1

1 City of Del Mar

2
3
4
5
6November 8, 2010
7Ms. Shay Lynn Harrison
8Environmental Analysis Branch Chief
9CA Department of Transportation, District 11
10Division of Environmental Analysis
11MS 242
124050 Taylor Street
13San Diego, CA 92110
14
15
16Re: Comments on the Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Draft
17 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
18
19
20Dear Ms. Harrison,
21
22This letter contains comments from the City of Del Mar (“City”) on the draft
23Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Interstate 5 North
24Coast Corridor Project (the Project) released to the public on July 10, 2010 by the
25California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the U.S Department of
26Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
27
28In preparing this comment letter, the Del Mar City Council conducted a number of public
29meetings to involve a broad spectrum of the public. Many persons, agencies and
30groups attended these meetings and provided detailed and expert comments that are
31incorporated into this letter. The City Council also relied on a number of other sources
32to help in the review and preparation of these comments. They are listed below.
33
34 1. The staff of the City’s Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments,
35 along with the City Attorney’s office.
36
37 2. An ad-hoc citizens’ advisory committee, composed of Del Mar
38 residents appointed by the City Council to assist in the review and
39 comment on the North Coast Corridor project and the associated
40 environmental documents. Many of the Committee members have
41 professional training and expertise related to issues addressed in the
42 draft EIR/EIS. The Ad-Hoc Committee meetings were attended by
43 representatives of a number of interested entities who also provided
44 comments to the Ad-Hoc Committee on the DEIR.
45
461. OVERVIEW OF CITY’S COMMENTS
47
2
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 2 of 18
4
5
1The City appreciates the opportunity to respond to the draft EIR/EIS document. The
2draft document raises many questions about the purpose and potential effectiveness of
3the entire Project as a truly comprehensive public transportation improvement
4endeavor. The Project also raises specific concerns about the segment that runs just
5east of the City’s boundaries in the area between the freeway interchanges at Route 56
6and Via de la Valle, particularly in the area of the San Dieguito River Valley.
7
8Although the Interstate 5 right-of-way and the Project limits, as defined in the EIR/EIS
9document, are located just outside of Del Mar’s city limits, the I-5 corridor is a constant
10presence. It links us with other cities in the region and its presence is seen and heard
11throughout much of the community. Additionally, the proposed Project would have
12impacts on the local Del Mar circulation system. All of these factors give the City a
13stake in how the Project would be designed and implemented. We have a responsibility
14as part of the San Diego County community to be sure I-5 remains a positive factor and
15not a negative one in the region.
16
17The comments on the following pages contain the City’s overall questions and concerns
18about the Project itself and about the associated draft EIR/EIS document. The City
19requests that Caltrans and the other agencies responsible for the document respond to
20all comments and questions contained in the body of this letter pursuant to the
21requirements of CEQA and NEPA.
22
23Please note that the bulk of references in this letter regarding the requirements for
24compliance with environmental review reference the California Environmental Quality
25Act (CEQA). However, the document should also comply with the corresponding
26provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as applicable.
27
282. THE DEIR/EIS FAILS TO ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S MAIN PURPOSE
29
30The City poses the question: Is the goal of the Project to move cars and trucks or to
31move people and goods? We believe the basic goal of Caltrans, the U.S Department
32of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration is to provide both road and
33mass transportation options for the people of this State; yet we see in this Project a
34huge allocation of funds for roads and very little for rail, bus, bicycle, multi-modal or
35other alternative transportation service. This “car bias” perspective commits current and
36future generations to car and truck-driven options to the exclusion of alternative
37transportation strategies. It appears that this allocation of resources has been pursued
38without any real discussion in the draft EIR/EIS about why this policy choice was made
39and why it is preferable.
40
41While the draft EIR/EIS acknowledges the existence of the LOSSAN (rail) plans and
42assumes double tracking of rail lines along the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor
43(LOSSAN) and along the North San Diego Coastal region will occur, the freeway
44widening plan and its draft EIR/EIS do not address how the two plans will be integrated.
45Does the plan fit into the Corridor System Management Plan and San Diego Association
46of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) 2030 Regional Transportation Plan? Contrary to the
47assertions in the draft EIR/EIS, the proposed four widening alternatives fail to offer the
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 3 of 18
4
5
1best solution for existing and future rapid transit needs of the I-5 corridor population.
2(See Purpose and Need chapter, p. S-1).
3It is understood that some of these issues will be addressed with the associated Public
4Works Plan, but the Project nonetheless, as identified in the draft EIR/EIS, is limited to
5freeway expansion and the adequacy of the draft EIR/EIS must be judged by its own
6contents.
7
8The road-building described in the draft EIR/EIS is a thirty-year plan to be built in
9stages. This raises the question: Is this a program EIR? Although the document is
10represented as a project EIR/EIS, the Project itself is far too big and proposed over too
11long a timeframe to really fit that category. With its many components, it would seem
12more appropriately characterized as a program EIR/EIS.
13
14The document also raises these questions: 1) Will there be an opportunity for design
15changes once a draft plan is approved? and 2) Where are the details of each phase
16spelled out? Much of the information in the draft about the surrounding environment is
17already outdated or not taken into account at all. An example is the 22 nd District
18Agricultural Association Fairgrounds Master Plan that was released in the fall of 2009.
19This planned project would result in major changes at the Via de la Valle Interstate 5
20interchange and yet has not been addressed in the draft EIR/EIS document. The
21proposed freeway widening plan does not appear to contain the flexibility to adapt to
22future needs, including the addition of more railroad, bus, bicycle, and other alternative
23transportation services. Likewise, the draft EIR/EIS does not contain up to date
24information concerning other nearby commercial developments that are already in the
25planning stages and which will have cumulative impacts with the widening project.
