Table of Contents
2022-12-5 Regular Meeting Agenda
Item 1 -CC Study Draft Concepts_Final
Item 2 - Minutes
Item 3 - List of Demands
Item 5 - NV5 Task Order 1 - Beach Colony Ped Imp FINAL
Item 6 - Agreement with CPS HR Consulting for HR Support Services Item 7 - Purchase of LPRs_FINAL PACKET
Item 8 - 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule
Item 9 - TVS21-002 Resolution
Item 10 - EP22-064 De Novo
Item 11 - Housing Legislation
Item 12 - In Person Mtg Transition Plan 12-5-22
2 9
123
130
153
160
174
182
185
195
209
231
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.
Remote Regular Meeting
VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
Monday, December 5, 2022 at 4:30 PM
In the interest of public health, and consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) and related resolutions adopted by the Del Mar City Council, the City of Del Mar is temporarily taking actions to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council Meetings electronically or by teleconference. This is not an in-person meeting.
Public Participation/Comment
Members of the public can participate in the meeting by either submitting a written red dot comment via email to
[email protected] or by speaking live using the Zoom link and/or dial-in information provided below. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting and the subject line of your email should clearly state the agenda item you are commenting on. Those wishing to comment live should join the Zoom meeting when the item(s) they wish to speak on is announced or at the meeting start time for items not on the agenda.
Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014
Phone: (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014
While registration is not required, staff recommends members of the public submit an optional tele-comment request form (www.delmar.ca.us/telecomment) to assist with speaker
management during the meeting. For more information please visit: www.delmar.ca.us/publiccomment.
Viewing the Meeting and Access to Agenda Materials
Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the City’s website at: http://delmar.12milesout.com/Video/Live and on Cable TV Spectrum Ch. 24, AT&T Ch. 99 starting at 4:30 PM.
Agenda materials and communications from the public on agenda items, “Red Dots”, are available on the City’s website: http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter and a hard copy of the agenda materials are available at City Hall and the Del Mar Library during their business hours.
Special Needs: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate remotely in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department via email at [email protected] or by calling (858) 755-9313, preferably at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting if possible.
Dwight Worden
Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Deputy Mayor
Dave Druker
Council Member
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting December 5, 2022
Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public oral communications will take place shortly after the start of the meeting. Those wishing to comment on any matter not on the agenda may join the meeting at 4:30 PM using the Zoom link and dial-in information: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014; Phone: (669) 900-6833; Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014.
V. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VIII. PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of the Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study Initial Concepts
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation (Attachment A) from SANDAG and lead consultant WSP on the initial concepts for the Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study (Attachment B) and provide feedback.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1005-2, 1101-1,1506-1
IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council, staff, or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately.
2. Approval of Minutes: November 14, 2022 Regular Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.
Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book
3. Ratification of List of Demands, dated December 5, 2022 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting December 5, 2022
Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us
4. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4
5. Approval of a Task Order with NV5 Incorporated to Perform Engineering Design Services for the Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements Project Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a $23,484 Task Order (Attachment A) with as-needed engineering consultant NV5 Incorporated (NV5) to perform engineering design services for the Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements Project; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the Task Order.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
6. Approval of an Agreement for As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a professional services agreement with CPS HR Consulting (Attachment A) to provide as-needed human resources (HR) consulting and support services for an initial one (1) year period effective December 5, 2022, and ending December 5, 2023; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
7. Authorization for San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to Purchase and Install License Plate Recognition Cameras on City Traffic Signals Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council:1) Authorize the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to install five (5) Automated License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras on traffic signals in the City using Reckor Systems Inc. (Reckor) equipment; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to reimburse the County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department in the amount of $28,790 for the cameras, licensing, and service fees for three (3) years and for the associated cellular service fees (Attachment A).
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1, 1101-2
8. Approval of the 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule (Attachment A).
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting December 5, 2022
Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5
9. Resolution Memorializing the City Council’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) memorializing the City Council’s action taken at the November 14, 2022, public hearing related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1403-7
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. De Novo of an Appeal of the City Manager’s Decision on Encroachment Permit EP22-064
EP Applicant/Appellant: Steven Crowe
Applicant’s Address: 111 Sea Cliff Way
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying Encroachment Permit EP22-064.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 802-1
XI. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
XII. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
11. Approval of a Letter to State Legislators Regarding Adverse Impacts of State Housing Legislation
Recommended Action: The City Council Housing Liaisons recommend that the City Council approve a letter (Attachment A) to be sent to the City’s State legislative representatives along with the League of California Cities providing feedback and raising concerns about some of the adverse impacts and unintended consequences associated with implementation of recent housingrelated legislation, identify recommendations for corrective actions that should be considered, and requesting cleanup legislation to provide some relief.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 303-1, 401-7
12. In-Person Public Meetings Transition Plan
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Review the proposed plan for transitioning to in-person public meetings and provide direction; Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting December 5, 2022
Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us and 2) Approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $8,500 to the Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) fund for hybrid meeting equipment.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-1, 1104-3
XIII. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.
A. 22nd District Agricultural Association Community Relations Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
B. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Druker/Worden) C. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Druker) D. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Druker/Martinez) E. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Worden/Martinez) F. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Quirk/Gaasterland/Druker) G. Regional Solid Waste Association (Worden/Quirk)
H. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Druker/Quirk)
I. SANDAG Borders Committee (Druker)
J. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (Gaasterland)
K. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group (Worden/Gaasterland) L. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission/JPA (Worden/Quirk/Druker) M. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Worden/Quirk)
N. Other Regional Organization Reports
XIV. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.
A. Ad-Hoc Referendum Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
B. Arts Advisory Committee (Druker/Worden)
C. Clean Water Rate Project (Druker, Quirk)
D. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Quirk)
E. Del Mar Village Association (Druker/Quirk)
F. Finance Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk)
G. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
H. Human Resources Subcommittee (Druker/Worden)
I. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
J. Long-Term Rail Relocation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) K. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Druker/Quirk) L. Parks and Recreation Committee (Druker/Worden)
M. Planning Process Subcommittee (Druker/Gaasterland)
N. Safe Rail Crossing and Bluff Stabilization Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) O. Lagoon Committee (Quirk/Worden)
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting December 5, 2022
Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us P. Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Q. Shores Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
R. Solid Waste Procurement Services Ad-Hoc Subcommittee (Quirk/Worden) S. Sustainability Advisory Committee (DrukerWorden)
T. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Martinez/Worden) U. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk) V. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XV. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.
December 12, 2022
Amendment to Seasonal Salary Schedule (Minimum Wage)
Sustainability Advisory Committee Appointments (Tentative) Approval of the Third Amendments to Reclaimed Water Agreements for Sale of Reclaimed Water Design Review Board Interviews and Appointments (Tentative) Planning Commission Interviews and Appointment (Tentative) Introduce Ordinance/LCPA for Public Facilities/Public Parkland Sites (General Plan Amendment/Rezone/LCPA)
Overview of New Housing Legislation Effective January 1, 2023 Certification of November 2022 General Election Results Swearing In of Newly Elected Councilmembers
Resolution of Appreciation for Outgoing Mayor Worden
Selection of Mayor and Deputy Mayor
XVI. CERTIFICATION
I, Ashley Jones, City Manager for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 30th day of November, 2022, at approximately 6:15 p.m.
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting December 5, 2022
Agenda Page 7
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us ___________________________________________ 11/30/2022
Ashley Jones, City Manager Date
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Presentation of the Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study Initial Concepts
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation (Attachment A) from SANDAG and lead consultant WSP on the initial concepts for the Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study (Attachment B) and provide feedback.
BACKGROUND
In January 2021, the City Council executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and North County Transit District (NCTD) to implement a feasibility study of potential pedestrian access improvements in the coastal railroad corridor along the Del Mar Bluffs.
The Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study (Planning Study) began in June 2021, led by SANDAG and lead consultant WSP in close coordination with the City of Del Mar, NCTD and the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission). The purpose of the study is to assess the opportunities and constraints of potential pedestrian access improvements between Coast Boulevard and Torrey Pines State Beach, a 1.6- mile section of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor situated among the coastal bluffs.
Historically, and presently, people enter railroad property in this area to cross the tracks and/or to walk along the bluffs, which creates safety concerns and risks affecting passenger and freight rail services. Additional safety measures, such as corridor fencing, are planned for installation by NCTD, which necessitates a study of potential pedestrian access improvements to accommodate both lateral and east/west coastal access in a safe and legal manner.
The Draft Planning Study objectively evaluates the opportunities and constraints of a range of potential pedestrian access improvements including lateral trails, rail crossings, 1 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City Council Agenda Report
Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study Presentation December 5, 2022
and beach access points at several possible locations. As the study is in draft form, the project team is not recommending any one solution as the preferred option, but rather presents many concepts to the public for consideration and feedback, including the expected benefits, costs, and potential tradeoffs of each.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Study Overview
The Planning Study (Attachment B) follows a three-phase process and includes: 1) literature review and assessment of existing conditions, 2) initial identification and screening of potential improvements, and 3) development and further evaluation of selected design concepts. The report is organized into five sections:
Section 1 Summarizes the study’s purpose, background, study area, and stakeholder engagement activities.
Section 2 Reviews the study area’s existing conditions and context.
Section 3 Establishes evaluation criteria and screens a wide range of potential access improvements.
Section 4 Describes and evaluates seven (7) selected design concepts including a north-south trail and railroad crossings, with draft conceptual plans and summaries of expected benefits, costs, and potential tradeoffs of each concept.
Section 5 Discusses implementation considerations and next steps.
Stakeholder Engagement
To date, stakeholder engagement has mainly focused on interagency coordination between SANDAG, City of Del Mar, NCTD, and the Coastal Commission to gather information, conduct research, seek clarification on regulatory approvals, and work through the technical aspects of the proposed concept designs. External stakeholder outreach also took place with the City of San Diego, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California State Parks, and the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation to get early input and feedback on potential mobility needs and the initial design concepts.
The project team last briefed the Del Mar City Council about the study on October 4, 2021, and will return on December 5, 2022, to present the initial draft concepts for feedback.
On December 7, 2022, the project team will host a community open house from 6:00 – 8:00 PM at the Del Mar Town Hall to receive comments from the public. The Draft Planning Study will also be available on the SANDAG and City of Del Mar websites for a four (4)-week written comment period beginning on December 5, 2022. Finally, the project team is planning to present the initial concepts to SANDAG’s Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) in January 2023 to receive input on the accessibility features of the potential pedestrian access improvements. 2 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City Council Agenda Report
Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study Presentation December 5, 2022
Mitigation Requirements
To move forward with the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project 5, the fifth and current project in a series of efforts to stabilize the Del Mar bluffs, SANDAG was required to submit a consistency certification to the Coastal Commission for approval. On June 8, 2022, the Coastal Commission approved the consistency certification with conditions.
One of the conditions was a requirement for SANDAG to develop and implement a capital improvement project to complete the planning, design, environmental review, and construction of three projects to provide and improve safe public coastal access and recreation in the project area.
The three projects include: 1) enhancement of the north-south trail system east of the rail track on the top of the bluff between Seagrove Park and 4th Street; 2) construction of a CPUC-approved pedestrian rail crossing near 7th Street or 11th Street; and 3) construction of a beach accessway at or between 7th Street and 11th Streets that does not involve significant grade or alternation of the bluff beyond the work that is to be performed as part of the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project 5. The design of these three coastal access improvement projects will be informed by the Planning Study and stakeholder/public feedback. SANDAG is required to complete the three projects within three years of the beginning of construction on the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project 5 unless an extension is granted.
Relocation of the Railroad
SANDAG is concurrently working on the San Diego Regional Rail Alignment Study, a feasibility study for the long-term relocation of the LOSSAN rail corridor. The study will be completed in 2023 and is evaluating alternative railroad alignments east of the coastal bluffs in Del Mar. Relocation of the railroad is included in SANDAG’s Regional Plan for completion by 2035, and the State of California recently authorized $300 million in funding for the project. SANDAG expects to use the funding to complete the preliminary planning and design and environmental review.
If the pedestrian access improvements proposed in the Planning Study are constructed as mitigation for the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project 5 (as described above) and the railroad is relocated off the bluffs, stakeholder agencies will evaluate the physical conditions of the bluff at that time. This is anticipated to include future decisions about what infrastructure on the bluff may need to be removed in the interest of public health and safety and to return the open space bluffs to a more natural state.
Review of Initial Concepts
As discussed in detail in the Planning Study, the project team screened a wide range of potential pedestrian access improvement concepts across multiple evaluation criteria to determine which concepts to advance to initial design. Those criteria include engineering feasibility, pedestrian connectivity, consistency with existing movement patterns, parking impacts, regulatory feasibility, visual impacts, noise impacts, and cost. The evaluation 3 December 5, 2022 Item 01
City Council Agenda Report
Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study Presentation December 5, 2022
criteria represent a starting point for evaluating the tradeoffs between the proposed concepts and are by no means exhaustive.
In collaboration with the stakeholder agencies included in the project team, the following seven candidate concepts were advanced to conceptual design based on the criteria described above:
1. North-South Trail (east of railroad)
2. At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street with Ramps and Stairs to Beach
3. At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street with Stairs to Beach
4. At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8
th Street with Ramps to Beach
5. At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8
th Street with Stairs to Beach
6. Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Street with Ramps to Beach
7. Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Street with Stairs to Beach
Representatives from SANDAG and lead consultant WSP will provide a detailed briefing on the Planning Study and each of these seven concepts at the December 5, 2022, City Council meeting, and will document any input from the Council or the public. The presentation slides summarizing the Planning Study and initial concept designs are included as Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item is a Tier 1 special project on the City Council’s list of goals and priorities for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment B – Draft Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study 4 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Coastal Connections
Conceptual Planning Study
Del Mar City Council & Community Open House
December 5, 2022
Attachment A 5 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Study purpose & overview
• Initial screening of potential concepts
• Design concepts
• Implementation considerations
• Next steps (in this study & for future project development) Agenda
| 2
Attachment A 6 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Study Purpose & Overview
3 Attachment A 7 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Goal: Evaluate opportunities & constraints of potential pedestrian access improvements in the Del Mar coastal rail corridor • Collaborative study with MOU between SANDAG, Del Mar & NCTD • Funded by Caltrans planning grant
• Approx. 20 months: June 2021 – January 2023
• Concepts identified as mitigation in CCC Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Phase 5 approval
• Conceptual planning only: Selection of specific design elements will depend on a variety of factors to be resolved collaboratively moving forward – including regulatory agency input & public feedback Study Purpose & Overview
| 4
Attachment A 8 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Study Area
Northern Boundary
Coast Boulevard (MP 244.1)
Southern Boundary
North Torrey Pines Road/
Torrey Pines State Beach
(MP 245.7)
| 5
• Coast Boulevard to North Torrey Pines Road/
Torrey Pines State Beach
• 1.6 miles single-tracked
Attachment A 9 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• SANDAG
• City of Del Mar
• NCTD
• California Coastal Commission (CCC)
• Additional meetings with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) • Initiated conversations for regulatory issues including CCC & CPUC Project Development Team (PDT)
| 6
Attachment A 10 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Study Process
Existing Conditions &
Feasibility Assessments
Identification &
Screening of Potential
Improvements
Selection of 7 Draft
Concepts for
Development &
Evaluation
Jul 2021 – Dec 2021 Jan 2022 – Jun 2022 Jul 2022 – Jan 2023 | 7
Attachment A 11 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Initial Screening of
Potential Concepts
8 Attachment A 12 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Initial evaluation of entire corridor
• North–South trails:
– West Side: Continuous facility infeasible
– East Side: Seagrove Park to 4th Street
• Most feasible beach access locations:
– 11th Street/Sea Orbit Lane
– 6
th/7th/8th Streets
– Torrey Pines State Beach area
• Good alignment among several criteria, including engineering, existing movements & consistency with earlier findings including TRAC study Findings from Initial Screening
| 9
Attachment A 13 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• At-grade crossings
• Undercrossings
• Overcrossings
Screening of Railroad Crossing Types
| 10
Attachment A 14 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Requires discretionary approval by CPUC
• Noise impacts from audible warning systems
& train horns
• Safety fencing & signal house
• Advanced for further concept development
Screening of Crossing Types: At-Grade Crossings
| 11
Attachment A 15 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Feasible from engineering
perspective
• More development, walls & grading
than other crossing types
• Reduces noise impacts vs. at-grade
crossings
• Least impact is 10’ x 8’
undercrossing
• Advanced for further concept
development
Screening of Crossing Types: Undercrossings
| 12
Attachment A 16 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Substantial visual impacts
(>30ft above railroad plus >60ft bluff height)
• Larger structural elements than other crossings
• Eliminated in initial screening due
to visual impacts. Focus instead
on at-grade & undercrossings
Screening of Crossing Types: Overcrossings
| 13
Attachment A 17 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Design Concepts
14 Attachment A 18 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Design Concepts Selected for Advancement
Seagrove Park to 4th Street:
• Concept 1: North–south trail (0.8 miles)
11th Street:
• Concept 2: At-grade crossing, ramps & stairs to beach • Concept 3: At-grade crossing, stairs to beach
7 th–8th Streets:
• Concept 4: At-grade crossing, ramps to beach
• Concept 5: At-grade crossing, stairs to beach
• Concept 6: Undercrossing, ramps to beach
• Concept 7: Undercrossing, stairs to beach
| 15
Attachment A 19 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Fully accessible connections to street ends
• Natural stairs: Graded with timber or rock;
follow existing paths of travel
• Stabilized decomposed granite: Accessibilitycompliant surfaces for ramps & paths Notable Concept Features
| 16
Attachment A 20 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• All concepts reviewed to ensure benefits over existing conditions:
– Pedestrian connectivity & coastal access
– New fully accessible paths & view overlooks
– Consistency with existing movement patterns
– Consistency with prior facilities, studies & recommendations – Safety of railroad & bluffs
• Railroad crossings integrated with SANDAG planned seawalls • All footprints within public right-of-way (NCTD & City of Del Mar) • Conceptual planning only: Selection of specific design elements will depend on a variety of factors to be resolved collaboratively moving forward – including regulatory agency input & public feedback Universal Benefits Provided by All Design Concepts
| 17
Attachment A 21 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
Concept 1: North–south trail
• Seagrove Park to 4th St (0.8 miles)
• Fully accessible
• Connections to every street end (no alleys)
| 18
Attachment A 22 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
Seagrove
Park
Retaining wall
(max height 2ft)
Connection to existing
path (public easement)
Also studied option entirely in public
right-of-way (requires 7ft retaining wall)
| 19
Attachment A 23 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
13th St
12th St
Retaining wall
(max height 3ft)
Pedestrian
bridge Pedestrian
bridge
| 20
Attachment A 24 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
11th St 10th St
Elevated walkway over
existing drainage ditch where
space is constrained
| 21
Attachment A 25 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
8 th St drainage
culvert with fill 9
th St view plaza
9th St 8th St
| 22
Attachment A 26 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
9th St
9 th Street View Plaza
| 23
Attachment A 27 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
8 th St
8th Street Drainage Culvert with Fill
| 24
Attachment A 28 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
Elevated walkway over
existing drainage ditch where
space is constrained
7th St 6th St
Path alongside existing
drainage ditch where
space allows
| 25
Attachment A 29 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 1: North–South Trail
4th St
Path alongside existing
drainage ditch
continues to 4th St
| 26
Attachment A 30 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concepts 2 & 3: At-Grade Crossings at 11th Street
Concept 2: At-grade crossing at 11th St, ramps & stairs to beach Concept 3: At-grade crossing at 11th St, stairs to beach • Artificial fill on western bluffs north of 11th St provides ample space for stairs and/or ramps
• Aligns with existing movement patterns
• Integrated with SANDAG planned seawalls
• Noise impacts from audible warning systems and train horns | 27
Attachment A 31 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street,
Stairs to Beach
11th St
Sea
Orbit Ln
| 28
Attachment A 32 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street,
Stairs to Beach
| 29
Natural stairs use existing
informal trail to greatest
degree possible
Attachment A 33 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street,
Ramps & Stairs to Beach
11th St
12th St
Sea
Orbit Ln
| 30
Attachment A 34 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street,
Ramps & Stairs to Beach
| 31
Attachment A 35 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concepts 4 & 5: At-Grade Crossings at 7th–8th
Streets
Concept 4: At-grade crossing at 7th-8
th St, ramps to beach
Concept 5: At-grade crossing at 7th-8
th St, stairs to beach
• Constrained space on western bluffs between 7th & 8th St • Aligns with existing movement patterns
• Integrated with SANDAG planned seawalls
• Noise impacts from audible warning systems and train horns | 32
Attachment A 36 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th–8
th Streets,
Stairs to Beach
7 th St
8 th St
| 33
Attachment A 37 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th–8
th Streets,
Stairs to Beach
Signal house requires
NCTD access & parking
from street end
| 34
Attachment A 38 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 4: At-Grade Crossing at 7th–8
th Streets,
Ramps to Beach
7 th St
8 th St
| 35
Attachment A 39 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th–8
th Streets,
Ramps to Beach
Signal house requires
NCTD access & parking
from street end
| 36
Attachment A 40 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Leveraging Existing Wall to Minimize Bluff Impacts
Existing wall (partially
exposed) provides
structural support
| 37
Attachment A 41 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concepts 6 & 7: Undercrossings at 7th-8th Streets
Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th St, ramps to beach
Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th St, stairs to beach
• Feasible from engineering perspective
• More development, walls & grading than other crossing types • Reduced noise impacts compared to at-grade crossings
• Aligns with existing movement patterns
• Integrated with SANDAG planned seawalls
| 38
Attachment A 42 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Streets,
Stairs to Beach 7
th St
8 th St
| 39
Attachment A 43 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Streets,
Stairs to Beach
Accessible path ramps
down from 7th St to
undercrossing grade
Accessible view
overlook
| 40
Attachment A 44 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Streets,
Ramps to Beach
7 th St
8 th St
| 41
Attachment A 45 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Streets,
Ramps to Beach
Accessible path ramps
down from 7th St to
undercrossing grade
| 42
Attachment A 46 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Implementation Considerations
43 Attachment A 47 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• All concepts require approval from NCTD & City of Del Mar to utilize rights-of-way
• Liability – to be agreed upon by all parties
• Ongoing maintenance – to be agreed upon by all parties Right-of-Way & Maintenance Considerations
| 44
Attachment A 48 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• New at-grade crossings
– Generally prohibited by CPUC General Order 75
– Requires discretionary approval by CPUC
– Recent approval in Santa Barbara County (Santa Claus Lane) could serve as model for Del Mar. Required grade separation study & concurrence of agencies including CCC & railroad
• Safety fencing
– Required near at-grade crossings to control access to railroad & direct pedestrians to at-grade crossings
– Specific extent of fencing to be determined in future phase by stakeholders & regulatory agencies
CPUC Approval Requirements
| 45
Attachment A 49 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• At-grade crossings require:
– Audible warning systems at the crossing
(lights & bells)
– Train horns to be sounded at ¼ mile when
approaching
• Quiet zone:
– Allows wayside horn at crossing instead
of routine sounding of train horns –
lessens (but does not eliminate) noise impacts
– Not strictly required for at-grade crossing approval
– Can be pursued together with at-grade crossing
(adds time & complexity to approval) or after
implementation
Audible Safety Systems for At-Grade Crossings
| 46
Attachment A 50 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• All concepts provide substantial benefits over existing conditions:
– Fully accessible north-south trail
– Fully accessible connections to street ends
– Fully accessible view overlooks at western bluff tops in all railroad crossings • Multiple options for all crossing concepts (e.g. ramps & stairs) • Balance accessibility with minimization of impacts to sensitive bluffs • Project team to visit SANDAG Social Services Technical Advisory Council (SSTAC) in January 2023 for additional input
• Multi-agency collaboration to continue moving forward • Some funding sources may require fully accessible design Accessibility Design Considerations
| 47
Attachment A 51 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Next Steps
48 Attachment A 52 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Next Steps & Ways to Provide Feedback
on This Study
Del Mar City Council Monday, December 5, 4:30 p.m.
Del Mar Civic Center & Online
Community Open House Wednesday, December 7, 6:00–8:00 p.m.
Del Mar Civic Center
Online Comment Period December 5, 2022 – January 31, 2023 KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/CoastalConnections
SANDAG Social Services
Technical Advisory
Council (SSTAC)
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
SANDAG Board Room & Online
Final Study Report February 2023
| 49
Attachment A 53 December 5, 2022 Item 01
• Allocation of funding & grant applications
• Design:
– Final concept selection
– Grade separation study
– Accessibility decisions
• Environmental review
• CCC approval
• CPUC approval of new crossings
• City & NCTD right-of-way approvals,
including maintenance & liability agreements
• Construction
Next Steps Following Coastal Connections Study
Attachment A 54 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Connect with Us:
Website: KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/CoastalConnections
Follow us on social media: @SANDAGregion @SANDAG
Email: [email protected]
Hotline: (858) 549-Rail
Allie DeVaux, Senior Engineer & Study Project Manager
Keith Greer, Manager Environmental Compliance
Tim Pesce, Environmental Planner
Attachment A 55 December 5, 2022 Item 01
Coastal Connections
Conceptual Planning Study
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
CITY OF DEL MAR
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
DRAFT
November 30, 2022
Attachment B 56 December 5, 2022 Item 01
i COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONTENTS
1. STUDY PURPOSE & OVERVIEW....................................................1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 Study Area..................................................................................................................... 2 Stakeholder Engagement............................................................................................... 3
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ........................................5 Physical Conditions........................................................................................................ 7 Community Mobility...................................................................................................... 10 Railroad Operations..................................................................................................... 16 Related Projects in Study Area .................................................................................... 17 Policies & Prior Recommendations for Pedestrian Access & Bluff Preservation........... 19
3. IDENTIFICATION & SCREENING OF POTENTIAL CONCEPTS ..22 Candidate Concepts .................................................................................................... 22 Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................... 23 Intial Screening & Selection of Concepts ..................................................................... 24
4. DESIGN CONCEPTS .....................................................................26 Development of Selected Design Concepts ................................................................. 26 Evaluation of Design Concepts .................................................................................... 26 Concept 1: North-South Trail ....................................................................................... 29 Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Ramps & Stairs to Beach....................... 36 Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Stairs to Beach ...................................... 38 Concept 4: At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8
th Streets, Ramps to Beach ............................... 40 Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th-8
th Streets, Stairs to Beach ................................. 42 Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Streets, Ramps to Beach...................................... 44 Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th-8
th Streets, Stairs to Beach........................................ 46
5. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ...................................................48 Right-of-Way, NCTD Approval, Maintenance & Liability............................................... 48 California Coastal Commission (CCC) Approval .......................................................... 49 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Approval.............................................. 50 Environmental Reviews ............................................................................................... 52 Audible Safety Systems for At-Grade Crossings .......................................................... 52 Accessibility Design ..................................................................................................... 54 Constructability ............................................................................................................ 55 Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 57 APPENDIX A: CCC Staff Reports, Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Projects 4 & 5 APPENDIX B: Study Outreach Plan
APPENDIX C: Initial Screening Matrix of Potential Improvements APPENDIX D: Rough Order-of-Magnitude Cost Estimates
APPENDIX E: Santa Claus Lane At-Grade Crossing Approval Materials APPENDIX F: Montgomery Ave Noise Study Wayside Horn Demonstration Report Attachment B 57 December 5, 2022 Item 01
1 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
1. STUDY PURPOSE & OVERVIEW
This Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study assesses the opportunities and constraints of potential pedestrian access improvements for a 1.6-mile section of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Railroad Corridor in the cities of Del Mar and San Diego.
