Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
August 26, 2024 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
August 26, 2024
Item 3 – Ratification of List of Demands, dated August 26, 2024
1. What are the details of what these large demands are for? 6038 7/8/2024 PRISM 25300046 7/1/2024 LIABILITY PROGRAM - FY25 $ 498,590.00? 6051 7/12/2024 CALIFORNIA IN2023919 3/15/2024 EMERGENCY SRVC SUPP $122,445.77? Response: Check #6038 to PRISM in the amount of $498,590 is the General Liability Insurance premium payment for Fiscal Year 2024-25. Check #6051 to MES-California in the amount of $122,445.77 is to pay for the Fire Department’s required Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus equipment that was approved by the City Council on November 13, 2024.
Item 5 - Approval of Memorandum of Understanding with SANDAG to Renew the Regional Shoreline Monitoring Agreement for Fiscal Yars 2025-2027
1. The SANDAG letter states: "SANDAG is requesting that each coastal city designate Regional Shoreline Monitoring Program (Program) funds to be set aside in its FY 2024 budget." Did the City already do this in our 2024 budget? Later the SANDAG letter says: " The total estimated cost for the Program in FY 2025 is $184,240.67"
Response: Yes, the City’s approved FY 2024-2025 Operating and Capital Budget includes $14,547 to cover the City’s proportionate share of the costs for FY 2024-2025, which includes the baseline rate of $12,713 and an additional $1,834 to support the optional task 5 addition of new monitoring transects to fill data gaps in the existing regional shoreline monitoring program. The costs for this SANDAG program are shared by the region’s coastal cities. SANDAG explained the total base program cost for FY 2025 is $184,240.67 and the total cost of the program with the addition of optional task 5 is $210,812.83. The City of Del Mar’s proportionate share of this regional shoreline program is 6.9%. SANDAG is actively working to gain consensus among all coastal jurisdictions to implement the optional task 5 and the City of Del Mar has reserved sufficient funds accordingly.
Item 6 - Task Order Approval for Michael Baker International to Perform Engineering Design, Landscape Architecture, Bid Package Preparation, and Environmental Permitting for the Jimmy Durante Boulevard Bluff Project
1. Coastal Commission status: Does the city have a CDP for this work? Response: Discretionary permits (including a CDP) will follow the completion of the design documents. Preliminary evaluations indicate the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project team will prepare a Notice of Exemption.
August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
2. Is the adjacent property owner (or their insurer) contributing to these costs? If not, why not?
Response: No, as previously reported by staff, the 2019 Jimmy Durante Boulevard Bluff Failure Geotechnical Evaluation concluded that the failure was triggered by natural causes, including the buildup of hydrostatic pressure from groundwater seepage in and above weak and fractured slicken-sided clay stones. The adjacent property owner was not found to be at fault for the bluff slide.
3. Will the city be getting a hold harmless/release agreement from the affected property owners if we do this work?
Response: No, the work will occur within City Right-Of-Way.
Item 7- Authorization to Apply for Land and Water Conservation Grant for the Riverpath Del Mar Extension Project Phase 3
1. The grant is for "up to"$1.3 million." The letter indicates we only qualify for $1.1 million absent more matching funds. Can you clarify: (1) What matching funds do we have already allocated for this project? (2) What sources do we have to match the rest to get the full $1.3 million? If we get the full $1.3 million is that enough to cover our current estimate of what the bids are likely to be? Response: The latest engineer’s estimate (completed in September 2023) for construction is $2.85M. The City has $725,000 in matching funds from the San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy and $750,000 in the FY25 City Budget. Therefore, the City has the full local match of $1.3M, if needed, and is pursuing this grant to the maximum amount. The City additionally has $680,000 in Federal funding through the FY23 Community Grant fund and is actively pursuing additional Federal appropriations. At this time, the City anticipates that if it receives the full amount of the LWCF, it will cover the anticipated funding gap.
Item 11- Introduction of an Ordinance (A24-003) to Amend the Del Mar Municipal Code and Implement 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 6G by Establishing MultiUnit and Mixed -Use Objective Design Standards for “By-Right” Housing Development Projects
1. “Any "exemption" allowed under Density Bonus law that is NOT an exception in the Standards can be added to the allowed three Standards exceptions,” what is the cumulative potential of this provision? Response: Each density bonus project must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure consistency with applicable State law. The allowable incentives/concessions to reduce costs to build affordable units and waivers to make a project feasible will be dependent on the facts and circumstances specific to each respective density bonus August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
project. So yes, concession and waiver requests under Density Bonus law would be in addition to the three “Administrative Exceptions,” unless the concession/waiver is asking for relief from an Objective Design Standard (vs. a zoning regulation). In that case, there would be a reduction in the amount of Administrative Exceptions allowed.
2. General Question: Will the variance process in the current code apply to these Objective Standards?
Response: Variances are limited to the regulatory provisions of the DMMC Title 30, the “Zoning Ordinance.” The Objective Design Standards Ordinance will create a new chapter of Tile 23 (Building Construction). Therefore, a Variance request would not apply to the Objective Design Standards.
3. 7B(5) states. "Where natural and environmentally sensitive vegetation communities exist on site, such as Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Chaparral, they shall be incorporated into the site landscaping." Does it mean protect existing onsite communities? Protect some but not all? Response: The intent of the standard was to ensure that, to the extent possible, those vegetative communities would continue to exist on-site, either in addition to what can be preserved during construction, or through replacement if on-site communities cannot be preserved.
4. 7. 7B(7) states: "Invasive plant species, as identified by the California Invasive Plant Council, shall not be permitted." Does this create an ongoing obligation to remove invasives?
Response: The intent of the standard was to ensure that no invasive species are planted with the development of a by-right multi-family housing development, however, the requirement to maintain compliance with the “no invasives” standard can be added with Council direction.
Item 12- Introduction of an Ordinance to Update the City’s Purchasing Code
1. 7.06.020 Grounds for Temporary Debarment. "In addition to all other remedies permitted by law, upon a finding of grounds as set forth in this Chapter, the Assistant City Manager, or designee, may declare debarment of a contractor for any of the following reasons:.." Why is this task assigned to the Assistant City Manager and not the Manager or his/her designee? There have been times when Del Mar has not had an assistant city manager.
Likewise, "Section 7.06.040 Determination and Notice" assigns grounds for debarment to the Assistant City Manager.
"Section 7.06.050 Appeal Process" assigns debarment appeals to the City Manager--is that why these other tasks are assigned to the Assistant City Manager? If that is the intent, then it probably precludes the Assistant City August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
Manager from discussing debarments with the Manager, to avoid tainting the appeal process.
Response: To ensure due process, it is often recommended that an initial determination and an appeal determination be made by separate parties to ensure fairness and unbiased fact review. For this reason, the Assistant City Manager is recommended to be the first hearing officer regarding contractor debarment determination, and the City Manager will make an independent determination in case of an appeal. Similarly, per the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations Manual and the City’s current practices, the Assistant City Manager serves as a Skelly hearing officer for employee disciplinary procedures, and the City Manager makes the final determination if a notice of appeal is filed.
In case the Assistant City Manager position is vacant, the initial determination regarding a contractor debarment will be assigned to another designated position, for example, the Public Works Director. The initial determination officer may make the City Manager aware of an ongoing debarment review; however, to allow the City Manager to make an independent determination in case of an appeal, the City Manager will receive and review all facts surrounding the case only if an appeal is received.
