del mar comment

8/8/2019 Del Mar Comment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/del-mar-comment 1/18

City of Del Mar

November 8, 2010Ms. Shay Lynn HarrisonEnvironmental Analysis Branch Chief CA Department of Transportation, District 11Division of Environmental AnalysisMS 2424050 Taylor StreetSan Diego, CA 92110

Re: Comments on the Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project DraftEnvironmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Ms. Harrison,

This letter contains comments from the City of Del Mar (“City”) on the draftEnvironmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Interstate 5 NorthCoast Corridor Project (the Project) released to the public on July 10, 2010 by theCalifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the U.S Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.

In preparing this comment letter, the Del Mar City Council conducted a number of publicmeetings to involve a broad spectrum of the public. Many persons, agencies andgroups attended these meetings and provided detailed and expert comments that areincorporated into this letter. The City Council also relied on a number of other sourcesto help in the review and preparation of these comments. They are listed below.

1. The staff of the City’s Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments,along with the City Attorney’s office.

2. An ad-hoc citizens’ advisory committee, composed of Del Mar residents appointed by the City Council to assist in the review andcomment on the North Coast Corridor project and the associatedenvironmental documents. Many of the Committee members haveprofessional training and expertise related to issues addressed in thedraft EIR/EIS. The Ad-Hoc Committee meetings were attended byrepresentatives of a number of interested entities who also providedcomments to the Ad-Hoc Committee on the DEIR.

1. OVERVIEW OF CITY’S COMMENTS

1

1

2

34

56

78

9

1011

12

1314

15

1617

18

19

2021

22

2324

25

2627

28

29

3031

32

3334

35

3637

38

3940

41

42

4344

45

4647

2



City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor ProjectNovember 8, 2010 of 18

The City appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft EIR/EIS document. Thedraft document raises many questions about the purpose and potential effectiveness of the entire Project as a truly comprehensive public transportation improvement

endeavor. The Project also raises specific concerns about the segment that runs justeast of the City’s boundaries in the area between the freeway interchanges at Route 56and Via de la Valle, particularly in the area of the San Dieguito River Valley.

Although the Interstate 5 right-of-way and the Project limits, as defined in the EIR/EISdocument, are located just outside of Del Mar’s city limits, the I-5 corridor is a constantpresence. It links us with other cities in the region and its presence is seen and heardthroughout much of the community. Additionally, the proposed Project would haveimpacts on the local Del Mar circulation system. All of these factors give the City astake in how the Project would be designed and implemented. We have a responsibilityas part of the San Diego County community to be sure I-5 remains a positive factor and

not a negative one in the region.

The comments on the following pages contain the City’s overall questions and concernsabout the Project itself and about the associated draft EIR/EIS document. The Cityrequests that Caltrans and the other agencies responsible for the document respond toall comments and questions contained in the body of this letter pursuant to therequirements of CEQA and NEPA.

Please note that the bulk of references in this letter regarding the requirements for compliance with environmental review reference the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA). However, the document should also comply with the corresponding

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as applicable.

2. THE DEIR/EIS FAILS TO ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S MAIN PURPOSE

The City poses the question: Is the goal of the Project to move cars and trucks or tomove people and goods? We believe the basic goal of Caltrans, the U.S Departmentof Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration is to provide both road andmass transportation options for the people of this State; yet we see in this Project ahuge allocation of funds for roads and very little for rail, bus, bicycle, multi-modal or other alternative transportation service. This “car bias” perspective commits current andfuture generations to car and truck-driven options to the exclusion of alternative

transportation strategies. It appears that this allocation of resources has been pursuedwithout any real discussion in the draft EIR/EIS about why this policy choice was madeand why it is preferable.

While the draft EIR/EIS acknowledges the existence of the LOSSAN (rail) plans andassumes double tracking of rail lines along the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor (LOSSAN) and along the North San Diego Coastal region will occur, the freewaywidening plan and its draft EIR/EIS do not address how the two plans will be integrated.Does the plan fit into the Corridor System Management Plan and San Diego Associationof Governments’ (SANDAG’s) 2030 Regional Transportation Plan? Contrary to theassertions in the draft EIR/EIS, the proposed four widening alternatives fail to offer the

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




best solution for existing and future rapid transit needs of the I-5 corridor population.(See Purpose and Need chapter, p. S-1).It is understood that some of these issues will be addressed with the associated Public

Works Plan, but the Project nonetheless, as identified in the draft EIR/EIS, is limited tofreeway expansion and the adequacy of the draft EIR/EIS must be judged by its owncontents.

The road-building described in the draft EIR/EIS is a thirty-year plan to be built instages. This raises the question: Is this a program EIR? Although the document isrepresented as a project EIR/EIS, the Project itself is far too big and proposed over toolong a timeframe to really fit that category. With its many components, it would seemmore appropriately characterized as a program EIR/EIS.