This study followed the three-phase process shown in Figure 1-1 and described throughout this report, which is organized into five sections:
— Section 1 summarizes the study’s purpose, background, study area, and stakeholder engagement activities.
— Section 2 reviews the study area’s existing conditions and context. — Section 3 establishes evaluation criteria and screens a wide range of potential access improvements.
— Section 4 describes and evaluates seven selected design concepts including a north-south trail and railroad crossings, with draft conceptual plans and summaries of expected benefits, costs, and potential tradeoffs of each concept.
— Section 5 discusses implementation considerations and next steps.
BACKGROUND
Developed jointly by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the City of Del Mar, the North County Transit District (NCTD), and the California Coastal Commission (CCC), this study identifies potential formal pedestrian connectivity improvements in and around the railroad corridor. It was initiated as a condition of the 2019 CCC approval of SANDAG’s Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization 4 project. CCC then approved the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization 5 project in 2022 with mitigation measures including a north-south trail and two pedestrian railroad crossings. Appendix A contains both CCC staff reports, which provide additional details on pedestrian access needs.
Currently, many pedestrians enter railroad property in the study area, both to cross the railroad and to walk along the bluffs. This creates safety concerns for pedestrians and risks impacting passenger and freight rail services. This study seeks to improve public safety, minimize potential conflicts between railroad operations and pedestrian access, and minimize impacts to existing coastal resources including coastal bluffs. As described in Section 2, a related SANDAG study is focused on the long-term relocation of the railroad outside the study area, which would create additional opportunities for pedestrian access.
Literature Review,
Existing Conditions &
Feasibility
Assessments
Identification &
Screening of Potential
Improvements
Selection,
Development &
Evaluation of Draft
Concepts
Figure 1-1: Study Process
Attachment B 58 December 5, 2022 Item 01
2 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
STUDY AREA
Shown in Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3, the study area consists of about 1.6 miles of high coastal bluff along the southwestern edge of the City of Del Mar. It is bounded by two existing roadway crossings that provide both vehicular and pedestrian access:
— Coast Boulevard (Mile Post 244.1): Roadway at-grade crossing near Seagrove Park and Powerhouse Park. Contains a wayside horn as part of a train quiet zone. — North Torrey Pines Road (MP 245.7): Roadway overcrossing near Torrey Pines State Beach and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon.
Figure 1-2: Study Area Map
Attachment B 59 December 5, 2022 Item 01
3 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Appendix Bis the study outreach plan, containing key messages and further details on the activities summarized below. It was developed in collaboration with SANDAG’s Public Information Office.
Project Development Team (PDT)
The core project team consisted of SANDAG and consultants WSP and Villa Civil. To help monitor and guide the core project team, the project also included a Project Development Team (PDT) that met, generally monthly, throughout the entire study. The PDT included staff from SANDAG, the City of Del Mar, NCTD, and CCC.
Additional Stakeholders
The project team also met with the following stakeholder agencies and groups to receive additional input and feedback on potential mobility needs and design concept reviews:
— City of San Diego
— California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
— California State Parks
— Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation
Del Mar City Council
The project team briefed the Del Mar City Council on October 4, 2021 and is planning to return on December 5, 2022 to receive additional input from the City Council and the broader public.
Figure 1-3: Study Area Photo
Attachment B 60 December 5, 2022 Item 01
4 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Community Open House & Public Comment Period
The project team and the City of Del Mar are planning a community open house event on December 7, 2022. An accompanying “virtual” open house will be available online at the SANDAG and City of Del Mar websites for a four-week comment period featuring the same materials presented at the in-person open house.
SANDAG Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) The project team is planning to present to the SSTAC on January 17, 2023, to receive feedback on the accessibility features of the potential conceptual designs.
Attachment B 61 December 5, 2022 Item 01
5 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
ASSESSMENT
The existing conditions assessment is organized into the following sections:
— Physical conditions
— Community mobility
— Railroad operations
— Related projects in study area
— Prior recommendations for pedestrian access and bluff preservation In addition to the maps contained in this report, the project also includes an online basemap showing the features described in this report and recent aerial imagery.
Table 2-1 on the following page lists the key documents consulted by the project team during the literature review and existing conditions analysis.
Table 2-1: Literature Review List
Author Document Year
CCC Staff Report, Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project
5 Consistency Certification (Appendix A)
2022
CCC Staff Report, Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project
4 Consistency Certification (Appendix A)
2019
City of Del Mar/CCC Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan 1993-2022 City of Del Mar/CCC Local Coastal Program Implementing
Ordinances
2001-2022
City of Del Mar/TRAC The Railroad Advisory Committee (TRAC) Study 1995 City of Del Mar Community Plan (General Plan) incl. 2019 Safety Element addressing bluffs & railroad
1976-2021
City of Del Mar Climate Action Plan & 2020 Monitoring Report 2016-2020 City of Del Mar Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan 2018
City of Del Mar Vulnerability & Risk Assessment incl. Addendum 2016-2018 City of Del Mar Landscape Development Guidelines 1988
City of Del Mar Parking Master Plan 2000
City of Del Mar Vision 2020 2003
City of Del Mar Downtown Parking Management Plan 2015
City of Del Mar Design Guidelines 2017
City of Del Mar Complete Streets Policy 2017
City of Del Mar Public Paths and Trails Map 2020
NCTD Trespasser Risk Reduction Study & Conceptual
Fencing Plan (WSP)
2021
Attachment B 62 December 5, 2022 Item 01
6 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Author Document Year
NCTD Geotechnical Review of Proposed Security
Fencing – Del Mar Bluffs (Leighton)
2021
NCTD Right-of-Way Fencing at Del Mar Draft Plans 2021
NCTD Fence & Signage Layout (KTUA) 2021
NCTD Board Policy No. 11: Real Estate 2012-2021
NCTD Board Policy No. 18: Railroad Crossing Quiet
Zones and Wayside Horn Systems
2021-2022
NCTD/SANDAG Design Criteria for the LOSSAN Corridor in San Diego County
2017
SANDAG Del Mar Bluffs Geotechnical Study (Leighton) 2001 SANDAG Geotechnical Design Report for DMB4
(Leighton)
2018
SANDAG Geotechnical Design Report for DMB5
(Leighton)
2020-2021
SANDAG Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization 5 Project Study
Report & 100% Plans
2020-2022
SANDAG Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization 6 Project Study
Report & 30% Plans
2020-2022
SANDAG Infrastructure Development Plan for LOSSAN
Rail Corridor in SD County
2018
SANDAG San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan 2021
SANDAG/Caltrans North Coast Corridor PWP/TREP 2014-2016 LOSSAN Working
Group
Final Report from the LOSSAN San Diego
Regional Rail Corridor Working Group
2021
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage
Reduction Project Integrated Feasibility Study
2012
City of Encinitas Montgomery Avenue Noise Study Wayside Horn Demonstration Acoustic Monitoring Report
(Appendix F)
2017
Attachment B 63 December 5, 2022 Item 01
7 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
As shown in Figure 2-1, the study area is located primarily in the “South Beach” area of the City of Del Mar characterized by tall bluffs along the coast. The railroad right-of-way is a relatively flat, graded area mid-bluff between the western coastal bluffs and the eastern upper bluffs. The area contains a mix of natural bluff landforms and physical infrastructure of varying ages.
Figure 2-1: Study Area Context
Attachment B 64 December 5, 2022 Item 01
8 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Environmental & Geotechnical
The study area’s western coastal bluffs are subject to wave action and experience routine erosion—typically through sudden, episodic events rather than continuously—at an average retreat rate of about 0.4-0.6 feet per year. The surface is underlain by a combination of fill soils and a sequence of sedimentary formational units:
— Bay Point Formation (Quaternary): This upper formation is reddish-brown, weakly indurated, highly erodible, soft sandstone and siltstone with moderate permeability. — Del Mar Formation (Eocene): This lower formation is light gray to olive green, slightly fissile, cemented siltstone and claystone with very low permeability. — Torrey Sandstone Formation (Eocene): Limited exposures along the southern portion of the study area.
Figure 2-2 shows a typical bluff face on which both the Bay Point and Del Mar formations are visible. In general, the Bay Point Formation is potentially more erodible than the Del Mar Formation. However, the Del Mar Formation has greater exposure to adverse wave attack and groundwater seepage.
Fronting the lower western bluffs is beach sand covering a wide, wave-cut platform in the Del Mar and Torrey Sandstone formations. The beach sand rises to an elevation of about +10 feet at the bluff toe. However, dynamic coastal shoreline processes greatly influence beach elevation and width on a seasonal basis. The bluff materials also are subject to weathering and erosional processes.
A more comprehensive description of the site surface conditions, geologic materials and groundwater conditions are available in the 2001 and 2018 geotechnical studies published by SANDAG and developed by Leighton (details in Table 2-1).
Figure 2-2: Bay Point Formation (Reddish) atop Del Mar Formation (Grayish-Green) Attachment B 65 December 5, 2022 Item 01
9 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Landslides & Existing Infrastructure
The bluffs have been altered by a combination of landslides and built infrastructure. These activities have both exacerbated and controlled ground surface erosion as summarized below.
Landslides: Numerous landslides of widely variable sizes are located along the lower bluffs west of the railway tracks. These landslides have mainly been triggered by natural processes, primarily erosional forces from direct high wave attack, precipitation runoff, and groundwater seepage through the bluff face.
Seawalls: Several unstable landslide areas or filled zones along the coastal bluff toe have been mitigated with the use of engineered seawalls of various types, heights, and effectiveness.
Recent railroad-related stabilization projects (see “Related Projects in Study Area” below) have installed heavy-duty galvanized steel soldier beams with drilled-shaft concrete foundations socketed into the competent Del Mar Formation, with pressure-treated wood lagging between the beams (Figure 2-3). Some older seawalls in the study area use reinforced concrete. The seawalls have been backfilled with both conventional compacted fill soils and soil-cement treated materials, with variable performance in these backfill areas.
Drainage: Numerous drilled horizontal drains of varying size and effectiveness have been installed within various landslide masses and just above the horizontally bedded contact of the Bay Point and Del Mar formations. Other relevant site features include networks of surface and subsurface drainage improvements such as stormwater inlets, conveyance pipes, concretelined channels, and discharge outlets at beach level.
Coastal Bluff Stabilization: As described in “Related Projects in Study Area” below, coastal bluff stabilization features include long intermittent series of deep, narrowly spaced, large diameter reinforced concrete drilled shafts along the west side of the railroad, with and without long tieback anchors. Additional, localized retention systems exist throughout the study area.
Figure 2-3: Drainage Infrastructure and Newly Installed Soldier Pile Wall Attachment B 66 December 5, 2022 Item 01
10 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
COMMUNITY MOBILITY
Outside the railroad right-of-way, the bluffs are designated as an open space location that is used by pedestrians for passive recreation and access to the adjacent beach and coastline.
These unique coastal resources are a major attraction for both residents and visitors. Any new coastal access points in the community will attract that demand, drawing from the adjacent coastal access areas shown in Figure 2-1.
This section is organized into the following sub-sections:
— Pedestrian and roadway network
— Bluff usage: north-south movement
— Bluff usage: east-west movement
— Parking
Pedestrian & Roadway Network
As shown in the maps in Figure 1-2 and Figure 2-1, the study area is characterized by a gridlike roadway network east of the railroad corridor, with local roads carrying relatively low traffic volumes west of Camino Del Mar. Most of these local roads lack sidewalks, with pedestrian traffic typically using the sides of the roadways and sharing with low-speed, low-volume vehicular traffic.
The study area is largely comprised of the “South Beach” section of the Del Mar coast, with the railroad corridor and surrounding bluffs presenting greater challenges to coastal access than other nearby beaches. The adjacent coastal areas—"North Beach” and “Main Beach” in Del Mar, and Torrey Pines State Beach in San Diego—are both characterized by relatively low elevations and ample beach access points.
Bluff Usage: North-South Movement
North-south informal pedestrian activity in the study area is characterized by several common behaviors, as described below and mapped in Figure 2-5 through Figure 2-8 on the following pages and in the study’s online basemap.
East of the railroad, popular movement patterns include:
— 11th Street to 10th Street: Concrete drainage channel — 10th Street to 8th Street: Unimproved trail
— 8
th Street to 7th Street: Unimproved trail
— 7
th Street to Sea Cliff Way: Decomposed granite area alongside concrete drainage channel, used by pedestrians as an informal trail (Figure 2-4) — Sea Cliff Way to 4th Street: Unimproved trail alongside concrete drainage channel — 4
th Street to ~700 feet South of 4th Street: Unimproved trail extending to southern bluff edge
West of the railroad, popular movement patterns include:
— Powerhouse Park to ~15th Street: Unimproved trail along bluff edge — ~15th Street to 11th Street: Some pedestrian movement along rail bed — 11th Street to 8
th Street: Unimproved trail along bluff edge
— 8
th Street to 7th Street: Some pedestrian movement along rail bed — 7
th Street to North Torrey Pines Road: Unimproved trail along bluff edge Attachment B 67 December 5, 2022 Item 01
11 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Bluff Usage: East-West Movement
East-west pedestrian activity in the study area is characterized by several common behaviors, as described below and mapped in Figure 2-5 through Figure 2-8 on the following pages and in the study’s interactive online basemap:
— East of Railroad: Numerous streets and alleys end at the railroad right-of-way, providing multiple potential access points for pedestrians attempting to cross the corridor. The most common access points include 11th Street and 8th Street. — West of Railroad: Steep bluffs prevent much east-west movement west of the railroad.
However, over time pedestrians have made informal trails to access the beach near 11th Street, 8th Street/7th Street, and North Torrey Pines Road.
Parking
The study area contains the following parking resources:
— On-Street Parking:
o On-street parking on most public roadways, including all numbered streets ending at the railroad right-of-way
o No parking in alleys, which include all studied locations with “Lane” or “Way” suffixes (Sea Orbit Lane, Melanie Way, etc.)
— Off-Street Parking: The City of Del Mar has identified existing off-street parking areas available to the public at the following locations, mapped in in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6:
o Civic Center: 1-2 blocks from 10th Street and 11th Street o Del Mar Shores Park: 1-2 blocks from 7th Street and 8th Street Figure 2-4: Decomposed Granite Adjacent to Drainage Facility, South of 7th Street Attachment B 68 December 5, 2022 Item 01
12 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 2-5
Attachment B 69 December 5, 2022 Item 01
13 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 2-6
Attachment B 70 December 5, 2022 Item 01
14 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 2-7
Attachment B 71 December 5, 2022 Item 01
15 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 2-8
Attachment B 72 December 5, 2022 Item 01
16 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
RAILROAD OPERATIONS
The LOSSAN corridor is the nation’s second-busiest intercity passenger railroad corridor and is rapidly growing. The study area’s 1.6-mile section is served by the following operators:
— Intercity Passenger Service: Amtrak Pacific Surfliner connecting San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, and San Diego.
— Commuter Rail Passenger Service: NCTD COASTER connecting Oceanside and San Diego (Figure 2-9).
— Freight Service: BNSF and subcontractor Pacific Sun, mostly operating in the overnight hours when passenger services are not running.
The study area’s 1.6-mile section is single-tracked, with maximum authorized speeds of 50 mph (north of MP 244.6) and 80 mph (south of MP 244.6). No double-tracking is planned in this section due to physical constraints. The nearest passenger stations are Solana Beach Station (2.3 miles north) and Sorrento Valley Station (3.5 miles south).
As shown in Table 2-2, the corridor is expected to accommodate a significant increase in passenger trains in the future, with service frequencies improving over time as capacityenhancing capital projects are completed throughout the corridor.
Table 2-2: Passenger Service Frequency (Minutes) in Peak (PK) & Off-Peak (OP) Periods Existing LOSSAN Optimization Study Goals
Service 2022 Near Term Mid Term Long Term
Intercity (Amtrak) 60 PK / 60 OP 60 PK / 60 OP 60 PK / 60 OP 60 PK / 60 OP Commuter (NCTD) 40 PK / 60 OP 20 PK / 60 OP 20 PK / 20 OP 15 PK / 20 OP Source: SANDAG; LOSSAN Rail Corridor Optimization Study (LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, 2021) Figure 2-9: COASTER Train Passing Seagrove Park (NCTD)
Attachment B 73 December 5, 2022 Item 01
17 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
RELATED PROJECTS IN STUDY AREA
The study area is the site of several concurrent multi-agency projects described below:
— SANDAG Del Mar Bluffs (DMB) stabilization projects
— NCTD proposed corridor fencing
— Long-term relocation of railroad
SANDAG Del Mar Bluffs (DMB) Stabilization Projects
This ongoing series of projects led by SANDAG seeks to stabilize the bluffs and protect against erosion. DMB Phase 4 was completed in 2020 and this study was initiated as a condition of the project’s approval by CCC. Additional emergency stabilization work is currently underway south of 4
th Street. DMB Phase 5 has been permitted and is expected to begin construction in 2023, and its mitigation measures approved by CCC include a north-south trail and two pedestrian railroad crossings.
SANDAG is planning to include additional bluff stabilization elements in DMB Phase 6 which is currently in the design stage. To minimize potential conflicts with all planned bluff projects, the concepts developed in this study primarily considered the expected ultimate condition that would result following completion of DMB Phase 6.
East of the railroad, the proposed DMB Phases 5-6 contain the following key elements:
— Seagrove Park to 10
th Street: Drainage channel and intermittent walls
West of the railroad, the proposed DMB Phases 5-6 contain the following key elements:
— Seagrove Park to 11th Street: Soldier pile-anchored seawall below 1.5:1 graded slope — 8
th Street to 7th Street: Soldier pile-anchored seawall; some portions of 1.5:1 graded slope — 4
th Street to ~900 feet North of North Torrey Pines Road: Soldier pile-anchored seawall NCTD Proposed Corridor Fencing
NCTD is proposing to install right-of-way fencing in this section of the corridor to reduce pedestrian trespassing and associated safety incidents. The current proposed plan, dated October 2021, is available on NCTD’s website. The project is currently on hold due to related litigation filed in state court and with the federal Surface Transportation Board.
Long-Term Relocation of Railroad
SANDAG is currently preparing the San Diego Regional Rail Alignment Study, a feasibility study for the long-term relocation of the LOSSAN corridor away from the Del Mar Bluffs. The study is expected to be completed in 2022 and is currently studying the two potential alignments shown in Figure 2-10. Additional portal locations for the proposed alignments will be examined further during the environmental phase of the rail realignment project.
The rail realignment project is included in SANDAG’s Regional Plan for implementation by 2035.
In the state budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the State of California approved $300 million in new funding for the project. SANDAG expects to use the funding to complete preliminary planning and design work and then begin environmental review.
Once the railroad is relocated off the bluffs, stakeholder agencies will assess the study area’s physical conditions and evaluate whether infrastructure on the bluffs may need to be removed to ensure public safety and return the bluffs to a more natural state.
Attachment B 74 December 5, 2022 Item 01
18 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
The City of Del Mar’s analyses of sea level rise, discussed below, recommends participation in regional efforts to relocate and remove railroad operations from the bluffs due to projected effects of sea level rise on the bluffs and existing railroad operations.
Figure 2-10: Alignment Alternatives, San Diego Regional Rail Alignment Study (SANDAG) Attachment B 75 December 5, 2022 Item 01
19 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
POLICIES & PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS & BLUFF PRESERVATION
The study area has been the subject of many prior plans, studies, and projects to improve pedestrian access and preserve the coastal bluffs.
City of Del Mar Community Plan (General Plan)
The City of Del Mar Community Plan, originally adopted in 1976, is the primary policy framework applicable the study area. The document identifies the “south bluff” and adjacent beach as one of five major open space areas in Del Mar and includes a goal to preserve these features intact wherever possible. The plan also contains a policy to preserve open space areas that are too hazardous to justify permanent construction.
Balancing these goals, the Community Plan also recommends improving pedestrian access to coastal resources, including via new crossings at 11th Street and 4th Street:
Bluffs to Beach Access – It is recommended that rights-of-way be obtained and that steps and paved paths be developed down the bluffs to the beach near Seagrove Park, 11th Street, Fourth Street, and on both sides of the mouth of the San Dieguito River.
City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program (LCP)
As mapped in the preceding figures and the study’s online basemap, most of the coastal bluffs are in parcels owned by the City of Del Mar. These areas are covered by Del Mar’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) which has been certified by CCC. The LCP contains policies to preserve and enhance natural resources while also prioritizing increased pedestrian access.
Key policies include guidance to:
— Protect and preserve open space areas.
— Conserve the natural character of land, water, vegetative, and wildlife resources by ensuring future development minimizes the disturbance of existing or natural terrain and vegetation. — Preserve fragile coastal bluffs as a visual resource and avoid risks to life and property associated with bluff failure and shoreline erosion.
Notably, the LCP generally prohibits grading, construction, and shoreline protection activities along coastal bluffs. The shoreline protection currently being constructed along the south bluff was permitted by CCC through a separate federal consistency certification process deemed necessary to protect existing railroad operations along the bluffs. This is discussed further in Section 5.
Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning
The City of Del Mar’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan (2018) identifies a range of adaptation options to help property owners, including the City, to plan to minimize coastal bluff erosion and associated risks to people, property, and coastal resources. The City’s Coastal Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (2016) and Addendum (2018) identified that the south bluff— including existing railroad operations on the bluff—is vulnerable to the effects of projected sea level rise.
Attachment B 76 December 5, 2022 Item 01
20 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
The Railroad Advisory Committee (TRAC) Study
This 1995 study recommended rail corridor crossings at the following locations in the study area, based on a review of multiple criteria including potential environmental impacts, connectivity benefits, historic usage, and the favorability of existing grades:
— 11th Street
— 8
th Street (added by City Council)
— Torrey Pines State Beach
11th Street
City staff noted the existence, in the late 1800s or early 1900s, of a rugged trail to the beach near 11th Street that was navigable by horse-drawn buggy. 10th Street
As shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13 from the San Diego Historical Society, a variety of pedestrian infrastructure has been constructed along the coastal bluffs for over a century, including a wooden trestle overcrossing at 10th Street. Remnants of the trestle crossing are still visible today at the end of 10th Street (Figure 2-13).
Figure 2-11: Historic Coastal Access Facilities (San Diego Historical Society) Attachment B 77 December 5, 2022 Item 01
21 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
—
Figure 2-12: 10th Street Crossing (San Diego Historical Society) Figure 2-13: Existing Remnants of 10th Street Crossing
Attachment B 78 December 5, 2022 Item 01
22 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
3. IDENTIFICATION & SCREENING OF
POTENTIAL CONCEPTS
Following the review of existing conditions, the project team worked with stakeholder agencies to identify and screen potential pedestrian improvements.
CANDIDATE CONCEPTS
The project team conducted extensive literature reviews and outreach to stakeholder agencies to identify a wide range of potential improvements in the study area. The proposed improvements fit into three broad categories: north-south trails, railroad crossings, and the Torrey Pines area.
North-South Trails
An important initial finding was that pedestrian movement in the study area includes not only east-west beach access, but also substantial north-south travel—in which pedestrians use the railroad corridor and adjacent bluffs as north-south accessways parallel to the beach. This finding led the project team to identify and screen potential concepts for north-south trails on both sides of the railroad.
Railroad Crossings
The project team assessed the feasibility of potential east-west railroad crossings at all street ends and alleys in the study area, as well as parts of the southern study area including Anderson Canyon and the vicinity of Torrey Pines State Beach. All potential crossings would include connections from the adjacent street end/alley to the beach.
The assessment of railroad crossings examined potential at-grade crossings, undercrossings, and overcrossings, with key findings summarized below.
— At-Grade Crossings: The CPUC generally prohibits new at-grade railroad crossings per General Order 75-D. However, in several meetings with the project team, CPUC staff indicated that new at-grade crossings could receive discretionary approvals from CPUC on a case-by-case basis, as described in Section 5.
— Undercrossings: The project team found undercrossings may be feasible from an engineering perspective with prefabricated, rectangular concrete box culverts positioned just below the railroad ballast and bedding, similar to nearby crossings at Oceanside Harbor and San Elijo Lagoon. These generally would by supported by the competent Bay Point Formation atop a bed of leveling gravel, using construction methods summarized in Section
5. This process also would pose greater impacts to the bluffs than other types of railroad crossings, potentially creating conflicts with the City of Del Mar Community Plan, described further in Section 2.
— Overcrossings: While the project team found overcrossings may be feasible from an engineering perspective, they would pose substantial visual impacts, with railroad regulations requiring at least 26 feet of vertical clearance. The structural foundations would require heavily reinforced drilled concrete shafts. To minimize the structure height and associated visual impacts, ideal locations for overcrossings would be near 6 th and 7th
Streets, where the railroad is approximately 25-30 feet below the eastern bluffs.
