Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
December 4, 2023 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Melinda Gould
From: Clive Freeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Sarah Krietor
Subject: Some material for today's council meeting
Attachments: 2023-12-04-Del-Mar-Council-CMF.pptx
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.
Hi City Clerk/Sarah,
I would like to provide some public comments in today's Council meeting using the attached powerpoint slides - I hope that this will be practical.
Thank you very much in advance, please let me know if there are any problems.
With best regards,
Clive Freeman
1 December 4, 2023Item - Public Oral Communications
Snapshot taken on 2023-11-13
2 December 4, 2023 Item - Public Oral Communications
• The headline statement on this page: https://lossanmap.sandag.org/ is:
The LOSSAN (Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo) rail corridor is the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the nation
• The North Eastern corridor has 292 million trips per year & LOSSAN has 7.6 million trips per year
• LOSSAN has 2.6% of the North Eastern corridor annual trip count • If one lawyer scores 100% on a bar exam, and another lawyer scores 2.6% on the same exam – which lawyer would you hire?
• ‘Second busiest’ is cited by SANDAG repeatedly; 2.6% of the activity of the North Eastern corridor is never mentioned (an economy with the truth) • What about other stats? E.g. ‘Environmental Consequences’(?) Or ‘vibration’(?) Are these similarly ‘economical’ stats(?) • Del Mar needs to participate actively (non-passively) in this process 3 December 4, 2023 Item - Public Oral Communications
Sources
• 7.6m trips per year for LOSSAN comes from here:
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sandag-secures-300m-tomove-train-tracks-off-del-mar-bluffs/2985613/ ‘The Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor is the secondbusiest intercity rail corridor in the United States, serving 7.6 million passengers and moving $1 billion in goods and services each year’ • 292m trips per year for the North Easter Rail Corridor comes from here: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-touts-billionsnortheast-us-rail-corridor-2023-11-06/ ‘… for 25 passenger rail projects on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, which supports some 800,000 trips per day.’ (800,000*365 = 292m) 4 December 4, 2023 Item - Public Oral Communications
Is Being ‘Economical with the Truth’ Important?
• 40 times less busy – or ‘second busiest’ – both are true – using only ‘second busiest’ is ‘being economical with the truth’
• Being ‘economical with the truth’ is frowned upon in many areas, e.g. business, banking, pharmaceutical research, medicine, science, etc. • There are lots of numbers in the SANDAG analyses – e.g. the weights associated with the environmental consequences, safety
improvements, and community acceptance on the following slide (from a July 26, 2021 Del Mar City report)
• Where did these weights come from?
• The weights determine the outcome
5 December 4, 2023 Item - Public Oral Communications
6 December 4, 2023 Item - Public Oral Communications
7 December 4, 2023 Item - Public Oral Communications
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
DECEMBER 4, 2023
AGENDA ITEM 7 – UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT 1A – STRATFORD
COURT SOUTH PROJECT PRE-BID UPDATE, APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRB23-024 AND LAND CONSERVATION PERMIT LC23-014, AND
APPROVAL OF TASK ORDER AMENDMENT FOR UTILITY SPECIALISTS SOUTHWEST, INC.
1. Was the detail from 7-6-2023 CIP budget update made publicly available at the time? Or is this information being made public only now? Staff shared the estimated total cost publicly on multiple occasions (City Council 5/15/2023, CIP budget update 5/19/2023, City Council 10/16/2023). However, this level of detail is not provided as part of the CIP budget update. Staff has also previously explained that the construction cost estimate for the project was updated based on the Tewa Court/10th Street UUD actual costs, which is the basis for the primary change in construction cost.
2. The cost estimate of utility companies declined by $700,000 from $1,867,771 in 2021 to $1,168,794 in 2023. Correct, based on Tewa Court/10th Street UUD the City only expects to pay AT&T for engineering and inspection and does not expect to incur any charges from Spectrum/Charter. This is the primary reason for the reduction.
3. Construction phase cost estimates more than tripled from $1,130,275 in 2021 to $3,580,314. As previously reported by staff, the updated cost estimate reflects additional data obtained from Tewa, increased prices due to the market, and more detailed engineering plans. The original estimate was based on linear feet of overhead and the unit costs from private work with a factor of increase for public work. The team is learning and obtaining data from each project to estimate the costs more accurately.
4. The staff report notes that the Stratford project has 7,650 linear overhead feet, and 9,135 feet of trench. Line item #11 of the engineer’s estimate notes that there is 11,165 feet of joint trench at a cost of $31.50 per foot, and a total cost of $374,061. The agenda report should have reflected the updated number of 11,165 linear feet of joint trench. This updated number includes not only the mainline, but any secondary additional lines to equipment and/or stub-outs. 9,135 linear feet was an initial estimate based on the concept plans, not the more detailed engineering plans. Future projects will use information related to the amount of joint trench to ensure more accuracy in early cost estimates moving forward.
5. Utility Specialists’ estimate in 2016 was 6,470 feet. This was a preliminary estimate based on the overall SDG&E facility map and existing overhead, and not detailed engineering plans.
1 December 4, 2023 Item 07
6. Utility Specialists’ estimate in 2019 was 7,300 feet. This was a preliminary estimate based on the overall SDG&E facility map and existing overhead, and not detailed engineering plans.
7. Council Member Quirk used a contractor’s wheel to measure distances and measured 6,900 feet of trenching, including 3,400 ft along Stratford, 3,000 ft along intersecting streets, and 500 ft for cutovers. This number is not based on detailed engineering plans, and therefore cannot be counted on for accuracy.
8. Several other significant line items (12, 13, 25, 35, 44, 48) appear to have lengths that are all in excess of 10,000 feet, driven by the length of the trench. See staff response to Question 4.
9. Can staff please explain how the lengths in the engineer’s estimate were calculated, particularly the 11,165 for the joint trench? The consultant measured the mainline and all additional secondary lines to equipment and stub-outs based on the detailed civil engineering plans.