2. Section 7.06.070 Continuation of Existing Contracts states in part "...any existing contracts between the City and the contractor may be terminated immediately upon debarment." As I read this a contractor who has, e.g. 3 contracts with the city, can lose them all if debarred on one.
Response: The proposed code language gives the City the flexibility to terminate, with cause, one or more contracts with a given vendor. The determination to terminate a contract or contracts will be based on the nature and severity of the circumstances surrounding the debarment. The City also has the flexibility to determine the appropriate timing for initiating a debarment review process.
3. Will this contractor risk be written into every contract? Response: The City’s standard agreements include a provision requiring the contractors to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local government, including the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC). The information about DMMC Debarment section will be included in each bid packet, so the prospective bidders will be aware of the debarment risk.
Item 13- Approval of revision to conditions of approval on previously approved Tentative Tract Map (TTM) TTM18-004 (RM23-001) and approval of Coastal Development Permit (CD) CDP24-008 and Conditional Use Permit *CUP) CUP24-001 for the construction of roadway, utility, and safety improvements located in a steep slope setback within the Bluff, Slope, and Canyon Overlay and Lagoon Overlay Zones
August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
1. The draft Reso says: "WHEREAS, the CUP and CDP approved in conjunction with the subdivision are vested with the subdivision’s approval in that as long as the subdivision does not expire prior to the approval and recordation of the Final Map, the related CUP and CDP entitlements remain valid..." How can the TM extend the deadline for the CDP and CUP if none are vested? This "automatic extension language " seems contradicted by the next WHEREAS: " WHEREAS, the CUP and CDP as they relate to the required improvements to provide roadway, utility, and emergency access in order to serve the newly configured lots expired after three years since substantial construction of these improvements had not begun..." The next WHEREAS requiring a new CDP and CUP also seems to contradict the first WHEREAS. The 11th Whereas then says these approvals have expired. Would appreciate an explanation as to what is expired and what is still active.
Response: The CUP and CDP were required for dual purposes. First, they were required by the site’s overlay zones (BSC and Lagoon) in order for the subdivision to be approved. Secondly, the permits were required (separately) for the required physical improvements to the site. Because the physical improvements were not completed or bonded for prior to the 3-year expiration of the CUP/CDP, the applicant needs a new CUP and CDP in order to perform the physical improvements within the site’s steep slopes and within the Lagoon Overlay area.
2. Special Condition 2 states: S-2 [Development Agreement] Prior to the recordation of the Final Map and expiration of any required discretionary permits, the Applicant may submit a Development Agreement which if to be adopted by the City Council prior to the expiration of the TM, CDP and CUP and associated discretionary permits and prior to issuance of building permits, pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 24.65 (Development Agreements) the Development Permit shall control."
Response: Staff is in agreement with the changes to S-2 with further modifications as shown above.
3. What if: (1) the applicant never submits for a DA --what are the expiration rules? (2) If the applicant submits a draft DA but time runs out before its done, do the other approvals expire? (3) What if the applicant submits a DA and the city rejects it--what is the status of the other approvals? Response: A Development Agreement is being recommended to best address this issue since the City’s code has differing expirations for different permits. The Development Agreement would put everything in one place with clear deadlines. If the Development Agreement is not applied for or rejected the following expirations would occur:
TTM Expiration: February 6, 2026 (Council Resolution 2023-04, condition 2); Applicant can ask for one more three-year extension (February 2029 if approved).
August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
CUP/CDP Expiration: August 26, 2027- if approved per current request/resolution. Prior to expiration, the Applicant would need to pay bond per condition E1-T (and then have 2 years to complete improvements). If applicant requested last 3-year extension of map; they would either need to complete requirements of CUP/CDP by August 26, 2027, or request another CUP/CDP to sync (exceed) a February 2029 map expiration (if requested/approved).
DRB/LC: Applications incomplete, expiration to be determined once taken to DRB hearing. Will also receive 3 years. Prior to expiration, the Applicant would need to pay bond per condition E1-T (and then have 2 years to complete improvements). Same as CUP/CDP above- would need to fulfill requirements of permits by expiration or request new permits to sync (perhaps exceed) a February 2029 map expiration (if requested/approved).
I believe the Applicant plans to complete their Design Review/LC applications soon for the required physical improvements and then would apply for their Development Agreement soon after that in order to encompass all approvals in one document.
Item 15 – Resolutions Designating Undergrounding Utility Districts 2 (Beach Colony) and 25th Street
1. Do we need A CEQA statement in the two draft Resolutions? Response: The resolutions are consistent with the prior resolutions for district formation (1A, X1A, and 1B). The agenda report includes a CEQA statement related to this specific item. Furthermore, staff will evaluate CEQA as part of the design process following district formation.
Item 17- Consideration of an Exemption for Monthly Rentals from Compliance with the City’s Proposed Short-Term Rental Regulations and Transient Occupancy Tax Regulations; and Amendments to the Definitions of “Short-Term Rental” and “Long-Term Rental” under the Proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance
1. Staff suggests the following language: "For purposes of this Chapter, longterm rentals (including rentals for a fixed-term or periodic tenancy period totaling more than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days and monthly rentals, ...are exempt from compliance with the provisions of this Chapter." Is a rental for a month with 28 days short or long term? For example, a rental for the month of October is 31 days, while a rental for February is 28 days. Both are a "monthly rental" and this language would treat them the same. Without defining what is a "monthly rental" it leaves it ambiguous.
Response: This is a policy call for the Council to decide regarding whether it wants to define “monthly rental” for a set number of days or not. The intent of the long-term rental definition, together with the Exemptions section, is to exempt those rentals that are rented for longer periods of time than a typical STR, while still keeping the definition of “shortAugust 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17 term rental” consistent with how “short-term rentals” are defined under State law and in other areas of the DMMC.
Long-term rentals are defined as either (i) rentals for a fixed-term (e.g. annual rental) or periodic tenancy (e.g., month-to-month) where the total rental period is 30 or more days; OR (ii) monthly rentals that are rented on a monthly basis. For example, this means that, under the proposed definition, the following rentals would be exempt from compliance with the STR Ordinance:
1. Annual rental – (e.g., January 1 – December 31).
2. Month-to-month rental – (e.g. January, February, March and April to the same renter)
3. Monthly rental – (e.g. February to one renter, then June to another renter, then July to another renter, but in between no one rents the property) Any of the above uses would be exempt from the STR Ordinance and the requirement to pay TOT. If a use is not exempt under any of the above scenarios, the owner/operator is required to comply with the STR Ordinance for those periods when the property is rented as a short-term rental.
2. How to handle a rental that starts mid-month and ends mid next month, including portions of two months. Without a rule based on the number of days, how can we determine if this is long or short term? A rental from February 15 to March 15 sounds like a "month" but it is only 28 days. A rental from October 15 to November 15 also sounds like a "month"--but it is 31 days.
Response: This would constitute a monthly rental. If an owner/operator is renting out property monthly, they are exempt from compliance with the STR Ordinance for that monthly rental period, regardless of whether the rental lands in the middle of the month or at the start of the calendar month.
3. We introduce ambiguity if we differ in our definitions from standard definitions of other cities as noted in the examples cited by Assistant City Attorney.