Attachment B 79 December 5, 2022 Item 01
23 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Torrey Pines Area
To ensure a thorough understanding of pedestrian needs south of Del Mar, the project team conducted additional focused meetings with stakeholders representing the southern study area near Torrey Pines State Beach. These meetings included staff from the City of San Diego, California State Parks, and the Los Peñasquitos Lagoon Foundation. Appendix C contains a summary of potential projects in Torrey Pines area.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Table 3-1 describes the evaluation criteria used in the screening of candidate concepts.
Table 3-1: Evaluation Criteria for Initial Screening
Criterion Description
Engineering Feasibility,
Bluffs & Right-of-Way
(West Side)
West of the railroad, preliminary assessment of engineering feasibility; bluff conditions including erosion and sea level rise; potential development impacts from grading, walls, hardscape, and other project features; and the ability of the project footprint to remain within the public right-of-way.
Engineering Feasibility,
Bluffs & Right-of-Way
(East Side)
East of the railroad, preliminary assessment of engineering feasibility; bluff conditions; potential development impacts from grading, walls, hardscape, and other project features; and the ability of the project footprint to remain within the public rightof-way.
Pedestrian Connectivity &
Coastal Access
The degree to which each concept would create connectivity benefits by creating new links and nodes in the pedestrian network, including neighborhood connectivity as well as coastal access.
Consistency with Existing
Movement Patterns
Concepts should reflect and enhance existing movement
patterns to the greatest degree possible within feasibility constraints, as these existing patterns generally reflect the most desired and direct paths of travel.
Consistency with Prior
Facilities, Studies &
Recommendations
Concepts should be informed by the prior facilities, studies, and recommendations for pedestrian access that have been developed in the past (see Section 2).
Parking Impacts All concepts may draw additional visitors, particularly railroad crossings providing fully accessible routes to the beach. The study area contains on-street and off-street parking areas (see Section 2) which are closer to some concepts than others.
Regulatory Feasibility All concepts will require consultation and/or approval from a wide range of regulatory and stakeholder agencies including the City of Del Mar, NCTD, SANDAG, CCC, and CPUC.
Visual Impacts Potential visual impacts include pedestrian paths and associated structures, walls, grading, stairways, ramps, handrails, and shoreline protection. At-grade crossings also include fencing, gates, lights, and signal houses.
Attachment B 80 December 5, 2022 Item 01
24 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Noise Impacts Short-term impacts during construction of all concepts; longterm noise impacts from at-grade crossings, which require audible warning systems at the crossing and are likely to require the routine sounding of train horns (see Section 5); and noise impacts associated with public use of the new
accessways
Planning-Level Cost Preliminary, rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates for each concept in accordance with SANDAG format and assumptions for recent capital projects.
INTIAL SCREENING & SELECTION OF CONCEPTS
The project team screened a wide range of potential concepts across the evaluation criteria described above to determine which concepts to advance to conceptual design. The results of the screening are summarized below. Appendix C contains the full screening matrix.
Advanced to Conceptual Design
In collaboration with stakeholder agencies, the project team selected seven candidate concepts to advance to conceptual design. These seven design concepts are further described and evaluated in Section 4:
— Concept 1: North-South Trail (East Side)
— Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Ramps & Stairs to Beach — Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Stairs to Beach — Concept 4: At-Grade Crossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Ramps to Beach
— Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Stairs to Beach
— Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Ramps to Beach
— Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Stairs to Beach
Not Advanced to Conceptual Design
The initial screening found that the types of potential improvements listed below, while providing benefits, fulfilled fewer evaluation criteria than the seven concepts selected for advancement.
Appendix C contains the full screening matrix and other information on these candidate concepts that were not advanced to conceptual design:
— North-South Trail (West Side): The varying widths and ongoing erosion of the western bluffs prohibit a continuous north-south trail, including some unstable sections that could pose safety concerns.
— Railroad Overcrossings: Any overcrossing concept would pose substantial visual impacts, with a required vertical clearance of 27 feet above the railroad, plus another 6-10 feet to the top of the crossing structure. West of the railroad, pedestrians would need to descend approximately 27 feet from the crossing to reach the bluff top, before descending another 60-65 feet to the beach—a total elevation change of approximately 90 feet that would require substantial switchback-style ramps and/or stairs to traverse. Given these impacts, the project team and stakeholder agencies agreed not to advance overcrossing concepts to conceptual design.
— Railroad Crossings Connecting to Alleys: Alleys are narrower than street ends and generally intended only to serve adjacent residential properties. As such, the project team determined street ends are the preferred connection points for any new railroad crossings.
Attachment B 81 December 5, 2022 Item 01
25 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
— Torrey Pines Area: While stakeholder agencies suggested many beneficial concepts near Torrey Pines (summarized in Appendix C), there was broad agreement among stakeholder agencies that the selected concepts should focus on addressing the more critical mobility and safety issues in the northern study area along the Del Mar bluffs.
Attachment B 82 December 5, 2022 Item 01
26 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
4. DESIGN CONCEPTS
This section describes the development and evaluation of the selected design concepts. It includes a summary of each concept with preliminary plans, cross-sections, cost estimates, and sample 3D renderings.
The design concepts are:
— Concept 1: North-South Trail
— Concept 2: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Ramps & Stairs to Beach — Concept 3: At-Grade Crossing at 11th Street, Stairs to Beach — Concept 4: At-Grade Crossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Ramps to Beach
— Concept 5: At-Grade Crossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Stairs to Beach
— Concept 6: Undercrossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Ramps to Beach
— Concept 7: Undercrossing at 7th
-8
th Streets, Stairs to Beach
DEVELOPMENT OF SELECTED DESIGN CONCEPTS
Upon selection of the seven concepts to advance, the development process began with initial conceptual engineering and planning activities to determine each concept’s potential footprint and geometric requirements. This was an iterative process, supported by workshop-style design meetings with stakeholder agencies and multiple iterations of each concept. The results of this conceptual process are the preliminary plans and cross-sections shown in the following pages.
Upon completion of the initial plans, the project team developed rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates for each design concept. These estimates, summarized in the following pages and detailed in Appendix D, use SANDAG’s standard template and assumptions from similar capital projects.
The final step in the concept development process was development of sample 3D renderings that show what each design concept could look like if constructed. These 3D renderings focus on the western bluffs and were built from SANDAG’s existing 3D model created for the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization project.
EVALUATION OF DESIGN CONCEPTS
Following the development of each design concept, the project team evaluated the concepts to understand their relative benefits and costs.
Universal Benefits Shared by Selected Design Concepts
The seven design concepts that were advanced to conceptual design have the following common project features—which were evaluated as screening criteria during the initial selection of concepts described in Section 3—that will deliver benefits and improvements to existing conditions:
— Pedestrian Connectivity & Coastal Access: All concepts would improve pedestrian connectivity and access to coastal resources compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Section 5, CCC determined that the proposed improvements also would serve as mitigation for the expected impacts of the SANDAG Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization projects. — Consistency with Existing Movement Patterns: All concepts are consistent with existing pedestrian movement patterns, including historic patterns of north-south travel parallel to the Attachment B 83 December 5, 2022 Item 01
27 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
railroad as well as common east-west beach access via unimproved trails near 11th, 8th, and 7 th Streets described in Section 2.
— Consistency with Prior Facilities, Studies & Recommendations: All concepts are broadly consistent with the prior facilities, studies, and recommendations described in Section 2, including historic crossings, the 1995 TRAC study, and 2022 CCC approvals. — Safety: All concepts would improve safety over existing conditions via the addition of legal crossings, accessways, and channelization fencing. All concepts will be designed to meet applicable safety standards, with the specific details to be determined in future phases by many regulatory and stakeholder agencies, as detailed in the implementation discussion in Section 5.
The project team’s evaluation of these additional criteria found no meaningful difference among the seven design concepts:
— Beach/Sand/Tide Conditions: All railroad crossing concepts would be bound on the west side by previously approved seawalls and would provide beach access through planned gaps in those seawalls, posing little or no new impacts to beach areas. To the extent that any crossing concepts would pose impacts, the expected impacts would be substantially similar across all crossing concepts. The north-south trail is east of the railroad and would have no impact to beach conditions.
— Railroad Operations: No long-term impacts to railroad operations are expected from any proposed concepts. For at-grade crossings, trains would have precedence and trigger the activation of pedestrian gates and warning systems when approaching.
Final Evaluation Criteria
Table 4-1 on the following page is an evaluation matrix that summarizes the project team’s evaluation of all seven design concepts. These final evaluation criteria, which were originally introduced in Section 3 during the initial screening process, capture the meaningful differences, benefits, and tradeoffs of the design concepts relative to each other:
— Development impacts: Western bluffs
— Development impacts: Railroad & east side
— Regulatory feasibility: Consistency with coastal & local policies — Regulatory feasibility: CPUC requirements
— Regulatory feasibility: Accessibility design
— Parking impacts
— Visual impacts
— Noise impacts
— Planning-level cost
— Community & stakeholder input
Attachment B 84 December 5, 2022 Item 01
28 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
EVALUATION OF DESIGN CONCEPTS
Table 4-1: Evaluation of Design Concepts
Criterion 1: North-South Trail 2: At-Grade Crossing at
11th St, Ramps & Stairs
3: At-Grade Crossing at
11th St, Stairs
4: At-Grade Crossing at
7 th
-8
th St, Ramps
5: At-Grade Crossing at
7 th
-8
th St, Stairs
6: Undercrossing at
7 th
-8
th St, Ramps
7: Undercrossing at
7 th
-8
th St, Stairs
Development Impacts:
Western Bluffs
N/A Ramps & stairs more
impactful together vs.
either facility alone.
Stairs minimize impacts
vs. ramps.
Ramps impactful vs. stairs. Stairs minimize impacts
vs. ramps.
Major excavation but
shortens beach access
trail vs. at-grade. Ramps
impactful vs. stairs.
Major excavation but
shortens beach access
trail vs. at-grade. Stairs
minimize impacts vs.
ramps.
Development Impacts:
Railroad & East Side
Minor impacts south of 8th
St. More grading & walls
north of 8th St.
At-grade minimizes
impacts. Short, direct
connection to 11th St.
At-grade minimizes
impacts. Short, direct
connection to 11th St.
At-grade minimizes
impacts. Some impacts to
connect to 7th-8
th St.
At-grade minimizes
impacts. Some impacts to
connect to 7th-8
th St.
Undercrossing & eastern
access ramps pose largest
impacts.
Undercrossing & eastern
access ramps pose largest
impacts.
Regulatory Feasibility:
Consistency with
Coastal & Local Policies
Improves community
connectivity. Some
impacts to eastern bluffs.
No impacts to western
bluffs.
Improves coastal access.
At-grade crossing
minimizes development.
Western ramps & stairs
impactful.
Improves coastal access.
At-grade crossing &
western stairs minimize
development.
Improves coastal access.
At-grade crossing
minimizes development.
Western ramps impactful.
Improves coastal access.
At-grade crossing &
western stairs minimize
development.
Improves coastal access.
Substantial development
vs. at-grade crossing.
Improves coastal access.
Substantial development
vs. at-grade. Western
stairs minimize impact vs.
ramps.
Regulatory Feasibility:
CPUC Requirements
CPUC coordination
required.
CPUC must approve new
at-grade crossings.
CPUC must approve new
at-grade crossings.
CPUC must approve new
at-grade crossings.
CPUC must approve new
at-grade crossings.
CPUC coordination
required.
CPUC coordination
required.
Regulatory Feasibility:
Accessibility Design
Meets ADA/CBC
standards.
Meets ADA/CBC
standards.
Meets ADA/CBC
standards from street end
to western bluff top.
Meets ADA/CBC
standards.
Meets ADA/CBC
standards from street end
to western bluff top.
Meets ADA/CBC
standards.
Meets ADA/CBC
standards from street end
to western bluff top.
Parking Impacts Fully accessible path
would attract automobile
trips, with impacts spread
across entire alignment.
Fully accessible ramps to
beach may attract more
automobile trips than
concepts with stairs only.
Stairs to beach may attract
fewer automobile trips
than fully accessible
ramps.
Fully accessible ramps to
beach may attract more
automobile trips than
concepts with stairs only.
Stairs to beach may attract
fewer automobile trips
than fully accessible
ramps.
Fully accessible ramps to
beach may attract more
automobile trips than
concepts with stairs only.
Stairs to beach may attract
fewer automobile trips
than fully accessible
ramps.
Visual Impacts Low impacts south of 8th
St. Some impacts from
grading & walls north of 8th
St.
Short connection to 11th St
minimizes eastern
impacts. Ramps & stairs
impact western bluffs.
Short connection to 11th St
minimizes eastern
impacts. Stairs minimize
impact to western bluffs.
Connections to 7th-8
th St
create eastern impacts.
Ramps impact western
bluffs vs. stairs.
Connections to 7th-8
th St
create eastern impacts.
Stairs minimize impact to
western bluffs.
Undercrossing ramps
impact east side. Beach
access ramps impact
western bluffs, but shorter
than at-grade.
Undercrossing ramps
impact east side. Stairs
minimize impact to
western bluffs vs. ramps &
shorter than at-grade.
Noise Impacts Does not require audible
warning systems or train
horns.
At-grade crossings require
audible warning systems
and/or train horns.
At-grade crossings require
audible warning systems
and/or train horns.
At-grade crossings require
audible warning systems
and/or train horns.
At-grade crossings require
audible warning systems
and/or train horns.
Grade-separated
crossings do not require
audible warning systems
or train horns.
Grade-separated
crossings do not require
audible warning systems
or train horns.
Planning-Level Cost
(See Section 4 &
Appendix D)
$9.6 million $10.2 million $5.7 million $9.2 million $5.7 million $12.8 million $7.0 million Attachment B 85 December 5, 2022 Item 01
29 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 1: NORTH-SOUTH TRAIL
This 0.8-mile trail along the east side of the railroad provides a fully accessible route from Seagrove Park to 4th Street. Notable concept features include:
— Fully Accessible Paths: All paths are designed to be six feet wide, feature ADAcompliant grades, and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface. Some areas, especially north 8 th Street, may require
retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts.
— Accessible Connections to All Street Ends: Fully accessible connections to Seagrove Park and all numbered streets from 13th Street to 4th Street.
These also may include optional connections to the railroad crossings proposed in Concepts 2-7, if implemented together.
— 8
th Street Drainage Culvert with Fill: As shown in the sample rendering in Figure 4-1, a relatively low-impact way to traverse the drainage infrastructure just north of 8
th Street is to place the trail atop parts of the drainage culvert, supported by a wall that is partially covered by fill and landscaping. — 9
th Street Plaza: This optional feature, shown in the sample rendering in Figure 4-2, could be added to street ends such as 9
th Street to provide an
additional amenity for public views.
Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-8 on the following pages are the full conceptual plans. Table 4-2 summarizes the cost estimate for the full trail, and Table 4-3 breaks the estimate into three segments to account for potential phased implementation. The full planning-level cost estimates are in Appendix D.
Table 4-2: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 1 Full (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Cost Category Full Trail:
Seagrove Park to 4th
Street
Construction Contract Estimate $5.1 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $3.7 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $8.8 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.8 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $9.6 million Table 4-3: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 1 by Segment (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Cost Category Segment A:
Seagrove Park to
11th Street
Segment B:
11th Street to 8th
Street
Segment C:
8 th Street to 4th
Street
Construction Contract Estimate $2.3 million $2.0 million $1.6 million Design, Environmental & Support Costs $1.7 million $1.5 million $1.2 million Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $4.0 million $3.5 million $2.8 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.4 million $0.3 million $0.3 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $4.4 million $3.9 million $3.1 million Figure 4-1: Sample Rendering, 8
th Street Drainage Culvert with Fill, Concept 1
Figure 4-2: Sample Rendering, 9
th Street Plaza, Concept 1
Attachment B 86 December 5, 2022 Item 01
30 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-3
Attachment B 87 December 5, 2022 Item 01
31 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-4
Attachment B 88 December 5, 2022 Item 01
32 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-5
Attachment B 89 December 5, 2022 Item 01
33 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-6
Attachment B 90 December 5, 2022 Item 01
34 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-7
Attachment B 91 December 5, 2022 Item 01
35 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-8
Attachment B 92 December 5, 2022 Item 01
36 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 2: AT-GRADE CROSSING AT 11TH STREET, RAMPS & STAIRS TO BEACH This at-grade railroad crossing takes advantage of existing east-west movement patterns and a large area of artificial fill on the western bluffs north of 11th Street. Notable features include:
— Natural Stairs: Designed to match the existing informal paths along the bluffs, natural stairs are graded into the terrain using timber or stone, as pictured in the sample photos in Figure 4-11. Steeper portions may require retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts. — Fully Accessible Paths & Ramps: All paths except natural stairs, including the ramps on the western bluffs, feature ADA-compliant grades and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface.
— View Overlook: On the western bluff top, a view overlook is a new amenity that would be fully accessible from 11th Street and optionally Concept 1, North-South Trail. — At-Grade Railroad Crossing: Located near the end of 11th Street and includes:
o Gates, Lights & Bells: Standard safety features per CPUC requirements. o Safety Fencing: Full extent to be determined in collaboration with CPUC, CCC, NCTD, and City of Del Mar.
o Signal House: Requires NCTD access and parking from the end of 11th Street. — Connection to 11th Street: Fully accessible path from 11th Street connects to the existing network. This also features an optional connection to Concept 1, North-South Trail.
Figure 4-9 is a sample rendering, Figure 4-10 shows a typical cross-section looking north, and Figure 4-12 on the following page is the full conceptual plan. Table 4-4 summarizes the cost estimate, with the full planning-level estimate in Appendix D.
Table 4-4: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 2 (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Category Estimated Cost
Construction Contract Estimate $5.4 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $3.9 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $9.3 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.9 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $10.2 million Figure 4-10: Typical Cross-Section Looking North, Concept 2 Figure 4-9: Sample Rendering, Concept 2
Figure 4-11: Sample Photos of Natural Stairs
Attachment B 93 December 5, 2022 Item 01
37 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-12
Attachment B 94 December 5, 2022 Item 01
38 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 3: AT-GRADE CROSSING AT 11TH STREET, STAIRS TO BEACH This at-grade railroad crossing takes advantage of existing east-west movement patterns and a large area of artificial fill on the western bluffs north of 11th Street. Notable features include:
— Natural Stairs: Designed to match the existing informal paths along the bluffs, natural stairs are graded into the terrain using timber or stone, as pictured in the sample photos in Figure 4-15. Steeper portions may require retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts. — Fully Accessible Paths: All paths except the natural stairs feature ADA-compliant grades and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface. — View Overlook: On the western bluff top, a view overlook is a new amenity that would be fully accessible from 11th Street and optionally Concept 1, North-South Trail. — At-Grade Railroad Crossing: Located near the end of 11th Street and includes:
o Gates, Lights & Bells: Standard safety features per CPUC requirements. o Safety Fencing: Full extent to be determined in collaboration with CPUC, CCC, NCTD, and City of Del Mar.
o Signal House: Requires NCTD access and parking from the end of 11th Street. — Connection to 11th Street: Fully accessible path from 11th Street connects to the existing network. This also features an optional connection to Concept 1, North-South Trail.
Figure 4-13 is a sample rendering, Figure 4-14 shows a typical cross-section looking north, and Figure 4-16 on the following page is the full conceptual plan. Table 4-5 summarizes the cost estimate, with the full planning-level estimate in Appendix D.
Table 4-5: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 3 (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Category Estimated Cost
Construction Contract Estimate $3.0 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $2.2 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $5.2 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.5 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $5.7 million Figure 4-14: Typical Cross-Section Looking North, Concept 3 Figure 4-13: Sample Rendering, Concept 3
Figure 4-15: Sample Photos of Natural Stairs
Attachment B 95 December 5, 2022 Item 01
39 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-16
Attachment B 96 December 5, 2022 Item 01
40 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 4: AT-GRADE CROSSING AT 7TH-8
TH STREETS, RAMPS TO BEACH
This at-grade railroad crossing takes advantage of existing east-west movement patterns near 7 th and 8th Streets. Notable features include:
— Fully Accessible Paths & Ramps: All paths except natural stairs, including the ramps on the western bluffs, feature ADA-compliant grades and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface. Ramps on the bluffs may require retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts.
— View Overlook: On the western bluff top, a view overlook is a new amenity that would be fully accessible from 7th Street and optionally Concept 1, North-South Trail). — At-Grade Railroad Crossing: Located near the end of 7th Street and includes:
o Gates, Lights & Bells: Standard safety features per CPUC requirements. o Safety Fencing: Full extent to be determined in collaboration with CPUC, CCC, NCTD, and City of Del Mar.
o Signal House: Requires NCTD access and parking from the end of 7th Street. — Connections to 7th & 8th Streets: Fully accessible path from 8th Street and natural stairs near 7th Street (sample photos in Figure 4-19) connect to the existing network. These also feature optional connections to Concept 1, North-South Trail.
Figure 4-17 is a sample rendering, Figure 4-18 shows a typical cross-section looking north, and Figure 4-20 on the following page is the full conceptual plan. Table 4-6 summarizes the cost estimate, with the full planning-level estimate in Appendix D.
Table 4-6: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 4 (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Category Estimated Cost
Construction Contract Estimate $4.9 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $3.5 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $8.4 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.8 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $9.2 million Figure 4-18: Typical Cross-Section Looking North, Concept 4 Figure 4-17: Sample Rendering, Concept 4
Figure 4-19: Sample Photos of Natural Stairs
Attachment B 97 December 5, 2022 Item 01
41 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-20
Attachment B 98 December 5, 2022 Item 01
42 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 5: AT-GRADE CROSSING AT 7TH-8
TH STREETS, STAIRS TO BEACH
This at-grade railroad crossing takes advantage of existing east-west movement patterns near 7 th and 8th Streets. Notable features include:
— Natural Stairs: Designed to match the existing informal paths along the bluffs, natural stairs are graded into the terrain using timber or stone, as pictured in the sample photos in Figure 4-23. Steeper portions may require retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts. — Fully Accessible Paths: All paths except the natural stairs feature ADA-compliant grades and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface. — View Overlook: On the western bluff top, a view overlook is a new amenity that would be fully accessible from 7
th Street and optionally Concept 1, North-South Trail.
— At-Grade Railroad Crossing: Located near the end of 7th Street and includes:
o Gates, Lights & Bells: Standard safety features per CPUC requirements. o Safety Fencing: Full extent to be determined in collaboration with CPUC, CCC, NCTD, and City of Del Mar.
o Signal House: Requires NCTD access and parking from the end of 7th Street. — Connections to 7th & 8th Streets: Fully accessible path from 8th Street and natural stairs near 7th Street connect to the existing network. These also feature optional connections to Concept 1, North-South Trail.
Figure 4-21 is a sample rendering, Figure 4-22 shows a typical cross-section looking north, and Figure 4-24 on the following page is the full conceptual plan. Table 4-7 summarizes the cost estimate, with the full planning-level estimate in Appendix D.
Table 4-7: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 5 (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Category Estimated Cost
Construction Contract Estimate $3.0 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $2.2 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $5.2 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.5 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $5.7 million Figure 4-22: Typical Cross-Section Looking North, Concept 5 Figure 4-21: Sample Rendering, Concept 5
Figure 4-23: Sample Photos of Natural Stairs
Attachment B 99 December 5, 2022 Item 01
43 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-24
Attachment B 100 December 5, 2022 Item 01
44 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 6: UNDERCROSSING AT 7
TH
-8
TH STREETS, RAMPS TO BEACH
This railroad undercrossing takes advantage of existing east-west movement patterns near 7 th
and 8
th Streets, while reducing or eliminating some of the most impactful features of at-grade crossings including CPUC special approval, safety fencing, and noise impacts (described in Section 5). Notable features include:
— Fully Accessible Paths & Ramps: All paths, including the ramps on the western bluffs, feature ADA-compliant grades and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface. Ramps on the bluffs may require retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts.
— View Overlook: Located at the western end of the undercrossing, a view overlook is a new amenity that would be fully accessible from 7th Street and optionally Concept 1, North-South Trail.
— Railroad Undercrossing: A prefabricated, 8-foot by 10-foot rectangular concrete tunnel would be positioned just below the railroad ballast and bedding. — Connection to 8
th Street: Fully accessible path from 8th Street connects to the existing network. This also features an optional connection to Concept 1, North-South Trail.
Figure 4-25 is a sample rendering, Figure 4-26 shows a typical cross-section looking north, and Figure 4-27 on the following page is the full conceptual plan. Table 4-8 summarizes the cost estimate, with the full planning-level estimate in Appendix D.
Table 4-8: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 6 (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Category Estimated Cost
Construction Contract Estimate $6.8 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $4.9 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $11.7 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $1.1 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $12.8 million Figure 4-26: Typical Cross-Section Looking North, Concept 6 Figure 4-25: Sample Rendering, Concept 6
Attachment B 101 December 5, 2022 Item 01
45 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-27
Attachment B 102 December 5, 2022 Item 01
46 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONCEPT 7: UNDERCROSSING AT 7
TH
-8
TH STREETS, STAIRS TO BEACH
This railroad undercrossing takes advantage of existing east-west movement patterns near 7 th
and 8
th Streets, while reducing or eliminating some of the most impactful features of at-grade crossings including CPUC special approval, safety fencing, and noise impacts (described in Section 5). Notable features include:
— Natural Stairs: Designed to match the existing informal paths along the bluffs, natural stairs are graded into the terrain using timber or stone, as pictured in the sample photos in Figure 4-30. Steeper portions may require retaining walls, some of which may be below grade and/or covered with fill and landscaping to reduce visual impacts. — Fully Accessible Paths: All paths except the natural stairs feature ADA-compliant grades and can utilize a special form of stabilized decomposed granite for a fully accessible surface. — View Overlook: Located at the western end of the undercrossing, a view overlook is a new amenity that would be fully accessible from 7th Street and optionally Concept 1, North-South Trail.