The document also raises these questions: 1) Will there be an opportunity for design

changes once a draft plan is approved? and 2) Where are the details of each phasespelled out? Much of the information in the draft about the surrounding environment isalready outdated or not taken into account at all. An example is the 22nd DistrictAgricultural Association Fairgrounds Master Plan that was released in the fall of 2009.This planned project would result in major changes at the Via de la Valle Interstate 5interchange and yet has not been addressed in the draft EIR/EIS document. Theproposed freeway widening plan does not appear to contain the flexibility to adapt tofuture needs, including the addition of more railroad, bus, bicycle, and other alternativetransportation services. Likewise, the draft EIR/EIS does not contain up to dateinformation concerning other nearby commercial developments that are already in theplanning stages and which will have cumulative impacts with the widening project.

3. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE

CEQA requires an EIR to present an accurate and complete description of the project."An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informativeand legally sufficient EIR." See County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71Cal.App.3d 185, 193. Among other things, the project description must include: (1) the"precise location and boundaries of the proposed project," (2) a "clear writtenstatement" of the project's objectives, including the underlying purpose of the project, aswell as (3) a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmentalcharacteristics. CEQA Guidelines, § 15124. As further explained by the California

Court of Appeal in County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193, a curtailed or distortedproject description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through anaccurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balancethe proposal's benefits against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures,assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) andweigh other alternatives in the balance.

The Project description in this draft EIR/EIS suffers the same infirmities as thediscussion of project need and objectives, i.e., the Project description is limited tofreeway expansion alternatives without consideration or discussion of options for rail,

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546




bus, bicycle, multi-modal and other alternative transportation options. The Project isdescribed as follows in the very first statement in the summary:

"The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose improvements to maintain or improvethe existing and future traffic operations on the existing Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway from La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego to Harbor Drive in Oceanside/CampPendleton...".

This Project description eliminates at the start any consideration of non-freewaywidening options. Interestingly, the draft EIR/EIS does describe how a broader analysismight be done extending the inquiry beyond options for freeway widening. The draftEIR/EIS summary at page S-1 states:

"Caltrans has adopted a new approach to improve mobility across California,with an emphasis on productivity, reliability, flexibility, safety, and performance.

As defined under a formal budgetary process, as part of the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) Program, the California TransportationCommission (CTC) requires all CMIA corridors develop a (CSMP). The purposeof a corridor system management plan (CSMP) is to provide one unified concept for managing, operating, improving, and preserving a corridor across all modesand jurisdictions for highest productivity...This concept integrates and coordinates all travel modes in the corridor including highways, parallel and connecting roadways, public transit and bikeways for multimodal analysis tofocuses (sic) on how transit, local roadways, highways, pedestrian routes and

land use work together as a system. The CSMP also provides the basis for prioritizing improvements, resources, demand profile, related land usedevelopments, modal interactions, and the environment. The larger purpose of acorridor management plan is to focus all transportation efforts of all jurisdictionson effective and efficient usage of all facilities in the corridor. The plan is a tool for effective management and a guide for implementation of systemmanagement and performance measurement. This plan integrates operational analysis with more traditional."

Unfortunately, the draft EIR/EIS does not follow up and analyze the options under thismulti-disciplinary approach. Rather, it describes the proposed Project narrowly as a

freeway widening project and limits its review of options to four strategies for addinglanes to the freeway.

4. THE DRAFT EIR/EIS FAILS TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE/SUFFICIENTALTERNATIVES.

CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the projectunder review, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the basicobjectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significanteffects of the project. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6. The discussion of alternativesshould provide sufficient information to the public to enable it to understand, evaluate

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




and respond to the lead agency’s conclusions, which requires facts and analysis, notsimply conclusions. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of theUniversity of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-406.

The range of alternatives that must be considered depends upon the objectives of aparticular project. Therefore, where a project’s objectives are unclear or improper, anEIR cannot adequately consider project alternatives because there is nothing againstwhich to measure the alternative.

NEPA likewise requires a rigorous analysis of alternatives. The U.S. DOT FederalHighway Administration website, referring to the Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ) Regulations governing NEPA implementation states the following with regard tohow alternatives are to be evaluated with respect to transportation projects like theproposed I-5 widening:

"The identification, consideration, and analysis of alternatives are key to theNEPA process and goal of objective decision-making. Consideration of alternatives leads to a solution that satisfies the transportation need and protectsenvironmental and community resources. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) refers to the alternatives analysis section as the "heart of the EIS," and requires agencies to:

a. Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss thereasons for their having been eliminated.b. Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including

the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.c. Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.d. Include the alternative of no action.e. Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or moreexists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.f. Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives."

There are some differences in the standards of CEQA and NEPA with regard to thealternatives analysis that are important. For example, under NEPA all alternatives must

be evaluated with equal weight, while under CEQA the proposed project may be givengreater analysis. Under NEPA: "During the draft EIS stage all reasonable alternatives,or the reasonable range of alternatives, should be considered and discussed at acomparable level of detail to avoid any indication of a bias towards a particular alternative(s)." ibid. Further guidance on handling alternatives under NEPA is citedbelow:

" Alternatives analysis should clearly indicate why and how the particular range of project alternatives was developed, including what kind of public and agency input was used. In addition, alternatives analysis should explain why and how alternatives were eliminated from consideration. It must be made clear what

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




criteria were used to eliminate alternatives, at what point in the process thealternatives were removed, who was involved in establishing the criteria for assessing alternatives, and the measures for assessing the alternatives'

effectiveness.

