Upon adoption, the City Fire Marshal is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission consistent with Section 17958.7(a) of the California Health and Safety Code.
SECTION FIFTEEN:
Per State mandate, the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code and the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code do not go into effect until January 1, 2026. Upon adoption, the Ordinance will take effect and be in force 30 days from the date of City Council adoption (“Effective Date”), but the provisions of the Ordinance shall not be operative until January 1, 2026.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at the Regular Meeting held this 22nd day of September, 2025. ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
22 September 8, 2025 Item 8
Ordinance No. XXXX
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. XXXX, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of September, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
23 September 8, 2025 Item 8
SUMMARY OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AMENDMENTS
DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.04 – 2025 FIRE CODE
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM 2022 TO 2025
• Section 10.04.010 - Adoption of California Fire Code.
Section revised to update the new code reference year of 2025. • Section 10.04.030 - Definitions.
Section revised to update the new code reference year of 2025. • Section 10.04.040 - Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids; Chapter 61 Liquefied Petroleum Gases.
Section revised to update the new code reference years of 2024 and 2025. • Section 10.04.100 - Appeals.
Section revised to be consistent with 2025 California Fire Code numbering. • Section 10.04.110 - Penalties.
Section revised to update the new code reference year of 2025 and be consistent with 2025 California Fire Code numbering.
• Section 10.040.140 - Adoption of the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
Section added to adopt the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
• Section 10.040.150 - Chapter 5 Special Building Construction Regulations.
Section revised to include regulations requiring wildfire and ember-resistant vents for all residential units undergoing remodels, additions, or alterations. 24 September 8, 2025 Item 8
Strikeout of Existing DMMC Chapter 10.04
Chapter 10.04 – 2022 FIRE CODE 2025 FIRE CODE
Footnotes:
--- (1) ---
Editor's note— Ord. No. 956, § 3—9, adopted November 18, 2019, amended Chapter 10.04 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, Chapter 10.04, §§ 10.04.010—10.04.120 pertained to the 2016 Fire Code, and derived from Ord. No. 360; Ord. No. 506; Ord. No. 538; Ord. No. 593; Ord. No. 674; Ord. No. 775; Ord. No. 808; Ord. No. 812; Ord. No. 854; Ord. No. 891, and Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), adopted November 21, 2016.
10.04.010 - Adoption of California Fire Code.
That a certain document, three copies of which are on file in the office of the City of Del Mar Fire Department being marked and designated as the 2021 International Fire Code 2024 International Fire Code and 2022 California Fire Code 2025 California Fire Code, including Appendix B and I, and the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code, as published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted as the fire code of the City of Del Mar, State of California, regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises, or construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, equipment use, and maintenance of buildings and structures, including that providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefore; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Fire Code on file in the City of Del Mar Fire Department are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this Chapter, with the additions, insertions, deletions and revisions, if any, prescribed in this Chapter. (Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 3, 11-18-2019; Ord. No. 993, § 3, 10-17-2022)
10.04.015 - Adoption of Del Mar Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map.
On June 16, 2025, the City of Del Mar adopted the Del Mar Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map (FHSZ Map). A copy of the map is on file with the City Clerk. (Ord. No. 1019, § 2, 6-16-2025)
10.04.020 - Establishment and duties of the Fire Prevention Bureau.
A. The California Fire Code as adopted and amended herein shall be enforced by the Fire Prevention Bureau in the Fire Department in the City of Del Mar which is 25 September 8, 2025 Item 8
hereby established and shall be operated under the supervision of the Chief of the Fire Department.
B. The Fire Marshal in charge of the Fire Prevention Bureau shall be appointed by the Chief of the Fire Department on the basis of examination to determine his or her qualifications.
C. The Chief of the Fire Department may detail such members of the Fire Department as inspectors as shall from time to time be necessary.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016)
10.04.030 - Definitions.
Chapter 2 – Definitions
Section 202 - General Definitions. This section is added or revised to read:
Fire Hazard - is any condition or conduct which: (a) increases or may increase the threat of fire to a greater degree than customarily recognized as normal by persons in the public service regularly engaged in preventing, suppressing or extinguishing fire or (b) may obstruct, delay, hinder or interfere with the operations of the Fire Department or egress of occupants in the event of fire.
Fireworks - is any combustible or explosive composition, or any substance or combination of substances, or device prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or an audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration or detonation, and shall include blank cartridges, toy pistols, toy cannons, toy canes, or toy guns in which explosives are used, firecrackers, torpedoes, sky-rockets, roman candles, Daygo bombs, sparklers, snap caps, poppers or other devices of like construction and any devices containing any explosive or flammable compound, or any tablet or other device containing any explosive substance, except that the term "fireworks" shall not include any auto flares, paper caps containing not in excess of an average of twenty-five hundredths of a grain of explosive content per cap and toy pistols, toy canes, toy guns or other devices for use of such caps, the sale and use of which shall not be permitted at all times. "Fireworks" shall include snap caps and poppers, regardless of the amount of explosive content included in each device.
Hazardous Fire Area - Any geographic area mapped by the State or designated by the local jurisdiction as a moderate, high or very high fire hazard area, or which the FAHJ has determined is a hazardous fire area based on the type and condition 26 September 8, 2025 Item 8
of vegetation, topography, weather, or structure density which may increase the possibility of the area being susceptible to wildfire.
Level - An area above or below grade including but not limited to; basements, garages, cellars, mezzanines, or similar uses.
Mid-Rise Commercial Building - a building four stories or more in height, but not exceeding 75 feet and not defined as a high-rise building by section 202 of the California Building Code. Measurements shall be made from the underside of the roof or floor above the topmost space that may be occupied, to the lowest level of fire apparatus access road level. Nothing in section 324 shall imply or allow a building height in excess of current City of Del Mar Planning and Zoning requirements.
Wherever the terms "This Code" and "2021 International Fire Code 2024 International Fire Code" are used, they shall mean the 2022 California Fire Code 2025 California Fire Code as modified by the City of Del Mar with the additions, deletions and revisions set forth in the amendments.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 4, 11-18-2019; Ord. No. 993, § 4, 10-17-2022)
10.04.040 - Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids; Chapter 61 Liquefied Petroleum Gases.
Chapter 57 - Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Section 5704.2.9.6.1 - Locations where Above-ground Tanks are Prohibited. This section is revised to read:
In the City of Del Mar, (geographic limits in which the storage of class I and Class II liquids in above-ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited): the limits referred to in Section 5704.2.9.6.1 and 5706.2.4.4 of the 2022 California Fire Code 2025 California Fire Code and the 2021 International Fire Code 2024 International Fire Code in which storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside above-ground tanks is prohibited are hereby established as the jurisdictional limits of the City of Del Mar.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. 2000 gallons maximum temporary (six months maximum) aboveground tanks meeting UL 2085 for private use on farms, agricultural and rural property, 27 September 8, 2025 Item 8
remote construction sites, earth moving projects, gravel pits or borrow pits.
Such tanks shall be specially designed, approved and listed, and have features incorporated into their design which mitigates concerns for exposure to heat (two-hour fire resistance), ignition sources and mechanical damage. A Fire Department permit will be required.
2. Crankcase drainings may be stored in specially constructed aboveground storage tanks, approved by the Fire Code Official, with a maximum capacity of 550 gallons. Such tanks may be located within a building when the Fire Code Official deems appropriate, and the container meets the following: specially designed, approved and listed containers which have features incorporated into their design which mitigates concerns for exposure to heat, ignition sources and mechanical damage.
3. Containers must be installed and used in accordance with their listing, and provisions must be made for leak and spill containment. In no case shall such storage be permitted in residential or institutional property. All installations require a Fire Department permit.
4. With the approval of the Fire Code Official, Class I and II liquids may be stored in aboveground tanks inside or outside of buildings in specially designed, approved and listed containers which have features incorporated into their design which mitigates concerns for exposure to heat, ignition sources and mechanical damage. Class I liquids will be limited to 550 gallons and Class II liquids will be limited to 1,100 gallons. Containers must be installed and used in accordance with their listing, and provisions must be made for leak and spill containment. The Fire Code Official may disapprove the installation of such containers when in his opinion their use presents a risk to life or property.
5. With the approval of the Fire Code Official, temporary storage of a maximum 10,000 gallons of Class II liquids may be permitted for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days at remote construction sites, earth moving projects, gravel pits or borrow pits, consistent with 5704 and 5706.
Section 5706.2.4.4 - Locations where Aboveground Tanks are prohibited. This section is revised to read:
The geographic limits in which the storage of Class I and Class II liquids in aboveground tanks are prohibited in residential areas within the City of Del Mar.
Section 5706.4 - Bulk Plants or Terminals. This section is revised to read:
The geographic limits in which bulk plants and terminals of flammable and combustible liquids are received are prohibited for the protection of heavily 28 September 8, 2025 Item 8
populated and congested areas and is hereby established as jurisdiction limits of the City of Del Mar.
Chapter 61 - Liquefied Petroleum Gases
Section 6104.2 - Maximum Capacity within Established Limits. This section is revised to read:
The geographic limits in which the bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gas is prohibited for the protection of heavily populated and congested areas is hereby established as jurisdiction limits of the City of Del Mar. The aggregate capacity of any one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 2,000 gallons. (Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 5, 11-18-2019; Ord. No. 993, § 5, 10-17-2022)
10.04.050 - Explosives and Fireworks.
Chapter 56 Explosives and Fireworks
Section 5608.2 Fireworks. This section is added to read:
Fireworks shall not be sold, manufactured, disposed or discharged within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Del Mar, except when a permit is issued for public display, theatrical purposes and/or group entertainment by the Fire Department to a California State Fire Marshal licensed pyro-technician and the minimum requirements of Title-19, California Code of Regulations, Chapter-6, fireworks are met. The San Diego County Regulatory Ordinance, Title-3, Division-2, Chapter 1, section 32.101 through 32.108 may be used as a guide when enforcing these requirements.
Section 5608.3 Fire Works Penalty. This section is added to read:
Fireworks Penalty - Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with this Chapter or the requirements of Title-19 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, and/or San Diego County Regulatory Ordinance, Title-3, Division-2, Chapter 1, section 32.101 through 32.108, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed One Thousand dollars ($1000) or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period of not more than one year or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016)
29 September 8, 2025 Item 8
10.04.060 - Mid-Rise Buildings.
Chapter 3 - General Requirements
Section 324 - Mid-Rise Buildings
Section 324.1 - General. This section is added to read:
All newly constructed mid-rise buildings or any mid-rise building which undergoes a complete structural or non-structural renovation that requires the vacancy of the entire building to complete the renovation, shall comply with sections 324.1-324.3.
Exceptions:
1. Buildings used exclusively as an open parking garage.
2. Buildings where all floors above the fourth-floor level are used exclusively as an open parking garage.
3. Buildings such as a power plant, lookout tower, steeple, grain house, or other similar structures with intermittent human occupancy.
Section 324.2 - Fire Equipment Control Room
A fire equipment control room for fire department operations shall be provided. The location and accessibility of the room shall be approved by the fire department and be separated from the remainder of the building by not less than a 1-hour barrier.
The room shall contain the following at a minimum:
1. Voice alarm and public address panels.
2. Fire alarm control panel.
3. Status indicators and controls for air-handling systems.
4. Fire pump status indicators (if required).
5. Set of complete building plans.
Section 324.3 - Road Dimensions
Fire apparatus access roads serving buildings or portions of buildings or facilities that exceed 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet. (Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 6, 11-18-2019; Ord. No. 993, § 6, 10-17-2022)
10.04.070 - Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
30 September 8, 2025 Item 8
Chapter 5 - Fire Service Features
Section 503 - Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Section 503.2.1 - Dimensions
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed improved width of not less than 20 feet, except for single-family residential driveways; serving no more than two, single-family dwellings, shall have a minimum of 16 feet of unobstructed improved width.
EXCEPTION:
Fire access roadways, gated entrances with card readers, guard stations or center medians, which have separated lanes of one-way traffic, shall be not less than 14 feet wide per lane.
Section 503.2.3 - Surface. This section is revised to read:
New or improved fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus not less than 75,000 lbs. and shall be provided with an approved driving surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Section 503.2.7 - Grade. This section is revised to read:
New or improved grades exceeding 15% on fire apparatus access roads shall not be permitted without mitigation. Minimal mitigation shall be a surface of Portland cement concrete (PCC), with a deep broom finish perpendicular to the direction of travel. Maximum grade shall not exceed 20%.
Section 503.2.8 - Angles of Approach and Departure. This section is revised to read:
The angle of approach and departure of a fire access roadway shall not exceed 12% or as approved by the Fire Code Official.
Section 503.3 - Marking. This section is revised to read:
When required by the Fire Code Official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings shall be provided for all public and private fire apparatus access roads 31 September 8, 2025 Item 8
to identify such roads or prohibit obstruction thereof. Signs or notices or markings shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and shall be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. All new public roads, all private roads within major subdivisions and all private roads serving four or more parcels shall be named. Road name signs shall comply with City of Del Mar standards.
Section 503.6 - Security Gates. This section is revised to read:
Section 503.6 - Security Gates: No person shall install a security gate or security device across a fire access roadway without the Fire Code Official's approval.
1. An automatic gate across a fire access roadway or driveway shall be equipped with an approved emergency key-operated switch overriding all command functions and opening the gate.
2. A gate accessing more than four residences or residential lots, or a gate accessing any hazardous institutional, educational or assembly occupancy group structure, shall also be equipped with an approved emergency traffic control-activating strobe light sensor or other device approved by the Fire Code Official, which will activate the gate on the approach of the emergency apparatus with a battery back-up or manual mechanical disconnect in case of power failure.
3. An automatic gate shall meet Fire Department policies deemed necessary by the Fire Code Official for rapid, reliable access.
4. An automatic gate serving more than one dwelling or residential lot in existence at the time of adoption of this Chapter is required to install an approved emergency key-operated switch or other mechanism approved by the Fire Code Official, at an approved location, which overrides all command functions and opens the gate. A property owner shall comply with this requirement within 90 days of receiving written notice to comply.
5. Where this section requires an approved key-operated switch, it may be dual-keyed or equipped with dual switches provided to facilitate access by law enforcement personnel.
6. Electric gate openers, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325.
Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200. (Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 7, 11-18-2019; Ord. No. 993, § 7, 10-17-2022)
10.04.080 - Fire Protection Water Supplies and Fire Service Features.
Chapter 507 Fire Protection Water Supplies
32 September 8, 2025 Item 8
Section 507.2.2 Water Tanks. This section is revised to read:
Water storage tanks, when permitted by the Fire Code Official, shall comply with Table No. 507.2.2A.
WATER STORAGE TANKS
Table No. 507.2.2A
TABLE NO. 507.2.2A
Building Square Feet Gallons Per Minute
Water Flow
Capacity
Gallons
Duration
Minutes
Up to 1,500
Over 1,500
250
250
5,000
10,000
20 40
When exposure distance is one hundred feet (100') or less from adjacent property or where additional hazards or higher fire flow exists, the required water storage may be modified by the fire code official.
1. Tank elevation shall be equal to or higher than the fire department connection on the premises. Regardless of domestic use, all tanks shall be equipped with a device that will ensure that the tank contains the designated amount of water for fire flow duration as determined by the fire department. Tank size may be increased to serve multiple structures on a single parcel.
2. Supply outlet shall be at least 4 inches in diameter from the base of the tank to the point of outlet at the fire department connection. The fire department connection shall provide an approved means of controlling water flow.
3. The outlet shall be located along an access roadway and shall not be closer than 50 feet or further than 150 feet from the structure.
4. All exposed tanks and exposed supply pipes shall be of an alloy or other material listed for above ground use. Adequate support shall be provided.
Section 507.5.1 Where Required. This section is revised to read:
The location, type and number of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on the public or private street, or on the site of the premises to be protected or both. Fire hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roads meeting the requirements of section 503.
33 September 8, 2025 Item 8
Section 507.5.1.01 Requirements for single-family dwellings. This section is revised to read:
In zones other than industrial, commercial and multi-family, fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Table No. 507.5.1.01A.
Table No. 507.5.1.01A
TABLE 507.5.1.01A
Parcels ½ acre and larger: Every 500 feet
Parcels less than ½ acre: Every 350
Section 507.5.1.02 Requirements for multi-family, commercial and industrial zones. This section is revised to read:
In multi-family zones and in commercial and industrial zones, fire hydrants shall be installed at intersections, at the beginning radius of cul-de-sacs, or as approved by the fire code official, and every 300 feet of fire access roadways, regardless of parcel size.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 993, § 8, 10-17-2022)
10.04.090 - Section 903 Automatic Sprinkler System Requirements; Section 905 Standpipe Systems.
Chapter 9 Fire Protection Systems
Section 903.2 Where Required. This section is revised to read:
Approved automatic sprinkler system in new building and structures shall be provided in the locations described in sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12, and may be required in additions and remodels of existing structures as described in section 903.2.01.
Life Safety Sprinkler System shall meet National Fire Protection Association Standards 13-D and 13-R latest addition, and City of Del Mar installation policies, as appropriate.
Section 903.2.01 Additions, Remodels, and Reconstruction 34 September 8, 2025 Item 8
An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 903.3 may be required to be installed throughout structures when the addition is more than 50% of the existing building or where the scope of work includes significant modifications to the interior or roof of the building.
Exceptions:
1. If the cost of the installation exceeds 15 percent of the valuation of the project. Formal bids shall be provided to the fire prevention bureau to be reviewed for acceptance.
2. If the addition to the existing building is strictly for the creation of a new Accessory Dwelling Unit; no additions or remodels to the existing building is permitted.
Section 903.2.02 New Commercial and Group U
An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with section 903.3 shall be required in buildings and structures where the required fire flow exceeds 1500 gallons per minute as calculated by section 507.3, or when the square footage of a new commercial building exceeds 5,000 square feet.
903.2.03 Exception
Agricultural buildings constructed of wood or metal frame, over which fabric or similar material is stretched, which are specifically used as green houses are exempt from the automatic sprinkler requirements unless physically connected to other structures.
Section 905 Standpipe Systems
Section 905.3 Required Installations. This section is revised to read:
A Class I standpipe with 2.5-inch hose valves shall be provided for all commercial buildings three levels or more in height, regardless of occupancy use. Hose valves shall be located in each stair enclosure and on each floor level, including the roof.
For single story buildings or parking structures with large floor areas, Class I standpipes may be required.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 8, 11-18-2019) 35 September 8, 2025 Item 8
10.04.100 - Appeals.
Section 108 112 Board of Appeals. This section is revised to read:
Whenever the Fire Marshal disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of this Code do not apply, or that the true intent and meaning of the Code has been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Fire Marshal to the Del Mar City Council in writing within 10 days from the date of the decision appealed, in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016)
10.04.110 - Penalties.
Section 112.4 113.4 - Violation Penalties. This section is revised to read:
A. Any person, corporation, association or entity that violates the provisions of Sections 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, or 111 or 113, 115, and 116 of the 2022 California Fire Code 2025 California Fire Code is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person, corporation, association or entity that violates any other provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor or infraction as determined under Chapter 1.08 Del Mar Municipal Code. The penalty for violations shall be determined under Chapter 1.08 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Each day or portion thereof that a violation of this chapter exists shall constitute a separate violation. Each violation of this chapter, in addition to the offenses under this section, shall constitute a public nuisance.
B. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016; Ord. No. 956, § 9, 11-18-19; Ord. No. 993, § 9, 10-17-2022)
10.04.120 - Administration.
Chapter 1 – Administration
Section 101.5 City of Del Mar Validity. This section is revised to read:
The City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance or of the code hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council of the City 36 September 8, 2025 Item 8
of Del Mar that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independently of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid.
Section 102.13 Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions or motions. This section is revised to read:
Section 102.13 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS OR MOTIONS.
All former ordinances, resolutions or motions, or parts thereof, which conflict or are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or of the Code or standards hereby adopted, are hereby repealed.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016)
10.040.130 - General Requirements.
Chapter 3 General Requirements
Section 308.1.6.3. Sky Lanterns. This section is revised to read:
Sky lanterns, floating luminary, and similar devices propelled by open flame are prohibited for sale or use.
(Ord. No. 921, § 3(Exh. A), 11-21-2016)
10.04.140 - Adoption of the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the City Wildland-Urban Interface Code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached, the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. based on the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, 2024 Edition. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter or any other section of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, 37 September 8, 2025 Item 8
and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached within the City of Del Mar shall be in conformance with the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission.
10.04.150 - Chapter 5 Special Building Construction Regulations Section 503 – General Amended.
503.1 General. Buildings and structures hereafter constructed, modified or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall meet the construction requirements in accordance with Chapter 5. Materials required to be ignition-resistant building materials shall comply with the requirements of Section 503.2.
The vent requirements in Section 504 shall apply to all residential occupancies undergoing remodels, additions, or alterations.
Section 504.10 Vents. Amended.
All residential buildings, including new construction, remodels, additions and alterations including re-roofs, shall be equipped with wildfire flame and ember-resistant approved vents. Where provided, ventilation openings for enclosed attics, gable ends, ridge ends, under eaves and cornices, enclosed eave soffit spaces, enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters, underfloor ventilation, foundations and crawl spaces, or any other opening intended to permit ventilation, either in a horizontal or vertical surface, shall be in accordance with Section 504.10.1 or Section 504.10.2 to resist building ignition from the intrusion of burning embers and flame through the ventilation openings.
38 September 8, 2025 Item 8
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Ashlea Houston, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 8, 2025
SUBJECT: Reaffirmation of Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities for the Shores Park Master Plan and Resolution Establishing the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee
REQUESTED ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Reaffirm the Guiding Principles and the Preferred Park Amenities for the Shores Park Master Plan (Attachment A), 2) Adopt a Resolution establishing a new Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee (Attachment B) to advise staff and the City Council on the completion of the Master Plan, and 3) Appoint Council liaisons to the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The 5.3-acre Del Mar Shores Property was purchased by the City in 2008, with funds from the City and significant contributions by the community and The Winston School (Winston).
The City’s intention in acquiring the site was preserving open space and recreational uses while supporting the continued operation of Winston. Winston is located on the property under a lease agreement with the City, along with the Del Mar Community Building, which is owned by the City and managed by the Del Mar Foundation under a use agreement. At the time of acquisition, a resolution of the City Council identified that the City would complete a master planning process to redevelop the property as a community park.
A Master Plan is a comprehensive long-range planning document intended to guide the park’s redevelopment. As the conceptual design, a Master Plan is not refined to construction level drawings for implementation but rather serves as a “blueprint” for the future that identifies the park’s facilities, programs and uses as well as implementation strategies. The Master Plan serves as a flexible guide for future development, with specific components of the park to be implemented as funding is available. It is the basis to establish high-level cost estimates and is used to create a phasing plan for construction and implementation. Once the phasing and funding are identified, future steps include the development of technical design and engineering drawings. Following the design stage, the environmental review process will be completed.
1 September 8, 2025 Item 9
City Council Agenda Report
Shores Park Master Plan – Guiding Principles & Preferred Park Amenities September 8, 2025
Master Planning Process
In 2014, the City Council initiated the Master Plan process and selected Schmidt Design Group (Schmidt) as the consultant to lead the effort. The Shores Park Master Plan Advisory Committee was also established to provide input to the City Council on the master planning process.
Schmidt identified three main phases to the master planning process:
Phase One – “Discover”: Site Inventory & Programs/Needs Assessment This phase of work has been completed and accepted by the City. During Phase One, Schmidt conducted an inventory of the site and engaged with the community through an exhaustive and comprehensive set of surveys, workshops, and informal pop-up tent events to identify themes for how the public would like to use the space. Schmidt submitted the Phase One report to the City Council in July 2015 (Attachment C). A list of Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities for the master planning process, based on extensive community input gathered during the initial phase of the project, was included in the Phase One report and accepted by the City Council on July 6, 2015.
Phase Two – “Imagine”: Program Refinement/Site Alternatives Development As part of the prior Shores Park Master Planning process, the Phase Two work was partially completed. In 2016, Schmidt developed three initial concept designs that assumed the Winston School footprint would remain the same, which were affirmed by the City Council on January 19, 2016.
However, later in 2016, at the request of The Winston School (Winston) and City Council, Schmidt’s scope of work was modified to explore incorporating Winston’s lease area into the master planning process. This resulted in three additional concept designs to reflect a “shared use” approach that envisioned a potentially different footprint for Winston. The shared use discussions were subsequently halted in 2019 due to conflicts between the parties over Lease terms and redevelopment of the school and the initiation of litigation against the City by Winston. The Shores Park master planning work was also impacted by financial constraints related to the COVID pandemic. The litigation and COVID resulted in the Master Planning process being placed on hold.