— Railroad Undercrossing: A prefabricated, 8-foot by 10-foot rectangular concrete tunnel would be positioned just below the railroad ballast and bedding. — Connection to 8th Street: Fully accessible path from 8th Street connects to the existing network. This also features an optional connection to Concept 1, North-South Trail.
Figure 4-28 is a sample rendering, Figure 4-29 shows a typical cross-section looking north, and Figure 4-31 on the following page is the full conceptual plan. Table 4-9 summarizes the cost estimate, with the full planning-level estimate in Appendix D.
Table 4-9: Planning-Level Cost Estimate, Concept 7 (Full Estimate in Appendix D) Category Estimated Cost
Construction Contract Estimate $3.7 million
Design, Environmental & Support Costs $2.7 million
Total Project Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) $6.4 million Estimated Cost Escalation to 2023-2027 Years of Expenditure $0.6 million Total Project Cost Estimate (Year of Expenditure Dollars) $7.0 million Figure 4-29: Typical Cross-Section Looking North, Concept 7 Figure 4-28: Sample Rendering, Concept 7
Figure 4-30: Sample Photos of Natural Stairs
Attachment B 103 December 5, 2022 Item 01
47 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Figure 4-31
Attachment B 104 December 5, 2022 Item 01
48 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
5. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
This section discusses a wide range of implementation considerations for the design concepts developed in this study. It is organized into the following categories:
— Right-of-way, NCTD approval, maintenance, and liability — California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval
— California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approval — Environmental reviews
— Audible safety systems for at-grade crossings
— Accessibility design
— Constructability and railroad access
— Funding
RIGHT-OF-WAY, NCTD APPROVAL, MAINTENANCE &
LIABILITY
The seven design concepts recommended for advancement are mostly located within public rights-of-way and do not require the use of any private property. The northern terminus of the north-south trail reaches Seagrove Park through a public access easement located on private property.
As mapped in Figure 2-5 through Figure 2-8 and in the study’s online basemap, the public parcels in the study area are divided among several agency owners:
— Street rights-of-way owned by the City of Del Mar
— Railroad parcels owned by NCTD
— Western bluffs owned by the City of Del Mar
NCTD Right-of-Way Approval
NCTD approval is required for any construction or other work in its right-of-way. This is governed by NCTD Board Policies No. 11 (Real Estate) and No. 18 (Railroad Safety and Community Enhancement Projects) as well as the scope of work for the SANDAG DMB Phase 5 project.
The NCTD railroad right-of-way contains some private encroachments in which adjacent property owners have installed landscaping or small structures on NCTD property, most notably in the areas between Seagrove Park and 9
th Street. With the concurrence of NCTD,
the project team presumed that any private encroachments in the NCTD right-of-way would be removed if needed to construct the design concepts developed in this study.
Maintenance & Liability Agreements
Any projects located within the railroad right-of-way will require future agreements with NCTD for the City of Del Mar or another agency to assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance. NCTD Board Policy No. 18 and the scope of work for the SANDAG DMB Phase 5 project recommend that liability and maintenance for any coastal access or recreational improvements in the NCTD right-of-way should be the responsibility of the City of Del Mar. These details will require additional collaboration and consensus among the stakeholder agencies.
Attachment B 105 December 5, 2022 Item 01
49 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
Some elements of railroad crossings will require specific maintenance activities to be conducted by NCTD. This includes the need for NCTD parking, most likely at adjacent street ends, to facilitate inspection activities. This will require further coordination with the City of Del Mar for use of the street right-of-way.
— At-Grade Crossings: Monthly inspections of signal house and at-grade crossing facilities such as gates, lighting, and other safety systems. — Undercrossings: Annual inspections of undercrossing infrastructure and supporting structural elements.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC) APPROVAL
Approval of Proposed Concepts via Federal Consistency Certification As noted in the study background in Section 1, the proposed design concepts were included as mitigation measures for the SANDAG DMB Phase 5 project, which CCC approved in June 2022 under the federal consistency certification process. The CCC staff report, available in Appendix A, provides additional details on the review of proposed concepts.
At the time of CCC’s approval action in June 2022, the proposed concepts in this study were still under development in preliminary draft form. While some of the more complex concepts (such as the ADA-compliant ramp system) were not advanced or refined enough to allow for a full analysis at the time, CCC approved Concept 1 (north-south trail) and Concept 3 (atgrade crossing and stairs at 11th Street) as part of the federal consistency certification. To account for potential modifications or refinements to the design concepts as they proceed through development process, the staff report explains:
As established through Commission review of past projects under Section 930.65 that involved modifications to previously reviewed consistency certifications, the Commission would consider if the change would cause the project to have an effect on any coastal use or resource substantially different than originally described and, as a result, would no longer be consistent with the Coastal Act. If the change is determined to not be substantially different and is still consistent with the Coastal Act, the project and proposed change could proceed. If the change is determined to be substantially different and no longer consistent with the Coastal Act, Commission staff would work with SANDAG to identify modifications or alternatives that could be implemented to achieve consistency and then bring them to the Commission for its consideration.
North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation & Resource Enhancement Program (PWP/TREP)
The North Coast Corridor PWP/TREP is a 40-year plan for the entire transportation corridor between Oceanside and San Diego that includes railroad double-tracking, infrastructure improvements on Interstate 5, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. It was developed jointly by SANDAG and Caltrans, approved unanimously by CCC in 2014, and updated in 2016.
The PWP/TREP acts as a programmatic CCC permitting document for a suite of corridor projects including railroad and freeway improvements, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and environmental mitigation and preservation. While the pedestrian improvements proposed in this study were not specifically included in the PWP/TREP, they also pose no conflicts to any planned PWP/TREP improvements.
Attachment B 106 December 5, 2022 Item 01
50 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
This study and the PWP/TREP both share a similar goal to improve multimodal mobility in the corridor in an environmentally sensitive manner. The PWP/TREP also provides general guidance from CCC on multimodal improvements in the corridor including policies, design/development strategies, and implementation measures that could inform future permitting and implementation of the concepts developed in this study.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC)
APPROVAL
The CPUC regulates the safety and operations of railroads statewide, including review and approval of most physical and operational modifications. The project team met with CPUC staff three times throughout the study to review design and implementation requirements and will continue consultation through future project development activities.
All seven design concepts developed in this study will require consultation and approval by CPUC due to their proximity to the railroad, with the proposed at-grade crossings undergoing the highest level of review as detailed below.
Approval of At-Grade Crossings
The CPUC generally prohibits new at-grade crossings. General Order 75-D explains that “the Commission's policy is to reduce the number of at-grade crossings on freight or passenger railroad mainlines in California.” Approval of new at-grade crossings therefore will require approval by CPUC as part of a discretionary decision process, with commissioners basing their review on site-specific factors, including an assessment of CPUC’s at-grade crossing fencing requirements.
CPUC staff reported that the critical questions in evaluating any proposed projects include:
— What are the actual safety issues in the project area? — Will the proposed condition be safer than the existing condition? — Are there other special considerations such as engineering or environmental constraints?
CPUC staff have cited several specific concerns for at-grade crossings in nearby sections of the railroad corridor, including the high frequency of trains, the high speed of trains, the curvature of the railroad tracks limiting visibility, and the history of safety incidents in the corridor.
Potential Precedent: Santa Claus Lane At-Grade Crossing While CPUC policy generally prohibits new at-grade crossings, CPUC staff identified a recently approved at-grade crossing at Santa Claus Lane in Santa Barbara County that could serve as a model for potential at-grade crossing approvals in Del Mar. Located on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor near Carpinteria, the project has been permitted but is not yet constructed. Figure 5-1 shows the project location and current conditions, and Figure 5-2 is an excerpt from the approved concept plan. The proposed project includes fencing around the crossing on both sides of the railroad to control and channel pedestrian access.
As described by CPUC staff, factors in the Santa Claus Lane approval included:
— Grade separation study concluding that overcrossing and undercrossing options were infeasible (discussed below)
— Inclusion of channelization fencing on both sides of the railroad to control access Attachment B 107 December 5, 2022 Item 01
51 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
— Support from the railroad owner
CPUC staff also noted that the railroad in Santa Barbara County may have lower train volumes than Del Mar, which could be considered in the discretionary decision by commissioners. CPUC could also consider the temporary nature of the crossing in light of the plans to relocate the railroad off the bluffs, as discussed in Section 2 of this report.
Grade Separation Study for At-Grade Crossings
A major factor in CPUC approval of the Santa Claus Lane at-grade crossing was a grade separation study that evaluated options for potential overcrossings and undercrossings.
CPUC staff specifically requested in its letter to applicants: “As part of considering and approving the construction of new at-grade crossing, the CPUC staff requires applicants to conduct a thorough study of a grade separation, exploring all practicable designs of pathways crossing under and over the railroad mainline track.” Figure 5-1: Location of Planned Santa Claus Lane At-Grade Crossing (Nearmap) Approved location of
at-grade crossing
Figure 5-2: Concept Plan for Planned Santa Claus Lane At-Grade Crossing (County of Santa Barbara)
Attachment B 108 December 5, 2022 Item 01
52 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
The grade separation study for Santa Claus Lane is available in Appendix E and included the following elements:
— Landward and seaward field investigation/geotechnical studies data — Concept geometrics
— Policy analysis
— Mean high tide study data
— California Coastal Commission staff reports or other reviews — Projected number of users
— Traffic data
The study concluded that an overcrossing was infeasible for several reasons, including CCC concerns about shoreline protective devices and visual impacts, and that an undercrossing was infeasible due to flooding concerns.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
The access improvement project would be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and potentially also the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if federal funds are used. This process would include an initial review of potential environmental impacts under a variety of topic areas and may require technical studies where needed to substantiate those findings. The results of the environmental analyses also may prompt supporting mitigation measures.
The recently approved at-grade crossing at Santa Claus Lane received a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA (available in Appendix E). This environmental review identified some potential impacts and sufficient mitigations to reduce those impacts below significant levels. The type of environmental document, determination of significance of impacts to resources and potential mitigation will be made by the appropriate CEQA and NEPA lead agencies.
AUDIBLE SAFETY SYSTEMS FOR AT-GRADE CROSSINGS
At-grade crossings require audible safety systems that would create noise impacts in the surrounding community. Typically, a new at-grade crossing requires warning bells at the crossing itself, as well as the sounding of train horns when trains approach the crossing from either direction, beginning one-quarter mile away.
One potential alternative to the routine sounding of train horns may be a wayside horn, which simulates the sound of train horns from a stationary location at the at-grade crossing itself. This would require one of the following additional regulatory approvals, either of which could be pursued separately, but are not requirements for the implementation of at-grade crossings:
— Quiet Zone: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) allows the creation of quiet zones that allow wayside horns in lieu of routine train horns. However, FRA regulations require quiet zones to be “bookended” on each side by vehicular crossings with quiet zone status. Attaining quiet zone status for pedestrian at-grade crossings in Del Mar therefore would require attaining quiet zone status for the roadway at-grade crossing at Sorrento Valley Road, located south of the study area in the City of San Diego.
Attachment B 109 December 5, 2022 Item 01
53 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
— Wayside Horn Waiver: CPUC staff reported that the existing at-grade pedestrian crossings in San Clemente—one of which is pictured in Figure 5-3—received waivers from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to implement wayside horns at the crossings in lieu of train horns, which are required by state law. However, CPUC staff also reported that FRA has made it clear that further waivers are highly unlikely, and that changing state law to allow wayside horns at pedestrian crossings would be the only way to remove the need for the FRA waiver. SANDAG or other stakeholder agencies may choose to pursue this option via the state legislature.
A recent study in Encinitas—the Montgomery Avenue Noise Study Wayside Horn Demonstration Acoustic Monitoring Report (2017), included as Appendix F—showed that wayside horns could reduce community noise impacts compared to train horns, with the sound from train horns traveling farther into the community and at a higher intensity. The study examined both 92-decibel and 80-decibel types of wayside horns, noting: “The current standards for wayside horns are applicable to roadway crossings and consist of 92 decibel horns. However, at similar pedestrian-only quiet zone crossings in San Clemente, the CPUC approved a modified wayside horn of 80 decibels.”
Regardless of the specific audible systems used, implementation of any at-grade crossing in Del Mar could create new noise impacts in the community through warning bells, train horns, and/or wayside horns. Currently train horns are not sounded routinely in the study area, with the nearby Coast Boulevard at-grade crossing using a wayside horn in lieu of routine train horns.
The at-grade crossing concepts developed in this study presume standard requirements for warning bells at the crossing and the routine sounding of train horns. The concepts do not include wayside horns or quiet zone elements because those elements are outside the scope of this study and are not requirements for the implementation of at-grade crossings.
Additional approvals for wayside horns or other quiet zone elements could be pursued in the next phases of project development.
Figure 5-3: At-Grade Crossing in San Clemente (SANDAG)
Attachment B 110 December 5, 2022 Item 01
54 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN
Design requirements for accessibility are governed by several laws and guidelines as summarized below. The design concepts advanced in this study include several accessibility options to help facilitate future design decisions by stakeholder agencies.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires new facilities to be designed to accommodate users with mobility impairments. Current ADA Accessibility Standards (2010) require new facilities to include ADA-compliant design unless it is “structurally impracticable,” which is defined as “the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features.” If full compliance with the 2010 ADA Accessibility Standards is determined to be structurally impracticable, compliance with the standards is required to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable. In that case, any portion of the facility that can be made accessible would be made accessible to the extent that it is not structurally impracticable.
While ADA does not make any explicit distinctions or exceptions for beach access trails or impacts to sensitive resources. A separate federal law, the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1967, does make these distinctions as detailed in Chapter 10 of the ABA Accessibility Standards (codified as Appendix D of 36 C.F.R. Part 1191). Use of ABA design standards typically is limited to federal projects on federal lands, or federally funded projects in which ABA standards are explicitly prescribed by the funding source. The U.S. Access Board’s Accessibility Standards for Federal Outdoor Developed Areas explains:
The new provisions for trails, picnic and camping facilities, viewing areas, and beach access routes are not included in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 2010 ADA Standards and have no legal effect on state and local governments and private entities subject to DOJ’s ADA regulations. State and local governments and private entities may, however, use the provisions for guidance when designing trails, picnic and camping facilities, viewing areas, and beach access routes.
Although not binding regulations, the ABA standards could provide guidance for outdoor trails and accessways sited in areas with steep terrain or where other environmental laws may preclude full compliance with accessibility standards.
In this conceptual study, the project team found that that the seven design concepts are physically feasible from an engineering perspective, although they may pose a variety of potential impacts and challenges. Of note is the fact that the segment of sandy beach below the bluffs in the project area is narrow and can be inundated with water during certain times of the day and more consistently during certain times of the year. The timing of inundation in this section of the beach is projected to worsen over time with projected sea level rise. In addition, potential changes to the visual character of the bluffs—including associated grading (beyond the grading that will be performed as part of the DMB5 Stabilization Project), retaining walls, and the potential modification of the topography of the bluffs—could present conflicts with coastal policies and potential permitting issues. These issues will be further evaluated in the next phase of project development.
The project team plans to present the concepts for public feedback on accessibility design considerations, including a presentation to SANDAG’s Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC). The project team may consult the U.S. Department of Justice and/or any additional federal or state funding entities for additional guidance during future project development activities.
Attachment B 111 December 5, 2022 Item 01
55 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
CONSTRUCTABILITY
The pedestrian improvements developed in this study present a range of constructability considerations, with a major factor being the degree to which construction requires access to the NCTD railroad right-of-way. This is summarized below, followed by a discussion of constructability considerations for the north-south trail and railroad crossings.
Railroad Access
As shown in the conceptual plans in Section 4, all proposed facilities have at least some elements in the NCTD railroad right-of-way, which at minimum will require a right-of-entry permit from NCTD to construct, as well as NCTD-approved flagging protection staff during construction activities. Additionally, all workers in the right-of-way will be required to complete NCTD’s federally mandated roadway worker protection (RWP) program.
NCTD requires that work within the railroad right-of-way be performed in a manner that limits impacts to train operations to the extent practicable. The railroad “foul zone” is defined by NCTD as within 25 feet of the nearest running rail. Any work within the foul zone should be performed such that it can be stopped and cleared of the tracks prior to a train entering the work limits. Equipment and workers may not be able to clear the foul zone in all cases when trains pass, but they must be cleared of the tracks and secured to prohibit movement near them.
As described in the following pages, most construction activities for the improvements developed in this study will fit into two categories with respect to railroad access:
— Some construction activities may require suspending railroad operations. This typically would occur during nighttime work periods or multi-day absolute work windows (AWWs) which are typically scheduled several times per year.
— Some project elements may be constructed primarily from adjacent street ends or beaches, with little or no entry into the railroad foul zone. All work in the NCTD right-ofway still will require a right-of-entry permit, flagging protection, and RWP.
NCTD provides additional guidance in the Working Around the Rails section of its website.
Constructability Considerations for North-South Trail
The north-south trail has varying constructability considerations depending on its surrounding context, which is shown in the conceptual plans in Section 4. For construction purposes, the 0.8-mile trail is divided into three potential construction areas described below.
Seagrove Park to 8
th Street
The northern section of the north-south trail is highly constrained by the railroad and adjacent residential development. While the adjacent street ends and alleys will provide some access, construction of the full trail will require entry into the railroad corridor. This will require a right-of-entry permit, flagging protection, and RWP as described above.
Notable construction activities for the section from Seagrove Park to 8th Street will include materials delivery via street ends/alleys, materials staging—which is likely to require storage space within the railroad right-of-way—clearing vegetation, excavation, grading, constructing the path and supporting retaining walls, placing pedestrian bridges at Sea Orbit Lane and Lois Lane, and placing ditch crossings near 10th and 9th Streets. The walls, bridges, and ditch crossings likely will require construction via the railroad corridor and should be completed together, potentially during nighttime work periods or an AWW. Those elements Attachment B 112 December 5, 2022 Item 01
56 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
also should be comprised of prefabricated, modular materials to the greatest degree possible.
8 th Street Culvert Area
Just north of 8th Street, the north-south trail includes a proposed drainage culvert below graded fill, as shown in the conceptual plans and renderings in Section 4. This will require entry into the railroad corridor including right-of-entry permit, flagging protection, and RWP as described above. Mid-size equipment will be required to excavate and install the culvert, and these activities may enter the railroad “foul zone” resulting in operational impacts to the railroad.
Notable construction activities for the 8th Street culvert area will include materials delivery via street ends/alleys, materials staging—which is likely to require storage space within the right-of-way near 8th Street—clearing vegetation, excavating, placing the precast culvert, grading and fill, and constructing the path. The culvert should be comprised of prefabricated materials to the greatest degree possible.
8 th Street to 4th Street
This southern section of the north-south trail is in a wider part of the NCTD railroad right-ofway, located farther east of the railroad tracks than the section north of 8th Street and situated along bluffs that ascend to the south. While construction will require right of entry, flagging protection, and RWP, it is sufficiently far from the railroad “foul zone” to avoid operational impacts.
Notable construction activities for the section from 8th Street to 4th Street will include materials delivery via street ends/alleys, materials staging—which is likely to require storage space within the right-of-way—clearing vegetation, grading, constructing the path, placing a timber walkway over the drainage facility between 7th and 8th Streets, and placing ditch crossings near 7
th and 6th Streets. The ditch crossings should be comprised of prefabricated materials to the greatest degree possible. Compared to the section north of 8th Street, this southern section will require substantially less excavation and use of heavy equipment.
Constructability Considerations for Railroad Crossings
The proposed railroad crossings have distinct constructability considerations across three areas as described below, all of which are shown in the conceptual plans in Section 4.
Western Bluffs (All Crossings)
The proposed ramps, natural stairs, and retaining walls will require construction access from the beach side, similar to recent work conducted for SANDAG’s Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization projects. Substantial portions of the western bluffs are within the NCTD railroad right-of-way, requiring at minimum a right of entry permit and RWP, with flagging protection required for initial construction along the bluff top. However, once the planned channelization fencing along the bluff top is installed, future work along the bluffs is not likely to require flagging protection given the access control provided by the fencing and the overall distance from the railroad “foul zone.”
Notable construction activities for the western bluffs will include materials delivery via beach; materials staging (which also is likely to require storage space on the beach); clearing vegetation; grading; constructing the path and supporting retaining walls; and constructing a beach access point at a planned seawall opening. The walls should be comprised of prefabricated, modular materials to the greatest degree possible. The natural stairs proposed in some concepts entail largely manual work, requiring less heavy equipment than other elements once the supporting retaining walls and grading activities are complete.
Attachment B 113 December 5, 2022 Item 01
57 / 59 COASTAL CONNECTIONS CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STUDY
At-Grade Crossings and East Side Paths (11th Street and 7th-8 th Streets)
Construction of the at-grade crossings will pose operational impacts to the railroad and should be done during nighttime work periods or an AWW. Construction of the east side paths will require a right-of-entry permit, flagging protection, and RWP as described above.
Materials and equipment required to construct both the crossing and east side paths can be delivered via street ends or alleys.
Notable construction activities for the at-grade crossings and east side paths will include materials delivery via street ends/alleys; materials staging (which is likely to require storage space within the right-of-way); clearing vegetation; grading; constructing the east side path; constructing the signal house; installing channelization fencing; and constructing the crossing itself including required gates and warning devices.
Undercrossings and East Side Path (7
th-8th Streets)
Construction of the undercrossing will pose operational impacts to the railroad and should be done during an AWW. Construction the east side path will require a right-of-entry permit, flagging protection, and RWP as described above. Both the undercrossing and east side path will require large equipment due to substantial excavation and construction activities.
Materials and equipment can be delivered via street ends or alleys.
Notable construction activities for the undercrossing and east side path at 7th-8 th Streets will
include materials delivery via street ends/alleys; materials staging (which also is likely to require storage space within the right-of-way near 8th Street); clearing vegetation; substantial excavation (for both the undercrossing and east side path); grading; constructing the east side path and supporting walls; removing a section of railroad track; placing the precast box culvert via crane from 7th or 8
th Streets atop a bed of leveling gravel; waterproofing the culvert walls; backfilling the area; and finally restoring, balancing, and welding the railroad tracks. The walls and box culvert should be comprised of prefabricated, modular materials to the greatest degree possible.
Potential Removal of Pedestrian Facilities After Railroad Realignment As discussed in Section 2, SANDAG is currently studying options to realign the railroad away from the coastal bluffs as part of its San Diego Regional Rail Alignment Study. Once the railroad is relocated off the bluffs, stakeholder agencies will assess the study area’s physical conditions and evaluate whether infrastructure on the bluffs may need to be removed to ensure public safety and return the bluffs to a more natural state.
NEXT STEPS
This section is currently being developed based on input from stakeholder agencies and will be updated in the final report. In summary, the next steps for implementation include:
— Allocation of funding & grant applications
— Design, including final concept selection, grade separation study, accessibility decisions, and community/stakeholder input
— Environmental review
— CCC approval
— CPUC approval of new crossings
— City & NCTD right-of-way approvals, including maintenance & liability agreements — Construction
Attachment B 114 December 5, 2022 Item 01
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 14, 2022– VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker (initially absent, joined the meeting at 5:57 p.m.), Terry Gaasterland, and Dan Quirk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Gaasterland led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mary Davis spoke about Building Electrification
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Worden reported on recent native planting activities facilitated by Wild Coast, Sierra Club, and Surfrider volunteers; new concert venue at the Fairgrounds; and Susan Komen race station in Del Mar on Friday, November 18, 2022. Councilmember Gaasterland reported on the student strike occurring at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Deputy Mayor Martinez reported on the upcoming Del Mar Village Association Holiday activities including the annual tree lighting event scheduled for December 4, 2022.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported on current Planning Commission and Design Review Board recruitments; preliminary election results; appointment of Clem Brown as new Assistant City Manager; Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study, Community Open House to be held on December 7, 2022, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. in the Del Mar Town Hall; and recognized Fire Chief Mike Stein for his 29 years of service to the community and wished him well in retirement.
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1: PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER AS FAMILY COURT AWARENESS MONTH (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1201-5)
1 December 5, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
November 14, 2022
Mayor Worden presented a proclamation declaring the month of November as Family Court Awareness Month to Tracey Mueller-Gibbs from the Family Court Awareness Month Committee, who provided some information about the need to increase awareness of the importance of the family court system.
ITEM 2: USACE PRESENTATION REGARDING THE COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1404-1, 1404-2)
City Manager Jones introduced the item. Opening comments were provided by Solana Beach Mayor Lesa Heebner, followed by a presentation regarding the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project located in the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas by Susan Ming with the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
City Council questions focused on impacts to the beach in Del Mar; criteria for choosing an offshore sand borrowing site; total sum of sand being removed from borrow site initially and over the life of the project and related impacts; depth and location of borrow site; project transect locations; depth of the “depth of closure” located offshore; potential impacts to the San Dieguito Lagoon; details of inspections/monitoring including establishing a baseline for measurement of project related changes; role of Coastal Commission in project review and approval.
There were no public comments on this item.
Council discussion focused on concerns about impacts to Del Mar beaches related to acquisition of project from a Del Mar offshore borrow site; need for close monitoring and potentially adding transect locations; and support for the project’s benefits to Del Mar’s beaches as placed sand flows south.
ITEM 3: SANDAG RAIL REALIGNMENT PRESENTATION (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1506-1) City Manager Jones introduced the item. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) representatives Sharon Humphries and Danny Veeh provided a presentation on the SANDAG Rail Realignment project.
City Council questions focused on opportunities for public input and outreach; whether a cost/benefit analysis will be completed for the project, including ridership benefits, and timing; concerns about connectivity to other areas of the corridor that also need improvements, such as San Clemente; whether or not the Coastal Commission has weighed in on San Clemente’s emergency repairs; engineering requirements for portal locations; whether noise and vibration attenuating technologies will be incorporated into the project; critical design considerations and environmental concerns that may impact two preferred alignments currently under consideration; when the alignment study will be available to the public for review; criteria that led to narrowing down the alignments and weighting for each; whether eminent domain will be required for the project; best way for the community to participate throughout the project process; whether BNSF and Amtrak railways are involved with the project; which agency certifies the environmental impact study and has final project approval authority; and whether the design requirements would be different if it didn’t include providing freight service.
Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the following individuals spoke: Shirli Weiss; Jim Smith; and Alice McNally. Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.
Council discussion focused on impacts to private property related to portal locations; acknowledgement and expressed appreciation for the hard work of the SANDAG team; need for well-done community outreach efforts for this project; benefits of having the rail relocated and removed from the Del Mar bluff; 2 December 5, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
November 14, 2022
and acknowledgement that freight will continue to be moved along the rail corridor and its inclusion in the project design.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Jones read the titles of the items included on the Consent Calendar. There were no public speakers for the consent calendar items.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4 THROUGH 9, AND 12. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 17, 2022 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.
ITEM 5: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2022 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.
ITEM 6: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4) Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.
ITEM 7: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 & 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND HOLIDAY CLOSURE SCHEDULES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1)
Council adopted Resolution 2022-69, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 2022 CALENDAR YEAR”, and authorized the holiday related closure of City Hall on December 27, 28 & 29, 2022, and December 27 & 28, 2023, on consent.
ITEM 8: ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES TO CITY EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN OPTIONS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 502-5)
Council adopted Resolution 2022-70, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, TERMINATING THE CITY MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN 401(A) ADMINISTERED BY MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT”; Resolution 2022- 71, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION 457(B) PLAN TO ADD A ROTH OPTION”; and Resolution 2022-72, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CALPERS RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION 457(B) PLAN TO ADD A ROTH OPTION”, on consent.
3 December 5, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
November 14, 2022
ITEM 9: FINANCE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5) Council appointed Michael Minter as a voting member to the Committee to serve a full three-year term starting November 14, 2022, and ending on November 30, 2025, on consent.
COUNCIL MEETING RECESS:
The City Council took a meeting recess from approximately 7:24 p.m. to 7:29 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 10 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (EP) EP22-082 – SANDAG BLUFF STABILIZATION V
IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO SHORELINE PROTECTION, DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS, AND REQUIRED MITIGATION (BEACH ACCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION AT 18TH STREET AND ADJACENT TO APNS: 299-240-01, 299-240- 23)
APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) ON
BEHALF OF NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (NCTD)
(CLERK’S FILE NO. 802-1, 1506-1)
An introduction of the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A staff presentation was provided by Assistant Planner Madeline Shute, followed by a presentation from SANDAG Senior Engineer Allie DeVaux.
Council questions focused on impacts to the public during construction, especially noise; sea wall, whether same type of rock revetment will be used as prior projects; location and placement of pole/solar irrigation controller; possibility of dedicated public hotline for the project; how heavy equipment is brought into project area; and whether rip rap and infill be removed in the future once rail line has been relocated.
Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the following spoke: Jim Hindman. Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.
Council discussion focused on minimizing impacts to residents and requested that SANDAG staff work with City staff and seek feedback from neighbors prior to placement of the irrigation controller.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY MAYOR WORDEN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-68, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT EP22-082 AND WAIVING THE PLANNING
AND LAND USE APPLICATION FEE FOR A LONG-TERM MAJOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE BLUFFS STABILIZATION V PROJECT (APNs: 299-240-01, 299-240-23) IN DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA” INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS FROM THE STAFF RED DOT. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
4 December 5, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
November 14, 2022
ITEM 11: CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 17, 2022: DE NOVO HEARING OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ON TREES, SCENIC VIEWS, AND SUNLIGHT APPLICATION TVS21-002
TVS APPLICANT/APPELLANT: MICHAEL AND ANGELA DEFTOS
APPLICANT’S ADDRESS: 225 TORREY PINES TERRACE
TREE OWNERS: HARVEY AND SHERYL WHITE
TREE OWNERS ADDRESS: 473 OCEAN VIEW AVENUE
(CLERK’S FILE NO. 1403-7)
An overview of the De Novo hearing process was provided by City Attorney Leslie Devaney. A presentation was provided by Associate Planner Adriana Jaramishian.
Council Disclosures: Councilmember Druker disclosed that he visited the Deftos residence and talked to the Deftos and Sherryl White; Deputy Mayor Martinez disclosed that she visited the Deftos residence and spoke to the Deftos and Sheryl White; Councilmember Quirk disclosed that he met with the Deftos and talked to Sheryl White; Councilmember Gaasterland disclosed that she visited both the White and Deftos residences; Mayor Worden disclosed that he visited the Deftos residence, watched the related Planning Commission hearing and reviewed all red dots.
Council questions focused on clarification on the restoration plan from arborist Mark Wisniewski being considered by staff and staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed restoration plan and Tree #1.
Applicant/Appellant Michael Deftos provided a ten-minute presentation regarding the TSVS application.
The tree owner’s representative, Adam Birnbaum, and tree owner Sheryl White provided a ten-minute presentation.
There were no public speakers for this item.
Both parties provided a five-minute rebuttal.
Council discussion focused on appreciation for the presentations provided by the Applicant/Appellant and Tree Owner and their representative; details of the ordinance as explained in a guide to residents; history of the rules and TSVS requirements and first TSVS appeal that was heard and potential precedence established regarding removal of protected trees for views; concern about the proposed five year timeframe to restore the impacted view; difficulty of this matter; interest in identifying a date by which the view must be restored, such as April 15, 2023; and concern that the proposed trimming plan provides a five year timeframe to restore the view.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO APPROVE THE WALTON PLAN, WHICH IS THE REMOVAL OF TREE #1 AND “DROPCROTCH” CROWN REDUCTION OF TREES #2-5 BY NO MORE THAN 20% IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE VIEWS TO AN APPROXIMATION OF WHAT EXISTED APPROXIMATELY 8-9 YEARS AGO.
DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ AMENDED THE MOTION, TO INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE REPLACEMENT TREE. THERE WAS NO SECOND FOR THIS MOTION.
5 December 5, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
November 14, 2022
IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
GAASTERLAND TO MAKE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO REQUIRE AS
MITIGATION TO HAVE A TREE PLANTED SOMEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY OR IN THE CITY OF DEL MAR, APPROVED BY STAFF AND THE WHITES. NO VOTE WAS TAKEN.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR
MARTINEZ TO REMOVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION AND RETURN TO THE
ORGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE THE WALTON PLAN WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR MITIGATION. NO VOTE WAS TAKEN.
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR WORDEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE THE WISNIEWSKI PLAN DATED AUGUST 2, 2022, AND BY THE END OF APRIL, 2023, THE CITY ARBORIST REPORTS BACK THAT THE WISNIEWSKI PLAN CAN BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCOMPLISHED AS TO TREE ONE. (VOTE 2-3, WITH DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ AND COUNCILMEMBERS GAASTERLAND AND QUIRK OPPOSED – MOTION FAILED) Ayes: Mayor Worden, and Councilmember Druker; Noes: Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmembers Gaasterland and Quirk; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO APPROVE THE WALTON PLAN, WHICH IS THE REMOVAL OF TREE #1 AND “DROPCROTCH” CROWN REDUCTION OF TREES #2-5 BY NO MORE THAN 20% IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE VIEWS TO AN APPROXIMATION OF WHAT EXISTED APPROXIMATELY 8-9 YEARS
AGO, AND PAYMENT WOULD OCCUR PER THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE DEFTOS TO PAY; AND NO MITIGATION IS REQUIRED. (VOTE 3-2 WITH MAYOR WORDEN AND
COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER OPPOSED)
Ayes: Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmembers Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: Mayor Worden, and Councilmember Druker; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
ITEM 12: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR USE OF CREDIT CARDS,
DEBIT CARDS, AND ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER TO PAY FOR FEES, SERVICES AND OTHER DEBTS OWED TO THE CITY OF DEL MAR (CLERK’S FILE NO. 204-6)
The public hearing was opened and closed. There were no public speakers for this item. The item was moved to the consent calendar for approval of Resolution 2022-73, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FEES FOR USE OF CREDIT
CARDS, DEBIT CARDS, AND ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER TO PAY FOR FEES, SERVICES AND OTHER DEBTS OWED TO THE CITY”.
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR WORDEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. The unanimous consensus of the Council was to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 13: IN-PERSON PUBLIC MEETINGS TRANSITION PLAN (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1, 401- 7)
6 December 5, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
November 14, 2022
A presentation was provided by City Manager Jones, with IT Manager Emily Bernardo available to answer questions.
Council questions and discussion focused on desire to continue the item to the December 5, 2022, meeting in order to dedicate more time to reviewing the in-person meeting transition plan. It was the consensus of the Council that upcoming Council meetings to occur on December 5 and 12, 2022, would be remote, with in-person meetings resuming on January 9, 2023.
There were no public speakers for the item.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY MAYOR WORDEN TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM AND ITEM TITLED “REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION REPORTS” TO THE DECEMBER 5, 2022 COUNCIL MEETING; AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-74, “A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 RELATED TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 IN ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE USE OF TELECONFERENCE OR A REMOTE MEETING PLATFORM TO FACILITATE REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS”, CONTINUING REMOTE MEETINGS THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2022 COUNCIL MEETING. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION REPORTS
This item was continued to December 5, 2022 Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
Ashley Jones, City Manager
7 December 5, 2022 Item 02
1 December 5, 2022 Item 03
2 December 5, 2022 Item 03
3 December 5, 2022 Item 03
4 December 5, 2022 Item 03
5 December 5, 2022 Item 03
6 December 5, 2022 Item 03
7 December 5, 2022 Item 03
8 December 5, 2022 Item 03
9 December 5, 2022 Item 03
10 December 5, 2022 Item 03
11 December 5, 2022 Item 03
12 December 5, 2022 Item 03
13 December 5, 2022 Item 03
14 December 5, 2022 Item 03
15 December 5, 2022 Item 03
16 December 5, 2022 Item 03
17 December 5, 2022 Item 03
18 December 5, 2022 Item 03
19 December 5, 2022 Item 03
20 December 5, 2022 Item 03
21 December 5, 2022 Item 03
22 December 5, 2022 Item 03
23 December 5, 2022 Item 03
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Karen Falk, Principal Engineer
Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Mariel Cairns, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Approval of a Task Order with NV5 Incorporated to Perform Engineering Design Services for the Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements Project REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a $23,484 Task Order (Attachment A) with as-needed engineering consultant NV5 Incorporated (NV5) to perform engineering design services for the Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements Project; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the Task Order.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The City of Del Mar participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, which is funded through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program provides annual funding to local jurisdictions for projects and programs that enhance community development. The amount of CDBG funds awarded to each local jurisdiction is based on population, housing over-crowdedness, and poverty.
The City receives approximately $16,000 annually in CDBG funds. Combining five (5) years of CDBG funding allows the City to increase the project size and maximize economies of scale to more efficiently design, bid, and construct pedestrian and bicycle route improvement projects while complying with the County of San Diego Health & Human Services Agency’s minimum financing requirements.
Pedestrian routes at various locations within the City of Del Mar were constructed prior to the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and many do not meet current ADA Standards. The scope of work included in the proposed task order will evaluate 18 pedestrian ramps on Coast Boulevard between 17th Street and 22nd Street for current compliance and produce detailed engineered drawings to replace the pedestrian ramps that do not meet current standards.
The City has an as-needed professional services agreement in place with NV5 for civil engineering design services. As such, staff is recommending the City issue a task order with NV5 to design improvements and prepare a bid-ready construction package for this 1 December 5, 2022 Item 05
City Council Agenda Report
Engineering Design Services for the Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements Project December 5, 2022
project. The proposed Task Order, which includes the scope of work and cost for services (Exhibit 1), is included with this agenda report as Attachment A.
If approved, the design work is scheduled to be completed by spring 2023. Following the completion of the design, the City will undergo a formal bid solicitation process to select the lowest responsive and responsible contractor to construct the project. Staff will return to the City Council for approval of the future construction contract resulting from the bid solicitation process.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
On January 10, 2022, the City Council approved an application for CDBG funding in the estimated amount of $80,000. This amount is the total of the estimated CDBG revenues for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item. There are sufficient funds available (as summarized in Table A) in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget to cover the cost of the work identified in the proposed task order. The CDBG program provides approximately $16,000 annually. Combining five years of funding will result in approximately $80,000 of CDBG funds that will be supplemented with $20,000 in TransNet funds to cover the anticipated cost of the project.
Table A: Project Funding Sources
PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT
FY2023 Approved Funding
Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements (CDBG) 40.7000.7050 $80,000 Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements (TransNet) 44.7000.7050 $20,000 Total Funding: $100,000
FY2023 Anticipated Expenditures:
NV5 Design $23,484
Construction Cost and Contingency $76,516
Total Expenditures: $100,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines. The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – NV5 Task Order 1
Exhibit 1 to Attachment A - NV5 Scope of Work and Fee
2 December 5, 2022 Item 05
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us December 6, 2022
NV5, Inc. SENT VIA EMAIL
Attn: Jeffrey M. Cooper/Tamara O’Neal
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92128
[email protected]
RE: TASK ORDER FOR THE BEACH COLONY PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (40.7000.7050)
This Task Order (TO) is issued pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the as-needed Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Del Mar and NV5, Inc. (Consultant), the term for which is December 7, 2020, to December 7, 2023.
Consultant shall execute tasks related to the Design of Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvements Project as described in the Consultant’s proposal dated July 29, 2022, and included as Exhibit 1 to this Task Order. The project cost for this Task Order shall not exceed $23,484. The project schedule shall commence upon separate issuance of Notice to Proceed and be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, in accordance with the proposed Scope of Work included in Exhibit 1.
The primary contact for this Task Order and invoicing is Karen Falk, Principal Engineer, who can be reached at [email protected] and (858) 375-9533.
Please sign and return an original copy of this Task Order to Mariel Cairns, Management Analyst, City of Del Mar, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 and email a PDF copy to [email protected].
Approved by: Accepted by:
_____________________________________ _______________________________________ Ashley Jones Date Jeffrey M. Cooper Date
City Manager Senior Vice President
cc: Karen Falk, Principal Engineer
Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Exhibit 1 – Scope of Work, NV5
3 December 5, 2022 Item 05
Exhibit 1
July 29 2022
Karen Falk, Principal Engineer
City of Del Mar
2240 Jimmy Durante Boulevard
Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject: Proposal for Preparing Bid Documents for ADA Pedestrian Ramp Improvements along Coast Boulevard
Dear Mrs. Falk,
We are pleased to present our proposal for engineering services required for the investigation, evaluation, and diagrammatic design of 18 pedestrian ramps along Coast Boulevard that have been determined to need replacement to meet ADA compliance.
Section 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 – Site Visit / Field Investigation
NV5 will assess the existing ramps using a four-foot smart level and tape measure to evaluate the compliance of the existing ramps.
Task 2 – Diagrammatic Improvement Plans
This task will include the use of high-resolution aerial photography and field-based evaluation of existing pedestrian ramp conditions. Proposed curb ramp replacements to be field fit based upon San Diego Regional Standard drawings. Final plans will be prepared using the aerial imagery as a base in AutoCAD on City of Del Mar title block sheets at a scale not to exceed 1”=20’. Related tasks and deliverables will include the following:
a. Replacement of non-ADA-compliant pedestrian ramps with regional standard ramps.
This task includes two (2) submittals (95% and 100%) and responses to one (1) cycle of City review comments. Submittals will consist of PDF files unless otherwise requested by the city.
Task 3 – Meetings and Project Management
This task will include attendance at one (1) site meeting and one (1) progress/review meeting remotely unless otherwise requested, contract administration, project management, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), technical coordination, coordination with outside parties, and direct expenses.
Section 2: ADDITIONAL SERVICES
If requested by the City, NV5 will provide the following Additional Services beyond the essential services included in Section I, Scope of Services, on a Time and Material Basis:
1. Attendance at additional meetings beyond those identified explicitly in the Scope of Services.
2. Construction support, including RFI processing, invoice review, field visits, and change-order support.
3. Any additional project-related services not explicitly included in Section I, Scope of Services. 15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200 | San Diego, CA 92128 | www.NV5.com | Office 858.385.0500 | Fax 858.385.0400 4 December 5, 2022 Item 05
ffrey M. Cooper, P
nior Vice Preside
July 29 2022
Section 3: CLARIFICATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
1. NV5 is not preparing project specifications.
2. NV5 is not preparing a project bid schedule.
3. NV5 is not preparing a construction cost estimate
4. NV5 is not advertising or managing the public bidding process.
5. NV5 is not preparing permanent erosion control recommendations, Storm Water Quality Management Plans, or permanent BMP measures.
6. NV5 Public outreach and traffic engineering services are excluded.
7. NV5 is not providing construction inspection services.
8. Pavement and geotechnical investigations are excluded.
9. No major utility relocations or upgrades are proposed - Utility work will be limited to adjustment of utility boxes and water meters within the affected areas.
10. Right-of-way documents are excluded.
11. Filing/recording any Records of Survey or Corner Records is excluded from this proposal.
12. No property corners will be set as part of this project.
13. Research and plotting of easements and underground utilities, including potholing, are excluded from this proposal.
14. Construction staking is not included as a part of this proposal.
15. The city will provide its standard contract documents for prevailing wage construction work in Microsoft Word format, to be edited by NV5 for project-specific requirements.
FEE PROPOSAL
We propose to perform our services on a Time and Expense basis in a total amount not-to-exceed twenty-three thousand, four hundred and eighty-four dollars ($23,484). All services will be performed as a task order under the terms of our existing agreement with the City of Del Mar dated December 7th, 2020, following the fee schedule attached.
This proposal will remain valid for a period of 90 days.
We thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our fee proposal, and we look forward to completing this project successfully and building our professional relationship. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please reach out to me at 858.385.2103/[email protected] or Jeff Copper at (949)585-0477/[email protected].
Sincerely,
NV5, Inc.
Tamara O’Neal, PE Je E
Engineering Manager Se nt
Attachments: Cost Proposal
P27022-0004510.00
5 December 5, 2022 Item 05
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200 | San Diego, CA 92128 | www.NV5.com | Office 858.385.0500 | Fax 858.385.0400 6 December 5, 2022 Item 05
15092 Avenue of Science, Suite 200 | San Diego, CA 92128 | www.NV5.com | Office 858.385.0500 | Fax 858.385.0400 7 December 5, 2022 Item 05
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
Prepared by Nestor Machado, Management Analyst
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Approval of an Agreement for As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a professional services agreement with CPS HR Consulting (Attachment A) to provide as-needed human resources (HR) consulting and support services for an initial one (1) year period effective December 5, 2022, and ending December 5, 2023; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Currently, the Human Resources Division of the Administrative Services Department is experiencing an unexpected critical staffing need, which is expected to last through March 2023 at a minimum. As such, the City has an immediate and unanticipated need for HR consulting and support services. In order to ensure that critical operational needs continue to be met, staff is proposing to enter into an agreement with CPS HR Consulting (CPS) to assist with both day-to-day and more significant HR issues in a timely manner.
The Human Resources Division is responsible for classification and compensation studies, recruitment, examination and selection, benefit administration, employee relations, labor relations, conflict resolution, and other HR administrative services. CPS is a self-supporting public agency providing a full range of integrated HR solutions to government and non-profit clients across the country. CPS is the only provider of HR consulting services that employs professionals who have spent most of their career working in the public sector. They provide unique expertise to their clients since they occupy a common perspective and shared values as a public sector provider. CPS also applies best practices and uses proven public sector principles in their engagements with clients. Their teams are high-level professionals who are subject matter experts in the HR profession and can provide recommendations to improve agency operations.
As a standard practice, the City typically issues Requests for Proposal/Qualifications for these types of professional services, the process for which can be lengthy. Due to the urgent need ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
1 December 5, 2022 Item 06
City Council Agenda Report
Agreement for Interim HR Support Services
December 5, 2022
for these services, staff recommends that the Council approve this agreement under a sole source exemption per Section 7.04.090(O) of the Del Mar Municipal Code, which provides that awarding of an agreement is under exemption from the provisions of the chapter, at the discretion of the City Manager when: situations where solicitations of bids, or proposals for goods, services and/or professional services would be, in the discretion of the awarding authority, impractical, unavailing, impossible, or not in the best interests of the City. This Agreement is structured to provide services on an as-needed basis, so there will be no cost to the City unless work is performed, and the City will be charged in accordance with the fee schedule included with the agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item at this time. Based on the work that is performed by CPS in the upcoming months, staff will request funding, if necessary, during the FY 2022-2023 Mid-Year Financial Report which is scheduled to be presented to the City Council in March 2023.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Agreement with CPS HR Consulting
2 December 5, 2022 Item 06
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND CPS HR CONSULTING
FOR TEMPORARY HUMAN RESOURCES SUPPORT SERVICES
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 5th day of December, 2022 by and between the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and a municipal corporation (“City”), and CPS HR Consulting (“Consultant”) (collectively “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the City is seeking human resources consulting and support services on an as-needed basis (“Consulting Services”). Said work is to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below and as described in the Scope of Services and Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that Consultant is uniquely qualified by experience and ability to perform the services desired by City, and Consultant is willing to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant will conduct all the work as described and detailed in this Agreement to be provided to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows:
1. CONSULTING SERVICES.
1.1 Scope of Services. The Consultant shall perform the Consulting Services as set forth in the written Scope of Services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. Such services shall be provided at the direction of the City.
1.2. City Modification of Scope of Services. City may order changes to the Scope of Services within the general scope of this Agreement consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions. If such changes cause a change in the Consultant’s cost of, or time required for, completion of the Scope of Services, an equitable adjustment to Consultant’s compensation and/or contract time shall be made, subject to the City’s approval. All such changes shall be authorized in writing, executed by Consultant and City. If such a change results in an extension of the term of this Agreement or increases the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement, no such change shall have any force or effect unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved by the City Council.
2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Term, Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be effective for an initial period of one (1) year beginning on December 5, 2022, and ending on December 5, 2023.
The agreement may be extended for an additional one year period upon written approval of both parties.
Time is of the essence for this Agreement and each provision of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.
3 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
2.2 Delay. Any delay occasioned by causes beyond the control of Consultant may merit an extension of time for the completion of the Scope of Services. When such delay occurs, Consultant shall immediately notify the Project Coordinator in writing of the cause and the extent of the delay, whereupon the Project Coordinator shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay and grant an extension of time for the completion of the Consulting Services when justified by the circumstances provided that no extension of time shall be granted which would extend the time for performance beyond the date specified in section 2.1 above.
2.3 City’s Right to Terminate for Default. Should Consultant be in default of any covenant or condition hereof, City may immediately terminate this Agreement for cause if Consultant fails to cure the default within ten (10) calendar days of receiving written notice of the default.
2.4 City’s Right to Terminate without Cause. Without limiting its rights in the event of Consultant’s default, City may terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving written notice to Consultant. Such termination shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice.
Consultant shall be compensated for all effort and material expended on behalf of City under the terms of this Agreement, up to the effective date of termination. All personal property remaining in City facilities or on City property thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be, at City’s election, considered the property of City.
3. PERFORMANCE AFTER TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement as provided herein, Consultant shall, within such reasonable time period as may be directed by City Manager, complete those items of work which are in various stages of completion and which City Manager determines are necessary to be completed by Consultant to allow the project to be completed in a timely, logical, and orderly manner. Upon termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models, photographs, reports, and other materials prepared by Consultant shall be delivered to the City Manager, upon his request, as property of City.
4. COMPENSATION.
4.1 Total Amount. Compensation to Consultant shall be provided in accordance with the Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit “A” Consultant shall bill the City for work provided and shall present a written request for such payment monthly. City shall pay all invoices in arrears and shall in no event be required to pay for any services provided by Consultant in advance. Consultant acknowledges that it is not guaranteed any particular amount of work.
4.2 Additional Services. City may, as the need arises or in the event of an emergency, request additional services of Consultant. Should such additional services be required, Compensation therefore shall be paid to the Consultant in accordance with Scope of Services and Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit “A.” City and Consultant shall agree to the costs prior to commencement of such work.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Consultant is, for all purposes arising out of this Agreement, an independent contractor. The Consultant has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the Consultant in the performance of said services hereunder, the City only being concerned with the finished results of the work being performed. Neither Consultant nor Consultant’s employees shall in any event be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any 4 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
retirement benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, any injury leave or other leave benefits, Consultant being solely responsible for all such matters, as well as, compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations and laws governing such matters.
6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. Consultant agrees that it has the financial resources, service experience, completion ability, personnel, and experience in dealing with public agencies necessary for performing the Scope of Services and that such performance shall be in accordance with the standards customarily adhered to by an experienced and competent Consultant using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable Consultants practicing in the same field of service in the State of California. By executing this Agreement, Consultant represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness, and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to City. Additionally, Consultant and all of Consultant’s employees or agents shall secure and maintain in force such permits and licenses as are required by law in connection with the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement.
7. AUDIT OF RECORDS.
7.1 At any time during normal business hours and as often as may be deemed necessary, the Consultant shall make available to a representative of City for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and shall permit City to audit, examine, and/or reproduce such records. Consultant shall retain such financial and program service records for at least four (4) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.
7.2 The Consultant shall include the City’s right to audit under this section in any and all of their subcontracts and shall ensure that these sections are binding upon all subcontractors.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY. All Consulting services performed by Consultant, including, but not limited to, all drafts, data, correspondence, proposals, reports, research and estimates compiled or composed by Consultant, pursuant to this Agreement, are for the sole use of the City, its agents and employees. Neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. This provision does not apply to information that (a) was publicly known, or otherwise known to Consultant, at the time that it was disclosed to Consultant by the City, (b) subsequently becomes publicly known through no act or omission of Consultant or (c) otherwise becomes known to Consultant other than through disclosure by the City. Except for any subcontractors that may be allowed upon prior agreement, neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. The sole purpose of this section is to prevent disclosure of City’s confidential and proprietary information by Consultant or subcontractors.
9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
9.1 Consultant shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws, regulations, and policies applicable to public contracts and procurement practices, including, but not limited to, California Government Code §§ 81000 et seq. (Political Reform Act) and §§ 1090 et seq. Consultant shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the City in which the Consultant has a financial interest as defined in Government Code § 87103. Consultant 5 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests, which would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the City.
