 3 would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the north portal and the alignment north of the portal compared to the other north portal locations.
• Alignment 5 is recommended for further consideration in the CEQA scoping process.
The south portal for this alignment (Knoll Near I-5) would be located away from residential properties and has received general support from the public. Potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be comparable to Alignment 3 and would be less than Alignments 1, 7, 9, P7-A, P9, and P10-A. The south portal site would also result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the various south portal locations. Alignment 5 would also result in less construction complexity at the north portal site (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) and the alignment north of the portal than Alignments 7, 9, and 11.
• Alignment P7-A is recommended for further consideration in the CEQA scoping process. This alignment would be the most similar to what the public supported in terms of a tunnel alignment that would be parallel to I-5 rather than under residential properties. This alignment would have a north portal within the existing railroad alignment trench located north of the state-owned fairgrounds property. This north portal site, which is common among the five stakeholder and outreach alignments, would have the greatest construction complexity of the various north portal locations.
This alignment would also require construction of a new special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge. However, potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities for Alignment P7-A would be comparable to Alignments 3 and 5, which are also recommended for further consideration. Alignment P7-A would also result in fewer potential major utility conflicts than Alignments P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B.
Alignments 3, 5, and P7-A are recommended to advance to CEQA scoping. The alignments are illustrated in Figure 1-3 and will be referred to as Alternative A: I-5 Alignment, Alternative B:
Crest Canyon Alignment, and Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment in the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). • Alternative A: I-5 Alignment will reflect Alignment P7-A in this report. • Alternative B: Crest Canyon Alignment will reflect Alignment 5 in this report. • Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment will reflect Alignment 3 in this report.
Alignments Screening Report 1-8
Figure 1-3. CEQA Scoping Alternatives
J . ... r ~
I v
l \
I
\
,.. .,:., --
' '
~ I
"""" lL r .,.. - ..J
.., I
I
I
L
LEGEND
Alternative A
- Alternative B
- Alternative C
I
0 -+--
,. - , ... - .J
Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
u
Alternative A
Pacific Ocean
Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track Alignment
Municipal Boundary
~
0 0.5 Miles
Alignments Screening Report 2-1
2 Introduction and Description of
Alignments
SANDAG proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor potentially within the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-tracked alignment away from the bluffs, primarily located within tunnels. The San Diego LOSSAN Rail Realignment (SDLRR) Project is part of a larger program of improvements to be implemented on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor to enhance the safety and reliability of existing services between San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and San Diego. SANDAG, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, is initiating the preparation of a Draft EIR for the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the SDLRR Draft EIR will consider a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives. This report describes and evaluates the alignments considered for the project alternatives with the goal of identifying the alignments that advance into the CEQA scoping process.
Previous planning and environmental studies have been undertaken to analyze the potential for realigning the San Diego Subdivision in the SDLRR Project study area, as defined in Section
2.1. In August 2023, SANDAG released the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track Del Mar Tunnels Alternatives Analysis Report (Alternatives Analysis Report) that refined five potential alignment alternatives based on previous conceptual engineering studies and evaluated them against a set of performance criteria. Two of these alternatives were advanced to 10 percent conceptual engineering and were further analyzed for engineering and environmental considerations. Based on feedback from stakeholders and community groups, four additional potential tunnel portal locations were also evaluated within the Alternatives Analysis Report with the goal of minimizing effects on the community and private properties.
After completion of the Alternatives Analysis Report, SANDAG continued to evaluate alignments, including portal locations and tunnel configurations (i.e., single or twin bore). In total, 12 conceptual alignments were developed to demonstrate potential connections among the various portal locations and tunnel bore configurations. These alignments are referred to as “conceptual alignments” within this report and are summarized in Section 2.3.
Between summer 2023 and winter 2024, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the Project and the range of alternatives.
Through these efforts, additional alignments were identified, and 14 distinct alignments were developed. These alignments are referred to as “stakeholder and outreach alignments” within this report and are summarized in Section 2.4. The evaluation in this report builds on that of the Alternatives Analysis Report to evaluate each conceptual alignment and stakeholder and outreach alignment using the screening criteria discussed in Section 3 and the process summarized in Figure 3-1.
2.1 Project Description
SANDAG proposes to relocate the existing single-track alignment of the San Diego Subdivision of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor within the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego, where the rail line runs along a terrace on the coastal bluffs, to a double-tracked alignment away from the coastal bluffs. Building on the Alternatives Analysis Report, the objectives for the Project, described in Section 3.1, aim to improve rail service reliability; maintain passenger rail Alignments Screening Report 2-2
service; minimize impacts in the surrounding communities and on biological, cultural, and recreational resources; and improve coastal access and safety. Project objectives also include helping meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan. As described in the 2021 Regional Plan, the regional vision for the San Diego Subdivision would result in an increase in commuter rail service operating at higher speeds in order to reduce travel times and provide a competitive alternative to driving, as well as aiding in the continuation of goods movement through the region. The 2018 California State Rail Plan established a statewide vision describing a future integrated rail system that provides comprehensive and coordinated service to passengers through more frequent service, and convenient transfers between rail services and transit, recognizing the challenges of coastal erosion and sea-level rise.
The new alignment would primarily be located within tunnels. The new alignment may include bridges and berms through the Los Peñasquitos and San Dieguito Lagoons. The segment of track to be relocated could be between the Solana Beach Station and the Sorrento Valley Station, represented by Mile Posts (MP) 241.8 and 248.7 of the San Diego Subdivision, depending on the alignment selected. The Project would also require modifications to the signal system between MP 242.1 and MP 249.25. The relocation and double tracking of the alignment would eliminate operational risks caused by bluff erosion and provide greater track capacity and a higher operating speed for trains that use the corridor, enabling projected increases in service and minimizing conflicts with pedestrians.
The project study area is located in San Diego County in the Cities of Solana Beach, Del Mar, and San Diego. Ownership of the San Diego Subdivision is split between the North County Transit District (north of MP 245.6) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (south of MP 245.6). Figure 2-1 shows the limits of the San Diego Subdivision and identifies the project study area.
Alignments Screening Report 2-3
Figure 2-1. Project Location
Note: Within the San Diego Subdivision, right-of-way north of MP 245.6 is owned by the North County Transit District and right-of-way south of MP 245.6 is owned by the Metropolitan Transit System. The Future Special Events Platform has been approved and fully funded but will be constructed as part of the San Dieguito Double Track Project.
0 Pacific Ocean
SOLANA
BEACH
207.4
SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY
Future Special Events
Platform at Del Mar
Fairgrounds
\
I
\
-
•
SAN DIEGO ®
\ 248.7
Sorrento Valley ~
\ Station '",
I 249.25
I
Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track
- Alignment - San Diego Subdivision
(:) Future Special Events Platform
(:) Existing Station
5 Miles ()
OCEANSIDE
VISTA
SAN MARCOS
CARLSBAD ESCONDIDO
... \.
SOLANA
" ' H
I
I
I
I
I
.
I\ o\R
®
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
POWAY
@ - LAMESA • -
9!'P,'1'9 LEMON
~ GROVE
267.5 @ '
' ' I
' ' J ~CO~ONAOO -NATIONAL \ ® CITY
® CHULA VISTA
~
IMPERIAL
BEACH
Alignments Screening Report 2-4
2.2 Alignment and Project Components
The alignments in this report consist primarily of tunnels with additional bridge, U-structure, and/or graded sections, as needed. Table 2-1 provides a summary of alignment components, and Figure 2-2 illustrates each component. For construction of the tunnels, both single-bore and twin-bore configurations were considered, although ultimately single bore was eliminated from further consideration during the evaluation of the conceptual alignments and the stakeholder and outreach alignments, as described in Section 4. The twin-bore alignments consist of two 28-foot internal-diameter bores separated by a distance equal to the tunnel diameter (28 feet).
Construction of the tunnels would require locations for the launch and retrieval of the tunnel boring machine (TBM). The portals serve as the transition point from the tunnel to the ground surface level. It is assumed that the TBM would be launched at the south end of the tunnel and retrieved at the north end. Launching the TBM from the south has been assumed based on the greater construction activities at the launch site, access to the roadway network surrounding the south portal locations, and the proximity to the freeway, which would better accommodate the volume of truck trips associated with activities at the launch site.
Table 2-1. Summary of Alignment Components
Alignment Component Description
Graded Rail tracks constructed on flat ground, earthen berms, or cuts into hillsides.
Floodwalls A freestanding structure built along a shore or bank to prevent encroachment of floodwaters.
Berm A segment of track that is on raised ground.
U-Structure A rectangular-shaped structure with only three sides that is excavated from the surface and leaves an opening in the surface to allow the track to transition from a tunnel to the surface level.
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel A rectangular-shaped tunnel that is constructed within a trench that is excavated from the surface and then covered after it is constructed.
Portal Entrance to the tunnel.
Bored Tunnel A circular-shaped tunnel that is constructed using a tunnel boring machine that digs or bores through the earth without removing the ground above.
Bridge Aerial structure carrying the rail tracks over roadways, canyons, or water.
Figure 2-2. Alignment Components
I
Graded Floodwalls Berm U-Structure
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Bored Tunnel Portal Bridge
Alignments Screening Report 2-5
2.3 Conceptual Alignments
The conceptual alignments are based on alignments and portal locations identified in the Alternatives Analysis Report and are defined by their portal locations and tunnel bore configuration (i.e., single or twin bore). The alignments, illustrated in Figure 2-3, share two potential north portal locations and three potential south portal locations. The conceptual alignments are numbered 1 through 12 and are defined in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Conceptual Alignments
Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Conceptual Alignment
North Portal South Portal Bore
1 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Twin Bore 2 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portofino Drive Single Bore 3 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore 4 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Torrey Pines Road Single Bore 5 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore 6 Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore 7 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Twin Bore
8 Within Camino Del Mar Portofino Drive Single Bore
9 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Twin Bore
10 Within Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Single Bore
11 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Twin Bore
12 Within Camino Del Mar Knoll Near I-5 Single Bore
Alignments Screening Report 2-6
Figure 2-3. Conceptual Alignments
) ----
SAN DIEGO
SOLANA '
BEACH 1
1 -- -- > -- --
0 Del Mar S
Fairgrounds \.
•
~
Under Jimmy Durante
DEL
MAR
t
• • . , • Within Camino Del Mar
------
Crest
Canyon
Camino Del Mar
... <1.'<'
Los Penasqu1tos i.•~
Lagoon ~,._d'
Pacific Ocean
LEGEND
- Alignment 1 & 2
Alignment 3 & 4
- Alignment 5 & 6
- Alignment 7 & 8
Alignment 9 & 1 o
Alignment 11 & 12
•
•
Portal Location
Existing Crossing (to be removed)
Mile Post Marker
Municipal Boundary
E~isting LOSSAN Corridor Track
Alignment
North Portal
U~d~r Jimmy Durante Boulevard
Within Camino del Mar
South Portal
Portofino Drive
Torrey Pines Road
Knoll Near 1-5
- - - -~---- ---- - .,-
~--- ::_, 2.000FNI C:
Alignments Screening Report 2-7
2.4 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Leading up to the release of the Notice of Preparation, SANDAG conducted public outreach events to inform, engage, and solicit public input to refine the description of the Project and the alternatives to be identified in the Notice of Preparation of the Project Draft EIR. The following stakeholder and outreach events were held:
• July 24, 2023: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council • August 30, 2023: SD LOSSAN Rail Realignment Del Mar Community Open House • October 4, 2023: LOSSAN Tunneling Workshop
• October 19, 2023: LOSSAN Virtual Information Session
• November 6, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Del Mar
• November 7, 2023 – December 19, 2023: Weekly Community Field Office Hours • November 15, 2023: LOSSAN Alignments Workshop Carmel Valley • February 5, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Del Mar City Council • March 19, 2024: SANDAG presentation to Torrey Pines Community Planning Board These outreach events included workshops in November 2023 where participants had the opportunity to provide specific input on alignments and tunnel portal options to be considered. In total, stakeholders and the public identified more than 30 individual concepts for consideration, shown in Figure 2-4. Several of these concepts were similar to each other or to the conceptual alignments. The concepts identified by stakeholders and the public were grouped by similar characteristics and 14 distinct alignments were developed for consideration and numbered P1 through P10. Where applicable and known, each alignment is defined by its north and south portal locations, with variations noted by A or B designations. The evaluation for each alignment assumes a twin-bore configuration based on the high-level screening discussed in Section 4.1. Table 2-3 summarizes the alignments identified during this process, and the alignments are illustrated in Figure 2-5.
Alignments Screening Report 2-8
Table 2-3. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Stakeholder and
Outreach Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5
P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley
P2 N/A N/A
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road
P5 South Cedros Avenue Pump Station 65
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
P8 Old Railroad Wye1 South Los Peñasquitos Lagoon
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive
P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5
P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley
Notes:
1A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals. Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
Figure 2-4. Outreach Event Proposed Concepts
I
Pauf1c Ocean
Alignments Screening Report 2-9
Figure 2-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
I
SOLAN
BEAC
EL
EMAR
,..,..~-~ .. ~•::.....----+------- ds North:,
----- ----------
LEGEND
Alignment P1-A & P1-B
Alignment P2
Alignment P3
Alignment P4
Alignment P5
.