In September 2023, the City and Winston reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit and enter into an amended lease agreement. Under the amended lease, the City must provide 18 parking spaces to Winston in the southwest lot of the Shores Property during school instructional hours and after-school events (Attachment D). Winston must make 18 spaces in its northwest lot available to the public during times outside of school hours or after-school Winston events. The City must also consult with Winston during the planning for any proposed development of the parking areas or the athletic field, as The Winston School is entitled to continued use of turf and sport court spaces as part of their Lease.
Phase Three – “Create”: Development of a preferred concept into a Master Plan This phase of the process has not yet begun.
2 September 8, 2025 Item 9
City Council Agenda Report
Shores Park Master Plan – Guiding Principles & Preferred Park Amenities September 8, 2025
Re-Initiation of Master Planning Process
On June 16, 2025, the City Council received an update on the Shores Park master planning process and recommendations from staff for next steps for the project, including executing a new contract with Schmidt to complete the Master Plan and collaborating with project stakeholders to complete the Master Planning process.
The Council directed staff to reinitiate the completion of the Shores Master Plan process and establish a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to advise staff and the City Council on the completion of the Master Plan:
(https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/10053/06162025-Item-12---Resume-Shores-Park-Master-Planning).
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Now that the master planning process has been reinitiated, as an important next step, staff is requesting that the City Council reaffirm key aspects of the prior work completed, including the Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities, as a necessary first step to refine the consultant scope of work to complete the Master Plan. Staff will return to Council on September 22, 2025, with a proposed agreement with Schmidt, including a detailed scope of work and fee, for Council consideration.
Guiding Principles and Preferred Amenities
In the Phase One report, Schmidt identified seven Guiding Principles to shape the master planning process (Attachment C, p. 28). The principles were developed based on input received from community interest groups, pop-up tent events, and a city-wide community survey. Future design alternatives would be evaluated in part by how well they accomplish these goals.
In addition, the Phase One report outlined a three-tiered list of Preferred Park Amenities based on community feedback (Attachment C, pp. 28-29). It was recognized that not all amenities could be accommodated due to site constraints and differences in community preferences; therefore, the amenities were prioritized from Tier 1 (highest priority) through Tier 3 (lowest priority).
To build upon the extensive work completed during the six years the project was active, staff is requesting that the City Council reaffirm the Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities to inform the completion of the Master Plan. Additionally, staff has added a new “Required Amenities” Tier to reflect requirements under the original and amended Lease with Winston to help inform the process and ensure the requirements of the Lease are complied with as part of the Master Planning process. This includes providing the school with a minimum of 18 parking spaces, a full-sized multi-purpose sport court, and a flexible youth sports field. All other information is identical to the Phase One report.
The Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities are provided in Attachment A.
Off-leash Dog Area
A separate area for off-leash dogs is commonplace in public spaces, and an off-leash grassy area for dog activities was identified as a Tier 1 priority amenity of the Master Plan. 3 September 8, 2025 Item 9
City Council Agenda Report
Shores Park Master Plan – Guiding Principles & Preferred Park Amenities September 8, 2025
Currently, off-leash dog activities are allowed on the Shores’ turf area during limited hours when the Winston School is not in session. Prior community input from the master planning process reflected consensus for a dedicated off-leash dog area separate from a recreational turf area for users of the park. City staff agrees and recommends this approach as having a dedicated, fenced/secured dog area is recommended by the City’s self-insurance JPA, and is important to the health and safety of all park users. Urine, feces, and holes/turf wear and tear created by dogs pose risks to human users, and is not recommended unless deemed infeasible (as is the current situation).
A letter of support from Winston, outlining amenity requirements, endorsing a separate off-leash dog area, and supporting the formation of a Shores Park ad-hoc committee (as discussed below), is provided in Attachment E.
Parking Requirements
During the initial Master Planning process, Schmidt requested input on the number of parking spaces to include in a refined park design. In 2019, the City Council recommended 12-20 parking spaces based on a parking analysis completed by staff. However, this occurred before the amended Lease with Winston, and will need to be reevaluated to ensure sufficient parking is available for park users and Winston as part of the updated design.
Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee
On June 16, 2025, the City Council directed staff to form a subcommittee of the City’s Parks and Recreation Committee to advise staff and the Council on the completion of the Shores Master Plan, so the prior Shores Park Advisory Committee was subsequently dissolved. At the time the prior Shores Park Master Plan Advisory Committee was placed on hold in 2019, the Council liaisons were Mayor Terry Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez.
Upon further consideration and in consultation with Mayor Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Martinez, staff recommends as an alternative that a new Shores ad-hoc advisory committee be established to advise on the next phase of the Master Planning process, which will provide an opportunity for broader participation on the Committee by the wide range of project stakeholders and may include prior Shores Park committee members for continuity.
The original Shores Park Master Plan Advisory Committee focused on gathering community feedback on the vision and preferred amenities included in the Phase One report. The new proposed ad-hoc advisory committee would utilize the prior committee’s work to advise on completing Phases Two and Three of the master planning effort, which includes the development of a preferred concept for the Master Plan, and would sunset at the completion of the process and adoption of the Master Plan by the City Council.
Attachment B includes a Resolution authorizing the creation of the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee and Exhibit A is a draft of the committee’s charter. 4 September 8, 2025 Item 9
City Council Agenda Report
Shores Park Master Plan – Guiding Principles & Preferred Park Amenities September 8, 2025
As reflected in the proposed committee charter (Exhibit A of Attachment B), staff recommends that one of the five voting seats be reserved for a current member of the Parks and Recreation Committee. In addition to the five voting members, staff recommends that the Council approve two non-voting seats on the Committee, to include a representative from Winston School and the Del Mar Community Building, who are important project stakeholders and will provide valuable perspective to inform the process.
Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution and committee charter, and direct staff to immediately open the recruitment. The City Council will also need to appoint two Council liaisons to the Committee. Staff anticipates completing the recruitment and having the newly appointed Council liaisons make their recommendations for committee membership at the first Council meeting in October.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no Council fiscal action or fiscal impact related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This is a Tier 2 item on the City’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Work Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities Attachment B – Resolution Establishing Shores Park Ad-hoc Advisory Committee Attachment C – Shores Park Master Plan Phase One Report Attachment D – Winston Lease Area
Attachment E – Winston Letter of Support
5 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park Master Plan
Guiding Principles
Provide a beautiful and peaceful neighborhood park environment that serves the residents of Del Mar.
Create an inclusive space that offers recreational opportunities for all ages. Thoughtfully integrate the needs and desires of residents visiting the park with or without pets.
Capture the dramatic views to the Pacific Ocean.
Provide a gardenesque park setting that is environmentally and economically sustainable.
Integrate the activities, program, circulation, and recreational needs of the Winston school.
Create a park that reflects the rich history, unique culture, and community character of Del Mar.
Preferred Park Amenities
Required Amenities (per lease agreement with Winston School):
Parking – minimum 18 spaces
Full-sized multi-purpose court (basketball/volleyball/tennis etc.) Youth sports field (baseball/softball field with multi-use options) Tier 1 Potential Amenities:
Attractive gardens and landscaping (low water use/sustainable) Benches for sitting, enjoying views, reading, meditating, etc. Fully accessible for visitors with disabilities
Furnishings such as trash and recycling receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks, etc.
Off-leash grassy areas for off-leash dog activities (not obvious or rigid fences) Indoor meeting/recreational community space
Accommodate children’s activities
Picnic area(s)
Restroom
Shade
Walking paths
6 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Tier 2 Potential Amenities:
Children’s playground
General purpose room that can be used for community programming and activities (such as exercise classes, cooking classes, meetings, arts and culture, etc.) Outdoor fitness course
Tier 3 Potential Amenities:
Amphitheater
Auditorium (joint-use with Winston School)
Community garden
Interpretive education (such as plant identification tags, educational signage, etc.) Bocce ball
7 September 8, 2025 Item 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE SHORES PARK
MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE
INPUT, GUIDANCE AND COMMENT ON THE SHORES PARK
MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar is dedicated to ensuring that the City’s Shores Park master planning process reflects the wide perspective of the residents and community of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that input from the community has played a critical role in identifying and prioritizing issues, providing input and recommendations on potential improvements, and monitoring the master planning process to-date; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its Regular Meeting of June 16, 2025, directed staff to reinitiate the completion of the Shores Park master planning process after being on hold since 2019; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure community and stakeholder input in Phases Two and Three of the Shores Park Master Plan, the City Council wishes to establish an ad-hoc Shores Park Master Plan Advisory Committee to meet until the completion of the master planning process; and
WHEREAS, the Charter for the formation of the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee is attached as Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a committee does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee is hereby established as provided in Exhibit “A” - Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Charter.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee will meet in full compliance with the California Open Meeting Laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee shall automatically dissolve at the completion of the Shores Park Master Plan unless otherwise extended by City Council action.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 8th day of September, 2025. 8 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Resolution 2025-XX
___________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH HRIETOR Administrative Services Director/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2025-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 8th day of September, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Director/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
9 September 8, 2025 Item 9
SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER Mission & Work Program:
Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee provides input to the City Council on Phases Two and Three of the master planning effort, which includes the development of a preferred concept for the Master Plan.
Membership:
The Committee consists of seven (7) members, five (5) resident voting members, including one (1) from the Parks and Recreation Committee, and two (2) ex-officio non-voting members, one (1) from the Winston School and one (1) representative of the Del Mar Community Building users.
Membership Term:
There is no established length of term for Committee members. The Committee will be dissolved at the completion of the Shores Park Master Planning effort and Council adoption of the Master Plan.
Meeting Requirements:
The Committee meets as may be needed in order to fulfill its mission and work program in full compliance with the California Open Meeting Laws (Brown Act).
Conflict of Interest Filing:
Members of the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee are not required to file Conflict of Interest Filings due to the advisory nature of the committee.
Status:
The Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee is an ad-hoc committee that will sunset when the Shores Park Master Plan effort is complete with adoption of the Shores Park Master Plan by the City Council.
10 September 8, 2025 Item 9
THE CITY OF DEL MAR
SHORES PARK
ENVISION
EXPLORE
DISCOVER
“DISCOVER” PHASE
Date: June 15, 2015
By: Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
Project Name: Shores Park Master Plan
11 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 2
1. Introduction............................................................................................ 3
2. Applicable Planning Documents............................................................ 4
2.1 City of Del Mar Community Plan
2.2 City of Del Mar Municipal Code
2.3 City of Del Mar Landscape Development Guidelines
2.4 Camino Del Mar Streetscape Plan
2.5 Del Mar Foundation Use Agreement
2.6 Winston School Lease and Memorandum of Understanding
3. Existing Facilities Assessment................................................................ 7
3.1 Parks and Community Centers
3.2 Existing Recreation Programs and Services
3.3 Public/Private Partnerships
3.4 Maintenance and Operations for Parks and Recreations Facilities
4. Site Inventory and Analysis...................................................................... 11
4.1 Site History
4.2 Site Analysis
4.3 Architectural Assessment of Del Mar Community Building
5. Community Outreach................................................................................ 15
5.1 Shores Advisory Committee
5.2 Community Survey
5.3 Interest Group Interviews
5.4 Informal Pop-up Tent Events
5.5 Community Workshop #1
6. Summary of Findings................................................................................ 27
6.1 Guiding Principles
6.2 Potential Amenities
APPENDIX
A. Community Survey
B. Architectural Building Assessment Report
0TABLE OF CONTENTS
12 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 3
The City of Del Mar has taken the first step
in developing a new master plan vision
for the 5.3 acre Shores Park site, located
southwest of the Camino Del Mar and
9th Street intersection. The first phase of
this master plan effort, termed “Discover,”
includes extensive research, data
collection, and community engagement.
This document provides a summary of
the first steps in the Shores Park Master
Plan process and includes a review of
applicable planning policy documents,
an assessment of existing facilities, a
site inventory and analysis, community
outreach, and the development of guiding
principles.
Ultimately, the goal of the research and
community outreach is to establish a
foundation of knowledge which the City
and design team can utilize in future
phases of the master planning effort.
From this effort, program elements
and master plan alternatives will be
developed. Next steps in the master
planning process include continued
community engagement, case study
exploration, a refined park program, and
master plan alternatives. This effort will
culminate with the development of a
preferred Shores Park Master Plan with
supporting recommendations for budget,
implementation, and management.
Community Workshop #1, “Plan Your Park” Event
Image by City of Del Mar
1INTRODUCTION
13 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 4
The following includes an analysis of City planning documents and their relevance to the Shores Park Master Plan effort.
2.1 City of Del Mar Community Plan
The City of Del Mar Community Plan (synonymous with “General Plan”), contains land use policy and is intended to be used to guide community development. The plan also outlines the review process for approvals and permitting. The plan includes policies to achieve the City’s goals and objectives, such as: prudent use of water resources, limit building height to two stories in all residential areas, creation of viewpoints, protect and enhance human scale, etc.
2.2 City of Del Mar Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code contains regulations pertaining to land use development standards and permitting requirements. The design of Shores Park will need to comply with all sections of the City code. This includes a requirement that Planning Commission review and make recommendations to the City Council on all proposed allowable uses and development of public parkland.
Public Facility Zone
The park site is zoned as Public Facility Zone (PF). Included in the regulations for PF Zones are building height regulations (max 26 feet), parking requirements, landscape requirements, and the requirement to abide by the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
In accordance Municipal Code section 30.31.060, Design Review, all development in the PF Zone shall be subject to design review by the Design Review Board. The design, scale, height, bulk, coverage, and exterior appearance of all structures shall be in harmony with neighborhood character and development on nearby lots. Design considerations shall include the preservation of privacy on neighboring residential properties. In reviewing development proposals in the PF Zone, the Design Review Board shall also consider a project’s potential impact on the preservation of views to the ocean from both public and private lands.
Parking
The Parking Ordinance, Chapter 30.80, does not identify specific parking requirements for parks or open space and charges the Planning Commission to make a final determination of required number of parking spaces. Potentially applicable parking ratios include ratios for auditorium, meeting mall, museum, office, K-6/JR School, high school, recreation 2APPLICABLE PLANNING
DOCUMENTS
14 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 5
facility, pool, and/or game courts. The
lower parking lot is currently shared
between the Winston School and the
park. Continued shared parking should
be evaluated in the Park Master Plan.
Protected Trees
In accordance with Municipal Code
section 23.50.010, subsection C, the
species Torrey Pine, and the species
Monterey Cypress are of particular
significance to the City, and should
therefore be protected to conserve the
environmental qualities of the City.
2.3 City of Del Mar Landscape Development
Guidelines
The Landscape Development Guidelines
include specific landscape design
principles and elements that should
be incorporated into the Shores Park
Master Plan design. The Landscape
Design Guidelines are based on the
following six (6) objectives:
• Preserve natural features, including
existing native plant materials.
• Preserve and enhance existing views.
• Protect the safety of the residents of
Del Mar.
• Conserve precious resources,
notably water.
• Vitalize the downtown commercial
area.
• Clarify processes and requirements
for landscape development within the
City.
2.4 Camino Del Mar Streetscape Plan
Published in 1996, this study examines
a three mile length of Camino Del Mar
from Via de la Valle to its termination
near Carmel Valley Road. The study
identifies opportunities to preserve and
enhance the qualities that the people of
Del Mar hold dear. The opportunities
include elements such as preserving
Torrey Pine trees are of particular significance to the City of Del Mar and should be protected
A mature Torrey Pine tree is located adjacent to the
Community Building
15 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 6
Torrey Pine trees, creating scenic view
corridors, and incorporating pedestrian
improvements. The study also includes
an overall shrub and groundcover plant
list and provides recommendations for
street tree locations along the portion
of Camino Del Mar adjacent to the park
site.
2.5 Del Mar Foundation Use Agreement
Located at 225 9th Street in Del Mar is a
City-owned office facility, known as the
Del Mar Community Building, which is
approximately 1,831 square foot in size.
The City has entered into a two-year
long use agreement with the Del Mar
Foundation (commencing in September
2014). The Del Mar Foundation is
responsible for coordinating the use of
the facility by the Del Mar Community
Connections (DMCC) and other non-profits organizations that provide valuable public service functions to the
residents of Del Mar.
2.6 Winston School Lease Agreement
and Winston School Memorandum of
Understanding
The 1.8 acre school site is a City-owned property with a 55 year lease to the Winston School (commencing
in 2008). Required as part of the lease
agreement, Winston School must
achieve all “Redevelopment Milestones”
by the respective “Milestone Deadline”
as defined in the lease document. The
final “Milestone Deadline” is December
31st 2027 indicating the completion of
the redevelopment process. The City is
required to provide an open turf space
for the school’s recreation needs as a
part of the lease agreement.
Street Tree Planting Plan per Page 24 of the Del Mar Streetscape Plan Planting Palette per Page 56 of the Del Mar Streetscape Plan 16 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 7
The purpose of this section is to document existing parks, recreation facilities, and programs in Del Mar that affect recreation programming and planning for the community. An inventory of existing parks, recreation facilities, and programs was achieved through site visits, City staff interviews, document searches, and interviews with service providers.
3.1 Parks and Community Centers
The City of Del Mar has three primary parks (Shores Park, Powerhouse Park, Seagrove Park) and one community center (Powerhouse Community Center) that are available for public use.
i. Shores Park (5.3 Acres)
Shores Park is comprised of a parking lot, landscaped area, asphalt activity area, and the Del Mar Community Building. A portion of the site (1.8 acres) is leased to The Winston School. As part of the lease agreement, The Winston School is granted non-exclusive access to the landscaped turf area during school hours. The landscaped area serves as a shared use area providing space as a dog park, youth baseball field, and multi-purpose field, each with their specific times of use. The City issues permits for youth sports practices periodically. The Del Mar Community Building has a two-year lease between the Del Mar Foundation and the City of Del Mar. The building includes a conference room, computer lab, and kitchen, and is available to the public with advance reservations.
The Community Building provides office space for the Del Mar Foundation and Del Mar Community Connections with which the Del Mar Foundation has an agreement. It is primarily used by Del Mar Community Connections which provides services to mature adults. Maintenance of the majority of the landscaped areas, including the turf area, is Ocean View from Shores Park
Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
3EXISTING FACILITIES
ASSESSMENT
17 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 8
conducted by the City through a maintenance contract. Maintenance and operation of the Community Building is the responsibility of the Del Mar Foundation with portions of the grounds around the Community Building being maintained by the Del Mar Garden Club. ii. Powerhouse Community Center
The Powerhouse Community Center is an attractive facility with views of the ocean. It has a capacity for 120 guests indoors and outdoors on two levels. The Community Center provides services to the community through private rentals, scheduling of non-profit agency activities, and co-sponsoring events. It is well maintained by the City Community Services Department through City part-time staff. It is also supervised by part-time and full-time City staff during the times that it is scheduled. It is scheduled by the Community Services Department’s full time employee. The outside grounds and exterior restroom maintenance is performed through the City’s Public Works Department. iii. Powerhouse Park
Powerhouse Park is adjacent to the Powerhouse Community Center. It is a large grassy area overlooking the beach with a children’s tot lot, public restroom, and two concrete walkways which lead to the beach. The park is well maintained through the City’s Public Works Department. The park is open to the public and may also be reserved through the City’s Community Services Department.
iv. Seagrove Park
Seagrove Park is south of Powerhouse Park and is a large grassy area overlooking the beach, without beach access. The park is well maintained through the City’s Public Works Department. The park is open
to the public and may be reserved
through the City’s Community Services
Department.
3.2 Existing Recreation Programs and
Services
The City of Del Mar provides
recreation programs and services
to the community through private
rentals, scheduling of non-profit
agency activities, and co-sponsoring
events. As a part of the review
process to determine opportunities
for programming, an inventory of local
services and programs provided by
non-profits was compiled.
i. Del Mar Foundation
The Del Mar Foundation (DMF) is
a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
that sponsors and conducts a Powerhouse Park
Image by www.sandiegoville.com
18 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 9
number of events for the community.
These include the popular Summer
Twilight Concert Series conducted
at the Powerhouse Community
Center and Park, the First Thursday
Performances, and the DMF Talks
held at the Powerhouse Community
Center. The Foundation also provides
special events for children in the
community such as Family Bingo
Night, Easter Egg Hunt, Fancy Nancy
Night, and more.
ii. Del Mar Community Connections
Del Mar Community Connections
is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
that sponsors and conducts a
number of events for the community
primarily for mature adults. Many
of the activities are conducted
at the Del Mar Community
Building but are also scheduled
at other locations including the
Powerhouse Community Center,
the County Library, and the City
Hall Annex. Some of the activities
provided include Brain Fitness,
computer training, Tuesday Lunch
Connections, specialty classes,
services and presentations, bridge
and mahjong at the Community
Center, and shopping and grocery
trips with transportation provided by
DMCC’s shuttle.
iii. City of Del Mar Community Services
offers concessions for summer
camps such as junior lifeguarding,
surf camps, as well as general surf
classes. They also partner with the
San Dieguito Unified High School
District Adult School for exercise
held at the Powerhouse Community
Center.
The City of Del Mar has a formal lease agreement with The Winston School that utilizes a portion of Shores Park
Images by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
19 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 10
3.3 Public/Private Partnerships
The City of Del Mar has a formal lease agreement with The Winston School that utilizes a portion of Shores Park (primarily the school buildings). The City also has an Interim Use Agreement for two years with the Del Mar Foundation for the Foundation’s use of the Del Mar Community Building located at Shores Park. In turn, the Del Mar Foundation has an agreement with Del Mar Community Connections for their utilization and scheduling of programs for the Del Mar Community Building.
3.4 Maintenance and Operations for Parks and Recreation Facilities The Powerhouse Community Center and park facilities in Del Mar are well-used and busy centers of activity throughout the week, especially on the weekends. The parks and Community Center are well maintained and exceed most community standards. They are operated and maintained in an efficient manner.
The City Public Works Department utilizes contracted landscape maintenance services combined with supplemental part-time employees for the parks, grounds, and beaches.
They have a City staff member that supervises these operations. This is an efficient and cost effective way of providing maintenance services, particularly limiting the need and related costs for City staffing. The Community Services Department similarly utilizes part-time staff for custodial services and also for supervision along with full-time staff during times that the Community Center is scheduled. They have a City staff member that coordinates these operations and also schedules the Community Center and the parks. This also is an efficient and cost effective approach to providing maintenance and operations for the Community Center, although recruitment and retention of part time staff is sometimes difficult.
The City of Del Mar adequately maintains and operates the existing parks and the Community Center. The additional resources and costs associated with the proposed improvements to Shores Park will be evaluated and reported during future phases of the master-planning effort.
The turf area serves as a shared use dog park with specific times of use Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
20 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 11
4.1 Site History
• The Shores property was first the site of the original Del Mar train station from the late 1800s through the early 1900s.
• The property was then acquired in 1906 by the South Coast Land Company led by partners Col. Ed Fletcher, William G. Kerckhoff, and others. • Kerckhoff’s company eventually took title and, in 1946, conveyed it to the struggling Del Mar Unified School District (DMUSD) with the deed restriction that the property be used for “school purposes only.” This restriction included a prohibition against commercial or residential development.
• In 1988, a portion of the property was leased to the private Winston School. • In 2005, a group of concerned community leaders formed The Friends of Del Mar Parks (a certified 501(c)(3) tax exempt, non-profit California corporation) and joined together with Winston School families to help raise funds to contribute toward purchasing the land.
• In 2007, the park was purchased by the City of Del Mar for $8.5 million with a combination of private fundraising proceeds and public City funding.
The old California Southern Railway station on the SE corner of 9th Street and Stratford Court Photo Courtesy of the City of Del Mar Historical Society 4SITE INVENTORY
AND ANALYSIS
21 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 12
4.2 Site Analysis
Shores Park is located southwest of the Camino Del Mar and 9th Street intersection in the City of Del Mar. Parking options include on-site parking areas and off-site street parking.
Alternative transportation includes North County Transit District bus line 101 with stops in the north and south direction at 9th and Camino Del Mar. Additionally, designated bike lanes exist in the north and south directions along Camino Del Mar.
The Shores Park property has a terraced landscape along a dramatic hillside with views to the Pacific Ocean. Change in elevation between terraces is approximately 15 feet with an overall grade differential of approximately 30 feet. Many notable views to the Pacific Ocean were inventoried.