10. Can staff explain the difference in unit costs ($5.00 to $13.46 per foot) for installing conduit? Does the price of the material or amount of work vary significantly depending on whether it is 1”, 2”, 3” or 4” conduit? The difference in unit costs vary based on agency, size, material specifications, and installation method.
11. Can staff explain how these conduits are arranged in the joint trench? The electric is placed on bottom of trench, there is 12” horizontal separation between electrical and communication conduit, and 30” of cover.
12. The engineer’s cost estimate does not provide any insights into the costs of materials vs. labor. Is it possible to have the contractor provide the price for the major supplies such as handholes, concrete pads, stone, pedestals, vaults, and conduit? As has been explained previously, the California Public Contracts code requires contractors to submit unit and/or lump sum prices. These prices are not broken down by labor, materials, and equipment costs. These are incorporated into the costs. As such, all of the risk associated with these costs are assumed by the contractor, not the City.
For example, if the job takes more labor hours than the contractor estimated, or the cost of equipment or materials is more than the contractor planned for, the contractor absorbs those costs, not the City. The only time the City has exposure (potential for cost increases) is when there are unknown conditions discovered during the project that were not identified in the bid documents and were not made known to the contractor for bidding purpose. When this happens, the City and contractor determine an agreed upon change to the scope and contract to account for these costs, typically based on unit prices.
13. If we can’t get materials prices from the contractor, can our consultant provide information on bulk/wholesale prices for key materials? 2 December 4, 2023 Item 07
Our consultant does not have this detailed information readily available. In order for the City’s consultant to research and obtain this information, a change to their scope of work and additional funds for their services would need to be approved by the City Council. However, our consultant notes that generally the breakdown for construction cost is around 33% labor, 33% equipment, and 33% material.
14. What % of the $3 million estimated contractor cost does staff estimate to be materials vs. labor? 10%? As noted in staff’s response above, the City’s consultant estimates generally the breakdown for construction cost is around 33% labor, 33% equipment, and 33% material. However, this varies on a project-by-project basis.
15. How many bids do we expect for the Stratford project? There is no way to estimate this, as the number of bidders is totally based on the competitive market, availability of other work in the region, contractor capacity, etc., all of which are factors outside of the City’s control.
16. There appears to be wide variability in some line items between public works projects.
Should there be more consistency across projects? The estimates vary based on project specifications and data available. Each project has different requirements.
Consultant will use available data to estimate each project separately, based on the details of the specific project.
17. Why, for example, are the mobilization and storm water management estimates for the lagoon trail project so large compared to the Stratford project? The Riverpath project is more complex and requires multiple subcontractors and different equipment.
This results in increased mobilization. Also, the Riverpath project is directly adjacent to the environmentally sensitive lagoon and thus requires more complex stormwater management and more BMPs. The undergrounding project is less complex in terms of construction and stormwater management.
18. What is potholing? Was it done for the Tewa project? Potholing involves digging in the roadway to obtain accurate information on the location of utilities at crossings with the improvements prior to performing work. Potholing was done as part of the Tewa Court/10th Street UUD project. Potholing alone does not prevent all potential impacts.
A civil engineering design with vertical profiles updated with potholing data helps minimize impacts to existing utilities and to identify the proposed joint trench.
19. It appears there will be 335 potholes done by the contractor for Stratford. How is this information used or recorded? The contractor will gather this information in a potholing report. The report includes the location, utility, and depth. The City and contractor will use this information to verify and update the design and vertical profiles as needed prior to construction to minimize and/or eliminate impacts to existing utility lines.
20. What are the specifics that make up the vertical profile design? How does this differ from the “horizontal profile” design? The horizontal alignment/plan view shows the 3 December 4, 2023 Item 07
alignment of the joint trench from above (i.e. bird’s eye view) and is used to define the location of the joint trench with respect to other horizontal features (i.e. roadway centerline, curb & gutter, utilities, property lines, trees, etc.). The vertical profile shows the alignment of the joint trench in the vertical direction with respect to the proposed plan. The profile includes the joint trench vertical alignment (top and bottom), elevations, crossing utilities, clearances from those utilities, and existing grade (typically road surface).
21. Will the mainline trench stay primarily on one side of the street? The mainline trench primarily stays on the east side of the street for Stratford Ct.
However, it does meander in some locations to the center or west side of the street.
The location of the mainline is determined based on SDG&E’s design which considers existing utilities in the street which the mainline must maintain certain minimum horizontal clearances from and locations where equipment can be located.
22. Is it possible to install video “audit cameras” to monitor active construction sites for this project and other public works projects? Cameras are inexpensive and used for a range of different activities. Can cameras help to ensure that best practices are followed? This is not standard practice and would need to be a Council directive in order for staff to research/explore. While the cost of the actual camera and other related equipment may not be exorbitant, the City does not have staff to install or monitor cameras in work areas or review recorded footage. The City would need to contract out for this work, which would be an added cost to the project. It is important to note that there will be an onsite construction manager for the City present during construction activities to ensure work is completed timely, and as expected. The construction manager will also be taking daily photos of the work and including these in the site observation reports.
23. Is it possible to explore technology-based solutions to reduce traffic control costs for public works projects? (Del Mar is likely to spend $300,000+ on traffic control over the next 2 years alone.) We are not aware of technology that could substitute for the required field traffic controls for this or other CIP projects. City Council authorization would be required to engage a traffic engineering consultant to analyze and report back.
24. What is the process for the 64 residents with laterals? The consultant develops and mails homeowner lateral exhibits to homeowners once SDG&E develops the preliminary design. The homeowner can coordinate with the consultant on the location of the lateral. Once SDG&E finalizes their design, the homeowner will obtain a service order from SDG&E to coordinate with a contractor. The homeowners will install the lateral once the City completes construction of the mainline and places a stub-out.
SDG&E will then switch over properties from the overhead lines to the new underground systems.
4 December 4, 2023 Item 07
25. Is the goal to have residents in zone 1 start working on their laterals as soon as the City is done with its construction in zone 1 (i.e. about 3 months into 7-month total construction timeline)? Yes, individual homeowners are responsible for coordinating installation of their laterals with their selected contractor once the City is done with the respective zone. Each zone takes just over two months for City construction.
