Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
February 7, 2022 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Item 7 – Torrey Pines Bridge Consulting Services Contract 1) Does this engineering contract or the methacrylate application on the bridge surface require Coastal Commission approval? No, Coastal Commission approval is not required. The required surface application work is considered maintenance, and should only take a few days.
2) Will council see the final plans, traffic management plans and related, or will all the subsequent action be handled at the staff level? This contract is for Engineering and Construction Inspection services from a specialty firm. We will bring a construction contract back to Council for approval (probably around March/April).
Item 14 – Tewa Court/10th Street Undergrounding Project 1) What takeaways have we learned so far from this "pilot" project? There have been many takeaways learned so far from the Tewa project, such as:
• The process for developing a base map, including topography, existing conditions, and a survey of protected tree species;
• Coordination of details between the three utility companies (e.g. SDG&E, AT&T, Charter);
• Nuances such as a property having its electricity undergrounded but not its phone service or cable;
• Coordination of the design with existing conditions (such as storm drain, which the utility company’s design did not account for requiring a modification of the design);
• Types of questions asked by property owners and developing a template for how to communicate with them about how/where to complete their private lateral undergrounding;
• Need for retaining walls and the process for designing them, including costs for structural engineering and geotechnical analysis of soil; • Process for environmental review and other entitlements, and where to incorporate this step into the overall process to meet SDG&E’s timing requirements;
• Development of agreement templates with utility companies; • The differences between California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20B for electricity and Rule 32.A.2 for telecommunications and what that means for the City’s financial responsibility;
• Timeline for various aspects of the entire process; and 1 February 7, 2022 Items 7 and 14
• Developing a template for the bid package documents.
Staff expects that there will also be lessons learned through the construction process which will be helpful in the planning stage for 1A and X1A and preparing for the construction phase for those two areas.
2) Is it correct to say that the construction cost low bid is about 88% higher than our estimate? If so, is that because our estimates were off, because circumstances have changed, or both?
The May 2021 cost estimate was based on 1,000 linear feet of trenching, but there is actually 1,345 feet of trenching for this project based on the final design. The 1,000-foot estimate was very early in the process.
Based on the details for what the project had to include from the design phase, the estimate of probable cost was $238,000.
Per the City’s consultant, the actual bid prices being so much more than the estimate of probable cost are attributable to factors such as contractors being very busy right now; the project being relatively small, which means potentially less contractor interest in the project and less economy of scale; supply chain issues and inflation significantly driving the cost of labor and materials. 3) What is the fully loaded cost per foot of the Tewa low bid versus our estimate for both the 1,000 feet of overhead line and the 1,345 feet of trenching? Based on the budget estimate shown as part of Attachment H in the agenda packet:
As of 5-17-21,
based on an
Estimate for
Construction
As of 2-1-22,
based on
Low Bid
Construction
Cost
“Fully-Loaded Budget”
Project Budget, including
Pre-Construction and
Construction Phase
$635,216 $959,266
Cost per Linear Foot @
1,000 Linear Feet (LF) $635.22/LF $959.27/LF
Cost per Linear Foot @
1,355 Linear Feet (LF) $472.28/LF $713.21/LF
2 February 7, 2022 Items 7 and 14
4) If we use these per foot costs for 1A and X1A, where are we? Staff has not completed this analysis. Measure Q currently has a balance of over $4 million. Future larger undergrounding projects are forecasted to have greater economy of scale on a per foot basis, so it is difficult to forecast based on the Tewa numbers. Additionally, we now know that the linear feet for trenching will be different than the linear feet of overhead wiring to be removed, and we do not yet know the amount of trenching required for 1A and X1A.
5) If we use these Tewa numbers to project total costs citywide, how do things stack up with regard to Measure Q cash flow and overall project timing? Same answer as #4 above. Staff has not completed this analysis. Measure Q currently has a balance of over $4 million. Future larger undergrounding projects are forecasted to have greater economy of scale on a per foot basis, so it is difficult to forecast based on the Tewa numbers. The Tewa Court/10th Street project is anticipated to be complete in Summer 2022. Based on the schedule provided by staff as part of forming the 1A and X1A districts, construction for those areas is not anticipated to begin until Summer 2023.