26
273. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
28
29CEQA requires an EIR to present an accurate and complete description of the project.
30"An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative
31and legally sufficient EIR." See County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71
32Cal.App.3d 185, 193. Among other things, the project description must include: (1) the
33"precise location and boundaries of the proposed project," (2) a "clear written
34statement" of the project's objectives, including the underlying purpose of the project, as
35well as (3) a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental
36characteristics. CEQA Guidelines, § 15124. As further explained by the California
37Court of Appeal in County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193, a curtailed or distorted
38project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an
39accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance
40the proposal's benefits against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures,
41assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and
42weigh other alternatives in the balance.
43
44The Project description in this draft EIR/EIS suffers the same infirmities as the
45discussion of project need and objectives, i.e., the Project description is limited to
46freeway expansion alternatives without consideration or discussion of options for rail,
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 4 of 18
4
5
1bus, bicycle, multi-modal and other alternative transportation options. The Project is
2described as follows in the very first statement in the summary:
3
4 "The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal
5 Highway Administration (FHWA) propose improvements to maintain or improve
6 the existing and future traffic operations on the existing Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway
7 from La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego to Harbor Drive in Oceanside/Camp
8 Pendleton...".
9
10This Project description eliminates at the start any consideration of non-freeway
11widening options. Interestingly, the draft EIR/EIS does describe how a broader analysis
12might be done extending the inquiry beyond options for freeway widening. The draft
13EIR/EIS summary at page S-1 states:
14
15 "Caltrans has adopted a new approach to improve mobility across California,
16 with an emphasis on productivity, reliability, flexibility, safety, and performance.
17 As defined under a formal budgetary process, as part of the Corridor Mobility
18 Improvement Account (CMIA) Program, the California Transportation
19 Commission (CTC) requires all CMIA corridors develop a (CSMP). The purpose
20 of a corridor system management plan (CSMP) is to provide one unified concept
21 for managing, operating, improving, and preserving a corridor across all modes
22 and jurisdictions for highest productivity...This concept integrates and
23 coordinates all travel modes in the corridor including highways, parallel and
24 connecting roadways, public transit and bikeways for multimodal analysis to
25 focuses (sic) on how transit, local roadways, highways, pedestrian routes and
26 land use work together as a system. The CSMP also provides the basis for
27 prioritizing improvements, resources, demand profile, related land use
28 developments, modal interactions, and the environment. The larger purpose of a
29 corridor management plan is to focus all transportation efforts of all jurisdictions
30 on effective and efficient usage of all facilities in the corridor. The plan is a tool
31 for effective management and a guide for implementation of system
32 management and performance measurement. This plan integrates operational
33 analysis with more traditional."
34
35Unfortunately, the draft EIR/EIS does not follow up and analyze the options under this
36multi-disciplinary approach. Rather, it describes the proposed Project narrowly as a
37freeway widening project and limits its review of options to four strategies for adding
38lanes to the freeway.
39
404. THE DRAFT EIR/EIS FAILS TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE/SUFFICIENT
41 ALTERNATIVES.
42
43CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project
44under review, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the basic
45objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant
46effects of the project. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6. The discussion of alternatives
47should provide sufficient information to the public to enable it to understand, evaluate
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 5 of 18
4
5
1and respond to the lead agency’s conclusions, which requires facts and analysis, not
2simply conclusions. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of the
3University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-406.
4The range of alternatives that must be considered depends upon the objectives of a
5particular project. Therefore, where a project’s objectives are unclear or improper, an
6EIR cannot adequately consider project alternatives because there is nothing against
7which to measure the alternative.
8
9NEPA likewise requires a rigorous analysis of alternatives. The U.S. DOT Federal
10Highway Administration website, referring to the Council on Environmental Quality
11(CEQ) Regulations governing NEPA implementation states the following with regard to
12how alternatives are to be evaluated with respect to transportation projects like the
13proposed I-5 widening:
14
15 "The identification, consideration, and analysis of alternatives are key to the
16 NEPA process and goal of objective decision-making. Consideration of
17 alternatives leads to a solution that satisfies the transportation need and protects
18 environmental and community resources. The Council on Environmental Quality
19 (CEQ) refers to the alternatives analysis section as the "heart of the EIS," and
20 requires agencies to:
21
22a. Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and
23for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the
24reasons for their having been eliminated.
25b. Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including
26the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
27c. Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
28d. Include the alternative of no action.
29e. Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more
30exists, in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement
31unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.
32f. Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed
33action or alternatives."
34
35There are some differences in the standards of CEQA and NEPA with regard to the
36alternatives analysis that are important. For example, under NEPA all alternatives must
37be evaluated with equal weight, while under CEQA the proposed project may be given
38greater analysis. Under NEPA: "During the draft EIS stage all reasonable alternatives,
39or the reasonable range of alternatives, should be considered and discussed at a
40comparable level of detail to avoid any indication of a bias towards a particular
41alternative(s)." ibid. Further guidance on handling alternatives under NEPA is cited
42below:
43
44 "Alternatives analysis should clearly indicate why and how the particular
45 range of project alternatives was developed, including what kind of public and
46 agency input was used. In addition, alternatives analysis should explain why and
47 how alternatives were eliminated from consideration. It must be made clear what
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 6 of 18
4
5
1 criteria were used to eliminate alternatives, at what point in the process the
2 alternatives were removed, who was involved in establishing the criteria for
3 assessing alternatives, and the measures for assessing the alternatives'
4 effectiveness.