Alignment P6-A & P6-B
Alignment P7-A & P7-B
Alignment PB
Alignment P9
Alignment P10-A & P10-B
\
____....
0 ~
-;
~
:x;
!!-
\
SAN DIEGO ) Can on
' -
(
Pacific Ocean
• Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
Municipal Boundary
Existing LOSSAN Corridor
Track Alignment
r--
I
Nactb Pactal
South Cedros
Avenue
Solana Beach
Fairgrounds North
Fairgrounds South
Camino Del Mar
Old Railroad WYE
Knoll near 1-5 Pump S
~
____ __ .,-
South Portal
Portofino Drive
Torrey Pines Road
Knoll Near 1-5
~---' _,ooo Feet C
Pump Station 65
Sorrento Valley
South Los Penasquitos
Marsh Trail
Alignments Screening Report 3-1
3 Screening Process
SANDAG staff developed a screening process to evaluate the 12 conceptual alignments and 14 stakeholder and outreach alignments in support of selecting the alignments that will advance to the CEQA scoping process, as shown in Figure 3-1. The screening process was informed by Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Using this screening process, SANDAG staff first evaluated each alignment based on its ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility described in Section 3.1. Alignments that would not meet the project objectives and/or were not feasible from an engineering standpoint were removed from consideration and were not evaluated further within this report. The evaluation of alignments in terms of meeting the project objectives and engineering feasibility is included in Section 4. If an alignment was found to meet project objectives and be feasible from an engineering standpoint, that alignment was carried forward for further evaluation with respect to environmental and other considerations, as described in Section 3.2 and evaluated in Section 5.
Figure 3-1. Alignment Screening Process
3.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility
Each alignment was assessed based on its ability to meet the following project objectives:
• Improve rail service reliability by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar.
Conceptual
Alignments
Stakeho lder &
Outreach Alignments
Evaluation of
Environmental and
Other Cons1derat1ons
Project Objectives
and Engineering
Feasibility
Alignment recommended Environmental
Considerations:
Alignment not recommended
Alignment No Longer
Considered
Biological Resources
Land Use
Community Effects
Constructabili &
Construction Effects:
Alignment and Project
Components
Railroad Operations
Utility Conflicts
Alignment not recommended
Alignment recommended
Alignments Screening Report 3-2
• Maintain passenger rail service to the existing train stations serving Solana Beach and Sorrento Valley and accommodate direct rail access to the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar Fairgrounds).
• Minimize impacts on the surrounding communities during and after construction. • Avoid and/or minimize impacts on biological, cultural, and recreational resources of national, state, or local significance, including publicly owned parks, beaches, wetlands, ecological reserves, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and any publicly or privately owned historic site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. • Help meet the goals of the 2021 Regional Plan and the 2018 California State Rail Plan by increasing passenger and freight train capacity, further reducing travel times, improving reliability, and accommodating additional rail service. • Improve coastal access and safety by eliminating at‑grade railroad crossings and minimizing other pedestrian-rail points of interaction.
Additionally, the engineering feasibility of each alignment was considered based on the vertical profile design criteria. The design criteria accounts for the alignment grade, expressed as the rise in feet per 100 feet of length. The alignment grade must not exceed 2 percent to be deemed feasible from an engineering perspective, as a 2-percent grade is the operating requirement for freight trains that use the corridor. Figure 3-2 provides a visual representation of this grade. Because 2-percent slopes are very gradual, changing elevation takes a considerable distance.
Figure 3-2. Vertical Profile Design Criteria—Two Percent Slope
3.2 Environmental and Other Considerations
Table 3-1 provides a summary of the categories of evaluation criteria applied to all alignments that met the project objectives and engineering feasibility. The evaluation criteria for environmental and other considerations were used to equally compare the merits across alignments. Additional information on each criterion is provided in the sections that follow. 2% Slope
300 feet
(equivalent to the length of a football field)
Alignments Screening Report 3-3
Table 3-1. Environmental and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Description
Potential Environmental
Considerations1
Biological Resources: Acreage of sensitive vegetation communities located within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Land Use: Existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the footprint of each alignment that could be permanently affected by implementation of the alignment.
Community Effects: Potential disruption to the adjacent community during construction, including potential acquisitions, noise and dust, physical impacts to local roadways, and truck trips associated with construction material disposal.
Constructability and
Construction Effects
Constructability of Alignment Components: Construction effects associated with each alignment, including the tunnel, portals, and other components required for the alignment, as applicable.
Impacts to Existing Railroad Operations: Effects to existing railroad operation that would occur during construction of the alignment, such as temporary suspension of service, use of a shoofly (temporary track used to maintain service), or extended distance of single-track operation.
Utility Conflicts: Potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities (i.e., sewer or water). Whether a utility can be protected in place or would require relocation would be determined in later stages of design.
Note: 1The evaluation of potential environmental considerations does not indicate whether an alignment would result in significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act or adverse effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. The determination of significance of impacts will occur during the formal environmental review phase of the Project.
3.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
This evaluation considered potential permanent effects to existing biological resources and land uses, as well as potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction at launch and retrieval sites.
3.2.1.1 Biological Resources
The evaluation compared the area of sensitive vegetation communities within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each alignment. Effects on sensitive vegetation communities and habitats typically require mitigation pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and CEQA, as well as to obtain federal permits or approvals from relevant agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and/or California Coastal Commission). Sensitive vegetation communities were identified during surveys conducted in 2023 consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Diego Land Development Code Biology Alignments Screening Report 3-4
Guidelines, and the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan definitions1, summarized as follows:
• Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines defines sensitive vegetation communities and other habitat types as land supporting unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants. • Sensitive habitats are defined as environmentally sensitive lands within the City of San Diego’s Land Development Code Biology Guidelines.
• Within the City of San Diego’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan Subarea Plan, sensitive habitat types include those designated as wetlands and Tiers I through IIIB uplands.
Any vegetation community that met these definitions was considered sensitive. Sensitive vegetation communities within and adjacent to the footprint of each alignment include:
• Coastal and valley freshwater marsh – Wetland
• Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) – Tier II Upland • Mule fat scrub – Wetland
• Open water/tidal
• Salt/brackish marsh – Wetland
• Southern coastal salt marsh – Wetland
• Southern willow scrub – Wetland
3.2.1.2 Land Use
The land use evaluation considered the existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each alignment. Alignments with a larger area of existing transportation land uses within or adjacent to the project footprint would be generally more compatible with the existing setting than those adjacent to non-transportation land uses such as recreation/open space. Existing land uses were identified based on 2022 SANDAG land use data. SANDAG performs an annual land use and housing unit inventory in the interest of maintaining a robust and accurate catalog of the existing conditions for any given year.
Existing land uses within and adjacent to the footprint of each alignment include:
• Recreation/Open Space: Wildlife and nature preserves, lands set aside for open space, actively landscaped areas, parks, golf courses, and beaches • Residential: Single-family and multifamily residential properties, and parcels of land that do not contain a dwelling unit but in which the land use is residential serving • Transportation: Railroad and roadway right-of-way and parking lots • Public Institution: Offices, public service facilities, and medical centers • Industrial: Warehousing and certain mixed commercial and manufacturing uses • Hotel/Resort: Hotels, motels, and resorts
• Undeveloped/Vacant: Unoccupied and undeveloped land
• Commercial: Commercial activities found along major streets and shopping areas 1Per the CEQA Guidelines, sensitive vegetation communities include those identified in a local or regional plan, policy, or regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Cities of Del Mar and Solana Beach do not have adopted guidelines to define sensitive vegetation communities.
Alignments Screening Report 3-5
3.2.1.3 Community Effects
The evaluation of community effects considers the potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction, including potential acquisitions at and near the portals associated with the TBM launch and retrieval sites and physical impacts to local roadways.
Additionally, construction activities may result in effects related to noise and dust. The analysis of construction-related noise, along with measures to minimize noise and dust, will occur during environmental review.
The evaluation also considers construction material disposal in terms of the relative number of one-way truck trips required to dispose of the material excavated from bored tunnels, cut-andcover tunnel, and the U-structure during construction. Generally, the higher the volume of excavated material, the higher the number of truck trips. Truck trips would be required for other construction-related activities, and the number of these trips will be determined during environmental review as further information is developed for the construction schedule. The quantity of excavated material is based on the length of each alignment. Construction methods will be further evaluated during environmental review to determine ways to minimize the number of truck trips.
3.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
3.2.2.1 Constructability of Alignment Components
Construction activities at the south portal launch site would include:
• Clearing and grubbing of the site
• Excavation for the portal
• TBM assembly
• Tunnel launch and subsequent TBM support activities, including removal of materials from excavation and loading materials onto trucks
• Import and storage of materials for the tunnel, including the lining • Construction of permanent portal structures and installation of track and supporting infrastructure
Construction activities at the north portal retrieval site2 would include:
• Clearing and grubbing of the site
• Excavation for the portal
• Decommissioning and dismantling of the TBM
• Removal of material from excavation of the north portal and associated cut-and-cover and U-structure sections and loading material onto trucks • Construction of permanent portal structures and installation of track and supporting infrastructure
2 For all conceptual alignments, the north portal location is anticipated to serve as the TBM retrieval site.
However, for Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B from the stakeholder and outreach alignments, it is anticipated that the TBM would be retrieved from the Del Mar Fairgrounds rather than from the north portal.
Alignments Screening Report 3-6
For planning purposes, 10 acres has been assumed as the minimum area needed for TBM launch and support of TBM operations during construction. Approximately 7 acres has been assumed to be the minimum area needed for TBM retrieval and portal construction.
Conceptual construction laydown areas for the portals will be identified in future phases of design. These temporary staging areas could be restored to pre-construction conditions at the conclusion of the Project.
Additional alignment components would also be required outside of the tunnel and portal limits. Portions of the alignments that traverse Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would need to be on bridges to avoid impacts to the main water passages and to limit the permanent project footprint or otherwise be constructed on graded berms. The evaluation for constructability compares the requirements for construction of the various alignment components, including, but not limited to, tunnels, portals, and structures.
3.2.2.2 Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction One of the challenges with building any of the alignments would be minimizing impacts on railroad operations during construction, particularly where the new alignment would tie in with the existing railroad tracks. Rail service must be maintained during construction to the extent feasible in order to continue to provide a travel option for those using the COASTER and Pacific Surfliner, as well as to maintain rail freight operations. Therefore, for each alignment, a scenario was developed that would support continued rail service while minimizing the temporary infrastructure required, effects to operation (e.g., speed, length of single-track operation), and cost and schedule implications. Construction phasing and methods to minimize impacts to rail service will be further developed during environmental review.
Generally, shooflies (temporary tracks), temporary turnouts, increased distance of single-track operations, and temporary control points would be required to minimize impacts to railroad operations during construction. The evaluation for railroad operational impacts during construction discusses measures that may be implemented during construction to maintain existing rail operations to the extent feasible.
3.2.2.3 Utility Conflicts
Each alignment was reviewed and evaluated for potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities. For purposes of this study, major wet utilities are defined as water facilities equal to or greater than 16 inches and sewer facilities equal to or greater than 18 inches. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data from the SanGIS website, water and sewer utilities were identified.
Alignments Screening Report 4-1
4 Evaluation of Project Objectives and
Engineering Feasibility
4.1 Conceptual Alignments
All conceptual alignments would meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility.
Because each conceptual alignment was prepared for an alternatives analysis, the conceptual alignments were designed specifically to meet the project objectives and comply with the engineering feasibility criteria. However, for alignments with a north portal within Camino Del Mar, a single-bore tunnel (Alignments 8, 10, and 12) would require approximately 350 feet more of cut-and-cover construction within the roadway than a twin-bore tunnel, which would increase the complexity of managing roadway closures and detours. Through high-level screening as the conceptual alignments were further developed, it became apparent that all single-bore alignments would result in more complex construction and community effects than the similar twin-bore alignments. Therefore, the six single-bore alignments (Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) were removed from consideration prior to the evaluation of environmental and other considerations in Section 5.1. The twin-bore alignments (Alignment 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11) were advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.1.
A key differentiator between single-bore and twin-bore tunnels (Figure 4-1) is the minimum depth required beneath the earth’s surface to enter or exit the portal structure. The largerdiameter single-bore configuration would require a much longer transitional structure to provide a minimum of one-diameter of ground cover above the top of the tunnel, which is a best practice for conceptual design. Additionally, the footprint needed to construct the transition structures (U-structure and cut-and-cover tunnel) would be larger due to the increased depth of the portal to accommodate the larger tunnel diameter. This larger footprint would impact access to and through the community, including property effects to support temporary roadways during construction.
A single-bore tunnel configuration was also eliminated for the following reasons:
• The amount of material excavated for a single-bore tunnel is nearly 40 percent greater than the amount of material excavated for a twin-bore tunnel of the same length.
Additionally, a single-bore tunnel requires more reinforced concrete lining. Therefore, single-bore tunnels require more truck trips to remove excavated material and deliver construction materials, which would result in greater construction-related traffic, effects on the community, and construction costs.
• The smaller TBM for a twin-bore tunnel would generally excavate the same length of tunnel faster than a larger TBM required for a single-bore tunnel.
In consideration of the increased complexity of construction and community effects, additional truck trips associated with removal of excavated material and delivery of construction materials, and greater cost, Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were removed from consideration in favor of the similar twin-bore alignments. Additionally, for the reasons described, single-bore tunnels were not considered for any of the stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Alignments Screening Report 4-2
Figure 4-1. Twin-Bore and Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration Note: Based on best practices for conceptual design, the minimum depth of ground cover above the top of the tunnel is equivalent to the width of the tunnel. The minimum distance between twin-bore tunnels is equivalent to the width of the tunnel.
4.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Table 4-1 summarizes the assessment of each alignment’s ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility identified in Section 3.1.
4.2.1 Alignment P1-A
Alignment P1-A proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way, although the depiction of the alignment did not identify the point that it would connect to the existing railroad alignment at the north. Alignment P1-A would meet one of the six project objectives by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding bluffs. However, the alignment would not meet the objective to maintain passenger service to the existing Solana Beach Station and would not provide direct access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. A north portal location was not identified, and, therefore, sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility. Therefore, Alignment P1-A was removed from further consideration.
