Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
June 5, 2023 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
JUNE 5, 2023
Item 2 – List of Demands
1. Helix is on the list of demands for $12.5k for bio review of X1-A. Do we have the results of their survey or is this an interim payment?
Staff Response: The Planning Department recently paid Helix for field surveys that the Biological Consultant did last fall in the X1A Undergrounding District. Staff is currently waiting for the preliminary civil drawings for X1A so that Helix can complete their field surveys and analysis to complete the Biology Report.
Item 5 – Agreements with the Del Mar Village Association for Destination Marketing and Economic Development
1. There are references throughout to "downtown" and to the "downtown business area" Can we clarify that this includes the area by Viewpoint and Del Mar Blue in the NC, and also the area in the Beach Commercial and the car service on Carmel Valley Road? These are all "business areas" in Del Mar.
Staff Response: Yes, staff will make this clarification in the final agreement.
2. The DMVA agreement calls for DMVA to receive 1/13 of TOT annually. That agreement runs 3 years, overlapping whatever new STR regs the city adopts. Can we clarify that any TOT coming from STRs will be excluded from the DMVA calculations and that we do not expect DMVA to promote STRs? STRs can compete with hotels and motels and I don't think we want to put DMVA in a conflicting position of having to promote STRs and hotels/motels at the same time.
At minimum, can we clarify that STR TOT is not included in the current contract, nor does the current contract call for DMVA to promote STRs, and these issues will be addressed in the future as needed when STR regs are adopted? Staff Response: This is a policy matter that can be discussed with the City Council when it formulates its regulations for short-term rentals.
3. The DMVA agreement expressly references Tik Tok to be included in its activities.
Can we change this to say DMVA will pursue "appropriate social media," without mandatory reference to tik tok? Tik Tok is under fire in many arenas. The new DMVA agreement makes DMVA an arm of the city. I question if it is appropriate for the city to be active on tik tok. At least we should have a discussion about this. I trust DMVA's judgment on what social media to use, rather than mandating specific ones.
Staff Response: Staff will update the final agreement to reflect that DMVA will develop social media campaigns on appropriate social media platforms.
Item 9 – Agreement with CorVel Enterprise Comp, Inc. for Workers’ Compensation and Claims Administration Services
1 June 5, 2023 Items 2,5,9,12-14
1. Did Solana Beach select CorVel too? If so how will services and billing be handled where Del Mar and SB share fire management?
Staff Response: The City of Solana Beach is anticipating including the selection of their new third-party administrator for workers’ compensation services in an upcoming Council meeting. There is no impact to services and/or pricing whether Solana Beach decides to select CorVel or a different third-party administrator. Fire employee claims for Del Mar and Solana Beach are handled and billed separately for each City. The City of Del Mar workers’ compensation program covers City’s employees only, regardless of which agency they are assigned to. For example, if a Del Mar Fire employee is assigned a shift for Solana Beach and gets injured, City of Del Mar would handle the claim. If a Solana Beach Fire employee gets injured while working a Del Mar shift, Solana Beach would handle the claim.
Item 12 – Adoption of Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 21.70 of the Del Mar Municipal Code to Revise Emergency Water Management Water Shortage Response Levels
1. Under the current system Del Mar is under level 1. Where will Del Mar be in the new 6 stage system? Still level 1?
Staff Response: The City will no longer be using the term “Stage” to describe drought conditions. The State of California is now using the term “Level” when describing drought positions. Therefore, the City Council action for this item changes Del Mar’s condition from “Stage 1” to “Level 1”. The only tangible changes are some activities are now prohibited such as “watering hardscape” and “watering non-functional turf”.
Item 13 - Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Prospective Ordinance No. 982 and Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Pursuant to California Coastal Commission Action on May 10, 2023, Approving a Conditional Certification Order with Required Modifications (All Relating to the Parking Amendments under DMMC Chapter 30.80 Adopted by the City Council in December 2021)
1. Could you please provide pages 80-84 of the LUP? These are the pages deleted with the deletion of policy IV-30 in the Coastal Commission required edits for the restaurant parking changes. They replace the deleted IV-30 with new IV-30, 31, 32, 33, 34.