Existing park amenities include a turf field and backstop, multi-use court area, landscaped areas, parking lots, and a Community Building. The landscaped areas include several mature trees, including a large Torrey Pine near the Community Building. Based on initial on-site observation, stormwater is directed off-site via daylighted cobble-mortar storm culverts. Along 9th Street, adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, an existing deep swale carries stormwater off-site. Drainage also enters the park on the second terrace and flows down the existing on-site drainage/driveway. An opportunity for water quality improvements was observed.
A portion of the park land (1.8 acres), is leased to The Winston School. Non-exclusive use of the parking area and athletic field during school hours is part of the lease agreement.
Shores Park Site Terraces from east to west offering views to the Ocean Section by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
Section West-East, Shores Park
Not to Scale
Stratford
Court
Slope Slope Drive Slope
Walk
Camino del Mar
Parking Lot Ballfield
116’
120’ 122’
138’ 144’
159’ Park
22 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 13 NORTH
E
C
E
2 h
n
F5562 ou
iL c. AC
www.sc
pe elt ho
SC H DT D
NAAB L
W HTI
M I N
rth Avenu , e San iego, D CA 9
A
o
4 N V ,219
idt es gn.c
1-632}91
138,
im
{e
d
6 31 9
f elimisca
Z 3
m
62 4
G
T
N
GN
A R T I S
OR N M E
S
NI
N V
I
G
I
,PU I
PX R E S S I
S E N S I T
R
CI
T A
O
E
L
2103
98-632} 716{ 9 2
G
.
I N D E S I
Y
C
O N
I V I T
N
0 75 150
SCALE: 1"=150'-0"
Date: July 25, 2014
Site Context
14th Street Promenade San Diego, CA
SITE ANALYSIS
DEL MAR SHORES PARK
DEL MAR, CA Date: June 2, 2015
STRATFORD CT.
9TH ST.
CAMINO DEL MAR
+141’.
30’15’0’
NOT TOSCALE
+117’
+121’ +141’
+141’
+161’
+156’
+111’
+110’
City Support
Building
3.5 ACRE
SHORES PARK SITE
Parking
Parking
Hotel
Residential
Office /
Commercial
SLOPE
1.8 ACRE
WINSTON SCHOOL SITE
VIEW SHED
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY WAY
STORMWATER EXISTING TORREY PINE
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SECTION LINE
PREVAILING WINDS EXISTING SLOPES
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
Site Analysis
Graphic by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
Site Analysis Plan
E
C
E
h
n
F5562 ou
wwwsc
pe elt ho
SC H DT D
NAAB L
W HTI
M I N
rth Avenu , e San iego, D CA 9
o
4 idt es gnc
1-632}91
im
{e
d
6f elimisca
m
62 G
T
N
GN
A R T I S
OR N M E
S
NI
N V
I
G
I
,PU I
PX R E S S I
S E N S I T
R
CI
T A
O
E
L
2103
98-632} 716{ 9 2
G
.
I N D E S I
Y
C
O N
I V I T
N
Site Context
14th Street Promenade
SITE ANALYSIS
DEL MAR SHORES PARK
STRATFORD CT.
CAMINO DEL MAR
+141’.
+117’
+121’ +141’
+141’
+161’
+110’
City Support
Building
3.5 ACRE
SHORES PARK SITE
Parking
Hotel
Residential
Office /
Commercial
SLOPE
1.8 ACRE
WINSTON SCHOOL SITE
VIEW SHED
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY WAY
STORMWATER EXISTING TORREY PINE
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SECTION LINE
PREVAILING WINDS EXISTING SLOPES
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
NORTH
E
C
E
2 h
n
F5562 ou
iL c. AC
www.sc
pe elt ho
SC H DT D
NAAB L
W HTI
M I N
rth Avenu , e San iego, D CA 9
A
o
4 N V ,219
idt es gn.c
1-632}91
138,
im
{e
d
6 31 9
f elimisca
Z 3
m
62 4
G
T
N
GN
A R T I S
OR N M E
S
NI
N V
I
G
I
,PU I
PX R E S S I
S E N S I T
R
CI
T A
O
E
L
2103
98-632} 716{ 9 2
G
.
I N D E S I
Y
C
O N
I V I T
N
0 75 150
SCALE: 1"=150'-0"
Date: July 25, 2014
Site Context
14th Street Promenade San Diego, CA
SITE ANALYSIS
DEL MAR SHORES PARK
DEL MAR, CA Date: June 2, 2015
STRATFORD CT.
9TH ST.
CAMINO DEL MAR
+141’.
30’15’0’
NOT TOSCALE
+117’
+121’ +141’
+141’
+161’
+156’
+111’
+110’
City Support
Building
3.5 ACRE
SHORES PARK SITE
Parking
Parking
Hotel
Residential
Office /
Commercial
SLOPE
1.8 ACRE
WINSTON SCHOOL SITE
VIEW SHED
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY WAY
STORMWATER EXISTING TORREY PINE
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SECTION LINE
PREVAILING WINDS EXISTING SLOPES
BIKE LANE
LEGEND
23 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 14
4.3 Architectural Assessment of Del Mar Community Building The overall general condition of the existing building at 225 9th Street was evaluated by OBR Architecture on January 29, 2015. A full copy of the report is included in the Appendix.
The building is laid out in an ‘L’ configuration and is a single story. No destructive testing was performed, but the main framing system is assumed to be wood. Overall the building appears to be in good condition. The recent refurbishment concentrated on finishes and the renovation to create an accessible restroom. The stucco is free from significant cracking and there is no evidence of any substantial seismic issues. The building currently acts as the Del Mar Community Building and houses the Del Mar Foundation and the Del Mar Community Connections. The building also provides community meeting space and storage space.
It has been noted through various interest group interviews and conversations with the community that the overall layout and size of the facility limits the programs and services that are offered by the Del Mar Community Connections organization.
Del Mar Community Building,
Photo by OBR Architecture
24 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 15
The “Discover” phase of the Shores Park Master Plan process was structured to maximize opportunities to obtain community feedback as indicated by the Shores Advisory Committee appointed by the City Council. This included a formal community survey, interest group interviews, community pop-up events, and a “take-part” community workshop. The following is a summary of the Shores Advisory Committee role and each community outreach event.
5.1 Shores Advisory Committee
The Shores Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed to oversee the Shores Park Master Plan process. The SAC’s mission is to ensure that the process is open and inclusive. They have worked with the community, City staff, and design team to develop the Master Plan process and will continue to guide the process and provide progress updates and recommendations to City Council.
5.2 Community Survey
A community-wide survey was conducted
by True North Consulting during the months
of March and April 2015. Participants were
asked a series of questions related to City
of Del Mar park facilities, Shores Park, and
their recreation preferences.
i. Community Survey Goals
The goals for the survey were as follows:
• Gather information to help inform the
Shores Park Master Plan;
• Profile recreation interests and
activities of Del Mar residents (adult
and youth);
• Measure use and perceptions of
Del Mar parks in general, as well as
Shores Park in particular;
• Identify the types of amenities and
improvements to Shores Park that are
priorities for Del Mar residents; and
• Understand how the above may vary
across subgroups.
A full copy of the community survey
report is included in the appendix.
A community-wide survey was conducted by True North Research Image by True North Research
5COMMUNITY OUTREACH
25 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 16
ii. Community Survey Key Takeaways
The community survey is only one tool for gauging community interests with respect to the Shores Park Master Plan process but there are consistent themes between survey results and qualitative feedback (Community Workshop, Pop-Up Events, etc.).
Per the survey, residents are generally pleased with the safety, appearance, and overall quality of Del Mar’s parks, but see opportunities to improve the variety of amenities offered.
Based on survey respondents, just one in five households have a child or teenager, but there appears to be interest in providing a variety of activities for a broad age spectrum.
Key amenities that were identified include:
Passive Recreation
• Significant interest in passive recreation amenities including walking paths, benches and sitting areas, picnic and BBQs, quiet spaces for reading, watching sunsets, meditating, etc.
• Interest in green spaces, landscaping, trees, plants, gardens, and beautification.
Open Play and Fitness Areas
• Open areas for play and informal recreation sports, but not highly programmed sports-field focused or organized athletics. • Children’s playground equipment.
• Outdoor fitness course and courts.
Indoor Facilities
• Special purpose rooms for fitness classes, yoga, dance. • General purpose room for meetings and classes.
Off-Leash Dog Component
• Interest is creating a separated area for off-leash dog activities. Refer to the “Desired Shores Park Improvements” graph found in the survey report. 26 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 17
5.3 Interest Group Interviews
i. Summary
The City of Del Mar scheduled interviews with interested parties between January 2015 and May 2015. The purpose of the interest group interviews was to solicit personal small group feedback from a diverse range of interested parties at the beginning of the master plan design process. Below is a time line of interest group interviews to date:
• Jan 12, 2015 Farmers Market
• Jan 12, 2015 Garden Club Interest Group
• Jan 14, 2015 Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC)
• Jan 14, 2015 Historical Society
• Jan 14, 2015 Friends of Del Mar Parks
• Jan 14, 2015 Park & Recreation Staff
• Jan 14, 2015 Youth Sports Groups
• Jan 15, 2015 Del Mar Foundation
• Jan 22, 2015 Del Mar Village Association (DMVA)
• Jan 22, 2015 Dog Owners
• Feb 9, 2015 Parents/Young Del Mar/PTA
• Feb 19, 2015 Sustainability Advisory Board
• March 31, 2015 Adjacent Commercial Property Owners and Businesses • March 31, 2015 Adjacent Residential Property Owners
• April 13, 2015 Winston School
• May 6, 2015 Community Services Department Staff
• May 6, 2015 Public Works Department Staff
• May 6, 2015 Youth Sports Organizations (conference call) • May 12, 2015 Alvarado House Tour
• May 13, 2015 Clean Water Program Manager (conference call) ii. Reoccurring Themes
From the 20 different interest group interviews, there were significant areas of overlap and reoccurring themes. They are as follows:
• Preserve Open Park Feel: Many people wanted to avoid over-programming or overbuilding the park.
• Dog Park: There were several viewpoints on the success of the current joint-use dog park. Overall, there is a desire to continue to include a grassy area for off-leash dog activity in the park that is not rigid or obviously fenced. There are a significant number of community members that advocate continued joint-use between off-leash dog activities and other park uses. However, of the groups that were interviewed, there were more community members interested in separating the off-leash dog activities from other park uses, while still having both areas. • Multi-Use Open Field: Provide open, flexible turf space, but not necessarily a structured athletic field.
• Gardens: Passive, walking, horticulturally rich gardens; benches to enjoy views; picnic tables.
• Basketball: Currently well used, potentially half court. • Storage and Activity Space: Several groups were interested in more indoor and outdoor programs (DMCC storage and office space, tai chi and other exercise, cultural events, personal enrichment classes such as cooking classes, etc.) 27 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 18
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 5.4 Informal Pop-Up Tent Events
The City of Del Mar staff conducted
two (2) “pop-up” community outreach
events. These pop-up events were
intended to capitalize on the community
participation at the Del Mar Egghunt
Event (April 4th, 2015), and the Farmers
Market (April 18th, 2015), to publicize the
Shores Park Master Plan project and to
promote the May 2nd “Plan Your Park”
Community Workshop.
Feedback was tallied from notations
made by community members in
response to open-ended questions
regarding favorite parks, possible
amenities for Shores Park, and
preferred recreational activities. There
were no formal inquiries made regarding
residency. However, anecdotally, the
majority of feedback was from Del
Mar residents. The following graphics
summarize the feedback received.
i. Egghunt Event
Pop-up tent event at Egghunt
Photo by the City of Del Mar
Number Of Responses
28 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 19
Pop-up tent event at Del Mar Farmers Market,
Photo by the City of Del Mar
ii. Farmers Market Event
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
Number Of Responses
29 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 20
5.5 Community Workshop #1
An on-site “Plan Your Park” community workshop was held May 2, 2015 from 10:00am-11:30am. A total of 155 attendees signed in for the meeting. Activities included a self-guided walking tour of the site and a brainstorming activity to provide feedback on guiding principles and potential amenities.
i. Site Discovery Exercise
Each attendee received a workbook at check-in and was encouraged to complete a walking tour of the site. A total of 45 completed workbooks were collected during the event.
Below are the main themes and reoccurring comments that were documented in the Site Discovery Workbooks:
Community Workshop #1
Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
CONSTRAINTS
• Overall, participants identified
constraints such as the driveway
dividing the site, a disconnect
between upper and lower areas, and a
lack of shady areas for seating.
OPPORTUNITIES
• Participants identified opportunities
for expanding the existing Community
Building, improved parking,
maintaining open space, and wide
spread desire to incorporate ocean
views.
BUILDING
• Several comments indicated a desire
to keep or expand the Community
Building (including expanding kitchen
and providing multi-use space).
• Several people noted the need for a
restroom.
PARKING
• Many people noted that the parking
lot should be smaller while others
noted an opportunity for a parking
structure on the lower level with park
space above.
DOG/GRASS
• Several comments indicated that the
multi-use grassy area works well (but
rules need to be enforced), while other
comments indicated a desire for a
separate dog area.
30 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 21
Site Discovery
Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
SITE PLAN/PLANTING
• Overall, participants noted that park
should include a natural theme,
feature low water use plants, connect
upper and lower park areas, preserve
mature trees, incorporate sustainable
maintenance practices, provide
universal accessibility, and highlight
ocean views.
EXPAND PROGRAMS
• Several programmed activities were
proposed such as: senior activities; tai
chi; yoga; sports equipment to “check
out.”
POTENTIAL AMENITIES
• Many participants indicated that the
park should be natural/open in nature,
and proposed the following amenities:
loop walking paths, open field for
sports, amphitheater, gardens (butterfly,
meditation), fitness area, community
garden, slide from upper to lower terrace,
shade trees for picnicking, drinking
fountain, playground, outdoor theater,
swimming, skate park.
• Several participants noted that the
basketball area was well used. One
comment suggested a low basketball
hoop for younger kids and other
suggested a smaller half-court to save
space.
31 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 22
ii) Guiding Principles Exercise
Each attendee received two sets of
four (4) sticky notes for the Guiding
Principles and Potential Amenities
envisioning exercise. There was
some overlap between Guiding
Principles and Potential Amenities,
however feedback was enthusiastic
and robust with over 950 individual
comments.
Participants were invited to write
their desired Guiding Principles on
blue sticky notes and place them
on the white board. A total of 420
responses specific to Guiding
Principles were received.
A total of 420 Guiding Principle responses were submitted Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
Guiding Principles and Potential Amenities Exercise
Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
32 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 23
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Number Of Responses
NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE PARK
• The park should not be over
developed; it should be designed
for the neighborhood rather than
as a regional destination. It should
serve as a meeting venue for the
local residents. The concept of a
neighborhood scale park is also
supported by other responses
that were highly ranked such as
providing an open/grassy space,
shade, maintaining views, and
providing an attractive landscape.
HIGH QUALITY DESIGN FOR ALL USERS,
INCLUDING PETS
• The park should address the needs of
the entire community. The final program
should include a high quality user
experience for people and pets.
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN/ORGANIC
MAINTENANCE
• The park should incorporate an
environmentally responsible design
(low energy, water efficient, and organic
maintenance).
The main themes and guiding principles can be summarized in the following categories:
33 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 24
iii. Potential Amenities Exercise
Participants were invited to write
their four key Potential Amenities
on yellow sticky notes and place
them on the white board. A total of
534 responses specific to Potential
Amenities were received. The highest
priority amenities can be combined
into the main categories defined on
the next page.
A total of 534 Potential Amenity responses were submitted Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
Potential Amenities Exercise
Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
34 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 25
iii. Potential Amenities Exercise (Continued)
PASSIVE USE AMENITIES
• Trees/Shade
• Picnic/Seating Areas
• Bike/Walk/Scooter Path
• Open Grassy Space
• Attractive Landscape
• No Lighting
DOG FRIENDLY
• Off-Leash Dog Park/Dog Friendly
• Separate People and Dog Space
• Shared Space for All (including people
and dogs)
• Pet Station
BUILDINGS
• Provide Restrooms
• Keep/Expand Community Building
• New Community Building
• No Restrooms
ACTIVE PLAY
• Playground
• Drinking Fountain
• Sport Courts
• Exercise Areas
• Pool/Water Park
• Baseball
• Skate Park
• Sport Fields
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Number Of Responses
35 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 26
• Climbing Structure
• Slide
• Huge slide that runs from the top field
to the lower parking lot
• Monkey Bars
• Sand Volleyball
• Volleyball Net
• Swings
• Soccer Goal
• Squirrel, or maybe a dog
• Restrooms
• Bike Path
• Grass
• Rocks
• “Park to Play Ball and Ride My
Scooter”
• Little Kids’ Area
• Sand Pit
• Climbing Wall
• Bus with a big heart :)
• Water Slide
• Movie Theater
• Basketball Court
iv. Kids’ Imagination Station
The Kids’ Imagination Station drawings filled the white board with inspiring, artful ideas for play at the park.
Below is a summary of the responses and a sample of a drawing from the Kids’ Imagination Station board:
Drawing submitted by Del Mar Youth
Image by Schmidt Design Group, Inc.
36 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 27
The City of Del Mar purchased the 5.3 acre Del Mar Shores property in 2008 with the intention of preserving open space and enhancing recreational uses in the City, as well as the continued operation of the Winston School. Currently, the Shores Park property offers a small Community Building which is leased and operated by Del Mar Foundation (and also houses the Del Mar Community Connections), and an open grassy field that is used for informal recreation and as an intermittent dog park.
In 2014, the City of Del Mar embarked upon a master planning process for Shores Park to create a long-range vision to guide the park’s future development. Based on a multi-faceted assessment of current and future needs, the master plan will identify the types of amenities and facilities that will be included in the park, the types of programs and activities it will support, as well as a plan for implementation.
A critical component of the master plan process is building a meaningful and lasting relationship with the community through ongoing community engagement. The community has been particularly engaged throughout the process which included a city-wide survey, interest group interviews, informal pop-up events, and a community workshop. The findings are summarized below into guiding principles and a preliminary list of possible amenities that will inform the next steps of the master plan process.
Community Workshop #1, “Plan Your Park” Event
Image by City of Del Mar
6SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
37 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 28
6.1 Guiding Principles
The depth and breadth of feedback
received during the “DISCOVER” phase
of the Shores Park master plan process
has been utilized to develop the following
Guiding Principles. Future design
alternatives will be evaluated in part by
how well they accomplish these goals.
• Provide a beautiful and peaceful
neighborhood park environment
that serves the residents of Del Mar.
• Create an inclusive space that
offers recreational opportunities for
all ages.
• Thoughtfully integrate the needs
and desires of residents visiting the
park with or without pets.
• Capture the dramatic views to the
Pacific Ocean.
• Provide a gardenesque park
setting that is environmentally and
economically sustainable. Community Workshop #1, “Plan Your Park” Event Image by City of Del Mar
• Integrate the activities, program, circulation, and recreational needs of the Winston School.
• Create a park that reflects the rich history, unique culture, and community character of Del Mar.
6.2 Potential Amenities
One goal of the “Discover” phase was to start to identify the types of amenities that Del Mar residents view as priorities for inclusion in Shores Park in the future. Potential amenities were collected at all stages of the community outreach process and will continue to be collected and refined throughout the master plan process. Not all amenities will be accommodated within the Shores Park site based on site constraints and community preferences; therefore, the potential amenities are grouped into three tiers 38 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 29
based on community feedback, prioritized from Tier 1 (highest priority) to Tier 3. Within each tier, the amenities are presented in alphabetical order. i. Tier I Potential Amenities
Based on recurring themes from all community outreach efforts, the community expressed a strong collective interest in the amenities identified below. Based on overwhelming consistent interest, these core elements should be incorporated in future design alternatives (not in priority order):
• Attractive gardens and landscaping (low water use/sustainable) • Benches for sitting, enjoying views, reading, meditating, etc. • Fully accessible for visitors with disabilities
• Furnishings such as trash and recycling receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks, etc. • Off-leash grassy areas for off-leash dog activities (not obvious or rigid fences) • Open turf for flexible play (required by lease with Winston School) • Indoor meeting/recreational community space
• Accommodate children’s activities
• Parking to meet code requirements
• Picnic area(s)
• Restroom
• Shade
• Walking paths
ii. Tier II Potential Amenities
In addition to the core list of Tier 1 amenities, there was also significant interest in other possible amenities that should be further evaluated for inclusion based upon community interest and space availability:
• Basketball half court
• Children’s playground
• General purpose room that can be used for community programming and activities (such as exercise classes, cooking classes, meetings, arts and culture, etc.) • Multi-purpose court (basketball/pickle ball/tennis etc.) • Outdoor fitness course
iii. Tier III Potential Amenities
In addition to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 amenities, there was also interest in other possible amenities that should be further evaluated for inclusion based upon community interest and space availability. This list of Tier 3 amenities is not comprehensive as it will continue to be refined throughout the process as new ideas are added by the community:
• Amphitheater
• Auditorium (joint-use with Winston School)
• Community garden
• Interpretive education (such as plant identification tags, educational signage, etc.) • Youth sports field (youth baseball/softball). This would primarily include a practice area that is not heavily programmed.
• Bocce ball
39 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 30
AAPPENDIX
40 September 8, 2025 Item 9
41 September 8, 2025 Item 9
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
42 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Table of Contents
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Household Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Age Composition of Del Mar Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Adult Recreation Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Most Frequent Adult Recreation Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Interest in Adult Recreation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Youth Recreation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Most Frequent Youth Recreation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Interest in Youth Recreation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Park Visitation & General Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Frequency of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Rating of Del Mar Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 How Well are Your Needs Being Met? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Desired Park & Open Space Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Specific Improvements Desired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Shores Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Frequency of Shores Park Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Reasons for not Visiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Familiarity with Amenities at Shores Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Desired Improvements for Shores Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Priority Amenities for Shores Park Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Anticipated Future Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 43 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Table of Contents
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 44 September 8, 2025 Item 9
List of Tables
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Interest in Adult Recreational Activities by Hsld Members (Showing% Very Interested) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2 Interest in Adult Recreational Activities by Frequency of Hsld Park, Open Space Visits (Showing % Very Interested) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 3 Interest in Child/Teen Activities by Hsld Members (Showing % Very Interested) . . . 14 Table 4 Shores Park Master Plan Priorities by Hsld Members (Showing% High Priority) . . . . 30 Table 5 Shores Park Master Plan Priorities by Child in Hsld & Frequency of Shores Park Visits (Showing% High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 45 September 8, 2025 Item 9
List of Figures
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Household Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Adult Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Adult Recreational Activities by Age of Adults in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Interest in Adult Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 5 Interest in Adult Recreational Activities by Frequency of Shores Park Visits (Showing % Very Interested) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 6 Child/Teen Recreational Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 7 Top Child/Teen Recreation Activities by Children in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 8 Interest in Child/Teen Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 9 Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 10 Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 11 Rating Aspects of Del Mar Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 12 Rating Safety of Del Mar Parks by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 13 Rating Safety of Del Mar Parks by Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits & Child Sports Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 14 Rating Appearance of Del Mar Parks by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 15 Rating Appearance of Del Mar Parks by Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits & Child Sports Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 16 Rating Overall Quality of Del Mar Parks by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 17 Rating Overall Quality of Del Mar Parks by Frequency of Parks, Open Space Visits & Child Sports Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 18 Rating Variety of Amenities at Del Mar Parks by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 19 Rating Variety of Amenities at Del Mar Parks by Frequency of Parks, Open Space Visits & Child Sports Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 20 Overall Parks, Rec Facilities Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 21 Overall Parks, Rec Facilities Rating by Hsld Members & Child in Hsld. . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 22 Overall Parks, Rec Facilities Rating by Visited City Park, Open Space Area, Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 23 Desire Park, Open Space Areas Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 24 Desire Park, Open Space Areas Improvements by Hsld Members & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 25 Desire Park, Open Space Areas Improvement by Visited City Park, Open Space Area, Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits & Home Ownership Status . . . . 23 Figure 26 Park, Open Space Areas Improvements Desired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 27 Frequency of Shores Park Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 28 Frequency of Shores Park Visits by Hsld Members, Child In Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 29 Reasons For Not Visiting Shores Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 30 Familiar With Shores Park Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 31 Familiarity With Shores Park Amenities by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Frequency of Shores Park Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 32 Shores Park Improvements Desired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 33 Shores Park Master Plan Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 34 Frequency of Future Shores Park Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 35 Frequency of Future Shores Park Visits by Hsld Members, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 46 September 8, 2025 Item 9
List of Figures
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Figure 36 Frequency of Future Shores Park Visits by Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits & Frequency of Shores Park Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 47 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Introduction
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I NTRODUCTION
Parks, open space areas, and recreational amenities are vital community resources. By providing much-needed spaces to recreate, relax and play, they help to promote a strong sense of commu-nity, improve property values, enhance the business climate and local economy, and generally contribute to a higher quality of life for residents and visitors alike.