5
6 In preparing NEPA documents, project sponsors should be candid about the
7 rationale for generating, evaluating, and eliminating alternatives. Being as
8 specific as possible is important. If an alternative is eliminated from further
9 consideration because it "does not meet the purpose and need," we must
10 adequately explain how or why this alternative doesn't meet the purpose and
11 need." ibid.
12
13The Alternatives Section of this draft EIR/EIS, Section 2, states only the following in an
14apparent attempt to comply with these guidelines:
15
16 "This section describes the proposed action and the design alternatives that
17 were developed by a multidisciplinary team to achieve the project purpose and
18 need while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. The design
19 alternatives were identified in the MIS that was conducted through the North
20 Coast Transportation Study and refined with input from the PDT, the NEPA/404
21 MOU integration process, and public scoping information. This included the goal
22 to provide the full range of transportation modal alternatives that are cost-
23 effective, promote and provide incentives for ridesharing and alternative modes,
24 accommodate regional and interregional freight movements, minimize
25 environmental and community impacts. These alternatives were discussed and
26 subsequently eliminated or identified for further consideration in the PSR (PDS)
27 dated January 2000."
28
29 " The project alternatives were assessed for ability to meet the objectives of
30 the purpose and need established for the project, with consideration to avoid and
31 minimize impacts on the environment, local streets, and communities adjacent to
32 the project, while adhering to Caltrans design and safety standards."
33
34However, the document does not disclose who was on the interdisciplinary team, what
35criteria were used to evaluate and select the chosen alternatives or what criteria were
36used to eliminate other alternatives. Likewise, it is not disclosed what criteria were
37used, or who did the analysis, to "assess [the alternatives] for ability to meet the
38purpose and need established for the project," all of which are required by the
39guidelines.
40
41With regard to alternatives that were rejected, there is a separate discussion at Section
422.5 that states "Over the last twenty years, various formal and informal studies have
43been conducted to identify long-range highway improvements to various portions of I-5
44within the project area." This very general statement is followed by a reference to the
45titles of some of these studies. It is then noted that year 2030 traffic projections were
46used to evaluate the alternatives and that a number of alternate build options were
47eliminated:
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 7 of 18
4
5
1
2 "The following freeway alternatives were rejected due to their inability to
3 provide adequate highway capacity to meet the year 2020 travel demands within
4 the project limits. Therefore, it is anticipated that that these alternatives would not
5 maintain or improve traffic levels of service in the year 2030."
6
7The alternative of pursuing non-freeway dominated alternatives such as augmented rail,
8bus, bicycle, multi-modal and other alternative transportation options is not identified or
9discussed. It is not even listed as an alternative considered and rejected. A read of the
10draft EIR/EIS reveals that perhaps the most critical consideration of alternatives
11apparently did not occur, i.e., any consideration of non-freeway centric options.
12Likewise, there are no data in the document that would allow one to evaluate how non-
13freeway options might compare to the four freeway "build" options that the draft EIR/EIS
14does address. The draft EIR/EIS's assumption that some configuration of a freeway
15widening will occur and its limitation of the range of alternatives to widening without
16addressing or explaining why non-freeway alternatives are infeasible is contra to CEQA
17and NEPA guidelines.
18
19The draft EIR/EIS focuses almost exclusively on build options for widening I-5. The
20DEIR states that the alternatives were assessed for their ability to meet the purpose and
21need for the project which itself is defined as improving traffic flow on I-5. Section S.2
22describes the project "purpose and need" as:
23
24 "… To maintain or improve the existing and future traffic operations in the I-5
25 north coast corridor in order to improve the safe and efficient regional movement
26 of people and goods for the design year of 2030."
27
28Section S.2 then describes the Project "objectives" (which one must assume are the
29same as "purpose and need") as:
30
31 "The objectives of the project are to:
32 Maintain or improve future traffic levels of service in 2030 over the existing levels
33 of service; Maintain or improve travel times within the corridor; Provide a facility
34 that is compatible with future bus rapid transit and other mobile options; Provide
35 consistency with the regional transportation plan, San Diego Regional
36 Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (2030 RTP) where feasible and in
37 compliance with Federal and state regulations;
38 Maintain the facility as an effective link in the National Strategic Highway
39 Network; and
40 Protect and enhance the human and natural environment along the I-5 corridor."
41
42The draft EIR/EIS then identifies the four build alternatives listed below for adding lanes
43to I-5 as meeting this definition of need, purpose and objectives:
44
45 1. 10 plus four with barrier
46 2. 10 plus four with buffer
47 3. Eight plus four with buffer
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 8 of 18
4
5
1 4. Eight plus four with barrier
2
3It is noted that alternatives considered in an EIR or EIS must be "feasible" to comprise
4the required "reasonable range of alternatives". "Feasible" under CEQA is defined as:
5
6 "15364. FEASIBLE
7 “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
8 a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal,
9 social, and technological factors."
10
11While, generally, economic data and analyses are not required under CEQA, economics
12do come into play when determining whether an alternative or a mitigation measure is
13"feasible." Because the Draft EIR/EIS presents no economic analysis as to the funding
14sources or as to the economic feasibility of any of the four build alternatives, a reader
15cannot determine if any of these alternatives is in fact "feasible" within the meaning of
16the law. It is submitted that sufficient economic information about each alternative
17needs to be presented so that a determination of "feasibility" can be made. How much
18would each alternative cost, how would it be funded, are the funding sources secured,
19would there be debt service and how much and how would it be paid, and is there
20adequate funding to implement the identified mitigation measures for the life of the
21project?