Staff Response: Following is a link to existing Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan parking policies - Chapter IV, Goal IV-D (see p. 79-84):
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/261
Note that Goal IV-D and policy IV-29 will remain with no changes. Policy IV-30 is being replaced with a new policy statement that will no longer include the list of parking standards by land use since these standards are regulations that are already published in Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 30.80 in the certified LCP. The California 2 June 5, 2023 Items 2,5,9,12-14
Coastal Commission (CCC) is also requiring the addition of new parking policies IV-31 through IV-34.
2. Would the new policies make it easier for new residential development in Del Mar to avoid or reduce parking for new, denser construction (e.g. SB 9, Watermark, beachfront or blufftop ADUs)?
Staff Response: No. The CCC modification/proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) to the existing LCP Land Use Plan does not modify any parking standards related to residential development. The modification to Policy IV-30 is necessary to ensure consistency between the LCP policies in the Land Use Plan and the parking regulations in the municipal code. All proposed residential development is subject to parking regulations in the City’s LCP Chapter 30.80 except where preempted by State law.
3. Have appeals to Coastal underway that rely on arguments regarding parking been scrutinized?
Staff Response: There are no pending appeals of Coastal Development Permits that relate to the City’s proposed Parking Ordinance/LCPA.
Item 14 – An Ordinance to Regulate Two Unit Residential Development and Urban Lot Split Projects in Accordance with California Senate Bill 9 (SB 9)
1. Would “no net loss” apply if an SB9 ordinance were introduced in Del Mar and then reversed because SB9 were overturned or negated at the state level? Staff Response: The City is not relying on SB 9 to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which means the no net loss law would not apply to this circumstance.
2. Is the ordinance crafted so that reversal of the ordinance would not be a zone change but rather some sort of “reversion”?
Staff Response: The proposed SB 9 Ordinance does not modify the zoning of any property in the City. The Ordinance (Section 13) includes a severability clause that provides for the City to invalidate the ordinance if it is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the courts.
3. How many additional units does SB9 make possible in Del Mar? Would the worst case scenario be that it would be considered as capacity for 4x the number of parcels (approximately 600+ parcels, thus approximately 1800+ new units)? If so and if no net loss kicked in, would Del Mar risk having to create capacity for 1800 additional units in some other way if Del Mar’s SB9 ordinance were retracted? Staff Response: There are 768 single dwelling unit lots in the City of Del Mar that are eligible for SB 9. Single dwelling unit lots are currently eligible to have one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and one Junior ADU per lot, which equates to three units per lot.
Under SB 9 law, SB 9 projects are allowed up to four units per lot, which can include a combination of ADUs and primary dwelling units not to exceed four total per project. This 3 June 5, 2023 Items 2,5,9,12-14
means SB 9 makes it possible to have a net difference of 768 additional units (one additional per lot that is eligible for SB 9).
4. Concerns about SB 10 are that once a City opts-in, and a parcel is designated as eligible for SB 10, it can never be zoned for less density. Do we know for a fact that the same is not true for SB9?
Staff Response: The main difference between the two State housing laws is that SB 9 applies to all cities and counties whereas SB 10 only applies if the respective local jurisdiction opts in to implement it. The Del Mar City Council indicated it does not intend to implement SB 10, which means SB 10 will not apply in Del Mar. As mentioned above, the City is currently required by law to implement SB 9 and other applicable laws such as the Coastal Act. If SB 9 is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the courts, the City’s SB 9 Ordinance would be invalidated, which means property owners would not be able to pursue the two-unit development or urban lot splits provided for by SB 9. The existing zoning of these lots is single dwelling unit which would remain unchanged.
5. The proposed SB 9 ordinance (Section 14) does not include the typical effective date language that is applicable to Local Coastal Program Amendments.
Staff Response: The proposed SB 9 Ordinance Section 14 should be revised to state:
“Upon adoption, the Ordinance will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for certification as a Local Coastal Program Amendment. The Ordinance will take effect and be in force on the date that the Coastal Commission acts to unconditionally certify the Local Coastal Program Amendment.”
6. If affordability of one unit is included as proposed will it be retroactive if someone builds an SB 9 project before the city updates the inclusionary ordinance, or will it apply only to units that file an application post inclusionary ordinance update? What exactly is meant by creating a "condition precedent?" I'm hoping this is meant to avoid a rush for SB9 projects to beat amendment of the inclusionary ordinance.