Recognizing the above, in 2008 the City of Del Mar purchased the 5.3 acre Del Mar Shores prop-erty with the intention of preserving open space and recreational uses in the city, as well as the continued operation of the Winston School. Currently, the Shores Park property is used for infor-mal recreation and as an intermittent dog park, with limited amenities and no city-provided pro-gramming offered on the site.
In 2014, the City of Del Mar embarked upon a master planning process for Shores Park to create a long-range vision to guide the park’s future development. Based on a multi-faceted assessment of current and future needs, the plan will identify the types of amenities and facilities that will be included in the park, the types of programs and activities it will support, as well as a plan for implementation.
PURPOSE OF SURVEY Although the City Council, Shores Advisory Committee, staff, and consultants have played an important role in gathering data and organizing the master planning process, it was the desire of the City that the citizens of Del Mar be the true inspiration and authors of the plan. Thus, in addition to engaging residents through informal surveys, stake-holder meetings, and other outreach events, the City commissioned True North Research to con-duct a survey to gather statistically reliable data on the community’s priorities and opinions as they relate to Shores Park.
Broadly defined, the survey was designed to:
• Profile the recreation activities of interest to Del Mar residents • Identify the frequency with which residents visit Del Mar’s parks, open space areas and rec-reation facilities in general, as well as Shores Park in particular • Measure how well existing parks and facilities are meeting residents needs’, as well as the improvements that are most desired
• Capture residents’ top-of-mind ideas for how the Shores Park site can be improved, as well as how they prioritize among a variety of potential amenities that could be included in the park.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 33). In brief, a total of 402 Del Mar households participated in the survey between March 11 and April 12, 2015. All voter households in Del Mar were provided the opportunity to participate, with one voter per house-hold randomly selected to receive an invitation given that the questionnaire asked the respon-dent to report on the recreation interests and activities for all members of the household—adult and youth. Once selected, respondents were recruited to participate in the survey using a combi-nation of mailed invitation letters, emailed invitations, and telephone calls, and had the opportu-48 September 8, 2025 Item 9 Introduction
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 nity to participate in the survey by telephone or through a secure, password-protected website hosted by True North. Interviews conducted by telephone averaged 15 minutes in length.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro-vides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey given the research objec-tives that motivated the study. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is con-tained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 35) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A, which is bound separately.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the Del Mar City Council, staff, and Shores Advisory Committee, as well as Glen Schmidt and JT Barr of Schmidt Design Group, for contribut-ing valuable input during the design stage of this study. Their collective experience, insight, and local knowledge improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Del Mar. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific sur-veys, focus groups and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal pri-orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.
During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 900 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 300 studies for California municipalities and special districts. 49 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Key Findings
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to aid the City of Del Mar in preparing a master plan for Shores Park by providing a reliable understanding of the community’s use, inter-ests, opinions, and priorities as they pertain to Shores Park and its future development. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research.
What recreation activi-ties are of greatest inter-est to Del Mar residents?Operating from the philosophy that recreation activities create demand for specific recreation amenities and facilities, one of the goals of the study was to profile the recreation interests of—and activities engaged in by—Del Mar residents. Because interest in specific recreation activities is often age-dependent, the study distinguished between adult and youth activities.
Among the 16 adult recreation activities tested, Del Mar households expressed the greatest interest in walking, jogging, running or hiking (95%), followed by fitness and exercise classes (83%), quiet stationary activities such as reading or meditating (83%), outdoor picnics (79%), cooking (75%), yoga (75%), and gardening (72%). Other adult recreation activities of interest to at least half of Del Mar households included dance or theater (65%), swimming in a pool (63%), arts and crafts (61%), and walking a dog/visiting a dog park (54%). At the other end of the spectrum, less than one-third of Del Mar households expressed interest in adult volleyball (31%), basketball (27%), soccer (22%), softball (19%), or martial arts (18%).
Interest in youth recreation activities varied widely, from a low of 34% for softball to a high of 89% for walking, jogging, running or hiking. The rec-reation activities with the greatest level of interest among Del Mar youth were walking, jogging, running or hiking (89%), swimming in a pool (88%), dance or theater (68%), arts and crafts (66%), volleyball (66%), bas-ketball (65%), fitness and exercise classes (61%), soccer (58%), yoga (55%), skateboarding (55%), and walking dog/visiting a dog park (54%).
To what extent are resi-dents using Del Mar’s
parks and open space
areas?
The survey results indicate that a very high percentage of Del Mar resi-dents make regular use of the city’s parks and open space areas. Overall, more than nine-in-ten respondents (93%) reported that at least one mem-ber of their household had visited a park and/or open space area in Del Mar during the 12 months prior to the interview. Even more striking, more than half (61%) of households surveyed reported that they visit these recreation spaces in Del Mar on a weekly basis. As one might expect, visitation rates did vary substantially across household charac-teristics, with the highest rates being exhibited by households with at least one child or teenager.
50 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Key Findings
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 How well are Del Mar’s
parks and recreation
facilities meeting resi-dents’ needs?
The results of the survey indicate that the City’s existing inventory is doing a reasonable job of meeting the recreational needs of residents.
Overall, approximately six-in-ten respondents stated that the existing parks and recreational facilities are doing an excellent (18%) or good (45%) job in meeting their household’s recreational needs. An additional 27% provided a rating of fair, whereas 8% used poor or very poor to describe how well their needs are being met by the existing inventory. It is worth noting, however, that there was substantial variation in opinions on this matter across subgroups, with households with children and/or teenagers being far less apt than their counterparts to indicate that the existing parks and recreation facilities in Del Mar are doing an excellent or good job of meeting their recreation needs.
Drilling deeper into the survey data reveals some meaningful nuances with respect to how residents perceive the City’s parks. Del Mar’s parks received high marks for safety (93% excellent or good), appearance (89%), and overall quality (85%). With respect to the variety of amenities available in Del Mar’s parks, however, residents provided much more modest ratings (56% excellent or good).
What are residents’ pri-orities for the amenities
that may be included in
Shores Park?
The Shores Park master plan will identify the types of amenities and facil-ities that will be included in the park, the types of programs and activi-ties it will support, as well as a plan for implementation. One of the central goals of the survey described in this report was thus to identify the types of amenities that Del Mar residents view as priorities for inclu-sion in Shores Park in the future. It is clear from the survey results that residents have a strong interest in a park that is attractively landscaped, open, and supports passive uses in addition to select active uses.
The topic of desired amenities and improvements to Shores Park was approached in two different ways in the survey. The first simply asked respondents if there were any improvements they would like made to Shores Park and—if yes—to describe these changes in their own words.
Approximately one quarter (26%) of respondents indicated that they could not think of an improvement they desired for Shores Park, and an additional 9% stated flatly that no improvements were needed or desired.
Among the specific suggestions, providing a separate/dedicated dog park area and/or better hours for dog use at the Park was most common (17%), followed by a desire for beautification including more landscap-ing, trees and plants (12%), and additional benches and shaded seating areas (11%). At least five percent of respondents also expressed a desire for additional sports courts/athletic facilities (9%), fewer dogs/that dogs not be allowed in the Park (8%), improved parking and signage (7%), improved community center with more programs (6%), and additional playgrounds for all ages (6%).
51 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Key Findings
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Having captured respondents’ top-of-mind ideas using open-ended ques-tions, the survey next asked that they prioritize among 21 specific ame-nities that could be included in Shores Park under the master plan.
Among the 21 amenities tested, Del Mar residents assigned the highest priority to a public restroom (87% high or medium priority), followed by passive recreation facilities including picnic tables, barbecues and shaded seating (74%), paths for walking and jogging (71%), quiet spaces for reading, resting and meditation (65%), childrens playground equip-ment (64%), special purpose rooms for dance, aerobics, yoga and recre-ation programs (63%), an outdoor fitness course for adults (61%), and general purpose rooms that can be used for meetings and classes (58%). 52 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Household Profile
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
H OUSEHOLD P ROFILE
Interest in specific recreation activities, facilities and amenities is often age-dependent. A house-hold with young children is much more likely to express a need for playground equipment, for example, than a household that contains only adults. Seniors, meanwhile, are more likely to be interested in low-impact, passive recreation activities when compared to teenagers or young adults. Because the age-composition of a household can strongly shape the recreation interests and needs of its members, the initial question in the survey asked respondents to identify whether their household contains individuals in each of the age categories shown in Figure 1.
This question was also used to ensure that respondents were asked only those questions that were appropriate for their household.1
AGE COMPOSITION OF DEL MAR HOUSEHOLDS Figure 1 presents the age composi-tion of Del Mar households, with the percentage in each bar reflecting the percentage of house-holds that contained at least one individual in the specified age bracket. More than half of Del Mar households surveyed (52%) contained at least one senior, 40% included an adult between 50 and 64 years of age, whereas less than one-third (32%) contained an adult between 19 and 49 years of age. Reflecting the older demographic of the city, just 19% of participating Del Mar households indicated that they have a youth 18 years of age or younger in their household.
Among all households surveyed, 11% reported having one or more teenagers under 19, 8% one or more children between five and 12 years of age, while 4% reported having at least one child under the age of five.2
Question 1 Do you have _____ in your household?
FIGURE 1 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
1. Respondents who indicated their household did not include children or teenagers, for example, were not asked questions that focused on the interests of people in these age groups.
2. It should be noted that the resulting sample was strikingly similar to Census 2010 figures for the age com-position of Del Mar households, indicating that the participation rate was balanced and not disproportion-ately high or low on a factor (age) that is strongly related to interest in recreation activities/amenities.
31.7 40.3
51.6 19.3
11.2 8.0
3.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Child under
the age of 5
Child between
5 and 12
Teenager [Any child 18
or under]
Adult between
19 and 49
Adult between
50 and 64
Adult 65 or
older
% Households
53 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Adult Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A DULT R ECREATION A CTIVITIES
Operating from the philosophy that recreation activities create demand for specific recreation amenities and facilities, the survey opened by asking respondents to describe the recreation interests and activities engaged in by adult members of their household. Recreation was broadly defined for respondents to include play and exercise, as well as passive activities such as walk-ing, jogging, hobbies and picnicking.
MOST FREQUENT ADULT RECREATION ACTIVITIES The initial question in this series asked respondents to describe the types of recreation activities engaged in most often by adult members of their household. Question 2 was presented in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any activities that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2. Because respondents were allowed to men-tion multiple activities, the percentages shown in the figure reflect the percentage of respon-dents who mentioned the specified activity.
Question 2 Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often? By recreation, we mean play and exercise, as well as passive activities such as walking/jogging, hobbies, and picnicking. FIGURE 2 ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
1.2 1.7
1.7 1.8
2.0 2.5
2.5 2.8
2.9 3.5
3.7 4.1
4.5 6.9
7.2 7.3
8.1 10.7
10.9 13.3
13.7 14.2
15.3 16.4
18.4 74.0
15.1 3.4
3.9 0 1020304050607080
Cooking
Fishing
Kayaking
Attend social events, programs
Traveling
Basketball
Photography
Volleyball
Dining out
Arts, crafts
Dance, music, theater, movies
Do not engage in recreation activities
Beach activities, sports
Socializing with friends, family
Variety of sports
Yoga
Board games, cards, reading, meditating
Tennis
Gardening
Golf
Walking dog, visiting dog park
Go to park, beaches
Swimming
Exercise, gym
Picnic, BBQ
Hiking, nature walks
Surfing
Biking
Walking, jogging, running
% Households
54 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Adult Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Walking, jogging and running was by a large margin the most common recreation activity men-tioned in response to Question 2, being offered by 74% of respondents. Other commonly reported adult recreation activities included biking (18%), surfing (16%), hiking and nature walks (15%), picnics/BBQs (15%), exercise/gym (14%), swimming (14%), going to a park/beaches (13%), walking dog/visiting dog park (11%), and golf (11%). Just 4% of Del Mar households indicated that the adult members of their household do not engage in recreation activities.
For the interested reader, Figure 3 shows how the most frequently reported adult recreation activities varied among Del Mar households according to whether they included at least one adult in the 19-49, 50-64, and 65+ age categories. FIGURE 3 ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY AGE OF ADULTS IN HSLD INTEREST IN ADULT RECREATION ACTIVITIES Whereas Question 2 asked respon-dents to report the types of activities engaged in most often by adult members of their house-hold, Question 3 inquired as to the level of interest adult members of their household would have in each of the activities shown on the left of Figure 4. The order in which the activities were presented was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position-order bias, although they are sorted from high to low in Figure 4 based on the percentage of households that stated they were at least somewhat interested in the activity. 3 5 9 5 13 11
12 9
14 16
11 13
75 5
9 5
8 6
12 13
16 16
17 13
18 17
26 77
6 8
5 9
5 12
11 17
12 10
15 18
26 27
70 9
16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Variety of sports
Yoga
Board games, cards, reading, meditating
Tennis
Gardening
Golf
Walking dog, visiting dog park
Go to park, beaches
Swimming
Exercise, gym
Picnic, BBQ
Hiking, nature walks
Surfing
Biking
Walking, jogging, running
% Households
Adult 19~49
Adult 50~64
Adult 65+
55 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Adult Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 Next, I'm going to read a short list of recreation activities. For each that I read, please indicate whether one or more of the adults in your household would be very interested or somewhat interested in participating in the activity. If no adult in your household would be inter-ested in participating in the activity, just say so. FIGURE 4 INTEREST IN ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Among the 16 adult recreation activities tested, Del Mar households expressed the greatest interest in walking, jogging, running or hiking (95%), followed by fitness and exercise classes (83%), quiet stationary activities such as reading or meditating (83%), outdoor picnics (79%), cooking (75%), yoga (75%), and gardening (72%). Other adult recreation activities of interest to at least half of Del Mar households included dance or theater (65%), swimming in a pool (63%), arts and crafts (61%), and walking a dog/visiting a dog park (54%). At the other end of the spectrum, less than one-third of Del Mar households expressed interest in adult volleyball (31%), basketball (27%), soccer (22%), softball (19%), or martial arts (18%).
Tables 1-3 on the next page show how interest in each of the adult recreation activities tested in Question 3 varied according to the age composition of adults in the household, whether the household contained one or more youth, the frequency with which the household typically visits the parks, open space areas, and/or recreation facilities in Del Mar, as well as the frequency with which they visit Shores Park. To ease comparisons, the five activities that had the highest level of interest are highlighted in green for each subgroup.
4.8 8.7
8.5 11.3
42.6 22.1
34.6 31.0
35.3 38.5
38.0 43.9
53.2 50.4
81.7 14.4
14.0 13.4
18.9 20.0
11.6 39.3
28.0 34.0
36.4 36.0
36.5 35.4
29.3 32.6
12.9 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Martial arts
Softball
Soccer
Basketball
Volleyball
Walking dog or visiting a dog park
Arts and crafts
Swimming in a pool
Dance or theater
Gardening
Yoga
Cooking
Outdoor picnics
Quiet, stationary activities such as reading or meditating Fitness and exercise classes
Walking, jogging, running or hiking
% Households
Very interested Somewhat interested
56 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Adult Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 TABLE 1 INTEREST IN ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY HSLD MEMBERS (SHOWING% VERY INTERESTED) TABLE 2 INTEREST IN ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY FREQUENCY OF HSLD PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS (SHOWING % VERY INTERESTED)
FIGURE 5 INTEREST IN ADULT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY FREQUENCY OF SHORES PARK VISITS (SHOWING % VERY INTERESTED) Adult in Hsld
19~49
Adult in Hsld
50~64
Adult in Hsld
65+ Child in Hsld
No Child in
Hsld
Walking, jogging, running or hiking 90 85 75 93 79
Quiet, stationary activities such as reading or meditating 52 48 57 52 54 Fitness and exercise classes 55 55 47 61 49
Outdoor picnics 54 42 40 59 41
Walking dog or visiting a dog park 55 51 36 47 42
Yoga 46 43 31 53 35
Cooking 48 38 35 40 38
Gardening 28 36 41 30 37
Swimming in a pool 47 32 27 58 29
Dance or theater 30 33 31 36 30
Arts and crafts 26 22 21 27 21
Volleyball 20 15 7 24 8
Soccer 17 9 6 21 5
Basketball 15 11 4 23 4
Softball 11 5 2 10 4
Martial arts 10 3 2 8 4
Hsld Members (Q1)
At least 1x
/wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x /mo
Not in past
12 mo
Walking, jogging, running or hiking 87 85 81 56 61
Quiet, stationary activities such as reading or meditating 57 55 49 47 23 Fitness and exercise classes 55 55 50 26 36
Outdoor picnics 52 33 32 30 30
Walking dog or visiting a dog park 52 33 39 9 32
Yoga 43 35 26 34 31
Cooking 43 36 25 25 25
Gardening 36 49 36 12 17
Swimming in a pool 36 46 33 10 26
Dance or theater 32 35 37 15 21
Arts and crafts 23 28 19 17 11
Volleyball 13 7 4 14 9
Soccer 10 7 4 9 11
Basketball 10 9 3 7 0
Softball 64344
Martial arts 5 6 3 4 0
Frequency of Hsld Park, Open Space Visits (Q7)
At least 1x
/wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x /mo
Not in past
12 mo
Walking, jogging, running or hiking 91 85 77 83 75
Quiet, stationary activities such as reading or meditating 64 58 55 50 46 Fitness and exercise classes 55 57 47 55 44 Outdoor picnics 6648 3837 35 Walking dog or visiting a dog park 62 59 41 42 28
Yoga 42 51 34 43 33 Cooking 4234 4134 39
Gardening 38 38 36 38 32
Swimming in a pool 39 45 30 34 31
Dance or theater 34 44 28 27 28
Arts and crafts 25 26 19 23 20
Volleyball 107 25 149
Soccer9 15 1985
Basketball107158 7
Softball 90434
Martial arts66914
Frequency of Shores Park Visits (Q14)
57 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Youth Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Y OUTH R ECREATION A CTIVITIES In a manner similar to that described previously for adult recreation activities (see Adult Recre-ation Activities on page 7), the 19% of Del Mar households that reported having one or more youth under the age of 19 were asked to describe the recreation interests and activities engaged in by the children and/or teenagers in their household.
MOST FREQUENT YOUTH RECREATION ACTIVITIES Households with children and/or teenagers were first asked to describe the types of recreation activities engaged in most often by the youth in their household. Question 4 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allowed respondents the freedom to mention any activities that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 6. Because respon-dents were allowed to mention multiple activities, the percentages shown in the figure reflect the percentage of respondents who mentioned the specified activity.
Question 4 Thinking of the children and/or teenagers in your household, what recreation activities do they engage in most often? FIGURE 6 CHILD/TEEN RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
0.9 1.2
1.7 2.6
2.7 3.1
4.9 5.6
5.6 6.1
6.1 6.9
9.1 9.7
10.8 12.2
12.3 13.0
13.5 18.3
19.0 19.8
27.7 28.4
33.8 6.2
5.8 21.0
010 20 30 40
Softball
Board games, cards, video games
Not sure
Do not engage in recreation activities
Going to beach
Picnic, BBQ
Yoga
Exercise, gym
Hiking, nature walks
Reading, library
Arts, crafts
Walking dog, visiting dog park
Football
Martial arts
Baseball
Skateboarding
Volleyball
Beach activities, sports
Dance, music, theater
Visiting parks
Variety of sports in general
Tennis
Biking
Basketball
Walking, jogging, running
Surfing
Soccer
Swimming
% Households With at Least One Child
58 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Youth Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Swimming was the most frequently cited recreation activity engaged in by Del Mar youth, being mentioned by 34% of households with one or more members under the age of 19. Other com-monly reported youth recreation activities included soccer (28%), surfing (28%), walking, jogging or running (21%), basketball (20%), biking (19%), and tennis (18%).
Figure 7 shows how the most frequently reported youth recreation activities varied among Del Mar households according to whether they included at least one youth in the 0-4, 5-12, and 13- 18 age categories. FIGURE 7 TOP CHILD/TEEN RECREATION ACTIVITIES BY CHILDREN IN HSLD INTEREST IN YOUTH RECREATION ACTIVITIES Having measured the types of activi-ties engaged in most often by Del Mar youth, Question 5 inquired as to the level of interest youth members of the respondent’s household would have in each of the activities shown on the left of Figure 8. The activities are sorted from high to low in the figure based on the percentage of households that stated they were at least somewhat interested in the activity.
Interest in youth recreation activities varied widely, from a low of 34% for softball to a high of 89% for walking, jogging, running or hiking. The recreation activities with the greatest level of interest among Del Mar youth were walking, jogging, running or hiking (89%), swimming in a pool (88%), dance or theater (68%), arts and crafts (66%), volleyball (66%), basketball (65%), fit-ness and exercise classes (61%), soccer (58%), yoga (55%), skateboarding (55%), and walking dog/visiting a dog park (54%). 0
2 3
12 17
13 0
12 18
14 31
18 29
17 13
18 15
9 13
18 18
17 23
32 13
34 37
36 5
18 13
0 7
9 35
9 21
29 12
11 6
38 42
12 32
0 10 20 30 40 50
Martial arts
Baseball
Skateboarding
Volleyball
Beach activities, sports
Dance, music, theater
Visiting parks
Variety of sports in general
Tennis
Biking
Basketball
Walking, jogging, running
Surfing
Soccer
Swimming
% Households With at Least One Child
Child under 5 in Hsld
Child 5~12 in Hsld
Teen in Hsld
59 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Youth Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 5 Next, I'm going to read a short list of recreation activities. For each that I read, please indicate whether one or more of the children or teenagers in your household would be very interested or somewhat interested in participating in the activity. If no child or teenager in your household would be interested in participating in the activity, just say so. FIGURE 8 INTEREST IN CHILD/TEEN ACTIVITIES Table 3 on the next page shows how interest in each of the youth recreation activities tested in Question 5 varied according to the age composition of youth in the household. To ease compar-isons, the five activities that had the highest level of interest are highlighted in green for each subgroup.
13.8 18.3
10.6 27.1
36.9 29.2
21.0 36.2
33.2 30.0
25.2 39.2
28.7 70.6
55.0 25.6
22.8 21.8
30.2 14.4
16.9 25.8
34.1 21.8
27.9 34.9
40.3 27.1
39.6 17.2
34.2 8.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Softball
Baseball
Lacrosse
Martial arts
Football
Walking dog or visiting a dog park
Skateboarding
Yoga
Soccer
Fitness & exercise classes
Basketball
Volleyball
Arts and crafts
Dance or theater
Swimming in a pool
Walking, jogging, running or hiking
% Households With at Least One Child
Very interested Somewhat interested
60 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Youth Recreation Activities
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLE 3 INTEREST IN CHILD/TEEN ACTIVITIES BY HSLD MEMBERS (SHOWING % VERY INTERESTED) Child under 5
in Hsld
Child 5~12 in
Hsld Teen in Hsld
Swimming in a pool 75 82 60
Walking, jogging, running or hiking 63 51 60
Arts and crafts 56 58 27
Walking dog or visiting a dog park 33 28 43
Soccer 64 52 29
Fitness & exercise classes 21 21 48
Basketball 41 45 28
Skateboarding 33 50 23
Dance or theater 29 26 27
Football 45 33 25
Volleyball 33 22 29
Yoga 15 14 31
Lacrosse 24 22 18
Baseball 51 21 5
Martial arts 22 25 5
Softball 27 14 7
Hsld Members (Q1)
61 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
P ARK V ISITATION & G ENERAL
P ERCEPTIONS
Having measured the recreation activities of interest to Del Mar residents, the survey transi-tioned to measuring residents’ use of Del Mar parks and open space areas in general, profiling their opinions about how well these existing resources meet their household’s recreation needs, and exploring their ideas for how parks and open space areas in the city could be improved. The questions in this section were purposely broad, applying to all parks and open space areas in the City of Del Mar with the exception of local beaches. Questions specific to Shores Park followed these general questions and are detailed in the next section of this report (see Shores Park on page 25).