Tunnel width
Twin-Bore Single-Bore
Alignments Screening Report 4-3
4.2.2 Alignment P1-B
Alignment P1-B proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way, although the depiction of the alignment did not identify the point that it would connect to the existing railroad alignment at the north. Alignment P1-B would meet one of the six project objectives by relocating the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding bluffs. However, the alignment would not meet the objective of maintaining passenger service to the existing Solana Beach Station and would not provide direct access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Additionally, the alignment would not meet the project objective to minimize impacts to the surrounding community as it would result in impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley and at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. As with Alignment P1-A, a north portal location was not identified, and, therefore, sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility.
Therefore, Alignment P1-B was removed from further consideration.
4.2.3 Alignment P2
Alignment P2 proposes a freestanding bridge built to the west of the existing tracks. Though feasible from an engineering standpoint, the alignment would only meet one of the six project objectives. The alignment would not relocate the existing railroad tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs in Del Mar and would not meet long-term resiliency goals with continued storm events and sea-level rise. Alignment P2 would also result in significant effects to the beach and would require grading and support structures that would destroy the coastal bluffs and beach access, thereby affecting recreational and coastal resources. This alignment would also not reduce rail travel times or eliminate at-grade crossings. Therefore, Alignment P2 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.4 Alignment P3
Alignment P3 proposes an alignment that would locate the rail line in a tunnel under the ocean. This alignment would meet three of the six project objectives. This alignment would relocate the tracks, improve rail travel times, and support the objective to enhance coastal access and improve safety. However, Alignment P3 would not maintain rail access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds as the alignment would divert from the existing rail alignment before the fairgrounds. This alignment would also affect Solana Beach and impact biological and recreational resources, including Torrey Pines State Park, Dog Beach, the bluffs, and the Los Peñasquitos wetlands. Additionally, Alignment P3 would not be feasible from an engineering standpoint as the grades for tunneling underneath the ocean floor would exceed 2 percent and, therefore, would not meet the vertical profile design criteria required to maintain rail freight operation. As a result, Alignment P3 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.5 Alignment P4
Alignment P4 proposes a bored tunnel under the public right-of-way of Camino Del Mar. This alignment would meet all project objectives except for reducing rail travel times. Due to the curves required for the alignment to mirror the path of Camino Del Mar, the maximum speed of this alignment would be 50 miles per hour (mph), which could increase rail travel times compared to the existing alignment. Alignment P4 would be feasible from an engineering standpoint; however, it was removed from consideration because it is similar to conceptual Alignment 3 evaluated in Section 5.1, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times.
Therefore, Alignment P4 was removed from further consideration.
Alignments Screening Report 4-4
4.2.6 Alignment P5
Alignment P5 proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way, under the San Dieguito Lagoon to South Cedros Avenue in Solana Beach. This alignment would meet two of the six project objectives. This alignment would relocate the tracks away from the eroding coastal bluffs and support the objective to enhance coastal access and improve safety. However, Alignment P5 would not be able to accommodate a direct connection to the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would result in impacts to the Cedros Avenue Design District in Solana Beach, businesses in Sorrento Valley, and businesses at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. As depicted by stakeholders and the public, the alignment would not reduce rail travel times. Therefore, Alignment P5 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.7 Alignment P6-A
Alignment P6-A proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way under the San Dieguito Lagoon and Del Mar Fairgrounds to Solana Beach. This alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. The alignment would not reduce travel times and would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, a multi-use path along the rail corridor, and Solana Beach. The alignment would also result in impacts to Stevens Creek and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community; preserve biological, cultural (e.g., historic property), and recreational resources; and reduce rail travel times. In addition to not meeting three of the project objectives, Alignment P6-A is similar to Alignment P7-A, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and was advanced for further consideration. Therefore, Alignment P6-A was removed from further consideration.
4.2.8 Alignment P6-B
Alignment P6-B is similar to Alignment P6-A, except the southern portal is located farther south in Sorrento Valley. This alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. Similar to Alignment P6-A, the alignment would not reduce travel times and would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail (a multi-use path along the rail corridor) and Solana Beach. The alignment would also result in impacts to Stevens Creek and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community; preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources; and reduce rail travel times. Alignment P6-B would also result in additional impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley and at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. Alignment P6-B is similar to P7-B, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and was advanced for further evaluation. Therefore, Alignment P6-B was removed from further consideration.
4.2.9 Alignment P7-A
Alignment P7-A proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way under the San Dieguito Lagoon and Del Mar Fairgrounds to Solana Beach. Alignment P7-A would meet four of the six project objectives. Similar to Alignment P6-A, Alignment P7-A would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. However, Alignment P7-A would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Therefore, Alignment P7-A was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
Alignments Screening Report 4-5
4.2.10 Alignment P7-B
Alignment P7-B proposes a bored tunnel along the I-5 right-of-way under the San Dieguito Lagoon and Del Mar Fairgrounds to Solana Beach. Similar to Alignment P7-A, Alignment P7-B would meet four of the six project objectives. Alignment P7-B would also result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. The alignment would also result in additional impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley. However, Alignment P7-B would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Therefore, Alignment P7-B was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.11 Alignment P8
Alignment P8 proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, along the I-5 rightof-way and under private property to Del Mar. Alignment P8 would meet four of the six project objectives. However, this alignment would not reduce travel times and would result in significant impacts to Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, not meeting the project objective to preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. Additionally, the inclusion of a tunnel portal immediately following a bridge on flat terrain would not be feasible from an engineering perspective. There is insufficient distance to achieve the necessary 2-percent grade required between the bridge and where the portal location was proposed for this alignment concept, therefore making the alignment infeasible. As a result, Alignment P8 was removed from further consideration.
4.2.12 Alignment P9
Alignment P9 proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, Crest Canyon, and the San Dieguito Lagoon to Del Mar. Alignment P9 would meet four of the six project objectives. Alignment P9 would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. However, Alignment P9 would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, Alignment P9 was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.13 Alignment P10-A
Alignment P10-A proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and the San Dieguito Lagoon to Del Mar. Alignment P10-A would meet four of the six project objectives but would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. However, Alignment P10-A would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, Alignment P10-A was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.14 Alignment P10-B
Alignment P10-B proposes a bored tunnel under the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and the San Dieguito Lagoon to Del Mar. Similar to Alignment P10-A, Alignment P10-B would meet four of the six project objectives. Alignment P10-B would result in impacts to the Coastal Rail Trail, Alignments Screening Report 4-6
Solana Beach, Stevens Creek, and the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Therefore, the alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. The alignment would also result in additional impacts to businesses in Sorrento Valley. However, Alignment P10-B would meet all other project objectives and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Therefore, Alignment P10-B was advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2.
4.2.15 Summary
Based on the evaluation of project objectives and engineering feasibility, as summarized in Table 4-1, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for further evaluation in Section 5.2. The remaining stakeholder and outreach alignments were removed from consideration. Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B as depicted by stakeholders and the public were modified as each alignment was further developed, as illustrated in Figure 4-2.
Alignments Screening Report 4-7
Table 4-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility — Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Stakeholder
and
Outreach
Alignment
Number North Portal South Portal
Meets Project Objectives
Meets
Engineering
Feasibility
Advanced
for Further
Evaluation
Improve rail service
reliability by
relocating the
existing railroad
tracks away from
the eroding coastal
bluffs in Del Mar
Maintain passenger rail
service to the existing
train stations serving
Solana Beach and
Sorrento Valley and
accommodate direct rail
access to 22nd District
Agricultural Association
(Del Mar Fairgrounds)
Minimize impacts in
the surrounding
communities
during and after
construction
Avoid and/or
minimize impacts on
biological, cultural,
and recreational
resources
Help meet the goals of the
2021 Regional Plan and the
2018 California State Rail
Plan by increasing
passenger and freight train
capacity, further reducing
travel times, improving
reliability, and
accommodating additional
rail service
Improve coastal access
and safety by
eliminating at-grade
railroad crossings and
minimizing other
pedestrian-rail points of
interaction
P1-A Not identified Knoll Near I-5 Yes No Unknown1 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown No P1-B Not identified Sorrento Valley Yes No No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown No P2 N/A N/A No Yes No No No No Yes No
P3 Solana Beach Marsh Trail Yes No No No Yes Yes No No
P4 Camino Del Mar Torrey Pines Road Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No P5 South Cedros
Avenue
Pump Station 65 Yes No No No No Yes Yes No
P6-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No P6-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No P7-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P7-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P8 Old Railroad
Wye2
South Los Peñasquitos
Lagoon
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No
P9 Fairgrounds Portofino Drive Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P10-A Fairgrounds Knoll Near I-5 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes P10-B Fairgrounds Sorrento Valley Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1As depicted by stakeholders and the public, there is insufficient information to evaluate the alignment against the project objective and/or engineering feasibility. 2A wye is a triangular-shaped junction of three rail lines that converge with each other.
N/A = not applicable—the alignment was proposed as a bridge and does not include underground portions that would require portals.
Not identified = a specific location for a northern portal was not noted.
Alignments Screening Report 4-8
Figure 4-2. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced ' I ' .., ' -- -
----------- --
LEGEND
- Alignment P7-A
- Alignment P7-B
- Alignment pg
- Alignment P10-A
- Alignment P10-B
- .J
,. -
I
I
I
I
,... - I
I
,
- .J
\
I
I
, __
I Jim,;;----- / Dor -
SOLANA 1 .,,,~
BEACH / ~
I :J
I a,
,o
,5
_.>----- ---------
• Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
r - -
I - - I Municipal Boundary
DEL
MAR
-,. - -
All nment P7-A 5
Alignment P7-B
SAN DIEGO
Crest
Canyon
,
I ( I
Al\gnment p10-B
,. - ,
L 1' L
., __ ., \
• Knoll near 1-5
• Portofino Drive
I
~ Los Penasquitos
!i Lagoon camino Del Mar
- - - ~ in- - - - - - - - -:a ~ - - - - - - -
a.~ - - - - - - ~ :IE'. --- - ----- ,. a.
Pacific Ocean
North Portal
Fairgrounds North
South Portal
Portofino Drive
Knoll Near 1-5
Sorrento Valley
- - - - - -- - --------=--=--=-
0 2,000 Feet
e
Alignments Screening Report 5-1
5 Evaluation of Environmental and
Other Considerations
5.1 Conceptual Alignments
This section summarizes the evaluation of Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the type and approximate length of the various alignment components for each of these alignments, including the length of the tunnel under public right-of-way or property and private property. The alignment components are considered throughout the evaluation of environmental and other considerations in the sections that follow.
Table 5-1. Conceptual Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Bored
Tunnel
(feet)
UStructure
(feet)
CutandCover
Tunnel
(feet)
Bridge
(feet)
Floodwall
(feet)
Graded1
(feet)
Total
Alignment
Length
(feet)
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Public
ROW
(%)
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Private
ROW
(%)
1 13,800 900 700 1,500 800 7,600 25,300 41 59
3 9,800 900 600 6,100 800 7,800 25,900 6 94
5 16,600 2,400 900 100 1,900 6,200 28,000 44 56
7 13,900 1,100 900 1,500 800 7,200 25,300 49 51
9 9,500 1,200 500 6,100 800 7,800 26,000 27 73
11 16,600 2,200 1,200 100 1,900 6,300 28,300 46 54
Notes: 1The graded length includes the berm.
ROW = right-of-way
5.1.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
This section compares the area of sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each conceptual alignment. The section also provides an evaluation of the potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction at TBM launch and retrieval sites, including potential acquisitions and noise and dust. The section also considers physical impacts to roadways and the number of truck trips associated with construction material disposal from excavation of the bored tunnels, cut-andcover tunnel, and the U-structure. Table 5-2 summarizes the acreages of the sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land use designations within and adjacent to the project footprint for each alignment. Table 5-3 presents an estimate of truck trips required for construction material disposal. The sections that follow present the evaluation of these considerations by conceptual alignment.
Alignments Screening Report 5-2
Table 5-2. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) Conceptual
Alignment
Number
Biological Resources
Sensitive Vegetation
Communities (acres) Land Use (acres)
Wetlands Uplands Residential
Recreation/
Open Space Transportation
Public
Institution Industrial Hotel Undeveloped Commercial
1 20 2 <1 20 13 1 <1 0 0 0
3 13 3 1 3 27 1 <1 0 0 0
5 15 0 <1 12 12 1 <1 0 0 0
7 17 2 <1 17 22 1 <1 <1 0 0
9 13 3 1 3 37 1 <1 <1 0 0
11 15 0 <1 <1 22 1 <1 <1 0 0
Source: SanGIS 2022, AECOM 2023 biological resource surveys Alignments Screening Report 5-3
Table 5-3. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material
Conceptual Alignment
Number
Total Excavation Volumes
(Cubic Yards)
Estimated Truck Trips for
Construction Material Disposal1
1 1,716,000 171,600
3 1,273,000 127,300
5 2,294,000 229,400
7 1,819,000 181,900
9 1,220,000 122,000
11 2,351,000 235,100
Note: 1Only accounts for one-way traffic for disposal of construction materials associated with the bored tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnel, and the U-structure.
5.1.1.1 Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 1 footprint could affect 22 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, which would be more than any other conceptual alignment. This alignment could also have the second smallest area of existing transportation land uses (13 acres) and the largest area of recreation/open space land uses (20 acres). As a result of the larger area of non-transportation land uses, the alignment would be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to the other conceptual alignments.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would require the acquisition of private property for the cut-and-cover and U-structure portion of the alignment. This portal location would also be adjacent to residential properties, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway profile for Jimmy Durante Boulevard would be raised to pass over the cut‑and‑cover tunnel where the proposed track alignment would intersect with the existing roadway alignment. The proposed roadway design would maintain the existing width of the roadway and access to residential properties. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing, if necessary.