Staff Response: The SB 9 Ordinance is subject to Coastal Commission certification approval, which is anticipated to take 12-18 months for completion. In the meantime, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance update is currently in process as a separate project that will take effect 30 days after final passage by the City Council and prior to the SB 9 Ordinance/LCPA taking effect. This is because the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is not subject to certification approval by the Coastal Commission. Once the Inclusionary Housing and SB 9 Ordinances are both in effect, SB 9 projects will be subject to an affordability requirement accordingly.
7. The proposal is to exclude areas by overlay zone. A public comment was made that we can't do this--that it needs to be lot by lot. Can staff comment? Staff Response: The City is required to harmonize SB 9 law with the Coastal Act. The overlay zone locations referenced contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas and/or are subject to public health and safety hazards (i.e., flooding, bluff erosion, and projected 4 June 5, 2023 Items 2,5,9,12-14
sea level rise) that are protected by various policies and regulations in the Coastal Act.
These types of constrained single dwelling unit zone locations in the coastal zone are not eligible for increased unit and subdivision intensification provisions that would otherwise be allowed by-right in accordance with the general SB 9 law.
8. A comment was made about including objective criteria for lot coverage and FARcan staff comment on this? Staff Response: State law requires that the City accommodate SB 9 units at least 800 sf in size. The City is required to accommodate additional lot coverage and/or floor area ratio on the respective lots if needed to accommodate units 800 sf in size.
9. The proposed rules require the "owner of record" to live on site for 3 years. How will this be implemented to properties held in an LCC, LLP, corporation, or trust? Staff Response: SB 9 law requires the owner of record to live on-site for 3 years. The City Attorney will advise as to how project applicants can demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
10. Rich Jamison submitted a red dot raising many issues. He submitted a second red dot estimating 50% of SB9 eligible lots are substandard in size. I am hoping staff will address these issues tonight.
Staff Response: The initial Jamison red dot was analyzed and addressed within staff’s agenda report for this item. Staff received the second Jamison red dot this morning and has been unable to review and evaluate the submitted data to confirm whether the contention that 50% of the SB 9 lots are substandard in size is accurate. 5 June 5, 2023 Items 2,5,9,12-14
1 Melinda Gould
From: Deborah Lyons <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 7:33 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: ⬤ June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing to support your approval of the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with DMCC as submitted.
Sincerely,
Deborah Lyons
410 9th St, Del Mar, CA 92014
--
Deborah Lyons
1 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Larry D. Brooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 8:48 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings:
Please support our Del Mar seniors by voting YES to
approve the Rental Assistance Program.
Larry Brooks
411 9th St
2 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Tanya Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:00 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable City Council Members:
I support approval of the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with DMCC as submitted.
Most sincerely,
Tanya Young
919 Klish Way
Tanya Young Studio
858.382.3636
tanyayoungart.com
[email protected]
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ftanyay oungscienceillustration&data=05%7C01%7Ccityclerk%40delmar.ca.us%7C999b71ee6d2d4fbc30390 8db651d3409%7Ce57e47ceaae64f7392493b679aab1eb4%7C0%7C0%7C638214948349225790%7 CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXV CI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pO%2BR4e7W%2B0AyqO1mg4o1C7fKYtbFc%2BChU UIVOZtpr0o%3D&reserved=0
tanya_young_studio
@tanyayoungart
3 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Alice McNally <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:47 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; Dwight Worden; David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: Re: 6/5/23 Item 8: RED DOT in support of Del Mar’s Rental assistant Program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > On Jun 4, 2023, at 10:40 AM, Alice McNally <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> We must keep our neighbors in their homes.
> If we don’t Del Mar puts our neighbors out of their homes and we sadly lose them to another town or worse, to to street.
> Affordable housing and homelessness is a huge problem we most solve. > Termination of this Valuable Rental Assistance Program Would make these problems worse. > Do the right thing and secure this Program for ourselves and our neighbors. > Thank you,
>
> Alice McNally
> 1332 Stratford Ct
> Del Mar. CA 92014
> 858-342-3244
> Sent from my iPhone
4 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: midge <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 11:27 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: ⬤ June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Del Mar City Council
I support your vote to follow through on the funding of the rental assistance program.