9.2 Consultant shall comply with all the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. The Consultant shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 (Assuming Office Statement) within thirty (30) calendar days of the City’s determination that the Consultant is subject to a conflict of interest code, if applicable. The Consultant shall also file a Form 700 (Annual Statement) on or before April 1, disclosing any financial interests held during the previous calendar year for which the Consultant was subject to a conflict of interest code.
9.3 If, in performing the Consulting Services set forth in this Agreement, the Consultant makes, or participates in, a “governmental decision” as described in Title 2, section 18701(a)(2) of the California Code of Regulations, or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the City that would otherwise be performed by a City employee holding a position specified in the department's conflict of interest code, the Consultant shall be subject to a conflict of interest code requiring the completion of one or more statements of economic interests disclosing the Consultant’s relevant financial interests.
10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by Consultant under this Agreement shall be considered the property of City. Consultant shall be permitted to reference and use said materials for use in future studies, work, and marketing so long as said materials are considered “public documents” and are not subject to attorney-client privilege, or the subject of pending closed or executive session discussions.
11. INSURANCE
11.1 Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than “A” and “VII” and are admitted to do business in the State of California, unless otherwise approved in writing by the City’s Risk Manager.
11.2 Consultant’s liabilities, including but not limited to Consultant’s indemnity obligations, under this Agreement, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. All policies of insurance required hereunder must provide that the City is entitled to thirty (30) days prior written notice (ten (10) days for cancellation due to non-payment of premium) of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy or policies. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this Agreement.
11.3 Types and Amounts Required. Consultant shall maintain, at minimum, the following insurance coverage for the duration of this Agreement:
11.3.1 Commercial General Liability (CGL). Insurance written on an ISO Occurrence form CG 00 01 07 98 or equivalent providing coverage at least as broad which shall cover liability arising from any and all personal injury or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of $2,000,000. There shall be no 6 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
11.3.2 Commercial Automobile Liability. For all of the Consultant's automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $300,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).
11.3.3 Workers' Compensation. For all of the Consultant's employees who are subject to this Agreement and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, a Workers' Compensation policy providing at minimum $1,000,000 employers' liability coverage.
The Consultant shall provide an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives.
11.3.4 Consulting Liability. Consulting liability (errors and omissions) coverage with a limit of $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The Consultant shall ensure both that (1) the policy retroactive date is on or before the date of commencement of the Scope of Services; and (2) the policy will be maintained in force for a period of three years after substantial completion of the Scope of Services or termination of this Agreement whichever occurs last. The Consultant agrees that for the time period defined above, there will be no changes or endorsements to the policy that increase the City's exposure to loss. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.
11.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions are the responsibility of the Consultant and must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, or (2) the Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
11.5 Additional Required Provisions. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
11.5.1 The City, its officers, officials, employees, and representatives shall be named as additional insureds. The City's Additional Insured status must be reflected on additional insured endorsement form which shall be submitted to the City.
11.5.2 The policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by the City, as reflected in an endorsement which shall be submitted to the City.
11.6 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this Section 11. The endorsement should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City’s forms provided those endorsements conform to City requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require 7 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.
12. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
12.1 Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend (with attorneys approved by City), and hold harmless the City, and its officers, officials, agents and employees (the “Indemnified Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant’s duty to indemnify under this section shall not include liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct by the City or its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees. Consultant's indemnification obligations shall not be limited by the insurance provisions of this Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that any payment, attorney's fees, costs or expense City incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the City's self-administered workers' compensation is included as a loss, expense, or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
12.2 This indemnity is in addition to any other rights or remedies which City may have under the law or this Agreement. In the event of any claim or demand made against any party which is entitled to be indemnified hereunder, City may, at its sole discretion, reserve, retain or apply any monies due to Consultant under this Agreement for the purpose of resolving such claims; provided however, that City may release such funds if Consultant provides City with reasonable assurances of protection of the City's interest. The City shall, in its sole discretion determine whether such assurances are reasonable.
12.3 Consultant agrees that its duty to defend arises upon an allegation of liability based upon the performance of services under this Agreement by Consultant, its officers, agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants, or anyone for whom Consultant is liable and that an adjudication of Consultant’s liability is not a condition precedent to Consultant's duty to defend.
13. SUBCONTRACTORS.
13.1 The Consultant’s hiring or retaining of third parties (i.e. subcontractors) to perform services related to the Project is subject to prior approval by the City.
13.2 All contracts entered into between the Consultant and its subcontractor shall also provide that each subcontractor shall obtain insurance policies, which shall be kept in full force and effect during any and all work on this Project and for the duration of this Agreement.
The Consultant shall require the subcontractor to obtain all policies described in section 11 of this Agreement in the amounts required by the City, which shall not be greater than the amounts required of the Consultant.
13.3 In any dispute between the Consultant and its sub consultants, the City shall not be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve the dispute. The Consultant agrees to defend and indemnify the City as described in section 12 of this Agreement should the City be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve any such dispute or should the City incur any costs in responding to third-party discovery requests. 8 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by City setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
15. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party shall be delivered to the persons listed below. Any such written communications by mail shall be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee five (5) calendar days after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted below.
If to City: If to Consultant
City of Del Mar CPS HR Consulting
City Clerk Melissa Asher, Senior Leader
1050 Camino del Mar 2450 Del Paso Road, Ste. 220
Del Mar, CA 92014 Sacramento, CA 95834
16 ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement and any portion thereof shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the Consultant’s duties be delegated or sub-contracted, without the express written consent of the City.
17. RESPONSIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT. City shall not be responsible nor held liable for any damage to persons or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or failure of any equipment used by Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees or subcontractors, even if such equipment has been furnished, rented, or loaned to Consultant by City. The acceptance or use of any such equipment by Consultant, Consultant’s employees, or subcontractors shall be construed to mean that Consultant accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless City from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of such equipment.
18. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISC. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Agreement shall be brought in the county of San Diego, California.
Consultant hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.
19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Consultant shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local governments applicable to this Agreement, including California Labor Code section 1720, et seq., relating to payment of prevailing wages for public works projects, if applicable. Consultant shall indemnify and defend 9 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability incurred due to any failure on the part of Consultant to comply with any applicable Laws.
To the extent Consultant is required to comply with prevailing wage requirements, Consultant does hereby acknowledge that they are aware of, have read, and understand the terms and implications of SB 854 and Consultant and any subconsultants ensure that they are familiar with and comply with its requirements. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the registration requirement with the Department of Industrial Relations, State of California (DIR), pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. As of March 1, 2015, in compliance with SB 854, the City requires all affected contractors and consultants to be registered with the DIR prior to submitting a bid or proposal on any eligible District project. As of April 1, 2015, failure to comply with the requirements of SB 854 by any contractor or consultant, including registration with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5, shall be a material breach of this Agreement which may be terminated by the City in its sole and absolute discretion. Where applicable, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.
20. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986. Consultant certifies that Consultant is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and consultants that are included in this Agreement.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matters herein. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein.
22. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, and no verbal understanding of the Parties, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless agreed to in writing by both Parties.
23. NO WAIVER. No failure of either the City or the Consultant to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.
24. SEVERABILITY. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
25. DRAFTING AMBIGUITIES. The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each Party. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement.
26. LEGAL FEES. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by either party hereto against the other party hereunder to enforce or interpret any of the provisions, covenants 10 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
or conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of any tortuous conduct by either party incident to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In any action or suit brought to enforce this Agreement, the damages available shall be limited to specific performance or other such equitable relief that the court may order.
27. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Agreement and the Exhibits, the main body of this Agreement shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Agreement, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Agreement, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Agreement.
28. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED. All Exhibits referenced in this Agreement are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference.
29. SIGNING AUTHORITY. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
11 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF DEL MAR,
a municipal corporation
By: _______________ ____________
Ashley Jones, City Manager
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
CPS HR Consulting
a California joint powers authority
By: __________________________
Melissa Asher, Senior Leader
12 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES and FEE SCHEDULE
Consultant shall provide human resources consulting and support services to the City as further described, but not limited to, below:
Classification and Compensation Studies
· Write or revise job descriptions
· Perform single classification studies
· Perform market rate base salary compensation studies
Recruitment, Examination and Selection
· Work with hiring managers to develop job postings and ideal candidate profiles · Devise a recruitment strategy and timeline
· Develop recruitment flyers or brochures, if needed
· Create and post advertising in appropriate channels
· Perform outreach to build awareness of the position and attract diverse candidate pools · Review application materials
· Conduct scoring and screening processes
· Conduct reference and background checks, if requested (background checks incur a cost per candidate)
Benefit Administration
· Field employee questions
· Process benefit enrollments, changes, and terminations · Work with third party providers
· Assist with open enrollment activities
Employee Relations (investigations, mediation, etc.)
· Provide advice, counsel, recommendations, and training to ensure a positive and productive work environment
· Provide direction for employee related matters such as time-off, medical leave, formal and informal employee complaints, discipline, termination of employees, and unemployment · Prepare and implement strategies to prevent and resolve employee problems or disputes · Provide mediation or investigative services if needed (and at an additional cost/higher pay rate)
Labor Relations
· Ensure compliance with MOUs or other bargaining agreements · Policy creation relative to MOUs
· Respond to grievances
13 December 5, 2022 Item 06
Professional Services Agreement
As-Needed Human Resources Support Services
· Union communications
Conflict Resolution
· Work with employees having conflict
· Engage in or organize mediation if needed
· Provide training as needed
Other HR Administrative Services
· Performance management & appraisal systems
· Leave and Covid management administration
· Administration of Workers’ Compensation claims with third party administrators · Assist with the review and interpretation of current, revised, and/or new HR-related laws, policies, and/or procedures
· Recommend best practices for ongoing compliance
FEE SCHEDULE
CPS HR will assign a highly skilled and fully knowledgeable Human Resource Consultant who will be available to provide virtual ongoing HR support to the City of Del Mar for up to 20-25 hours remote work per week, as needed.
Project Team Roles and Hourly Rate
CPS HR Staff Classification Hourly Rate
Investigator (if requested) $250/hour
Project Manager $140/hour
Principal Consultant/Technical Expert $135/hour
Senior Consultant $125/hour
HR Consultant $115/hour
Administrative Support $95/hour
14 December 5, 2022 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Dustin Lopez, Sheriff’s Captain North Coastal Station
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Authorization for San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to Purchase and Install License Plate Recognition Cameras on City Traffic Signals REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to install five (5) Automated License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras on traffic signals in the City using Reckor Systems Inc. (Reckor) equipment; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to reimburse the County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department in the amount of $28,790 for the cameras, licensing, and service fees for three (3) years and for the associated cellular service fees (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
License Plate Recognition (LPR) data is collected by utilizing specially designed cameras to randomly capture an image of a vehicle license plate and convert the plate characters into a text file using optical character recognition technology. If a match is found, the LPR user is notified. The LPR system is an objective non-discriminatory public safety tool as it is programmed to check all vehicles in the same manner. Data obtained by LPR cameras is useful in investigations including but not limited to stolen vehicles, stolen license plates, missing persons, and crime series.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Based upon crime statistics and trends, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department has identified several highly trafficked intersections that would provide the best initial return on investment related to the reduction of crime and successful prosecution of individuals committing crime within the City. The locations in the City of Del Mar include:
1 December 5, 2022 Item 07
City Council Agenda Report
Authorization to Purchase and Install LPR Cameras
December 5, 2022
No. of cameras Direction Location
1 Northbound Camino Del Mar / Del Mar Heights Rd
1 Westbound 4th St / Camino Del Mar
1 Westbound Via De La Valle / Jimmy Durante Blvd
1 Southbound Jimmy Durante Blvd / Via De La Valle
1 Southbound Camino Del Mar / Via De La Valle
Transitory Criminal Element
An analysis conducted in 2022 found that approximately 50% of the suspects arrested in Del Mar for serious offenses by the Sheriff's Department did not report living in the City of Del Mar. This indicates offenders are driving into and out of the City during the commission of their crimes. Of the vehicles stolen in Del Mar in 2022, only 13% were recovered by deputies in the City. The Reckor LPR system is always active and provides live alerts. Therefore, this system would substantially improve the rate at which vehicles are recovered nearby thus reducing the financial and time impacts to victims.
Privacy, Audits and Compliance
Access to and use of LPR data is for official law enforcement purposes only. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department has policies and procedures in place regarding the privacy, data quality, auditing and accountability, storage, and retention and access of LPR data. The Sheriff's policy and procedure concerning LPR use (6.130) is included as Attachment B.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total fiscal impact associated with the recommended action over the next three years is $28,790. This includes $21,590 for the five cameras, including a 3-year licensing and service fee, and $7,200 for the associated cellular service fees. There is currently funding in the adopted Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating Budget to cover the expenditure through the City’s contract with the County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department. Funds for the remaining annual licensing and service fees will be included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and 2024- 2025 Operating and Capital Budget for Council consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item is part of the City’s public safety operations and not included on the City Council list of goals and priorities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – LPR Reckor Edge Pro Quote and Specifications Attachment B – San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Policy and Procedure 6.130 2 December 5, 2022 Item 07
This quote is valid for 10 days from date of
issuance
Payments are due net 45 and payable upon
receipt of invoice unless otherwise stipulated.
Software license key(s) will be issued once
payment is received
Signature:_______________________________
Date:___________________________________
Title:____________________________________
Grand Total $4,318.00
Total Price $4,318.00
Discount 0.00%
Subtotal $4,318.00
Ship To Name San Diego County Sheriff's Office CA
Customer is responsible to provide SIM card with
static IP address and unlimited data plan.
Quote Notes
13100 Bowron Rd
Poway, CA 92064
US
Bill To
Bill To Name San Diego County Sheriff's Office CA
Email [email protected]
Prepared By Erez Sharoni
Quote Number 00003668
Expiration Date 12/9/2022
6721 Columbia Gateway Dr. Suite 400 Created Date 11/9/2022 Columbia, MD 21046
USA
Company Address
Product Code Product Quantity Sales Price Total Price
RKR-SCT-3Y Rekor Scout (3 year) upfront 1.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 RKR-EDG-PRO Rekor Edge Pro 1.00 $839.00 $839.00
RKR-MB-PRO Rekor Edge Pro Add on: Mounting Bracket 1.00 $79.00 $79.00 RKR-BOX-PRO Rekor Edge Pro Add on: Comms Box 1.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00 RKR-SHP-EDG Shipping & Handling: Edge 1.00 $50.00 $50.00 Totals
Signature
3 December 5, 2022 Item 07
MOUNTABLE LICENSE PLATE
& VEHICLE RECOGNITION
Rekor Edge Pro is a complete license plate and vehicle
recognition solution. Engineered for roadway speeds, the system can be deployed in neighborhoods, campuses, business districts, and also be used for parking management and access control.
It captures and processes all data on-device within a durable enclosure, allowing it to meet countless needs.
Rekor
Edge Pro
FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS
Rekor Edge Pro | Mountable License Plate & Vehicle Recognition rekor.ai *Solutions available for extreme ranges and lane coverage. **Rekor Scout™ is a proprietary software platform for accessing and analyzing Edge captured vehicle data.
Advanced vehicle recognition
with plate, make, type, color,
and direction of travel
Accurate in day/night and
all-weather conditions
Read paper, temporary, and
vanity plates
Real-time alerting
STATE-OF-THE-ART
RECOGNITION
Outdoor rated, IP67
Ethernet connection ready
1 year of Rekor Scout™
Commercial** service included
Scout dashboard available in the
cloud or on-premise
POWERFUL
PERFORMANCE
1-2 lanes, 75 ft max range
70 mph max capture speed
1920 x 1080 HD Camera
On-device video processing
Easily mount to a pole or
surface for quick installation
OPERATION
READY
4 December 5, 2022 Item 07
REKOR EDGE PRO SPECIFICATIONS
Ready to get started?
Contact [email protected]
www.rekor.ai 410.762.0800
*Coverage up to. Actual performance may vary.
Business districts, local roads, campuses,
residential streets, drive-thrus, parking lots Typical locations:
Recommended usage
Diecast aluminum, IP67
IR on: -20°C to 50°C
IR off: -20°C to 60°C
-30°C to 60°C
3-year repair/replace
Enclosure:
Operational temperature:
Storage temperature:
Warranty:
Environmental specifications
Ethernet
SSL over websockets & HTTPs
Connectivity:
Security:
Communications
1-2 lanes
75 ft max
70 mph max
Lane coverage:
Distance:
Speed:
Coverage*
Surface or Pole
12 VDC or PoE+
Average: 7W, Max: 26W
Mounting style:
Input voltage range:
Power consumption:
Mount and power
Camera resolution:
Image compression:
Video streaming:
Network security:
IR illumination:
Camera specifications
H.265
Password
Optimized IR with 850 nm IR LED’s
JPEG
1920 x 1080 HDTV 1080p
5 December 5, 2022 Item 07
6 December 5, 2022 Item 07
7 December 5, 2022 Item 07
8 December 5, 2022 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Nestor Machado, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Approval of the 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule (Attachment A).
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Del Mar has a long and proud history of active citizen involvement with a robust system of citizen advisory committees. Current City advisory committees include the Arts Advisory Committee, Finance Committee, Lagoon Committee, Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee, Parks and Recreation Committee, Shores Park, Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC), Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC), Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee as well as the quasi-judicial Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission.
The Del Mar community benefits greatly from the talented people who serve on these committees, and in the process help the City further the goals of the Community Plan by protecting, preserving, and promoting the unique values that make Del Mar the special place that it is. The committees and their citizen participants also help to ensure that City government reflects the values of the community and provide many hours of highly valuable volunteer time.
Due to the COVID pandemic, most advisory committee meetings in 2020 and 2021 were cancelled with certain committees meeting as needed to conduct essential City business, such as the Finance Committee. Furthermore, due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the City, the City’s budget and work plan were significantly reduced to include critical/essential items only during FY 2020-2021, and similar restrictions were continued into FY 2021 – 2022. As a result, many committee’s operated with very limited staff support.
1 December 5, 2022 Item 08
City Council Agenda Report
2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule
December 5, 2022
In 2021, prior to the restart of City committee meetings, the City Council established a Committee Efficiencies Taskforce to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s existing committee system, which included consideration of advisory committee meeting frequency. As a result of the Task Force’s comprehensive evaluation and subsequent recommendations, the City Council adopted numerous committee related policy and procedure updates in December 2021, and advisory committees resumed meeting remotely in January 2022. One of the changes resulting from the Task Force’s work is that City advisory committee’s now occur on a quarterly basis, with special meetings scheduled on an as-needed basis upon approval of the designated committee Council liaisons. This has been an important and beneficial change toward finding a balance in the amount of staff resources that are allocated to supporting the City’s committees, while still ensuring that the committees are able to complete an annual work plan that provides value and support for the City Council’s identified goals and priorities and the City’s overall work plan.
In 2022, there were a total of 25 scheduled meetings between all the City committees. In 2023, staff is proposing to host a total of 25 regular committee meetings, which does not include any special meetings that may be scheduled as needed. The committees also have the ability to create subcommittees who are able to convene and work on approved committee work plan items in between quarterly meetings of the committee. The proposed 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule is included with this report as Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule 2 December 5, 2022 Item 08
2023 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
Arts Advisory Committee January 25; May 24; September 27; November 15
(4th Wednesday @ 2:00 pm, except Nov)
Finance Committee February 28; May 23; December 5
(4th Tuesday @ 3:00 pm, except
December)
Lagoon Committee February 15; April 19; July 19; October 18 (3rd Wednesday @ 5:00 pm)
Measure Q Citizen Oversight January 11; October 25
(Meets bi-annually per Charter)
Parks & Recreation Committee February 8; May 10; September 13; November 8
(2nd Wednesday @ 4:45 pm)
Shores Advisory Committee Committee on hold until master planning process resumes
Sustainability Advisory Committee January 30; April 10; July 17; October 23 Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee January 17, 2023; April 18, 2023; July 18, 2023; September 19, 2023
(3rd Tuesday at @ 5:00 pm)
Undergrounding Project Advisory
Committee
Committee currently on hold
3 December 5, 2022 Item 08
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Adriana Jaramishian, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Memorializing the City Council’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) memorializing the City Council’s action taken at the November 14, 2022, public hearing related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002.
BACKGROUND/PRIOR CITY COUNCIL HEARING:
On November 14, 2022, the City Council (Council) conducted a de novo public hearing of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on TVS21-002, which was filed by Michael and Angela Deftos (Applicant/Appellant), owners of 225 Torrey Pines Terrace.
At the hearing, the Council received a presentation from staff and testimony from the Applicant/Appellant and the Tree Owner (Harvey and Sheryl White, 473 Ocean View Avenue), and their representatives. After deliberation on the various options regarding view restoration, the City Council approved a specified restorative action plan in order to remedy the scenic view lost at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace due to three Torrey Pine trees located at 473 Ocean View Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
The action taken by the City Council at the November 14, 2022, public hearing was not reflected in the draft resolution included with the agenda report, which was consistent with the recommendation provided by staff. The resolution has since been updated to reflect the action taken by the Council at that public hearing, and is described in detail below.
In the original proposed resolution, staff recommended the City Council adopt a restoration plan and multi-year trimming plan/schedule that was submitted by the Tree Owner’s certified arborist Mark Wisniewski, and was approved by the Planning Commission. The City Council considered this option, but ultimately determined by majority vote (3-2, with Mayor Worden and Council Member Druker opposed) that the 1 December 5, 2022 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
Resolution for TVS21-002
December 5, 2022
only way to properly restore the obstructed scenic view in a reasonable amount of time is to remove tree #1 and to trim trees #2-3. The trimming plan and schedule for trees #2-3 would remain the same as what was adopted by the Planning Commission. Section 4 of the draft resolution, which is included as Attachment A to this report, has been updated to reflect the view restoration plan approved by the City Council.
It should be noted that Trees 4-5, which were the subject of another related TSVS application (TVS21-003/Michaels), were not included in the appeal filed by the Applicant/Appellant (Deftos), and were not therefore subject to consideration as part of the November 14, 2022, de novo hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item as this is a private application. The Applicant/Appellant has paid all fees associated with the initial TSVS application and subsequent appeal.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Resolution Regarding TVS21-002
2 December 5, 2022 Item 09
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
REGARDING TREES, SCENIC VIEWS, AND SUNLIGHT
APPLICATION TVS21-002, DETERMINING THAT THE SCENIC
VIEW FROM THE PRIMARY LIVING AREA OF 225 TORREY
PINES TERRACE IS UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCTED BY THREE
(3) TREES LOCATED AT 473 OCEAN VIEW AVENUE, AND THAT
SPECIFIC VIEW RESTORATION MEASURES ARE WARRANTED
AND REQUIRED
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021, Michael and Angela Deftos (“APPLICANT” and Appellant), owners of 225 Torrey Pines Terrace (APN: 301-033-32-00), Del Mar, California, filed a Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application TVS21-002 (“APPLICATION”) requesting that the Planning Commission determine that three Torrey Pine trees, located at 473 Ocean View Avenue (APN: 301-033-04), owned by Harvey and Sheryl White (“TREE OWNER”), create an unreasonable obstruction of scenic views as defined by Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.51.050; and
WHEREAS, the administrative record establishes that a notice of the filing of the APPLICATION was mailed to TREE OWNER on August 5, 2021; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application TVS21-002 which was duly noticed and at which time public testimony and related evidence was received and as summarized as follows:
a. Written documentation submitted with the Application, including information concerning the APPLICANT’s attempts to informally resolve the dispute with Tree Owner.
b. Written and photographic information was submitted by the APPLICANT. c. Written and photographic information was submitted by TREE OWNER. d. Other oral and written testimony was submitted from Staff, APPLICANT, the TREE OWNER, and members of the public.
e. The December 7, 2021, Planning Commission agenda report its facts, analysis, and conclusions are incorporated herein
f. Additional relevant factual information and considerations were submitted during the hearing, including Planning Commissioner disclosures; and WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.51.050 (Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance) states that prior to rendering a decision in favor of the APPLICANT, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings of facts:
3 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
A. That the APPLICANT contacted the TREE OWNER and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute consistent with DMMC Section 23.51.040(B); and B. That the Scenic View from or the Sunlight reaching the real property of the APPLICANT is being unreasonably obstructed from three trees located on TREE OWNER”S property. In determining whether the Scenic View from and/or Sunlight reaching the real property of the APPLICANT is unreasonably obstructed, the Planning Commission considered several factors, listed below:
1. The extent of alleged Scenic View obstruction, expressed as a percentage of the total Scenic View, and calculated by means of a surveyor’s transit or by photographs or both;
2. Documentable evidence that demonstrates the Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that existed at the time the APPLICANT purchased or began occupying a property, or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter;
3. The quality of the pre-existing Scenic View(s) and/or Sunlight being obstructed;
4. That the implementation of a Restorative Action will not create an unreasonable infringement of the Subject TREE OWNER’s privacy that could not be mitigated;
5. The extent to which the Subject Tree interferes with efficient operation of an APPLICANT’s pre-existing solar energy systems;
6. The extent to which the Subject Tree causes shadows or reduces air circulation and/or light;
7. The extent to which the APPLICANT’s Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other than Subject Tree growth;
8. The variety of Subject Tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements;
9. The aesthetic quality of the Subject Tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;
10. The extent to which the location of the Subject Tree with respect to overall appearance, design, or use benefits the Subject TREE OWNER’s property;
11. The extent to which soil stability is provided by the Subject Tree, considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the Subject Tree’s root system per a report from a licensed soils engineer (if applicable); 4 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
12. The extent to which privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening is provided by the Subject Tree to the owner and to neighbors;
13. The extent to which energy conservation and/or climate control is provided by the Subject Tree;
14. The extent to which wildlife habitat is provided by the Subject Tree;
15. Whether the Subject Tree is a “Protected Tree”, as defined herein and in Chapter 23.50 (Trees);
16. The value of the Subject Tree to the community/neighborhood; and
17. Whether the Subject Tree is located on public right-of-way or City-owned property; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, a determination of unreasonable scenic view obstruction was made by the Planning Commission is consistent with DMMC Section
23.51.050 (A) & (B), and a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Bakker and Farrell was appointed to work with the Applicant, Tree Owners, and aid City staff with the development of an appropriate restoration plan and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the item was then continued to a future Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application TVS21-002 and considered a request for continuance from the Tree Owner; and WHEREAS, the Commission continued the item time certain to the August 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission’s December 7, 2021, considerations and determinations, along with a proposed View Restoration Plan, prepared by the Planning Commission subcommittee, with expert opinions provided by certified arborists Robert Walton (Applicant Arborist), Ted Safford (Tree Owner‘s Former Arborist), and Mark Wisniewski (Tree Owner’s Current Arborist); and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Planning Commission, the following seven factors (as provided in a letter dated August 3, 2022, submitted by the Tree Owner’s representative, Adam Birnbaum, AMB Planning Services LLC) generally reflect the standard protocols involved in implementation and enforcement of TVS restorative actions and were considered in the determination of the required restorative action stated in Section 4 of this Resolution:
1. Confirming the timing for the first-year view-restoration pruning; 5 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
2. Having qualified personnel positioned on the White, Deftos, and Michaels (separate TSVS Applicant – TVS21-003) properties to monitor the pruning, both to maximize the effectiveness of the view restoration and to protect the safety of the trees;
3. Setting a schedule for additional reduction pruning in the following years, in accordance with the Restorative Action Plan;
4. Creating a document to memorialize the White’s commitment to authorize the initial and future year(s) pruning;
5. A plan for staff review and documentation on the effectiveness of the Restorative Actions (perhaps assisted by a designated Planning Commissioner);
6. Selection of a licensed tree-care contractor to perform the work; and
7. Determining and collecting tree care service and monitoring costs per the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance.