22
23The draft EIR/EIS also briefly addresses the required "no build" alternative as a fifth
24alternative. And, the draft EIR/EIS reviews a number of alternatives that were
25considered and rejected (see, section 2.5.1 listing rejected build alternatives). All of
26these rejected alternatives were also freeway expansion alternatives. The reader is left
27with the unmistakable impression that no serious consideration was given to
28alternatives other than freeway expansion.
29
30By defining the "purpose, need, and objectives" too narrowly, the draft EIR/EIS
31artificially constrains the range of alternatives considered. The purpose, need, and
32objectives of the project should be to identify and implement the most cost effective and
33environmentally benign strategies for efficiently moving people and goods in the north
34coastal San Diego area without a presumption that freeway expansion is the best
35strategy. Currently, this north coastal area is served by a single track (proposed to be
36double tracked) rail line, surface streets with local and regional bus service, the I-5
37freeway, and an interconnected array of local and regional streets, roads, bike paths,
38and freeways that connect with I-5. There is also the potential for a north coast trolley
39extension.
40
41Because the alternative finally selected for project implementation will likely cost several
42billion dollars to carry out, a consequence of project selection will be that a long-term
43societal commitment to that strategy will have been made that will be difficult to change.
44Is a freeway expansion project adding lanes to I-5 the best way to meet the project
45goals? Would pursuit of mass transit options be better – such as a new north coast
46trolley extension beyond UTC/UCSD or a multi-modal transit system? Would
47augmenting passenger and freight rail service meet the Project goals in whole or in
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 9 of 18
4
5
1part? How about the options for reducing truck traffic on I-5? How about expanded bus
2service? How about all of the above?
3
4Instead of addressing these most basic issues, the draft EIR/EIS assumes that
5expansion of the I-5 freeway is the goal and that, as such, only those alternatives that
6involve variations of freeway expansion need be considered.1 The problem thus
7created is that the range of alternatives is artificially constrained and there is no
8documentation in the EIR for comparing the four freeway expansion alternatives to the
9other non-freeway expansion alternatives which should be at the crux of the decision-
10making process.
11
125. THE “NO BUILD” ALTERNATIVE IS DISMISSED PREMATURELY.
13
14The "no build" alternative assumes that congestion on I-5 will continue to worsen. At
15Section 2.2.4, the EIR states:
16
17 "With the No-Build Alternative, traffic would continue to increase, which would
18 cause longer delays and further congestion. The No-Build Alternative would not
19 improve access for bikes and pedestrians. The No-Build Alternative would not
20 meet the project’s Purpose and Need."
21
22The "no-build" alternative assumes that some interchange projects and other ancillary
23projects will proceed (see, list at section 2.2.4) but does not address whether or not rail
24projects, the north coast trolley, enhanced bus service, a multi-modal system, a truck
25traffic management program, bicycle and pedestrian projects, or any other non-freeway
26lane expansion projects for moving people and goods could be feasible alternatives in
27whole or in part to the proposed freeway widening options. If funds are reallocated to
28some or all of these other options it may well be that the "no-build" alternative is an
29acceptable alternative.
30It may well be that one or more or a combination of these other strategies could move
31people and goods better than any of the four proposed freeway expansion plans, and
32that these alternatives might do so at less cost and with less environmental damage.
33The draft EIR/EIS should provide the data and analysis to allow this judgment to be
34made, but unfortunately, it does not.
35

61 The draft EIR/EIS does reference existing rail facilities in the north coast area. There is no analysis, however, with
7the draft EIR/EIS once again jumping to an unsupported conclusion. It is stated at section 1.3.3:
8
9" Rail. The Los Angeles to San Diego Rail (LOSSAN) is a north-south corridor that parallels I-5. The Amtrak
10Surfliner provides daily passenger service along the LOSSAN corridor while North County Transit District (NCTD)
11provides commuter service (known as the Coaster) within San Diego County. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
12Railway (BNSF) transport goods for interstate, intrastate and international commerce. Improvements are proposed
13to the LOSSAN corridor (Final Program EIR/EIS 2007); however, even with the proposed improvements, capacity
14would not be sufficient to address anticipated travel demand along the I-5 corridor in 2030. See, also, section 1.3.6
15where the LOSSAN corridor is described. The discussion is brief, and focused on the question of how the proposed
16freeway widening will not impact on LOSSAN rail corridor proposed projects. What is not discussed is the key
17question of whether or not expansion of rail facilities could serve as an alternative to the freeway widening.
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 10 of 18
4
5
1The "no-build" alternative should include a discussion of what other transit plans are on
2the books and what the impact will be on need and demand as they are built out. This
3would include a discussion of existing planned rail, bus, multi-modal, etc., plans as well
4as the freeway projects that the draft EIR/EIS states will continue even under the no-
5project scenario. This is the background against which a “no-build" alternative should
6be evaluated.
7
8Beyond that, an alternative should be presented and considered that would reallocate
9funds from the proposed freeway widening project to these other transit management
10strategies that would allow for significant augmentation of the existing rail, bus, trolley,
11bicycle, and multi-modal plans for the corridor, taking them well beyond the existing
12plans. If the billions of dollars proposed to be spent to add lanes to I-5 were reallocated
13to these other forms of transit, how much of the long-term need could be met? Would
14this approach be more cost effective? Would it be environmentally superior? Could a
15smaller I-5 widening project, a limited build alternative be considered? One searches in
16vain in this draft EIR/EIS for the answers to these questions.