Regards,
Midge
Marjorie Zarling
9th st
iPad
5 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Gale Darling <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 1:59 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5th city council meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Item #8
I support approval of the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with DMCC as submitted.
Gale Darling
217 24th St
Sent from my iPhone
6 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Melissa Gans <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 2:29 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
I support approval of the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with DMCC as submitted.
Sincerely,
Melissa Gans
735 Hoska Drive
Del Mar
Sent from my iPhone
7 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bud <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 3:22 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 8 ⬤
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Del Mar moral compass urges support of our obligations to these families Bud and Mary Ann Emerson
Sent from my iPhone
8 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: FELISE LEVINE <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 3:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item # 8 Red Dot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Im writing in wholehearted support of the Rental assistance Program.
Felise Levine
1535 Forest Way,Del Mar
Felise Levine, Ph.D.
Board member, Diabetes Research Connection
Board member, San Diego Psychoanalytic Center
858-692-0355
9 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Wayne Dernetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 4:19 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Liz Dernetz
Subject: Red Dot - Item 8 on June 5 City Council Agenda - Funding DM Rental Assistance Program
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We are in full support of the DMCC-City of Del Mar Agreement to continue the DM Rental Assistance Program. We urge the Mayor and City Council Members to approve the recommendation. It is the right thing to do.
Thank you,
Liz & Wayne Dernetz
9th Street, Del Mar
10 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Suzanne Engel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 4:34 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I support approval of the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with DMCC as submitted.
Suzie Engel
541 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
11 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sheila Sharpe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
We are in full support of the Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program.
Sincerely,
Sheila & Michael Sharpe
442 15th St.
12 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item June 5th City Council Agenda Number 8 Funding and Service Agreement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
Just wanting to thank you for your initial vote to continue our Rental Assistance program and hope that you continue to support this effort as you approve this second vote at the meeting tomorrow on June 5th.
Many thanks for your time and energy that you give to our community.
Warm regards,
Carol Kerridge
13 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Marilyn Carpenter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program
TO: Del Mar City Council
I support approval of the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections as previously submitted.
Marilyn Carpenter
Member
DMCC Board of Directors
14 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Gloria Sandvik <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 6:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: June 5th/City Council Agenda, Item #8/Red Dot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I support and encourage the final adoption of the Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program, Item #8 on the Council Agenda.
Thank you,
Gloria Sandvik
Crest Road
Del Mar, Ca 92014
Sent from my iPhone
15 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Linda Chisari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 7:52 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]; Dwight Worden-Private; David Druker; Dan Quirk; Terry Gaasterland
Subject: June 5 City Council Agenda, Item No. 8, Funding and Service Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Del Mar City Council Members,
I request that you approve the Rental Assistance Funding Agreement with Del Mar Community Connections that has been submitted to you.
Sincerely,
Linda Chisari, Board Member, Del Mar Community Connections 1010 Crest Road, Del Mar
16 June 5, 2023 Item 08
1 Denise Galvan
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 5:47 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 12, City Council meeting June 5, 2023
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I support item #12. I also would like to take this "water" opportunity to suggest that the City takes some action to encourage people to water their lawns and trees less to save the bluff from being over saturated, which leads to bluff failures. There has to be some minimal recommendation for water per inch per day that people can follow? Very likely it is better to water every day but lesser volume, so that the water does not run into the ground, but immediately is being taken up by the roots. There is too much water running through the bluff, something isn´t right up the hills. The trail by 11th street is a mud slide with water constantly seeping out of the bluff. Just a few years ago, it wasn´t that way. It used to be bone dry.
Best,
Camilla Rang
1 June 5, 2023 ITEM 12
1 Melinda Gould
From: Rich Jamison <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 6:55 PM
To: Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Dwight Worden; David Druker; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 14 - June 5, 2023 Agenda - Red Dot
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
June 5, 2023
To: City Council, City of Del Mar
Subject: Item 14 - June 5, 2023 Agenda - Red Dot
Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council Members:
In light of the changes to the draft ordinance made subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing on May 3, I have prepared some additional comments on several topics discussed in my previous letter, which is attached to the staff report.