Response: Staff’s proposed definition of “short-term rental” is consistent with how it is defined in other cities, as well as in other areas of the DMMC, and under State law (consistent with the ability to collect TOT, the prohibition on renting ADUs as STRs, and the City’s ability to impose increased fines on STRs). Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council keep the definition of “short-term rental” consistent with these other definitions. However, if the Council desires to expressly exempt monthly (and other longer-term rentals), then there is a proposed exemption section carved out to exempt these uses from compliance with the STR Ordinance.
August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
4. At least initially we are likely to have many professionally operated STRs. If our definition differs from Solana Beach and other neighboring areas, we are adding confusion to hosts, property managers, guests, and booking agents.
Response: Staff’s proposed definition is consistent with what is used by many other coastal jurisdictions in the State, as well as other neighboring cities, including Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and Chula Vista. The inclusion of a definition and exemption for “long-term rentals” is not typically included in other municipal codes, but the City Attorney’s Office has opined that if Council desires to exempt these uses and treat longerterm rentals differently from short-term rentals in Del Mar, it is legally acceptable to do so.
It is also important to note that a local agency is entitled to define “short-term rentals” how it deems fit. There are a variety of definitions used throughout the State, depending on what works for the particular agency. It is the responsibility of the owner/operator to understand how a STR is defined in the jurisdiction in which they are operating a STR.
Additionally, definitions evolve over time.
August 26, 2024 Items 3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, 17
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: PowerPoint for Monday's Council meeting
Attachments: 8-26-2024 La Atalaya CC mtg Powerpoint.pptx From: Adam Birrnbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 12:14 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Adam Birrnbaum' <[email protected]>
Subject: PowerPoint for Monday's Council meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Jennifer. This is for Monday’s meeting. Can you please forward it to whomever loads it for use in testimony? Thanks.
August 26, 2024 Item 13
City Council Meeting
August 26, 2024
La Atalaya Applications
August 26, 2024 Item 13
BACKGROUND:
The Neeleys own numerous lots (18+ acres) of the
Snake Wall property.
They’ve been good stewards of the property - left
most lots undeveloped - one has a primary
residence, another a guest house
Pursued a re-subdivision of their lots - for estateplanning and clean-up of 100-year-old tract map No new lots proposed, no development proposed
in the immediate future
August 26, 2024 Item 13
RE-SUBDIVISION APPROVAL:
Approved by Council in 2021 with many
conditions attached
One condition requires installation of private
roadway and utility improvements to serve
future development on Lots # 5-8
August 26, 2024 Item 13
ASSOCIATED PERMITS APPROVED:
Council also approved a CUP and CDP for
the private roadway and utilities
Due to complexity of project, the CUP and
CDP have expired
Now seeking re-approval of those permits
Same plans and there have been no
changed circumstances
August 26, 2024 Item 13
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff recommended approval of renewed CUP
and CDP.
PC gave unanimous approval
Same conditions applied to ensure compliance
with overlay zone requirements
Commission also recommended approval of
request for use of a Development Agreement
August 26, 2024 Item 13
REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT:
Two purposes:
1. Establish cohesive set of deadlines and
permit expirations for City approvals
2. Extend required timeframe for
installation of private road and utilities
▪ Change from 2 years to:
▪ Within 10 years, or at time of
development of any of the lots served,
whichever comes first
August 26, 2024 Item 13
CONCLUSION:
▪ Staff and Planning Commission both recommend
approval
▪ Findings and conditions ensure full compliance with
City’s codes, including BSC
We now request Council approval
August 26, 2024 Item 13
1 Denise Galvan
From: Tricia Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dick Hertzburg
Subject: # 14 on City Council Agenda on 8-26-2024
Attachments: Letter to City Council for Hertzberg encroachment on alley August 21, 2024.docx 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 see my attached letter in support of the Encroachment Permit EP24-075
Please make sure all of the Council Members receive it before the hearing.
Thank you,
Tricia A. Smith
August 26, 2024 ITEM 14
Date: August 21, 2024
To: Del Mar City Council
Red Dot: Item # 14 Clerk’s File No. 802-1
Hearing date: August 26, 2024
Re: Encroachment Permit EP24-075 (Applicant Hertzberg)
Retention of an existing 5” to 7” encroachment of Hertzberg’s existing building on our alley
From: Tricia A. Smith
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to support Dick Hertzberg’s application for a permit to retain the existing minor encroachment on the alley in the commercial district.
I am the owner of the law office building (1330 Camino del Mar) and En Fuego Restaurant (1340 Camino del Mar). I have owned both buildings since the mid1970s. Herzberg’s property is located directly across the alley from my property.
The encroachment existed long before I purchased my buildings. It is of a very minor nature. Hertzberg is planning to build an ADU on part of his property. He will be using his existing wall which is what is encroaching on the alley. He is not changing anything on the alley that would negatively impact me or my tenants.
The status quo will remain.
I support granting the encroachment permit to Hertzberg without reservation.
Thank you,
Tricia A. Smith
[email protected]
August 26, 2024 ITEM 14
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: 1329 Stratford EP Presentation
Attachments: 1329 Stratford - EP Presentation.pdf
From: Jim Frisbee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:10 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Subject: 1329 Stratford EP Presentation
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 Jennifer,
Hopefully we will be on the consent calendar for our EP at the city council meeting today, but just in case we do have a hearing for it, I've attached a brief pdf presentation.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks and see you this afternoon.
Jim
Jim Frisbee, AIA
August 26, 2024 Item 14
1329 Stratford
Detached Accessory Structure Remodel
EP24-075
August 26, 2024 Item 14
SITE PLAN N
August 26, 2024 Item 14
SITE PLAN N
August 26, 2024 Item 14
DELMAR LANE
• Right-Of-Way = 20 ft.
• Utilities incl:
• Water, Sewer, & Gas below surface
• Electric/Other utilities overhead
• Rear Property Setbacks in RC Zone = 0 ft.
EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
• Originally built in 1920’s (~100 years old)
• Modified & added onto over time
• Currently 796 s.f.
• Previously used as office space (now vacant)
• Rear Foundation Wall along Delmar Lane is
3-4 ft. below the finished surface of the alley
CONCERNS REMOVING / REBUILDING WALL
• Impact to existing travel through alley
• Major alley excavation required
• Subsurface utilities possibly impacted
• Unknown amount of time for alley improvements
• Expensive project for only 6” of encroachment
August 26, 2024 Item 14
BENEFITS OF MAINTAINING WALL LOCATION
• No disruption to existing traffic flow
• No excavation needed which could potentially
snowball into bigger issues after excavation.
• Existing retaining wall is stable and holds up the
alley
• Waterproofing of the existing wall is in-tact
• Saves time & money
COMMUNICATION WITH RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS
• Dick Hertzberg contacted several city departments &
utilities to discuss the project.
• Del Mar Deputy Chief Engineer - Martin Boyd
• Del Mar Fire Dept. – Fire Captain Carrington
• Del Mar Fire Dept. – Fire Marshall Schmidt
• SDG&E
• No concerns expressed that maintaining the existing
wall in place would impact their operations or future
improvements along the alley.
August 26, 2024 Item 14
August 26, 2024 Item 14
August 26, 2024 Item 14
August 26, 2024 Item 14
August 26, 2024 Item 14
1329 Stratford Court, Encroachment Permit
August 21, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
In addition to the information included in our formal Long Term Encroachment Permit application the following information is provided in support of our request.