17
18Section 2.2.3 of the EIR does briefly address Transportation System Management
19(TSM), Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives. In
20part it accurately states:
21
22 "Promoting mass transit, and facilitating non-motorized alternative means of
23 transportation are two such examples, but TDM strategies may also include
24 reducing the need for travel altogether through initiatives such as telecommuting.
25 In some cases, TDM may also involve changing work schedules, with the
26 resultant greater travel flexibility producing a more even pattern of transportation
27 network use, muting the effect of morning and evening rush hours."
28
29What is lacking, however, is any analysis of these alternative strategies and any attempt
30to quantify what they might contribute to meeting long-term transit needs and, thereby,
31what they might contribute in terms of lessening the need for widening I - 5. Instead of
32an analysis, the draft EIR/EIS gives a description and then jumps to the unsupported
33conclusion:
34
35 “Although TSM measures alone could not satisfy the purpose and need of the
36 project, TSM measures have been incorporated into the Build Alternatives for
37 this project.”
38
39At section 1.5, the draft EIR/EIS describes the existing Corridor System Management
40Plan as well as the Public Works Plan and the Federal Corridor of the Future Plan. All
41of these plans, to varying degrees, are described as efforts to coordinate overall transit
42planning in the corridor. What is lacking, however, is any discussion of how the
43proposed project fits in with these other planning efforts. Again, mere description
44cannot substitute for analysis.
45
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 11 of 18
4
5
1Apparently, there may have been some effort to address these issues a decade ago. At
2section 2.1, the draft EIR/EIS states that the proposed project was developed by a multi
3disciplinary team and goes on to state:
4
5 "This included the goal to provide the full range of transportation modal
6 alternatives that are cost-effective, promote and provide incentives for
7 ridesharing and alternative modes, accommodate regional and interregional
8 freight movements, minimize environmental and community impacts. These
9 alternatives were discussed and subsequently eliminated or identified for further
10 consideration in the Project Study Report/ Project Development Support (PSR/
11 PDS) dated January 2000."
12
13The PSR (PDS) from January 2000 is not contained in the current draft EIR/EIS nor is it
14summarized. Did this decade-old study in fact evaluate the various alternatives and
15conclude that freeway widening was best? Has the study been updated? Does it need
16to be updated? Having dismissed any further discussion of a multi disciplinary and
17multi-modal approach after referencing this decade-old study, the draft EIR/EIS then
18immediately jumps to presenting a range of alternatives, all of which are limited to
19adding lanes to the freeway.
20
216. IMPACTS TO THE SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON AND RIVER CORRIDOR HAVE
22 NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
23
24A major restoration of the San Dieguito Lagoon ($80 million+ restoring 150 acres of
25functioning wetlands along with associated transition and uplands) is nearly complete.
26This project preserves and enhances magnificent views of the lagoon to the west and
27the extended valley to the east now enjoyed by drivers on I-5. And, the I-5 freeway is
28itself in the scenic views enjoyed from public and private view spots around the San
29Dieguito River Valley. The project, as described in the EIR/EIS, raises the following
30questions: 1) How is widening a freeway through the middle of the restoration area
31consistent with this area and what will the impacts be with respect to noise, light and air
32quality? 2) More specifically, how would the existing lagoon views be affected by new
33barriers on and the widening of the freeway? 3) What impacts would increased exhaust
34fumes, including ultra-fine particles have on the waterway, air quality, fish and other
35wildlife? 4) How would increased noise levels affect hikers on paths below? While the
36draft EIR/EIS includes some analysis of the potential noise impacts of the project on
37humans, there is virtually no analysis or consideration of potential noise (and lighting)
38impacts on the wildlife that nests, burrows, hunts and procreates in the San Dieguito
39Lagoon area.
40
41Does the draft EIR/EIS adequately predict the effects of channeling the freeway with
42solid sound walls that replace wide swaths of landscaping that soften noise? Why is no
43money provided to maintain any sound walls that might be built? How can sound walls
44be considered to be long-term mitigation through 2030 if there is no money for their
45maintenance and repair? The draft EIR/EIS should include consideration of other
46sound attenuation materials and methodologies. The City cites, as one example of an
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 12 of 18
4
5
1alternative methodology, the “Snow-shed” type of curved sound attenuation walls being
2used in highway projects in Europe and Asia.
3
4Was any effort made to handle truck traffic differently? Much of the congestion and
5slowdown on I-5 and subsequent noise and air pollution comes from trucks laboring up
6the steeper grades and trying to pass other trucks on those steeper grades.
7
8On this issue of noise impacts, the City requests that the analysis be based on a
9standard of 60 DBA (decibels through “A” filter) used by many jurisdictions as being the
10upper limit of acceptable noise impacts, rather than the 67 DBA standard applied under
11NEPA for acceptable noise limits.
12
13The City also requests that the Project be designed to accommodate the possibility of a
14future pedestrian access trail along the south side of the San Dieguito River.
15
167. IMPACTS ON LOCAL FEEDER ROADS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.
17
18Why are potential impacts to traffic on roads near the freeway not analyzed and
19described as they were for other freeway projects, for example, the I-5 southbound
20auxiliary lane, proposed in 1990 and now built between Via de la Valle and Del Mar
21Heights road? In the case of that project, a trip study was required to assess the
22potential impacts of the increase in traffic on that segment of the freeway on nearby
23roads, along with appropriate mitigation.