Affordability
The Planning Commission should be commended for recommending to the Council that an inclusionary housing affordability component be included in the ordinance along with a conditions precedent clause. I share the Commission’s concern that without the conditions precedent clause, there will be a “window of avoidance” that will pull forward demand from applicants. It’s critical if the Council wants buy-in from the affected neighborhoods that this policy is seen as offering a real opportunity to increase diversity and affordability, as opposed to just another state-mandated gambit for maximizing development profits by pushing the limits of a non-discretionary process.
Compatible Design
Both the Laguna Beach and Santa Barbara ordinances require design compatibility between existing and proposed buildings—for SB 9 and ADU ordinances. I understand staff’s position concerning the regulatory conclusion in the DRO (Design Review Ordinance) concerning similar facades on the same or adjacent parcels. But neither the DRO or the R1-10 zoning ordinance contemplate a primary structure of less than 2000 square feet. From a practical standpoint, what is going to look better--four 800-square-foot buildings that are design compatible or four 800-square-foot buildings that mix, for example, Modern, Spanish Revival, Tudor and Coastal Plantation styles? Lot Coverage
Staff has expressed concern that any limits on Lot Coverage will be viewed by the HCD as an impediment to SB 9 development. The R1-10 zone provides for 40 percent lot coverage—or 4000-square-feet of lot coverage for a standard 10,000-square-foot lot—sufficient for four maximum 1000 square foot units. There may not be enough lot coverage per existing zoning for the non-habitable accessory structures (cabanas, fitness rooms, etc) that would help jack up the sales prices of the units. But, isn’t affordability the whole point? Del Mar’s Code definition of lot coverage does not include any structure less than 30 inches above grade, so even if the SB 9 ordinance did recognize lot coverage as a restriction, it wouldn’t effectively regulate hardscape. There is a regulatory conclusion in the DRO concerning excessive hardscape that is not being addressed in the draft ordinance. One solution to this problem would be to include hardscape in the definition of Lot Coverage. An example of such a definition can be found in the City of Saratoga Municipal Code (15-12.080). We already have a minimum landscape area formula in the Design Guidelines so a new definition of Lot Coverage wouldn’t be a challenge.
Maximum Floor Area/Minimum Lot Size
Del Mar’s draft ordinance has no FAR restriction. I filed a Public Records Act request for the lot size distribution of the proposed SB 9-eligible lots, but the City did not have responsive documents to satisfy the request. I have received some information from a title company that I am still reviewing and will forward separately. Clearly, there are many undersized SB 9-eligible lots—lots that are smaller than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in the R1-10 zone— that have the potential for large increases in floor area beyond what the existing zoning provides. Development on these nonconforming lots is also less likely to be able to comply with the Objective Guidelines. One solution would be to require SB 9-eligible lots to meet the minimum lot size in the underlying zone to qualify for Urban Lot Splits.
Setbacks
I was glad to see that the Objective Guidelines have borrowed the prevailing setback provisions of the Design Guidelines. But, I am unclear if the prevailing setback in the Objective Guidelines applies to both street-fronting yards on corner lots, as it is intended to in the Design Guidelines. Per zoning, corner lots have a 10-foot-street side setback on the yard with the longest frontage dimension but the prevailing 1 June 5, 2023 Item 14
2 setback is most often 20 feet. It would be best if corner lots were developed using the prevailing setback as opposed to the street-side setback.
This issue should be clarified by staff.
I have attached a planning diagram showing the various types of lots in the SB 9-eligible area. One lot type of special concern is the through lot. In Del Mar, a through lot can have an elevation difference of 50+ feet from the street at the top of the hill to the street at the bottom of the hill. Sometimes there are no adjacent homes at the bottom of the hill from which to derive a prevailing setback. In these cases, there needs to be a default setback in the Objective Guidelines. The City has paid the price for this with the ADU ordinance so this really should be addressed in the ordinance.
Lot Frontage
Neither Santa Barbara nor Laguna Beach allow flag lots for Urban Lot Splits and have wider minimum lot sizes than Del Mar. It’s easy to visualize a basic “four-pack” site plan that could result from a flag lot rather than a sensitively designed project that would fit in more harmoniously with our neighborhoods. If the Council thinks that banning flag lots is too restrictive, then maybe it might consider an approach similar to Manhattan Beach as follows: “If the property is adjacent to an alley, is a corner lot, or a through lot, then the lot split may not create a flag lot. New driveways for parcels on interior lots without alley access are limited to a maximum width of 10 feet if the new parcel’s frontage width is 30 feet or less.”