1. After applying for our permit to convert the rear building to an ADU on our property located at 1329 Stratford Court we learned that our rear building encroached five inches (5”) into the alley behind its east wall (7” if one includes the downspout from the roof scupper). Our survey of the building confirmed the Del Mar Planning Department’s findings and we decided to build within the boundaries determined by the surveys (which may not be totally accurate based upon the rather imprecise detail of the earliest recordings found in San Diego County records). Based on interviews with potential contractors for the ADU conversion and our own investigations we are requesting that Del Mar allow us to leave the building where it is located, repair the wall as necessary and leave the alley undisturbed. a. Upon consultation with the Del Mar Planning Department we learned that it was concerned about future plans for the alley and how our encroachment would impact them, and the need for a clear 20 feet easement for alley for fire protection vehicles. b. As an owner with experience in building steam lines in old city streets (3 miles of 200 PSI steam and condensate lines in Newark, New Jersey streets) I was extremely concerned about undertaking this eƯort due to unknown risks, drainage issues, and excessive costs associated with the removal of the wall and its foundation/footings.
2. We proceeded with the design of our ADU and initiated discussions with the entities involved in operations within the alley. I personally spoke with responsible individuals from the City of Del Mar, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, the Del Mar Fire Department and the Fire Marshall responsible for understanding and enforcing relevant fire protection regulations.
These discussions are described briefly herein in the same order that they were held during 2024:
a. San Diego Gas & Electric: SDG&E has planned its undergrounding of overhead power lines occupying the alley and the project is scheduled for completion over the next year. I spoke with the SDG&E Project Manager, Mr. Robert Nelson and described our ADU plans and the encroachment of our building into the alley. I asked if our encroachment would be problematic with regards to the SDG&E undergrounding project and his answer was “No”. He indicated that the SDG&E undergrounding was designed so that it would not intercept the water meters and water connections laying on the west side of the alley because if they did have to “cut” and replace those water connections the project would incur significant costs and additional work beyond the scope and requirements of undergrounding the power lines. b. City of Del Mar Engineer and Public Works: I met with Del Mar Deputy Chief Engineer Mr. Martin Boyd and toured the alley from end to end. We discussed at length our August 26, 2024 ITEM 14
building’s encroachment into the alley and noted that our encroachment into the alley was one of many existing encroachments on this approximately one hundred years old alley. Mr. Boyd indicated that he knew of no plans that would require the use of the alley underlying the alleged five-inch (5”) encroachment by our building (that was built sometime between 1929 and 1940 as best I can determine). He indicated that in his opinion Public Works would have no need for us to remove our wall.
c. City of Del Mar Fire Department: I met with Fire Captain Carrington at the Del Mar Fire Station located at the Fair Grounds. We did not visit the alley but used his Del Mar Map as the basis of our discussion. I explained my issue and indicated that I was looking for the best solution to my encroachment problem and needed to know if our building was a hazard in terms of Del Mar Fire Department Operations in the area of Stratford Court, the alley, and Camino Del Mar. He indicated that our “encroachment” is not an issue because the main issue related to our alley is entering the alley at either end due to the angles of entry from the surrounding area. Once the fire trucks are in the alley they can make their way through even though the alley varies in width in several places due to Torrey Pines, curbing, other old building encroachments, etc. He indicated that leaving our building in its current location was not an issue for him but that he was not the authority that needed to be consulted for a determination, that individual being Fire Marshall Hans Schmidt located in Encinitas. Captain Carrington introduced me to Fire Marshall Schmidt and suggested that we meet together to discuss the issue.
d. Fire Marshall Hans Schmidt: Fire Marshall Schmidt and I had a long telephone conversation regarding the encroachment of our building into the alley. He used Google Mapping and its real views of the alley to look at the situation as we spoke.
Fire Marshall Schmidt explained to me how he tries to handle these situations, especially in older communities, like Del Mar, where streets, alleys and buildings were constructed long before modern codes. He explained that in general his greatest concern is public safety and that from what he could understand about our situation and based upon the review by Captain Carrington our current building footprint does not appear to be a safety hazard. He indicated that if we were scraping our property and relocating our buildings on the property, or significantly altering the footprint of the buildings he would require that we build back anew only to the limiting lot line as surveyed five inches (5”) to the west. But, in this case, and with the understanding that we would be leaving the building in place and improving it, he would consider our alleged encroachment as a preexisting condition and permit it to stay.
3. Our concerns regarding the full removal of the east wall included several major potential problems including:
a. Drainage: Our rear building abuts its rear lot line on the alley which slopes downward from southeast to northwest from the corner of 13th Street. In the 30 years since we purchased the property in 1994 we have never had a leak through the floor or walls (we have had leaks from the roof which will be replaced during construction of the ADU). When we bought the building we noticed that it was surrounded along the east August 26, 2024 ITEM 14
and south wall by a drainage channel which protects the building and drains the alley during heavy rain storms. This drainage channel continues either as curbing or drainage along the west side of the alley south to the higher ground at 13th Street. In evaluating our plans for construction of the ADU I remembered a discussion I had with Mr. Hamilton, the gentleman we bought the property from in 1994, in which he told me that he had a significant issue with the City of Del Mar when during heavy rains his building was flooded by the alley and its poor drainage system. Well, apparently that issue was resolved for Mr. Hamilton and I feel that removing that drainage system and its adherence to our wall may be a significant problem for us and the alley.
b. Structure: Our intent in constructing the ADU is to ensure that the east wall (for that matter all walls) are secure and safe for the loads they bear and the safety of the inhabitants. This will require, I believe, some repair during construction but the strategy is to improve existing footings and foundations to ensure that the building is remediated to reasonable current standards and aesthetically pleasing for the neighbors. We are concerned that moving the wall five inches (5”) for no reason, except to satisfy an easement that in all probability was not in existence when the building was built and by doing so will provide no value to the entities that operate in the alley (e.g. SDG&E, Public Works and the Fire Department), we (including the City) may be incurring significant cost that results in no real public benefit. c. Use of Alley During Construction: Removal of the old wall to grade or below grade will result in significantly more impact to traƯic and alley usage during the construction period versus improving the wall in place and out of the alley.
4. Our concerns regarding the full removal of the east wall as part of our initial design were confirmed and reinforced by our potential contractors as they reviewed our plans and the site. Both indicated that the cost of removing the wall and replacement of the wall five inches to the west would result in very significant cost increases to the project and to potential complications due to abandonment of the current drainage system and underground elements. One of the contractors indicated he would not bid the project if it included removal of the wall due to the unknowns related to that portion of the project and the appropriate drainage that would be needed if we were to remove the existing and fully functional system.
5. Subsequent to the above investigation we met with the Del Mar Planning Department and reviewed the above information. The result of that discussion has resulted in the Long Term Encroachment Permit approval item included on the August 26, 2024 Del Mar City Council meeting agenda.
The above describes a small project being developed in cooperation with and reliance upon appropriate City Departments and alley stakeholders. We appreciate the work done on this project and the understanding shown in resolving issues related to the project by the Del Mar Planning Department, the Del Mar Fire Department, the Fire Marshall, the Del Mar City Engineer and Public Works, and SDG&E.
Richard H Hertzberg
August 26, 2024 ITEM 14
1 Denise Galvan
From: Michael Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 2:48 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Formation of Utility Undergrounding Districts 2 and 25th Street 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.