26. Are these residents communicating with each other to do things like identify contractors and coordinate timing of work so that it occurs quickly and efficiently? Yes, the City is working to help facilitate homeowner to homeowner contacts and sharing of information. However, to date, we have only received permission to share their contact information from a couple of homeowners. We will continue homeowner outreach on this front in hopes of getting permission to share information from a larger group of area residents.
27. Are there any identified “block captains” or resident organizers? No, the City is providing project information equally to all area residents and will be the primary point of contact for project information.
28. It is my understanding that the Stratford project is being designed and constructed in three geographic zones. When did staff receive phase 1 of the design from SDG&E for the engineering for zone 1? (My understanding is that it was December of 2022.) Phase 1 preliminary SDG&E designs were received by the City in November 2022.
29. When did staff receive SDG&E designs for zones 2 and 3? Phase 2 & 3 preliminary SDG&E designs were received by the City in April 2023.
30. How many hours were estimated for Fuscoe to do the civil design for Stratford? (I believe it is 880 hours, or about 5 months.) Fuscoe estimates 880 hours. However, these do not translate directly into consecutive work hours.
31. Was it possible for Fuscoe to start working on the civil design for zone 1 as soon as they received the preliminary design from SDG&E for zone 1? Did they do this? Yes, Fuscoe starts the civil design as soon as SDG&E provides the preliminary design.
32. It is December 2023, 11 months after receiving zone 1 from SDG&E. If Fuscoe started work in January, it seems that Fuscoe could have been done with civil design in July or August. As previously explained by staff in writing and during prior public discussion, Fuscoe’s hours do not translate into consecutive work hours. There are more steps to the design process which are outlined below. It should be noted that SDG&E/AT&T/Spectrum/Crown Castle need to prepare final designs while the City is completing the civil design. Thus, expedited civil design preparation does not translate directly to an overall expedited schedule.
5 December 4, 2023 Item 07
1. SDG&E prepares design plans at multiple design milestones (preliminary, 60%, 90%, and 100%). Utility Specialists and staff review the plans at the various stages, provide comments, and coordinate with SDG&E.
2. The other utility companies begin preparation of their respective plans at multiple design milestones once SDG&E provides the preliminary design plans. Utility Specialists review the plans at the various stages, provide comments, and coordinate with the utility companies.
3. Fuscoe begins preparation of the civil plans once SDG&E provides the preliminary design plans. The City reviews the civil design plans at specific design milestones (e.g. 30%, 60%, 90% complete). The City reviews the civil design plans for the entire district and not by zone, because the final package will be for the entire district. Fuscoe cannot proceed with the next phase of design activity until the City has reviewed and provided comments (which need to be addressed as part of the next submittal) or approved the current design work. This process is standard engineering practice.
4. Utility Specialists and KCM Group coordinate with homeowners on laterals and easements. Any coordination with homeowners will need to be reflected on the plans.
33. How many hours of civil design work has Fuscoe completed on Crest? Fuscoe has completed approximately 33% of their estimated 1,360 civil design hours, and are working towards 1st City plan submittal for UUD X1A (Crest Canyon).
34. What is the process for civil design for future projects? Will staff wait until it gets the entire SDG&E design, or will staff start on civil design as it gets each zone? Fuscoe will proceed with each zone, however each design submittal to the City will be for the entire district.
35. What is the estimated length of time for City construction for Stratford? Is it 7 months? Yes, 7 months.
36. If City construction is 7 months, why does the estimate in the staff report state 18 months for construction management and include an amount of $423,740? At an hourly rate of $175, this translates to 2,421 hours, or around 14 months. Can staff address this? The 18-months included in the agenda report is a typo. The entire construction duration (City construction, homeowner laterals, and utilities) is expected to take 12 months for UUD 1A and 18 months for UUD X1A.
The City’s consultants have assumed one onsite project manager full time during City construction and part time during homeowner lateral installations and agency wire pull/pole removals. There will be additional office support staff during the 12 months, as well, since not everything that needs to be done to manage the project can be done 6 December 4, 2023 Item 07
from the field. Some of the cost is also for Utility Specialist technical support, Fuscoe staking, and construction punch list/closeout services after the work is complete.
37. For the Stratford project, which is much larger than the Tewa project, is it expected that the contractor will provide a daily oversight/manager person for the project? Yes
38. Can staff address timelines of projects? Currently, the staff report timeline shows City construction for Crest (11-month duration) finishing on 7/15/2025 and City construction for Stratford north, starting 6 months later on 1/26/2026. Why is there a gap of 6 months? This is based on SDG&E’s expected 24-month design schedule, hence there will be a gap in City construction of the two areas UUD 1A/ UUD X1A). We previously estimated SDG&E’s design schedule at 18 months, which SDG&E has made clear is not possible and all projects moving forward should include 24 months minimum for SDG&E design.
39. Based on the Stratford timeline, we are looking at 33+ months from today to start construction for the next project, August 2026. Stratford north is a fairly small project (56% the size of Stratford south) and could have city construction done in 4 months, or May 2026. There appears to be a potential gap already of 3+ months. If this is correct, can we look to start the process for the next project, the beach area, as soon as possible? City construction is estimated at 5 months. Staff is looking to start the next district , UUD 2, at the start of next year and plans to bring a task order for Council consideration at one of the next two City Council meetings. 7 December 4, 2023 Item 07
1 Melinda Gould
From: Nancy Hanley <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 10:30 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Agenda
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.
On Item #8 of Monday's city council meeting please ask the council to remove the “anticipated lifetime” language from the proposed ADU ordinance.
Thank you,
Nancy Hanley Eriksson and Ron Eriksson
1846 Ocean Front
Del Mar CA 92014
1 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Dolores Jamison <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 4:22 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Tracy Martinez; Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; David Druker; Dan Quirk
Subject: Council Item #8–ADU Ordinance-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.