6) Does the low bid at $447,000 include the proposed 15% contingency? No, the contingency of 15% is in addition to the $447,000 low bid amount. 3 February 7, 2022 Items 7 and 14
1 From: Richard Bockoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2022 5:30 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Klish Way retaining wall
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear mayor and members of the city Council:
I have lived on Klish way across from the proposed retaining wall for the past 20 years. I walk or drive past the proposed retaining wall several times daily. It’s appearance is of importance to me and I strongly recommend you adopt the plan to use stone veneer.
Thank you for considering the opinion of those of us who will be most affected by your decision Richard Bockoff
--
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Mahatma Gandhi
1 February 7, 2022 Item 14
Red Dot Letter Re. Del Mar City Council Meeting of February 7, 2022 Item #14 “Tewa Court/10th Street Utility Undergrounding District – Award of a Construction Contract…and Authorization of City Manager to Enter Agreements with Utility Companies February 6, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Our neighborhood of 32 residents on Klish, Tewa, Highland and 10th Streets which include all property owners of the 21 parcels included in the Tewa Court/10th Street Utility Undergrounding District, is looking forward to the imminent start of the construction phase of this neighborhood demonstration undergrounding project.
We are all very pleased to see that the City has met its planned project schedule with construction to start later this month and fully support the staff recommendation to award a construction contract and enter into agreements with utility companies. On our side, we have obtained bids from electricians and trenching companies, selected those to perform the undergrounding of private laterals and the upgrading of electrical panels as required by SDG&E, and committed the funds for the work to be performed once the construction of the Underground Support Structure is completed, as directed by the City in early April.
With this undergrounding project about to break ground, we are very happy to see the start of Citywide Utility Undergrounding to finally fulfill our community goals under Proposition Q. In just a few months, over 1000 feet of overheard electrical lines and 10 poles will be removed, significantly reducing our community risk of wildfire spread from our heavily vegetated neighborhood on the hills.
With this undergrounding demonstration project to be followed by Areas 1A and X1A, we thank you for diligently moving forward undergrounding in our city!
Respectfully,
John and Alana McNulty, 1035 Klish
Marla Painter and Mark Rudd, 1019 Klish
Richard and Sharon Bockoff, 1010 Klish KLISH residents
Jennifer and Jeff Friedman, 963 Klish
Kevin O’Rourke and Allie DeKock, 969 Klish
Frank Altabello and Barbara Czesick, 565 Tewa
Barrett Blake, 551 Tewa
Bettina Experton and Chris Burrow, 540 & 562/564 Tewa TEWA residents Linda Lasher, 528 Tewa
Dan and Jennifer Miller, 505 Tewa
Jane and Steve Voss, 543, 529 & 519/521 Tewa
John and Rene Grevas, 419 10th Street
Ginger Kantor, 510 10th Street
Bronwen Gleeson, 411 10th street
Vladimir and Maria Novakovic, 407 10th street 10th St. & HIGHLAND residents Kim and David Rosen, 940 Highland
Maggie Bradley and Vint Bradburn, 444 10th Street
Stuart Nolan, 420 10th Street
Paul Delgadillo, 427 10th street
1 February 7, 2022 Item 14
1 From: Anne Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 3:30 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Harold Feder ([email protected]); [email protected]; Art Olson ([email protected]); Pat Bone ([email protected]); John Graybill ([email protected]); Dan Quirk; David Druker; Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez
Subject: Red Dot/2/7/22 City Council Meeting, Item 14: Tewa Court Undergrounding Project/Award of Construction Contract
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
February 4, 2022
Mayor Dwight Worden and Members of the City Council
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Dear Mayor Worden and Councilmembers:
We are writing to share our feedback on Item 14, which will be discussed at your February 7, 2022 Council meeting regarding the Tewa Court/10th Street public improvements related to undergrounding. As members of the Ad Hoc Committee that worked for three years to carefully develop Design Guidelines to benefit our City, we would like to express our strong support for the natural stone veneer alternative, which is consistent both with the Design Review Board’s recommendation that the retaining walls be faced with a natural looking material in accordance with Design Guideline C.6.E., and also with section 23.08.035.A.2 of the Design Review Ordinance concerning retaining walls in the public view.
In addition, the natural stone veneer will match the Jimmy Durante/Camino del Mar retaining walls, projects that were thoroughly vetted with local residents. Using this same natural material on all the retaining walls needed for the undergrounding of utilities is both good design practice and money well spent. We should keep in mind that there will eventually be a large number of these retaining walls on our residential streets as undergrounding proceeds, and they will be highly visible.