I am writing to indicate our support of the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Districts 2 and 25th Street. My wife Celia and I (Michael & Celia Davis) are the owners of 150 25th Street in Del Mar.
I also hope to be present at the August 26th meeting.
Thank you, Mike Davis
August,26 2024 ITEM 15
1 Denise Galvan
From: Daniel H. III Sheehan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 10:36 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Gary Matus
Subject: Writing IN FAVOR of Undergrounding of Utilities in the Del Mar Beach Colony CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizafion. Do not click links or open aftachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
City Clerk;
We own the property at 217/219 24th Street in the Beach Colony. We are 100% in favor of the eliminafion of the unsightly ufility poles for aesthefic reasons as well as the pracfical ones. The sooner, the befter! Dan Sheehan (wrifing for the Matus Family Trust)
1 August 26, 2024 ITEM 15
1 Denise Galvan
From: Whitney Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 9:07 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Letter in Support of Utility Undergrounding Districts 2 and 25th Stre 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.
Good morning,
We received a notice of a public hearing regarding the formation of utility undergrounding of districts 2 and 25th street. Our family has lived on Coast Blvd for over 10 years. We have two little girls that are 8 and 11. We are writing to express our HUGE support of the undergrounding project.
The utility poles are unsafe and unsightly. I can remember in a recent storm an issue with one of the poles on Ocean Avenue getting damaged that had everyone in the neighborhood concerned. We also understand the fire hazards of utility poles. We have a family property that was devastated by a fire in the Napa County area because of an improperly maintained utility pole. With the rise of violent storms and inclement weather, this undergrounding project is more important than ever for our safety.
Our family loves to walk in the neighborhood on the weekends and in the evenings. Our girls love to scooter and bike these streets. Removing the utility poles will give them more space to do so and significantly improve the aesthetics of our neighborhood.
There have been discussions of undergrounding utility lines in this neighborhood for as a long as we can remember. We are so excited about the possibility of it actually happening!! Thank you to everyone in the City of Del Mar working on the undergrounding project and making this a priority for our neighborhood.
Kind regards,
Whitney Stevens and Daniel Walter
2044 Coast Blvd
Del Mar, CA 92014
August 26, 2024 ITEM 15
1 Denise Galvan
From: Nancy Stoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 12:28 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: 'Nancy Stoke'
Subject: Council Agenda Item #15 8/26/23 Underground Districts 2 & 25th 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.
Honorable Mayor and Council Members, and Joe Bride, Public Works Director:
I am writing to request that in conjunction with the formation of Undergrounding Utility Districts 2 and 25th St, the streetlight in the public right of way at the south corner of 24th St and Ocean Front be retained/replaced when the utility poles come down, as it is a critical tool that helps maintain public safety in this busy, visitor friendly and heavily used, neighborhood.
Two adjacent neighbors pay the cost of the light’s electricity to SDGE and are happy to do so for the benefit and safety of the neighborhood.
Please don’t remove/fail to replace this light; it is an important safety tool! Thank you! Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Stoke
2323 Ocean Front
August 26, 2024 ITEM 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Gale Darling <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 5:03 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Utility Undergrounding District 2 & 25th 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.
Mayor & Council Members:
I am in support of the utility undergrounding in District 2 (Beach Colony)and 25th Street District.
Gale Darling
217 24th street
Sent from my iPhone
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 5:41 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: District 2 powerline removal and undergrounding 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.
We are 100% in favor of and supportive of the removal and undergrounding of the power poles in the Beach Colony (District 2) from 18th Street to the mouth of the river west of the railroad tracks.
Peter and Janet Simon
Peter A Simon
Joy Marie Simon
121 27th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Suzanne Siebert <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 7:24 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Formation of Utility Under Grounding Districts 2 and 25th Street 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.
RE: Designating certain areas of the City as utility under grounding districts . District 2 Beach Colony ; 25th Street District.
I am in favor of this designation.
Suzanne Siebert
228 25th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Barbara Johansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 12:23 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Formation of Utility Undergrounding Districts 2 and 25th Street 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 Council Members,
I received recently the letter and map for the August 26, 2024 meeting indicating undergrounding district determinations was on the agenda, Additionally, I was receiving this notice because I own property or reside within the discussion districts.
I appreciate the notice, map, and background information in the letter. I realize the funding source for this important and worthwhile initiative for Del Mar was the passage of Measure Q in 2016. It has been 8 years since the proposition passed and I assume an initial estimate of cost for all of Del Mar was determined. Since that time the cost of this initiative at least doubled or more according to articles written in the Del Mar News in recent years. I realize this council meeting on Monday (8/26) might not focus on cost, but focus on district determinations.
I do hope future council meeting agendas include discussion on the cost for undergrounding. Knowing that sections of Del Mar will have undergrounding based on a Calendar Master Plan, I am concerned that the project will run out of money before it can complete all of Del Mar. Is it time to entertain all options available for contracting services that are economical and will fulfill this goal for Del Mar.? In conclusion, this work will really beautify our wonderful city!! Respectfully,
Barbara Johansen
255 23rd Street
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Redhedhart <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 4:44 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Meeting on Monday 8/26/24
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.
To the City Clerk:
My husband, Matthew Hart & I own at house at 145 25th Street, Del Mar.
We cannot attend the meeting tomorrow afternoon about the Undergrounding Project, however, we are both in support of it. We think it is a much needed project to remove the utility poles & bury the utilities underground.
We are in the 25th Street District, which is west of Camino del Mar.
Many thanks,
Kathleen Hart
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: janice myck-wayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:58 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Undergrounding-Zone 2
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 submitting this public comment in support of the purposed undergrounding of electricity in Zone 2 (Beach Colony) of Del Mar. This process is necessary and should be considered as a priority in the beach community. The electrical poles are leaning and seem unsafe. In addition, the components of the electrical systems on the poles are compromised due to corrosion from the salt air and elements.
Thank you for consideration,
Janice Myck-Wayne
251 27th Street.
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Paul Wayne <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 8:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Underground-Zone 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I’m writing is support of the long awaited undergrounding of electricity in the Beach Colony of Del Mar. The electrical poles that have commanded our landscape for the last several decades are old, weathered and appear to be unsafe.
Corrosion from the salt air and coastal weather have taken their toll on them. Undergrounding was approved long ago and it is time for that process to finally move forward.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Paul Wayne
251 27th St.
Sent from my iPhone
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jennifer McClellan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:36 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Agenda Item #15
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 Clerk,
We are residents in the Beach Colony on 26th St. We would like to encourage our city council to vote to approve agenda item #15 in order to move forward with undergrounding the utility poles in the Beach Colony. We are ready and eager to do whatever it takes to move toward with this project and we look forward to enjoying pole-free streets ASAP! Thank you,
Clint and Jennifer McClellan
251 26th St.
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Karen Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 9:44 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Undergrounding of utilities
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 Leaders,
Please, please, PLEASE approve whatever it takes to get the utilities under ground. Considering how much time has passed since we passed Measure Q, it’s shameful how little progress has been made.
Let’s go!
Regards,
Karen Johnson
Santa Fe Avenue
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Melissa Munsch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Vote in favor
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 long standing residents of Del Mar, this letter is to request the under grounding of all utility poles in the low laying community of the beach colony. Living in an ally and dealing with these poles is not only an horrible eye sore but quite a nuisance with maintenance of multiple rentals cable lines and wiring, along with the actual poles in and near driveways for everyone to contend with. Recently neighbors have tested the emf frequencies emitting directly from some of these poles, measuring high even inside their homes- we now know this is quite dangerous to be living so close to electric lines. SDGE has made multiple attempts to repair this problem to no avail.