FREQUENCY OF USE Questions 6 and 7 were designed to measure household use of Del Mar’s parks and open space areas. Respondents were asked whether one or more members of their household had visited a Del Mar park or open space area in the 12 months prior to the interview and—if yes—how frequently their household typically visits these resources in Del Mar.
The answers to both of these questions are combined in Figure 9.
Question 6 Not including local beaches, have you or anyone else in your household visited a city park or open space area in Del Mar during the past 12 months? Question 7 How frequently do you or other members of your household typically visit the parks or open space areas in Del Mar? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month?
FIGURE 9 FREQUENCY OF PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS
Overall, more than nine-in-ten respondents (93%) reported that at least one member of their household had visited a park and/or open space area in Del Mar during the 12 months prior to the interview. With respect to frequency of visits, 61% reported that their household visits a park or open space area in Del Mar at least once per week, 17% indicated they do so two to three times per month, 7% visit once per month, whereas 8% indicated that they visit a Del Mar park or open space area less often than once per month.
Not sure
1.0 <1x / mo
8.0 2-3x /mo
17.0 At least 1x /wk
60.5 Not in past
12 mo
6.1 1x /mo
7.4 62 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 For the interested reader, Figure 10 shows how frequency of visiting a Del Mar park or open space area varied according to the age composition of the household, whether they have at least one child or teenager in the home, and home ownership status.
FIGURE 10 FREQUENCY OF PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS RATING OF DEL MAR PARKS All respondents (regardless of frequency of visitation) were next asked to rate the safety, appearance, and overall quality of Del Mar’s parks, as well as the variety of amenities available in the parks, using a using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 11, Del Mar’s parks received high marks for safety (93% excellent or good), appearance (89%), and overall quality (85%). With respect to the variety of amenities available in Del Mar’s parks, however, residents provided much more modest rat-ings (56%). For the interested reader, Figures 12-22 on the following pages illustrate how opin-ions about Del Mar’s parks on each of these performance dimensions varied across resident subgroups.
Question 8 In general, how do you rate the:_____ Del Mar's parks? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 11 RATING ASPECTS OF DEL MAR PARKS
60.9 57.2
74.8 57.5 60.6 63.1
17.1 16.8
13.1 18.5 17.0 16.8
4.5 11.2 7.3
7.2 8.5
7.4 7.7 8.6 2.7
77.1 76.0 73.4 67.3
18.3 15.5 8.8
14.6 4.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Child under
5 Child 5~12 Teen Adult 19~49 Adult 50~64 Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Home Ownership Status (QD3)
% Households
At least 1x /wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo
14.6 32.8
37.6 47.1
41.7 51.7
50.9 45.6
35.3 14.3
10.4 6.1
1 1
2 1
6.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Variety of amenities [96%]
Overall quality [98%]
Appearance [99%]
Safety [97%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor
63 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURE 12 RATING SAFETY OF DEL MAR PARKS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 13 RATING SAFETY OF DEL MAR PARKS BY FREQUENCY OF PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS & CHILD SPORTS
PARTICIPATION
50.1 50.1
39.0 49.7 46.5 51.9
43.6 41.5
54.5 43.0 47.6 36.9
41.8 46.7
30.4 Excellent
26.8 58.1
53.3 51.7
Good
59.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Child
under 5
Child 5~12 Teen Adult
19~49
Adult
50~64
Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent
Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
38.9 34.7
49.1 49.6 56.5
43.9 Excellent
44.5 54.9 60.4
41.2 Good
48.5 51.3
36.3 36.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
At least 1x /wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past 12 mo
Yes No / No child
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Child Sports Participation (QD1) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
64 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 FIGURE 14 RATING APPEARANCE OF DEL MAR PARKS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS FIGURE 15 RATING APPEARANCE OF DEL MAR PARKS BY FREQUENCY OF PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS & CHILD SPORTS
PARTICIPATION
39.9 40.1
29.9 39.6 39.0 34.9
50.9 48.2
56.7 49.1 49.6 57.6
Excellent
25.6 23.3 29.4 34.5
Good
69.8 58.9 51.6
58.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Child
under 5
Child 5~12 Teen Adult
19~49
Adult
50~64
Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent
Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
28.8 26.8
39.2 62.1 62.0
49.2 38.6 33.2 39.6 Excellent
38.0 44.3 61.1 49.4 Good
50.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
At least 1x /wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past 12 mo
Yes No / No child
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Child Sports Participation (QD1) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
65 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 16 RATING OVERALL QUALITY OF DEL MAR PARKS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 17 RATING OVERALL QUALITY OF DEL MAR PARKS BY FREQUENCY OF PARKS, OPEN SPACE VISITS & CHILD
SPORTS PARTICIPATION
35.0 36.7
14.9 37.9 33.9 29.8
52.3 49.9
61.4 48.4 51.9 53.1
Excellent
10.0 8.2
17.7 26.6
Good
58.7 52.2
57.7 65.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Child
under 5
Child 5~12 Teen Adult
19~49
Adult
50~64
Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent
Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
33.3 15.0
35.9 49.3
59.6 50.3
Excellent 36.8 36.9 37.0
30.2 Good 47.5 49.7 49.6
53.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
At least 1x /wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past 12 mo
Yes No / No child
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Child Sports Participation (QD1) % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
66 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FIGURE 18 RATING VARIETY OF AMENITIES AT DEL MAR PARKS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME
OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 19 RATING VARIETY OF AMENITIES AT DEL MAR PARKS BY FREQUENCY OF PARKS, OPEN SPACE VISITS & CHILD
SPORTS PARTICIPATION
HOW WELL ARE YOUR NEEDS BEING MET? The next question in this series asked residents to rate how well the existing parks and recreation facilities in Del Mar perform in meet-ing their household’s recreation needs using the scale of excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor.
As shown in Figure 20 on the next page, most residents gave a positive assessment in response to Question 9, with 18% providing a rating of excellent and 45% providing a rating of good. An additional 27% indicated that the parks and recreation facilities in Del Mar do a fair job of meet-ing their household’s recreation needs. Overall, approximately 8% used poor or very poor to describe how well their needs are being met by the existing inventory, and 3% were unsure.
16.2 18.0
6.8 16.4 17.2
5.1 39.9 43.2
33.5 44.2 40.7
46.2 9.8 7.6 10.8
Excellent
0.0 19.1
32.4 36.8 Good
44.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Child
under 5
Child 5~12 Teen Adult
19~49
Adult
50~64
Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent
Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD3)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
11.9 8.1 15.8
57.3 31.1
43.3 20.3 17.1 15.6 Excellent
13.6 22.3
36.3 Good 39.5
45.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
At least 1x
/wk
2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past
12 mo
Yes No / No child
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Child Sports Participation (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
67 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figures 21 and 22 display how respondents varied in their assessments of how well Del Mar’s existing parks and recreation facilities are meeting the recreation needs of their households. As shown in the figures, households with children and/or teenagers were far less apt than their counterparts to indicate that the existing parks and recreation facilities in Del Mar are doing an excellent or good job of meeting their recreation needs.
Question 9 Take a moment to think about your household's recreation needs. Do the existing parks and recreation facilities in Del Mar do an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of meeting your household's recreation needs?
FIGURE 20 OVERALL PARKS, REC FACILITIES RATING
FIGURE 21 OVERALL PARKS, REC FACILITIES RATING BY HSLD MEMBERS & CHILD IN HSLD Fair
27.0 Very poor
1.3 Excellent
17.5 Good
45.1 Poor
6.2 Prefer not to
answer
0.2 Not sure
2.8 20.5 17.2
8.8 20.4
44.4 49.3
30.2 49.7
15.0 11.1 5.6
Excellent
0.0 18.1
34.1 41.1
Good
37.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Child under
5 Child 5~12 Teen Adult 19~49 Adult 50~64 Adult 65+ Yes No Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
68 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 22 OVERALL PARKS, REC FACILITIES RATING BY VISITED CITY PARK, OPEN SPACE AREA, FREQUENCY OF PARK,
OPEN SPACE VISITS & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
DESIRED PARK & OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS Respondents were next asked if there are any improvements they would like made to parks and/or open space areas in Del Mar.
Two-thirds of all respondents (67%) answered Question 12 in the affirmative (Figure 23). More-over, as shown in Figures 24 and 25, some respondents were substantially more likely than oth-ers to perceive a need for improvements—most notably households with youth, those who had visited a park or open space area in Del Mar in the 12 months prior to the interview, and high fre-quency visitors.
Question 10 Thinking of parks and open space areas in Del Mar, are there any improvements that you would like to see?
FIGURE 23 DESIRE PARK, OPEN SPACE AREAS IMPROVEMENTS
13.6 19.3 23.5 18.5 15.8
40.7 64.3 55.7
46.1 50.6
Excellent
17.8 23.5 19.0 13.9
Good
45.7 36.7
46.4 55.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Yes No At least 1x
/wk
2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past
12 mo
Own Rent
Visited City Park, Open
Space Area (Q6)
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Home Ownership Status (QD3)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Prefer not to
answer
0.2 No changes
desired
23.2 Desired park,
open space
changes
66.5 Not sure
10.1 69 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 24 DESIRE PARK, OPEN SPACE AREAS IMPROVEMENTS BY HSLD MEMBERS & CHILD IN HSLD FIGURE 25 DESIRE PARK, OPEN SPACE AREAS IMPROVEMENT BY VISITED CITY PARK, OPEN SPACE AREA, FREQUENCY OF
PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED Respondents who indicated that they desired improvements to parks and open space areas in Del Mar were next asked to briefly describe the improvements they most want. Question 11 was posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allow-ing respondents the opportunity to mention any changes that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verba-tim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 26. The percentage results shown in the figure have been calculated to represent the percentage of all respondents who suggested a particular change.
66.5 63.2
85.2 61.6
72.7 82.5
91.3 93.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Child under 5 Child 5~12 Teen Adult 19~49 Adult 50~64 Adult 65+ Yes No Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1)
% Respondents
56.9 48.1
36.4 68.4 65.9 66.7
36.4 71.9 73.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No At least 1x
/wk
2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past
12 mo
Own Rent
Visited City Park, Open
Space Area (Q6)
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Home Ownership Status (QD3)
% Respondents
70 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 11 Please briefly describe the improvements you would most want to see in Del Mar's parks and open space areas.
FIGURE 26 PARK, OPEN SPACE AREAS IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED
The improvement suggested most often in response to Question 11 was adding or improving dog parks/expanding hours for dog parks (13%), followed by providing additional classes, activi-ties and programs for people of all ages (7%), walking trails (7%), restrooms (6%), sports courts/ athletic facilities (6%), parking (5%), and picnic areas (5%).
0.2 0.3
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.7
1.9 2.2
2.3 2.8
2.8 3.3
4.2 4.5
4.5 4.5
4.7 5.0
5.4 5.9
6.1 6.6
6.9 12.8
5.1 1.6
2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Reduce fees (parking, classes, courts, camping, parties) Reduce traffic congestion
Add, improve park safety, security
Develop additional golf courses
Provide additional parks, rec, programs info
Provide additional bike lanes, paths, network
Build community garden
Offer more events, entertainment
Construct additional tennis courts
Prefer not to answer
Better lighting at parks (courts, trails, bathrooms)
Provide larger parks
Provide additional sidewalks
Construct amphitheater
Provide water fountains, vending stands
Expand Community Center
Enforce leash laws
Provide additional shaded areas, tarps, trees
Build additional pools
More open space, less development
Provide additional tables, sitting areas, benches
Provide additional playgrounds for all ages
Improve landscaping, safe insecticides, organic fertilizer Improve facility cleaning, maintenance
Provide picnic areas
Provide additional parking
Provide additional sport courts, athletic facilities
Provide additional restrooms
Develop additional walking trails
Provide additional classes, activities, programs for all ages Add, improve dog parks, facility hours
% Respondents
71 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
S HORES P ARK
Whereas the questions in the prior section explored residents’ use and opinions of Del Mar’s parks and open space areas in general, at this point the survey narrowed to focus on Shores Park in particular. In addition to measuring prior visitation to Shores Park, reasons for not visiting the park (where applicable), and familiarity with the park, the survey explored the specific improve-ments residents most desire at this site and identified which amenities they feel should be prior-ities for inclusion in the Shores Park master plan.
FREQUENCY OF SHORES PARK VISIT Questions 12 and 14 were designed to measure household use of Shores Park. Respondents were asked whether one or more members of their household had visited Shores Park in the 12 months prior to the interview and—if yes—how fre-quently their household typically visits the park. The answers to both of these questions are combined in Figure 27.
Question 12 Have you or anyone else in your household visited Shores Park in Del Mar during the past 12 months?
Question 14 How frequently do you or other members of your household typically visit Shores Park? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month?
FIGURE 27 FREQUENCY OF SHORES PARK VISITS
Overall, more than half of respondents (62%) reported that at least one member of their house-hold had visited Shores Park during the 12 months prior to the interview. With respect to fre-quency of visits, 24% reported that their household visits Shores Park at least once per week, 9% indicated they do so two to three times per month, 9% visit once per month, whereas 21% indi-cated that they visit Shores Park less often than once per month.
For the interested reader, Figure 28 on the next page shows how frequency of visiting Shores Park varied according to the age composition of the household, whether they have at least one child or teenager in the home, and home ownership status. 1x /mo
8.5 Not in past 12 mo
36.9 At least 1x /wk
23.6 2-3x /mo
9.2 <1x / mo
20.5 Not sure
1.3 72 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FIGURE 28 FREQUENCY OF SHORES PARK VISITS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS REASONS FOR NOT VISITING Just over one-third of Del Mar households (37%) indicated that no member of their household had visited Shores Park in the 12 months prior to the inter-view. For respondents in this subgroup, the survey inquired as to whether there was a particular reason for their behavior. Question 13 was asked in an open-ended manner to allow respondents the opportunity to mention any reason that came to mind without prompting or restriction. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig-ure 29.
Question 13 Is there a particular reason that your household hasn't regularly visited Shores Park?
FIGURE 29 REASONS FOR NOT VISITING SHORES PARK
26.1 24.2
30.5 22.8 24.3 22.8
8.2 10.1
11.3 8.3 9.6
6.7 17.1
14.3 10.5
6.5 6.8
14.4 6.7
7.7 11.0
26.4 34.8
28.6 21.5
9.4 12.8
10.3 8.7
16.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Child under
5 Child 5~12 Teen Adult 19~49 Adult 50~64 Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q3) Home Ownership Status (QD3)
% Households
1x /mo
2-3x /mo
At least 1x /wk
1.1 5.6
5.8 6.5
8.3 9.9
11.6 17.4
41.2 0 10 2030 4050
Not well maintained
No desire, not appealing
Oriented to young kids, sports
Prefer other parks
Never heard of it
Location, accessibility
More of a dog park, do not have dog
Nothing to do there, no facilities
No particular reason
% Respondents Without Shores Park Visit in Past 12 Months 73 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The most common response when asked why they have not visited Shores Park was there was no particular reason (41%), followed by a perception that there is nothing to do at the site/no facili-ties (17%), that it is more of a dog park and they do not have a dog (12%), or the location of the park/accessibility is an issue (10%).
FAMILIARITY WITH AMENITIES AT SHORES PARK Regardless of whether or not they had visited Shores Park in the prior year, all respondents were next asked to indicate how familiar they were with the amenities that are currently available at the park.
Question 15 How familiar are you with the amenities that are currently available at Shores Park in Del Mar? Would you say you are very familiar, somewhat familiar, slightly familiar, or not at all familiar with the amenities in the park?
FIGURE 30 FAMILIAR WITH SHORES PARK AMENITIES
The majority of Del Mar residents indi-cated they were either very familiar (33%) or somewhat familiar (23%) with the ame-nities available at Shores Park, whereas an additional 13% stated they were slightly
familiar. Just over one-quarter of residents
surveyed (28%) confided that they were not
at all familiar with the amenities currently
available at Shores Park, and 3% were
unsure (Figure 30). Figure 31 shows how
familiarity with the amenities currently
available at Shores Park varied across sub-groups of Del Mar households.
FIGURE 31 FAMILIARITY WITH SHORES PARK
AMENITIES BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & FREQUENCY OF SHORES PARK VISITS Not at all familiar
27.9 Somewhat familiar
22.5 Very familiar
33.2 Not sure
2.9 Slightly familiar
13.4 35.4 33.6
48.3 28.8
78.2 44.8
21.6 24.5
9.5 20.1 20.8
23.6 22.0
13.5 44.0
43.7 31.2
13.2 40.0
52.8 51.8
35.4 24.1
23.9 25.3 18.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Child
under 5
Child
5~12
Teen Adult
19~49
Adult
50~64
Adult
65+
Yes No At least
1x /wk
2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in
past 12
mo
Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Frequency of Shores Park Visits (Q14) % Households
Somewhat familiar
Very familiar
74 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS FOR SHORES PARK In an open-ended manner similar to that described previously, all respondents were next afforded the opportunity to identify up to three specific improvements that they would most like to see at Shores Park. Because multiple responses were allowed for Question 16, the percentages displayed in Figure 32 represent the percentage of respondents who mentioned the designated improvement.
Question 16 If you could improve up to three aspects of Shores Park in Del Mar, what improve-ments would you most want to see? FIGURE 32 SHORES PARK IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED
Approximately one quarter (26%) of respondents indicated that they could not think of an improvement they desired for Shores Park, and an additional 9% stated flatly that no improve-ments were needed or desired. Among the specific suggestions, providing a separate/dedicated dog park area and/or better hours for dog use at the Park was most common (17%), followed by a desire for beautification including more landscaping, trees and plants (12%), and additional benches and shaded seating areas (11%).
At least five percent of respondents also expressed a desire for additional sports courts/athletic facilities (9%), fewer dogs/that dogs not be allowed in the Park (8%), improved parking and sig-nage (7%), improved community center with more programs (6%), and additional playgrounds for all ages (6%).
0.6 1.0
1.1 1.8
1.9 2.3
2.4 2.4
2.6 3.6
3.6 4.3
4.3 4.3
5.5 6.4
6.6 7.6
8.6 9.3
11.3 11.6
25.7 3.7
3.5 16.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Improve lighting
Relocate Alvarado House
Add tennis courts
Prefer not to answer
Use safe pesticides, organic fertilizer
Provide an amphitheater for events
Improve advertisement, park info
Build a pool
Build community garden
Improve facility cleaning, maintenance
Improve sports fields
Develop additional walking trails
Provide additional classes, activities, programs for all ages Provide picnic areas
Provide additional restrooms
Provide additional water fountains
Provide additional playgrounds for all ages
Expand community center for more programs
Improve parking, signage
Fewer, no dogs allowed
Provide additional sports courts, athletic facilities
No improvements desired
Provide additional benches, shaded areas
Beautify park, additional landscape, trees, plants
Provide separate, dedicated dog area, better hours
Not sure, cannot think of any
% Respondents
75 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 PRIORITY AMENITIES FOR SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN Whereas Question 16 asked respondents in an open-ended manner to describe the improvements they desire for Shores Park, Question 17 asked that they prioritize among 21 specific amenities that could be included in Shores Park under the master plan. The format of the question was straightforward:
after informing respondents that the City is in the process of developing a master plan for Shores Park and must prioritize among amenities due to the small size of the park and a limited budget, respondents were asked whether each amenity shown in Figure 33 should be a high, medium, or low priority for inclusion—or if the amenity should not be included in the park. To avoid a systematic position bias, the amenities were tested in a random order for each respon-dent.
Question 17 The City of Del Mar is in the process of creating a Master Plan for Shores Park to guide long term improvements to the park. The Master Plan will be a "blue print” for the future that identifies the types of amenities that may be included in the park, and the types of activities it will support. As I read each of the following amenities, I'd like you to indicate whether you think the amenity should be a high, medium or low priority for inclusion in Shores Park. If you think the amenity should not be included in the park, just say so. Please keep in mind that due to the small size of the park and a limited budget, not all amenities can be high priorities.
FIGURE 33 SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES
10.9 9.7
22.7 23.0
19.4 21.7
19.3 24.4
37.3 22.0
23.8 23.5
25.9 26.8
30.9 36.6
32.5 48.0
46.3 65.7
9.2 21.0
26.1 15.5
20.2 25.3
24.9 27.6
25.4 13.6
30.3 28.9
30.6 32.2
34.5 32.4
27.0 32.1
23.4 27.4
21.0 2.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Outdoor rink for sports like roller hockey and arena soccer A kitchen for professional cooking demonstrations, cooking classes Bocce Ball Court
Aquatic Center or Community Pool
Lights on sports courts so they can be used at night.
Fitness center with a variety of exercise equipment
Sports fields for soccer, football or lacrosse
Sports fields for softball
Sports fields for little league baseball
Off-leash dog park
Outdoor amphitheater
Community garden
Outdoor courts for sports like basketball and tennis
General purpose rooms that can be used for meetings and classes Outdoor fitness course for adults
Special purpose rooms for dance, aerobics, yoga, recreation programs Children’s playground equipment
Quiet spaces for reading, resting and meditation
Paths for walking and jogging
Passive rec facilities, picnic tables, barbecues and shaded seating Public restroom
Q17hQ17p Q17t Q17a Q17i Q17l Q17bQ17d Q17c Q17q Q17r Q17s Q17gQ17mQ17e Q17n Q17k Q17u Q17f Q17o Q17j % Respondents
High priority Medium priority
76 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The amenities are sorted in Figure 33 from high to low based on the proportion of respondents who indicated that an amenity was at least a medium priority for inclusion. Among the amenities tested, Del Mar residents assigned the highest priority to a public restroom (87% high or medium priority), followed by passive recreation facilities including picnic tables, barbecues and shaded seating (74%), paths for walking and jogging (71%), quiet spaces for reading, resting and medita-tion (65%), childrens playground equipment (64%), special purpose rooms for dance, aerobics, yoga and recreation programs (63%), an outdoor fitness course for adults (61%), and general pur-pose rooms that can be used for meetings and classes (58%).
At the other end of the spectrum, an outdoor rink for sports like roller hockey and arena soccer (11%), a kitchen for professional cooking demonstrations and cooking classes (32%), a bocce ball court (36%), and an Aquatic Center or community pool (38%) were viewed as much lower priori-ties.
For the interested reader, Tables 4 and 5 show how the percentage who assigned each amenity high priority status varied across subgroups of Del Mar households. The amenities that had the highest percentage of respondents assign a high priority rating in each subgroup are highlighted in green to ease comparisons.