In preparing NEPA documents, project sponsors should be candid about therationale for generating, evaluating, and eliminating alternatives. Being asspecific as possible is important. If an alternative is eliminated from further consideration because it "does not meet the purpose and need," we must adequately explain how or why this alternative doesn't meet the purpose and need." ibid.

The Alternatives Section of this draft EIR/EIS, Section 2, states only the following in anapparent attempt to comply with these guidelines:

"This section describes the proposed action and the design alternatives that were developed by a multidisciplinary team to achieve the project purpose and need while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. The designalternatives were identified in the MIS that was conducted through the NorthCoast Transportation Study and refined with input from the PDT, the NEPA/404MOU integration process, and public scoping information. This included the goal to provide the full range of transportation modal alternatives that are cost-effective, promote and provide incentives for ridesharing and alternative modes,accommodate regional and interregional freight movements, minimizeenvironmental and community impacts. These alternatives were discussed and

subsequently eliminated or identified for further consideration in the PSR (PDS)dated January 2000."

" The project alternatives were assessed for ability to meet the objectives of the purpose and need established for the project, with consideration to avoid and minimize impacts on the environment, local streets, and communities adjacent tothe project, while adhering to Caltrans design and safety standards."

However, the document does not disclose who was on the interdisciplinary team, whatcriteria were used to evaluate and select the chosen alternatives or what criteria wereused to eliminate other alternatives. Likewise, it is not disclosed what criteria were

used, or who did the analysis, to "assess [the alternatives] for ability to meet the purpose and need established for the project," all of which are required by theguidelines.

With regard to alternatives that were rejected, there is a separate discussion at Section2.5 that states "Over the last twenty years, various formal and informal studies havebeen conducted to identify long-range highway improvements to various portions of I-5 within the project area." This very general statement is followed by a reference to thetitles of some of these studies. It is then noted that year 2030 traffic projections wereused to evaluate the alternatives and that a number of alternate build options wereeliminated:

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




"The following freeway alternatives were rejected due to their inability to provide adequate highway capacity to meet the year 2020 travel demands within

the project limits. Therefore, it is anticipated that that these alternatives would not maintain or improve traffic levels of service in the year 2030."

The alternative of pursuing non-freeway dominated alternatives such as augmented rail,bus, bicycle, multi-modal and other alternative transportation options is not identified or discussed. It is not even listed as an alternative considered and rejected. A read of thedraft EIR/EIS reveals that perhaps the most critical consideration of alternativesapparently did not occur, i.e., any consideration of non-freeway centric options.Likewise, there are no data in the document that would allow one to evaluate how non-freeway options might compare to the four freeway "build" options that the draft EIR/EISdoes address. The draft EIR/EIS's assumption that some configuration of a freeway

widening will occur and its limitation of the range of alternatives to widening withoutaddressing or explaining why non-freeway alternatives are infeasible is contra to CEQAand NEPA guidelines.

The draft EIR/EIS focuses almost exclusively on build options for widening I-5. TheDEIR states that the alternatives were assessed for their ability to meet the purpose andneed for the project which itself is defined as improving traffic flow on I-5. Section S.2describes the project "purpose and need" as:

"… To maintain or improve the existing and future traffic operations in the I-5 north coast corridor in order to improve the safe and efficient regional movement

of people and goods for the design year of 2030."

Section S.2 then describes the Project "objectives" (which one must assume are thesame as "purpose and need") as:

"The objectives of the project are to:Maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over the existing levelsof service; Maintain or improve travel times within the corridor; Provide a facility that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other mobile options; Provideconsistency with the regional transportation plan, San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) where feasible and in

compliance with Federal and state regulations;Maintain the facility as an effective link in the National Strategic Highway Network; and Protect and enhance the human and natural environment along the I-5 corridor."

The draft EIR/EIS then identifies the four build alternatives listed below for adding lanesto I-5 as meeting this definition of need, purpose and objectives:

1. 10 plus four with barrier 2. 10 plus four with buffer 3. Eight plus four with buffer

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




4. Eight plus four with barrier

It is noted that alternatives considered in an EIR or EIS must be "feasible" to comprise

the required "reasonable range of alternatives". "Feasible" under CEQA is defined as:

"15364. FEASIBLE“Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within

a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal,social, and technological factors."

While, generally, economic data and analyses are not required under CEQA, economicsdo come into play when determining whether an alternative or a mitigation measure is"feasible." Because the Draft EIR/EIS presents no economic analysis as to the fundingsources or as to the economic feasibility of any of the four build alternatives, a reader

cannot determine if any of these alternatives is in fact "feasible" within the meaning of the law. It is submitted that sufficient economic information about each alternativeneeds to be presented so that a determination of "feasibility" can be made. How muchwould each alternative cost, how would it be funded, are the funding sources secured,would there be debt service and how much and how would it be paid, and is thereadequate funding to implement the identified mitigation measures for the life of theproject?