It’s time we stop contemplating and complaining about these problems of them not being underground already.
Please vote in favor of finally putting these electric power lines underground for the town of Del Mar. Already far exceeding the original quote, it’s long overdue!
Sincerely
Melissa and Paul Munsch
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ryan McGovern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 10:58 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: today's agenda item #15
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.
Like many of my neighbors, I have been excited about the burial of powerlines on our street since 2016, and urge you to push the process forward. There are obvious safety benefits and compleng the process will make the area more visually aracve. Beyond that, this measure was approved 8 years ago. If I’m understanding correctly the enre project fee has increased at a mulple of 5X from approval to today. Over the same mespan I would surmise that construcon prices have doubled, so an increase is understandable, but 5X feels absurd. Regardless, I am concerned that if this connues to linger the const will only increase even more. Furthermore, the duraon is confusing to me. Why has this taken so long? The journey seems disjointed and Del Mar property owners deserve transparency for understanding why progress has been so slow and why the costs have gone up so much. We are red of talking in circles about this and want it to be completed.
Ryan McGovern
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Debbie Church <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:10 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot item 15
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 Honorable Councilmembers,
We are in complete support of establishing the 25th and beach colony special districts for undergrounding. Anything which progresses this project has our approval.
Debbie and Brian Church
162 25th and 152 27th
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: dale spaviolet.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:30 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Austin Birch
Subject: Please remove utility poles.
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,
We are wholeheartedly in favor of the utility poles being removed and placed underground. Not only is it an issue of aesthetics, more importantly, it is an issue of safety. My neighbor had a power line fall in his backyard on 24th Street. Tax money has already been raised to complete this project, we citizens do not understand why this is still an issue.
Loraine-Dale Hall and Austin Birch
2405 and 2403 Camino Del Mar
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: Brett Crosby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:32 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dan Quirk
Subject: Item 15 beach colony utility undergrounding
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 city Council members, friends, and neighbors
I would like to express my wholehearted support for utility underground in the entire beach colony. This area along with powerhouse park is one of the main attraction areas to Del Mar for both tourists and locals alike. Investing in the undergrounding of utilities in these areas is some of the best money we can spend to invest in the future of our community. This is the number one issue for taxpayers in our city and these are the perfect places to start that work.
These areas are the ones visitors and locals all enjoy and we will all benefit by having them undergrounded asap.
My only concern is that light poles may also be removed or will not be replaced as has happened at the end of 24th St., where there is almost no lighting.
Thanks,
Brett Crosby
619.920.0988
[email protected]
LinkedIn
August 26, 2024 Item 15
August 26,2024
Dear Del Mar City Council,
We would like to thank you for moving forward on steps to underground the utility lines. As residents of the proposed Undergrounding District 2 (Beach Colony) we are requesting that the pole on 26th street that is currently designated as “exempt from removal” be included in the removal plan. It was explained in an email from the Principal Engineer Martin Boyd that “removing this pole would require establishing an underground connection to the pole in the NCTD right of way.” We encourage you to request that this step be taken as part of the plan for undergrounding in the Beach Colony so that all areas of the Beach Colony can enjoy the safety and aesthetic benefits of this long-awaited project.
Thank you for your work on this project.
Sincerely,
Katherine Sohn & Tom Sohn
264 26th Street
Mihi & Sean McNanie
257 26th Street
Barbara & Pete McRoskey
243 26th Street
Jennifer & Clint McClellan
251 26th Street
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: SUSIE WASSON <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:03 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot item 15
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 Councilmembers,
I am in support of establishing the 25th and beach colony special districts for undergrounding.
Anything which progresses this project has our approval.
Susie Wasson
162 25th St
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Denise Galvan
From: Carol Paulick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:03 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Underground utilities
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,
As a resident on 27th Street, I am in favor of removing the utility poles and putting all utility wires underground.
Thank you,
Carol Paulick
1 August 26, 2024 ITEM 15
1 Melinda Gould
From: The Rev. Suzanne E. Watson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:58 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Comment for undergrounding districts 2 and 25th street meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I own an apartment building on Coast Blvd that is affected by the undergrounding. I also own an apartment building on Stratford Court which is further along in the undergrounding process.
Two things are important to know for those impacted by this plan:
1. The City will require owners to pay for their own lateral from the street to the electric box. This might include additional costs mandated by SDGE. This can be very costly.
2. The City will be putting in large transformers and take your land to do so. If you object to a large transformer being placed on your property, or won't sign to give up your land without compensation, they will take it by eminent domain.
Suzanne E. Watson, M.D., M.Div., M.Ed.
Founder and Physician, Del Mar Psychiatry, https://www.delmarpsychiatry.com/ Captain, United States Army Reserve Medical Corp
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Blog: revdocwatson.com
619.701.2500
August 26, 2024 Item 15
1 Denise Galvan
From: Scott Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 6:10 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: CDP24-026 - written red dot comment
Attachments: City Letter CDP24-026 doc.doc
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.
Please find the attached written comments pertaining to CDP24-026 which is under consideration at the August 26th City Council hearing.
Thank you,
Scott Garrett (9th St)
Chris Pack (8th St)
August 26, 2024 ITEM 16
To: City Council
From: Scott Garrett (343 9th St), Chris Pak (350 8th St.) Subject: CDP24-026 (Hoska Alley)
Regarding the Western Portion of the alley at Hoska drive under consideration for “subsurface drainage improvements” I would like to voice my concern that the City plan for and budget the placement of mulch and ensure the project maintain, and not deprecate, the current standard of a walkable and presentable property as has been maintained by the abutting property owners. For reference, this alley had not been maintained by the city despite repeated requests that the brush and debris be cleared. We invested time and money to clear the debris from the alley, as well as the placement of mulch to prevent repeated annual weed growth. Our request is the City ensure that any planned “improvements” include mulch that prevent the re-growth of weeds and allow the community to continue to enjoy this shared, well cared for space.
August 26, 2024 ITEM 16
1 Denise Galvan
From: carter chappell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 10:43 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: August 26, 2024 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #16 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizafion. Do not click links or open aftachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members,
We are wrifing regarding the Coastal Development Permit for the Hoska Alley paving and surface and subsurface drainage improvements. This is Agenda Item #16 for the August 26, 2024 City Council meefing.
The Hoska Alley has suffered from drainage problems for many years. During heavy rains, private residences located on 8th Street flood due to City installed drainage improvements. This is a condifion and liability that requires fimely remediafion.
Similarly, the unpaved condifion of the Hoska Alley has existed since Del Mar became a city. This dirt/gravel alley remains unchanged today and the dust and airborne contaminafion created by vehicle traffic confinues unabated. Alley residents have lived with this City created condifion for over sixty years and it’s fime to remediate this condifion by paving the alley.
We urge the City Council to approve the Coastal Development Permit for the Hoska Alley drainage and paving improvements.
Thank you,
Kathy and Carter Chappell
Hoska Drive
Del Mar, CA
Sent from my iPad
August 26, 2024 ITEM 16
1 Melinda Gould
From: Mirsky, Phyllis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 10:59 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; David Druker; Dwight Worden; Dan Quirk; Edward Mirsky
Subject: RED DOT: Del Mar City Council Item 16: Hoska Alley CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We are writing in support of Item 16 at the August 26, 2024 City Council Meeting: Approval of Coastal Development Permit 24-026 for Paving, Surface Drainage Improvements and Subsurface Drainage Improvements in Hoska Alley.
We are pleased to see continuing progress in the ongoing efforts to address the long-standing problems regarding the Hoska Alley. We urge the Council to approve this item and continue with the bid process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Phyllis and Ed Mirsky
605 Hoska Drive
Del Mar, CA
August 26, 2024 Item 16
1 Melinda Gould
From: Allen Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 3:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Agenda Item #16- Coastal Development Permit 24-026 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.
Date: 8/26/24
To: Del Mar City Council
[email protected]
From: Louise Focht
Allen Hall
406 8th Street, Del Mar
Subject: City Council Agenda Item #16
Coastal Development Permit 24-026
We are submitting the following comments regarding the referenced Hoska Alley Project. We encourage the City Council to approve the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 24-026) and continue to move forward with the project. We also have related comments on the project’s impact on our property.
The related Agenda Report provides some background for the project. The report states that project plans include abandonment of existing pipe. The Project Manager has explained that this is standard procedure and would include filling the existing drain pipe with concrete. While this process may be standard for City property, we consider this unacceptable since the drain pipe and associated material is on our private property. We urge the Council to direct staff to remove the existing drain pipe hazard and all associated material from our property as part of this project and not add more cement to our private property.
As part of preparations for the project we received a Notice of Encroachment, dated 8/5/2024. The letter and attached diagram identify existing encroachments that are in the alleyway directly behind (north) of our property. The encroachments can be referenced in EP-06-57 & EP-07-15.
The discussion of encroachments in the Agenda Report notes the City may require removal of permitted encroachments that may be reinstalled after construction. We disagree with the Staff’s characterization of approval conditions for the encroachments along our property.
Agenda Report paragraph 4, page 2/4 of item 16:
The properties with permitted encroachments will be required to either remove the encroachments before construction and reinstall the encroachments after construction or make accommodations for the City to complete the project while they remain in place. The remaining non-permitted encroachments will require removal prior to construction, and residents may then apply for long-term encroachment permits prior to any reinstallations.
Language sent to residents with permitted encroachments stated:
August 26, 2024 Item 16
2 1. The permitted encroachment inside of the project work area must be removed no later than October 14, 2024 per GC-5 of EP 06-57.
If you would like to pursue permission to retain encroachments after completion of the project, a Major Encroachment Permit is required in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code 23.28.040. A completed Encroachment Permit application and payment of fees must be submitted to the City Planning Department no later than the close of business September 5, 2024. Please note an Encroachment Permit is discretionary and requires a City Council decision.
We request that the City Council clarify the City’s Municipal Code, and application of the code, to assure that project area encroachments are removed and not allowed in the future without a new application and opportunity for public comment.
When we first purchased our home we noted the previous owner routinely parked his vehicle on the property near the telephone pole in the alley. We also routinely made use of vehicle access to unload materials in our back yard. The current grade and concrete path in the alleyway behind our property is part of EP 06-57 and was discussed during the City Council meeting of 10/23/2006. During the meeting on the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant’s representative stated that the design would ensure continued vehicular access in the alleyway (over the pathway). Also, the City staff recommended that the Council ensure the project would not block our vehicle access. When the alleyway grade was cut as part of EP 06-57 we lost that access. We request the City facilitate restoration of vehicle access to our property.
Sincerely,
Louise Focht
Allen Hall
August 26, 2024 Item 16
1 Melinda Gould
From: Wayne Dernetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:23 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda Item 16, 8/26/2024 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.
Council Members,
We support approval of Agenda Item 16 - Conditional Approval of a Resolution Approving an Application for a Coastal Development Permit CDP24-026 (Paving and Drainage Improvements on Hoska Alley)
We are owners of the property located at 421 9th Street, in Del Mar and we reside therein.
Our property abuts the unimproved "Hoska Alley" on the north side of the right of way. We use this right of way daily for access to our property.
We urge your approval of the Resolution requesting a Coastal Development Permit, CDP24-026.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elizabeth and Wayne Dernetz
[email protected]
[email protected]
August 26, 2024 Item 16
1 Melinda Gould
From: Abigail Kern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 1:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Steve Wolff
Subject: Re: CDP24-026
Attachments: CDP24-026 Hoska Alley Encroachment.pdf
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 Council Members,
Attached is a letter from Stephen Wolff, who resides at 327 9 th Street, in regards to the Hoska Alley Drainage
Project.
Thank you,
Abigail Kern
Abigail Kern | Office Administrator
Wolff Properties
Main Office: 314.991.1500 | Fax: 314.991.8655
www.wolffproperties.com
August 26, 2024 Item 16
August 26, 2024
Via Electronic Transmission:
cityclerk@delmar ca. us
Del Mar City Council
City of Del Mar, California
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re; CDP-24-026
Hoska Alley Drainage Project
Del Mar, California
Dear Council Members,
I reside at 327 9* Street and am unable to attend this afternoon’s meeting concerning the referenced project. I am writing to express my sentiments and concerns about the project and how it will impact my residence and my neighbors.
I was first made aware of the project earlier this year by the City’s Building Department. I was informed that certain landscaping and hardscape that I have maintained and treated as my property was encroaching on City property. I was told at the time that only a portion of the landscaping would need to be removed to complete the project. The City Notice of Encroachment Violation dated August 5, 2024 (“Violation Letter”) I received indicates otherwise. It states I must remove eveiything. I respectfully request an additional meeting with City staff to provide further clarification on this point.
As I understand it, the project involves the installation of a ten (10) inch pipe of which approximately five (5) inches will be “on my side” of the “Hoska Alley.” It seems to me this project could be engineered in a manner that would allow myself and my neighbor to maintain our existing landscaping in essentially the status quo and at the same time allow installation and maintenance of the new pipe without all of the disruption presently contemplated. I do plan to file an application August 26, 2024 Item 16
for an encroachment pennit, though I am not certain I will be able to fulfill all of its requirements by the September 5* deadline set forth in the Violation Letter.
The only information about the project I have received other than the Hearing Notice was the Violation Letter. That letter had as an exhibit a very rough sketch of the project. I have included a copy with this letter. It contains no information about the condition of the Hoska Alley behind my home following completion of the project. If it refuses to allow me to relandscape, does the City intend to install a twenty feet wide area of pea gravel? Does it intend to maintain the area? It seems unlikely the City will ever desire to expand the alley to Camino Del Mar. In fact, it seems impossible to do so. So, what interest does the City have in the alley behind my house other than maintaining the pipe after it is installed? Wouldn’t it be in its interest to have another party pay for and maintain the area?
Finally, I think it is important to note that when I purchased the home in 2013,1 contacted the City to ask if the property had any existing citations or violations and was told there were none.
The previous homeowner was required to make significant alterations to the home and it was repeatedly inspected, so if there was an encroachment I should have been informed of it at that time. In fact, the plant material and hardscape was installed when the home was originally built in 2003 so it is almost certain that the landscaping plans were both included and approved by the City at that time.
Under the circumstances, I respectfully request the City Planning and Building Department pledge to work with me to allow me to reduce the impact this project will have on my residence and my neighbor’s. I look forward to our continued correspondence.
Kind Regards,
Stephen Wolff
August 26, 2024 Item 16
August 26, 2024 Item 16
1 Melinda Gould
From: Susan Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 12:27 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot re: agenda item 17, 08/26/24 DM City Council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I have owned a rental property in Del Mar that has been rented on a monthly basis for the last 35 years. I strongly support exemption for monthly rentals from compliance with the city's proposed short term rental regulations and transient occupancy tax regulations.
Thank you.
Susan Miller
298 Surfview Ct
August 26, 2024 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: 8/26 Item 17, Definition of an STVR
From: Kimberly Jackson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 11:15 AM
To: David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: 8/26 Item 17, Definition of an STVR
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,
The definition of a vacation rental in Del Mar should be defined by the least restrictive minimum length of stay as possible, to accommodate the month of February with only 28 nights, and the families that have been renting "monthly minimums" for decades.
They should not be forced to pay tot. Please change the language to an STVR is anything rented less than 28 nights in length.
There are much bigger fish to fry on Sept 9th with this STVR ordinance though. I thought the meeting was Sept 23rd, but I got notice in the mail a few days ago it was moved to Sept 9th? Is this accurate?
Our camp strongly opposes the prohibition of vacation rentals as old grandfathered in ones go away. You say you will allow new ones to come if the cap has not been reached, but this is not an accurate statement. You are requiring any NEW vacation rentals to be owner occupied as a primary residence at least half of the year. A vacation rental is not typically a home someone calls their primary residence half of the year, so this rule is essentially a ban. Vacation rentals are usually 2nd and 3rd homes that old school Del Mar families come home to, to celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving, and maybe to visit a few weeks in the summer. They pay taxes in other towns and they live full time in other areas. They do not typically live in this home half of the year. I have never seen Coastal ever require this, and I have been through regulation at the Council level in Oceanside, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and in The City of San Diego. Our Team PIR'ed The City of Del Mar for said direction from Coastal on this, as the City has told us this is being required of them, and your staff said there is nothing to support this in writing from The CCC. Please remove this language, this is a way to attician units out and end up with none.
I am also strongly opposed to the language around home inspections. I would kindly request all of the language about home inspections be removed from the ordinance. If you keep that in there, you need to add that to the code requirements and regulations for all homeowners, hotel rooms, and long term rentals in the City of Del Mar, otherwise August 26, 2024 Item 17
2 this is prejudice. STVRs should not be the only ones with government overreach measures. I would also request if this is left in, the reporting party needs to be made public knowledge. As you are aware, we had a resident in the beach colony report 42 units for violations in one day.
Thank you for reading,
Kimberly Jackson
FOUNDER
Vacation Rental Management
(503) 957-9354
[email protected]
www.vacationrentalsbykimberly.com
August 26, 2024 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: FW: RED DOT LETTER: Limited Partnership Eligibility For continuing STR Permit after passing away; Clarifying language to the STR permit under the Exemptions section
30.96.025
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 9:10 PM
Subject: FW: RED DOT LETTER: Limited Partnership Eligibility For continuing STR Permit after passing away; Clarifying language to the STR permit under the Exemptions section 30.96.025 To: <[email protected]>
Dear City Clerk,
Please replace my second version of my Red Dot Letter regarding the STR Issue, Item 17 on Monday’s agenda, with this third amended Red Dot Letter. I made some additional corrections.
The ownership of the Del Mar Beach Villas, located at 1844 Camino Del Mar, is in the form of a family limited partnership. We request of the City Council that they amend the draft STR Ordinance to allow limited partnerships to be treated equally to LLCs when allowing STR permits to be passed on to future generations of my family. For some reason, that form of ownership was not included.
I have conversed with Mayor Dave Druker and Planning Director Karen Brindley about my concerns on this limited partnership issue and both have assured me that this oversite would be corrected. On Friday, August 23rd, City Attorney representative, attorney Wendy House, suggested that I submit a RED DOT letter to the City Clerk so that my concern could be passed on to our City Council Members for their consideration.
On another draft STR ordinance matter, under “30.96.025 - Exemptions”, it should be clearly stated that if you have an STR permit for a unit or home, you can also rent that unit or home on a long-term basis and not be subject to TOT for any long-term rental.
Respectfully,
August 26, 2024 Item 17
2 Hershell Price, Del Mar resident
August 26, 2024 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:05 PM
To: David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez Cc: Karen Brindley; Amanda Lee; Ashley Jones; City Clerk Mail Box Subject: STR definition red dot
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members and Staff,
Del Mar’s first attempted STR ban that was rejected by the Coastal Commission and Judge Bacal only allowed 28 days of STR rentals.
In defiance of Judge Bacal’s court order that the ordinance used to enforce the moratorium/forebearance was unlawful, especially without Coastal Commission approval, Del Mar code enforcement has cited anyone offering an STR of less than one month which would be 28 days in February; 29 days in April, June, September and November; and 30 days for the remaining seven months.
Now the city of Del Mar is proposing to expand its definition of a STR to 30 consecutive days or less which would falsely conflate STRs with currently allowed monthly rentals during five months (February, April, June, September and November) of the year.
This appears to be a TOT grab as well as an attempt to inflate the number of STRs which are not monthly rentals but the historical weekly rentals that are much more affordable and used by generations of families visiting Del Mar.
The STR definition should be less than monthly rentals or less than 28 consecutive days, whichever is less.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
August 26, 2024 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Debbie Church <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot item 17
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 Councilmembers,
I would like to voice my support in reworking the language of what constitutes a short term versus a long-term rental. As was discussed at the planning commission meeting, there looks to be a lot of inconsistency when an exact number of days is used to describe a month due to the fact that a good number of months have 30 days or fewer in them. I agree with using the terminology as San Diego uses where a short term rental is defined as anything "less than a month" and that a long-term rental is "a month or longer." Let's be consistent so that February (and other months) count as a month when a one month contract is signed.
Debbie Church
[email protected]
(858) 442-3437
August 26, 2024 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Str definition
From: Gina Corsini Mattern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 12:46 PM
To: David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Str definition
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,
I am writing in opposition of the proposed language defining short term rentals by length of stay.
The easiest definition would be 28 nights (taxable) Any stay 29 nights or longer would would be exempt from tax. There are many areas that use this approach. I've had personal experience with the City of Palm Springs, La Quinta and Palm Desert.
No need to reinvent the wheel, simple is best.
Regarding primary residence rule, which is a not so covert way of placing a ban on rentals, should be removed in it's entirety.
The City is greatly misguided in to thinking they will create LESS vacancy with this rule believing out of town owner will turn to long term renters for their properties. Given the unfavorable rules and laws placed on landlords in the State of California, I doubt owners will consider long term leasing. Instead, your vacancy rate will likely rise (along with a new set of problems). What will the City do if the intended consequences do not materialize? Also, this rule will be unfair to all those who have been waiting since 2016 for you to put rules into place. Many of those homes are not owner occupied and have not been rented and do not qualify for the registry. Those people who have been patiently waiting to get their properties legalized for short-term renting will now find themselves unable to qualify based on the primary residence rule. How utterly unfair to those who have been waiting for you all to get your act together only then to be told the game changed and they don't qualify.
Gina Mattern
August 26, 2024 Item 17