24
25In the case of the subject North Coast Corridor Project, the vast majority of drivers
26entering or leaving Del Mar use three roads, each of which has an interchange
27intersection with Interstate 5. These three roads are: Via de la Valle, Del Mar Heights
28Road and Carmel Valley Road. Portions of each of these roads extend into Del Mar’s
29City limits. Any increase in cars entering and exiting a widened freeway will
30undoubtedly add to the congestion that already exists within Del Mar. This scenario
31warrants and requires a traffic analysis trip study. If the study shows that the proposed
32project will adversely impact, directly or indirectly, the levels of service (LOS) on Del
33Mar’s surface streets (as it undoubtedly would), mitigation for those impacts should be
34incorporated into the Project and associated EIR/EIS. This is especially true for Jimmy
35Durante Boulevard, which feeds onto Via de la Valle directly to the west of its
36interchange with I-5.
37
38Similarly, because Camino del Mar (Highway 101), is the only continuous parallel
39vehicular travel corridor to I-5, it is subject to horrendous congestion when I-5 fails to
40function. This raises the question: Why didn’t Caltrans analyze impacts to the 101
41corridor and provide alternatives related to access at each intersection to improve ease
42of access from the streets that intersect that corridor? The failure of nearby Interstate 5
43interchanges to function, such as at Genesee, and the delays due to ramp meters,
44result in drivers rerouting to the Highway 101 corridor. This has a tremendous impact
45on all the communities that parallel I-5 north of the 805/I-5 merge, especially the first
46community north of that intersection, the City of Del Mar. The draft EIR/EIS is
47inadequate in that it does not include either an analysis of the traffic impacts of the
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 13 of 18
4
5
1proposed project alternatives, or improvements for intersections on traffic flows on
2Camino del Mar/Highway101. The EIR/EIS should include such an analysis of this
3issue and should identify improvements to guard this local street system from impacts
4related to any of the project alternatives included in the EIR/EIS.
5
6As a more general comment on the Project, there does not appear to be any
7coordination between the proposed Direct Access Ramps (DARs) and access to park-
8and-ride facilities, rail facilities, or other transit hubs. How does Caltrans envision that
9rail, bus, park-and-ride and other transit users would access the DARs? For example,
10how would a Coaster rider get onto the bus rapid transit proposed for the freeway?
11How would a commuter parking in an existing park-and-ride facility access proposed
12freeway public transit options? The most salient example of this disconnect is the park-
13and-ride facility proposed east of the Manchester Avenue interchange in Encinitas.
14While that site may offer abundant land for parking, it is currently isolated from mass
15transit opportunities. As a result, its installation would likely result in more traffic
16impacts on the local feeder roads in that community.
17
188. THE DRAFT EIR FAILS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY FOR
19 BENEFICIAL USE, FAILS TO QUANTIFY THE EFFECTS OF ADDITIONAL
20 TRAFFIC POLLUTION ON STORM WATER RUNOFF, AND FAILS TO
21 ADEQUATELY ADDRESS AEROSOL DEPOSITION.
22
23The project will have adverse impacts on the hydrology and water quality of the San
24Dieguito and Penasquitos Lagoons in the Del Mar area, as well as wetlands further
25north and south [Los Penasquitos] in the project.
26
27The most significant impacts will be the massive increase of impervious surface area;
28increase in pollution due to additional traffic; and associated storm water runoff (draft
29EIR/EIS Section 3.10 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff). Long-term negative
30impacts include the increase in pollution and loss of natural lands resulting from new
31development due to the added capacity of the I-5 freeway. According to Section
323.10.2.5, the build options would increase Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) during
33rainy season from storm water runoff, and during dry season from aerosol deposition
34onto surface water.
35
36The increase in pollution has the potential to degrade the beneficial use of these
37lagoons and nearby beaches, including fishing, swimming, snorkeling, diving, and
38surfing. In addition, beneficial uses of the Inland Surface Waters (Section 3.10.2), which
39include water that supports habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and
40successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal
41law as rare, threatened or endangered, may be degraded. Least Tern nesting sites may
42also be degraded by increased pollution as a result of the interstate widening.
43Additionally, the draft EIR/EIS fails to recognize the importance of the San Dieguito
44Lagoon River Park, which is an area of biological significance. Areas of biological
45significance are defined as areas that:
46
47
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 14 of 18
4
5
1 “Include uses of water that support designated areas or habitats, such as
2 established refuges, parks, sanctuaries, ecological reserves, or Areas of Special
3 Biological Significance (ASBS), where the preservation or enhancement of
4 natural resources requires special protection.”
5
6Protection of these areas is not adequately addressed in the draft EIR/EIS but certainly
7should be. The Project should also be analyzed for its conformance with the most
8current regulations applied by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
9
109. THE MANAGEMENT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY
11 ADDRESSED.
12
13Truck traffic on I-5 contributes disproportionately to congestion. Trucks are slow and
14cumbersome in entering and exiting the freeway, they impede the free flow of traffic in
15their lanes, disrupt traffic when changing lanes, and they generally slow and impede
16traffic, as they are large and slow. Moreover, heavy truck traffic has a
17disproportionately adverse impact on roadway surfaces and maintenance and, it is
18presumed, on the cost of construction to accommodate their weight. Truck accidents
19involving the sound walls proposed in the Project would likely have significantly worse
20impacts than those of cars, resulting in increased demands for maintenance and repair
21of the implemented project. The City notes that the project description does not
22address maintenance and repair activities, or the required funding therefore.