December 3, 2023
Del Mar City Council
December 4, 2023 Agenda
Re: Item #8, ADU Ordinance-Red Dot
Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council Members:
We greatly appreciate the amount of work done by Planning Department staff in their efforts to make the the ADU ordinance more responsive to community concerns. While the changes made have certainly improved the ordinance and will help to ensure that community character and standards will be preserved, we did want to call your attention to a few important parts of the ordinance which still need to be addressed.
FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS
As you may recall, last October we submitted a letter to the City Council—signed by 36 residents of North Hill neighborhoods— expressing our concerns about ADU’s in CalFire’s Very High Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ). The revised ordinance does not address the three high priority policy recommendations we made for areas of Del Mar in the VHFHSZ. Specifically, we requested: a prohibition on attached ADU’s; a maximum ADU size of 800 square feet; and a building separation of 10 feet. These recommendations are based on the “Special ADU” regulations in the City of Santa Barbara’s ADU ordinance, which has been certified by the Coastal Commission.
While the updated ordinance includes a “Whereas” statement concerning the Community Plan Safety Element update, it does not mention the three policy recommendations specified above. Does the City intend to implement these policy recommendations during the Safety Element update or are they now off the table? Since the staff report fails to provide any further guidance on this topic, we would appreciate if staff could clarify this and assure us that are concerns relative to fire safety will be addressed.
TREE REPLACEMENT
Another important issue identified in the October letter sent to the Council (by Ad Hoc Committee members) that has not been addressed in the updated ordinance is a replacement ratio for trees displaced by ADU’s and a ban on lot consolidations that could result in the replacement of dwelling units with ADU’s. It would be helpful to have staff explain why these issues were not addressed, despite the fact that the Council directed staff to explore and address these policy options.
GRADING
While we were certainly pleased to see the revisions in the updated ordinance relative to grading, we would request that Paragraph W.4 be made crystal clear that the grading limit of 200 cubic yards for an ADU is a total that includes both the grading within the building footprint and the grading outside the building footprint (which requires a Land Conservation Permit). Preparatory grading of the ADU site approved concurrently with the grading for the primary residence by the DRB should be included in the 200 cubic yard total.
Perhaps staff has a proposed solution for discouraging such preparatory grading in anticipation of a future ADU permit, as this is a loophole that needs to be closed.
RETAINING WALLS
Regarding the section of the updated ordinance on retaining walls (Paragraph 11.C), split-face block should not be a default choice for retaining walls that are visible from public streets. Allowing this would not be consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines and the Administrative Design Review ordinance, as well as the retaining walls for the City’s utilities undergrounding districts. Split-face block has a manufactured and institutional appearance that is more suitable for freeway ramps and commercial/public buildings and is not consistent with the character of Del Mar neighborhoods.
BASEMENTS & BALCONIES
2 December 4, 2023 Item 08
2 While basements and balconies were not previously discussed, they certainly should be addressed in the ordinance. The SB 9 ordinance expressly prohibits basements and balconies on SB 9-eligible lots. Balconies on ADU’s are no more appropriate than they are on SB 9 projects. In Paragraph G.3 of the revised ordinance, it appears that basements would be allowed in ADU’s and the floor area of a basement would be counted in determining the maximum allowable size of an ADU. What really needs to be clarified is whether or not the basement for the primary residence could extend underneath the ADU, if the ADU has no internal basement access.
What is the logic for allowing basements beneath ADU’s? Basements can exacerbate the parking shortage in Del Mar (residents with more than 3 bedrooms don’t require additional off-street parking for extra bedrooms in basements). It’s also important to consider the environmental impacts of accelerated bluff erosion from large impervious underground structures that displace groundwater, and the loss of existing vegetation. Perhaps staff could explain the ADU policy concerning basements and balconies in greater detail, including the rationale for not excluding them as they are excluded in the SB 9 ordinance.
Thank you for your attention to these issues.
Sincerely,
Richard Jamison & Roseanne Holliday
Dolores Davies Jamison Crest Rd.
Crest Rd. Frank & Linda Chisari
Marc & Judy Schuckit Crest Rd.
Kalamath St. Sally & Ron Taylor
Joan & Craig Brown Crest Rd.
Crest Rd. Rose Ann Sharp
Gloria Sandvik & Crest Rd.
Harold Feder Anne & John Farrell
Crest Rd. Via Alta St.
Tom & Jackie Bruskotter Palmer & Susan Taylor
Crest Rd. Via Alta St.
Jackie & Jeff Workman Wendy & John Ross
Via Alta St. Klish Way
Scott & Lisa Renner Beth Levine
Via Alta St. Crest Rd.
Shirley King & Art Olson Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
3 December 4, 2023 Item 08
3 Primavera St. Umatilla St.
John & Gale Graybill Valerie Dufort &
15th St. Sudeepto Roy
Klish Way
cc: Del Mar City Council
4 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Heather Lindsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 4:53 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: 12/4/23 meeting. Agenda Item #8 "Re-Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations and Certified Local Coastal 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:
On Page 13 of the Agenda Report for Item #8 (page 202 of the complete Council package), please remove the language around the lifetime of the structure. And, even more, please do not adopt a city policy that allows for managed retreat in theory and takes a wait and see attitude on a parcel by parcel basis.
The City cannot abdicate its decision around managed retreat because it lacks expertise. If the City had taken that view in the past, we would be looking at a future of 1/3 of Del Mar being flooded. I want to remind the City and Council that when discussions about managed retreat in Del Mar first began the City was unaware that the natural topography of Del Mar married with managed retreat would have accidentally flooded a third of the town and destroyed the beach it is supposedly trying to protect. The City almost passed managed retreat without understanding the consequences to the City.
We have been told that time and time again that the only line of defense against managed retreat, is at the City level, not a state level and not an individual level. We have been told that it must not be allowed in the governing documents; once that wall falls, we have managed retreat. That is what the experts have said. Allowing managed retreat in the documents and then fighting when this issue comes up related to a specific property in Del Mar is not an appropriate strategy. Experts have told us that this strategy is how one ends up with managed retreat. That is the strategy of a City that has accepted managed retreat.