The draft EIR/EIS also briefly addresses the required "no build" alternative as a fifthalternative. And, the draft EIR/EIS reviews a number of alternatives that wereconsidered and rejected (see, section 2.5.1 listing rejected build alternatives). All of

these rejected alternatives were also freeway expansion alternatives. The reader is leftwith the unmistakable impression that no serious consideration was given toalternatives other than freeway expansion.

By defining the "purpose, need, and objectives" too narrowly, the draft EIR/EISartificially constrains the range of alternatives considered. The purpose, need, andobjectives of the project should be to identify and implement the most cost effective andenvironmentally benign strategies for efficiently moving people and goods in the northcoastal San Diego area without a presumption that freeway expansion is the beststrategy. Currently, this north coastal area is served by a single track (proposed to bedouble tracked) rail line, surface streets with local and regional bus service, the I-5

freeway, and an interconnected array of local and regional streets, roads, bike paths,and freeways that connect with I-5. There is also the potential for a north coast trolleyextension.

Because the alternative finally selected for project implementation will likely cost severalbillion dollars to carry out, a consequence of project selection will be that a long-termsocietal commitment to that strategy will have been made that will be difficult to change.Is a freeway expansion project adding lanes to I-5 the best way to meet the projectgoals? Would pursuit of mass transit options be better – such as a new north coasttrolley extension beyond UTC/UCSD or a multi-modal transit system? Wouldaugmenting passenger and freight rail service meet the Project goals in whole or in

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




part? How about the options for reducing truck traffic on I-5? How about expanded busservice? How about all of the above?

Instead of addressing these most basic issues, the draft EIR/EIS assumes thatexpansion of the I-5 freeway is the goal and that, as such, only those alternatives thatinvolve variations of freeway expansion need be considered.1 The problem thuscreated is that the range of alternatives is artificially constrained and there is nodocumentation in the EIR for comparing the four freeway expansion alternatives to theother non-freeway expansion alternatives which should be at the crux of the decision-making process.

5. THE “NO BUILD” ALTERNATIVE IS DISMISSED PREMATURELY.

The "no build" alternative assumes that congestion on I-5 will continue to worsen. At

Section 2.2.4, the EIR states:

"With the No-Build Alternative, traffic would continue to increase, which would cause longer delays and further congestion. The No-Build Alternative would not improve access for bikes and pedestrians. The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project’s Purpose and Need ."

The "no-build" alternative assumes that some interchange projects and other ancillaryprojects will proceed (see, list at section 2.2.4) but does not address whether or not railprojects, the north coast trolley, enhanced bus service, a multi-modal system, a trucktraffic management program, bicycle and pedestrian projects, or any other non-freeway

lane expansion projects for moving people and goods could be feasible alternatives inwhole or in part to the proposed freeway widening options. If funds are reallocated tosome or all of these other options it may well be that the "no-build" alternative is anacceptable alternative.It may well be that one or more or a combination of these other strategies could movepeople and goods better than any of the four proposed freeway expansion plans, andthat these alternatives might do so at less cost and with less environmental damage.The draft EIR/EIS should provide the data and analysis to allow this judgment to bemade, but unfortunately, it does not.

1 The draft EIR/EIS does reference existing rail facilities in the north coast area. There is no analysis, however, with

the draft EIR/EIS once again jumping to an unsupported conclusion. It is stated at section 1.3.3:

" Rail. The Los Angeles to San Diego Rail (LOSSAN) is a north-south corridor that parallels I-5. The Amtrak

Surfliner provides daily passenger service along the LOSSAN corridor while North County Transit District (NCTD)

provides commuter service (known as the Coaster) within San Diego County. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway (BNSF) transport goods for interstate, intrastate and international commerce. Improvements are proposed to the LOSSAN corridor (Final Program EIR/EIS 2007); however, even with the proposed improvements, capacity

would not be sufficient to address anticipated travel demand along the I-5 corridor in 2030. See, also, section 1.3.6

where the LOSSAN corridor is described. The discussion is brief, and focused on the question of how the proposed

freeway widening will not impact on LOSSAN rail corridor proposed projects. What is not discussed is the keyquestion of whether or not expansion of rail facilities could serve as an alternative to the freeway widening.

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

678

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17




The "no-build" alternative should include a discussion of what other transit plans are onthe books and what the impact will be on need and demand as they are built out. Thiswould include a discussion of existing planned rail, bus, multi-modal, etc., plans as well

as the freeway projects that the draft EIR/EIS states will continue even under the no-project scenario. This is the background against which a “no-build" alternative shouldbe evaluated.

Beyond that, an alternative should be presented and considered that would reallocatefunds from the proposed freeway widening project to these other transit managementstrategies that would allow for significant augmentation of the existing rail, bus, trolley,bicycle, and multi-modal plans for the corridor, taking them well beyond the existingplans. If the billions of dollars proposed to be spent to add lanes to I-5 were reallocatedto these other forms of transit, how much of the long-term need could be met? Wouldthis approach be more cost effective? Would it be environmentally superior? Could a

smaller I-5 widening project, a limited build alternative be considered? One searches invain in this draft EIR/EIS for the answers to these questions.

Section 2.2.3 of the EIR does briefly address Transportation System Management(TSM), Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives. Inpart it accurately states:

"Promoting mass transit, and facilitating non-motorized alternative means of transportation are two such examples, but TDM strategies may also includereducing the need for travel altogether through initiatives such as telecommuting.In some cases, TDM may also involve changing work schedules, with the

resultant greater travel flexibility producing a more even pattern of transportationnetwork use, muting the effect of morning and evening rush hours."

What is lacking, however, is any analysis of these alternative strategies and any attemptto quantify what they might contribute to meeting long-term transit needs and, thereby,what they might contribute in terms of lessening the need for widening I - 5. Instead of an analysis, the draft EIR/EIS gives a description and then jumps to the unsupportedconclusion:

“ Although TSM measures alone could not satisfy the purpose and need of the project, TSM measures have been incorporated into the Build Alternatives for

this project.”

At section 1.5, the draft EIR/EIS describes the existing Corridor System ManagementPlan as well as the Public Works Plan and the Federal Corridor of the Future Plan. Allof these plans, to varying degrees, are described as efforts to coordinate overall transitplanning in the corridor. What is lacking, however, is any discussion of how theproposed project fits in with these other planning efforts. Again, mere descriptioncannot substitute for analysis.

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

45




Apparently, there may have been some effort to address these issues a decade ago. Atsection 2.1, the draft EIR/EIS states that the proposed project was developed by a multidisciplinary team and goes on to state:

"This included the goal to provide the full range of transportation modal alternatives that are cost-effective, promote and provide incentives for ridesharing and alternative modes, accommodate regional and interregional freight movements, minimize environmental and community impacts. Thesealternatives were discussed and subsequently eliminated or identified for further consideration in the Project Study Report/ Project Development Support (PSR/ PDS) dated January 2000."

The PSR (PDS) from January 2000 is not contained in the current draft EIR/EIS nor is itsummarized. Did this decade-old study in fact evaluate the various alternatives and

conclude that freeway widening was best? Has the study been updated? Does it needto be updated? Having dismissed any further discussion of a multi disciplinary andmulti-modal approach after referencing this decade-old study, the draft EIR/EIS thenimmediately jumps to presenting a range of alternatives, all of which are limited toadding lanes to the freeway. 6. IMPACTS TO THE SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON AND RIVER CORRIDOR HAVE

NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.

A major restoration of the San Dieguito Lagoon ($80 million+ restoring 150 acres of functioning wetlands along with associated transition and uplands) is nearly complete.

This project preserves and enhances magnificent views of the lagoon to the west andthe extended valley to the east now enjoyed by drivers on I-5. And, the I-5 freeway isitself in the scenic views enjoyed from public and private view spots around the SanDieguito River Valley. The project, as described in the EIR/EIS, raises the followingquestions: 1) How is widening a freeway through the middle of the restoration areaconsistent with this area and what will the impacts be with respect to noise, light and air quality? 2) More specifically, how would the existing lagoon views be affected by newbarriers on and the widening of the freeway? 3) What impacts would increased exhaustfumes, including ultra-fine particles have on the waterway, air quality, fish and other wildlife? 4) How would increased noise levels affect hikers on paths below? While thedraft EIR/EIS includes some analysis of the potential noise impacts of the project on

humans, there is virtually no analysis or consideration of potential noise (and lighting)impacts on the wildlife that nests, burrows, hunts and procreates in the San DieguitoLagoon area.

Does the draft EIR/EIS adequately predict the effects of channeling the freeway withsolid sound walls that replace wide swaths of landscaping that soften noise? Why is nomoney provided to maintain any sound walls that might be built? How can sound wallsbe considered to be long-term mitigation through 2030 if there is no money for their maintenance and repair? The draft EIR/EIS should include consideration of other sound attenuation materials and methodologies. The City cites, as one example of an

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546




alternative methodology, the “Snow-shed” type of curved sound attenuation walls beingused in highway projects in Europe and Asia.

Was any effort made to handle truck traffic differently? Much of the congestion andslowdown on I-5 and subsequent noise and air pollution comes from trucks laboring upthe steeper grades and trying to pass other trucks on those steeper grades.

On this issue of noise impacts, the City requests that the analysis be based on astandard of 60 DBA (decibels through “A” filter) used by many jurisdictions as being theupper limit of acceptable noise impacts, rather than the 67 DBA standard applied under NEPA for acceptable noise limits.

The City also requests that the Project be designed to accommodate the possibility of afuture pedestrian access trail along the south side of the San Dieguito River.

7. IMPACTS ON LOCAL FEEDER ROADS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.

Why are potential impacts to traffic on roads near the freeway not analyzed anddescribed as they were for other freeway projects, for example, the I-5 southboundauxiliary lane, proposed in 1990 and now built between Via de la Valle and Del Mar Heights road? In the case of that project, a trip study was required to assess thepotential impacts of the increase in traffic on that segment of the freeway on nearbyroads, along with appropriate mitigation.

In the case of the subject North Coast Corridor Project, the vast majority of drivers

entering or leaving Del Mar use three roads, each of which has an interchangeintersection with Interstate 5. These three roads are: Via de la Valle, Del Mar HeightsRoad and Carmel Valley Road. Portions of each of these roads extend into Del Mar’sCity limits. Any increase in cars entering and exiting a widened freeway willundoubtedly add to the congestion that already exists within Del Mar. This scenariowarrants and requires a traffic analysis trip study. If the study shows that the proposedproject will adversely impact, directly or indirectly, the levels of service (LOS) on DelMar’s surface streets (as it undoubtedly would), mitigation for those impacts should beincorporated into the Project and associated EIR/EIS. This is especially true for JimmyDurante Boulevard, which feeds onto Via de la Valle directly to the west of itsinterchange with I-5.

Similarly, because Camino del Mar (Highway 101), is the only continuous parallelvehicular travel corridor to I-5, it is subject to horrendous congestion when I-5 fails tofunction. This raises the question: Why didn’t Caltrans analyze impacts to the 101corridor and provide alternatives related to access at each intersection to improve easeof access from the streets that intersect that corridor? The failure of nearby Interstate 5interchanges to function, such as at Genesee, and the delays due to ramp meters,result in drivers rerouting to the Highway 101 corridor. This has a tremendous impacton all the communities that parallel I-5 north of the 805/I-5 merge, especially the firstcommunity north of that intersection, the City of Del Mar. The draft EIR/EIS isinadequate in that it does not include either an analysis of the traffic impacts of the

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




proposed project alternatives, or improvements for intersections on traffic flows onCamino del Mar/Highway101. The EIR/EIS should include such an analysis of thisissue and should identify improvements to guard this local street system from impacts

related to any of the project alternatives included in the EIR/EIS.

As a more general comment on the Project, there does not appear to be anycoordination between the proposed Direct Access Ramps (DARs) and access to park-and-ride facilities, rail facilities, or other transit hubs. How does Caltrans envision thatrail, bus, park-and-ride and other transit users would access the DARs? For example,how would a Coaster rider get onto the bus rapid transit proposed for the freeway?How would a commuter parking in an existing park-and-ride facility access proposedfreeway public transit options? The most salient example of this disconnect is the park-and-ride facility proposed east of the Manchester Avenue interchange in Encinitas.While that site may offer abundant land for parking, it is currently isolated from mass

transit opportunities. As a result, its installation would likely result in more trafficimpacts on the local feeder roads in that community.

8. THE DRAFT EIR FAILS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY FORBENEFICIAL USE, FAILS TO QUANTIFY THE EFFECTS OF ADDITIONALTRAFFIC POLLUTION ON STORM WATER RUNOFF, AND FAILS TOADEQUATELY ADDRESS AEROSOL DEPOSITION.

The project will have adverse impacts on the hydrology and water quality of the SanDieguito and Penasquitos Lagoons in the Del Mar area, as well as wetlands further north and south [Los Penasquitos] in the project.

The most significant impacts will be the massive increase of impervious surface area;increase in pollution due to additional traffic; and associated storm water runoff (draftEIR/EIS Section 3.10 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff). Long-term negativeimpacts include the increase in pollution and loss of natural lands resulting from newdevelopment due to the added capacity of the I-5 freeway. According to Section3.10.2.5, the build options would increase Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) duringrainy season from storm water runoff, and during dry season from aerosol depositiononto surface water.

The increase in pollution has the potential to degrade the beneficial use of these

lagoons and nearby beaches, including fishing, swimming, snorkeling, diving, andsurfing. In addition, beneficial uses of the Inland Surface Waters (Section 3.10.2), whichinclude water that supports habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival andsuccessful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federallaw as rare, threatened or endangered, may be degraded. Least Tern nesting sites mayalso be degraded by increased pollution as a result of the interstate widening.Additionally, the draft EIR/EIS fails to recognize the importance of the San DieguitoLagoon River Park, which is an area of biological significance. Areas of biologicalsignificance are defined as areas that:

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




“Include uses of water that support designated areas or habitats, such asestablished refuges, parks, sanctuaries, ecological reserves, or Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), where the preservation or enhancement of

natural resources requires special protection.”

Protection of these areas is not adequately addressed in the draft EIR/EIS but certainlyshould be. The Project should also be analyzed for its conformance with the mostcurrent regulations applied by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

9. THE MANAGEMENT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLYADDRESSED.

Truck traffic on I-5 contributes disproportionately to congestion. Trucks are slow andcumbersome in entering and exiting the freeway, they impede the free flow of traffic in

their lanes, disrupt traffic when changing lanes, and they generally slow and impedetraffic, as they are large and slow. Moreover, heavy truck traffic has adisproportionately adverse impact on roadway surfaces and maintenance and, it ispresumed, on the cost of construction to accommodate their weight. Truck accidentsinvolving the sound walls proposed in the Project would likely have significantly worseimpacts than those of cars, resulting in increased demands for maintenance and repair of the implemented project. The City notes that the project description does notaddress maintenance and repair activities, or the required funding therefore.