The Alignment 1 south portal at Portofino Drive would be located on privately owned land but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are located to the west and on the eastern edge of the proposed launch site. Noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile of Carmel Valley Road would not be permanently affected by the bridge for the proposed rail alignment and would remain intact. Vertical clearance from the track overcrossing would be sufficient.
However, bridge construction would result in temporary closures and detours on Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive. This portal location would result in more roadway impacts than Alignments 5 and 11 but fewer than Alignments 3 and 9. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. However, Alignment 1 would result in less excavated material and fewer truck trips for material disposal than Alignment 5, 7, and 11.
5.1.1.2 Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 3 footprint could affect 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. Alignment 3 could also affect 1 acre of residential land use within and adjacent to the footprint, which could require conversion to a transportation land Alignments Screening Report 5-4
use. The area of existing recreation/open space land uses could be among the smallest (3 acres) compared to the other conceptual alignments and there could be approximately 27 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, larger than Alignments 1, 5, 7 and 11, thus indicating this alignment could be more compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: Construction of the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would require the acquisition of private property for the cut-and-cover tunnel and U-structure portion of the alignment. This portal location would also be adjacent to residential properties, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway profile for Jimmy Durante Boulevard would be raised to pass over the cut-and-cover tunnel where the proposed track alignment would intersect with the existing roadway alignment. The proposed roadway design would maintain the existing width of the roadway and permanent access to residential properties. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing, if necessary.
Private property acquisition would also be required to facilitate construction of the south portal site at Torrey Pines Road for Alignment 3, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The cut-and-cover tunnel of the alignment near the south portal would intersect with Carmel Valley Road, which would need to be decked over, with this decking maintained during portal and tunneling construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile would be maintained. After construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel, the roadway would be restored as a grade-separated crossing over the cut-and-cover tunnel. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing. Construction of this south portal would be the most impactful to the local road network compared to the Portofino Drive (Alignments 1 and 7) and Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5 and 9) south portals. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and North Torrey Pines Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to Alignment 3, only Alignment 9 would result in less excavated material and fewer truck trips.
5.1.1.3 Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 5 footprint could affect 15 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, which would be less than any other conceptual alignment.
There could be approximately 12 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, smaller than all conceptual alignments except for Alignment 1. In addition, Alignment 5 could have less than 1 acre of residential land use requiring conversion to a transportation land use, and the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is also smaller (12 acres) than that of Alignments 1 and 7. As a result, the alignment would be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the other conceptual alignments.
Community Effects: Construction of the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would require the acquisition of private property for the cut-and-cover tunnel and U-structure portion of the alignment. This portal location would also be adjacent to residential properties, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway profile for Jimmy Durante Boulevard would be raised to pass over the cut-and-cover tunnel where the proposed track alignment would intersect with the existing roadway alignment. The proposed roadway design would maintain the existing width of the roadway and permanent access to residential properties. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing, if necessary.
Alignments Screening Report 5-5
The Alignment 5 south portal (Knoll Near I-5) would be located on privately owned land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but is not expected to displace buildings. The portal site does not have residential properties in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within the lagoon. Old Sorrento Valley Road and the associated bike trail facilities would be affected by the cut-and-cover tunnel for the proposed alignment and would require temporary relocation. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. This south portal would be the least impactful to local roads during construction compared to the other conceptual alignments. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other conceptual alignments, Alignment 5 would result in the second-highest amount of excavated material and truck trips for material disposal, with only Alignment 11 requiring higher volumes and trips.
5.1.1.4 Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 7 footprint could affect 19 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, which is the second-largest area compared to all conceptual alignments. There could be approximately 22 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, which could be smaller than Alignments 3 and 9 but larger than Alignments 1 and 5. Alignment 7 could have less than 1 acre of residential land uses; however, the alignment could have the second-largest area of recreation/open space land uses within and adjacent to the footprint. For these reasons, Alignment 7 would generally be less compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal site (Within Camino Del Mar) would require acquisition of commercial property. Residential land uses would be located to the east, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction.
Alignment 7 would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar Bridge and construction of a temporary bridge to divert traffic across the railroad and to accommodate portal and track shoofly construction. Access to private properties along Grand Avenue would be affected by construction activities. Additionally, Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar would be reconstructed. Compared to the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard), this north portal location would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
The Alignment 7 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located on privately owned land but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are located to the west and on the eastern edge of the proposed launch site. Noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile of Carmel Valley Road would not be permanently affected by the bridge for the proposed rail alignment and would remain intact. Vertical clearance from the track overcrossing would be sufficient.
However, bridge construction would result in temporary closures and detours on Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive. The majority of construction traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. This portal location would result in more roadway impacts than Alignments 5 and 11 but fewer than Alignments 3 and 9. Alignment 7 would result in a smaller amount of excavated material and require fewer truck trips for material disposal than Alignments 5 and 11 but would result in a larger amount of excavated material and truck trips compared to Alignments 1, 3, and 9.
Alignments Screening Report 5-6
5.1.1.5 Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 9 footprint could include 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, similar to Alignment 3. This alignment would also have the largest area of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, at 37 acres. Alignment 9 could affect approximately 1 acre of residential land use within and adjacent to the footprint, and the area of existing recreation/open space land uses (3 acres) would be among the smallest compared to the other alignments. As a result, the alignment would be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the other conceptual alignments.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal site (Within Camino Del Mar) would require acquisition of commercial property. Residential land uses would be located to the east, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction.
Alignment 9 would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar Bridge and construction of a temporary bridge to divert traffic across the railroad and to accommodate portal and track shoofly construction. Access to private properties along Grand Avenue would be affected by construction activities. Additionally, Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar would be reconstructed. Compared to the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard), this north portal location would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
Private property acquisition would also be required to facilitate construction of the south portal site at Torrey Pines Road for Alignment 9, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The cut-and-cover section of the alignment near the south portal would intersect with Carmel Valley Road, which would need to be decked over, with this decking maintained during portal and tunneling construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile would be maintained. After construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel, the roadway would be restored as a grade-separated crossing over the cut-and-cover tunnel. Temporary access to residential properties during construction would be provided to support construction phasing. Construction of this south portal would be the most impactful to the local road network compared to the Portofino Drive (Alignments 1 and 7) and Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5 and 9) south portals. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and North Torrey Pines Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other conceptual alignments, Alignment 9 would result in the least amount of excavated material and require the fewest number of truck trips for material disposal.
5.1.1.6 Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 11 footprint could include 15 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, similar to Alignment 5. There could be approximately 22 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, which could be smaller than Alignments 3 and 9. However, Alignment 11 could have less than 1 acre of residential land uses requiring conversion to a transportation land use and the area of recreation/open space is smaller than that of Alignments 3 and 9. For these reasons, Alignment 11 would generally be compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: Construction at the north portal site (Within Camino Del Mar) would require acquisition of commercial property. Residential land uses would be located to the east, and noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction.
Alignment 11 would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar Bridge and construction of a temporary bridge to divert traffic across the railroad and to accommodate Alignments Screening Report 5-7
portal and track shoofly construction. Access to private properties along Grand Avenue would be affected by construction activities. Additionally, Jimmy Durante and Camino Del Mar would be reconstructed. Compared to the north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard), this north portal location would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
The Alignment 11 south portal (Knoll Near I-5) would be located on privately owned land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but is not expected to displace buildings. The portal site does not have residential properties in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within the lagoon. Old Sorrento Valley Road and the associated bike trail facilities would be affected by the cut-and-cover tunnel for the proposed alignment and would require temporary relocation. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. This south portal would be the least impactful to local roads during construction compared to the other conceptual alignments. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Alignment 11 would result in the highest amount of excavated material and require the greatest number of truck trips for material disposal compared to the other conceptual alignments.
5.1.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
5.1.2.1 Constructability of Alignment Components
The evaluation in this section considered construction effects associated with the conceptual alignments, including the tunnel, portals, and other infrastructure and structures required to support the alignment, as applicable.
Three potential south portals have been identified. It is assumed that the TBM would be launched from the south portal; therefore, the identification of potential portal locations also considered the footprint and access to and from the site. The portals are as follows:
• Portofino Drive: Near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive • Torrey Pines Road: Near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Camino Del Mar/ N Torrey Pines Road
• Knoll Near I-5: At the knoll adjacent to I-5
Two potential north portals have been identified. It is assumed that the TBM would be retrieved from the north portal. The portals are as follows:
• Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard: Partially within the hillside just north of the intersection of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar • Within Camino Del Mar: Within Camino Del Mar just north of the intersection of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar
Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) Alignment 1 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 13,800 feet. Although the bored tunnel length for Alignment 1 is longer than Alignments 3 and 9, Alignment 1 may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties than Alignment 3 as a larger percentage of the tunnel (approximately 41 percent) is located under public right-of-way or property.
Alignments Screening Report 5-8
The Alignment 1 north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar. This portal would be partially buried within the hillside, and the cut-and-cover tunnel would extend across Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The site is partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Locating the construction staging site above anticipated flood levels • Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
The south portal for Alignment 1 (Portofino Drive) would be located at the intersection of Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road. Two sites have been identified to support the TBM launch: the main site would be 9 acres and located north of Carmel Valley Road, and a satellite site of 2 acres would be located south of Carmel Valley Road. The main site would need significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area, and multiple retaining structures would be required to allow for TBM operation. The main site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent flooding. Additionally, due to the elevated structures associated with the alignment near the south portal, there is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected from flooding and/or sea-level rise during future operation.
Alignment 1 would also require approximately 1,500 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, which is substantially less than the bridge required for Alignments 3 and 9, as summarized in Table 5-1. Alignment 1 would require approximately 7,000 feet of new berm within the lagoon to support the alignment. This length is slightly less than that required for Alignments 3 and 9; however, these alignments only require raising and widening the existing berm. Additionally, under Alignment 1, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations creating the possibility that approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for wetland restoration and/or expanded recreational use.
Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 3 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 9,800 feet. Although the bored tunnel length for Alignment 3 is shorter than all conceptual alignments other than Alignment 9, Alignment 3 may require more subsurface easements from private properties as approximately 94 percent of the alignment is located under private property.
The Alignment 3 north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar. This portal would be partially buried within the hillside, and the cut-and-cover tunnel would extend across Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The site is partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to Alignments Screening Report 5-9
minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Locating the construction staging site above anticipated flood levels • Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
The south portal for Alignment 3 (Torrey Pines Road) would be located at the knoll near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and South Camino Del Mar. Similar to Alignment 1, the site would require significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space. Additionally, a retaining wall approximately 60 feet high would be required to allow the site to be used as a construction laydown area and support construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel. The site, although at less risk to flooding than the Knoll Near I-5 portal, would also be partially below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends and potentially the implementation of abatement measures during construction, depending on the outcome of the assessment. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Alignment 3, along with Alignment 9, would require the longest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, at 6,100 feet. The bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing railroad track. The berm segments for Alignment 3, along with Alignment 9, within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would be approximately 7,200 feet and would be placed adjacent to the existing track alignment and would require a raised elevation to stay above flood levels. This would require a phased approach to maintain rail operations during construction. As such, Alignment 3, along with Alignment 9, would have more complex construction phasing, a potentially larger footprint within the lagoon, and more bridge to be maintained during operation than the other conceptual alignments.
Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 5, along with Alignment 11, would include the longest total bored tunnel length, at approximately 16,600 feet. Although 44 percent of the tunnel would be located under public right-of-way or property, which is greater than the length of Alignments 1, 3, and 9, given the length of the tunnel, Alignment 5 may require more subsurface easements from private properties than the other conceptual alignments.
The Alignment 5 north portal (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Camino Del Mar. This portal would be partially buried within the hillside, and the cut-and-cover tunnel would extend across Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The Alignments Screening Report 5-10
site is partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Locating the construction staging site above anticipated flood levels • Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
The south portal for Alignment 5 (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans.
Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
Alignment 5, along with Alignment 11, would require the shortest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, with a total length of 100 feet and approximately 5,500 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon, shorter than Alignments 1, 3, 7, and 9.
As such, Alignment 5, along with Alignment 11, would have less complex construction phasing and substantially less bridge to be maintained during operation than all other conceptual alignments. Additionally, under Alignment 5, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce impacts within the lagoon under Alignment 5 compared to Alignments 3 and 9.
Alignments Screening Report 5-11
Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) Alignment 7 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 13,900 feet. Although the bored tunnel length for Alignment 7 is longer compared to other conceptual alignments, Alignment 7 may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as a larger percentage of the tunnel (approximately 49 percent) would be located under public right-ofway or property.
The north portal for Alignment 7 (Within Camino Del Mar) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and would be fully within Camino Del Mar. The site would be partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The temporary shoofly would also require construction of a new track bed, which would affect existing parallel drainage features.
The Alignment 7 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located at the intersection of Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road. Two sites have been identified to support the TBM launch: the main site would be 9 acres and located north of Carmel Valley Road, and a satellite site of 2 acres would be located south of Carmel Valley Road. The main site would need significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area, and multiple retaining structures would be required to allow for TBM operation. The main site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent against flooding. Additionally, due to the elevated structures associated with the alignment near the north portal, there is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected from flooding and/or sea-level rise during future operation.
As with Alignment 1, Alignment 7 would also require approximately 1,500 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Alignment 7 would also require approximately 7,000 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon, which is slightly less than that required for Alignments 3 and 9; however, these alignments only require raising and widening the existing berm. Additionally, under Alignment 7, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce impacts within the lagoon under Alignment 7 compared to Alignments 3 and 9.
Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 9 would include the shortest total bored tunnel length, at approximately 9,500 feet, and may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties than the other conceptual alignments. The north portal for Alignment 9 (Within Camino Del Mar) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and would be fully within Camino Del Mar. The Alignments Screening Report 5-12
site would be partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The temporary shoofly would also require construction of a new track bed, which would affect existing parallel drainage features.