Grading
Grading is a huge concern—even with the Objective Guidelines appearing to reference the grading restrictions of the Bluff, Slope and Canyon overlay zone. I’m just not sure how well this will work in practice. Grading for the purpose of maximizing views would create a new class of view-protected SB 9 parcels that could constrain conventional development plans for neighboring parcels and force them into a SB 9 process. The DRB will still need to administer Land Conservation Permits for SB 9 projects. But, have DRB members ever received any specialized training in Land Conservation? It would be much better to minimize grading like Santa Barbara—with a 250-cubic-yard limit in addition to the Objective Guidelines.
Parking
Parking on many streets just east of Camino Del Mar is already at capacity, and some of the visitors parking on these streets are using coastal resources, like the beach. There will be a major impact on these neighborhoods if the parking ratio stays at one space per unit in the ordinance.
Trees
The City should adopt a reasonable replacement ratio for trees displaced by SB 9 development, like Laguna Beach. The Council has gone on record stating that tree preservation is an important goal. We should not let opportunities to maintain our tree canopy slip by.
Objective Guidelines
I couldn’t help but notice that the Objective Guidelines allow split-face-block retaining walls, even though this is not consistent with the Design Guidelines or the Administrative Design Review Ordinance. The Council spent a considerable amount of time discussing this subject during the Tewa Undergrounding project and it appeared to be resolved. If you give most developers a choice, they will opt for split-face block because it is cheaper than stone veneer. Does this really need to be hashed out again? Lastly—A zoning change on the scale of SB 9 needs to be analyzed with at least a twenty-year horizon. The current housing bubble may have lulled some residents to sleep as to how markets can change, especially if interest rates stay elevated. We could be in a completely different housing market in a few years that would confound current expectations of the impact of SB 9. It would be much more prudent to take the time now to think through the details that might seem to some like minutia. We know from experience with the ADU ordinance that developers have very sharp pencils and they don’t miss much.
Thank you for considering this feedback.
Sincerely,
Richard Jamison
Crest Road
Del Mar
Attachment
2 June 5, 2023 Item 14
3 3 June 5, 2023 Item 14
1 Melinda Gould
From: Brad Walters <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 6:40 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot on SB-9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I appreciate that we’re trying to strike a balance between following the law and doing it the “Del Mar way,” but I fear this rather exhaustive list of SB-9 regulations will unduly kneecap the intent of the legislation, which is to increase the supply of available housing — full stop. This is certain to invite state scrutiny, perhaps even further delaying the certification of our latest Housing Element.
On a personal note: Lots of us here in the community are connected to UCSD, and if you’ve talked to many grad students or newer professors / staff lately, you know just how dire the housing situation has become. Many have taken to commuting from hours away or even sleeping in their cars because they simply can’t find a place to live around here. In fact, talk to just about anyone who has had the misfortune of trying to plant roots nearby lately. The situation is not pretty.
Every municipality in the state can lay claim to something they believe makes it special. And I wholeheartedly believe Del Mar is special — not just for our coastline and natural beauty, but for our proximity to UCSD and the county’s biggest job centers in Sorrento Valley/Torrey Pines/UTC. As such, welcoming new housing opportunities with truly open arms gives us an outsize chance to make a positive impact.
SB-9 is meant to try to finally help reverse the decades of undersupply that landed us in a housing crisis — and give people like those UCSD grad students and younger families the same fair chance we’ve all had to thrive here.
What do I mean by “fair”? Median home prices in Del Mar have risen more than twice as fast as median salaries in the region since 2000. It’s Economics 101: When housing supply comes nowhere close to meeting demand, it’s simply not an even playing field.
Small wonder that Del Mar’s population actually declined from 2000 to 2020. The next generation is largely moving away to raise their own families, because living here is cost-prohibitive.
So rather than trying to figure out how to be as restrictive as we think we can be on new housing while still following the letter of the law — rather than leaning on reasons to minimize personal disruption — I urge us to turn that around and ask:
• What is the *most* we can do to play our part in reversing decades of local housing undersupply and welcome working families back to Del Mar with open arms, in a way that incentivizes rather than discourages building?