Accordingly, the draft EIR/EIS should include a discussion of the management of trucktraffic. That discussion should include answers to the following questions:

(1) How much freight traffic currently handled, and projected to be handled,on I-5 could be relocated to rail traffic? Would it be less expensive to expandrail facilities to handle more freight, thereby removing trucks from thefreeway? Could the existing rail line running east from San Diego to theBorrego area be repaired and put in service, with a new rail line up to the SanBernadino/LA area that could take truck traffic off the I-5 and which could takefreight traffic off the coastal rail corridor, thereby increasing rail freight serviceoverall and increasing the potential for passenger rail service along the coast,all of which might significantly reduce the demand for freeway widening?(2) How much would the environmental impacts of the proposed project,

including reductions in air pollution, noise, visual impacts, costs of construction, cost of maintenance, and other impacts be reduced by areduction in truck travel on the freeway?(3) Has an alternative been considered for providing separate truck travellanes ways to separate truck traffic from automobile traffic?(4) Has the implementation of demand management strategies applicable totruck traffic been considered to remove truck traffic from peak flow timeperiods into off-peak hours, thereby reducing congestion and potentiallyreducing the scope of needed freeway expansion?

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

45




10. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OVERLOOKS SEVERALSIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

CEQA requires that EIRs analyze the direct, indirect, and "cumulative" impacts of aproposed action (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15355, 15358). Cumulative impacts are definedas "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerableor . . . compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.Stated another way, "a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as aresult of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projectscausing related impacts." CEQA Guidelines, § 15130( a)(l). The cumulative impact fromseveral projects is the change in the environment that results from the incrementalimpact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable or probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individuallyminor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. The draft

EIR/EIS does not comply with the CEQA requirement to identify reasonably foreseeableimpacts on other existing or planned projects in the area. Instead, Section 3.25.2 of thedraft EIR/EIS simply states:

"No additional projects were identified with potential environmental justiceimpacts or community cohesion impacts within the community affected by the

proposed project, therefore the project could not contribute to cumulative effects ."

The City believes that the projects listed below will potentially affect "communitycohesion" within Del Mar and the broader community affected by the Project and thattheir cumulative impacts, together with those of the I-5 widening project, should be

addressed:

(1) The double tracking of the LOSSAN corridor. The existing single track railline separates the bulk of North County’s population from the beach and coastline,disrupts community cohesion, and is a significant barrier to coastal access. Doubletracking, which the I-5 widening draft EIR/EIS assumes will occur, will divide thecommunity even more significantly making it more difficult, and more dangerous, toaccess the coast at the same time that the proposed I-5 widening project will bringincreasing traffic to the inland side of the rail lines along with an increasing demandfor coastal access.

(2) Extension of a North Coast Trolley. MTB is proposing a north coast trolleyextension to UCSD and to the UTC areas. Extension of the trolley line to Del Mar and areas further north should not only be considered under a discussion of alternatives, but should also be considered cumulatively with the proposed I-5widening in terms of the impacts to community cohesion, including a discussion of potential alignments and their impact on the communities they traverse.

(3) Relocation of the existing rail line. The City of Del Mar is on record in favor of removing the existing rail line from the bluffs in Del Mar. Several alternativealignments, including alternative alignments for tunnels under Del Mar, have beenconsidered. The cumulative impacts of a relocation of the rail line, taken together

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




with the impacts of the Interstate-5 widening project, should be addressed. There isno realistic long-term viability to maintaining the rail line in its existing location on theeroding coastal bluff, certainly not in a manner consistent with beach access,

modern coastal preservation policies and practices, and with the California CoastalAct.

(4) The 22nd District Agricultural Association's (22nd District’s) 2008 Master Plan. In the fall of 2009 the 22nd District released its own DEIR on its proposed2008 Master Plan. This Master Plan calls for approximately one million square feetof construction, roughly half of which is new and half rebuilding of existing facilities.Access to the fairgrounds from I-5 is an important issue in evaluating the Master Plan, and the draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 widening should address the Master Plan as aproject with potential cumulative impacts. It is noted that the planning horizon for the2008 Master Plan is shorter than the planning horizon for the I-5 widening, making

interaction of the two projects virtually inevitable.

The impact of the activities conducted at the Fairgrounds on Del Mar’s roadways isenormous. They are most pronounced at the Via de la Valle interchange and on thefeeder roads to that interchange: Via de la Valle and Jimmy Durante Boulevard.These roadways, and the Via de la Valle interchange itself, operate at a Level of Service (LOS) F when events occur at the Fairgrounds - and the number of eventsbeing conducted at the Fairgrounds seems to increase each year. The draft EIR/EISdoes not address the tremendous traffic volumes that are already generated byevents at the Fairgrounds let alone the increase in events that would beaccommodated by development of the 22nd District’s proposed 2008 Master Plan.

The draft EIR/EIS also does not address the failing LOS of the interchange and itsfeeder roadways. Nor does it address the fact that the Project will worsen, rather than improve, that LOS. Additionally, the draft EIR/EIS does not address thepresent and future needs for mass transit opportunities to the Fairgrounds, thisdespite the fact that SANDAG’s Transportation Plan includes Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) on the I-5 corridor. Yet the proposed Project does not accommodate BRTfrom the freeway to the Fairgrounds site (see also comment below on a DirectAccess ramp to the Fairgrounds site).

(5) A Direct Access Ramp (DAR) from I-5 to the Fairgrounds. Caltrans has in itsfiles preliminary drawings for a DAR from I-5 to the fairgrounds. Such a DAR is

discussed in Caltrans' comments on the 22nd District's DEIR on its 2008 Master Plan. The DAR should be discussed and analyzed in the I-5 draft EIR/EIS as apotential project component, but with an analysis that is broad enough to alsoaddress the potential impacts that the DAR itself might have on wetlands, local trafficcirculation, air quality and aesthetics.

(6) The rebuilding of Flower Hill. The Flower Hill Shopping Center located just tothe east of I-5 off Via De La Valle is scheduled for a major reconstruction andexpansion, including the addition of a major supermarket. This project should beconsidered for its cumulative impacts with the proposed I-5 widening project.

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




(7) Widening of Via de La Valle. The widening of Via De La Valle east of the I-5 isproposed. The interaction of this project with the proposed freeway widening andthe cumulative impacts thereof should be addressed.

(8) Intensified Development in the Del Mar Heights Road Area. There is a greatdeal of office and mixed-use construction planned and being implemented in thevicinity of Del Mar Heights Road east of the freeway, including the planned KilroyProject. The potential impacts of this development should be included in the DRAFTEIR/EIS.

The draft EIR/EIS Figure 3.25.1 lists only the Riverview Office project as a Del Mar project having a potential cumulative impact with the proposed I-5 widening. Thisproject is listed, but there is no discussion in the brief, one-paragraph, discussion of cumulative impacts at section 3.25. It should also be noted that this project is not

currently moving forward.

It is respectfully submitted that all eight of the above-listed projects should be includedin a cumulative impact analysis addressing the Del Mar area. And, Caltrans shouldmake a good faith effort to estimate the other impacts and projects likely to occur between now and the 2030 Project horizon, as it is known that the region will continueto grow and build out. It is hoped that Caltrans would also address similar cumulativeimpact issues throughout the rest of the project area and that the cumulative impact of all of these would be addressed from an overall perspective

11. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES

CEQA requires a public agency, such as Caltrans, to analyze the extent to which theproposed project’s primary and secondary effects will commit non-renewable resourcesto uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse. See PublicResources Code § 21100, CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126, 15126.2 and 15127. Page S-4of the draft EIR/EIS, part of the summary to the EIR, addresses "Significant IrreversibleEnvironmental Changes" that are projected to occur as a result of projectimplementation. However, this section does not address the most important irreversiblechange: the long-term consequences of committing society to automobiles and trucksand to a freeway-dominated transit system as opposed to the pursuit of alternativemodes of transportation such as freight and passenger rail, a north coast trolley, a multi-

modal system, expanded bicycle system or any of the other approaches for movingpeople and goods that do not rely primarily on freeway expansion. As a relatedcomment, the draft EIR/EIS does not contain an adequate analysis of the Project withrespect to legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Senate Bill 375 andAssembly Bill 32).

With regard to emissions, the City also poses the question: have the potential impactsfrom “ultra small” particles been included in the analysis? Also, does the analysis takeinto consideration the fact that many of the vehicles traveling in this stretch of SanDiego County have been fueled in Mexico, where different fuel-safety standards apply?

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

3940

41

4243

44

4546

47




12. FINDINGS

Both CEQA and NEPA require that findings be made with respect to key decisions

made in the environmental review process, including but not limited to findings as to thefeasibility of alternatives, findings as to the feasibility of proposed mitigation measures,and findings needed to approve any project. In addition, if it is proposed to moveforward with a project that, even after mitigation, would result in significant adverseimpacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and appropriate findings are alsorequired.

The City asks why no draft findings are presented and when such drafts will beprepared and made available for public review and comment. It is impossible for thepublic to intelligently evaluate the decision-making process on this important projectwithout access, in a timely manner, to such draft findings.

13. CONCLUSION

The draft EIR/EIS predicts that after 30 years of freeway widening to I-5 as it traversesthe north coast area, and after spending billions of dollars, the service level on thefreeway will not be better than it is today. The issue of how we, as a society, decide onour transportation future and how we allocate our resources to implement atransportation system are key to every aspect of economic prosperity and quality of lifefor the future of our region. Widening I-5 as proposed will commit us to a car/truck andfreeway-dominated future at the expense of rail, bus, trolley, multi-modal and other alternative transportation options. This draft EIR/EIS does not adequately address nor

does it encourage public discussion and dialogue about why such a commitment tofreeways should be made. The document, in our view, will not be adequate until itincludes such a discussion and addresses these and other issues raised in our comments. Since the revisions will be major and important, the document should be re-circulated for additional review and comment.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Richard Earnest, Mayor City of Del Mar

cc:

12

3

45

1

2

3

45

67

8

910

11

1213

14

151617

18

1920

21

2223

24

25

2627

28

2930

31

3233

34

35

36

3738

del mar comment

Documents