The south portal for Alignment 9 (Torrey Pines Road) would be located at the knoll near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and South Camino Del Mar. Similar to Alignment 1, the site would require significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space. Additionally, a retaining wall approximately 60 feet high would be required to allow the site to be used as a construction laydown area and support construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel. The site, although at less risk to flooding than the Knoll Near I-5 portal, would also be partially below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends and potentially the implementation of abatement measures during construction, depending on the outcome of the assessment. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Alignment 9, along with Alignment 3, would require the longest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, at 6,100 feet. The bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing railroad track. The berm segments for Alignment 9, similar to Alignment 3, within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would be approximately 7,200 feet and would be placed adjacent to the existing track alignment and would require a raised elevation to stay above flood levels. This would require a phased approach to maintain rail operations during construction. As such, Alignment 9, along with Alignment 3, would have more complex construction phasing, a potentially larger footprint within the lagoon, and would have more bridge to be maintained during operation than the other conceptual alignments.
Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 11, along with Alignment 5, would include the longest total bored tunnel length of the conceptual alignments, at approximately 16,600 feet. Approximately 46 percent of the tunnel length would be located under public right-of-way or property, more than all alignments other than Alignment 7, which could decrease the number of subsurface easements required from private properties.
Alignments Screening Report 5-13
The Alignment 11 north portal (Within Camino Del Mar) would be located just north of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and would be fully within Camino Del Mar. The site would be partially below the 100-year floodplain, and an assessment of weather trends would be required to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the north portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The temporary shoofly would also require construction of a new track bed, which would affect existing parallel drainage features.
The Alignment 11 south portal (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Caltrans park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans. Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would also require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls.
Alignment 11, along with Alignment 5, would require the shortest length of bridge within the limits of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, with a total length of 100 feet and approximately 5,500 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. As such, Alignment 11, along with Alignment 5, would have less complex construction phasing and substantially less bridge to be maintained during operation than all other conceptual alignments. Additionally, under Alignment 11, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required for rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce impacts within the lagoon under Alignment 11 compared to Alignments 3 and 9.
Alignments Screening Report 5-14
5.1.2.2 Railroad Operational Impacts During Construction This section provides an overview of the construction activities required to maintain railroad operations during construction to the extent feasible. The summary for each alignment focuses on where the new alignment would tie in with the existing railroad tracks and the measures that may be required to minimize impacts. It is assumed that any shutdown of existing rail service would occur during scheduled “absolute work windows.” An absolute work window is a period of 48 hours during which passenger and rail freight do not operate. The period usually begins after the last scheduled passenger train passes through the construction limits during late Friday evening/early Saturday morning and continues until Sunday evening/early Monday morning.
Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove double-track operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds3 along the shoofly would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to current design speeds at this location. • It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Portofino Drive
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service. 3 An operating speed reflects the speed at which a train travels along a segment of track. In comparison, the design speed is used to determine aspects of a segment of an alignment, such as curves, while design of the alignment is underway. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed. Design speeds are compared for purposes of this evaluation, as operating speeds may vary depending on circumstances.
Alignments Screening Report 5-15
Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove double-track operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to current design speeds at this location. • It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Torrey Pines Road
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• It is assumed that each track for the new alignment would be constructed in separate phases. The existing rail service would use the first new track when construction of that track is completed while construction continues on the second new track. • A temporary control point would be required near the Sorrento Valley Station. • Construction would be phased to limit impacts to Phase 1 of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon restoration, which would occur west of the existing rail alignment. As such, impacts during construction would be limited to the east side of the existing track alignment.
• Alternatively, a long shoofly track with new embankment could be constructed within the restored lagoon footprint for the length of the alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
• Phased construction would be required for two bridges, with a total length of approximately 6,100 feet within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. • Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
If construction proceeds as described, the alignment near the south portal would not require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service. However, if construction is not phased as described, a shoofly would be required.
Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed within the existing railroad right-of-way to support construction of the new alignment, Alignments Screening Report 5-16
which would temporarily remove double-track operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to the current design speeds at this location. • It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
• A temporary shoofly would also be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
As currently designed, the southern portion of Alignment 5 would cross over the existing tracks. If this alignment advances into the environmental process, other designs should be explored that would eliminate this crossing in order to minimize impacts to existing railroad operation during construction.
Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) North Portal Within Camino Del Mar
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. • Temporary control points would be installed to support shoofly operations. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
Alignments Screening Report 5-17
• It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Portofino Drive
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) North Portal Within Camino Del Mar
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. • Temporary control points would be installed to support shoofly operations. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Torrey Pines Road
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• It is assumed that each track for the new alignment would be constructed in separate phases. The existing rail service would use the first new track when construction of that track is completed while construction continues on the second new track. • A temporary control point would be required near the Sorrento Valley Station. • Construction would be phased to limit impacts to Phase 1 of the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon restoration, which would occur west of the existing rail alignment. As such, impacts during construction would be limited to the east side of the existing track alignment.
• Alternatively, a long shoofly track with new embankment could be constructed within the restored lagoon footprint for the length of the alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
Alignments Screening Report 5-18
• Phased construction would be required for two bridges, with a total length of approximately 6,100 feet, within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. • Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
If construction proceeds as described, the alignment near the south portal would not require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service. However, if construction is not phased as described, a shoofly would be required.
Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Within Camino Del Mar
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. • Temporary control points would be installed to support shoofly operations. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• It is assumed that the future double-track San Dieguito Bridge would be constructed and in operation by the time construction begins on the SDLRR Project. As such, the new alignment would connect to the existing service at the end of the future bridge.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
• A temporary shoofly would also be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
As currently designed, the southern portion of Alignment 11 would cross over the existing tracks. If this alignment advances into the environmental process, other designs should be explored that would eliminate this crossing in order to minimize impacts to existing railroad operation during construction.
Alignments Screening Report 5-19
5.1.2.3 Utility Conflicts
Each conceptual alignment was reviewed and evaluated for potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities (i.e., water and sewer facilities). Table 5-4 provides a summary of the potential major utility conflicts identified for each alignment. The ability to protect the utility in place or relocate would be determined during later stages of design. However, the information that follows provides context for the activities that could be required during construction.
Table 5-4. Potential Utility Conflicts
Conceptual Alignment
Number Water Facilities Sewer Facilities Total
1 3 1 4
3 3 0 3
5 4 1 5
7 3 1 4
9 3 0 3
11 4 1 5
Source: SanGIS 2022
Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) Alignment 1 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and one major sewer facility. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 1.
Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 3 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities but no major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 3.
Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 5 could result in potential conflicts with four major water facilities and one major sewer facility. Overall, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location. The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment 5 would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
Alignments Screening Report 5-20
Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) Alignment 7 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and one major sewer facility. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 7.
Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) Alignment 9 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities but no major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment 9.
Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment 11 could result in potential conflicts with four major water facilities and one major sewer facility. As with Alignment 5, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location. The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment 11 would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
5.2 Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments
Following the evaluation in Section 4.2, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P-9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for continued evaluation in this report. The alignments as depicted by stakeholders and the public were modified as each alignment was further developed, as illustrated in Figure 5-1. This section summarizes the evaluation of each of these stakeholder and outreach alignments in terms of environmental and other considerations. Table 5-5 provides a comparison of the type and length of the various components for each alignment and the percentage of the tunnel under public right-of-way or property or private property. The alignment components are considered throughout the evaluation of environmental and other considerations in the sections that follow.
Alignments Screening Report 5-21
Table 5-5. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments — Summary of Alignments and Components
Stakeholder
and
Outreach
Alignment
Number
Bored
Tunnel
(feet)
UStructure
(feet)
CutandCover
Tunnel
(feet)
Bridge
(feet)
Floodwall
(feet)
Graded1
(feet)
Total
Alignment
Length
(feet)
Percent
of Tunnel
under
Public
ROW or
Property
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Private
Property
P7-A 20,000 2,700 6500 100 900 6,400 35,900 95 5
P7-B 23,400 2,700 6,600 0 200 2,200 35,000 90 10
P-9 16,700 1,300 6,000 1,500 0 7,300 32,800 91 9
P10-A 19,400 3,100 5,900 100 1,100 6,300 35,900 84 16
P10-B 22,600 3,000 6,900 0 400 3,000 35,900 80 20
Notes: 1The graded length includes the berm.
ROW = right-of-way
Alignments Screening Report 5-22
Figure 5-1. Stakeholder and Outreach Alignments Advanced --
LEGEND
Alignment P7-A
Alignment P7-B
Alignment pg
Alignment P10-A
Alignment P10-B
~-- /
I
I
I
I
• Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
, __ , Municipal Boundary
nment P7-A
SAN DIEGO
camino Del Mar
Crest
Canyon
Pacific Ocean
North Portal
Fairgrounds North
South Portal
Portofino Drive
Knoll Near 1-5
Sorrento Valley
Alignment P7-B
11.11gnment P10-B
q'-"
.-1 ,./' ! Los Penasquitos ~
~ Lagoon
------✓-- ------
0 ~~
2.000 Feet e
Alignments Screening Report 5-23
5.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
This section compares the area of sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land uses within and adjacent to (within 10 feet from) the footprint of each stakeholder and outreach alignment. The section also provides an evaluation of the potential disruption to adjacent communities during construction at launch and retrieval sites, including effects to local roadways, potential acquisitions, noise and dust, and the number of truck trips associated with construction material disposal from excavation of the bored tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnels, and the U-structure. Table 5-6 summarizes the acreages of the sensitive vegetation communities and the existing land use designations within and adjacent to the project footprint for each alignment. Table 5-7 shows an estimate of truck trips required for construction material disposal. The sections that follow present the evaluation of these considerations by stakeholder and outreach alignment.
Alignments Screening Report 5-24
Table 5-6. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) Stakeholder
and
Outreach
Alignment
Number
Biological Resources
Sensitive
Vegetation
Communities
(acres)
Land Use
(acres)
Wetlands Uplands Residential
Recreation/
Open
Space Transportation
Public
Institution Industrial Hotel Undeveloped Commercial
P7-A 15 1 <1 17 16 <1 <1 0 0 0
P7-B 1 1 <1 5 19 0 2 0 0 <1
P9 16 3 <1 19 17 0 <1 0 0 0
P10-A 15 1 <1 17 16 <1 <1 0 0 0
P10-B 1 1 <1 5 19 0 2 0 0 <1
Source: SanGIS 2022, AECOM 2023 biological resource surveys Alignments Screening Report 5-25
Table 5-7. Approximate Volume of Excavated Material and Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material
Stakeholder and
Outreach
Alignment
Number
Total Excavation Volumes
(Cubic Yard)
Estimated Truck Trips for
Construction Material
Disposal1
P7-A 5,472,000 547,200
P7-B 5,946,000 594,600
P9 5,342,000 534,200
P10-A 6,190,000 619,000
P10-B 5,360,000 536,000
Note: 1 Only accounts for one-way traffic for disposal of construction material associated with the bored tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnel, and the U-structure.
Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P7-A footprint could affect 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, similar to Alignment P10-A. This area is smaller than that of Alignment P9 but larger than the area for Alignments P7-B and P10-B. There could be approximately 16 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. However, the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is larger (17 acres) than that of Alignments P7-B and P10-B. As a result, the alignment could be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to Alignments P7-B and P10-B.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could affect adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle, as those roadways would be used to provide construction access to the fairgrounds platform site.
Alignments Screening Report 5-26
The south portal for Alignment P7-A would be located at the Knoll Near I-5, on privately owned land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are not located in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within the lagoon. Old Sorrento Valley Road and associated bike trail facilities would require temporary relocation due to the cut-and-cover tunnel of the alignment. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. Roadway impacts at this location would be minimal compared to the south portal for the other stakeholder and outreach alignments (i.e., Sorrento Valley and Portofino Drive). The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Alignment P7-A would result in a smaller volume of excavated materials and fewer truck trips for disposal than Alignments P7-B and P10-A, but a larger volume and greater number of truck trips compared to Alignments P9 and P10-B.
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P7-B footprint could affect 2 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. Similar to Alignment P10-B, this area is smaller than that of all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. There could be approximately 19 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. The area of existing recreation/open space land uses is smaller (5 acres) than that of Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. As a result, the alignment could be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could affect adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to effect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
Alignments Screening Report 5-27
The south portal for Alignment P7-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located on privately owned land and public right-of-way within a commercial district. However, the launch site would not be located near residential properties, and it is expected that tunnel and portal construction would be able to continue without substantial noise and dust abatement measures. Tunneling from this site would involve the acquisition of private properties.
The existing roadway alignment and profile of both Sorrento Vally Road and Carmel Mountain Road would be affected by the portal and would require temporary and permanent realignment, both of which would require private property acquisitions. Access to Sorrento Valley Road to the north would also be temporarily removed. As a result, access to the pump station would be from the north only during construction. This south portal location would result in the greatest impact to the local roadway network. The majority of constructionrelated traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, Alignment P7-B would result in the second-largest quantity of excavated materials and number of truck trips for disposal, with only Alignment P10-A requiring a larger quantity of excavated material and number of truck trips.
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment 9 footprint could include 19 acres of sensitive vegetation communities, the largest area compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. This alignment would have a slightly larger area of transportation land uses (17 acres) compared to Alignments P7-A and P1-A but would also have the largest area of recreation/open space land uses (19 acres). As a result, the alignment would generally be less compatible with existing land uses.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could impact adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
Alignments Screening Report 5-28
The Alignment P9 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located on privately owned land but is not expected to displace buildings. Residential properties are located to the west and on the eastern edge of the proposed launch site. Noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. The existing roadway alignment and profile for Carmel Valley Road would not be permanently affected by the bridge for the proposed rail alignment and would remain intact. Vertical clearance from the track overcrossing would be sufficient.
However, bridge construction would result in temporary closures and detours on Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive. The majority of construction traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. This south portal would be more impactful to the roadway network than the south portal proposed for Alignments P7-A and P10-A, but less impactful than the south portal for Alignments P7-B and P10-B. Compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, Alignment P9 would result in the smallest amount of excavated material and would require the fewest number of truck trips for material disposal.
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P10-A footprint could affect 16 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. This area is smaller than that of Alignment 9 but larger than the area for Alignments P7-B and P10-B. There could be approximately 16 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. However, the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is larger (17 acres) than that of Alignments P7-B and P10-B. As a result, the alignment could be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to Alignments P7-B and P10-B.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could impact adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
The south portal for Alignment P10-A (Knoll Near I-5) would be on land within and adjacent to the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Construction at this site would not require acquisition of private property. Residential properties are not located in the immediate vicinity; however, noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within Alignments Screening Report 5-29
the lagoon. Similar to Alignment P7-A, Old Sorrento Valley Road and associated bike trail facilities would require temporary relocation due to the cut-and-cover section of the alignment. Access to residential properties would not be affected during construction. Access to the pump station would be temporarily limited from the south. Roadway impacts at this location would be minimal compared to the south portal for the other stakeholder and outreach alignments (i.e., Sorrento Valley and Portofino Drive). The majority of constructionrelated traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, with limited traffic using Carmel Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, Alignment P10-A would result in the largest amount of excavated material and would require the most truck trips for material disposal.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Biological Resources and Land Use: The Alignment P10-B footprint could affect 2 acres of sensitive vegetation communities. Similar to Alignment P7-B, this area is smaller than that of all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. There could be approximately 19 acres of existing transportation land uses within and adjacent to the footprint, similar to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments. However, the area of existing recreation/open space land uses is smaller (5 acres) than that of Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. As a result, the alignment could be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to the other stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Community Effects: The alignment would not connect to the planned special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require construction of a new platform. Given the configuration of the alignment, an underground special events platform would be required to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The proposed underground special events platform and adjacent cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through the southwestern corner of the fairgrounds property and affect the fairgrounds during construction. The platform’s aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation would have a permanent impact on the fairgrounds property.
Residential properties are not located adjacent to the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north but are located adjacent to the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal. Noise and dust abatement measures may be required during construction. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate the proposed alignment, which could impact adjacent properties, including the multi-use trail above the trench. Additional access to the trench for construction equipment may be necessary, extending roadway impacts into the Solana Beach community. This construction access is anticipated to affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue. A significant detour of Via De La Valle would also be required to replace the current bridge over the trench as it is inadequate to support the proposed tunnel construction. Additionally, significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use and would require ongoing coordination with the fairgrounds during construction. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle.
The south portal for Alignment P10-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located on privately owned land and public right-of-way within a commercial district. However, the launch site would not be located near residential properties, and it is expected that tunnel and portal construction would be able to continue without substantial noise and dust abatement measures. Tunneling from this site would involve the acquisition of private properties.
Alignments Screening Report 5-30
The existing roadway alignment and profile of both Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road would be affected by the portal structures of the proposed alignment and would require temporary and permanent realignment, both of which would require private property acquisitions. Access to Sorrento Valley Road to the north would also be temporarily removed. As a result, access to the pump station would be from the north only during construction. This south portal location would result in the greatest impact to the local roadway network. The majority of construction-related traffic is anticipated to use Carmel Mountain Road and Sorrento Valley Road, as these roads would provide the most direct access to the project site. Alignment P10-B would result in fewer excavated materials and truck trips for disposal than Alignments P7-A, P7-B, and P10-A but more than Alignment P9.
5.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
5.2.2.1 Constructability of Alignment Components
Three south portals have been identified for the stakeholder and outreach alignments, with the assumption that the TBM would be launched from the south portal:
• Portofino Drive: Near the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Portofino Drive • Knoll Near I-5: At the knoll adjacent to I-5
• Sorrento Valley: Near the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road
One potential north portal location has been identified for the stakeholder and outreach alignments; however, it is assumed the TBM would be retrieved from the Del Mar Fairgrounds rather than at the portal:
• Fairgrounds North: Within the trench for the existing railroad alignment, north of the state-owned fairgrounds property
Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P7-A would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 20,000 feet.
Although the bored tunnel length is longer than Alignments P9 and P10-A, Alignment P7-A may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as 95 percent of the alignment would be located under public right-of-way or property.
The Alignment P7-A north portal would be located within the existing railroad alignment trench north of the state-owned fairgrounds property. The alignment would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
Alignments Screening Report 5-31
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P7-A (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Caltrans park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans. Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow TBM operation. The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would also require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls anticipated is approximately 200 feet, which is comparable to Alignments P7-B and P10-B, but less than Alignment P10-A.
Alignment P7-A would require approximately 100 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, less than that required for Alignment P9. Alignment P7-A would also require approximately 5,200 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon.
Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce the lagoon impact for Alignment P7-A compared to Alignment P9.
Alignments Screening Report 5-32
This alignment would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge as the new alignment would not connect to the future bridge. The alignment would require demolition of the planned special events platform at the fairgrounds.
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P7-B would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 23,400 feet.
Although the required tunnel length is longer than the other stakeholder and outreach alignments, it may require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as 90 percent of the alignment would be located under public right-of-way or property.
The Alignment P7-B north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P7-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. The site would need excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The portal location would impact existing drainage in an area with known flooding issues and would require consideration of options to convey drainage under or around the proposed alignment. Additionally, the alignment would travel through the existing intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road, both of which would require reconstruction. The site is largely above the 100-year floodplain; however, flood-abatement measures may be required when reconstructing the roadway. Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls is anticipated to be approximately 200 feet, which is comparable to Alignments P7-A and P10-B, but less than Alignment P10-A.
Alignments Screening Report 5-33
Alignment P7-B would not require any bridge in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. The alignment would also include approximately 1,400 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. These impacts are comparable to Alignment P10-B and less than Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use.
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) Alignment P9 would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 16,700 feet. The tunnel length for Alignment P9 would be shorter than all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. The alignment may also require fewer subsurface easements from private properties as 91 percent of the alignment would be located under public right-of-way or property.
The Alignment P9 north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The Alignment P9 south portal (Portofino Drive) would be located at the intersection of Portofino Drive and Carmel Valley Road. Two sites have been identified to support the TBM launch: the main site would be 9 acres and located north of Carmel Valley Road, and a satellite site of 2 acres would be located south of Carmel Valley Road. The main site would need significant excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area, and multiple retaining structures would be required to allow for TBM operation. The main site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent against flooding. Additionally, due to the elevated structures associated with the alignment near the north portal, there is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected from flooding and/or sea-level rise during future operation.
Alignments Screening Report 5-34
Alignment P9 would also require approximately 1,500 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. This bridge length would be greater than all other stakeholder and outreach alignments. Additionally, the alignment would include approximately 6,600 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. As such, Alignment P9 would require more complex construction phasing and a larger footprint within the lagoon compared to Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P10-A, and P10-B.
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P10-A would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 19,400 feet. This tunnel length is shorter than all stakeholder and outreach alignments other than Alignment P9; however, the alignment would have a smaller percentage of alignment under public rightof-way or property (84 percent) than all stakeholder and outreach alignments.
The Alignment P10-A north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P10-A (Knoll Near I-5) would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of the Caltrans park-and-ride lot on Carmel Valley Road. Construction at the south portal site would require coordination with Caltrans. Although it is not expected that construction of the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels would have a significant effect on the performance of the I-5 structures, an assessment of the Caltrans structures would be required during later phases of the design.
The site would require excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation.
Alignments Screening Report 5-35
The majority of the construction site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would also require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize the risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary floodwalls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls is anticipated to be approximately 1,000 feet, which is longer than all other stakeholder and outreach alignments.
Alignment P10-A would require approximately 100 feet of bridge within the limits of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. This alignment would also include approximately 5,500 feet of berm to support the alignment within the lagoon. Similar to Alignment P7-A, the length of bridge would be less than that required for Alignment P9. Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use, which would reduce the lagoon impact for Alignment P10-A compared to Alignment P9.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P10-B would include a total bored tunnel length of approximately 22,600 feet.
Compared to the stakeholder and outreach alignments, this tunnel length is the second longest, and has the smallest percentage of the tunnel located under public right-of-way or property (80 percent). As such, Alignment P10-B may require more subsurface easements from private properties.
The Alignment P10-B north portal at the fairgrounds would include a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. The platform would be constructed with an open cut from the surface and include permanent aboveground plaza features and vertical circulation providing access to the platform. These features would need to be coordinated with current and future uses of the fairgrounds property. The alignment would also require reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, which would need to span over the width of the railroad right-of-way to accommodate construction. The Jimmy Durante Bridge over the San Dieguito River may also require reconstruction due to the bored tunnel alignment.
The platform site would be below the 100-year floodplain and would require an assessment of weather trends to determine the risk of flooding and whether measures would be required to minimize that risk on construction activities. Abatement measures to minimize the risk of flooding during construction could include the following:
• Installing temporary flood walls or barriers to prevent flooding from affecting the construction area
• Storing vital construction materials at higher elevations, above the identified flood level • Developing a contingency plan in the event of flooding so that work can be resumed quickly
Alignments Screening Report 5-36
Additionally, the plaza features and vertical circulation associated with the special events platform would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. Stevens Creek would be located within the limits of the cut-and-cover tunnel along the northern portion of the alignment, and additional drainage considerations would be required during later stages of design if this alignment advances for further consideration.
The south portal for Alignment P10-B (Sorrento Valley) would be located at the intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road. The site would need excavation and regrading to create a usable space for the construction laydown area to allow for TBM operation. The portal location would impact an existing drainage in an area with known flooding issues and would require consideration of options to convey drainage under or around the proposed alignment. Additionally, the alignment would travel through the existing intersection of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road, both of which would require reconstruction. The site is largely above the 100-year floodplain; however, flood-abatement measures may be required when reconstructing the roadway. Additionally, the alignment near the south portal would require abatement measures to protect the alignment during future operation. These measures could include the use of flood gates and/or flood walls. The length of flood walls is anticipated to be approximately 400 feet, which is comparable to Alignments P7-A and P7-B, but less than Alignment P10-A.
Alignment P10-B would not require any bridge in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. The alignment would also have limited impacts within the lagoon that would include approximately 2,200 feet of berm to support the alignment. These impacts are comparable to Alignment P7-B and less than Alignments P7-A, P9, and P10-A. Additionally, the existing track embankment in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would no longer be required to facilitate rail operations. Therefore, approximately 10,000 feet of track embankment within the lagoon could be removed or repurposed for recreational use.
5.2.2.2 Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
Alignments Screening Report 5-37
• Design speeds4 along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to Control Point (CP) Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station.
The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
• A temporary shoofly would be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service. 4 An operating speed reflects the speed at which a train travels along a segment of track. In comparison, the design speed is used to determine aspects of a segment of an alignment, such as curves, while design of the alignment is underway. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed. Design speeds are compared for purposes of this evaluation as operating speeds may vary depending on circumstances.
Alignments Screening Report 5-38
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Sorrento Valley
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • A temporary control point would be constructed.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
Alignments Screening Report 5-39
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Portofino
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Bridge 247.7 would require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
Alignments Screening Report 5-40
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for passenger and freight trains, respectively).
• Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Knoll Near I-5
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • Variations of temporary shooflies may be required during construction to support phased construction.
• Alternatively, the temporary shoofly could be located farther west in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to provide an adequate construction footprint.
• Temporary control points would be installed to support train operation on the shoofly. • Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively), although accommodating these design speeds may require a more restrictive shoofly.
Alignments Screening Report 5-41
• A temporary shoofly would also be required to support construction of the proposed floodwalls, which would impact the existing track.
• Bridge 247.7 may require phased reconstruction to maintain rail service.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) North Portal Fairgrounds North
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the north portal:
• A temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment, which would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction. The shoofly would be located within the widened trench with a new retaining wall to support its location.
• A temporary control point would be constructed within the existing trench for the railroad alignment.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight (compared to planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively). • Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel within the existing railroad trench would require working adjacent to an operating rail line, with minimal clearances, until the tunnel alignment transitions into the fairgrounds. This would constrain construction activities and lengthen the construction duration. Passenger and freight trains operating on the shoofly in this location may also be required to operate at slower speeds to maintain safety.
The double-track segment from Solana Beach Station to CP Del Mar that will be constructed with the San Dieguito Double Track Project would be reduced to single-track operations to provide the construction footprint needed. The limits of single-track operations to support this alignment are assumed to start at the new control point noted above and terminate at the proposed temporary control point just north of the Sorrento Valley Station. The frequency of railroad operations that may occur during the construction phase is currently unknown; therefore, a further evaluation would be necessary in future phases of project development to address potential issues with the length of single-track operations anticipated under this alignment if it advances for further consideration.
South Portal Sorrento Valley
The following would be required to maintain existing rail operation to the extent feasible during construction of the south portal:
• A temporary shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet would be constructed to support construction of the new alignment while maintaining single-track operations. • A temporary control point would be constructed.
• Design speeds along the shoofly would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight (compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively).
Alignments Screening Report 5-42
5.2.2.3 Utility Conflicts
Each stakeholder and outreach alignment was reviewed and evaluated for potential conflicts with existing major wet utilities. Table 5-8 provides a summary of potential major utility conflicts identified for each alignment. The ability to protect the utility in place or relocate would be determined during later stages of design. However, the information that follows provides context for the activities that could be required during construction.