We appreciate staff’s concern with efficiency and cost, but split-face block is not consistent with the fine architectural and environmental character of Del Mar. We would urge the Council to support the DRB’s recommendation and approve the natural stone veneer facing for all undergrounding retaining walls.
Sincerely,
Harold Feder, Richard Jamison, Anne Farrell, Patricia Bone, John Graybill, Arthur Olson Members of the Ad Hoc Development Review Process Citizen Advisory Committee (2015-2018) 2 February 7, 2022 Item 14
2 3 February 7, 2022 Item 14
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Amanda Lee, Principal Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director DATE: February 7, 2022
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 15: Status Update Regarding the City’s North Commercial/Professional Commercial Zone Amendment LCPA
Item 15 on the February 7, 2022 City Council agenda is a status update and discussion regarding the City’s North Commercial/Professional Commercial Zone Amendment LCPA (NC/PC LCPA), which is scheduled for a public hearing on February 10, 2022 before the California Coastal Commission (CCC). City staff is continuing to coordinate with CCC staff in an effort to reach an understanding regarding CCC’s suggested modifications to the City’s LCPA.
Following distribution of the Council packet, CCC staff indicated they are in full support of the City’s efforts to increase its housing supply and are optimistic that we can continue to narrow the remaining concerns. As indicated in the staff report, CCC’s initial requested sea level rise-related modifications raised concerns because they could unnecessarily create economic constraints and impediments to the creation of affordable housing in the NC zone in conflict with the City’s Housing Element.
CCC staff clarified their main intention is to disclose facts regarding risk in the NC zone associated with flooding and sea level rise to help the public make informed decisions; and indicated their willingness to continue working to try and address these issues prior to the Commission hearing. CCC staff is open to modifying their recommendation if the revised modifications can still maintain their desired level of disclosure.
To facilitate the public discussion on February 7, City staff prepared a redline draft (attached) to help identify a potential path to reach an agreement with CCC at the staff level. For context, the adopted ordinance identifies in Del Mar Municipal Code Section
30.24.030(C) that “Multiple dwelling unit residential up to a density of 20 dwelling units per acre” is an allowed use in the NC zone. CCC staff modification #2 is intended to clarify under what circumstances housing will be allowed, adds requirements for recordation of a notice for disclosure, and adds additional permit conditions of approval. 1 February 7, 2022 Item 15
City Council
Red Dot - Item 15
February 7, 2022
The City Council is asked to consider providing direction on specific revisions for the City to request CCC incorporate into Section 30.24.030(C) as described below:
The addition of Subsections (C)(1) and (2) clarify that proposed projects shall be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program; and that multi-unit housing may not be located on parcels adjacent to the San Dieguito River and Lagoon (consistent with the General Plan limitation that currently applies). These modifications are consistent with how the code would apply and are good clarifying statements for the City to accept. Subsection (C)(3) needs to be revised into a provision that specifies the special considerations CCC intends for permit review as shown in the suggested replacement language. When published in the code, it would provide sufficient disclosure of the types of factors to be considered where applicable to proposed housing in the NC zone, especially when combined with the existing disclosure of hazards in the City’s General Plan Safety Element and real estate disclosure required for property in the Floodplain. CCC’s initial request to state that “no additional subdivisions shall be permitted” is problematic because it is too broadly stated and has associated unintended consequences, which CCC staff clarified was not their intent. Instead, it is recommended that revised Section (C)(3) include, as a consideration for the permit review phase, whether or not the creation of new lots via subdivision map should be limited. It is unclear what is meant by the CCC language in section (4)(a) requiring a development be sited and designed to “ensure safety” from future projected risks.
Instead, the existing LCP code language per the Floodplain Overlay Zone should be used here for consistency. As revised, subsection (4)(a) would require consideration of any adaptation measures that would reduce the projected flood risk (since incorporation of adaptation is not reflected in the sea level rise projections published by the State). As revised, subsection (4)(b) focuses the required property disclosure to more accurately reflect a site’s context and includes CCC’s desired requirement for a waiver of shoreline protection. The factors initially proposed by CCC under subsections ii through iv were not site specific and would create conflict for implementation. They identify prospective issues unrelated to the specific property that they would be required to be recorded against. As revised, there is greater flexibility to tailor future conditions of permit approval as needed to approve a specific development proposal. Subsection (4)(c) requires the permittee acknowledge that development may be required to be removed or relocated in the future, which the City learned is a requirement that can affect the financing of projects because the lending industry does not provide financing for development where it may be required to be removed. The preference is that this condition be deleted. However, if it must be required, then at a minimum it needs sufficient detail to make it clear that the future circumstance for removal or relocation referenced would be done in accordance with the certified LCP and would only be required where the Building Official determines the development is unsafe for occupancy. This type of language is provided in the attached redline.
Attachment: Potential Revisions to CCC Staff’s Suggested Modifications 2 February 7, 2022 Item 15
1 Potential Revisions to CCC Staff’s Suggested Modifications for Consistency III. CCC Staff’s SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS (pages 9-11 of CCC staff report) A. Land Use Plan Modifications
Mod #1. Modify the Land Use Designations/Allowed Uses list of the LUP as follows:
NC Repair shops, Blueprinting, Manufacturing, Restaurants, Art and Technical studios, Offices, Warehouses, Multiple dwelling unit residential residences at a density of up to 20 d.u./acre, Emergency Shelters, Gasoline service stations*, Bars*, Cocktail lounges*, Theatres*, Hotel/Motel*, Vet clinics*, Kennel*, Refuse recycling centers*.
PC Offices; professional, medical, dental; banks and financial institutions (exclusive of drive through); Parking lots; Parking garages, Multiple dwelling unit residences at a density of up to 20 d.u./acre.
B. Implementation Program Modifications
Mod #2. Revise Section 30.24.030(C) referring to “Allowed Uses” in the NC Zone as follows:
(C) Multiple dwelling unit residential up to a density of 20 dwelling units per acre subject to the following:
(C)1. Proposed projects shall be consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program;
(C)2. The density allowance of 20 dwelling units per acre may not be located on parcels adjacent to the San Dieguito River and Lagoon as depicted in [incorporate LCP Exhibit reflecting detail from Exhibit 7 of CCC Staff Report]. (C)3. No additional subdivisions shall be permitted.
(C)(3). During development permit review, the City shall consider the best available science on sea level projections (such as the California State Sea Level Rise Guidance (OPC 2018) and the table for La Jolla in Appendix G of the Coastal Commission’s 2018 Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance), the status of associated adaptation measures (planned and/or implemented), and analysis of how those adaptation measures minimize projected flood risk. This should include consideration of how projected sea level rise and flooding could effect future provision of services to the site; whether the boundary between public land (tidelands) and private land is projected to shift onto the subject property with rising seas; whether the creation of new lots via subdivision map should be limited; and whether additional adaptation strategies should be Commented [AL1]: Minor correction: Change to term
“residential” is needed for consistency.
Commented [AL2]: Minor correction to clarify the
reference to “Exhibit 7” is an exhibit from the CCC staff report that the City can rename as needed for incorporation into the LCP
Commented [AL3]: Subsections (C)(1) and (2) effectively ensure there will be no unmitigated significant impacts to coastal resources or public access, which is consistent with the findings of the PEIRs prepared for the NC/PC LCPA
action and 6th Cycle Housing Element which relies on sites in these zones to meet a portion of its assigned RHNA units for lower income households.
Commented [AL4]: Subsection (3) needs to be revised
into a provision that specifies special considerations for permit review as shown in the suggested replacement
language. As published in the code, this would provide
sufficient disclosure of the types of factors to be considered as applicable to proposed housing in the NC zone.
CCC’s initial proposed limit on subdivisions is too broadly stated with unintended consequences. Further, it does not appear to be necessary since the subdivision action is a discretionary action subject to required findings for
approval per the Subdivision Map Act and certified LCP.
However, it could be revised and incorporated into the
provision that specifies special considerations for permit review.
3 February 7, 2022 Item 15
2 required as a condition of permit approval to address sea level rise and flooding consistent with the Coastal Act and certified LCP.
(C)4. If a proposed multiple dwelling unit project is located on a parcel that falls entirely or partially within the special flood hazard areas identified on the 2019 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and all revisions and subsequent amendments to the FIRM adopted thereto, the following shall apply as a condition of Coastal Development Permit approval:
a. Development shall be sited and designed, including elevation and floodproofing, to ensure safety minimize flood damage and avoid flood hazards including those from the projected impacts of sea level rise and flooding over the anticipated lifetime of the proposed structure using the best available science on sea level projections and in consideration of applicable adaptation measures; and
b. The landowner shall record a notice on the property and notice all occupants that:
i. The development is located in the Floodplain Overlay Zone (2019 FEMA FIRM), which applies to flood prone properties that are subject to periodic inundation due to flooding, including projected sea level rise and as such is located in a hazardous area or an area that may become hazardousin the future; and
ii. Sea level rise and flooding could render it difficult or impossible to provide services to the site;
iii. The boundary between public land (tidelands) and private land may shift with rising seas and the development approval does not permit encroachment onto public trust land;
iv. Additional adaptation strategies may be required in the future to address sea level rise and flooding consistent with the Coastal Act and certified LCP; and ii.v. The permittee property owner and all successors in interest waive any rights under Coastal Act Section 30235 and related LCP policies to hard shoreline armoring to protect the development;.
c. The permittee shall acknowledge as a condition of permit approval that while the approved development meets all safety requirements applicable at the time of approval, the development may be required to be removed or relocated and the site restored in accordance with the certified LCP if the Building Official determines the development becomes unsafe for occupancy due to future sea level rise or flood hazard conditions.
Mod #3. Revise Section 30.24.070(A)(1) as follows:
A. Density: Up to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre
1. All residential development or conversions shall provide affordable housing. pursuant to Chapter
24.21 Mod #4. Revise Section 30.25.070(A)(1) as follows:
A. Density: Up to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre Commented [AL5]: Subsection (3), which applies during
permit review prior to approval of a development, as
revised, would also include content relocated from CCC’s initial proposal for required content in a notice (required to be recorded against a property after permit approval) per subsection 4b. Consideration of the site-specific context should occur prior to permit approval and the conditions of approval should be imposed accordingly.
This revision maintains CCC’s intent in specifying what should be considered prior to approval and avoids a
situation that otherwise would have forced the City to
require a property owner to record general statements that are not applicable to their proposed development or
property, which would likely to result in future legal
challenges at unnecessary risk to the City and State.
Commented [AL6]: Under subsection (4), the language
should be revised to facilitate implementation.
It is unclear what is meant by the CCC language in section (4)(a) requiring a development be sited and designed to “ensure safety” from future projected risks. The existing LCP code language per the Floodplain Overlay Zone should be used here for consistency, including the correct defined term of flood hazard. “Special flood hazard area” is a
defined term that corresponds to specific flood hazards reflected on FEMAs zone FIRM map. In relation to the NC zone it would apply to sites that are mapped on the FIRM as subject to the AE zone. As revised, subsection (4)(a) also should require that site specific consideration of flood risk include consideration of any adaptation measures that
...
Commented [AL7]: CCC’s Initial content related to
projected sea level rise was moved to subsection 3 for
consideration prior to approval, during permit review.
Commented [AL8]: As revised, subsection (4)(b) focuses
the required property disclosure to more accurately reflect the site’s context and includes CCC’s desired requirement for a waiver of shoreline protection.
The factors initially proposed by CCC under subsections ii through iv were not site specific and therefore would create conflict for implementation. They identify prospective
issues unrelated to the specific property that they would be required to be recorded against. It would be problematic for the City to try to require these statements to be
...
Commented [AL9]: Subsection (4)(c) requires the
permittee acknowledge that development may be required
to be removed or relocated in the future, which the City learned is a requirement that can affect the financing of projects because the lending industry does not provide
financing for development where it may be required to be removed. The preference is that this condition be deleted.
However, if it must be required, then at a minimum it needs sufficient detail to make it clear that the future
circumstance for removal or relocation referenced would be done in accordance with the certified LCP and would only be ...
4 February 7, 2022 Item 15
3 1. All residential development or conversions shall provide affordable housing. pursuant to Chapter
24.21 Mod #5. Modify the Zone Designations/Allowed Uses list of the IP as follows:
NC Repair shops, Blueprinting, Manufacturing, Restaurants, Art and Technical studios, Offices, Warehouses, Multiple dwelling unit residences residential at a density of up to 20 d.u./acre, Emergency Shelters, Gasoline service stations*, Bars*, Cocktail lounges*, Theatres*, Hotel/Motel*, Vet clinics*, Kennels*, Refuse recycling centers*.
PC Offices; professional, medical, dental; banks and financial institutions (exclusive of drive through); Parking lots, Parking garages, Multiple dwelling unit residences at a density of up to 20 d.u./acre. 5 February 7, 2022 Item 15