TABLE 4 SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES BY HSLD MEMBERS (SHOWING% HIGH PRIORITY) Child under 5 Child 5~12 Teen Adult 19~49 Adult 50~64 Adult 65+ Public restroom 75 69 68 61 61 66
Paths for walking and jogging 36 48 53 45 45 48
Passive rec facilities, picnic tables, barbecues and shaded seating 52 72 53 49 49 48 Off-leash dog park 35 27 37 41 41 33
Children’s playground equipment 66 59 36 45 45 34
Quiet spaces for reading, resting and meditation 15 19 29 28 28 33 Special purpose rooms for dance, aerobics, yoga, recreation programs 37 33 30 29 29 31 Outdoor fitness course for adults 15 26 37 26 26 28
General purpose rooms that can be used for meetings and classes 5 25 1520 2032 Sports fields for little league baseball 32 28 20 17 17 30 Community garden 17 33 29 24 24 23
Outdoor courts for sports like basketball and tennis 45 73 50 35 35 16 Lights on sports courts so they can be used at night. 35 40 43 37 37 14 Aquatic Center or Community Pool 54 43 35 33 33 17
Outdoor amphitheater 31 23 22 28 28 21
Sports fields for soccer, football or lacrosse 57 50 42 31 31 16 Fitness center with a variety of exercise equipment 18 13 22 21 21 18 Sports fields for softball 11 21 19 15 15 23
A kitchen for professional cooking demonstrations, cooking classes - 18 14 12 12 11 Bocce Ball Court 5 6 22 16 16 4
Outdoor rink for sports like roller hockey and arena soccer 9 15 3 5 5 0 Hsld Members (Q1)
77 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 TABLE 5 SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES BY CHILD IN HSLD & FREQUENCY OF SHORES PARK VISITS (SHOWING% HIGH PRIORITY)
ANTICIPATED FUTURE USE The final question in this series was designed to measure the impact that an improved Shores Park would have on visitation to the site. If Shores Park were to include some of the amenities that respondents personally identified as being a high priority, more than half (53%) indicated that their household would visit the park weekly, 23% would visit two to three times per month, and 9% offered that their household would visit the park once per month. Even if the park were to include some of the amenities the respondent identified as being a high priority, 7% indicated they would visit Shores Park less often than once per month, 5% would not visit the park, and 3% were unsure. Figures 35 and 36 show how anticipated future use of Shores Park varied across subgroups of Del Mar households Question 18 If Shores Park were to include some of the amenities that you identified previously as being a high priority, how frequently would you and other members of your household visit Shores Park? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or would you not visit Shores Park? FIGURE 34 FREQUENCY OF FUTURE SHORES PARK VISITS
Yes No
At least 1x
/wk 2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x /mo
Not in past
12 mo
Public restroom 69 66 65 60 59 69 68
Paths for walking and jogging 48 49 54 54 38 48 45
Passive recreation facilities including picnic tables, barbecues and shade 56 45 57 51 40 46 41 Off-leash dog park 34 39 62 49 32 37 20
Children’s playground equipment 5133 3648 3440 33
Quiet spaces for reading, resting and meditation 25 35 48 26 24 28 29 Special purpose rooms to be used for dance, aerobics, yoga, recreation 33 31 37 29 24 33 27 Outdoor fitness course for adults 29 27 30 31 14 27 26
General purpose rooms that can be used for meetings and classes 17 29 34 26 17 26 21 Sports fields for little league baseball 24 24 24 20 29 29 23 Community garden 31 22 24 37 29 20 23
Outdoor courts for sports like basketball and tennis 53 16 27 19 31 27 19 Lights on sports courts so they can be used at night. 42 19 24 23 32 29 18 Aquatic Center or Community Pool 43 17 21 18 26 29 21
Outdoor amphitheater 25 22 27 19 21 19 21
Sports fields for soccer, football or lacrosse 44 15 25 29 40 21 15 Fitness center with a variety of exercise equipment 20 20 26 27 5 22 15 Sports fields for softball 18 20 24 11 27 18 17
A kitchen for professional cooking demonstrations and cooking classes 14 11 17 16 14 11 5 Bocce Ball Court 15 9 15 8 14 11 6
Outdoor rink for sports like roller hockey and arena soccer 8 1 3 3 8 0 2 Child in Hsld (Q1) Frequency of Shores Park Visits (Q14) Not sure
2.9 <1x / mo
6.9 2-3x /mo
23.1 At least 1x /wk
53.2 No visits
4.5 1x /mo
9.4 78 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 FIGURE 35 FREQUENCY OF FUTURE SHORES PARK VISITS BY HSLD MEMBERS, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
FIGURE 36 FREQUENCY OF FUTURE SHORES PARK VISITS BY FREQUENCY OF PARK, OPEN SPACE VISITS & FREQUENCY OF
SHORES PARK VISITS
62.1 48.6
72.5 50.4 53.5 58.7
23.5 23.2
21.9 24.6 24.1
23.3 0.0
4.5 7.1 7.0
11.4 3.9
10.7 10.6 5.6
75.2 79.6
66.3 60.5
18.3 25.2
26.3 20.4
6.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Child under
5 Child 5~12 Teen Adult 19~49 Adult 50~64 Adult 65+ Yes No Own Rent Hsld Members (Q1) Child in Hsld (Q1) Home Ownership Status (QD3)
% Households
1x /mo
2-3x /mo
At least 1x /wk
15.6 93.0
64.0 52.3 45.2
33.7 23.3
5.3 36.0
27.4 33.4
26.0 9.5
18.6 6.5
15.5 1.7 0.0
16.5 11.3
15.2 20.2
30.1 40.6
69.9 47.3
44.9 28.0
14.2 8.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
At least 1x
/wk
2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past
12 mo
At least 1x
/wk
2-3x /mo 1x /mo <1x / mo Not in past
12 mo
Frequency of Park, Open Space Visits (Q7) Frequency of Shores Park Visits (Q14) % Households
1x /mo
2-3x /mo
At least 1x /wk
79 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Methodology
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the Del Mar City Council, staff, and Shores Advisory Committee—as well as Schmidt Design Group—to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many pos-sible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple indi-vidual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.
Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated that their household contains one or more children/ teenagers (Question 1) were asked to describe the recreation activities engaged in by the youth in their household (Question 4). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 35) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct-ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran-domizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also pro-grammed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North prior to formally beginning the survey.
SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION All voter households in Del Mar were provided the opportunity to participate, with one voter per household randomly selected to receive an invitation given that the questionnaire asked the respondent to report on the recre-ation interests and activities for all members of the household—adult and youth. Once selected, respondents were recruited to participate in the survey using multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of mailed and emailed invitations, sampled households were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each respondent was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Del Mar resi-dents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each household could complete the survey only one time. Following a two-week period of online data collection, True North began placing telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled vot-ers in Del Mar that had yet to participate in the online survey as a result of the mailed or emailed invitation.
A total of 402 Del Mar households participated in the survey between March 11 and April 12, 2015. It should be noted that the resulting sample was strikingly similar to Census 2010 figures for the age composition of Del Mar households, indicating that the participation rate was bal-anced across subgroups and not disproportionately high or low on a factor (age) that is strongly 80 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Methodology
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 related to interest in recreation activities/amenities. With a sample of 402 households, the esti-mated statistical margin of error is approximately +/- 4.3% at the 95% level of confidence.
Telephone interviews averaged 15 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday eve-nings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample.
DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num-ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given question.
81 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 1
Del Mar Shores Park Survey
Final Toplines
April 2015
Section 1: Introduction to Study Phone Recruit
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____ and Im calling on behalf of the City of Del Mar. The City recently sent you a letter asking for your participation in a short survey about parks and recreation in Del Mar. Id like to get your opinions it should take about 10 minutes.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If says they already participated in the Citys survey: If you participated in the Citys survey in November or December, that was a different survey. This survey focuses on parks and recreation in Del Mar.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.
Section 2: Household Profile
To begin, let me ask you about the ages of people in your household. This will allow me to limit the survey to questions that are appropriate to your household.
Q1 Do you have _____ in your household?
Read in Order
Yes
No
Prefer not
to answer
A A child under the age of 5 4% 94% 2%
B A child between 5 and 12 8% 90% 2%
C A teenager between 13 and 18 11% 87% 2%
D An adult between the ages of 19 and 49 32% 67% 2%
E An adult between the ages of 50 and 64 40% 58% 1%
F An adult 65 years of age or older 52% 47% 2%
Section 3: Recreation Activities
Q2
Thinking of the adult members of your household, what recreation activities do the adults in your household engage in most often? By recreation, we mean play and exercise, as well as passive activities such as walking/jogging, hobbies, and picnicking.
Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into the categories shown below.
Walking, jogging, running 74%
Biking 18%
Surfing 16%
Picnic, BBQ 15%
Hiking, nature walks 15%
Exercise, gym 14%
82 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 2
Swimming 14%
Go to park, beaches 13%
Walking dog, visiting dog park 11%
Golf 11%
Gardening 8%
Tennis 7%
Board games, cards, reading, meditating 7%
Yoga 7%
Dance, music, theater, movies 4%
Variety of sports 4%
Socializing with friends, family 4%
Beach activities, sports 4%
Do not engage in recreation activities 4%
Arts, crafts 3%
Volleyball 3%
Dining out 3%
Basketball 2%
Attend social events, programs 2%
Fishing 2%
Traveling 2%
Photography 2%
Kayaking 2%
Soccer 1%
Martial arts 1%
Cooking 1%
Q3
Next, Im going to read a short list of recreation activities. For each that I read, please indicate whether one or more of the adults in your household would be very interested or somewhat interested in participating in the activity. If no adult in your household would be interested in participating in the activity, just say so.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____.
Randomize
Very
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Not
Interested
Prefer not
to answer
A Soccer 9% 13% 77% 0%
B Softball 5% 14% 80% 1%
C Basketball 9% 19% 71% 1%
D Volleyball 11% 20% 68% 1%
83 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 3
E Walking, jogging, running, or hiking 82% 13% 5% 1%
F Fitness and exercise classes 50% 33% 17% 1%
G Yoga 38% 36% 25% 1%
H Gardening 35% 36% 28% 1%
I Cooking 38% 37% 25% 1%
J Martial arts 4% 14% 80% 1%
K Swimming in a pool 35% 28% 36% 1%
L Arts and crafts 22% 39% 38% 0%
M Dance or theater 31% 34% 35% 0%
N Walking dog or visiting a dog park 43% 12% 44% 2%
O Outdoor picnics 44% 35% 20% 0%
P Quiet, stationary activities such as reading
or meditating 53% 29% 17% 1%
Ask Q4 and Q5 if Q1a, Q1b OR Q1c = 1.
Q4
Thinking of the children and/or teenagers in your household, what recreation activities do they engage in most often? Probe: Any others? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into the categories shown below.
Swimming 34%
Soccer 28%
Surfing 28%
Walking, jogging, running 21%
Basketball 20%
Biking 19%
Tennis 18%
Variety of sports in general 14%
Visiting parks 13%
Dance, music, theater 12%
Beach activities, sports 12%
Volleyball 11%
Skateboarding 10%
Baseball 9%
Martial arts 7%
Arts, crafts 6%
Exercise, gym 6%
Football 6%
Hiking, nature walks 6%
Reading, library 6%
Walking dog, visiting dog park 6%
84 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 4
Yoga 5%
Picnic, BBQ 3%
Going to beach 3%
Do not engage in recreation activities 3%
Not sure 2%
Softball 1%
Board games, cards, video games 1%
Q5
Next, Im going to read a short list of recreation activities. For each that I read, please indicate whether one or more of the children or teenagers in your household would be very interested or somewhat interested in participating in the activity. If no child or teenager in your household would be interested in participating in the activity, just say so. Here is the (first/next) one:_____.
Randomize
Very
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Not
Interested
Prefer not to answer
A Soccer 36% 22% 42% 0%
B Baseball 14% 23% 63% 0%
C Softball 9% 26% 66% 0%
D Basketball 30% 35% 35% 0%
E Volleyball 25% 40% 35% 0%
F Football 27% 14% 59% 0%
G Lacrosse 18% 22% 60% 0%
H Fitness & exercise classes 33% 28% 39% 0%
I Yoga 21% 34% 45% 0%
J Martial arts 11% 30% 59% 0%
K Swimming in a pool 71% 17% 12% 0%
L Arts and crafts 39% 27% 34% 0%
M Dance or theater 29% 40% 32% 0%
N Walking dog or visiting a dog park 37% 17% 46% 0%
O Skateboarding 29% 26% 45% 0%
P Walking, jogging, running, or hiking 55% 34% 11% 0%
85 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 5
Section 4: Park Visitation & General Perceptions
Q6 Not including local beaches, have you or anyone else in your household visited a city park or open space area in Del Mar during the past 12 months? 1 Yes 94% Ask Q7
2 No 6% Skip to Q8
98 Not sure 0% Skip to Q8
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q8
Q7
How frequently do you or other members of your household typically visit the parks or open space areas in Del Mar? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month?
1 At least once per week 65%
2 2 to 3 times per month 18%
3 Once per month 8%
4 Less often than once per month 9%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q8 In general, how do you rate the: _____ Del Mars parks? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
Randomize
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Safety of 46% 44% 6% 1% 0% 3% 0%
B Appearance of 37% 50% 10% 1% 0% 1% 0%
C Overall quality of 32% 51% 14% 0% 1% 2% 0%
D The variety of amenities available in 14% 40% 34% 6% 2% 3% 0% Section 5: Perceived Park & Rec Facility Needs
Q9
Take a moment to think about your households recreation needs. Do the existing parks and recreation facilities in Del Mar do an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of meeting your households recreation needs?
1 Excellent 17%
2 Good 45%
3 Fair 27%
4 Poor 6%
5 Very Poor 1%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
86 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 6
Q10 Thinking of parks and open space areas in Del Mar, are there any improvements that you would like to see?
1 Yes 67% Ask Q11
2 No 23% Skip to Q12
98 Not sure 10% Skip to Q12
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q12
Q11
Please briefly describe the improvements you would most want to see in Del Mars parks and open space areas. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into the categories shown below.
Add, improve dog parks, facility hours 19%
Provide additional classes, activities,
programs for all ages 10%
Develop additional walking trails 10%
Provide additional restrooms 9%
Provide additional sport courts, athletic
facilities 9%
Provide additional parking 8%
Provide picnic areas 8%
Improve facility cleaning, maintenance 7%
More open space, less development 7%
Provide additional playgrounds for all ages 7%
Provide additional tables, sitting areas,
benches 7%
Improve landscaping, safe insecticides,
organic fertilizer 7%
Build additional pools 6%
Provide additional shaded areas, tarps,
trees 5%
Expand Community Center 4%
Provide water fountains, vending stands 4%
Enforce leash laws 4%
Better lighting at parks 3%
Provide larger parks 3%
Construct amphitheater 3%
Provide additional sidewalks 3%
Not sure 3%
Offer more events, entertainment 2%
Construct additional tennis courts 2%
Build community garden 2%
87 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 7
Reduce traffic congestion 1%
Add, improve park safety, security 1%
Provide additional parks, rec, programs info 1%
Provide additional bike lanes, paths,
network 1%
Develop additional golf courses 1%
Section 6: Shores Park
Next, Im going to ask you several questions about Shores Park in Del Mar. Shores Park is located west of Camino Del Mar on the corner of 9th Street and Stratford Court. It is adjacent to the Winston School. <for online survey, will show a map/image> Q12 Have you or anyone else in your household visited Shores Park in Del Mar during the past 12 months?
1 Yes 62% Skip to Q14
2 No 37% Ask Q13
98 Not sure 1% Skip to Q15
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q15
Q13 Is there a particular reason that your household hasnt regularly visited Shores Park? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into the categories shown below.
No particular reason 41%
Nothing to do there, no facilities 17%
More of a dog park, do not have dog 12%
Location, accessibility 10%
Never heard of it 8%
No desire, not appealing 6%
Oriented to young kids, sports 6%
Prefer other parks 6%
Not well maintained 1%
Only ask Q14 if Q12 = 1.
Q14
How frequently do you or other members of your household typically visit Shores Park? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month, or less often than once per month?
1 At least once per week 38%
2 2 to 3 times per month 15%
3 Once per month 14%
4 Less often than once per month 33%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
88 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 8
Q15
How familiar are you with the amenities that are currently available at Shores Park in Del Mar? Would you say you are very familiar, somewhat familiar, slightly familiar, or not at all familiar with the amenities in the park?
1 Very familiar 33%
2 Somewhat familiar 23%
3 Slightly familiar 13%
4 Not at all familiar 28%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q16
If you could improve up to three aspects of Shores Park in Del Mar, what improvements would you most want to see? Probe: Any other improvements? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into the categories shown below.
Not sure, cannot think of any 26%
Provide separate, dedicated dog area,
better hours 17%
Beautify park, additional landscape, trees,
plants 12%
Provide additional benches, shaded areas 11%
Provide additional sports courts, athletic
facilities 9%
No improvements desired 9%
Fewer, no dogs allowed 8%
Improve parking, signage 7%
Expand community center for more
programs
6%
Provide additional playgrounds for all ages 6%
Provide additional restrooms 4%
Develop additional walking trails 4%
Provide additional classes, activities,
programs for all ages 4%
Improve sports fields 4%
Provide picnic areas 4%
Provide additional water fountains 4%
Improve facility cleaning, maintenance 3%
Build community garden 3%
Build a pool 2%
Use safe pesticides, organic fertilizer 2%
Improve advertisement, park info 2%
Provide an amphitheater for events 2%
Improve lighting 1%
89 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 9
Add tennis courts 1%
Relocate Alvarado House 1%
Q17
The City of Del Mar is in the process of creating a Master Plan for Shores Park to guide long term improvements to the park. The Master Plan will be a blue print for the future that identifies the types of amenities that may be included in the park, and the types of activities it will support.
As I read each of the following amenities, Id like you to indicate whether you think the amenity should be a high, medium or low priority for inclusion in Shores Park. If you think the amenity should not be included in the park, just say so. Please keep in mind that due to the small size of the park and a limited budget, not all amenities can be high priorities.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this amenity be a high, medium or low priority for inclusion in Shores Park or should it not be included in the park? Randomize
High Priority
Medium
Priority
Low Priority
Should NOT
be included
No Opinion
Prefer not to
answer
A Aquatic Center or Community Pool 23% 16% 25% 35% 1% 1% B Sports fields for soccer, football or lacrosse 22% 25% 25% 24% 3% 1% C Sports fields for little league baseball 24% 25% 25% 20% 4% 1% D Sports fields for softball 19% 28% 28% 21% 3% 1%
E Outdoor fitness course for adults 27% 34% 23% 14% 2% 1% F Paths for walking and jogging 48% 23% 16% 11% 2% 0%
G Outdoor courts for sports like basketball
and tennis 24% 31% 26% 15% 5% 0%
H Outdoor rink for sports like roller hockey
and arena soccer 2% 9% 31% 54% 4% 1%
I Lights on sports courts so they can be used
at night 23% 20% 25% 27% 4% 1%
J Public restroom 66% 21% 7% 4% 1% 1%
K Childrens playground equipment 37% 27% 19% 14% 2% 1% L Fitness center with a variety of exercise
equipment 19% 25% 26% 26% 2% 0%
M General purpose rooms that can be used
for meetings and classes 26% 32% 23% 15% 4% 0%
N
Special purpose rooms that can be used for
dance, aerobics, yoga and recreation
programs
31% 32% 20% 13% 3% 1%
O Passive recreation facilities including picnic
tables, barbecues and shaded seating 46% 27% 15% 10% 2% 0% P A kitchen for professional cooking
demonstrations and cooking classes 11% 21% 35% 30% 3% 0% Q Off-leash dog park 37% 14% 19% 27% 2% 1%
R Outdoor amphitheater 22% 30% 25% 19% 3% 1%
90 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 10
S Community garden 24% 29% 29% 16% 3% 0%
T Bocce Ball Court 10% 26% 34% 24% 5% 1%
U Quiet spaces for reading, resting and
meditation 33% 32% 22% 12% 2% 0%
Section 7: Anticipated Future Use
Q18
If Shores Park were to include some of the amenities that you identified previously as being a high priority, how frequently would you and other members of your household visit Shores Park? At least once per week, two to three times per month, once per month, less often than once per month, or would you not visit Shores Park? 1 At least once per week 53%
2 2 to 3 times per month 23%
3 Once per month 9%
4 Less often than once per month 7%
5 Would not visit Shores Park 5%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 8: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.
Ask D1 if Q1a, Q1b OR Q1c = 1.
D1 Do any of the children and/or teenagers in your home participate in organized team sports outside of school?
1 Yes 72%
2 No 26%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male 42%
2 Female 54%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
91 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Questionnaire & Toplines
Del Mar Shores Park True North Research, Inc. © 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Del Mar Shores Park Survey April 2015
True North Research, Inc. © 2015 Page 11
D3 Do you own or rent your current residence in Del Mar? 1 Own 78%
2 Rent 18%
3 Live with family / friends and dont
pay rent 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Del Mar. 92 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Shores Park - DISCOVER
Schmidt Design Group, Inc. June 2015 31
BAPPENDIX
93 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Building Assessment Report – Del Mar Community Building – Del Mar Shores Master Plan 1 Architectural Building Assessment Report
Scope of Report
This study will address the overall general condition of the existing building at 225 9th Street in Del Mar, CA as part of the Del Mar Shores Master Plan. The building currently acts as the Del Mar Community Building and houses various community organizations including the Del Mar Foundation and the Del Mar Community Connections. The building also provides community meeting space and storage space. A walk-through of the building was performed on January 29, 2015. The building formerly housed the administrative offices of the Del Mar Union School District and underwent a refurbishment in 2012.
General: The building is laid out in an ‘L’ configuration and is a single story. No destructive testing was performed, but the main framing system is assumed to be wood.
Overall the building appears to be in good condition. The recent refurbishment concentrated on finishes and the addition of an accessible restroom. The stucco is free from significant cracking and there is no evidence of any substantial seismic issues in the building.
Roof: The roof was not observed as a part of this report, but reports from staff indicate that the roof is near the end of its usable life. See Mechanical section for more information.
Walls: The stucco walls are in good condition. The wood siding on the storage room walls is in fair condition.
Windows/Doors: The original wood windows are in good condition. All doors are in fair condition. Some metal framed windows have been added later and are in fair condition.
Floors: The floor all appear to be in good condition. No obvious settling or cracking is evident.
Ceilings: The suspended ceilings are in fair condition. Some staining is present throughout the building.
Mechanical: Although a detailed mechanical survey was not performed, interviews with occupants indicate that the HVAC system is antiquated and in need of replacement.
Reroofing may be required as part of any replacement of the HVAC system.
Electrical: Although a detailed electrical survey was not performed, interviews with occupants indicate the electrical wiring is original to the building and is in need of complete replacement.
GARRICK OLIVER CHRISTOPHER BITTNER ANNEY ROSENTHAL
3817 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104e [email protected] www.obrarchitecture.com t 619.564.7586f 619.568.3636 94 September 8, 2025 Item 9
95 September 8, 2025 Item 9
96 September 8, 2025 Item 9
97 September 8, 2025 Item 9
98 September 8, 2025 Item 9
99 September 8, 2025 Item 9
Leased Premises
Winston non-exclusive use areas (Athletic Field Area and Shores Park Parking Lot) City non-exclusive use area (Winston School Parking Lot) DocuSign Envelope ID: 07D2B247-56A8-4B0C-A2CF-3575172BEC9D 100 September 8, 2025 Item 9
August 26, 2025
Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council,
The Winston School looks forward to being a positive, collaborative partner in the Shores Park planning process. We believe there is a cost effective, sensible and attractive solution to the park plan that incorporates the needs of all stakeholders.
We are hopeful a reengagement with Schmidt Design Group will be successful. Success will require a clear scope, mutual respect for and by all stakeholders, open communication and collaboration. The extensive community outreach conducted by Schmidt originally remains a valuable resource in guiding the final park design.
We believe that many of the School’s uses for the park match the uses requested by community members for use during off school hours. These uses of the park area include:
grass field for baseball and soccer; full sized, multi-use court with regulation sized basketball court markings; looped jogging/walking path. We also respectfully request that automobiles no longer traverse the park area and dogs have an area for exclusive use anytime of day.
We continue to encourage the City Council to create a Shores Park committee that represents a variety of community members, including parents of school-aged children and The Winston School, to ensure a representative cross-section of park users.
Thank you for your efforts to bring the Shores Park to life for all Del Mar community members.
Sincerely,
Kim Kanetis
Executive Director
The Winston School 215 Ninth Street Del Mar California 92014 (858) 259-8155 101 September 8, 2025 Item 9
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Martin Boyd, Principal Engineer
Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 8, 2025
SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contract to TC Construction Company, Inc. and Related Actions for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Approve the withdrawal of the apparent lowest bidder, Tri-Group Construction and Development, due to a clerical error under Public Contract Code 5103; 2) Award a $7,128,769.96 construction contract to TC Construction Company, Inc. (Attachment A) for the Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) X1A (Crest Canyon) Project;
3) Approve a $663,280 Task Order with Utility Specialists Southwest, Inc. for Construction Management and Inspection Services (Attachment B); 4) Approve a $119,633 Task Order with NOVA Services, Inc. for Geotechnical Services (Attachment C);
5) Approve a $123,400 Task Order with Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. for Environmental Monitoring Services (Attachment D);
6) Approve a 10% project contingency of $712,877;
7) Authorize the appropriation of $6,886,465 in unexpended funds from the prior year to be carried over to FY 2025-26 for the Crest Canyon project; and, 8) Authorize the City Manager to execute the required documents and any contract and Task Order changes, within the project contingency, necessary to complete the work.
BACKGROUND:
Utility Undergrounding District X1A - Crest Canyon
The City of Del Mar continues to implement the citywide Undergrounding Program (UP), which will remove utility poles and replace overhead cables for electricity and telecommunications with underground lines. A map of the planned citywide Utility Undergrounding Districts (UUDs) is included with this report as Attachment E.
On July 12, 2021, the City Council authorized the formation of Utility Undergrounding District X1A, also referred to as “Crest Canyon”. Crest Canyon was identified as one of the next two districts after completion of the Tewa Court/10th Street UUD pilot project on February 8, 2023.
Crest Canyon includes 77 poles and 12,520 linear feet of overhead conversion to 19,610 1 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
linear feet of underground trench involving 152 properties and 114 residences. There are eighty properties requiring undergrounding of their private service lateral at the expense of the property owner. A map of Crest Canyon is included as Attachment F.