Table 5-8. Potential Utility Conflicts
Stakeholder and
Outreach Alignment
Number Water Facilities Sewer Facilities Total
P7-A 3 2 5
P7-B 5 3 8
P9 3 2 5
P10-A 3 2 5
P10-B 5 3 8
Source: SanGIS 2022
Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P7-A could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and two major sewer facilities. Overall, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location. The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment P7-A would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P7-B could result in potential conflicts with five major water facilities and three major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment P7-B.
Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) Alignment P9 could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and two major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment P9.
Alignments Screening Report 5-43
Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) Alignment P10-A could result in potential conflicts with three major water facilities and two major sewer facilities. As with Alignment P7-A, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a trunk sewer and water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5. Specifically, the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main, both owned by the City of San Diego, are located south of Carmel Valley Road, west of Sorrento Valley Road in Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, and could conflict with the south portal location.
The cut-and-cover tunnel of Alignment P10-A would result in potential horizontal and vertical effects on these facilities. Extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict. Relocation of the trunk sewer and/or water main would be a major undertaking and would add cost and risk to the overall project.
Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) Alignment P10-B could result in potential conflicts with five major water facilities and three major sewer facilities. It is expected that potential conflicts with the utilities identified could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. Therefore, the potential utility conflicts would not result in major impacts to Alignment P10-B.
Alignments Screening Report 6-1
6 Comparison of Alignments and
Recommendations
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the SDLRR Draft EIR will consider a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of project alternatives. This section summarizes the analysis of the 12 conceptual alignments and 14 stakeholder and outreach alignments considered for the identification of the project alternatives in the Draft EIR. Each conceptual alignment and stakeholder and outreach alignment was evaluated using the screening criteria discussed in Section 3 and the evaluations presented in Sections 4 and 5. This section provides an overview of the outcomes of the evaluation.
6.1 Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility
The conceptual alignments and stakeholder and outreach alignments were assessed based on their ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility described in Section 3.1.
Each of the conceptual alignments was prepared for an alternatives analysis and was designed specifically to meet the project objectives and design feasibility criteria. Although all conceptual alignments met project objectives and engineering feasibility, all single-bore alignments were removed from consideration, as described in the introduction to Section 4.
Specifically, in consideration of the increased complexity and community effects associated with the single-bore tunnel, Alignments 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were removed from consideration in favor of the similar twin-bore alignments (Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). Similarly, single bore was not considered for any of the stakeholder and outreach alignments. Section 4.2 details the assessment of each stakeholder and outreach alignment’s ability to meet the project objectives and engineering feasibility. Based on this evaluation, and as summarized in Table 6-1, Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B were advanced for further evaluation.
The remaining stakeholder and outreach alignments did not meet the majority of the project objectives or engineering feasibility and were removed from consideration.
Table 6-1. Project Objectives and Engineering Feasibility Summary Alignment
Number
Description of Ability to Meet Project Objectives and
Engineering Feasibility
Advanced for
Further Evaluation
Conceptual
Alignments
1-12
All alignments would meet project objectives and engineering feasibility. The single-bore alignments (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) result in greater impacts and more difficult construction than their dualbore counterparts and therefore were dropped from further consideration.
Yes
Alignments
(1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11)
P1-A The alignment would meet the project objective to relocate the tracks away from the bluffs but would not meet the objective to maintain passenger service to the Solana Beach Station and would not provide direct access to the Del Mar Fairgrounds. A north portal location was not identified, and sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility.
No
Alignments Screening Report 6-2
Alignment
Number
Description of Ability to Meet Project Objectives and
Engineering Feasibility
Advanced for
Further Evaluation
P1-B The alignment would meet the project objective to relocate the tracks away from the bluffs but would not meet the project objectives to maintain passenger service or to minimize impacts to the surrounding community. A north portal location was not identified, and sufficient information is not available to evaluate this alignment against the remaining project objectives and engineering feasibility.
No
P2 The alignment would be feasible from an engineering standpoint but would only meet one of the six project objectives.
No
P3 The alignment would meet three of the six project objectives and would not meet the required engineering feasibility.
No
P4 The alignment would meet five of the six project objectives and would meet engineering feasibility. The project objective to reduce rail travel times would not be met. Despite meeting the majority of the project objectives and engineering feasibility, this alignment was removed from consideration because it is similar to conceptual Alignment 3, which would meet all of the project objectives and is evaluated in this report.
No
P5 The alignment would be feasible from an engineering standpoint but would only meet two of the six project objectives.
No
P6-A The alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. Alignment P6-A would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources. As depicted by stakeholders and the public, the alignment would not reduce rail travel times. Alignment P6-A is similar to Alignment P7- A, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and is evaluated in this report.
No
P6-B The alignment would meet three of the six objectives and engineering feasibility. This alignment would not meet the project objectives to minimize impacts to the surrounding community; preserve biological, cultural, and recreational resources; and reduce rail travel times. Alignment P6-B is similar to Alignment P7-B, which would meet the objective of reducing travel times and is evaluated in this report.
No
P7-A The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P7-B The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P8 The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives but would not be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
No
P9 The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P10-A The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
P10-B The alignment would meet four of the six project objectives and would be feasible from an engineering standpoint.
Yes
Alignments Screening Report 6-3
6.2 Environmental and Other Considerations
This section summarizes the evaluation of the following alignments that were advanced for further consideration based on the evaluation of project objectives and engineering feasibility:
• Alignment 1 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Portofino Drive) • Alignment 3 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Torrey Pines Road) • Alignment 5 (Portals: Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment 7 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Portofino Drive) • Alignment 9 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Torrey Pines Road) • Alignment 11 (Portals: Within Camino Del Mar and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment P7-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment P7-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley) • Alignment P9 (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Portofino Drive) • Alignment P10-A (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Knoll Near I-5) • Alignment P10-B (Portals: Fairgrounds North and Sorrento Valley)
6.2.1 Potential Environmental Considerations
Biological Resources and Land Use: Potential permanent effects to biological resources and existing land uses are summarized in Table 6-2.
• Sensitive Vegetation Communities: Alignments 1, 7, and P9 with a south portal at Portofino Drive could affect the largest area of sensitive vegetation communities (19 acres for Alignments 7 and P9 and 22 acres for Alignment 1) compared to the other alignments. Alignments P7-B and P10-B could affect the smallest area of sensitive vegetation communities (2 acres).
• Non-Transportation Land Uses: Alignment 11 could affect the smallest area of existing non-transportation land uses (2 acres), followed by Alignments 3 and 9 (5 acres) with south portals at Torrey Pines Road. Alignment 1 could affect the largest area of existing non-transportation land uses (22 acres) and would be generally less compatible with existing land uses compared to the other alignments.
• Transportation Land Uses: The Alignment 9 footprint could affect the largest area of existing transportation land uses (37 acres) compared to the other alignments. • Conclusion: As a result, Alignments 3, 9, and 11 with south portals at Torrey Pines Road or the Knoll Near I-5 would be generally more compatible with existing land uses compared to alignments with a south portal at Portofino Drive.
Alignments Screening Report 6-4
Table 6-2. Summary of Biological Resources and Existing Land Uses (Permanent) Alignment
Number
Sensitive Vegetation
Communities (acres)
Transportation Land
Uses (acres)
Non-Transportation Land
uses
1 (acres)
1 22 13 22
3 16 27 5
5 15 12 14
7 19 22 18
9 16 37 5
11 15 22 2
P7-A 16 16 17
P7-B 2 19 7
P9 19 17 19
P10-A 16 16 17
P10-B 2 19 7
Source: SanGIS 2022, AECOM 2023 biological resource surveys Note: 1Non-transportation land uses include residential, recreation/open space, transportation, public institution, industrial, hotel, undeveloped, and commercial land uses.
Community Effects
• Acquisitions and Noise and Dust Abatement: All alignments would require the acquisition of private property for construction of the alignment structures. Residential properties would be located adjacent to one or both portals associated with Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and P9; therefore, noise and dust abatement measures would be implemented during construction. While construction near the south portal for Alignments 5 and 9 would not occur near residential properties, noise and dust abatement measures may be implemented to protect resources within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon. Residential properties are not located adjacent to the south portal or the location where the TBM would be retrieved in the north for Alignments P7-A, P7- B, P10-A, and P10-B. Dust and noise abatement measures may be required during construction to protect resources within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon at the south portal and along the cut-and-cover tunnel near the north portal given proximity to residential properties. The trench associated with the existing railroad alignment would require widening to accommodate all stakeholder and outreach alignments, which could affect adjacent properties and the multi-use trail above the trench. • Physical Roadway Impacts: The south portal site at the Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5, 11, and P7-A) would result in the smallest impacts to the local roadway network compared to the other south portals. The south portal site located in Sorrento Valley (Alignments P7-B and P-10-B) would result in the greatest impacts to the local roadway network.
Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal Within Camino Del Mar (Alignments 7, 9, and 11) would be the most impactful to the local roadway network.
The north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard (Alignments 1, 3, 5, and 7) would be the least impactful north portal site to the local roadway network. The Fairgrounds North portal common to all stakeholder and outreach alignments would be less Alignments Screening Report 6-5
impactful to the local roadway network than the north portal Within Camino Del Mar and more impactful than the Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard north portal. • Truck Trips for Disposal of Construction Material: As shown in Table 6-3, the number of truck trips required to dispose of construction materials associated with the bored tunnel, cut-and-cover tunnel, U-structure, and portals would range from 122,000 (Alignment 9) to 619,000 (Alignment P10-A) one-way trips. The stakeholder and outreach alignments are longer than the conceptual alignments and would result in more than twice the number of truck trips to dispose of construction materials. • Conclusion: The Fairgrounds North portal would be most disruptive to the surrounding community. This portal would require construction of a new underground special events platform to maintain passenger rail service to the fairgrounds. Significant portions of the fairgrounds’ southwest parking lot and access to the surrounding area would have restricted use. Event access to the fairgrounds may also be affected at Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via De La Valle. Additionally, properties and the multiuse trail adjacent to the existing railroad trench could be affected during construction, and construction access would affect Via De La Valle, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and the adjoining South Highway 101 and South Cedros Avenue.
Table 6-3. Approximate Number of Truck
Trips for Disposal of Construction Material
Alignment Number Truck Trips1
1 171,600
3 127,300
5 229,400
7 181,900
9 122,000
11 235,100
P7-A 547,200
P7-B 594,600
P9 534,200
P10-A 619,000
P10-B 536,000
Note: 1Only accounts for one-way traffic for disposal of construction material associated with the bored
tunnels, cut-and-cover tunnel, and the U-structure.
6.2.2 Constructability and Construction Effects
The following is a summary of the constructability considerations.
Alignments Screening Report 6-6
6.2.2.1 Considerations Regarding Alignment Components
Table 6-4 summarizes information on the components of each alignment. • Alignments 1 and 7 would require the shortest total alignment length at 25,300 feet, and Alignments P7-A, P10-A, and P10-B would require the longest total alignment length, at 35,900 feet.
• Alignment 9 would require the shortest bored tunnel length at 9,500 feet, and Alignment P7-B would require the longest bored tunnel length, at 23,400 feet. • The percentage of the tunnel under public right-of-way or property would be the smallest for Alignment 3 at 6 percent and largest for Alignment P7-A at 95 percent. All five stakeholder and outreach alignments would have the greatest percentage of the tunnel portion of the alignment under public-right-of-way or property. • Alignments P7-B and P10-B with a south portal at Sorrento Valley would not require bridges. Of the remaining alignments, Alignments 5, 11, P7-A, and P10-A with a south portal at the Knoll Near I-5 would require the shortest length of bridge at 100 feet, and Alignments 3 and 9 would require the longest length of bridge at 6,100 feet. • Alignments 3 and 9 with a south portal at Torrey Pines Road would require the longest length of berm to support the alignment within Los Peñasquitos Lagoon at 7,200 feet, and Alignment P7-B would require the shortest length of berm at 1,400 feet. • Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge as the new alignment would not connect to the future bridge.
Table 6-4. Summary of Alignment Components
Alignment
Number
Bored
Tunnel
(feet)
UStructure
(feet)
CutandCover
Tunnel
(feet)
Bridge
(feet)
Floodwall
(feet)
Graded1
(feet)
Total
Alignmen
t Length
(feet)
Percent of
Tunnel
under
Public
ROW or
Property
Percent
of Tunnel
under
Private
Property
1 13,800 900 700 1,500 800 7,600 25,300 41 59
3 9,800 900 600 6,100 800 7,800 25,900 6 94
5 16,600 2,400 900 100 1,900 6,200 28,000 44 56
7 13,900 1,100 900 1,500 800 7,200 25,300 49 51
9 9,500 1,200 500 6,100 800 7,800 26,000 27 73
11 16,600 2,200 1,200 100 1,900 6,300 28,300 46 54
P7-A 20,000 2,700 6500 100 900 6,400 35,900 95 5
P7-B 23,400 2,700 6,600 0 200 2,200 35,000 90 10
P-9 16,700 1,300 6,000 1,500 0 7,300 32,800 91 9
P10-A 19,400 3,100 5,900 100 1,100 6,300 35,900 84 16
P10-B 22,600 3,000 6,900 0 400 3,000 35,900 80 20
Notes: 1The graded length includes the berm.
ROW = right-of-way
Alignments Screening Report 6-7
6.2.2.2 North Portal and Alignment Considerations
• Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard Portal (Alignments 1, 3, and 5) would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the north portal and the portion of the alignment north of the portal compared to other north portal sites. No significant existing infrastructure would need to be protected or reconstructed at this north portal site.
• Within Camino Del Mar Portal (Alignments 7, 9, and 11) would result in a larger degree of construction complexity at the north portal and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard). This north portal location would require reconstruction of the existing Camino Del Mar bridge to initiate the portal construction.