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2022, a large branch from the eastern side of tree #1 of the subject applications had failed, resulting in a 40% loss of live foliage on the tree; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s restorative action determination with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Appellant Deftos contends that the action of the Planning Commission (PC) was not consistent with the Municipal Code because:
1. The failure of a large limb of one of the subject trees (Tree #1), three days after the Planning Commission decision on restorative action affects the approved restoration plan in the final Planning Commission resolution.
2. The PC approved restorative action plan: will not “reasonably” restore their scenic views lost by tree growth; involves a 5-year restoration plan in conflict with the DMMC Section 23.51.110; and does not specify the manner in which the trees should be trimmed.
3. The PC’s decision was made in conflict with the Planning Commission Policy Manual and direction given by the Commission on December 7, 2021, to form a subcommittee and return with a restorative action plan for consideration by the entire Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2022 the City Council of the City of Del Mar held an initial consideration hearing to determine if a De Novo hearing was appropriate, and at such time voted to set the matter for a De Novo hearing; and 6 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the Del Mar City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal brought by Applicant and considered all oral and written testimony and the record before them as summarized in the below:
a. Written information submitted with the Application, including information about attempts to resolve the dispute.
b. Written and photographic information submitted by the APPLICANT. c. Written and photographic information submitted by the TREE OWNER.
d. Oral testimony from Staff, the APPLICANT, the TREE OWNER, and the members of the public.
e. Other oral testimony and written agenda reports, dated November 14, 2022 incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. f. The Planning Commission hearing record and additional information submitted during the course of the de novo hearing, including any and all City Council disclosures.
WHEREAS, during Council deliberations, the City Council carefully considered several options to restore the Applicant’s scenic view; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressed concern with a multi-year view restoration plan for tree #1; and
WHEREAS, by a majority vote, the City Council ultimately decided that removal of tree #1, and trimming of trees #2-3, is in the best interest of the City and is the most appropriate remedy to restore the Applicant’s scenic view.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Del Mar does hereby find as follows:
Section 1: Determination that Applicant Fulfilled Obligations Consistent with the Municipal Code and that Alternative Resolution Efforts were Attempted.
The APPLICANT contacted the TREE OWNER and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute as set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.050 (A) by offering to attempt to resolve the view blockage dispute through mediation.
Section 2: Determination that Unreasonable Scenic View Obstruction Has Occurred
Based on substantial evidence submitted as part of the administrative record and testimony received during the public hearing on November 14, 2022, including agenda reports, public written and oral testimony, along with photographic 7 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
documentation from the Primary Living Area of the APPLICANT, in accordance with DMMC Section 23.51.050 (B), the City Council finds that scenic views or sunlight are unreasonably obstructed from the primary living area of the residence at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace pursuant to the factors of DMMC 23.51.050 (B) (2) & (3).
Section 3: Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposal and found that the project is listed among the classes of project that have been determined to have a less than significant adverse effect on the environment and are, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304- Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
Section 4: Restorative Action
As determined by the City Council, restorative action on the TVS21-002 application shall be as follows:
1) Remove tree #1
2) For tree #2, use reduction cuts to reduce the height of the canopy approximately 6 feet, and use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the canopy. No more than 20% live foliage shall be removed from tree #2, and work shall cease once 20% live foliage removal has been reached. 3) For tree #3, use thinning cuts to remove 20% live foliage. Work shall cease once 20% live foliage removal has been reached.
Restorative action for trees #2 and 3, shall occur through a schedule for the first two years (Winter 2022-2023 and Winter 2023-2024) that will provide for annual trimmings during the timeframe of November to January. Year four (Winter 2025- 2026) will provide for trimmings to be completed during the timeframe of November to January, and every other year thereafter in perpetuity, as ongoing maintenance in order to restore and maintain the scenic view.
Section 5: Restorative Work and Allocation of Costs
In performing the restorative work described in Section 4, the procedures set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.080 shall be followed. Allocation of costs for the restorative work, in accordance with DMMC section 23.51.080, will consist of a 50/50 cost sharing between the Applicant/Property Owners for TVS21-002 (Deftos) and TVS21-003 (Michaels).
8 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
Section 6: Enforcement
This Resolution shall be enforceable pursuant to DMMC Section 23.51.110.
Section 7: Planning Commission Subcommittee
Acting in accordance with the Planning Commission Policy Manual, the two Commission members duly performed an important community benefit by working with the parties to develop an effective restoration plan that minimized impacts to the trees, while mitigating impacts to scenic views.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that approval of TVS21-002 shall be subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions:
G-7 [Code Compliance]
Approval of this application shall not waive the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) or other applicable City regulations unless specifically waived in this permit authorization.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 5 th day of December 2022.
___________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
9 December 5, 2022 Item 09
Resolution 2022-XX
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5
th day of December 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Deputy Mayor Martinez, Councilmembers Gaasterland and Quirk NOES: Mayor Worden and Councilmember Druker
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
10 December 5, 2022 Item 09
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Madeline Shute, Assistant Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: De Novo of an Appeal of the City Manager’s Decision on Encroachment Permit EP22-064
EP Applicant/Appellant: Steven Crowe
Applicant’s Address: 111 Sea Cliff Way
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying Encroachment Permit EP22-064.
BACKGROUND:
On June 21, 2022, the Appellant applied for a long-term minor encroachment permit (EP22-064) to install landscaping and irrigation consisting of 'Texanum' - Waxleaf Privet hedges (Ligustrum japonicum) in a three-foot-wide unpaved portion of alley public rightof-way located along a portion of the Applicant/Appellant’s property frontage.
The property is located on the southern side of the terminus of Sea Cliff Way and was redeveloped with two detached and condominiumized dwelling units. The northern home on the property, 111 Sea Cliff Way, includes a staggered concrete wall with glass panels along the property’s northern boundary. The Sea Cliff Way alley has been improved with varying widths along the property frontage, with approximately half of the frontage improved with pavement up to the property line and the other half of the frontage consisting of a three-foot-wide unimproved area between the pavement and the property line. The Appellant’s application indicated the hedges would be maintained by the property owner at the same height of the existing wall and would serve to provide a privacy screen between the street and the yard (Attachment B).
On July 13, 2022, EP22-064 was denied by the City Manager (Attachment C). The denial was based on the materials included in the application and a determination process in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.070. Specifically, 1 December 5, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of EP22-064
December 5, 2022
DMMC 23.28.070(C) indicates an Encroachment Permit, Minor or Major, may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the following findings:
1) The proposed Encroachment will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, or the surrounding property;
2) The proposed Encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement;
3) The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics; 4) The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community; or
5) The proposed Encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public; and
6) The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.
Staff cannot make findings §23.28.070(C) (3), (4), and (6), as further described later in this report.
Secondly, the proposed encroachment is inconsistent with the DMMC §23.28.040 (B)(3), which states:
Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community.
And lastly, the denial is also based on inconsistency with City Council Policy 110 – Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way which states:
Examples of such inappropriate encroachments include: fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; and pools, spa or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large.
APPEAL AND INITIAL CONSIDERATION HEARING:
On July 22, 2022, Steven Crowe (Applicant) filed an appeal of the City Manager’s denial of EP22-064 (Attachment D) with the City Clerk. The Appellant identified three main points in the appeal:
2 December 5, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of EP22-064
December 5, 2022
➢ The vegetation would address privacy concerns from pedestrians passing by. ➢ The proposed area to be vegetated would not be converted for private use. ➢ The vegetation will improve the character and value of the community.
There are alternatives to the proposed vegetation, such as modifying the property’s boundary wall to be non-transparent or planting the hedge south of the wall on the Applicant/Appellant’s private property. Roughly half of the row of hedges have been planted and located on private property, while the other half is proposed to be located in the right-of-way due to the location of the articulating wall, creating a jogged but solid row of hedges. From a visual point of view, it will appear as though the entirety of the row of hedges is located on private property creating the appearance that the encroached upon public right of way area is reserved solely for use by the Applicant/Appellant.
On October 17, 2022, the City Council initially considered the appeal that had been filed to determine whether or not to set the matter for a de novo public hearing. As part of the initial consideration, the City Council received a presentation by staff, public testimony, and considered all the current facts in the record at the time and voted to set the application for a de novo public hearing at a future City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
DMMC Section 23.28.020 defines a Long-Term Minor Encroachment Permit as any improvement designed to or having a permanent appearance and intended for use for a period of 365 days or more and include but not limited to driveway aprons, pathways and walkways, and vegetation.
As mentioned earlier in this report, in accordance with DMMC Section 23.28.070(C), encroachment permits may be approved or conditionally approved only when the decision maker makes all six required findings. For this request, it is staff’s continued position that findings 3, 4, and 6 cannot be made. Due to the location of the proposed vegetation creating a “walled-off” appearance, it would convey the impression that approximately half (40-feet) of the 80-foot property frontage is private property and reserved solely for the private use of 111 Sea Cliff Way. Additionally, a solid row of hedges would narrow the visual width of the 20-foot-way alley right-of-way, thus reducing public view of the ocean currently viewed from the upper extent of the public alley and adversely affecting the area’s appearance, aesthetics, and character.
DMMC Section 23.28.040 provides a list of specifically prohibited encroachments.
Related to this request, DMMC Section 23.28.040(B)(3) states that any encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community is specifically prohibited. It is staff’s position that the location of the proposed vegetation would convey an impression the entire planted area along the 3 December 5, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of EP22-064
December 5, 2022
property frontage is private property and reserved solely for the private use of 111 Sea Cliff Way, when the western half is actually located in the public right-of-way. The Appellant has stated the intent of the hedges is to obscure visibility into the property, and, as proposed, there would be no distinction between private property and the public rightof-way based on the application materials.
Additionally, the proposed installation of the landscaping would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110, which states “examples of inappropriate encroachments include:
fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; and pools, spa or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large.” The Appellant has not identified any public benefit(s) that would result from allowing the encroachment in the public right-of-way.
Based on the determination that all six of the required findings in DMMC Section
23.28.070(C) cannot be made, and that the proposed encroachment is prohibited by DMMC Section 23.28.040 and City Council Policy 110, staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying encroachment permit EP22-064.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item, as this is a private development proposal. All fees associated with the appeal were paid for by the Appellant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
In accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a). Therefore, environmental review would not be required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution Denying EP22-064
Attachment B – Encroachment Permit Plan and Visual Simulation Attachment C – City Manager Determination on EP22-064
Attachment D – Appeal Submitted by Steven Crowe
4 December 5, 2022 Item 10
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT EP22-
064, A REQUEST TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 111 SEA
CLIFF WAY IN DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the right-of-way adjacent to 111 Sea Cliff Way; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, Steven Crowe (Applicant) filed an application for a long-term minor Encroachment Permit (EP22-064) seeking approval to install landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way adjacent to 111 Sea Cliff Way (Project); and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires a long-term minor Encroachment Permit (EP) be approved by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 2022, the City Manager denied EP22-064 based on findings that the Project would be inconsistent with DMMC Chapter 23.28 and City Council Policy 110; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2022, Applicant filed a timely appeal of the City Manager’s denial of EP22-064 with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, Applicant’s appeal asserts that: (1) the vegetation would address privacy concerns from pedestrian passers-by; (2) the proposed area to be vegetated would not be converted for private use; and (3) the vegetation will improve the character and value of the community; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, the City Council initially considered the appeal of the City Manager’s denial of EP22-064 and determined to hear the application at a de novo public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2022, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed de novo public hearing to review Encroachment Permit application EP22-064, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the Applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Oral testimony from City staff, the Applicant, and the public; d. Staff Report, dated December 5, 2022, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein;
e. Additional information submitted during the hearing; and 5 December 5, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX
WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.070 provides that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decisionmaker makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C); and
WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.040(B)(3) describes prohibited encroachments to include:
Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community; and WHEREAS, City Council Policy 110-Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way memorializes the City Council’s position on which types of private encroachments are compatible with and enhance the public areas that City rights-of way represent and, conversely, which types of encroachments are inappropriate because they would change the character and public perception of a right-of-way area to one of being under private ownership and/or benefit rather than being a public space; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a) and, therefore, environmental review would not be required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, that Encroachment Permit EP22-064 is hereby denied based on the following:
Section 1
The Project proposed by Applicant would fall within the types of prohibited encroachments set forth in DMMC Section 23.28.040 – PROHIBITED ENCROACHMENTS, specifically Subsection (B)(3):
Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community.
The location and height of the proposed vegetation would create a “walled-off” appearance and would convey an impression that approximately half (40’) of the eighty (80’) foot property frontage is private property and reserved solely for the private use of the residents at 111 Sea Cliff Way, even though the westerly half of the hedge would actually be located in the public right-of-way.
Section 2
All of the findings required pursuant to DMMC Section 23.28.070 – FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL for approval of Applicant’s Encroachment Permit cannot be made.
Subsection (C) states:
6 December 5, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX
An Encroachment Permit, Minor or Major, may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the following findings:
1. The proposed Encroachment will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, or the surrounding property;
2. The proposed Encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement;
3. The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics;
4. The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community; or
5. The proposed Encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public; and
6. The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.
Findings (3), (4), and (6) cannot be made with respect to Applicant’s Project. The location and height of the proposed vegetation would create a “walled-off” appearance and would convey an impression that approximately half (40’) of the eighty (80’) foot property frontage is private property and reserved solely for the private use of the residents at 111 Sea Cliff Way, when westerly half of the hedge would actually be located in the public right-of-way. Additionally, a solid row of hedges would narrow the visual width of the 20- foot-way alley right-of-way, thus reducing public view of the ocean currently viewed from the upper extent of the public alley. Therefore, due to the “wall-like” nature of the proposed vegetation/hedge, the impact it would have on the aesthetics, appearance and character of the area, and how it would present the impression of planting area being private property, the City cannot make the necessary findings of Subsections (3), (4), and (6) of DMMC Section 23.28.070(C) (set forth above) for approval of the subject Permit.
Since all necessary findings of DMMC 23.28.070(C) cannot not be made, the Encroachment Permit was denied.
Section 3
Approval of EP22-064 would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110 – “Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way,” which states in relevant part:
Examples of such inappropriate encroachments include: fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; and pools, spa or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large.
The location and height of the proposed vegetation would create a “walled-off” appearance and would convey an impression that approximately half (40’) of the eighty 7 December 5, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX
(80’) foot property frontage is private property and reserved solely for the private use of the residents at 111 Sea Cliff Way, even though the westerly half of the hedge would actually be located in the public right-of-way.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 5
th day of December 2022.
____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5
th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
8 December 5, 2022 Item 10
9 December 5, 2022 Item 10
Ligustrum japonicum ‘Texanum’ (Waxleaf Privet)
Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei ‘Muskogee’ (Crape Myrtle) 111 Sea Cliff Way, Del Mar, 92014 9 June 2022
Project: Crowe Residence
10 December 5, 2022 Item 10
July 13, 2022
Steven Crowe SENT VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
111 Sea Cliff Way
Del Mar CA 92014
Subject: Denial of Encroachment Permit EP22-064
A request for authorization to utilize the public right-of-way adjacent to 111 Sea Cliff Way to plant vegetation.
This letter is to notify you of the denial of your application of Encroachment Permit EP22-064 to utilize the public right-of-way adjacent to 111 Sea Cliff Way to plant vegetation.
This denial determination is based on staff’s review of application materials submitted on June 21, 2022, relative to the following sections of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC):
• DMMC 23.28.040 – PROHIBITED ENCROACHMENTS (B.3)
Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community.
• DMMC 23.28.070 – FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
An Encroachment Permit, Minor or Major, may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the findings listed in Subsection C of DMMC
23.28.070. Due to the “wall-like” nature of the proposed vegetation/hedge, the impact it would have on the aesthetics of the area, and its appearance as a private improvement, City staff cannot make the following necessary findings for approval of the subject Permit:
3. The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics;
4. The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community; or
6. The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.
City staff has also found that approval of EP22-064 would be inconsistent with City Council Policy #110 – “Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way,” which states:
“Examples of such inappropriate encroachments include: fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; and pools, spa or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large.” 11 December 5, 2022 Item 10
Denial EP22-064
111 Sea Cliff Way
Pursuant to DMMC 23.28.070, this decision is appealable to the City Council in accordance with DMMC Section 23.28.110 within ten (10) working days (closes at 5:30 p.m. on July 27, 2022). Information on the City’s appeal process including submittal requirements is described in DMMC Chapter 1.12. Please contact Sarah Krietor, City Clerk at [email protected] for more information or to submit an appeal. The fee for filing an appeal is $1,547.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact the project planner, Madeline Shute, at (858) 755-9313.
Clem Brown
Interim Assistant City Manager
12 December 5, 2022 Item 10
13 December 5, 2022 Item 10
14 December 5, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez and Council Member Terry Gaasterland, Housing Liaisons
Prepared by Assistant City Manager Clem Brown, Planning & Community Development Director Karen Brindley, and Principal Planner Amanda Lee
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Approval of a Letter to State Legislators Regarding Adverse Impacts of State Housing Legislation
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council Housing Liaisons recommend that the City Council approve a letter (Attachment A) to be sent to the City’s State legislative representatives along with the League of California Cities providing feedback and raising concerns about some of the adverse impacts and unintended consequences associated with implementation of recent housing-related legislation, identify recommendations for corrective actions that should be considered, and requesting cleanup legislation to provide some relief.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
State legislation continues to reduce local control and impose regulatory schemes that are inconsistent with local General Plans and certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) land use plans and implementing regulations. This is an issue because coastal jurisdictions must comply with the Government Code and the Coastal Act. In addition to implementation costs, there are cumulative impacts to the community when the City must accommodate an unlimited number of streamlined projects and an exponential increase in the number of new dwelling units constructed in overlapping timeframes.
The next State-level legislative session starts in December 2022. This is an opportunity for the City Council to provide important feedback to the League of Cities, the City’s lobbyist, Townsend Public Affairs, and State legislators for advocacy to address the associated impacts and unintended consequences of implementing recent housing-related legislation in Del Mar.
The following State housing laws, currently in effect, are summarized in this Agenda report:
1 December 5, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Letters to State Legislators on Housing Legislation
December 5, 2022
Ministerial approval of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on any lot that allows residential use per variety of laws as set forth in Government Code Section 65852.2 (see Attachment B).
Ministerial approval of Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit projects on single-family zoned parcels per SB 9, which took effect January 1, 2022 (see Attachment C).
The City recognizes that housing affordability is a critical issue facing California and the City is committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall. The City’s adopted Housing Element identifies a multi-faceted approach to meet the assigned allocation of 113 dwelling units in a range of income levels consistent with the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and State law. The City’s housing strategy provides for: 1) density increases to facilitate housing production including, large multi-unit housing development on the State Fairgrounds property (at least 54 lower income units); 2) a variety of small, medium, and large residential projects on privately-owned sites in various infill locations; 3) mixed use projects; 4) small infill development (3-4 lower income units per project) on two small City-owned vacant parcels; and 5) incorporation of ADUs throughout the community to provide a greater variety of housing options at varying income levels.
State law can generally facilitate these efforts; however, recent State legislation has created implementation challenges at the local level with unintended consequences. This includes concerns about loss of local control, unnecessary impacts to community character, and impacts to the general fund.
State mandates have created a constant need for local processing of ordinance updates which has significantly impacted staffing and budget resources for all agencies involved including local jurisdictions, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and resource agencies including the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The State’s annual changes to ADU and housing law is difficult to timely implement by local jurisdictions. This impacts local staffing and budget resources. Most legislation includes the provision that if local ordinances are inconsistent with new legislation, their ordinances are null and void, requiring default implementation of the government code, which are typically more flexible than City zoning standards (building setbacks, parking, etc.).
The State adoption cycles do not consider coastal zone cities and the processing time required to update the ordinance at the community level; and obtain final approval via the State Coastal Commission certification process. Coastal Commission staffing resources are significantly impacted and have been unable to keep up with the processing of LCP updates and permit appeals for each respective coastal jurisdiction impacted. Currently, it takes about 18 months to two years to implement each legislative update. This results in a significant portion of the local budget being shifted away from local priorities each year when resources must be reallocated to address unfunded State mandates.
2 December 5, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Letters to State Legislators on Housing Legislation
December 5, 2022
Some State laws require the City to take action on proposed development within a short period of time (commonly referred to as a “shot clock”), then if the specified time runs out, a project is considered to be “deemed approved”. Permit processing is further complicated for coastal jurisdictions when they must spend additional time working to interpret new State laws that have inherent conflicts with the Coastal Act.
As a jurisdiction that is located entirely in the coastal zone and subject to compliance with the Coastal Act, the City faces three main implementation challenges are described below:
1. Addressing Inconsistencies Between California Government Code and Coastal Act Many State laws (i.e., SB 9 and ADU legislation) include a provision that the law does not supersede the provisions of the Coastal Act and specifically state that it is not intended to “in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976.” In such cases, it requires efforts to “harmonize” State law and the Coastal Act to protect coastal access and coastal resources. This is a challenge because permit applications are required to be timely processed ministerially, without public hearings and subject only to objective design standards. However, the process of “harmonizing” involves a site-specific evaluation to meet the interpretations identified at the State-level by HCD and CCC staff.
The SB 9 and ADU legislation in particular have been challenging to implement due to Del Mar’s coastal location and associated environmentally sensitive lands constraints and evolving interpretations of the respective laws at the State level. Changes to ADU legislation have occurred in nearly every legislative cycle that continue to reduce local control over the development of ADUs; and the window of time local jurisdictions have to revise regulations is limited (most go into effect January 1) and do not consider that coastal cities must also process LCP Amendments to adopt and implement the latest legislation.
Implementation of requirements for development “by-right” with no discretionary permit review is also a challenge when legislation does not specifically address the Coastal Act.
Local implementing ordinances must be processed per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means local jurisdictions must identify local measures to minimize and avoid significant impacts to environmental resources.
The City has also experienced issues at the project-level due to requirements for a new ADU that is proposed at the same time of a new primary dwelling to be considered ministerially via a separate approval process. In Del Mar, new primary dwelling units are subject to design review, and it has been challenging for the Design Review Board to separate the actions. This is further complicated for staff level reviews and determinations as to whether a proposed ADU is in compliance with the City's Local Coastal Program. Multiple ADU permit applications that were approved by the City have been appealed to the CCC by appellants asserting claims that associated height increases, setback encroachments, and parking exemptions are in conflict with the Coastal Act and certified LCP.
3 December 5, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Letters to State Legislators on Housing Legislation
December 5, 2022
2. Addressing Conflicts between the Government Code and State Guidance The State adopted several sets of comprehensive ADU laws, and amendments thereto, over the past 15 years. In that time multiple versions of State Guidance have been published by HCD and CCC. This has resulted in local challenges and delays relating to factors such as the number of units allowed on a property, the size and location of units allowed, the allowable height, and required parking.
One example of a conflict involves the determination of how many ADUs are allowed on a lot with two detached primary units. While this scenario involves a parcel with more than one primary unit and meets the commonly understood definition of “multiple dwelling unit” development, HCD Guidance has classified this scenario as single family development. As a result, the State Guidance conflicts with local code definitions and, if implemented accordingly, would treat similarly situated properties (with two detached primary units on one parcel) differently by limiting lots where the two primary units are detached to a maximum of one ADU per lot and allowing neighboring lots in the same multi-unit zone to have two ADUs if the primary units are attached. This makes implementation a challenge on lots that have been condominiumized (two property owners that share the common airspace on a lot) and arguably each have a right to develop one ADU.
3. Lack of Nexus in Mandates Requiring Concessions Unnecessary to Create a Unit There is general community frustration that the ADU laws provide for a range of concessions and relief from local development standards regardless of whether or not an ADU will be occupied and used for housing; and that in doing so, the community is impacted by the resulting conflicts (i.e., noise, privacy, and scenic view conflicts). In Del Mar, it appears that the influx of “ADU development” has occurred because of the opportunity and flexibility in the State law to add floor area above the zone maximum with an associated increase in property value without any obligation to actually make the new ADU available for housing. Further, it is difficult to understand the nexus to housing production because, while the intention of legislation is to create more housing units, the increased allowances for height and encroachment into yard setbacks is not expressly limited to what is necessary to accommodate production of a new ADU, and local governments are pre-empted from requiring that newly created ADU actually be utilized for housing/dwelling purposes.
It is clear the State priority is to streamline and incentivize the creation of new housing.