On Page 13 of the Agenda Report for Item #8 (page 202 of the complete Council package) https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12042023-3343 contains a paragraph entitled Minimization of Flood Risk and Disclosure of Projected Sea Level Rise. The paragraph contains a form of managed retreat, something the City has come out against numerous times. I have stricken through the language that one might consider removing. "Within the City there are hundreds of residential lots and existing homes located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood management zones. Ordinance Section 30.91.040(X) clarifies the standards for development on lots in special flood hazard areas that are identified on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The ADU requirements (i.e., siting, base flood elevation, flood proofing, and height calculation) are standards that will apply to proposed development based on the existing context of the specific lot. These standards apply uniformly citywide to proposed development in special flood hazard areas, including proposed ADU development. The proposed ADU Ordinance/LCPA is consistent with existing citywide requirements in the certified LCP that apply to proposed residential development to minimize flood damage and avoid flood hazards, including those from projected sea level rise and flooding over the anticipated lifetime of the structure using best available science, in consideration of applicable adaptation measures, including the system of shoreline protection in the Beach Overlay Zone per the Beach Preservation Initiative, and consistent with the certified LCP." In light of the above, I would like to take this moment, given the more recent discussion of seal level rise and its continuous inclusion in Del Mar’s documents, to advocate for the reformation of STAC.
I also would like to remind Council and City Staff, that, despite what the CCC say, we are not required to include this language. As stated in the passages below from the Del Mar City Attorney’s letter "Adoption and Processing of Sea5 December 4, 2023 Item 08 2 Level Rise Adaptation Plan”, the Coastal Commission cannot force Del Mar to accept these changes nor the whims of the Coastal Commission outside of the Coastal Act. The specific language is as follow:
"The Commission Generally Cannot Require the City to Include Specific Content:
· The Coastal Act does not require this. The Commission could suggest modification as part of its periodic review of LCPs, but a local agency need not accept any of the suggestions · The Commission cannot force this upon us -- if suggested modifications are rejected, the Commission’s only recourse is to request that the legislature address the issue, which they have not · The Commission is not authorized to diminish or abridge the authority of the City to adopt and establish the precise content of its land use plan
· Conformance with the policies and requirements of the Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies can be required only to the extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in section 30001.5, i.e., coastal quality, utilization and conservation, public access, prioritized development, and coordinated planning and development"
Similar analysis can be found in "Should Del Mar’s Seal Level Rise Adaptation Plan Be Put In The Community Plan, In Our LCP, or Both? Recommendations From Dwight Worden, Mayor September 24, 2018”, which states:
· "The Coastal Commission cannot force Del Mar to adopt managed retreat. …. Del Mar has the right to reject those modifications."
Please remove the language around the lifetime of the structure. And, even more, please do not adopt a city policy that allows for managed retreat in theory and takes a wait and see attitude on a parcel by parcel basis.
Respectfully,
Heather Lindsey
6 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 5:10 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: 12/4/23 meeting. Agenda 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.
Dear City Council:
Please remove the language around the anticipated lifetime of the structure on page 2020 of the compete Council package.
It is a form of managed retreat. I thought we had already addressed this a few weeks ago but it seems to have returned. This language opens the door to managed retreat and subjective conversations around the mean high water elevation.
Thank you for taking the time to listen.
Sincerely,
Lucille Lindsey
7 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Nancy Stoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 10:48 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 12/4/23 Agenda item #8 ZA22-001 LCPA22-001 ADU Implementation Ordinance/LCPA 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 write to ask you to please remove from the draft ordinance text the reference to “anticipated lifetime of the structure”. This re-write has made good progress on the bad text you were previously asked to consider, however it is not approvable yet.
For Del Mar residents, there are so many things wrong with the concept that un-elected bureaucrats in far off places can/will determine using “best available science” (whatever that is determined to be, and by whom?) when the sea level rise will impact a specific property thus pushing back the determined/projected mean high tide line and mandating that the property be abandoned by the rightful owner and considered public trust land (no longer private property). This “anticipated lifetime” policy is the definition of Managed Retreat that we all worked so hard to keep our of our Adaptation plans and that you all promised to protect us from.
We have all agreed that Del Mar is unique in that protection of the ocean front homes is critical for maintaining public access to the beach, and for maintaining the existence of the 600+ residential units in the Beach Colony neighborhood. Please don’t make the choice to usurp private property rights now, when no plan is in place to house all of our residents who will be forced from their homes by this egregious language (that is intended by the city’s own statements to encourage development of additional housing, not destroy housing). Anticipated lifetime language eliminates housing, it doesn’t build more housing! There are several beach front homes that are over 100 years old now. Would a bureaucrat 80 years ago have anticipated that the homes would still be safe and wonderfully livable now? Probably not. Do you really want the responsibility of putting in place such misguided policy? This bad policy will also reduce property values (property that can’t be developed isn’t worth much, and what buyer wants to take on the risk?) and reduce city property tax revenue (no properties, no property tax revenue). For your own constituents, the owners of said properties who want to live in and enjoy their property for generations to come, the “anticipated lifetime” language prevents lenders from lending on property (no lender is going to make a loan when they can’t anticipate how long the property will be viable collateral to support the loan). Little good will come from bad “anticipated lifetime” language.
I’m sure you are getting outside pressure to approve such language, as you’ve (hopefully unknowingly and not intentionally) already done so with your approval of the Public Trust doctrine earlier this year. What a mistake that decision was! You don’t have to continue further down the same damaging path; please take out the “anticipated lifetime” language and support your residents, not outside agencies. Thank you. 8 December 4, 2023 Item 08
2 Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Stoke
Please consider supporting Wreaths Across America’s mission to Remember the fallen, Honor those who serve, and Teach the next generation the value of freedom. https://wreathsacrossamerica.org/CA0452 For every 2 wreaths you donate an additional wreath will be donated.
Wreaths will be placed Dec. 16th. If you wish to donate a grave-specific wreath, ask me how! Thank you! 9 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Lori Larcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 5:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 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.
RED DOT for Agenda Item #8 of Monday's meeting I am urging the Council to please remove the “anticipated lifetime” language from the proposed ADU ordinance Lori Larcher
1828 Oceanfront
DelMar, CA 92014
Sent from my iPhone
10 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 7:54 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; [email protected]
Subject: Please add my comments to the agenda regarding item 8 of the December 4th City Council Meeting - Re-Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations and Certified Local Coastal 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.
Hello City Council and City Manager
I would like you to consider the following regarding agenda item #8. This is the item that is headlined with - ReIntroducon of an Ordinance to Amend the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulaons and Cerfied Local Coastal Program
I am requesng the City remove the language around the “ancipated lifeme of the structure” on page 202 of the complete Council package. I believe it is a form of managed retreat and we have already dealt with this in the past.
Thank you.
Dave Sykes
[email protected]
122 15th Street #788
Del Mar CA 92014
619-987-9191
11 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: john imperato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 8:08 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Dwight Worden; David Druker Subject: RED DOT AGENDA ITEM 8 ADU/LCPA
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 Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
Thank you for your positive response to prior neighborhood objections to draft language in the ADU ordinance and proposed LCP amendment. The “anticipated lifetime of the structure” language still present in the proposal provides too much uncertainty and discretion in the permitting of ADUs.
This limitation -- “anticipated lifetime of the structure” should be stricken from the proposed ADU ordinance/LCPA.
The beach colony is relying on you too protect the interest of residents and all users of the Del Mar beach.
Please eliminate the anticipated lifetime clause, as others have suggested in their red dots.
Regards,
John Imperato
Sand Barr Lane
12 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Objective Design Standards
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 8:52 PM
To: Matt Bator <[email protected]>
Subject: Objective Design Standards
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.
Hi Matt,
I will not be able to attend the meeting on Wednesday evening due to prior plans, but I would like to add my concerns. I have lived here for 40 years in the same home, have been a past member of the Planning Commission, have been a faithful supporter upholding our Community Plan, have enjoyed a beautiful view of the Ocean from my garden (and yes, I understand this is not considered my primary view), and have always had a peaceful and cooperative relationship with my neighbors. (Please see photo below) Although I realized the ADU guidelines give my immediate neighbor to the west legal rights to build an ADU, I was only notified 12 hours before construction began. She refused to speak with me about her plans which almost totally obstruct my view of the ocean from my garden. (please see photo below) 1 December 4, 2023 Item 08
2 I don't understand how the ADU guidelines which provide additional housing for our community can allow a person to obstruct someone's view while creating a view of their own.(please see photo below) How sad and frustrating it is to have our Community Plan become worthless. Is there anything our City can do to keep this from happening to other residents?
Sincerely,
Carol Kerridge
334 El Amigo Rd
2 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ruth Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2023 11:34 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Agenda 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.
Dear Council Members, Please remove the "anticipated lifetime of a structure " language from the ADU ordinance/LCPamendment being discussed.
Thank you, Ruth and Ed Evans, 2115 Balboa Ave, Del Mar, CA 92014 1 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Lee Larcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2023 12:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT | Agenda 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.
Dear Del Mar City Council Members,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my deep concern and opposition to the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance and Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment. The impact of the "anticipated lifetime" language, as outlined in the proposal, raises several significant issues that require careful consideration.
Citywide Implications: I am troubled by the inclusion of the "anticipated lifetime " language not only in the Beach Colony but also in other zones like the North Commercial and Professional Commercial Zones. It seems this language is expanding beyond its initial scope, impacting various areas of our city.
Restrictions on Residential Development: The proposed ordinance's application to residential development, especially the language related to flood risk and sea level rise on Page 13 of the Agenda Report for Item #8, raises concerns about the potential limitations on property owners' rights. The notion of regulating development based on the "ANTICIPATED LIFETIME" of structures may have significant implications for property owners, including restrictions on loans and control over property use.
Financial Implications: The linkage between the "anticipated lifetime" and property loans is particularly worrisome. If a bureaucrat's determination of a property's lifetime conflicts with the loan term, securing a loan for property development may become an insurmountable challenge.
Loss of Property Control: The concept of "anticipated lifetime" significantly reduces property owners' control over their land use. It relies on non-elected officials' interpretation of "best available science," potentially leading to restrictions on property development based on sea level rise projections and flood risks.
Alignment with CCC's Public Trust Guiding Principles: I urge the City Council to revisit the Coastal Commission's Public Trust Guiding Principles & Action Plan, emphasizing the need to protect existing beachfront homes to prevent the flooding of lower-lying residential units in the Beach Colony. The City should advocate for a balanced approach that considers the protection of existing homes while addressing sea level rise concerns.
There may be room for the City to make arguments and push back when specific property issues arise, and I encourage the City Council to take a proactive stance in protecting the interests of residents and addressing these concerns with the Coastal Commission.
2 December 4, 2023 Item 08
2 I appreciate your attention to these matters and trust that you will carefully consider the potential ramifications of the proposed ADU Ordinance and LCP Amendment.
Thank you for your dedication to the well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
Lee Larcher
Phone: (602) 481-2184
Email: [email protected]
3 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: MARK P NEARY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2023 12:11 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot for Agenda 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.
Dear Del Mar City Council,
I am writing to ask that we please remove the “anticipated lifetime” language from the proposed ADU ordinance.
Thank you,
Mark Neary
1904 Coast Bl, PO Box 1069
Del Mar, CA 92014
Sent from my iPhone
4 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: LINDA BRANDES <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2023 1:21 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda 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.
To the City Clerk and Council Members,
Regarding Agenda Item 8 to be heard on meeting date of December 4, 2023 I, Linda Brandes the homeowner at 1906 Ocean Front, Del Mar CA request that you remove the “anticipated lifetime” language from the proposed ADU ordinance.
Very Truly yours,
Linda Brandes
p 858-756-9850
1 December 4, 2023 Item 08
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92115 Ph: 619.278.0701 Fx: 619.278.0705 www.jmhamiltonlaw.com
The Law Office of
Julie M. Hamilton
December 4, 2023
Honorable Mayor Tracy Martinez
Members of the City Council
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Honorable Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of my client Mark Wyland, I urge this council not to adopt the proposed ADU Ordinance. The City has an ADU ordinance in place that adequately protects coastal resources while providing opportunities for the construction of dwelling units to meet the region’s housing needs. The adequacy of the ordinance is demonstrated by the development of more than 100 dwelling units since adoption of the ordinance in 2017.
The staff places great emphasis on harmonizing the protection of coastal resources with the government code ADU policies. However, Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 make no mention of harmonizing the policies with the Coastal Act. In fact, subdivision (l) clearly states nothing in the ADU code section shall supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect of the Coastal Act. This section says the local government shall not be required to hold a public hearing on coastal development permits but does not say the City cannot hold a hearing on coastal development permits.
The new language proposed for the ordinance assumes the only coastal resources worthy of protection are natural resources and environmentally sensitive habitat. However, the Coastal Act looks beyond natural resources and environmentally sensitive habitat when protecting coastal resources. Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act protect public access, scenic view and vistas, coastal dependent uses, visitor-serving uses, agricultural uses, coastal-dependent industrial uses and many other resources. The ordinance should not include language that limits coastal resources to natural resources and environmentally sensitive uses.
Six years ago, the City took an important step to protect private views by adopting Design Guidelines with specific view policies. Adoption of this ADU ordinance would remove 1 December 4, 2023 Item 08
Mayor Martinez
December 4, 2023
private view protections that have been a part of the development policies of this City for years.
An additional benefit of protecting some portion of a significant private view is the protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the City of Del Mar. This is a policy change that needs to be thoroughly vetted and not given the little consideration pushed forward in the ADU Ordinance package.
The deed restriction language is vague and ambiguous. The proposed ordinance requires a deed restriction be recorded against the property that states the sale, occupancy, and rental of the unit be consistent with State Law. That is an ineffective statement and does nothing to ensure ADUs will be used as residential units. Similarly requesting a property owner report the use of the ADU to the City is meaningless. The property owner can choose whether to report the use of the ADU to the City; there are no repercussions for using the ADU in a manner that does not meet the purpose of an ADU.
The parking requirements do little to protect on-street parking for public access. The coastal appeals area is limited, inadequate parking outside of the appeals area will still impact the availability of public parking for coastal visitors. The proposed parking language in Section O, subdivision 1.) d.) does not meet the standards set forth in several state policies that allow concessions for proximity to transit. This section excepts the requirement to provide parking if the project site is within one-half mile of a transit stop. State law typically allows parking concessions if the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. A major transit stop requires the intersection of two bus routes with minimum service intervals of 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon commute hours. This is an important distinction to ensure more reliance on transit.
The City Council should also give serious thought to allowing parking spaces in the yard for areas with narrow roads. Parking in the front yard is a “broken window” issue that leads to a perception of less care for the neighborhood. Parking in the yard as a result of excessive ADU development has led to the appearance of urban decay in areas of the County with significant ADU development.
Finally, the requiring development to be developed in a manner that considers sea level rise over the economic life of the project is vague and ambiguous. What is the economic life of a project? Who determines the best science available to project sea level rise? This language can lead to draconian results and leaves the developer with no solid development standards to rely upon when developing a property.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I remain available if you have any questions or need additional information.
Respectfully,
Julie M. Hamilton
Attorney for Mark Wyland
CC: Client
2 December 4, 2023 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Corrected
From: Tate Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:53 PM
To: Melinda Gould <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]> Subject: Corrected
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.
From: Tate Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 7:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: FW: Del Mar's Lagoon Trail Project Delayed Due To High Costs, Lack of Transparency I write in support of Item 11 to Censure Deputy Mayor Quirk.
We count on our elected officials to offer opinions, facts, and debate as an important part of our amazing democratic process.
Blatant misrepresentations such as the following from DM Quirk regarding San Dieguito Drive harm everyone. DM Quirk was at the meeting. He heard the facts, but chose quite obviously to distort and misrepresent them.
Then ask for a Grand Jury type investigation of our City? Here's "the thing".
Hyperbolically calling people liars and cheats seems to be the thing in politics as a way to get attention.
Calling people wrong or misinformed is part of our process. 1 December 4, 2023 Item 11
2 Quirk doesn't seem to understand the difference or the amplification resulting from his position as a representative of Del Mar.
Identifying the position or hat one wears when making statements is requisite part of a council member's job in addition to an unwavering commitment to being fact based.
I thank Councilmembers Druker and Gaasterland for bringing this motion forward and urge the Council to Vote Yes.
Tate Scott
1200 Oribia Rd, Del Mar, CA 92014
/wts
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:52 PM
Subject: FW: Del Mar's Lagoon Trail Project Delayed Due To High Costs, Lack of Transparency To: <[email protected]>
The following response to Council Member Quirk’s email this am (also follows) is submitted as a red dot relative to Item #18.
Dan, I fully support fiscal responsibility and your work to highlight that need in our City Government.
However, I encourage you to avoid comments you are aware are incorrect and/or misleading. I distinctly remember Staff explaining to you, the council, and the public in significant detail all about the expired $179k Peter’s Pavers option, and why the $179k option was not an option the City could accept. Then quite oddly, almost as if you weren’t present at the meeting or read the presentation and Agenda, you claim you voted against the Item because you wanted the exact information that was provided at the meeting. You also knew the Item, the one you voted against, was to further refine the City’s estimated costs.
2 December 4, 2023 Item 11
3 The “slurry coat” comment was indeed inaccurate and misleading. However, the Peter’s Quote was included in the Agenda package containing the full details of a concrete swale and there was no confusion at the meeting. You heard from the resident, a civil engineer, that worked with Peter’s Pavers to obtain their now expired quote, and why it was for a different purpose than for dedication of the road to the city.
At that meeting Staff provided to you, the council, and the public the City’s requirements which understandably are different than for a group of residents as that resident explained.
You are aware of the procurement process required by the state, and reasonable requirements for drawings, engineering input, warranty, etc all of which were discussed at the meeting.
It is disingenuous to say you voted against the Item because you needed more information when clearly you had been provided that information.
Your highlighted comment below about Grand Jury Investigation was beyond hyperbole. Suggesting a similar approach (Grand Jury Investigation) is destructive as you clearly seek only to sow distrust. I get being voted down. It happens, but jeeze Dan, the process provided you with the very information you are claiming you didn’t know – you just disagree with it and the outcome – but you got the information - as did the public.
Dan, thank you for your continued focus on fiscal responsibility. I respectfully submit in your email blast that you materially misrepresented the highly collaborative process for San Dieguito Drive and it should be favorably highlighted not used for your agenda.
Tate
3 December 4, 2023 Item 11
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Peter Cramton, 901 Highland Ave, Del Mar, CA 92014 Date: 4 December 2023
Subject: Item #11, Council Considera�on to Censure Deputy Mayor Quirk for Failing to Provide Proper Disclosure and Transparency in Public Communica�ons
I urge Councilmembers Dave Druker and Terry Gaasterland to withdraw Item 11 from the agenda.
Barring withdrawal, I urge all Councilmembers to vote against censure.
Councilmember Dan Quirk has made an essen�al effort to gather fact-based informa�on on rail reloca�on or re�rement. His ac�ons are informing many people's thoughts about the tunneling issue in Del Mar and San Clemente. He has been incredibly effec�ve at communica�ng the need for an independent, forward-looking cost-benefit analysis by ques�oning the benefits of the tunneling project rela�ve to its costs.
Councilmember Quirk speaks with passion on the train issue. He is annoyed by SANDAG's advocacy of rail reloca�on. Just as it is not SANDAG's job to advocate for rail re�rement, they should not be advoca�ng for rail reloca�on. SANDAG's use of facts and figures is misleading and appears intended to mislead. Such is the behavior of an advocate. We need greater transparency at SANDAG. That is what Councilmember Quirk is emphasizing in his public statements.
Councilmember Quirk believes that an independent, forward-looking benefit-cost analysis would show beter ways to spend 4 billion dollars than a tunnel through Del Mar and $16 billion to tunnel through San Clemente. No one doubts Quirk's belief. And no one doubts that others on the Council have different ideas.
Those who hold public office are o�en asked to share their views to influence policy decisions and inform the public. Sharing views can take many forms: TV segments, news stories, blogs, emails, etc.
When views are shared, it is the presump�on that the views are those of the individual, not the views of the Council. There is no obliga�on to disclose when sharing views to add, "This message reflects my personal views and opinions which are mine alone and may not reflect the City’s official position…." Such a disclaimer is imprac�cal and unnecessary. Please look at clips or quotes of poli�cal leaders on TV, news stories, blogs, and emails. Disclosers of this kind rarely appear. Nor should they. Of course, the views are those of the individual unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The request for censure appears to be a means to get the Council to speak with one voice on the train issue. Some believe that speaking with one voice will have a greater impact. I disagree. Like a university, Del Mar consists of thousands of voices. We do not all agree on complex issues. That is good. Del Mar should strive to promote knowledge (the Del Mar Founda�on is an example of Del Mar's posi�ve efforts). Open civil debate is much more effec�ve in the pursuit of knowledge.
Please withdraw the censure item. It is unwise.
1 December 4, 2023 Item 11
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 3:27 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Censure of Council Member Quirk
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 Del Mar City Council Members:
I agree with Concil Members Druker and Gaasterland that Council Member Quirk should not use symbols of the City of Del Mar when expressing his personal opinions about matters affecting the City of Del Mar and its residents. I also agree that Council Member Quirk should be more diplomatic in public with people he does not agree with on various public matters because he represents the City of Del Mar while he is a member of the City Council. That said, it is not unusual for elected officials to express their personal opinions in public without acknowledging that they are personal opinions.
Council Members have Druker and Gaasterland have both done so, and censuring Quirk for his statement publicly sets a dangerous precedent.
What I do not agree with is the attempt of Council Members Druker and Gaasterland to quash public dissent about the actions of public agencies and elected officials regarding matters that greatly impact the residents and taxpayers of Del Mar and San Diego County. Council Member Quirk represents the views of a group of residents that certain public agencies have been neither open or honest in presenting facts about rail transport in San Diego County with respect to the potential realignment of the tracks along the Del Mar bluff. To publicly ostracize Council Member Quirk for expressing his views will undermine necessary efforts to get the public agencies to be open and honest with the taxpayers about the facts and alternatives regarding the rail service in San Diego. SANDAG was severely criticized in the Union Tribune today for its handling of various matters, and its auditors gave a scathing indictment of its management practices in a public report issued last year. CAN WE
REALLY TRUST THESE PEOPLE TO BE HONEST AND OPEN WITH US IN PRESENTING
INFORMATION ABOUT THE REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES OR RESPECTING OUR RIGHTS AS TAXPAYERS TO QUESTION THEIR ACTIONS?
The real issue here is that Council Members Druker and Gaasterland do not agree with Quirk’s views, and they want to control the messaging with SANDAG on behalf of the residents of Del Mar by issuing a set of principles to SANDAG. They have admitted that there is no official position on the rail realignment by the City of Del Mar except that the city wants SANDAG to be transparent with the city in discussions with the public. I, for one, do not believe that we have a full understanding of the facts and alternatives of the rail alignment to make any informed decisions before committing to spending $3.5 billion of taxpayer funds on something that may prove totally unnecessary in the future. As some residents requested to the City Council recently, we want the City of Del Mar to request an independent and qualified investigation of the facts involved, and an impartial presentation of the alternatives to the public before deciding what to do. I think, due to the cost, whatever is done must be approved by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors not just SANDAG and NCTD.
Thank you,
1 December 4, 2023 Item 11
2 Steven Crowe
111 Sea Cliff Way
Del Mar
2 December 4, 2023 Item 11