4 June 5, 2023 Item 14
2 • What is the *most* we can do to fully apply the spirit and legislative intent of SB-9 while still doing it the Del Mar way?
Required addendum that I am neither a “developer shill,” nor related to a developer, friends with a developer, etc. — although someone made money building the homes we all live in, too, and generally speaking I imagine few would build anything anywhere if they’re going to lose money doing it.
I ask us to think of the greater good, truly internalize the legislative intent of SB-9, and lead accordingly. While overbuilding has its own challenges in terms of managing resources, severe underbuilding is nothing short of robbing the next generation at the expense of our own personal comfort. None of us should be OK with that.
Thank you,
Brad Walters
Stratford Ct.
5 June 5, 2023 Item 14
1 Melinda Gould
From: Rich Jamison <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 5:33 PM
To: Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Dwight Worden; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 14 - June 5, 2023 Agenda - Red Dot
Attachments: SB 9 and R-1 stats.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
June 5, 2023
To: City Council, City of Del Mar
Subject: Item 14 - June 5, 2023 Agenda - Red Dot
Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council Members:
In my previous red-dot letter I indicated that I would follow up with some information from a farming report prepared by a title company that would help characterize the lot size and building area distribution for the SB 9-eligible lots in Del Mar. One caveat is that there are over 600 records in the file I received and I don’t have the time or resources to check them all for accuracy. Also, this report does not include the SB 9- eligible lots south of Del Mar Heights Road in the Pine Needles neighborhood. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, I do believe that the general conclusions are still accurate, even if the database records are not fully verified and complete.
The most salient observations are: 1) more than 50 percent of the SB 9-eligible lots are nonconforming - lots that have less area than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in the R1-10 zone. The R1-10 zone is the primary zoning district east of Camino Del Mar. 2) there is the potential for a quite significant increase in floor area among the SB 9-eligible properties if there is widespread utilization of the SB 9 ordinance.
It is common sense that the most likely target for developers wanting to build SB 9 projects is undersized lots, because they offer the maximum density with the lowest investment in land and existing improvements. Also, there is the potential for avoidance of some of the Objective Guidelines due to lot constraints.
The full potential increase in building area among SB 9-eligible lots is unlikely to be realized because there is no real incentive for property owners with larger lots or significant investments in improvements to participate. But, there is the potential for a domino effect in some of the neighborhoods with undersized lots if SB 9 projects proliferate. Some residents will be happy to sell out to developers if they can time the market right. Other residents will bemoan the changes in neighborhood character and lack of parking and will seriously consider moving. Other neighbors will have nowhere to go and will be stuck in a deteriorating situation.
Lastly, some might argue that undersized lots already have a much higher density ceiling due to the ADU ordinance. For the most part, ADU’s have not been developed to their maximum potential or for short-term speculative purposes by residents. Urban lot splits are a different animal because they facilitate a near term conveyance of one lot and are ripe for speculation.
Perhaps it’s best to contemplate the SB 9 mandate as you would if buying a car. The marketing screams affordability but when you look under the hood you see a revenue generator. Would any of this community angst be necessary if the State was able to manage the cyclical nature of it’s revenues without a thinly-veiled attempt to recycle neighborhoods for the purpose of resetting assessed property values? Sincerely,
Richard Jamison
Crest Road
Del Mar
Attachment
6 June 5, 2023 Item 14
More than 50% of SB 9-eligible R1 zone lots*
are non-conforming
* Based on 670 properties located north of Del Mar Heights Road and east of Camino del Mar 7 June 5, 2023 Item 14
A building area of 3,200 sq. ft. results in a
big increase in density for non-conforming*
* Median value of 1,800 sq. ft. for non-conforming lots, based on the same dataset +77%
8 June 5, 2023 Item 14
A building area of 4,000 sq. ft. results in a more
than doubling in density for non-conforming*
* Median value of 1,800 sq. ft. for non-conforming lots, based on the same dataset +122%
9 June 5, 2023 Item 14
Proposed changes would entirely transform
the R-1 non-comforming lots in the city*
* Based on the average of 3,200 and 4,000 sq. ft. proposals Potentially a half-amillion to three-quarters
of a million in additional
building area
10 June 5, 2023 Item 14