However, the one-size fits all legislative approach creates unintended impacts within some communities. For example, reduced side and rear yard setbacks may be reasonable on large lots, however, the impacts become greater when a community has small lot sizes or irregularly shaped lots. Further, the law requires the City accommodate an ADU height that can be above that of the existing primary dwelling unit, which creates inconsistencies for implementation. Typically, ordinances are based on the premise that accessory uses and structures are to be subordinate to the primary use and structure; however, in this case the ADU laws are requiring that local jurisdictions accommodate ADUs that are larger than the primary unit.
4 December 5, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Letters to State Legislators on Housing Legislation
December 5, 2022
Recommendations for Corrective Action and Relief
1) New legislation should provide greater certainty for implementation in the coastal zone. 2) The Government Code and associated State Guidance documents should be amended to remove conflicts between sections within the Government Code and ensure consistency between the Government Code and State Guidance documents. 3) The one-size fits all approach to mandating additional housing units on each parcel, revising development standards, and removing public input creates potential adverse impacts to community character and local infrastructure. State legislation should accommodate local jurisdictions’ ability to determine where housing should be located to meet local housing needs.
On December 12, 2022, the City Attorney will provide an update to the City Council regarding new State laws of similar concern related to community impacts and loss of local control that will take effect in 2023. Additional recommendations for corrective action and relief should be considered and conveyed to the State for these new laws, which include but are not limited to:
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per AB 2221, AB 916, and SB 897, which include provisions requiring local jurisdictions accommodate an increase in ADU height allowances up to 18 feet and 25 feet, that will take effect January 1, 2023; Parking Exemptions to Facilitate Development within one-half mile of public transit per AB 2097 that will take effect January 1, 2023; and
Streamlining of Mixed-Use Development per AB 2011 and SB 6 that will take effect July 1, 2023.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Letter to be provided to State legislative representatives for Del Mar Attachment B – Summary of ADU Law (Government Code Section 65852.2) Attachment C – Summary of SB 9 Urban Lot Split and Two-Unit Development Law 5 December 5, 2022 Item 11
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us DRAFT
December 5, 2022
The Honorable Toni Atkins SENT VIA EMAIL
California State Senate
Senate Pro Tempore
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Impacts and Unintended Consequences of Recent Housing Legislation Dear Senator Atkins,
The City of Del Mar recognizes that housing affordability is a critical issue facing California and is committed to being part of the solution. The intent of this letter is to provide feedback about some of the impacts and unintended consequences associated with implementation of recent housing-related legislation and identify recommendations for corrective actions that should be considered to provide some relief.
The City’s adopted Housing Element identifies a multi-faceted approach to meet the assigned allocation of 113 dwelling units in a range of income levels consistent with the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and State law. The City’s housing strategy provides for: 1) density increases to facilitate housing production including, large multi-unit housing development on the State Fairgrounds property (at least 54 lower income units); 2) a variety of small, medium, and large residential projects on privately-owned sites in various infill locations; 3) mixed use projects; 4) small infill development (3-4 lower income units per project) on two small City-owned vacant parcels; and 5) incorporation of ADUs throughout the community to provide a greater variety of housing options at varying income levels.
State law generally can facilitate these efforts; however, recent State legislation has created implementation challenges at the local level with unintended consequences. Overall, the State mandates raise concerns about loss of local control, unnecessary impacts to community character, and impacts to the general fund. The State mandates have created a constant need for local processing of ordinance updates which has significantly impacted staffing and budget resources for all agencies involved including local jurisdictions, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and resource agencies including the California Coastal Commission (CCC). As a jurisdiction that is located entirely within the coastal zone and subject to compliance with the Coastal Act, three main implementation challenges that the City is experiencing are described below:
1. Addressing Inconsistencies between California Government Code and Coastal Act Many State laws (i.e., SB 9 and ADU legislation) include a provision that the law does not supersede the provisions of the Coastal Act and specifically state that it is not intended to “in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976”. In such Attachment A
6 December 5, 2022 Item 11
Feedback on Housing Legislation
December 5, 2022
cases, it requires efforts to “harmonize“ State law and the Coastal Act to protect coastal access and coastal resources. This is a challenge because permit applications are required to be timely processed without public hearings and subject only to objective design standards.
However, the process of “harmonizing” involves a site-specific evaluation to meet the interpretations identified at the State-level by HCD and CCC staff. The new SB 9 and ADU legislation in particular has been a challenge to implement due to Del Mar’s coastal location and associated environmentally sensitive lands constraints and evolving interpretations of the respective laws at the State level.
Implementation of requirements for development “by-right” with no discretionary permit review is also a challenge when legislation does not specifically address the Coastal Act.
Local implementing ordinances must be processed per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means local jurisdictions must identify local measures to minimize and avoid significant impacts to environmental resources.
2. Addressing Conflicts between the Government Code and State Guidance The State adopted several sets of comprehensive ADU laws, and amendments thereto, over the past 15 years. In that time multiple versions of State Guidance has been published by HCD and CCC. This has resulted in local challenges and delays relating to factors such as the number of units allowed on a property, the size and location of units allowed, the allowable height, and required parking. One example of a conflict involves the determination of how many ADUs are allowed on a lot with two detached primary units. While this scenario involves a lot with more than one primary unit on the lot and meets the commonly understood definition of “multiple dwelling unit” development, HCD Guidance seems to have inadvertently classified this scenario as single family development. As a result, the State Guidance conflicts with local code definitions and, if implemented accordingly, would treat similarly situated properties (with two primary units on one lot) differently by limiting lots where the two primary units are detached to a maximum of one ADU per lot and allowing neighboring lots in the same multi-unit zone to have two ADUs if the primary units are attached. This makes implementation a challenge on lots that have been condominiumized (two property owners that share the common airspace on a lot) and arguably each have a right to develop one ADU.
3. Lack of Nexus in Mandates Requiring Concessions Unnecessary to Create a Unit There is general community frustration that the ADU laws provide for a range of concessions and relief from local development standards regardless of whether or not an ADU will be occupied and used for housing; and that in doing so, the community is impacted by the resulting conflicts (i.e., noise, privacy, and scenic view conflicts). In Del Mar, it appears that the influx of “ADU development” has occurred because of the opportunity and flexibility in the State law to add floor area above the zone maximum with an associated increase in property value without any obligation to actually make the new ADU available for housing. Further, it is difficult to understand the nexus to housing production. The one-size fits all approach to mandating additional housing units on each parcel, revising development standards, and removing public input creates potential adverse impacts to community character and local infrastructure.
Recommendations for Corrective Action and Relief:
In order to provide some relief from the unintended and adverse impacts created by recently enacted housing related legislation, the City respectfully requests that you, along with your legislative colleagues, consider the following:
7 December 5, 2022 Item 11
Feedback on Housing Legislation
December 5, 2022
1) New legislation should provide greater certainty for implementation in the coastal zone. 2) The Government Code should be amended to remove conflicts between sections within the Government Code and the associated State Guidance documents should be amended accordingly to ensure consistency.
3) State legislation should accommodate local jurisdictions’ ability to determine where housing should be located to meet local housing needs.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Dwight Worden
Mayor
cc: Del Mar City Council
Ashley Jones, City Manager
Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Sean McReynolds, Townsend Public Affairs
Catherine Hill, League of California Cities
8 December 5, 2022 Item 11
1 Summary of ADU Applicability in Coastal Jurisdictions per Government Code Section 65852.2 Applicable ADU Codes
The City’s previously adopted ADU ordinances are “null and void” per State law. When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing ADUs in accordance with California Government Code Section 65852.2 receives an application for a permit to create an ADU, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review. (Gov. Code 65852.2(b)). The City must continue to process submitted ADU applications in accordance with Government Code Section 65852.2. This requires “harmonizing” between State ADU law and the Coastal Act as necessary to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The Coastal Act is not superseded and the Government Code specifically provides that it is not intended to “in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976”. Therefore, the City has the ability to scale back and/or modify the placement of ADU locations and the size of the unit as a mitigation measure when necessary to protect coastal resources.
The State’s ADU regulations are complex and some elements are contradictory, including State guidance in the 2022 HCD ADU Handbook. It is recommended that the City request clarification from HCD as applicable (i.e. a technical assistance memo) and that the City continue to document the basis for its ADU permit decisions.
For greater certainty and local control, the City can process a local ADU ordinance that would take effect following City Council adoption, HCD approval, and Coastal Commission certification. The City is in process of soliciting State guidance and preparing a draft ADU ordinance to implement new ADU laws.
Standards for Single Dwelling Unit Lots vs. Multiple Dwelling Unit Lots/Mixed Use Lots The Government Code provides different ADU standards for “single-family” vs. “multifamily”, but does not provide a definition for what constitutes a multifamily unit lot. For lots that have single dwelling unit zoning designations and a maximum of one primary dwelling unit per lot, a maximum of one ADU and one Junior ADU is permitted per lot. Lots with existing multiple primary dwelling units are allowed to have more than one ADU per lot. (Gov.
Code Section 65852.2. (e)(1)(C) and (D)).
The City can rely on its definition of “multiple dwelling unit” for review and approval of ADU applications on lots with more than one primary dwelling unit. The City’s zoning code definition of “multiple dwelling unit” (DMMC Section 30.0104.130(F)) applies to a building or lot containing two or more dwelling units on a single lot. This includes lots with multiple units located within a common building or that share a common wall and lots with multiple detached units that do not share a common wall. Lots with existing multiple dwelling unit development have a right to two detached ADUs that are subject to a maximum of height of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side yard setbacks per Attachment B
9 December 5, 2022 Item 11
2 Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(D). The City can use CDP findings to justify accommodation as an “attached” ADU instead of detached as necessary to protect coastal access and coastal resources. Lots with multiple units in a common building (two or more units) can also add one or more ADUs in non-livable spaces where designed to meet the California Building Code standards for a dwelling unit.
The maximum number of ADUs created within converted non-livable spaces is up to 25% of the total number of existing primary dwelling units on that lot per Government Code Section 65852.2(e)(1)(C).
ADU Size Limits
Determinations of the allowable size of an ADU must account for site-specific “harmonizing” between State ADU law and the Coastal Act as necessary to protect coastal access and coastal resources during ADU permit application review.
The allowable size limits for ADUs are set forth in multiple subsections of Government Code 65852.2 and some elements are contradictory. Government Code Section 65852.2 establishes minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached ADUs in Government Code Section 65852.2 Subsections (a)(1)(A-D).
Minimum size - The City must accommodate at least the size of an efficiency unit per 65852.2 Section (c)(2)(A). Efficiency unit is defined is defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. The starting point for accommodation of a minimum size for ADUs should be 800 square feet, maximum 16 foot height, and 4 foot side and rear yard setbacks per Government Code Section 65852.2 Section (c)(2)(C). However, the ADU size can be further reduced to a smaller efficiency unit size if necessary to comply with local development standards, including protecting coastal access and coastal resources. Maximum size - The starting point for accommodation of a maximum size for ADUs (attached or detached) should be 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet for an ADU with more than one bedroom, per Government Code Section 65852.2 Section (c)(2)(B). However, as noted above the ADU size can be required to be reduced if necessary to protect coastal access and coastal resources. An additional size limit that should be considered as necessary to accommodate an ADU and protect coastal access and coastal resources is a limit on the size of an “attached” ADU to a maximum of 50% of the primary dwelling unit if there is an existing primary dwelling unit per Section 65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(iv).
Documentation of Local Interpretations and Determinations that Require “Harmonizing” Processing of an administrative Coastal Development Permit is required for ministerial decisions on ADU applications submitted to the City.
The City’s timing in processing an ADU application for ministerial approval is critical. If an agency fails to act on the completed application within 60 days, the application is deemed approved. (Gov. Code Section 65852.2. (a)(3). The clearest exception to this rule is where there is a permit application to create a new single family dwelling on the lot in which case the decision on the ADU application can be 10 December 5, 2022 Item 11
3 delayed until the primary residence is approved, but the ADU application is still processed as a ministerial action. The other consideration in the approval of ADU’s is the Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program. The City is required to process a CDP for each ADU. The Government Code regulating ADU’s does not supersede the Coastal Act. (Gov. Code Section 6585.2.2 (l). The applicable findings for a local decision to approve or deny a CDP must be documented in writing in accordance with DMMC Section 30.75.140 - Requirement for Findings. Following are the required findings for CDP approval:
1. That the use for which the Coastal Development Permit is applied is permitted within the zone in which the property is located.
2. That the proposal meets the criteria of the applicable chapters of this Title (DMMC Zoning Chapters that are Certified LCP Implementing Ordinances).
3. That the granting of such Coastal Development Permit will be in conformity with the certified City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program (LCP Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances).
4. That for all development proposals located seaward of the first public roadway, the proposed development is consistent with and implements the applicable requirements for provision of public access contained in this Title (DMMC Zoning Chapters that are Certified LCP Implementing Ordinances) and in the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
5. That for all development proposals involving the construction or placement of a shoreline protection device, that the proposed development is consistent with and implements the applicable requirements of the Beach Overlay Zone and Setback Seawall Zone provisions contained in this Title (DMMC Zoning Chapters that are Certified LCP Implementing Ordinances) and is consistent with and implements the provisions of the Chapter Three Policies of California Coastal Act.
6. That the proposal is consistent with and implements the provisions of public view protection policies IV-22 through IV-27 of the City of Del Mar LCP Land Use Plan.
7. That for all development proposals on sites with identified wetland resources, that the proposed development is consistent with and implements the provisions of the Lagoon Overlay Zone as contained within the City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program Implementing Ordinances and Land Use Plan.
11 December 5, 2022 Item 11
State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
M E M O R A N D U M
The purpose of this memo is to provide an implementation overview of provisions included in Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) from the local government perspective. The Governor signed Senate Bill 9 into law, requiring local governments ministerially approve urban lot splits and certain proposed two-unit projects on single-family zoned parcels. An urban lot split followed by the development of two-unit projects on each new lot would result in a maximum of four total dwellings subject to ministerial approval under the bill’s provisions. Local governments should consider developing objective standards now, before the bill is set to go into effect in January of 2022. Below is an overview of implementation standards that local governments should be aware of, organized by the measure’s two primary components – urban lot splits and two-unit development projects.
Ministerially Approved Urban Lot Splits
SB 9 provides for the ministerial approval of the subdivision of one lot into two, without being subject to public hearing or discretionary review. Successful urban lot splits must adhere to the following criteria:
1. The parcel must be located within a single-family zoned residential area and must be within an urbanized area, as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. (This applies to most every urban and suburban city within the State)
2. The split must result in two new lots of approximately equal size (one parcel cannot be smaller than 40% of the lot area of the original parcel), with each new lot at least 1,200 square feet (although, a local government may set lower minimum standards).
3. The split does not alter or demolish existing developments with the following criteria:
• Affordable housing units or rent controlled housing;
• Housing where the owner has exercised their rights under the Ellis Act within the past 15 years, or has been occupied by a tenant (market rate or affordable) within the past three years; or
• Parcels located within a designated historic district or that have been identified as a historic landmark.
4. The parcel cannot be located on a lot established through a prior SB 9 lot split, nor can the owner or anyone acting on behalf of the owner have previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split.
5. The parcel may not be located in an area designated for environmental conservation or identified to be at risk of environmental disaster.
In addition to the qualifying criteria for urban lot splits, SB 9 identifies a host of standards Local governments must employ when considering, by-right, the split of an urban parcel. Standards include:
Attachment C
12 December 5, 2022 Item 11
2 Grounds to Deny a Split are Limited Qualifying lot splits may only be denied if building officials find that the resulting housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment and there is no feasible, satisfactory mitigation.
Adjoining or Adjacent Structure Approval Proposed adjacent or connected structures must be allowed.
Owner Occupancy Requirement The applicant-owner must sign an affidavit stating that the owner intends to occupy one of the housing units as the owner’s principal residence for at least 3 years following the lot split. Prohibits the imposition of all other owner-occupancy requirements. Parcels operated by nonprofits or located within community land trusts are exempt from this provision.
Objective Standards Only A local government is authorized to impose only objective zoning, subdivision, and design review standards. The local government may require easements or that the parcel adjoins or provides access to the public right-of-way.
Parking Limitations A local government can only require one off-street parking space per unit. If the parcel is located near transit or a car share vehicle location, it is not permitted to require any parking minimums.
Setbacks Side and rear setbacks are limited to four feet but none at all may be imposed on an existing structure or one that is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
Correction of Nonconformities Prohibited SB 9 prohibits local governments from requiring, as a condition for ministerial approval of a lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
No Dedications or Offsite Improvements No right-of-way dedications or construction of offsite improvements may be required.
Reporting Requirements All urban lot splits as a result of SB 9 must be included in annual housing element reports.
Ministerially Approved Two-Unit Development Projects
In addition to the by-right approval of urban of urban lot splits, SB 9 requires local governments to ministerially approve the development of two-unit projects on parcels zoned for single-family use, or that have been divided into two parcels under the provisions of the bill. Successful twounit development projects must adhere to the following criteria:
1. The parcel must be located within a single-family zoned residential area and must be within an urbanized area, as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. (This applies to most every urban and suburban city within the State)
2. The development does not alter or demolish existing developments with the following criteria:
• Affordable housing units or rent controlled housing;
13 December 5, 2022 Item 11
3 • Housing where the owner has exercised their rights under the Ellis Act within the past 15 years, or has been occupied by a tenant (market rate or affordable) within the past three years; or
• Parcels located within a designated historic district or that have been identified as a historic landmark.
3. The project cannot result in the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior walls of an existing dwelling. However, if the site has not been occupied by a tenant within the last three years from when the application was submitted or the local government has enacted, via ordinance, greater demolition of a site, more than 25 percent of existing exterior walls may be demolished.
In addition to the qualifying criteria for two-unit development projects, SB 9 identifies a host of standards local governments must employ when considering, by-right, the development of two units within a single parcel. A few standards set forth by the language pertaining to urban lot splits are also applicable to two-unit developments. Once again, local governments are only permitted to use objective zoning, design, and subdivision standards. Even with the use of objective standards, they cannot be used to halt the development of two units of at least 800 square feet.
Moreover, the same parking standards that apply to lot splits also apply to two-unit developments – one space per unit, unless the site is located near transit or a car share vehicle location. Other standards applicable to two-unit developments include:
CEQA Application Because SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of lot split and development projects, CEQA standards do not apply. The bill allows local governments to adopt an ordinance to implement the bill’s requirements and provides that those ordinances are not a project under CEQA.
The Coastal Act While the Coastal Act still applies, local governments are not required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permits for a project subject to SB 9 approval. Otherwise, SB 9 lot splits and two-unit developments are subject to all other Coastal Act standards.
Short Term Rentals Prohibited SB 9 prohibits the short-term rental use of any development created by its provisions and applies this to both lot splits and two-unit developments.
Narrow ADU Exceptions Generally, SB 9 requires local governments to allow for the ministerial approval of ADUs and JADUs. However, the bill provides for two narrow exceptions for when a local government may not allow an ADU or JADU to be developed:
1. When a lot is both split and developed with a two-unit development under SB 9; or
2. If there already exist two dwelling units of any kind on the lot.
Subdivision Map Timeline Extended SB 9 extends the tentative map expiration date by another year and up to four years for maps that are conditioned on significant public improvement obligations.
How Local Governments Can Best Prepare
To best prepare for the implementation of SB 9 provisions – effective January 2022 – local governments should begin developing objective standards for the zoning, subdivision, and design review of parcels and developments that may be subject to by-right approval under the bill’s provisions. In addition, local governments should begin considering the various impacts increased density may have on their communities under the bill’s four-fold development potential. 14 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 2022
15 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 1 This Fact Sheet is for informational purposes only and is not intended to implement or interpret SB 9. HCD does not have authority to enforce SB 9, although violations of SB 9 may concurrently violate other housing laws where HCD does have enforcement authority, including but not limited to the laws addressed in this document. As local jurisdictions implement SB 9, including adopting local ordinances, it is important to keep these and other housing laws in mind. The Attorney General may also take independent action to enforce SB 9. For a full list of statutes over which HCD has enforcement authority, visit HCD’s Accountability and Enforcement webpage.
Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g., wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. For the purposes of this document, the terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or junior ADU or otherwise defined.
Single-Family Residential Zones Only (Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7 subd. (a)(3)(A)) The parcel that will contain the proposed housing development or that will be subject to the lot split must be located in a single-family residential zone. Parcels located in multifamily residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., are not subject to SB 9 mandates even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. While some zones are readily identifiable as single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1 “SingleFamily Residential”), others may not be so obvious. Some local agencies have multiple single-family zones with subtle distinctions between them relating to minimum lot sizes or allowable uses. In communities where there may be more than one single-family residential zone, the local agency should carefully review the zone district descriptions in the zoning code and the land use designation descriptions in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This review will enable the local agency to identify zones whose primary purpose is single-family residential uses and which are therefore subject to SB 9.
Considerations such as minimum lot sizes, natural features such as hillsides, or the permissibility of keeping horses should not factor into the determination. 16 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 2 Residential Uses Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a))
SB 9 concerns only proposed housing developments containing no more than two residential units (i.e., one or two). The law does not otherwise change the allowable land uses in the local agency’s single-family residential zone(s). For example, if the local agency’s single-family zone(s) does not currently allow commercial uses such as hotels or restaurants, SB 9 would not allow such uses.
Ministerial Review
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7, subds. (a), (b)(1)) An application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. Ministerial review means a process for development approval involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom of carrying out the project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the applicable objective standards for the proposed action but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial review is nearly always a “staff-level review.” This means that a staff person at the local agency reviews the application, often using a checklist, and compares the application materials (e.g., site plan, project description, etc.) with the objective development standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards.
Objective Standards
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c)) The local agency may apply objective development standards (e.g., front setbacks and heights), objective subdivision standards (e.g., minimum lot depths), and objective design standards (e.g., roof pitch, eave projections, façade materials, etc.) as long as they would not physically preclude either of the following:
Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units (i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary units on each of the resulting parcels.
Units at least 800 square feet in size. The local agency must allow each primary unit to be at least 800 square feet in size.
The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Any objective standard that would physically preclude either or both of the two objectives noted above must be modified or 17 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 3 waived by the local agency in order to facilitate the development of the project, with the following two exceptions:
Setbacks for Existing Structures. The local agency may not require a setback for an existing structure or for a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure (i.e., a building reconstructed on the same footprint).
Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. SB 9 establishes an across-the-board maximum four-foot side and rear setbacks. The local agency may choose to apply a lesser setback (e.g., 0-4 feet), but it cannot apply a setback greater than four feet. The local agency cannot apply existing side and rear setbacks applicable in the single-family residential zone(s). Additionally, the four-foot side and rear setback standards are not subject to modification. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(B); 66411.7, subdivision (c)(3).)
One-Unit Development
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A)) SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of either one or two residential units. Government Code section 65852.21 indicates that the development of just one single-family home was indeed contemplated and expected. For example, the terms “no more than two residential units” and “up to two units” appear in the first line of the housing development-related portion of SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a)) and in the line obligating local agencies to modify development standards to facilitate a housing development. (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
Findings of Denial
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (d); 66411.7, subd. (d)) SB 9 establishes a high threshold for the denial of a proposed housing development or lot split. Specifically, a local agency’s building official must make a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).)
18 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 4 Environmental Site Constraints
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2) and (a)(6); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E)) A proposed housing development or lot split is not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel contains any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). Examples of conditions that may disqualify a project from using SB 9 include the presence of farmland, wetlands, fire hazard areas, earthquake hazard areas, flood risk areas, conservation areas, wildlife habitat areas, or conservation easements. SB 9 incorporates by reference these environmental site constraint categories that were established with the passing of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). Local agencies may consult HCD’s Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines for additional detail on how to interpret these environmental site constraints.
Additionally, a project is not eligible under SB 9 if it is located in a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (n)) Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action, CEQA does not apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must not require an applicant to perform environmental impact analysis under CEQA for applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is not considered a project under CEQA. In other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA.
Anti-Displacement Measures
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(3); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(D)) A site is not eligible for a proposed housing development or lot split if the project would require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or (3) housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. 19 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 5 Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9 also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert with that same property owner.
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f)) SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both “SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way. “Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not) made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.
Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.
Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit), a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.
Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
20 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 6 The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs that do not apply to primary units.
Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.
Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two units per lot if desired.
No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9 require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.
See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.
Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is implemented locally.
Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees, 21 December 5, 2022 Item 11
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 7 and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its singlefamily residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related Actions on HCD’s website.
Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of “housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, § 65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.
Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g), authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information, see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.
22 December 5, 2022 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 5, 2022
SUBJECT: In-Person Public Meetings Transition Plan
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Review the proposed plan for transitioning to inperson public meetings and provide direction; and 2) Approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $8,500 to the Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) fund for hybrid meeting equipment.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
City public meetings have been held remotely since the start of the COVID-19 global pandemic in March 2020 in compliance with Government Code Section 54953 (Assembly Bill 361), which waives certain provisions of the Brown Act and allows for remote public meetings if specific public safety findings are made by the City Council.
On October 17, 2022, City Council discussed preferred timing for resuming in-person public meetings based on regional and local public health circumstances. Council directed staff to initiate plans to resume in-person public meetings beginning with the December 5, 2022, City Council meeting and to return to Council on November 14, 2022, with a comprehensive transition plan including information about hybrid meetings and public safety considerations.
Due to time constraints at the November 14, 2022, meeting and the time required to install equipment to facilitate hybrid meetings, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-74 to continue with remote public meetings through December 13, 2022, and directed staff to return to Council on December 5, 2022, to continue the discussion in preparation for transitioning to in-person public meetings starting with the first City Council meeting in January 2023.
Staff has prepared an In-Person Public Meeting Transition Plan (Transition Plan) described in detail in this report. Due to supply chain issues and other timing and logistics considerations for installing hybrid meeting technology, the soonest staff can facilitate a hybrid in-person meeting would be the January 9, 2023, City Council meeting. Staff is seeking City Council feedback and direction on all elements of the Transition Plan. 1 December 5, 2022 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
In-Person Public Meetings Transition Plan
December 5, 2022