23
24Accordingly, the draft EIR/EIS should include a discussion of the management of truck
25traffic. That discussion should include answers to the following questions:
26
27 (1) How much freight traffic currently handled, and projected to be handled,
28 on I-5 could be relocated to rail traffic? Would it be less expensive to expand
29 rail facilities to handle more freight, thereby removing trucks from the
30 freeway? Could the existing rail line running east from San Diego to the
31 Borrego area be repaired and put in service, with a new rail line up to the San
32 Bernadino/LA area that could take truck traffic off the I-5 and which could take
33 freight traffic off the coastal rail corridor, thereby increasing rail freight service
34 overall and increasing the potential for passenger rail service along the coast,
35 all of which might significantly reduce the demand for freeway widening?
36 (2) How much would the environmental impacts of the proposed project,
37 including reductions in air pollution, noise, visual impacts, costs of
38 construction, cost of maintenance, and other impacts be reduced by a
39 reduction in truck travel on the freeway?
40 (3) Has an alternative been considered for providing separate truck travel
41 lanes ways to separate truck traffic from automobile traffic?
42 (4) Has the implementation of demand management strategies applicable to
43 truck traffic been considered to remove truck traffic from peak flow time
44 periods into off-peak hours, thereby reducing congestion and potentially
45 reducing the scope of needed freeway expansion?
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 15 of 18
4
5
110. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS OVERLOOKS SEVERAL
2 SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS
3
4CEQA requires that EIRs analyze the direct, indirect, and "cumulative" impacts of a
5proposed action (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15355, 15358). Cumulative impacts are defined
6as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable
7or . . . compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.
8Stated another way, "a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a
9result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects
10causing related impacts." CEQA Guidelines, § 15130( a)(l). The cumulative impact from
11several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental
12impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably
13foreseeable or probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
14minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. The draft
15EIR/EIS does not comply with the CEQA requirement to identify reasonably foreseeable
16impacts on other existing or planned projects in the area. Instead, Section 3.25.2 of the
17draft EIR/EIS simply states:
18
19 "No additional projects were identified with potential environmental justice
20 impacts or community cohesion impacts within the community affected by the
21 proposed project, therefore the project could not contribute to cumulative effects."
22
23The City believes that the projects listed below will potentially affect "community
24cohesion" within Del Mar and the broader community affected by the Project and that
25their cumulative impacts, together with those of the I-5 widening project, should be
26addressed:
27
28 (1) The double tracking of the LOSSAN corridor. The existing single track rail
29 line separates the bulk of North County’s population from the beach and coastline,
30 disrupts community cohesion, and is a significant barrier to coastal access. Double
31 tracking, which the I-5 widening draft EIR/EIS assumes will occur, will divide the
32 community even more significantly making it more difficult, and more dangerous, to
33 access the coast at the same time that the proposed I-5 widening project will bring
34 increasing traffic to the inland side of the rail lines along with an increasing demand
35 for coastal access.
36
37 (2) Extension of a North Coast Trolley. MTB is proposing a north coast trolley
38 extension to UCSD and to the UTC areas. Extension of the trolley line to Del Mar
39 and areas further north should not only be considered under a discussion of
40 alternatives, but should also be considered cumulatively with the proposed I-5
41 widening in terms of the impacts to community cohesion, including a discussion of
42 potential alignments and their impact on the communities they traverse.
43
44 (3) Relocation of the existing rail line. The City of Del Mar is on record in favor of
45 removing the existing rail line from the bluffs in Del Mar. Several alternative
46 alignments, including alternative alignments for tunnels under Del Mar, have been
47 considered. The cumulative impacts of a relocation of the rail line, taken together
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 16 of 18
4
5
1 with the impacts of the Interstate-5 widening project, should be addressed. There is
2 no realistic long-term viability to maintaining the rail line in its existing location on the
3 eroding coastal bluff, certainly not in a manner consistent with beach access,
4 modern coastal preservation policies and practices, and with the California Coastal
5 Act.
6
7 (4) The 22nd District Agricultural Association's (22nd District’s) 2008 Master
8 Plan. In the fall of 2009 the 22nd District released its own DEIR on its proposed
9 2008 Master Plan. This Master Plan calls for approximately one million square feet
10 of construction, roughly half of which is new and half rebuilding of existing facilities.
11 Access to the fairgrounds from I-5 is an important issue in evaluating the Master
12 Plan, and the draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 widening should address the Master Plan as a
13 project with potential cumulative impacts. It is noted that the planning horizon for the
14 2008 Master Plan is shorter than the planning horizon for the I-5 widening, making
15 interaction of the two projects virtually inevitable.
16
17 The impact of the activities conducted at the Fairgrounds on Del Mar’s roadways is
18 enormous. They are most pronounced at the Via de la Valle interchange and on the
19 feeder roads to that interchange: Via de la Valle and Jimmy Durante Boulevard.
20 These roadways, and the Via de la Valle interchange itself, operate at a Level of
21 Service (LOS) F when events occur at the Fairgrounds - and the number of events
22 being conducted at the Fairgrounds seems to increase each year. The draft EIR/EIS
23 does not address the tremendous traffic volumes that are already generated by
24 events at the Fairgrounds let alone the increase in events that would be
25 accommodated by development of the 22nd District’s proposed 2008 Master Plan.