The City’s undergrounding construction activities are primarily for trenching and installation of conduit and substructures. This includes joint trench excavation, hand digging within proximity of protected trees and parallel existing utilities, exploratory potholes, asphalt resurfacing, concrete driveways and curbs restoration, installation of retaining walls, pedestrian ramp installation, hydroseed, irrigation repairs, traffic control and safety for vehicles and pedestrians, construction staging, storm water pollution prevention and erosion control, and other required construction activities.
San Dieguito Drive Improvement Project
San Dieguito Drive is an approximately 1,000 linear foot private road with public access in the City of Del Mar that extends from the intersection of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to Oribia Road. Currently, San Dieguito Drive is in a deteriorated condition and in need of repair. On June 17, 2024, residents on San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road voted to approve the San Diego Drive Improvement Project Assessment District to fund the resident’s proportionate share of the project. The San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project consists of installation of a new road section with a standard centerline crown with 16 feet of asphalt and
3.5-foot concrete rolled curbs for an improved width of 23 feet and a minimum 20 feet of travel-way for public safety vehicle access.
At the completion of design for Crest Canyon, the City initiated a competitive public bidding process for the City’s construction activities related to Crest Canyon as the base bid and the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project as the alternate bid item. This approach is consistent with the City’s goal of bidding and constructing these projects together to achieve anticipated cost savings, improve efficiency, and minimize impacts on property owners.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Bid Process
In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and Public Contract Code, Public Works staff advertised a notice inviting bids on July 7, 2025. Staff held a public bid opening on August 27, 2025, and received six bids ranging from $6,021,860 to $11,419,126 as shown in Table A below. The public bidding process was competitive, with three of the six bids received coming in below the engineer’s estimate of $8.9M.
2 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
Table A: Bid Results
Bidder Base Bid
(Crest Canyon)
Alternate Bid
(San Dieguito Dr)
TC Construction Company $7,128,770 $1,825,041
Teichert Energy and Utilities Group $8,644,467 $1,825,079 Palm Engineering Construction Company $9,884,674 $2,138,859 W.A. Rasic Construction Company $10,967,600 $1,298,610
A.M. Ortega Construction $11,419,126 $2,490,100
Tri-Group Construction and Development $6,021,860 $2,976,700 Request to Withdraw
For Reference: Engineer’s Estimate $8,930,000 $934,000 A A Staff adjusted the estimate to $895,000 in the bid documents to reflect anticipated cost savings.
Tri-Group Request to Withdraw
A few hours after the bid opening, staff received a request from Tri-Group Construction and Development to withdraw their bid based on a clerical error (Attachment G). Tri-Group incorrectly entered a lump sum item on the required bid form as $5,000 instead of $5,000,000, resulting in an almost $5 million error. Tri-Group stated that absorbing this error would cause significant financial hardship if required to complete the project as bid. Tri-Group’s error was in the “Joint Trench and Excavation and Backfill” line item, which is one of the most significant line items in the bid, with comparable contractor pricing ranging from $1.4 to $4.4 million.
After reviewing the line-item cost in question, staff believes that the clerical error is valid and recommends that the City Council allow Tri-Group to withdraw its bid under Public Contract Code 5103, as the contract has not yet been awarded.
If the Council approves Tri-Group’s request, the City will release the full amount of their bid bond. A bid bond provides a guarantee that the bidder will, within ten days after being requested to do so by the City, enter into a contract and provide the required bonds if awarded the project. The bid bond is in the amount of 10% of the bid, which in this case is $602,186.
Certain provisions under State law grant relief for bidders who make clerical errors in their bid documents by permitting bidders to withdraw their bids without forfeiting their bid bonds. For example, Public Contract Code Section 5101 provides that a bidder is entitled to relief from its bid due to a mistake if the awarding authority consents to allow the bidder to withdraw its bid. Courts have found that typographical or arithmetical errors in bid documents are the types of mistakes contemplated under the laws by which bidders may seek relief. Staff will monitor future bids submitted by this contractor and consider recommending temporary debarment as allowed for under the Municipal Code if similar issues occur again.
Award of Contract
Public Contract Code Section 20162 requires that the City award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder based on their base bid. When a public agency permits a bidder to withdraw its bid due to a mistake, Public Contract Code Section 5106 allows the public agency to award the contract to the next lowest bidder. Staff evaluated the second-lowest bidder, TC Construction Company (TC), whose base bid was $7,128,769.96 3 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
(Attachment H), and determined them to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder after the withdrawal.
San Dieguito Drive Improvement Project
The San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project was included as an alternate bid item in the bid package for Crest Canyon. The engineer’s estimate for this project was $934,000, with submitted bids ranging from $1.3 to $3.0 million. While TC submitted the lowest base bid for Crest Canyon their alternate bid for San Dieguito was $1.8 million, which if awarded would place the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project approximately $1 million over its estimated budget. After evaluating the TC alternate bid in comparison to the engineer’s estimate and the lowest alternate bid, staff does not recommend awarding the alternate bid to complete the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project as part of Crest Canyon.
While having the same contractor perform both projects would simplify construction, staff recommends bidding and constructing the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project separately to potentially achieve a more competitive price. This approach would also open the bidding process to a broader pool of roadway improvement contractors once the undergrounding work on San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road is complete. Based solely on the alternate bids received, the construction cost could be approximately $1.3 to $1.4 million, compared to the current engineer’s estimate of $934,000. However, the final bid amount will be determined by market conditions.
The specific bid and construction schedule for the San Dieguito Drive Improvements project will be determined in coordination with the selected contractor and utility companies. It is expected to begin following the completion of Work Zone 1 (San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road) of Crest Canyon. If the City takes a conservative approach and waits until all phases of construction (City, homeowner, and utility companies) are fully completed to avoid overlap, the project would likely begin around summer 2026.
Construction Management Services
The City has an agreement in place with Utility Specialists Southwest, Inc. for as-needed specialized electrical engineering and consulting services related to implementation of the citywide UP. Staff recommends issuing Utility Specialists Southwest, Inc. a $663,280 Task Order (Attachment B) to provide construction management, inspection, and design support services for the project. KCM Group, serving as a subconsultant to Utility Specialists, will be providing construction management services. They are highly familiar with the UP, having been involved in all projects throughout both the design and construction phases. Utility Specialists provided these same services on the Stratford Court South (1A) undergrounding district and did a good job.
Geotechnical Services
The City also has an agreement in place with NOVA Services, Inc. for as-needed geotechnical services. Staff recommends issuing NOVA Services, Inc. a $119,633 Task Order (Attachment C) to provide geotechnical services for the project. The services include any geotechnical observations and laboratory testing required for the roadway and utility improvements.
4 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
Environmental Services
The City also has an agreement in place with Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. for as-needed environmental consulting services. Staff recommends issuing Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. a $123,400 Task Order (Attachment D) to provide environmental monitoring services for the Crest Canyon Project. The services are required under the CEQA determination, primarily for areas adjacent to the San Dieguito Lagoon and Crest Canyon, and include archaeological and Native American monitoring, biological construction monitoring, a post-construction monitoring and reporting plan, and optional tasks for pre-construction nesting bird survey and noise monitoring.
Updated Estimated City Construction Budget
The total estimated City construction project expenditures for Crest Canyon through project completion is $8,747,960 as listed in Table B below. This amount includes the construction contract with TC, Construction Management and Inspection Services provided by Utility Specialists, Geotechnical Services provided by NOVA, Environmental Services provided by Helix, and a 10% project contingency for change orders due to unforeseen field conditions, need for specialty inspections, or any other unanticipated costs during construction.
Table B: City Construction Expenditures for Crest Canyon (X1A) Bidding Analysis
Table C summarizes the bidding results as compared to the cost estimate for the Crest Canyon, and compared to the UUD Tewa Ct/10th St and Stratford Court South (1A) bid results. The data includes the number of bids received, cost estimates, low bid, average bid, percent difference between the cost estimate and the low bid (%Diff (Low)), and percent difference between the cost estimate and the average bid (%Diff (Average)).
Table C: City Construction Bidding Analysis
Tewa Ct UUD 1A UUD X1A
# of Bids 3 5 6
Cost Estimate $238,000 $3,043,000 $8,930,000
Low Bid $447,400 $4,717,395 $7,128,770 B
Average Bids (All) $690,565 $5,392,860 A $9,608,927 B
%Diff (Low) +88% +55% -20%
%Diff (Average) +190% +100% +8%
A The outlier bid has been removed from the dataset.
B The bid requested for withdrawal has been removed from the dataset.
Items Costs
Construction (TC Construction Company) $7,128,770
Construction Management (Utility Specialists) $663,280
Geotechnical Services (NOVA) $119,633
Environmental Monitoring (Helix) $123,400
Project Contingency (10%) $712,877
Total City Construction Costs $8,747,960
5 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
The City received six bids for Crest Canyon, which demonstrates the strongest construction market interest to date related to the City’s undergrounding projects. The lowest responsive base bid of $7.13 million came in $1.8 million (20%) below the engineer’s estimate of $8.93 million (Attachment I). This is a positive outcome, as it is preferred that the low bid be lower than the engineer’s estimate. Ideally, however, the engineer’s estimate should be within 10% of the lowest bid.
Additionally, the average of the Crest Canyon base bids was $9.61 million, which is $680,000 (8%) higher than the engineer’s estimate. This is also a favorable result, as the City aims for the engineer’s estimate to be below the average bid, but still reasonably close. In contrast, previous projects showed a much larger discrepancy between the engineer’s estimates and both the low and average bids, which indicated a need for improvement in estimating accuracy. In this case, the engineer’s estimate prepared by Utility Specialists and KCM Group for the Crest Canyon project was well-prepared and incorporated lessons learned from Stratford Court South. However, the estimate was somewhat conservative, as higher impacts from inflation and environmental factors were anticipated. The design team will continue to refine its estimating approach based on these latest bid results.
It’s important to note that, while including the engineer’s estimate in the bid documents is standard practice, the actual cost of the project is ultimately determined by the construction market. The engineer’s estimate is developed to assist the City in budgeting for the project, to provide contractors with a baseline understanding of expected costs before bidding, and to allow for comparison of submitted bids. Preparing a bid, especially for a project of this scale, requires significant time and resources for the contractors. Contractors conduct their own thorough analysis when preparing their proposals, because the bid documents are highly technical. This is a competitive bidding process, and each contractor aims to underbid the others while remaining financially viable.
The City’s recent bid history demonstrates the engineer’s estimate is not the determining factor for contractor’s bids. For the Stratford Court South (1A) Project, the bids came in significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate, indicating that contractors did not rely solely on that estimate when preparing their bids. For the Hoska Alley Street & Storm Drain Improvements Project and Crest Canyon Undergrounding, the City received multiple bids that came in below the engineer’s estimate, demonstrating that bids can come in under the estimate, particularly when it is well-aligned with current market conditions.
Agreements with Utility Companies
Completion of the Undergrounding Project necessitates coordination with the utility companies: San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), AT&T, Charter Communications/Spectrum, and Crown Castle. The design process involved extensive coordination with each of these three companies. In fact, the contractor’s work involves constructing the Underground Support Structure (USS) for their infrastructure, which includes underground conduit and structures for the installation of their equipment.
6 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
The following summarizes the status with each of the three utilities involved:
San Diego Gas & Electric – The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates the requirements for electric utilities with regards to their participation in utility undergrounding pursuant to tariff rules, specifically Rule 20. Crest Canyon is considered eligible for Rule 20B, which means there will be partial credit for the “overhead equivalent value” and SDG&E will cover the costs associated with overhead removals. The City’s contract with SDG&E is for actual cost billing for installation of cable & connections, cable poles, service cutovers, overhead and pole removals, and engineering fees. The City is responsible for trenching and installation of conduit and substructures.
SDG&E provided the City with an estimate of $3.67 million presented to City Council on June 2, 2025, for costs associated with their work. The estimate is provided for the City’s financial planning purposes prior to the initial invoice, is based on SDG&E’s latest data, and includes a contingency. SDG&E is nearing completion of their bidding process to obtain fixed bids. SDG&E will provide the City with an initial invoice prior to SDG&E’s construction after obtaining fixed bids and then a final reconciliation invoice based on the actual costs after construction is complete. SDG&E has explained that the only expected changes in costs are for change orders due to unforeseen field conditions, need for specialty inspections, or any other unanticipated costs during construction. Staff will return to City Council once SDG&E provides an initial estimate invoice and agreement for Crest Canyon.
AT&T – As with SDG&E, the CPUC also regulates the requirements of AT&T with regards to their participation in utility undergrounding pursuant to tariff rules (Rule 32).
Crest Canyon is considered eligible for CPUC Rule 32.A.2, which means the City is responsible for providing the Underground Support Structure (USS). Accordingly, AT&T has been paid for the cost of designing and inspecting the USS. To date, the City has paid AT&T $217,080 for these services related to Crest Canyon. Charter Communication/Spectrum & Crown Castle – Though Charter Communications/Spectrum (Charter) and Crown Castle do not operate under a specific tariff rule as SDG&E and AT&T do, State laws and policies generally treat these utilities similarly. Staff continues to work with Charter and Crown Castle consistent with such principles and does not anticipate paying beyond trenching and installation of conduit and substructures.
Total Project Budget Updates
The total project cost for Crest Canyon is now estimated to be $13.68 million based on the latest City construction bid. Attachment J includes a budget summary reflecting the estimated project costs from initial district formation to the current estimate for comparison. The prior total project cost estimate provided on April 21, 2025, was $16.97 million. However, the updated SDG&E cost estimate provided on June 2, 2025, reduced this number to $15.75 million.
7 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
The cost per linear foot of overhead conversion is now estimated at $1,092, and the cost per linear foot of joint trench is estimated at $697. This includes the cost of required professional services during the design phase in preparation for the bid process, cost for construction, costs paid to the utility companies for their engineering fees and construction work, and the cost for third party construction management and support services during construction.
The City construction bid for Crest Canyon has a cost per linear foot of joint trench of $364.
For comparison, the Tewa Ct/10th St and Stratford Court South (1A) costs per linear foot of joint trench were $424 and $437, respectively, when adjusted for 26% and 5% inflation based on the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) from the bid opening dates of December 2021 and May 2024.
SDG&E provided the City with an updated estimate of $3.67 million in June 2025 for costs associated with their work. The project cost estimate will be updated at the next City Council meeting to reflect the SDG&E construction bids, and a comparison of total project cost to UUD Tewa Ct/10th St and Stratford Court South (1A) will be provided. A request for additional funding for SDG&E costs, if necessary, will also be included. However, if the invoice matches the current estimate, there will be a budget surplus.
The project also includes $13,670 in development in-lieu funds for a section of grind and overlay on Crest Road. This minor improvement was designed and included for construction alongside Crest Canyon due to its close proximity, facilitating concurrent construction.
Additionally, the project budget includes line items for Measure Q credits related to the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project and the Crest Canyon Asphalt Improvements Project.
This is intended to cover the cost of finish paving over the joint trench, where these CIP projects overlap within the same area. The City plans to perform the finish paving once the project is complete.
Project Timeline & Next Steps
The Crest Canyon project will begin in October 2025 after the City’s construct contract is executed (pending Council approval), a Notice to Proceed is issued, and SDG&E has assigned an inspector. SDG&E will return to the City with an agreement and initial invoice for their work once they obtain fixed bids, which they anticipate to occur soon.
The project duration for City construction is estimated to be 350 calendar days and completion is expected in October 2026. Following the City contractor’s phased work, the homeowners will be required to install their portion of the service laterals and upgrade electrical panels, as necessary, including obtaining SDG&E and City inspector approvals. Extensive coordination has already occurred with residents, and they will have approximately two months to complete their work to connect to the point of connection established by the City’s contractor.
Cable and connections, services cutovers, cable poles, and overhead removals by the utility companies will be completed after all homeowners have completed their lateral installations.
Overall, the homeowner installations and utility agency work are anticipated to take approximately six to eight months following completion of the City contractor’s work with 8 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
completion expected in March to May 2027. However, the utility companies will confirm their schedules.
The final item of work is pole removals. Once the utility companies schedule is determined for pole removals, staff will bring to the City Council a final public hearing and adoption of a resolution declaring the date by which all overhead utilities must be removed, as required per Del Mar Municipal Code 23.54.
Property Owner Easements
A few property owners have not signed the documents required for Crest Canyon, which presents risks to certain elements of the project. A property owner on Crest Road has not signed the SDG&E permit to enter (PTE), and there is a risk that they will not proceed with the lateral installation. Accordingly, staff will continue to follow up and proceed with code enforcement actions if necessary.
Two property owners on Oribia Road have not yet signed easements with Spectrum. Staff and Spectrum continue to engage with the property owners and remain hopeful the easements will be secured. It is important to note that Oribia Road is a private road, and there is no public right-of-way available for Spectrum installation. If the easements are not signed, up to seven poles may remain with only Spectrum service, as they are directly connected to three poles located on these two properties. However, the property owners did sign the SDG&E and AT&T easements, allowing those utilities to be undergrounded.
Additionally, a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) pole will remain on Avenida Primavera across from 1507 Crest Road. This pole is required to support existing communications equipment that enhances and extends connectivity with wirelessly controlled equipment. It will be a standalone pole with no overhead wires.
IBank Loan
On June 2, 2025, the Council received a presentation from staff regarding updated Measure Q cashflow information, identified a maximum loan amount of $11 million to be considered by IBank, and approved the Borrower’s Resolution required by IBank for undergrounding financing. On July 23, 2025, IBank approved the City’s loan application in an amount up to $11M with an interest rate of 3.18%. Since then, staff has been working with IBank on the closing documents, pending final determination of the loan amount.
City staff anticipates the recommended final loan amount will be less than $11 million based on updated cost estimates for both Crest Canyon and Stratford Court North (1B). Staff plans to return to City Council on September 22, 2025, to present the updated cash flow modeling and final recommended loan amount, which will also incorporate SDG&E’s updated cost for Crest Canyon based on their fixed bid process, the results of which should be provided to the City shortly.
Staff is bringing the construction contract and related task orders to Council in advance of the final loan amount being determined to avoid delays related to the bird nesting season for Crest Canyon, which typically occurs from February through August. It is important to get the contractor started as soon as possible to prevent potential issues in Work Zone 1 (San 9 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road). As noted above, the City has already been approved for a loan up to $11M, so there is no financial risk to the City in awarding the contract in advance of finalizing the loan amount.
Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee (UPAC) Recommendation On September 3, 2025, UPAC held a special meeting to receive a presentation from staff regarding the outcome of the bid process, bids received and range of costs, Tri-Group’s withdraw request, lowest responsive bid, and next steps in the process. A copy of the presentation, engineer’s estimate for Crest Canyon, and project budget overview was provided to the committee in advance of the meeting. UPAC unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council award the contract to TC Construction and proceed with the Crest Canyon project. The Committee also expressed support for the Council to proceed timely with finalizing the IBank final loan amount and completing the loan process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Council approval of the recommended action will award a construction contract and authorize task orders totaling $8,747,960 for Crest Canyon, and will authorize $6,886,465 in unexpended funds from the prior year to be carried over to FY 2025-26, which will ensure sufficient funds are available in the project budget to cover these costs. An updated cash flow and detailed total project costs will be presented to the City Council on September 22, 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Exemption was filed for both the Utility Undergrounding District X1A - Crest Canyon Undergrounding District Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024101301) and the San Dieguito Drive Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100309). Both projects were adopted by Council on October 7, 2024. The construction contract and task orders being considered for construction work falls under the scope of work considered under both exemptions. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary in that there have been no substantial changes proposed involving new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified effects; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being adopted; and no new information has demonstrated that new significant effects will occur.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Utility Undergrounding is listed as a Tier 1 City Council priority and the San Dieguito Drive Improvements is identified as a Tier 2 priority for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. 10 September 8, 2025 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contract for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) September 8, 2025
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Contract with TC Construction Company, Inc. for the Crest Canyon Conversion (UUD X1A) Project
Attachment B - Utility Specialists Southwest, Inc. Task Order for Construction Management and Support Services
Exhibit A to Attachment B – UUD X1A Services Scope of Work Attachment C - NOVA Services, Inc. Task Order for Geotechnical Services Exhibit A to Attachment E – UUD X1A Services Scope of Work Attachment D - HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Task Order for Environmental Monitoring Services
Exhibit A to Attachment E – UUD X1A Services Scope of Work Attachment E - UP Citywide Map
Attachment F - UUD X1A Crest Canyon Map
Attachment G - Tri-Group Bid Withdrawal
Attachment H - TC Construction Company’s Bid
Attachment I - UUD X1A Crest Canyon City Cost Estimate
Attachment J - UUD X1A Crest Canyon Project Budget
11 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
This Construction Contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Del Mar, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and TC Construction Company, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor” (collectively “Parties”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City requires a general contractor to construct a Public Works project generally described as the Crest Canyon Conversion (UUD X1A) Project hereinafter referred to as the “Project.”
WHEREAS, the Contractor represents itself as possessing the necessary skills and qualifications to construct the Project required by the City and possesses the required contractor’s license of the appropriate classifications.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned, the Parties agree as follows:
1. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS.
1.1 Contractor shall perform the scope of work shown in the Attachment “A” hereinafter referred to as the “Work”, as such term is defined by the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, latest version (GREENBOOK).
1.2 The Contractor agrees, at the Contractor's own proper cost and expense, to do all the Work and furnish all the materials, except such as are mentioned in the specifications to be furnished by the City, necessary to construct and complete the Work in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the City.
1.3 Said Work shall be performed in accordance with the Contract Specifications, Drawings, and Provisions annexed hereto; and in connection with the Reference Standards below:
Standard Edition
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(“The GREENBOOK”)
2021
San Diego Regional Standard Drawings 2022
1.4 The Contractor shall maintain throughout the full term of this Contract all professional certifications and licenses required in order to comply with all City, State, and Federal laws in the performance of this Contract.
1.5 The Contractor shall pay wages to the Contractor's employees according to the current "General Prevailing Wage Rates" issued by the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. Pursuant to provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime 12 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contractor, from Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.
These rates are available online with the California Department of Industrial Relations (www.dir.ca.gov). The Contractor shall post a copy of such rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1725.5, 1771, 1773.8, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code.
1.6 The Contractor shall register with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in accordance with California Labor Code sections 1771.1 and 1725.5 and the Contractor shall be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR in accordance with California Labor Code section 1771.4.
1.7 Pursuant to and subject to the provisions of Section 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to City, as a penalty, the sum of up to two-hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any Work done under this Contract, by it or by any subcontractor under it, in violation of the provisions of the Contract.
2. SECURITY FOR CONTRACTOR'S PROMISE TO PERFORM.
2.1 For contracts above $25,000, the Contractor shall post and maintain during the full term of this Contract security for Contractor's promise to perform this Contract in the following forms and amounts:
A. The amount of the performance security shall be 100% of bid amount.
B. The form of the security shall be one of the following:
1. Cash;
2. Cashier's check made payable to the City;
3. A certified check made payable to the City;
4. A bond, executed by an approved surety insurer using the Performance Bond form found herein or a substitute form acceptable to and approved by the City, made payable to the City; or
5. The Contractor may elect to deposit securities of a value equivalent to the amount of the performance security in accordance with the provisions of section 22300 of the Public Contract Code. The City will make the final determination as to the value of the posted securities.
2.2 The City shall retain five percent (5%) of each payment due the Contractor under this Contract until completion and acceptance of the Project. The Contractor may elect to deposit securities of a value equivalent to the retention in accordance with the provisions of Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code and thereby become entitled to receive one hundred percent (100%) of the payments, without retention. The City will make the final determination as to the value of the posted securities. The amount of retention withheld may be reduced, or a portion of withheld retention may be returned, at the sole discretion of the City. 13 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
2.3 For contract amounts above $25,000, the Contractor shall file a payment bond using the Payment Bond form found herein or a substitute form acceptable to and approved by the City, in the amount of 100% of bid amount, with and subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works in accordance with Civil Code section 3247.
3. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE.
3.1 The City agrees to pay and the Contractor agrees to receive and accept the prices set forth in the Bid Schedule attached hereto as Attachment B and incorporated by reference as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance, including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents and also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the work.
3.2 Contractor agrees to complete the Work on CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A) in a time period not to exceed three hundred fifty (350) calendar days, unless remobilization is required, per Section 6-3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (GREENBOOK), commencing upon the date stated in the Notice to Proceed issued by the City. Construction shall not commence until the City has approved bonds and insurance.
4. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT.