• Fairgrounds North Portal (Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, P10-B) would have the greatest construction complexity of the north portal locations given the need to work within and widen the existing railroad alignment trench, the need to construct a new underground special events platform, coordination with current and future use at the fairgrounds, reconstruction of the Via De La Valle overcrossing, potential reconstruction of the Jimmy Durante Bridge, and drainage considerations at Stevens Creek.
6.2.2.3 South Portal and Alignment Considerations
• Portofino Drive Portal (Alignments 1, 7, and P9) would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the south portal and alignment south of the portal compared to the other south portal locations. The main portal site is largely above the 100-year floodplain and is not expected to require abatement measures to prevent flooding. There is no significant infrastructure that would need to be protected. • Torrey Pines Road Portal (Alignments 3 and 9) would result in the highest degree of construction complexity at the south portal and alignment south of the portal compared to the other south portal locations. The bridge and berm segments within the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon would require a raised elevation to stay above flood levels and would require a phased approach to maintain rail operations during construction. • Sorrento Valley Portal (Alignments P7-B and P10-B) would result in a higher degree of construction complexity at the south portal and alignment south of the portal than Alignments 5, 11, P7-A, and P7-B (Knoll Near I-5 south portal). The TBM launch site for this portal would impact existing drainage in an area with known flooding issues and would require implementing a means to convey drainage under or around the alignment. Reconstruction of Sorrento Valley Road and Carmel Mountain Road would also be required.
6.2.2.4 Utility Conflicts
Table 6-5 summarizes potential major utility conflicts for each alignment. • Alignments 3 and 9 would result in the fewest potential conflicts with existing utilities, having potential conflicts with three major water facilities and no conflicts with major sewer facilities.
• Alignments P7-B and P10-B would result in the greatest number of potential utility conflicts, with five potential conflicts with major water facilities and three potential conflicts with major sewer facilities.
Alignments Screening Report 6-8
• Overall, it is expected that the majority of the potential conflicts could be addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods, with the exception of potential conflicts with a 54-inch trunk sewer and a 36-inch water main at the south portal location at the Knoll Near I-5 (Alignments 5, P7-A, and P10-A). Coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department would be required to address these potential conflicts and identify a solution to address the conflict.
Table 6-5. Summary of Potential Utility Conflicts
Alignment Number Total Discussion
1 4 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 3 3 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 5 5 Potential conflicts with the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main would require extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department. 7 4 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 9 3 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods. 11 5 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
P7-A 5 Potential conflicts with the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main would require extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.
P7-B 8 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
P9 5 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
P10-A 5 Potential conflicts with the 54-inch Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer and 36-inch Sorrento Valley Water Main would require extensive coordination with the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.
P10-B 8 Addressed via relocation or protect-in-place construction methods.
Source: SanGIS 2022
6.2.2.5 Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction Table 6-6 summarizes the railroad operational impacts during construction for each alignment.
North Portal
• The alignments at all of the north portals would require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service.
− Alignments 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Within Camino Del Mar portals) would require a temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet.
− Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North portal) would require a temporary single-track shoofly of approximately 6,000 feet. These alignments would require the longest shoofly and single-track operation to support construction when compared to the other alignments near the north portal sites.
− For all alignments, the temporary shoofly would temporarily remove doubletrack operation for a length equivalent to that of the shoofly during construction.
Alignments Screening Report 6-9
• Design speeds5for passenger and freight trains operating along the shoofly would differ from current or planned design speeds.
− Design speeds along the shoofly for Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North portal) would be approximately 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight, which is slower than planned design speeds of 90 mph and 60 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively. This shoofly would result in the greatest reduction in design speeds for passenger and freight trains compared to design speeds along the shoofly at the other north portal locations.
− Design speeds along the shoofly for Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard portal) would be approximately 50 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, similar to current design speeds at this location. − Design speeds along the shoofly for Alignments 7, 9, and 11 (Within Camino Del Mar portal) would be the slowest compared to the other north portal locations, at 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph for freight, compared to current design speeds of 55 mph and 45 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively.
South Portal
• Shoofly:
− If construction proceeds as described in Section 5.2.2, Alignments 3 and 9 (south portal at Torrey Pines Road) would not require a shoofly to maintain existing rail service.
− Alignments P7-B and P10-B (Sorrento Valley portal) would require a temporary shoofly of approximately 3,000 feet.
− Alignments 1, 5, 7, 11, P7-A, P9, and P10-A (Knoll Near I-5 or Portofino Drive portal) would require a temporary shoofly of approximately 4,000 feet. • Design speed along the shoofly:
− For those alignments that require the shoofly, design speeds would be approximately 55 mph for passenger trains and 45 mph for freight, compared to design speeds of 60 mph and 50 mph for existing passenger and freight trains, respectively.
5 An operating speed reflects the speed at which a train travels along a segment of track. In comparison, the design speed is used to determine aspects of a segment of an alignment, such as curves, while design of the alignment is underway. The design speed may be higher than the operating speed. Design speeds are compared for purposes of evaluation as operating speeds may vary depending on circumstances.
Alignments Screening Report 6-10
Table 6-6. Summary of Railroad Operational Impacts during Construction Alignment
Number
North Portal
Shoofly Length (ft)
Restrictive Speed
During Construction
(mph)
(Passenger/Freight)
Southern Portal
Shoofly Length (ft)
Restrictive Speed
During Construction
(mph)
(Passenger/Freight)
1 3,000 50/45 4,000 55/45
3 3,000 50/45 N/A N/A
5 3,000 50/45 4,000 55/45
7 3,000 30/25 4,000 55/45
9 3,000 30/45 N/A N/A
11 3,000 30/45 4,000 55/45
P7-A 6,000 60/40 4,000 55/45
P7-B 6,000 60/40 3,000 55/45
P9 6,000 60/40 4,000 55/45
P10-A 6,000 60/40 4,000 55/45
P10-B 6,000 60/40 3,000 55/45
6.2.3 Construction Cost Estimates
Rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates were developed for each alignment and are provided for context, but were not used as part of the screening process. The rough order of magnitude cost estimates consider the alignment component (e.g., tunnel, bridge, graded), track and signal infrastructure, temporary and permanent roadway modifications, environmental remediation, and temporary supporting infrastructure. The unit costs developed in the Alternatives Analysis Report are used to make it easier to compare current and previous estimates using 2022 dollars. These rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates do not include right-of-way costs, soft costs, or other costs not noted, nor do the costs consider inflation to reflect the year of expenditure during the construction period.
Detailed capital cost estimates will be developed during environmental review.
Table 6-7 summarizes the rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates for each alignment. Construction cost estimates range from $1.79 billion (Alignment 1) to $4.39 billion (Alignment P10-B).
Alignments Screening Report 6-11
Table 6-7. Construction Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Alignment
Number
Construction Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
(2022 $billion)
1 $1.79
3 $1.85
5 $2.28
7 $1.86
9 $1.85
11 $2.29
P7-A $4.14
P7-B $4.29
P9 $3.76
P10-A $4.06
P10-B $4.39
Note: Rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates are based on 2022 dollars. Changes from previously published estimates are due to project refinements and implementation of standard cost categories.
6.3 Summary of Outcomes
Based on the evaluation provided in this report, the following recommendations have been developed in support of identifying the range of alternatives to advance to CEQA scoping:
• Alignment 1 is not recommended for further consideration. While this alignment would have the third-fewest number of truck trips and the lowest construction complexities, this alignment with the south portal at Portofino Drive could permanently affect the largest area of sensitive vegetation communities and non-transportation land uses of the alignments. Additionally, significant opposition to the south portal site at Portofino Drive has been expressed by the public during outreach conducted to date, and an alternative southern portal location with less opposition has been identified to advance to CEQA scoping.
• Alignment 3 is recommended for further consideration. This alignment could result in fewer permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, require the secondfewest number of truck trips, and would generally be compatible with existing land uses. The north portal site associated with Alignment 3 (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) would result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the north portal site associated with Alignments 7, 9, and 11 (Within Camino Del Mar) and Alignments P7-A, P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B (Fairgrounds North) portal locations. Alignment 3 would result in the lowest degree of construction complexity at the north portal and alignment north of the portal compared to the other north portal locations. • Alignment 5 is recommended for further consideration. The south portal for this alignment (Knoll Near I-5) would be located away from residential properties and has received general support from the public. Potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be comparable to Alignment 3, and less than Alignments 1, 7, 9, P7-A, P9, and P10-A. The south portal site would also result in fewer roadway impacts compared to the various south portal locations. Alignment 5 would Alignments Screening Report 6-12
also result in less construction complexity at the north portal site (Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard) and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 7, 9, and 11. • Alignment 7 is not recommended for further consideration. The alignment, with a south portal at Portofino Drive, could result in one of the largest impacts on sensitive vegetation communities and non-transportation land uses. Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal site associated with this alignment (Within Camino Del Mar) would be the most impactful to the local roadway network. This alignment would also have higher complexity at the north portal site and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal site Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard).
Additionally, strong opposition for the south portal site at Portofino Drive has been expressed by the public during outreach conducted to date. • Alignment 9 is not recommended for further consideration. This alignment is similar to Alignment 3 with a north portal Within Camino Del Mar and a slight difference in the location of the bored tunnel alignment. Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal site associated with this alignment would be the most impactful to the local roadway network. This alignment would also result in the highest degree of construction complexity at the south portal site (Torrey Pines Road) and alignment south of the portal, and a higher degree of construction complexity at the north portal site and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard).
• Alignment 11 is not recommended for further consideration. Compared to the other north portal sites, the north portal site associated with this alignment (Within Camino Del Mar) would be the most impactful to the local roadway network. This alignment would also have higher degree of construction complexity at the north portal site and alignment north of the portal than Alignments 1, 3, and 5 (north portal Under Jimmy Durante Boulevard). Alignment 11 would result in a higher degree of construction complexity at the south portal (Knoll Near I-5) and alignment south of the portal than Alignments 7 and P9 (Portofino Drive portal). Alignment 11 would also result in more potential major utility conflicts than Alignments 1, 3, 7, and 9. • Alignment P7-A is recommended for further consideration. This alignment would be the most similar to what the public supported in terms of a tunnel alignment that would be parallel to I-5 rather than under residential properties. This alignment would have a north portal within the existing railroad alignment trench located north of the state-owned fairgrounds property. This north portal site, which is common among the five stakeholder and outreach alignments, would have the greatest construction complexity of the various north portal locations. This alignment would also require construction of a new special events platform at the Del Mar Fairgrounds and would require demolition or reuse of the future San Dieguito Bridge. However, potential permanent impacts to sensitive vegetation communities for Alignment P7-A would be comparable to Alignments 3 and 5, which are also recommended for further consideration. Alignment P7-A would also result in fewer potential major utility conflicts than Alignments P7-B, P9, P10-A, and P10-B.
• Alignment P7-B is not recommended for further consideration. This alignment would result in greater community effects compared to other alignments. The Sorrento Valley south portal site would result in the largest impact to the surrounding local roadway network of the various south portal locations.
• Alignment P9 is not recommended for further consideration. The area within and adjacent to the alignment footprint, with a south portal at Portofino Drive, contains the Alignments Screening Report 6-13
second-largest area of sensitive vegetation communities and non-transportation land uses. Additionally, significant opposition to the south portal site at Portofino Drive has been expressed by the public during outreach conducted to date, and an alternative southern portal location with less opposition has been identified. • Alignment P10-A is not recommended for further consideration. This alignment would be similar to Alignment P7-A; however, Alignment P7-A is more responsive to comments received from the public during the outreach and engagement processes to date.
• Alignment P10-B is not recommended for further consideration. The alignment would result in more community effects compared to the other alignments. The alignment would result in the largest quantity of excavated materials and truck trips for disposal.
The Sorrento Valley south portal site would result in the largest impact to the surrounding local roadway network of the various south portal locations.
Alignments 3, 5, and 7A are recommended to advance to CEQA scoping. The alternatives are illustrated in Figure 6-1 and will be referred to as Alternative A: I-5 Alignment, Alternative B:
Crest Canyon Alignment, and Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment in the Notice of Preparation.
• Alternative A: I-5 Alignment will reflect Alignment P7-A in this report. • Alternative B: Crest Canyon Alignment will reflect Alignment 5 in this report. • Alternative C: Camino Del Mar Alignment will reflect Alignment 3 in this report.
Alignments Screening Report 6-14
Figure 6-1. CEQA Scoping Alternatives
J l \
I ....... "'\ \
' .. I r .:., - - ... I
' .... r-..,.. - .J ., ~ ., -
..
' ' w
LEGEND
- Alternative A
- Alternative B
- Alternative C
I
..,
I
0 •
-+--
,. - ., L - .J
u a
Portal Location
Mile Post Marker
C)
" t
~ '!,
"?r
IP
Alternative A
Pacific Ocean
Existing LOSSAN Corridor Track Alignment
Municipal Boundary
0 0.5 Miles
C:
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.2.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager’s Office – Dan King, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 Community Grant Program Awards and FY 2023/24 Community Grant Final Report
___________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND:
On May 4, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-68 approving Council Policy No. 14 establishing the Community Grant Program (“Grant Program”) and Application Guidelines for the Grant Program.
At the March 13, 2024 City Council Meeting, the City Council authorized the FY 2024/25 Community Grant Program. At this meeting, the City Council increased the City’s contribution to the program to $35,000 which, when combined with EDCO’s contribution of $15,000 as part of the community enhancement efforts through the solid waste Franchise Agreement with the City, increased the total grant program to $50,000.
At the June 12, 2024 City Council meeting, the grant applicants gave presentations on their respective program requests. There are a total of fifteen (15) applications for a maximum funding request of $79,200.
This item is before the City Council to select the FY 2024/25 Community Grant Program recipients.
June 26, 2024
FY 2024/25 Community Grants Program Requests