26 The draft EIR/EIS also does not address the failing LOS of the interchange and its
27 feeder roadways. Nor does it address the fact that the Project will worsen, rather
28 than improve, that LOS. Additionally, the draft EIR/EIS does not address the
29 present and future needs for mass transit opportunities to the Fairgrounds, this
30 despite the fact that SANDAG’s Transportation Plan includes Bus Rapid Transit
31 (BRT) on the I-5 corridor. Yet the proposed Project does not accommodate BRT
32 from the freeway to the Fairgrounds site (see also comment below on a Direct
33 Access ramp to the Fairgrounds site).
34
35 (5) A Direct Access Ramp (DAR) from I-5 to the Fairgrounds. Caltrans has in its
36 files preliminary drawings for a DAR from I-5 to the fairgrounds. Such a DAR is
37 discussed in Caltrans' comments on the 22nd District's DEIR on its 2008 Master
38 Plan. The DAR should be discussed and analyzed in the I-5 draft EIR/EIS as a
39 potential project component, but with an analysis that is broad enough to also
40 address the potential impacts that the DAR itself might have on wetlands, local traffic
41 circulation, air quality and aesthetics.
42
43 (6) The rebuilding of Flower Hill. The Flower Hill Shopping Center located just to
44 the east of I-5 off Via De La Valle is scheduled for a major reconstruction and
45 expansion, including the addition of a major supermarket. This project should be
46 considered for its cumulative impacts with the proposed I-5 widening project.
47
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 17 of 18
4
5
1 (7) Widening of Via de La Valle. The widening of Via De La Valle east of the I-5 is
2 proposed. The interaction of this project with the proposed freeway widening and
3 the cumulative impacts thereof should be addressed.
4
5 (8) Intensified Development in the Del Mar Heights Road Area. There is a great
6 deal of office and mixed-use construction planned and being implemented in the
7 vicinity of Del Mar Heights Road east of the freeway, including the planned Kilroy
8 Project. The potential impacts of this development should be included in the DRAFT
9 EIR/EIS.
10
11The draft EIR/EIS Figure 3.25.1 lists only the Riverview Office project as a Del Mar
12project having a potential cumulative impact with the proposed I-5 widening. This
13project is listed, but there is no discussion in the brief, one-paragraph, discussion of
14cumulative impacts at section 3.25. It should also be noted that this project is not
15currently moving forward.
16
17It is respectfully submitted that all eight of the above-listed projects should be included
18in a cumulative impact analysis addressing the Del Mar area. And, Caltrans should
19make a good faith effort to estimate the other impacts and projects likely to occur
20between now and the 2030 Project horizon, as it is known that the region will continue
21to grow and build out. It is hoped that Caltrans would also address similar cumulative
22impact issues throughout the rest of the project area and that the cumulative impact of
23all of these would be addressed from an overall perspective
24
2511. IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
26
27CEQA requires a public agency, such as Caltrans, to analyze the extent to which the
28proposed project’s primary and secondary effects will commit non-renewable resources
29to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse. See Public
30Resources Code § 21100, CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126, 15126.2 and 15127. Page S-4
31of the draft EIR/EIS, part of the summary to the EIR, addresses "Significant Irreversible
32Environmental Changes" that are projected to occur as a result of project
33implementation. However, this section does not address the most important irreversible
34change: the long-term consequences of committing society to automobiles and trucks
35and to a freeway-dominated transit system as opposed to the pursuit of alternative
36modes of transportation such as freight and passenger rail, a north coast trolley, a multi-
37modal system, expanded bicycle system or any of the other approaches for moving
38people and goods that do not rely primarily on freeway expansion. As a related
39comment, the draft EIR/EIS does not contain an adequate analysis of the Project with
40respect to legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Senate Bill 375 and
41Assembly Bill 32).
42
43With regard to emissions, the City also poses the question: have the potential impacts
44from “ultra small” particles been included in the analysis? Also, does the analysis take
45into consideration the fact that many of the vehicles traveling in this stretch of San
46Diego County have been fueled in Mexico, where different fuel-safety standards apply?
47
 1City of Del Mar Response to the Draft EIR/EIS for the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project
2November 8, 2010
3Page 18 of 18
4
5
112. FINDINGS
2
3Both CEQA and NEPA require that findings be made with respect to key decisions
4made in the environmental review process, including but not limited to findings as to the
5feasibility of alternatives, findings as to the feasibility of proposed mitigation measures,
6and findings needed to approve any project. In addition, if it is proposed to move
7forward with a project that, even after mitigation, would result in significant adverse
8impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and appropriate findings are also
9required.
10
11The City asks why no draft findings are presented and when such drafts will be
12prepared and made available for public review and comment. It is impossible for the
13public to intelligently evaluate the decision-making process on this important project
14without access, in a timely manner, to such draft findings.
15
1613. CONCLUSION
17
18The draft EIR/EIS predicts that after 30 years of freeway widening to I-5 as it traverses
19the north coast area, and after spending billions of dollars, the service level on the
20freeway will not be better than it is today. The issue of how we, as a society, decide on
21our transportation future and how we allocate our resources to implement a
22transportation system are key to every aspect of economic prosperity and quality of life
23for the future of our region. Widening I-5 as proposed will commit us to a car/truck and
24freeway-dominated future at the expense of rail, bus, trolley, multi-modal and other
25alternative transportation options. This draft EIR/EIS does not adequately address nor
26does it encourage public discussion and dialogue about why such a commitment to
27freeways should be made. The document, in our view, will not be adequate until it
28includes such a discussion and addresses these and other issues raised in our
29comments. Since the revisions will be major and important, the document should be re-
30circulated for additional review and comment.
31
32We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
33
34
35Richard Earnest, Mayor
36City of Del Mar
37
38cc: