Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
March 18, 2024 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
March 18, 2024
Item 5 – Submittal of the 2023 Housing Element Annual Housing Progress Report
1. How is the Seaside Ridge application handled?
Response: The Seaside Ridge application details will be included in Table A (Housing Development Application Submitted to the City) and the appropriate project related information will be included in the report. This project was inadvertently omitted from the Annual Housing Progress report by staff and is the subject of a red dot revision to the report by staff.
2. Do we have an explanation for why we have no lower income units? Response: The Agenda report identifies that the City has approved development permits for two projects that include a combined total of 12 lower income units. However, these projects were not issued building permits in 2023, which is why the Annual Progress Report does not yet recognize these lower income units. There is not a place to include this information in the spreadsheet that HCD requires the City to submit each year.
3. How small are the smallest ADUs that have been approved so far? Response: The smallest ADU that has been constructed to date is 175 square feet.
Typically, the smaller ADUs are between 300 and 400 square feet.
4. Is it realistic to expect that some ADUs will be built small enough and rented below moderate income level?
Response: The City will not be able to count any ADUs as lower income units unless the ADUs are deed restricted to ensure rental to lower income households.
5. Isn’t the City expected to produce at least 15 lower income ADUs? Response: Yes, the City identified that it would produce at least 15 lower income ADUs to count towards the City’s 113 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element identifies two strategies to reach this target which included Program 2B implementation of a new ADU Amnesty Program (adopted by the City Council December 4, 2023) and Program 2A implementation of an updated ADU Incentive Program (adopted by the City Council December 18, 2024).
Item 6 – Riverpath Del Mar Extension Project Phase 3 Task Order
1. Some of the Helix tasks depend on comments they receive and their need to prepare responses. Do we have an update--have we received comments that 1 March 18, 2024 Items 5,6,8,12
need to be addressed? Are we likely to save some money if comments don't come in or are easily answered?
Response: Since January, the City has been coordinating with City’s environmental consultant, HELIX Environmental Consulting (Helix), and the Coastal Commission to address the special conditions of the Coastal Development Permit. It is expected that Coastal Commission staff will have additional comments on the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program (HMMP), Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Plan, Landscape Plan, and Final Design/Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will need to be addressed by Helix. The Task Order Amendment Scope of Work was based on the amount of time Helix assumes it will take to address the comments and to finalize the regulatory permitting, and it is possible the full amount of hours may not be needed for each task.
2. When did the City first learn that it was receiving the $680,000 in federal funding via HUD? Why is Council being asked only now to approve the $68,400 task order, which the staff report says could take as long as 6 months to complete? Response: The City received initial notification from Congressman Levin’s office that it had been awarded funding earlier in the year last year, but the detailed information from HUD regarding the federal grant award and related requirements, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, was not provided until the end of the year. City staff immediately alerted Helix, and they have since been coordinating on what would be required in order to satisfy the NEPA environmental review and related scope of work for Helix’s task order. The six-month timeframe indicated in the agenda report is what staff is hoping will be a “worst case scenario,” but one that we should be aware of since we will be working with a federal agency and will not be able to control their review/turnaround time.
3. Why is the City spending up to $297,350 on HELIX for its environmental consulting services for this project?
Response: With regard to environmental review and permitting costs, those represent approximately 9% of the overall $3.3M total estimated project costs (preconstruction/construction). These costs aren’t surprising from a staff perspective considering the projects proximity to an environmentally sensitive Lagoon and the multiple regulatory/resource agencies that are involved with project permitting. As a reminder, the environmental requirements for the project are set by State/federal law as well as the regulatory agencies involved with the project. These are not discretionary activities for the City. All task order activities and related costs for Helix to date have been reviewed/approved by the City Council prior to any work being undertaken.
Item 8 – Housing-Related Amendments to the Central Commercial and Public Facilities Zones Including Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the Del Mar Community Plan and introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code and 2 March 18, 2024 Items 5,6,8,12
Certified Local Coastal Program to Implement Housing Element Programs 1C and 1H
1. Is the description of the relationship between State Density Bonus Law (DBL) and the Coastal Act (on page 3 of staff report) in error? Response: Apologies for any confusion related to how this relationship is described in the report. To be clear, State Density Bonus Law does not supersede the Coastal Act.
2. Page 10 indicates the County owns the library. Do they own the ground and Del Mar owns the building? Or Does Del Mar own the ground and the county owns the building?
Response: The City owns the land and the building. The County of San Diego leases the building.
3. The Resolution at page 4 states “This land use category is limited to publicly owned land set aside, or in use, to support public schools and governmental..." I think the word "public" before "schools" should be deleted as the PF zone allows both public and private schools. That's how the Winston School is lawfully on site.
Response: This change can be read into the record if desired by the City Council.
4. What is the minimum number of units someone can build in the modified CC zone? Can an owner build 1 or 2 units, or is the minimum 4 or 5?
Response: There is no requirement for residential use to be developed in the CC Zone so the minimum number of units is zero. Where multi-unit residential development is proposed, the project must include a lower income unit component. For lower income unit development to occur, it will most likely be associated with a State Density Bonus Law (DBL) project, which are projects that include at least 5 units pre-density bonus.
Projects with less than 5 units are not expected to produce lower income units because such projects would be financially infeasible to build.
5. Is HCD requiring the City to reevaluate its special requirement for a majority vote of the City Council to approve proposed amendments to the Del Mar Community Plan (General Plan)?
Response: The City is not required to reevaluate its special requirement for a majority vote of the City Council. Program 6F in the certified Housing Element was included at the request of HCD following their observation that the City’s special requirement for a majority vote of the City Council to approve proposed amendments to the Del Mar Community Plan is more restrictive than the simple majority vote that State law requires for General Plan Amendments and may be an impediment to compliance with State law. 3 March 18, 2024 Items 5,6,8,12
The Housing Element identifies that the supermajority vote requirement cannot be enforced if it results in an actual conflict with State law.
Item 12 Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Advisory Committee Work Plans
1. Note that Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) also requested to meet more frequently.
Response: Staff reviewed the meeting minutes from SAC’s December 6, 2023, and January 29, 2024, meetings (the committee’s last two meetings) and confirmed that a request for more frequent meetings was not formally requested (by vote) by the committee. If that is an error in the minutes, that can be corrected at SAC’s next meeting on April 29, 2024. For SAC’s proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Work Plan, staff recommends that the City Council consider continuing with quarterly SAC meetings. Per City Policy, SAC can request an additional fifth administrative meeting and Special Meetings on an as-needed basis to discuss and make recommendations on timely issues relevant to SAC’s charter.
4 March 18, 2024 Items 5,6,8,12
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Amanda Lee, Principal Planner
Adriana Jaramishian, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director DATE: March 18, 2024
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 5: Submittal of the 2023 Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Item 5 is the 2023 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, which describes the City’s progress during the timeframe from January 1 to December 31, 2023. There are two administrative corrections/clarifications that need to be stated for the record prior to City Council authorization of the filing of the report and spreadsheet with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
The first correction is that the list of new housing applications in the Agenda report and under HCD spreadsheet Tab A needs to be amended to add:
• Seaside Ridge Development application (CDP23-008, 929 Border Avenue) o 173 base units proposed (88 above moderate-income level, 43 moderate income level, and 42 lower-income level); and
o An additional 86 density bonus units are proposed for a total of 259 units In addition to the Seaside Ridge Development application described above, there are 29 ADU applications in process (as reflected in the agenda report), for a total of 30 pending applications with housing potential that may contribute towards future housing production.
The second is a clarification to the program implementation status report under the HCD spreadsheet Summary Table. This table implies that all 45 housing programs in the City’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element have been implemented, which would be inconsistent with what was reported in the agenda report and in HCD Spreadsheet Table D. The number 45 in the Summary Table simply reflects the total number of housing programs listed in Table D and is consistent with the City’s Housing Element. This does not reflect the number of housing programs that have been completed, are in process, or have not yet been initiated. Per the agenda report, it is correct that 40 of the 45 programs have been initiated with 10 completed.
1 March 18, 2024 Item 05
1 Melinda Gould
From: Donna Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 12:25 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Upzoning
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.
Hello, I am writing to suggest that upzoning, if Council decides to pursue it, should be voted on by the people in Del Mar. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Donna Shaw
1973 Seaview Avenue
1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sam Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 12:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Donna Clark
Subject: 620 Amphitheatre
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.
To whom it may concern:
My wife and I own and rehabilitated the property at 620 Amphitheatre. We used Bokal and Sneed and complied with every detail to preserve the look and feel of our neighborhood. And the cost to do so was enormous. I am a RE broker and investment banker and have served on a zoning commission in the state of Texas.
By allowing high density “Anything” in Del Mar you will be destroying the look, feel, and quality of life that most people I know in the community have worked so hard to protect. You will also be unlawfully transferring wealth from the current residents to builders and others by devaluing existing properties in favor of newer more dense where most of the value will be transferred to developers. Please exhaust all means to avoid or I and others will personally litigate. Thank you!
Sam W. Clark, IV
SAMCAM, LLC
5924 Norway Road
Dallas, Texas 75230
M: 214.729.6169
[email protected]
2 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Patrick Leonard <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 1:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Density Bonus Law
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.
Good afternoon. Happy St Patrick’s Day!
I recognize we are being bullied by the state on affordable housing. The dishonesty in counting seasonal employees at the race track to increase our mandated housing continues to infuriate me and deepens my mistrust of much of government. We must do everything possible to eliminate the Density Bonus Plan, or weaken its application. It’s quite easy to visualize the damaging effects it will have on our village character, right in its heart. We must oppose it. Thank you.
Patrick Leonard
Sent from Gmail Mobile
3 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 1:44 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: No on Item 8, City Council meeting 03.18.2024
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 don´t see why we need to upzone 9-15 street at all anymore. What good does it do? It will only deprive the public of views and nothing good will come out of it. If it´s for the benefit of affordable housing, we really don´t need it anymore because of either a/ the negotiation with the Fairground goes well, or b/ better to upzone North Bluff instead of going through an expensive law suit that we probably will lose anyway due to affordable housing. Why get the short end of both sticks?
Please don´t upzone 9-15 street or our cute little town will no longer be a cute little town.
Best,
Camilla Rang
4 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: David Hackbart <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 4:54 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Upzoning from 9th to 15th St.
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,
Very simply if there’s a way around this, I think we should pursue it with vigor. The city of Del Mar has done an excellent job over the decades of preserving a small town character, fighting large builders and developments, and this new upzoning proposal seems to fly in the face of what so many of us here in Del Mar enjoy. So I am behind Terry’s proposal and I would appreciate you accepting this email as such.
Respectfully,
David L Hackbart
Long-term Delmar resident
5 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Susan Schneider <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 5:58 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: High Density Housing Along Camino Del Mar
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.
Council Members,
As 30-plus year residents of Olde Del Mar, we have experienced many changes to our Village.
The increase in businesses, traffic, parking overflow on residential streets as well as noise pollution have already been a huge negative.
6 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jonnell Agnew <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 9:43 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Upzone opposition.
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 whom it may concern
I Strongly oppose any changes to our city zoning and height limitations, etc. keep everything the way it is now. We want to remain a quiet beach community and preserve our ocean views. We paid a high price to purchase property in this city and expect that our views are not compromised. We must save our city from any change that takes away our views and small town vibe.
I live at 346 9th st and do not want to lose my view. I also oppose the utility and internet cell phone companies putting towers on the rooftop of Jean Claude's building. It blocks our views and is emitting a lot of noise.
These companies should not be exempt from height restrictions. And they keep adding more towers on Jean Claude roof. Before we know it his roof height will be 10 feet higher from south to north and block more views. Need restrictions in place to stop this.
Sincerely,
Jonnell Agnew
626-483-8552
7 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ashley Jones
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 7:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red dot item 8
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Crabtree <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 7:05 AM
To: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden-Private <[email protected]>; Terry TG.
Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez RN <[email protected]> Subject: Red dot 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.
Please DO NOT approve item 8 on the council agenda. Not enough is known if the up zone is approved and the long term ramifications/ consequences on our small little city! Please DO NOT!
Thank you
Robin Ctabtree
Sent from my iPhone
8 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Susan Schneider <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:47 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: High Density Housing Along Camino Del Mar — for City Council Meeting 3/18/24 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.
Council Members,
As 30-plus year residents of Olde Del Mar, we have experienced many changes to our Village.
The increase in businesses, traffic, parking overflow on residential streets, noise and air pollution and loss of pedestrian safety, have already been huge negatives.
All the plans for increased density are going to ruin what’s left of the Village's charm:
ADUs, (look at the 14th and Luneta monstrosity?), condos on Jimmy Durante, STRs, homes above dog beach, at the Fairgrounds…. It is too much!
Plus, a double tracked train potentially under our homes or Crest Canyon Preserve? To even think of adding more housing on either or both sides of Camino Del Mar is ridiculous.
You must fight for the preservation of Del Mar.
You must let residents vote on this and all issues affecting our lives.
Susan & Mark Schneider
Luneta Drive
9 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Margaret Mahoney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 9:02 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: up zoning
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.
NO on all city zoning upgrades.
Marnie Mahoney
10 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:24 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda Item 8 (Density Bonus Law)
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.
Del Mar City Council,
Regarding the rezone of the Central Commercial Zone and Public Facilities Zone and the Density Bonus Act, some thoughts and questions came to mind.
1. The Central Commercial and Public Facilities Zones are not in the Coastal Zone Appeals Jurisdiction. If the City asserted a Density Bonus project would violate the Coastal Act (for example, because it would significantly obstruct public scenic views or because it would violate the 14 ft height limit for the west side of CDM) and denied the Coastal Development Permit for the project on this basis, would the developer be able to appeal the denial of the CDP to the Coastal Commission?
2. In Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016), the California Court of Appeal held that the “Density Bonus Act is subordinate to the Coastal Act.” I believe the California Legislature responded to this decision in 2017 by amending the Density Bonus Act through Assembly Bill 2797, stating:
It is the intent of the Legislature in amending subdivision (m) of Section 65915 of the Government Code to address the holding and dicta in Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927 regarding the relationship between Section 65915 and the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). The Legislature’s intent is that the two statutes be harmonized so as to achieve the goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing in the coastal zone while also protecting coastal resources and coastal access.
I believe the amendment added the bolded text to § 65915 (m) of the Density Bonus Act:
This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
If the above is true, this seems to indicate Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code) rather than the specific provisions of the City’s LCP is the standard for harmonization of Density Bonus law with the Coastal Act. In other words, “any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standard” can violate specific provisions of the City’s LCP and still be found to be consistent with the Coastal Act. For example, the Watermark project violated the 14 ft height limit of the BSC-OZ, but an Administrative Coastal Development Permit (CDP) was 1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
2 nevertheless issued by the City and on appeal the Coastal Commission determined the project did not raise a substantial issue with the Coastal Act.
Based on this, it seems possible that the 14 ft height limit for the west side of CDM (as an example) could similarly be violated by a Density Bonus project and the project could still be found to be consistent with the Coastal Act by the Design Review Board, by this or a future City Council, by the Coastal Commission on direct appeal (if such an appeal is possible), or in a writ proceeding.
It is my understanding that the 14 ft height limit and 26 ft height limit for the west and east sides of CDM are policies (Policy IV-24 and Policy II-1) of the City’s LUP but were enacted in DMMC by regular zoning ordinances rather than Implementing Ordinance of the City’s LCP. If this is true, whether this is germane to the application of the City’s LCP and/or the Coastal Act to a Density Bonus Project is not clear.
3. Regarding public scenic views, has the City ever denied an ADU project based on a claim it would violate the Coastal Act because it would obstruct public scenic views such as from a specific vantage point on a City street? This might help inform how the City's LCP and/or the Coastal Act might be applied to Density Bonus projects in the City since ADU law also “does not supersede the Coastal Act.” Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
2 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Evy Escalante
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 12:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Revised Red Dot for Item 8: Revise draft PF zone ordinances to prohibit housing development at Shores Park
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 and Staff,
We urge the City Council to add explicit language exempting Shores Park from housing as an allowed use in the Public Facilities (PF) zone to the following paragraphs in Attachments A and B, the draft ordinances in the staff report:
Attachment A (p. 4)
Public Facilities
This land use category is limited to publicly owned land set aside, or in use, to support public schools and governmental offices and facilities, and multiple dwelling unit residential (at a density of 0-20 dwelling units per acre or the maximum number of dwelling unit specified for the parcel in the certified Housing Element, whichever is greater) that includes affordable housing for lower income households. State law defines a lower income household as individuals or families whose gross income does not exceed 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and includes low income, very low income, and extremely low-income households.
Attachment B (p 12)
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS/ALLOWED USES
PF - Public schools; City, County, State and Federal buildings; Utility structures; and multiple dwelling unit residential (at a density of 0-20 dwelling units per acre or the maximum number of dwelling unit specified for the parcel in the certified Housing Element, whichever is greater) that includes affordable housing for lower income households. State law defines a lower income household as people or families whose gross income does not exceed 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) and includes low income, very low income, and extremely low-income households.
Adding this explicit prohibition in the cited paragraphs will better protect Shores Park from housing development in accordance with the Kerckhoff deed restriction and the 2007 City Council resolution used to solicit $5.5M in donations from donors to acquire the 5.3 acre property.
Although the current 6th Cycle Housing Element exempts Shores Park from housing, that exemption could easily be erased by a future Housing Element or the state legislature since portions of Shores Park are listed as candidate housing sites in the Housing Element’s PEIR posted on the state’s CEQA website used to entice developers.
The long-term threat of housing development to Shores Park is demonstrated by portions of the 5.3 acre property being listed as “Candidate Housing Sites” in the 6th Cycle Housing Element PEIR. City staff, the city’s Housing Committee, and the City Council considered housing development at Shores Park as a result of the state’s pressure to identify affordable housing development sites on city-owned land. This pressure will only get worse in the future as the state increases Del Mar’s requirements for more affordable housing on a shrinking number of available sites.
The inclusion of Shores Park as a potential housing site reflects the fact that it is not protected like Seagrove and Powerhouse parks by Public Parkland zoning.
March 18, 2024 Item 8
2 Thus, The Friends of Del Mar Parks urge you to protect and preserve our community’s only playing fields and school at Shores Park for future generations by rezoning Shores Park from Public Facilities (PF) to Public Parkland (PP) with educational facilities as an allowed use to accommodate the long-term lease of the Winston School, our fundraising campaign’s fiscal sponsor and largest contributor to the property’s acquisition with $3M.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura DeMarco
Joe Sullivan
Friends of Del Mar Parks
March 18, 2024 Item 8
1 Melinda Gould
From: Kurt Snider <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 12:53 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Upzoning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please do not take any action on zoning changes. It's obvious that the city is very divided politically. There are probably only a couple of you that have the support of a large majority of residents. This issue will have a lasting effect far beyond your term in office and should be brought to a vote of the people.
Kurt Snider
Del Mar
1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Peter Cramton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 1:43 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 8 upzone of Del Mar from 9th to 15th St
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
The Density Bonus Law and its potential negative impact on Del Mar's coastal views necessitate a public vote on the proposed Central Commercial upzone.
Upzoning without considering the Density Bonus Law's implications could lead to waivers and concessions that bypass height, square footage, and lot coverage limits. The east side of Central Commercial and certain west side parcels are at risk of losing public views of the ocean due to the Density Bonus Law.
As an alternative to a full upzone, the Council could exclude the west side to protect coastal views or consider a smaller upzone.
Kind regards,
Peter
Peter Cramton
[email protected] cramton.umd.edu +1 530 408 6698
University of Maryland
1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sudi Bruni <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 3:51 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: NO to DENSITY BONUS LAW
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.
As a homeowner directly affected by changes to the Central Commercial zone, I am extremely alarmed by the proposed Density Bonus Law of potential (and likely) path to waivers and concessions. What is the use of laws and ordinances if the 'people with the money' can skirt the intent of regulations and force their way to accomplish what is best for their moneymaking instead of in the best interest of the citizens of Del Mar? Please, please, protect the unique character of Del Mar, and the reason why I love this city by stopping the commercial interests!
Thank you.
Sudi Bruni
1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Richard Silsby Simons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:19 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Del Mar Commercial Zone
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.
As a VERY CONCERNED long time (over half a century) citizen of Del Mar, AND Chairman of the Citizen's Committee charged with formulating the General Plan for our Commercial Sector (back when that was relevant),
I would like to submit the following:
1) DO NOT, I beg you DO NOT try to go up over one story on the west side of Camino Del Mar. It will plunge half of our commercial district into mid-afternoon gloom and (in the words of one of our committee members) "we will be just like La Jolla."
2) If you would like to mix residential with commercial, "be our guest." We tried to call for that in our report (although we had more in mind the "mom and pop would live over the candle store" kind of thing).
And by the way - we expressed the same thing for the east side of Stratford Court - a transition from pure commercial to pure residential . . . but we were roundly ignored.
GOOD LUCK in your wrasslin' match with the Great Mistake of California. They told us to write up a plan for our city, we did it, and now they are telling us to rip it up. 1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: JAMES JENSEN <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:57 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: DownTown
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.
564 Amphitheatre,
My Wife and I are against the Density Bonus and upzone amendment to the Community Plan. It will dramatically change the nature of downtown and Del Mar and we oppose the change. JJ James Jensen Architect - C24025
General Contractor- 898886
JAA Inc.
310.386.2318
[email protected]
Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you have received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete both the message and reply.
Thank you.
1 March 18, 2024 Item 08
1 Sarah Krietor
From: Bill Carpenter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 10:56 AM
To: Melinda Gould; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council meeting 3/18/24 agenda item 12 Advisory Committee Work Plans - Red Dot Communications
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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.
City Council –
I was dismayed to hear the Council decided NOT to establish a SANDAG train tunnel advisory commiƩee – and see the agenda for the City Council meeƟng on 3/18 has no discussion of what Del Mar is doing to encourage SANDAG to include the Environmental Alignment in its next phase of planning. Seems like you’re fiddling with budgets and pension maƩers while Del Mar’s future burns.
It’s Ɵme for “all hands on deck” and, with no CiƟzens Advisory CommiƩee, it’s YOUR hands that should be working with the Fairgrounds and Solana Beach to support this alignment during the criƟcal next six weeks! Bill Carpenter
Luneta Dr.
March 18, 2023 Item 12
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager
DATE: March 18, 2024
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 12: FY 2024-2025 Advisory Committee Work Plans Following distribution of the City Council agenda packet on March 14, 2024, the Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (UPAC) met to review UPAC’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025 work plan. The Committee recommends City Council approve the attached revised work plan with the addition of item 7 related to review of City communications with property owners. Staff recommends the City Council approve the revised work plan with the inclusion of item 7, which is considered an operational item.
Attachment: Revised FY2024-2024 UPAC Work Plan
1 March 18, 2024 Item 12
UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UPAC)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 PROPOSED WORK PLAN
Staff prepared a Proposed FY 2024-2025 UPA Work Plan for City Council consideration which will be discussed with the Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee at the March 14, 2024 meeting (after the publication of the agenda packet for the March 18, 2024 City Council meeting).
Item #1: Prepare Recommendations Related to Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) 1A (Stratford Court South)
o Description: Develop recommendations and provide feedback (i.e. budget, schedule, communications, etc.) related to Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) 1A for City Council consideration.
o Subcommittee: N/A
o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
Item #2: Prepare Recommendations Related to UUD X1A (Crest Canyon) o Description: Develop recommendations and provide feedback (i.e. budget, schedule, communications, etc.) related to Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) X1A for City Council consideration.
o Subcommittee: N/A
o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
Item #3: Prepare Recommendations Related to UUD 1B (Stratford Court North) o Description: Develop recommendations and provide feedback (i.e. budget, schedule, communications, etc.) related to Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) 1B for City Council consideration.
o Subcommittee: N/A
o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
Item #4: Prepare Recommendations Related to UUD 2 (Beach Colony) o Description: Develop recommendations and provide feedback (i.e. budget, schedule, communications, etc.) related to Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) 2 for City Council consideration.
o Subcommittee: N/A
2 March 18, 2024 Item 12
UPAC Committee
2024 Proposed Work Plan
o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
Item #5: Prepare Recommendations Related to UUD 3
o Description: Develop recommendations and provide feedback (i.e. budget, schedule, communications, etc.) related to Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) 3 for City Council consideration.
o Subcommittee: N/A
o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
Item #6: Development of a Utility Undergrounding Program Financing/Cash Flow Analysis o Description: Project financing subcommittee to work with staff to complete a longterm project schedule/cash-flow analysis to ensure financial resources are available when needed throughout the life of the citywide Utility Undergrounding Program.
o Subcommittee: Financing Subcommittee
o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
Item #7: Review of Property Owner Communications Procedures o Description: Subcommittee to review and provide feedback to staff on processes/protocols for communications with property owners. o Subcommittee: Property Owner Communications Subcommittee o Resources Requested: There is no fiscal impact specifically related to UPAC’s work on this item.
o Additional Information: N/A
o Priority: High
3 March 18, 2024 Item 12