In the event of the Contractor's failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the Work as provided for in this Contract, the City may terminate this Contract by notifying the Contractor by certified mail of said termination.
5. STATUS OF THE CONTRACTOR.
The Contractor shall perform the services provided for herein in a manner of Contractor's own choice, as an independent Contractor and in pursuit of Contractor's independent calling, and not as an employee of the City. Contractor shall be under control of the City only as to the result to be accomplished and the personnel assigned to the project. However, Contractor shall confer with the City as required to perform this Contract.
6. SUBCONTRACTING.
The Contractor’s ability to subcontract is limited by and must comply with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, California Public Contract Code sections 4100 et seq. If the Contractor subcontracts any of the Work to be performed under this Contract, the Contractor shall be as fully responsible to the City for the 14 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
acts and omissions of the Contractor's subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Contractor is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Contractor. Nothing contained in the Contract shall create any contractual relations between any subcontractor of Contractor and the City. The Contractor shall bind every subcontractor by the terms of the Contract applicable to Contractor's Work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by the City.
7. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT.
The Contractor has no authority or right to assign this Contract or any part thereof or any monies due thereunder to any other party without first obtaining the prior written consent of the City.
8. VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION.
No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of the City, either before, during or after the execution of this Contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations herein contained nor shall such verbal agreement or conversation entitle the Contractor to any additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this Contract.
9. DISPUTES.
9.1 If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of this Contract, the following procedures shall be used to address any question of fact or interpretation not otherwise settled by agreement between the parties. Such questions, if they become identified as part of a dispute between persons operating under the provisions of the Contract, shall be reduced to writing by the complaining party.
A copy of such documented dispute shall be forwarded to the other party involved along with recommended methods of resolution which would be of benefit to both parties. The party receiving the letter shall reply to the letter along with a recommended method of resolution within ten (10) days of receipt of the letter.
9.2 If the dispute is not resolved, the aggrieved party shall send a letter outlining the dispute to the City to be resolved.
9.3 If the dispute remains unresolved and the parties have exhausted the procedures of this section, the parties may then seek remedies available to them at law.
9.4 Pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 and 9204, a claim by the Contractor for a time extension; payment of money or damages arising from Work done by or on behalf of the Contractor pursuant to the Contract which is not otherwise expressly provided for or the claimant is not otherwise entitled to; or an amount the payment of which is disputed by the City, shall be dealt with as follows:
A. The claim shall be in writing and include the documents necessary to substantiate the claim. Claims must be filed on or before the date of final payment. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to extend the time limit or 15 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
supersede notice requirements otherwise provided by the Contract for the filing of claims.
B. For all claims, pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 and 9204:
1. City shall respond in writing to any written claim within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the claim, or may request, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the claim, any additional documentation supporting the claim or relating to defenses or claims the City may have against the claimant. City shall identify the disputed and undisputed portion(s) of the claim in the written response. If City fails to issue a written statement, the claim is rejected in its entirety.
2. If additional information is thereafter required, it shall be requested and provided pursuant to this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the City and the claimant.
3. The City's written response to the claim, as further documented, shall be submitted to the claimant within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the further documentation or within a period of time no greater than that taken by the claimant in producing the additional information, whichever is greater.
4. Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 9204, any payment on any undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within sixty (60) days after the public entity issues its written statement.
C. If the claimant disputes the City's written response, or the City fails to respond within the time prescribed, the claimant may so notify the City, in writing, either within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response or within fifteen (15) days of the City's failure to respond within the time prescribed, respectively, and demand an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon a demand sent by registered or certified mail, the City shall schedule a meet and confer conference within thirty (30) days for settlement of the dispute. Within ten (10) business days after the meet and confer conference, City shall prepare a written statement describing portions of the claim in dispute and the portions of the claim that are disputed.
Mediation Prerequisite: If following the meet and conference the claim or any portion remains in dispute, the parties agree that as a condition precedent to the initiation of litigation, the parties shall submit to non-binding mediation. The parties shall mutually agree to a mediator within ten (10) business days after the City’s response following the meet and confer conference. The parties shall make reasonable attempts to mediate within thirty (30) days of the meet and confer conference. Mediation shall be subject to the following rules:
1. The mediation process shall be administered by a neutral organization agreed to by the parties and shall be confidential subject to Evidence Code Sections 1115 –1128 and 1152.
16 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
2. The costs for mediation will be shared equally by all parties. The expenses of witnesses shall be paid by the party producing such witnesses.
3. A single mediator shall be selected to mediate the dispute. At least ten (10) days before a scheduled session, each party shall provide the mediator a brief memorandum setting forth its position about the issues that need to be resolved. The brief shall be mutually exchanged between the parties. At the mediation session, the parties will be expected to produce required information for the mediator to understand and evaluate the issues presented.
4. The mediation process shall be considered terminated when: (1) in the mediator’s judgment, further efforts at mediation would not contribute to a resolution of the dispute between the parties; or, (2) by the execution of Settlement Agreement, which may be used as the basis for change order or other directive as appropriate; or, (3) written declaration of a party that it will no longer participate in further mediation proceedings.
D. If mediation is unsuccessful, as a prerequisite to filing suit, the Contractor must file a claim pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with section 910) of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. For purposes of those provisions, the period of time within which a claim must be filed shall begin from the time the claimant submits his or her written claim pursuant to subsection A until the time the claim is denied, including any period of time utilized by the meet and confer conference.
A civil action filed to resolve a claim subject to Section 9.4 of this Contract shall be subject to the provisions of Public Contract Code Sections 20104.4 and 20104.6.
10. HOLD HARMLESS.
10.1 To the fullest extent of the law, the Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City; the City's officers, officials, employees and agents; the Engineer; and the Engineer’s officers, officials, employees, agents, and each and every individual property owner where the Work is to be performed (together, the “City Indemnified Parties”), harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, suit damage, expenses and costs, including all costs of defense, expense costs and investigation expenses thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly to the acts, omissions or performance of Work by the Contractor or Contractor’s agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, Contractor shall, at its own expense, defend the City Indemnified Parties from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, regardless of whether or not such a claim, loss or liability is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. However, any obligations to indemnified the City 17 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
and its indemnified parties shall not apply where such liability or claims are a result of willful misconduct or active negligence as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. These obligations survive the termination of completion of the Work.
The duty to defend the City is a separate obligation on the part of the Contractor.
The Contractor agrees that its duty to indemnify arises upon an allegation of liability based upon the performance or lack of performance under this Agreement and adjudication of Contractor’s liability is not a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to defend. This and all other indemnity obligations related to this Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall remain in effect for as long as the underlying claim or action remains viable.
10.2 By inspecting, approving or accepting the improvements, City shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to the City Indemnified Parties or diminished the obligation of Contractor, who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold the City Indemnified Parties harmless as provided above.
10.3 Contractor's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the City Indemnified Parties’ sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
11. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE.
11.1 The Contractor shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the life of the Contract, contractual liability insurance for bodily injury liability and property damage liability assumed by the Contractor of all claims and lawsuits against the Contractor and his/her subcontractors arising out of or in connection with the Work to be performed. Such insurance as is afforded by the policy to the Contractor for Contractual Property Damage Liability Insurance shall include coverage for property damage caused by the Work, blasting, collapse, structural injuries or damage to underground utilities. The policy shall not contain the so-called "x" "c" "u" exclusions and the Certificate of Insurance shall include each individual homeowner as indicated by the City prior to the commencement of the Work.
11.2 The Contractor shall maintain the following coverage:
A. Workers’ Compensation insurance with benefits afforded under the laws of any state in which the work is to be performed and Employers Liability insurance with limits of at least:
$500,000 for Bodily Injury – each accident
$500,000 for Bodily Injury by disease – policy limits
$500,000 for Bodily Injury by disease – each employee
To the fullest extent allowable by Law, the policy must include a waiver 18 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
of subrogation in favor of the City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum, their affiliates, and their directors, officers and employees.
In states where Workers’ Compensation insurance is a monopolistic state-run system, Applicant shall add Stop Gap Employers Liability with limits not less than $500,000 each accident or disease.
B. Commercial General Liability insurance written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04 or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage, covering liability arising from premises, operations, personal injury, products/completed operations, and liability assumed under an insured contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract) with limits of at least:
$2,000,000 General Aggregate limit;
$1,000,000 each occurrence limit for all bodily injury or property damage incurred in any one (1) occurrence;
$1,000,000 each occurrence limit for Personal Injury and Advertising Injury;
$2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate limit; $1,000,000 each occurrence limit for Products/Completed Operations; $1,000,000 Damage to Premises Rented to You (Fire Legal Liability).
The Commercial General Liability insurance policy must:
1. Include the City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum, their affiliates, their agents, and their directors, officers, consultants and their subconsultants, and employees as Additional Insureds. Applicant shall provide a copy of the Additional Insured endorsement to the City. The Additional Insured endorsement may be “blanket” or “automatic” addressing any person or entity as required by contract. A copy of the Additional Insured endorsement must be provided prior to starting the work of this Agreement and within 60 days of each Commercial General Liability policy renewal;
2. Include a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum, their affiliates, and their directors, officers and employees; and
3. Be primary and non-contributory with respect to any insurance or self-insurance that is maintained by the City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum.
C. Business Automobile Liability insurance with vehicle liability and property damage insurance limits in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 for one 19 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
person injured in one accident, and not less than $2,000,000 for two or more persons injured in any one accident, and not less than $2,000,000 with respect to any property damage involved and public general liability insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence or in the aggregate.
D. Umbrella/Excess Liability insurance with limits of at least $1,000,000 each occurrence with terms and conditions at least as broad as the underlying Commercial General Liability, Business Auto Liability, and Employers Liability policies. Umbrella/Excess Liability limits will be primary and non-contributory with respect to any insurance or self-insurance that is maintained by the City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum.
11.3 Evidence of insurance including Commercial General Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and Automobile Liability in compliance with the above requirements shall be furnished to the City by Certificate of Insurance. Such Certificate of Insurance shall be furnished prior to the commencement of Work under the Contract, prior to expiration of any insurance policy required in this Section, and for any coverage maintained in a “claims-made” policy for two (2) years following the term of this Agreement or completion of all work associated with this Agreement, whichever is later. The insurance policy shall provide that the policy shall remain in force during the life of this Contract and with respect to any coverage maintained in a “claims-made” policy for two (2) years following the term of this Agreement or completion of all work associated with this Agreement, whichever is later. If a “claims-made” policy is maintained, the retroactive date must precede the commencement of work under this Agreement. The insurance policy shall not be canceled, terminated, or allowed to expire without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City from the insurance company.
11.4 Such insurance shall be issued by a company or companies approved by the City, licensed and listed with "Insurance Organizations Authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to Transact the Business of Insurance in the State of California," and shall have a rating of A- or better and a Financial Size Category of “VII” or better, as rated in the A.M. Best Key Rating Guide for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies, except that, in the case of Workers’ Compensation insurance, Applicant may procure insurance from the state fund of the state where work is to be performed.
11.5 Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Contractor for liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as is available to it under any other provision of this Contract or otherwise in law.
11.6 The Contractor shall arrange for the policies to be so conditioned as to cover the performance of any changes or extra Work which may be required under the Contract.
20 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
11.7 The costs of this insurance shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the various Contract items of Work and no additional compensation will be allowed, therefore.
11.8 The Contractor shall either: (1) require each of its subcontractors to procure and to maintain Subcontractor's Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance and Vehicle Liability Insurance of the type and in the amounts specified, or (2) insure the activities of its subcontractors in its own policy in like amount.
11.9 The Contractor's policies shall contain an Additional Insured Endorsement naming as additional insured the City, SDG&E, AT&T, homeowners along the utility easement, and Spectrum, and their officers, consultants and their subconsultants, agents, and employees while on the Project and acting within the scope of their duties. For any claims related to the Project, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum, and their officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, SDG&E, AT&T, and Spectrum, and their officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
11.10 Prior to commencement of Work under this Contract, the Contractor shall furnish endorsements from each of the insurance companies.
11.11 The Contractor shall reimburse the City and the Engineer for all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by said City and the Engineer, in enforcing the provisions of Section 11.0 of this Contract.
12. NOTICES.
Any notices to be given under this Contract, or otherwise, shall be served by certified mail and addressed and delivered as listed below:
City of Del Mar TC Construction Company, Inc.
Attn: City Clerk Attn: Austin Cameron
1050 Camino del Mar 10540 Prospect Ave
Del Mar, CA 92014 Santee, CA 92071
[email protected] [email protected]
13. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; EXTENSION OF TIME.
In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of CONTRACTOR, including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.
21 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
14. PERFORMANCE.
The City hereby promises and agrees with the Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ the Contractor to provide the materials and to do the Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, and in the manner and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, and the City and the Contractor for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.
15. CONTRACT AUTHORITY OVER PROPOSAL.
It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the Bid or Proposal of the Contractor, then this instrument shall control, and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said Proposal conflicting herewith.
16. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
The Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are component parts of the Contract as if herein set out in full, or attached hereto:
1. Notice Inviting Bid(s)
2. Information and Instructions for Bidders
3. Proposal
4. Contract
5. Worker's Compensation Certificate
6. Performance Bond
7. Payment Bond
8. Modifications to the Standard Specifications: General Provisions, Special Provisions, Construction Methods, and Technical Provisions
9. Plans & Standard Drawings, Approved Submittals, Exhibits, and Site Photos
10. Addenda and approved Change Orders
All the above-named Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. The Work required by one of the above-named documents and not by others shall be performed as if required by all. Any conflicts in terms or requirements of any of the Contract Documents shall be determined by the order of precedence set forth in the GREENBOOK.
17. ATTACHMENTS.
The following Contract Documents are attached hereto:
A. Scope of Work
B. Proposal/Bid Schedule/Schedule of Values
C. Worker's Compensation Certificate
D. Performance Bond
E. Payment Bond
22 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
18. NON-DISCRIMINATION.
Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
19. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISCELLANEOUS.
This Contract shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Contract shall be brought in the County of San Diego, California. Contractor hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.
20. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.
Contractor certifies that Contractor is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and consultants that are included in this Contract.
21. NO WAIVER.
No failure of either the City or the Contractor t to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Contract, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Contract shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.
22. SEVERABILITY.
The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
23. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS.
If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Contract and the Exhibits, the main body of this Contract shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Contract, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. 23 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Contracts, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Contract.
24. SIGNING AUTHORITY.
The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Contract, which will be effective as of the date of the City’s execution of the Contract listed below.
CITY OF DEL MAR, TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
a municipal corporation a California Corporation
By: By:
Ashley Jones, City Manager Austin Cameron, President
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
24 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
ATTACHMENT A – SCOPE OF WORK
Contractor shall refer to Crest Canyon Conversion (UUD X1A) Del Mar Undergrounding Project Specifications and Drawings for the description of the scope of work to be performed.
25 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
ATTACHMENT B – PROPOSAL/BID SCHEDULE/SCHEDULE OF VALUES I/We agree to construct the City of Del Mar Crest Canyon Conversion (UUD X1A) Project, for the price listed on this proposal sheet.
BASE BID SCHEDULE “A” (CREST CANYON CONVERSION – UUD X1A)
NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK QTY UNIT UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
GENERAL
1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $290,000.00 $290,000.00 2 PREPARE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS, INSTALL AND
MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00
3 CONSTRUCTION STAGING 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
4 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND
EROSION CONTROL BMPS 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00
5 POTHOLING 1 LS $260,000.00 $260,000.00
6 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND SURVEY
MONUMENT PRESERVATION 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00
7 PROTECED TREE SPECIES PROTECTION FENCING AND
SIGNAGE 1 LS $90,000.00 $90,000.00
8 AS-BUILT DRAWINGS 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
9 CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND DEMOLITION 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 10 REMOVE AND REINSTALL TRAFFIC SIGN 3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00 11 REMOVE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00
DRY UTILITY
12 EXCAVATE TO LOCATE AND INTERCEPT EXISTING
CONDUITS 1 LS $220,000.00 $220,000.00
13 JOINT TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL 1 LS $3,175,000.00 $3,175,000.00 14 INSTALL DB 2” CONDUITS 1 LS $400.00 $400.00
15 INSTALL DB 3” CONDUITS 1 LS $46,000.00 $46,000.00
16 INSTALL DB 4” CONDUITS 1 LS $95,000.00 $95,000.00
26 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK QTY UNIT UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
17 INSTALL DB 5” CONDUITS 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00
18 INSTALL 3309 HANDHOLES 6 EA $1,500.00 $9,000.00
19 INSTALL 3313 HANDHOLES 28 EA $4,200.00 $117,600.00
20 INSTALL 3314 HANDHOLES 7 EA $16,000.00 $112,000.00
21 INSTALL 3315 HANDHOLES 9 EA $19,000.00 $171,000.00
22 INSTALL 3316 HANDHOLES 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00
23 CONSTRUCT 3421 TRANSFORMER PADS 22 EA $750.00 $16,500.00 24 INSTALL 2” AT&T CONDUIT 1 LS $29,000.00 $29,000.00
25 INSTALL 4” AT&T TYPE C RIGID CONDUIT 1 LS $125,000.00 $125,000.00 26 INSTALL 2’X3’ AT&T HANDHOLE 31 EA $3,900.00 $120,900.00 27 INSTALL 2’X3’X3’ AT&T HANDHOLE TRAFFIC
RATED 22 EA $4,500.00 $99,000.00
28 INSTALL 30”X48” AT&T HANDHOLE 5 EA $4,500.00 $22,500.00 29 INSTALL 30” x 48” AT&T HANDHOLE TRAFFIC
RATED WITH 3-ROD TGB 7 EA $8,600.00 $60,200.00
30 INSTALL AT&T CMPH PEDESTAL 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00
31 INSTALL AT&T CHRISTY BOXES TRAFFIC RATED 15 EA $2,000.00 $30,000.00 32 INSTALL AT&T CHRISTY BOXES NON-TRAFFIC
RATED 24 EA $2,200.00 $52,800.00
33 INSTALL 2” CHARTER CONDUIT 1 LS $77,000.00 $77,000.00 34 INSTALL 3” CHARTER CONDUIT 1 LS $24,000.00 $24,000.00 35 INSTALL CHARTER 9" X 20" PEDESTALS
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 14 EA $375.00 $5,250.00 36 INSTALL CHARTER 10" X 12" PEDESTALS
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 5 EA $375.00 $1,875.00 37 INSTALL CHARTER 12" X 22" PEDESTALS
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 27 EA $375.00 $10,125.00 38 INSTALL CHARTER 14" X 20" PEDESTALS
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 15 EA $375.00 $5,625.00 27 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK QTY UNIT UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
39 INSTALL CHARTER 2' X 3' VAULTS
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 1 EA $750.00 $750.00 40 INSTALL 17"X30" CHARTER VAULTS
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 8 EA $550.00 $4,400.00 41 INSTALL 2” CROWN CASTLE CONDUIT
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS) 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 42 INSTALL 2’X3’ MARTIN BRAND 20 K RATED PULL
BOX WITH "CROWN CASTLE FOC” STAMP
(EXCLUDES MATERIAL FURNISHED BY OTHERS)
6 EA $1,599.16 $9,594.96
43 INSTALL LATERAL TRENCH AND CONDUIT AT CREST
RESERVOIR 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
44 STONE VENEER RETAINING WALLS 280 SF $675.00 $189,000.00
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
45 TRENCH RESURFACING PER SDRSD G-24A AND G-24B 1 LS $600,000.00 $600,000.00 46 1.5 INCH ASPHALT PAVEMENT GRIND AND OVERLAY
AND BERM INSTALL NEAR 1305 CREST RD. 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 47 REPLACE AC DIKE PER SDRSD G-5 144 LF $50.00 $7,200.00 48 REPLACE IN KIND CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS 48 SF $200.00 $9,600.00 49 REPLACE CROSS GUTTER PER SDRSD G-12 128 SF $175.00 $22,400.00 50 PAVEMENT STRIPING, MARKINGS, AND MARKERS 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 51 BOLLARDS PER SDRSD WM-04 43 EA $850.00 $36,550.00
LANDSCAPING
52 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00
53 HYDROSEED MIX APPLICATION IN ALL DISTURBED
LANDSCAPE AREAS 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00
BASED BID SCHEDULE “A” TOTAL_ $7,128,769.96
BID SCHEDULE “A” (BASE BID)
Bid Items (SCHEDULE A) in Numbers = $7,128,769.96
Bid Items (SCHEDULE A) in Words: SEVEN MILLION, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE Dollars
and NINETY-SIX Cents
28 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
ATTACHMENT C - WORKER'S COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE
Section 3700 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows:
"Every employer except the state shall secure the payment of compensation in one or more of the following ways:
(a) By being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurers duly authorized to write compensation insurance in this state. (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations a certificate of consent to self-insure either as an individual employer, or as one employer in a group of employers, which may be given upon furnishing proof satisfactory to the Director of Industrial Relations of ability to self-insure and to pay any compensation that may become due to his or her employees.” I hereby certify that I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of this Contract.
CONTRACTOR'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
BOND NO.(optional):
SIGNATURE:
PRINT NAME/TITLE OF SIGNER:
DATE:
29 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
BOND NO._____________________
ATTACHMENT D - PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and municipal Corporation (“City”) on the _____ day of ________, 20___, awarded to TC Construction Company, Inc. (“Principal”) a contract for the work described as Crest Canyon Conversion (UUD X1A); and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said contract to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said contract.
NOW THEREFORE, We, the Principal and _______________________________ duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of ________________ Dollars ($......................) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements, in the said contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his, her or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers and agents, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and virtue.
Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any wise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or additions to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications.
In the event suit is brought upon this bond by the City and judgment is recovered, the Surety shall pay all litigation costs and expenses incurred by City in such suit, including attorney's fees, court costs, expert witness fees and investigation expenses. 30 September 8, 2025 Item 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, identical counterparts of this
instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original thereof, have been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on the _____ day of ________, 20___.
SURETY PRINCIPAL
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
NOTE: (a) Signature of those executing for Surety must be properly acknowledged. (b) The Attorney-in-fact must attach a certified copy of the Power of Attorney. 31 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF )
On, ________________________before me , a
notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to within this instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on this instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 32 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
BOND NO.-_____________________
ATTACHMENT E - PAYMENT BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and municipal Corporation (hereinafter designated as City), on day of , 20 awarded to _________________________________________________________________ (hereinafter designated as the Principal) a contract for the work described as follows:
CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
WHEREAS, said Principal is required by Chapter 5, Title 3, Part 6, Division 4 (including, specifically, Section 9550) of the California Civil Code to furnish a bond in connection with said contract.
NOW THEREFORE, We, the Principal and duly
authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ) lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated amount payable by City under the terms of the above-referenced contract, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, pursuant to Section 9554 of the California Civil Code, if said principal, hers/his/its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Franchise Tax Board from the wages of employees of the contractor and his subcontractors pursuant to Section 18663 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, with respect to such work and labor, the surety or sureties will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum hereinabove specified, and also, in case suit is brought upon this bond, a reasonable attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court.
This Bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.
It is further stipulated and agreed that the Surety on this bond shall not be exonerated or released from the obligation of this bond by any change, extension of time for performance, addition, alteration or modification in, to, or of any contract, plans, specifications, or agreement pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement 33 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)
hereinabove described or pertaining or relating to the furnishing of labor, materials, or equipment therefore, nor by any change or modification of any terms of payment or extension of the time for any payment pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement hereinabove described, nor by any rescission or attempted rescission of the contract, agreement or bond, nor by any conditions precedent or subsequent in the bond attempting to limit the right of recovery of claimants otherwise entitled to recover under any such contract or agreement or under the bond, nor by any fraud practiced by any person other than the claimant seeking to recover on the bond, and that his bond be construed most strongly against the surety and in favor of all persons for whose benefit such bond is given, by reason of any breach of contract between the City and Principal or on the part of any obligee named in such bond, but the sole conditions of recovery shall be that claimant is a person described in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, and has not been paid the full amount of his claim. Surety hereby waives notice of any such change, extension of time, addition, alteration or modification herein mentioned.
This bond is executed by Surety to and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 5, Title 3, Part 6, Division 4 of the Civil Code and of Chapter 2, Title 14, Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and said bond shall be subject to all of the terms and provisions thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on the day of , 20 .
SURETY PRINCIPAL
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
_____________________________
Signature of Attorney-In-Fact
34 September 8, 2025 Item 10
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR CREST CANYON CONVERSION (UUD X1A)